The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-04-141STA TE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact fonn annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement fonn) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on Monday, 11/29/04 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $110.63 at the rate of $15.50 per inch for the first publication and NIA per inch for e~bsequenl insertion. Lily Nguyen Legal Adverti/tng Representative, King County Journal Subs~ed(ID-J.iworn to me this 29th day of November, 2004. ~~~ 1\1111111111111/// ..... ':':-\\ N\EAG IIII//. Tom A. Meagher .0 ",. , .• " •• h •• l-tt:,;;. ~ Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redmond:~~~stil~~FonE....o;;··.. ~ ~ ...... , ~'" . -Ad Number:847626 P.O. Number: ;; I--i [ ()I f>..RY ': ~ Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge.::: : U \\. • _ : z := -: -" :0= '" : PU Q \..\ : ..... = -;::'tr·, u ""r,.~ -:;:;. "A.. o':l .'~~ '" '/'. '1...:-.. -/ '1).. ·,~,w 2 •••• ·.l., ~ //. 'l:" ........ t;'" ~ '///11 OF W p... \\,\~ ////1/ 1/ II t I 11\1\1 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. R-! Cluster in Urban Separators Zoning Text Amendment LUA04·141 Location: City-wide. The City of Renton is proposing new man- datory clustering provisions on properties occurring within its R- 1 zone when the area is also des- ignated as an Urban Separator in the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments would specify that all new development in the R-l zoned Urban Separators must be clustered, provided devel- opment does not exceed the maximum net density allowed for in the zone. The City is reviewing two optional standards for required open space. Option A would require at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, pref- erably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivi- sions in the R-1 zone. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writ- ing on or before 5:00 PM on December 13, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430·6510. Published in the King County Journal November 29, 2004. #847626 • • --<. • • CIT), OF RENTON PLANNING I BUILDING I PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM Date: December 17, 2004 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M. Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: LUA (file) Number: Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Acceptance Date: Applicant: Owner: Contact: PID Number: ERC Decision Date: ERC Appeal Date: Administrative Approval: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Mylar Recording Number: R-l Cluster in Urban Separators Zoning LUA-04-141, ECF Rebecca Lind November 3, 2004 City of Renton -EDNSP City of Renton Rebecca Lind N/A November 23, 2004 December 13, 2004 Date: Date: Project Description: The City of Renton is proposing new mandatory clustering provisions on properties occurring within its R-l zone when the area is also deSignated as an Urban Separator in the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments would specify that all new development in the R-l zoned Urban Separators must be clustered, provided development does not exceed the maximum net density allowed for in the zone. The City is reviewing two optional standards for required open space. Option A would require at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivisions in the R-l zone. Location: City-wide Comments: N.E. Prissinotti 4713 125th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 tel: 425-746-0814 (party of record) Doug Alldredge 9403 S 192nd Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 253-859-0242 (party of record) Jack Martz 702 S 52nd Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 425-228-1629 (party of record) Robert A. Holmes 14610 SE 99th Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-235-0217 (party of record) • • PARTIES OF RECORD Cluster Zoning Amendm. in R-l LUA04-141, ECF August R. Tabacek 14431 SE May Valley Road Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-271-1195 (party of record) Don Erickson City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 tel: 425-430-6581 (applicant / contact) Pat Scribner 15035 SE Jones Road Renton, WA 98058 tel: 425-255-4452 (party of record) Jean Rollins & Andrew Duffus 9605 143rd Place SE Jim Hanson Hanson Consulting 17446 Mallard Cove Lane Mt. Vernon, WA 98274 (party of record) Dennis Noland 14326 SE 10th Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-255-6210 (party of record) (page 1 of 1) l' •• E I. , , ,'~ ,,:. '.,. . ..... ", ,,' .. '", . 'I" ,l ,".', ", l,'" , , , " , , ...•.. /. ! , , ' , ,~. .". ' , '.' ,', '~"" "', ',~I~Y.,F' R¥NJ'()~':':; _ ,_ • ' ,Plarulin:glBirildingfPublic: WorkS Department-;·, " ,.; .' ' • . , " '. • • ' .• '." • -« ;. , ,'.' ' 'Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Ailniinistrator ,', ' " , '--'. -",.. -,',' • "~", '-# ,-' ... ,'. • , " 'y, , ",. --',. "., '. .. -·,Kathy.KeoLker-Whec;ler, Mayor -:'\; ... -' .' . : -: " " :~ -: ". . .. ,' " . " " . ,,' , , /~' ." ,~". .. .... , .. ,;.: I: " ". , "r, , ' .. :". ;. " " ,,,-", ". " . ~' .):,;.J , , ',' ,.'. " .. ~. ",.-,', , ' " ' " '.; '. f' '" " , .. '., , ' '. " . .' " ' ... ' t· ,', .-'. :-,. , :c. " ',', ".' '., ~ . !, ......... , ,'.... 'r, :!". ", , '" , .. ',' ",;" ......... . " , ..... ' '", . ' n.,,< ",b'ece';:'ber~' 7,; '2004 ", . , ;"., \ ~,.) .. '" ' ' .. " " ".' . "" ~ ": .:,.,,:. ,". ,-.', .. . ~!. " " ' '; " ,. .. , ':', , " '-_.<, . . ..-", : .. " " .' ,t .' ' . ,,,.',, ,', " ' .! " ",,~. ,,' "., ~ ~, ',;;' ; .. ., '-'"'' .' , ,,, . "' .. ,', ....... ;, ,,' .' .... , .. :.' ," .. ' . , ' , " .,' ,'. , ,: .. .(, ,. ',-, " ~' , ,.. .;." " " , i " , ." ~' ' , , ' " .. ,j' ,.:. ,I ." .,'., .... , .... """'\" ~~.;."~\..'{N k:.lA>" ~~ ..... <?' ....... ''7(.' " . :-'S~":'\SS'O"'~" '$: '" • !ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: ' R·l Clusle. In Urban Separato .. Zoning Taxt Amendment PROJECT NUMBER; LUA()4.141, ECF LOCATION: CIty.wlde DESCRIPTION: Tho City 01 Ranlon II propollng new mandatory "lull_ring provl.lons On properUes occurrln" wIthIn It. R-t zona whan the area I. allo ~rllnal.cl as an Urban Saparalor In Iha CountywIde Planning P_ollclli. Theil amend"""ntl would lpeclfy thll all nlw dnelopIn*I1 In Ihl, R.t 'loned Urban s.p.ralors must b. c:1u1ter8(!, proyld.cl deYelopmenl don nOI uc:eecllhe mexlmum nel dlnllty allOWed lor In Ihe 'lona. The City II revlllWlng two optional alandard, for required open Ipac:e. Option A would 'equlre al Ilast 50% 01 a dlYllopmenllltll b.lng lela.lde a. permanOlnt open IPlce, prilirably In I tract proteet.cl wIth a NltlYe Growth Protec:tlQn e.aaement. Oplion 8 would requl .. 30% open lpac:e. These nlW proYI.'on. would epply to III future .hort plats and lubdlvillonl In the R.t :r.one. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appelll 01 thl OInYfronmangl det.rmlnltlon mUI' be ilIad In wtlllng on or balorl 5;00 PM on o.c:lmber 13, 2004. Appu.I, mUll be filed In wrhlng toget1l.,. with Ihl raqulr.d $75.00 appllc:atlon III wHh: Heating Examlnlr, ClIy or Renlon, lOSS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appearl to the Examiner a .. govern.cl by CUy of Renion Munlc:lpal Code Sec:tlon 4-8-110.8. Addillonalinlormation fegardlng the appeal proc:au may be obtained from Ih" Renton City C"rII;'. ONlC:I, (.uS) "30-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBliC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430·7200. 00 NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Idenllflcation. CERTIFICATION : .... :.-,.I-~' ''t'', ~ , t [f? N~r-'l-9)-1i/:iftIoLY'!1.C.h.c , hereby certify that ,3 copies of the ~ (j) \ I> '-'?tbov~ dOOl:l'ment were posted by me in.,3 conspIcuoUS places on or nearby \~ .... : ... , .. ~~allC ... ~ ~scribed property on NovecnbeK' zB .. 2.IDJ "~ ' .. <9-07 .... ~O~ i ~ ~ tf! ' ;, ...•.... r ...... !:'/1 'l/J ~ t;.-'i';;-~\I1,,~.\SK\:~:::'~~ /JW . rp-// Signed: )?!~~W.~~~~'L.. \, ,,,,'.' ATTEST: Su ,1cribe~.a~wom~fore me, a Nota..Q',.Pubhc, In and for~ Washington res.dIn~?tr'tf'7L , on the--::v-If day of _-IL.,"",,~_=~ __ MARll YN KAMCHEFF Il'i APPOlmMENT I:XPIRES 6-29.(J7 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: R~1 Cluster In Urban Separators Zoning Text Amendment PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-141, ECF LOCATION: City-wide DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton Is proposing new mandatory clustering provisions on properties occurring within Its R-1 zone when the area Is also designated as an Urban Separator In the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments would specify that all new development In the. R-1 zoned Urban Separators must be clustered, provided development does not exceed the maxImum net density allowed for in the zone. The City Is reviewing, two optional standards for required open space. Option A would require at least 50% of 8 development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably In a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivisions In the R-1 zone. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 13, 2004. Appeals must be flied In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk'. Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. TION '. " -,~ .::: .::,. -t '. ':. • ' ',' ". ," ... ,~,~, ' ~~~V~~b~~ 2.doo~'· ,,',',::~' ~!. ~~ -,.,.,' L'?~ , ':,. " " , ," , " , " " , ' .. , , '" . ,)', .-,'):' , , , ,."','-'" . ;. " ;"""" 'c' CITY :.':t, <lu:NTO N':";": :i:~; ,\:~ \~ , ", : ':.,;:: .;,~~funrimgmriildiiig;fu~licWorks~eh~' ";: ,: ',,' " ::',; ";',, " ,'-, ,:~ "Gr~iimme~anP..E .• ~dm!n~ .. t~at,,!r< :', ' ... ~, .'. -.. - '.' , '. : ~':;'! , , .' ." '. "., ~._\" ;," , , '" ", . , ~-'. .' .. " ,'," , " " ','.', ,. '.: r; .. ..... .' ' . ., .... , , ' .,', , .' ! ~~ • ' . :~. '. ... .' ~ .':.' ;" ..... '/, . ,', ' .. <': '.' , ." ... , ", '}-'. ' " .-. ;' , ,o'.' " ,"',' ,,' ... .: ' , '; ., ' .. " , . ," ~, .. ' , . I ·:Pe Kathy Keolk~-Wheelei. Mayor November 24, 2004 Washington State • CITY IF RENTON PJanningIBuiJdiiIglPublicWorks Department. Gregg Zimmerman P.E~ Administrator Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section ' PO Box 47703 , Olympia, WA 98504-7703 , ' , Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitt~d herewith is a copy of .the Environment~1 Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 23, 2004: ' DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: ,H-1Clusterin Urban Separators Zoning Text Amendment LUA04-141 ,City~wide., . " ' The City ()tRenton Is proposing new niandatory ciusteririg provisions on . properties occurriniJ within its R-l zone when the area is also designated , as an Urban Separator in the' Countywide Planning Policies. These , amendments would specify that all new. development in the R-1 zoned' , .:,Urban S~parators must be clustered; provided development does not exceed the maximum net density allowed for in the zone. The City is , 'reviewing two optional' ,standards, ior' required open space., Option A ' 'would require aHeast 50%;"013 'development site being'set aside as, permanent oPen:,:space,:,pn,ferably irl, a ti:act, protected with' a Native Growth Protection E~sE"i1ent. Option B would require 30% open space. These, neVi p~ov!sioiis would apply, to aU ·future short plats and subdivisions in the R-l'zone. ' , Appeals of the environment~i"deter~ination'mustbefiled: In writing on or before 5:00 PM on December. 13, 2004. Appeals,must be filed in writing together. with iherequired$75.00 application fee wi'hi Hearing Examiner, City of Renton; 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055., Appeals to the Examiner, are governed by City of Henton 'Municipal Code Section 4-8-110:B.Additionalinformation regarding the appeal process may be 'obtained .from the Reriton City Clerk's, Office, (425) 430-6510, If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6575. For the Erivironmental Revie~ COmmittee, Rebecca Lind Principal Planner, EDNSP cc: King County Wastewater Treat~ent Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F, Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources W~DOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp, of Engineers ..!E,"n",c"lo",s",u",ree.S_te_p_h_an_i_e-;~-;;~::::m:::s-;::-r~_~"'t:_i:;;e:-r:_:;-:...,~;:-c:-:a_yeo __ -;::-e_:"'t:_n_~-;:;;t:'-:-;b-;-i:_~.,.eo_S:_rv-;9;;::"'::::::::s ____ --'-___ ~ * ThIs paper contains 50% mcyded material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • CITY OF RENTON • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA04-141 , A, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: R-1 Cluster in Urban Separators Zoning Text Amendment DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is proposing new mandatory clustering provisions on properties occurring within its R-1 zone when the area is also designated as an Urban Separator in the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments would specify that all new development in the R-1 zoned Urban Separators must be clustered, provided development does not exceed the maximum net density allowed for in the zone. The City is reviewing two optional standards for required open space. Option A would require at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivisions in the R-1 zone. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: City-wide City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 13, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: NOVEMBER 29, 2004 NOVEMBER 23, 2004 DATE I DATE CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: November 22, 2004 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: OfffiV Rebec8l''L'lhd (ext. 6S88) SUBJECT: SEPA Review for R-I Cluster Text Amendment The enclosed material supports a zoning text amendment proposal that will be added to the ERC agenda tomorrow, Nov. 23,d., as an extra item. I appreciate your patience and flexibility in reviewing this item On a short timeline. The issue of consistency between how Renton and King County implement designated Urban Separators through zoning is part of a policy debate affecting the Merritt II annexation (area between May Valley and the city limits from 148th St. to Coal Creek Parkway). The annexation is scheduled for review by the Boundary Review Board on December IS"'. Citizen activists raised the requirement for clustering in urban separators with the King County Council and the Boundary Review Board, and set in motion a political review of an otherwise technical issue. In response, we are developing a city position on mandatory clustering prior to December IS'h Renton currently allows clustering in Urban Separators but does not mandate it. King County mandates clustering with a SO% open space set aside. The proposal is a zoning text amendment that will require clustering in the R-I zone within designated Urban Separators. We are evaluating 2 open space options: I) using the SO% standard that King County zoning sets for these areas, and 2) requiring a smaller, 30% set aside. ERC action is needed this week to present this item to the Planning and Development Committee on Dec. 2nd, hold a city public hearing Dec. 13th• and have an Administration and Council position by the Boundary Review Board meeting on Dec. ISth. cc: Alex Pielch Jennifer Henning H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-I Cluslering\ERC mcmo.doc\cor STAFF REPORT • • City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE Project Name Applicant File Number Project Manager Project Description Project Location Exist. Bldg. Area gs( Site Area SITE MAP Attached B. RECOMMENDATION Project Location Map November 23, 2004 R-1 Cluster in Urban Separators Zoning Text Amendment City of Renton LUA 04-141, A" ECF Rebecca Lind The City of Renton is proposing new mandatory clustering provisions on properties occurring within its R-1 zone when the area is also designated as an Urban Separator in the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments would specify that all new development in the R-1 zoned Urban Separators must be clustered provided development does not exceeding the maximum net density allowed for in the zone. The City is reviewing two optional standards for required open space. Option A would require at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivisions in the R-1 zone This proposed regulation would potentially apply within three areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area that are designated as Urban Separators in the countywide Planning Policies 1) May Creek Urban Separator, 2) Cedar River 3) Talbot Road Urban Separators as shown on the attached site map. N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area 9S( N/A N/A Total Building Area gs( N/A ERe Repurt.doc Review Committee Staff Report REPORT AND DECISION OF November 23, 2004 Page20f3 Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: x DETERMINA TlON OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES None required for this non-project action. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINA TlON OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A eal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following non-project environmental review addresses only those impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. The City is considering a mandatory open space tract size and is studying two options for open space requirements 1) 30% of the gross site area, and 2) 50% of the gross site area. Both of these alternative standards could potentially address environmental protection at a level equivalent to or better than the current cluster standard in the Renton code when the current standard is combined with Renton's net density methodology. The current standard allows clustering down to a 4,500 sq. ft. lot size, but does not mandate it. There is no mandatory open space requirement. However at the level of specific site review through SEPA and plat conditions, clustering and open space could be achieved at the same levels contemplated in the proposed code amendment. King County policy and Countywide Planning pOlicies supporting preservation of urban separators are implemented through the King County Code in a manner that mandates the preservation of urban separators at the non-project rather than at the project level. This approach offers the advantage of setting the standard for the entire designated separator prior to review of a specific development proposal and thus putting in place a more coherent, less piece·meal strategy. It mandates that clustering occurs rather than leave that decision to the specific findings related to development on one property. The proposed City code amendment would be comparable to the King County standard for the Urban Separators. Both alternatives meet the objectives of the County standard and the countywide policies because the net density deductions required in Renton result in lower overall density and de-facto clustering. Renton deducts all designated critical areas and public and private roads/easements from the developable area. When there are extensive critical areas on a site the King County system allows density credit based on the gross acreage and clustering of the allowed density on 50% of the site. The Renton system allows typically 20% less density. The 30% open space standard would allow a smaller open space tract than the King County standard but with fewer dwelling units occurring potentially on larger lot areas. The 50% open space standard would allow the same open space standard as King County, and also fewer dwelling units. With the 50% standard lot sizes would be larger than development in King County (as fewer units are allowed in the same area). but smaller than the lot size that could be achieved with the 30% standard. ERG Report.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department R-l Cluster ill Urban REPORT AND DECISION OF November 23. 2004 Earth Review Committee Slaff Report ECF Page30/3 Mandatory clustering could result in development of single-family homes with potentially less grading and less soil disturbance than development of the same home on a larger lot with no clustering. Site preparation for residential use including house, yards, and accessory structures as well as grading for access roads would be less with a clustered development because less area would be eligible for use. The 30% open space standard would result in a larger residential lot that could facilitate grading of a larger area than would result with the 50% open space standard. Surface Water Mandatory clustering could result in fewer surface water impacts as there could potentially be less removal of vegetation and less impervious surface (resulting from fewer roads with shorter driveways) than would occur with a larger lot development. The 30% open space standard would result in a larger residential lot that could facilitate tree and vegetation removal of a larger area than would result with the 50% open space standard. Road configuration and access would probably not change between the 30% and 50% alternatives very much because the total number of lots would remain the same. However driveway, parking area and patio areas could be more extensive with the 30% standard. Housing Mandatory clustering would not impact the provision of housing units, but the difference in the 30% and 50% standard might. In situations where the critical areas on a site are less than 50%, and where the remaining net developable area is dispersed throughout the site, the imposition of an additional 20% open space might eliminate land from the net developable area so that not enough land remains to accommodate allowed density. This situation could occur where developable area occurs in smaller areas of a site and it is difficult to access or use all of the area. In the less constrained portions of the urban separator, the 50% standard could restrict the full utilization of density allowed on a site. The City's minimum lot size for a cluster in the R-l zone is 4,500 sQ. ft. King County's minimum lot size for a cluster is 2,500 sQ. ft. The County standard would facilitate full utilization of allowed density even with the 50% open space standard. The resulting development would be more dramatically clustered and more urban in character than anticipated in the Renton Comprehensive Plan Purpose and Intent Statement for the Low Density Residential Designation and in the purpose and intent statement for the R-l zoning. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. -lL.-Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, Dec.13, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ERG Report.doc I ~ "'tCj0 Urban Separators Designated R-l or Shown in Renton Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential D L L May Valley 2. Jones/Road, 3. Talbot/Springbrook f r-' i i. ~ ~ .;---f -____ -1 ',,'. SIO t.\ay 0; A " ,. ~ '" 'm Sf 128th , ::; 2! " CJ e e· CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, ANDSTRATEGICPL~GDEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: ISSUE: November 10, ZOO4 Don Persson, President Members of the Renton City Council Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator A;rvf Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department Rebecca Lind (x6588) R-l Zone Community Separators Should the City enact a mandatory cluster standard identical to the current King County code requiring a 50% open space tract? RECOMMENDATION: • Enact a mandatory clustering provision. • Use the duster standard recently adopted in the R-4 Zone for clustered lot development rather than the 50"10 open space requirement in King County Code. This standard requires dedication 000"10 of the site as contiguous open space. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Potential Annexation Area and Urban Separator resident, Jean Rollins, requested a Code amendment-addressing clustering and open space requirements in the R-I zone. The Planning and Development Committee approved this work program as an exception to the Title IV amendment process pursuant to Section 4-9-0Z5C and agreed to review the request outside the annual code amendment docket due to current annexation activity. The work program intent is to evaluate opportunities to increase consistency between King County policies and zoning and Renton's requirements. November 12,2004 Page 2 • • The Countywide Planning Polices (CPP) call for designation and preservation of urban separators that protect environmentally sensitive areas and creation of open space corridors between communities. Specifically CPP LU-27 states: Urban Separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands, which protect adjacent resource, lands, rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and (;reate . open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be re-designated in the future (in the 20-year planning cycle) to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. Renton has three Urban Separators: May Valley, Cedar River, and the Talbot area by Springbrook Creek. These areas are designated and mapped in the Countywide Planning Policies as shown in Attachment I. Urban Separators are currently implemented in King County regulations through a mandatory clustering standard requiring clustering away from sensitive areas or the axis of the Community Separators. Permanent retention of open space tracts that include at least 50% of the site is also sought. King County has had these requirements since 1983. King County required clustering and 50% open space retention in its "SC-P" zone. "SC" denoted Suburban Cluster and "P" denoted open space requirements. In the County's "R-J-P" zoning code, enacted in 1994, clustering and 50% open space retention was required. Renton's Comprehensive Plan addresses Urban Separators in the Community Design Element Policies and in the Land Use Element Policies and map within the Residential Low Density Designation. Community Design Element Objective CD-B: Designate low-density residential and resource areas as Urban Separators to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, and to define Renton's boundaries. Policy CD-7. The function of Urban Separators should be to: a. reinforce the character of the City, b. establish clear boundaries between the City and other communities, c. Separate high-density urban land uses from low-density uses and resource lands, and d. Protect environmentally sensitive or critical areas. Policy CD-8. Locational criteria should consider the following types of lands for designation as Urban Separators: Issue paper.doc November 12, 2004 Page 3 • • a. Individual and interconnecting natural features, critical areas, public and private open space and water features. b. Existing and proposed individual and interconnecting parks, and agricultural areas. c. Areas that provide a logical and easily identifiable physical separation between urban communities. Land Use Element RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Policies in this section are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-dulnet acre, to its inventory. Lands that are not appropriate for urban levels of development are designated either Resource Conservation or Residential Low Density Zoning. Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected by the critical areas ordinance, are zoned Residential 4. Objective LU-DD: Provide for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area constrained by extensive natural features, providing urban separators and/or providing a transition to Rural DeSignations within King County. Policy LU-134. Base development densities should range from one home per lO acres (Resource Conservation) to one home per acre (Residentiall) on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-dulnet acre (Residential 4) on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate. Comparison of Renton and County Zoning Implementation The major difference between Renton and the County regarding R-1 development patterns occurs in the application of clustering provisions and in density calculation. Renton allows and encourages clustering but does not mandate it. However, the City calculates density based on net developable area and excludes all critical areas and all private and public road easements. Critical areas are defined as "Areas of the City that may not be suitable for development and which are subject to the City's critical areas regulations including very high landslide hazard areas, protected slopes, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, shorelines or jloodways." Density credit is only granted for required critical areas buffers. Issue paper.doc November 12, 2004 Page 4 • • Typically there is about a 20% reduction in the density allowed on a site under Renton's net density regulations compared with County regulations. There is an incentive for clustering to reduce the land area used by roads. Whenever extensive critical areas are present on a site there is de-facto clustering of development away from these undevelopable areas. Clustering is allowed down to a 4,500 sq. ft lot size in the R-l zone in a development pattern allowing up to 6 lots. A 50-ft. lot width, 65-ft. lot depth, 5-ft, side yard, and 20-ft. rear yard setback are required. The City typically uses conservation easements, protective easements, or tract and deed restrictions to protect a critical area from development with non-exempt activities, The County grants density credit for the entire site gross area and transfers the development potential to 50% of the site with the remaining 50% in a permanent open space tract. Development could be clustered on small lot areas, as there is a 2,500-sq. ft. minimum lot size, 30-ft. lot width, and 5-ft. setbacks on all sides required. This form of development could result in clusters of higher net density than allowed under the Renton code. However, the effective difference between City and County zoning varies considerably depending upon the extent of critical areas and roads on a site. (The density allowed in the City will always be less based on the net density calculation.) The net developable areas available to use that density will vary. For example: • If a site is at least 50% constrained by critical areas, and requires any new road development, the Renton net developable area will be less than the County developable area even with the mandatory clustering in County code. The critical areas set aside will be the equivalent of the County's mandatory cluster requirement. • If a site is marginally constrained by sensitive areas, the allowed density will still be less in the City due to the roads. Adoption of a mandatory cluster using the County standard would result in a developable area discounted by the 50% open space provision minus the road areas. Without required clustering and open space retention the development within these areas could lead to "horse-acre" type platting. "Horse- acre" platting is characterized by low density, semi-rural development. Although a desirable development type for upper-income families, it is considered inefficient because the infrastructure serves fewer people and public transit may not be feasible. Modifying Renton's zoning code to be more similar to the County's would change the way the development would be laid out for parcels with less than 50% critical areas constraints. In the May Valley Urban Separator, there are 12 parcels out of36 that are both large enough to subdivide and also have less than 50% critical areas. The properties shown on attachment 2 would be affected by the proposed change in standards. Properties along the Cedar River in the Urban Separator designation would likely be zoned Resource Conservation rather than R-l as this larger lot zone is applied within this corridor. Within the Talbot Road Urban Separator there are significant sensitive areas on most parcels as shown on Attachment 3. A more detailed analysis of this area will be completed prior to the Planning Commission and Planning and Development Committee discussions of this proposed amendment. Issue paper.doc November 12, 2004 Page 5 CONCLUSION: • • As a result of the difference in City and County density systems and the way critical areas are considered in the net developable area, staff recommends that the 50% open space requirement be reduced to 30%. This adjustment addresses the difference in net developable area between the two density systems. For some developable parcels in urban separators, imposition of the County standard would further reduce the net developable area. The majority of properties in the Urban Separators have significant enough critical areas constraints to trigger clusters. For the remaining parcels, the reduction in net developable area required for road improvements will further reduce density below Courityallowances. To require the full additional 50% open space set aside combined with the City's larger lot size and setback requirements would further constrain capacity on these sites. The adoption of a new 30% open space standard will provide comparable levels of protection for the Urban Separators given the density differences in the two zoning codes. The purpose of the R-I zone and of the Urban Separators policies in the Countywide Planning Policies is to protect these lands by limiting development potential and recognizing separators of significant value. The Renton net density and critical areas ordinance requirements already accomplish this purpose to a large degree. Adding the additional requirement for a minimum 30% open space dedication will further these goals. cc: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Issue paper.doc November 12, 2004 Page 6 • Applicable Metropolitan King County Code: • o Title 21A.12.030 17a. "All subdivisions and short subdivisions in the R-l zone shall be required to be clustered if the property is located within or contains: (1) a floodplain, (2) a critical aquifer recharge area, (3) a Regionally of Locally Significant Resource Area, (4) existing or planned pubic parks or trails, or connection to such facilities, (5) a Class lor I1 stream or wetland, or (6) a steep slope, or (7) a "greenbelt/urban separator" or "wildlife corridor" area designated by the Comprehensive Plan or Community Plan. o 17b. The development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors such as urban separators or the wildlife habitat network to the extent possible and the open space shall be placed in a separate tract that includes at least fifty percent of the site. Open space tracts shall be permanent and shall be dedicated to a homeowner's association or other suitable organization, as determined by the director, and meet the requirements of K. e e 2lA.14.040. On site sensitive area and buffers, wildlife habitat networks, required habitat and buffers for protected species and designated urban separators shall be placed within the open space tract to the extent possible. Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within the open space tract. .. o Title 21A.14.040 e In the R-l zone, open space tracts created by clustering required by K.ec. 21A 12.030 shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts required by the Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans or open space functional plans to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors designated by the Comprehensive Plan and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. King County may require open space tracts created under this subsection to be dedicated to an appropriate managing public agency or qualifoing private entity such as a nature conservancy. In the absence of such a requirement, open space. tracts shall be retained in undivided interest by the residents of the subdivision or short subdivision. A homeowner's association shall be established for maintenance of the open space tract. .. Issue paper.doc • • R·t Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) RC R-1 I R-4 I R-8 ~DENSIJ;Yj(NetilDensitY;lillDWellingItlnitsipei~NePAcre)~;:\;'1li:if:~W:'ltt~\j'\l:'i:~·\Wi;~~~*""·tL!:I'::'~ Minimum None None None 4 dwelling units Housing Density per net acre 1,2 for proposed short plats or subdivisions Maximum 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit per 4 dwelling units 8 dwelling units " Housing Densiti per 10 net 1 net acre per 1 net acre 13 per 1 net acre acres .!N.UMBERi()f~DW.El!I!ING1UNlrS;PERfI!Ol;:<,,*;~!· ., ~ (: -';::~t\ - . '-::~~llI1' 'Ihi;c>t t· ''''f~'LF:!>4'-'4-'~'I'-,:' ,'I.,3{"· -_~" "r';:1;' , " : .. :,~,:" .~, '., ~£;-,,~i~',.~,~ --J~~-:",'ii' 1 "L '~. "t~""r.~,~~\:::l Maximum 1 dwelling with 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit Number per legal 1 accessory loi' unit ~l!()jTc!DIMENSI()NS,;\l!l\111lil!r~~-;;'~!!lii;l('.i~[llilii;i!~·.:~('i\l~.!'lk':".·. ~>··::~~!:i([~~~i?;'1t\!![I.~r~~tlr"·:~;,:~t~~;!lit~1t~H~l~~i:~?~)~l)~j::~ Minimum Lot 10 acres 1 acre 8,000 sq. ft.'" ,. 4,500 sq. ft. for Size for lots 4,500 sq. ft. for except where parcels greater created after small lot than 1 acre. November 10, cluster clusters 10 are 2004· development' allowed, R-8 5,000 sq. ft. for standards shall parcels 1 acre or apply. less. Minimum Lot 150 ft. for 75 ft. for interior 70 ft. for interior 50 ft. for interior Width for lots interior lots. lots. lots. 80 ft. for lots. created after corner lots."· '3 November 1 0, 175 ft. for 85 ft. for comer except where 60 ft. for corner 2004 comer lots. lots. small lot lots clusters'o are allowed, R·8 standards shall apply. Minimum Lot 200 ft. 85 ft. 80 ft. except 65 ft. Depth for lots where small lot created after clusters '0 are November 10, allowed, R-8 2004 standards shall apply. H,\EDNSP\Title IV\R-l Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 1l/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 1 of 5 • • R-l Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 I R-8 '(SETBACKS? '.' !'I" ,:~ '<, ;,,[" , .. "'"'' .. ,' ····:·.;t.; ;": ."-;:", .:::::i" ;,,::,;!,',~,: ::.,:,:.: .~~,., ,; :;.: . - Minimum Front 30 ft." 30 ft. " 30 ft. '<. " except 15 ft. for primary Yard where small lot structure. clusters '0 are allowed, R-B 20 ft. for attached standards shall garages accessed apply. from front or side Unit with Alley yard street. Access Unit with Alley Garage: The Access Garage: .. front yard set- back of the The front yard primary set-back of the primary structure structure may may be reduced be reduced to to 10 ft. if all 20 ft. if all parking is parking is provided in the provided in the rear yard of the lot rear yard of the with access from lot with access a public right-of-from a public way or alley. 6 right-of-way or alley. 6 Minimum Side 30 ft: 20 ft.' 20 ft. >< ... except 15 ft: for the Yard Along a where small lot primary structure Street clusters'O are and 20 ft. for the allowed, 15 ft. is attached garages allowed. which access from the front and side yard along a street. Minimum Side 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined 5 ft. Yard ft.12,13 are allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard, except where small lot clusters '0 are allowed, 5 ft. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-l Clustering\E. 4-2-110 AdocLast printed 11/312004 3:25 PMPage 2 of 5 • R-t Cluster c~mendment Draft November 3, 2004 RC I R-1 R-4 I R-S 'SETfBAe~S~i:(Coritinued)'!"'!':'" ,,' :}/: < '.,':"" :""'i,L', '.' ~::. ,',"'!'i,'\' '('"'1''' ""','"'' ~'!"!',iI:!',~ '~L~: .. :i\ ,~-, • y'", ·,;~':~~"'~l.,I~:'ii" . Minimum Rear 35 ft. 25 ft. 25ft. 20 It, Yard Where small lot clusters'O are allowed, 20 ft. Clear Vision Area In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall a a structure over a structure over a structure over structure over 42 42 in. in height 42 in. in height 42 in. in height in. in height intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear vision vision area vision area vision area area defined in defined in RMC defined in RMC defined in RMC RMC 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. Minimum 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10ft. landscaped Freeway landscaped landscaped landscaped setback from the Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the street property street property street property street property line. line. line. line. :~'B.t:J1 ~DI NG~S1iANDAR DS'~;;: ;;.~i,;;;:;~~'-"~;;:~i~'~~'~~ -~):~!: :!,r: . ~;:;i'~!;!!~:~~' ',i·;~~:i~;;I'·~ ':,!~~:~t~~~:~' -:;§~i~~:!~}~+~1:!ii!~~~~~if~;~!i~~~{~!r~~~~ '1;.[_':':"1.~I:Ii:,:';;·'~;' "~<:ii~i,'i':'"-;I''' ' •• ,' :,:,:.!:(:'. . ". .' ".j' ,'" ,.'''' "~: -"". j .. '!:. .. i '. .. ;-;. ',. ',; -:',. _ . " . .!" ,r,.' ,'~ 11:._1" ..... ,. ~:.i:,' \:-,:~. " ~"j ~.:,~ :::-~ ,."~",,! ~~ Maximum 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 Building Height ft. ft. ft. for standard ft. and Number of roof. Stories, except for uses having a 2 stories and 35 "Public Suffix" (P) ft. for roofs designation" having a pitch greater than 3/12. Maximum Height See RMC4-4-See RMC4-4-See RMC 4-4-See RMC 4-4- for Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-I Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 3 of 5 • • R-t Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3, 2004 . RC I R-1 I R-4 I R-8 "8UIIlDING'ST ANDARDSf'(C""T-""·"a)"'i",,"r.' ,""",," > . "'Li' , .' "I"'·" • "''''''''''l\l ''"'''i'ili' ,'. ,1>' "u""ii""""""'· i:~'_'$"',j~ _:,.~"~. '-~, 'T;,~", .. L : <:,_;' ,-"m' ,_ -.:;, ~', < '.<:" \ :'_,~,~. ,I~~~--'. _ :d,\\,;,<\"c:'!:::::"\:"'~.". '., ":<.~ ,~'.-~.;:~'!:,:~~~/"~t~~~;;·::'~"~~~.' . :·'.!d;~;·.-1~1~~~~:J:.:~.t :~!\~: :"~ Maximum Lots 5 acres or 35%. Lots greater Lots 5,000 sq. ft. Building more: 2%. An than 5,000 sq. or greater: 35% Coverage additional 5% of ft.: 35% or or 2,500 sq. ft., (Including primary the total area 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is and accessory may be used for whichever is greater. buildings) agricu~ural greater. buildings. Lots less than Lots 10,000 sq. Lots 5,000 sq. 5,000 sq. ft.: ft. to 5 acres: ft. or less: 50% 50%. 15%. On lots ,- greater than 1 acre, an additional 5% of the total area may be used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq. ft. or less: 35%. Vertical Fa~de All dwelling units Modulation shall provide vertical fa~ade modulation at least every twenty horizontal feet (20'), including front, side and rear fa~ades when visible from a street. H:\EDNSP\Titie IV\R-l Clustering\E. 4-2·110 A.docLast printed 11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 4 of 5 • T RC r R-l ~l!l'ANDSCAf:!ING"ANDOPENSPACE!'>"-:- Minimum Off- Site Landscaping Abutting Non- Arterial Public Streets for Plats and Short Plants Submitted on or after November 10,2004 Minimum Off- SHe Landscaping Abutting Principal, Minor and Collector Arterial Streets for Plats and Short Plants Submitted on or after November 10,2004 Minimum On or Off-Site Street Tree Requirements for Plats and Short Plants Submitted on or after November 10,2004 • R-l Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3, 2004 T R-4 I R-8 '~"'-,co"~:, ,,-,;, ":!,,,': ,'i, _ ,') 5 ft. wide irrigated 5 ft. wide irrigated or drought or drought resistant resistant landscape strip landscape strip provided that if provided that if there is additional there is additional undeveloped right undeveloped right of way in excess of way in excess of 5 ft, this shall of 5 ft, this shall -also be also be landscaped. landscaped. 10ft. wide 10 ft. wide irrigated or irrigated or drought resistant drought resistant landscape strip landscape strip provided that if provided that if there is additional there is additional undeveloped right undeveloped right of way in excess of way in excess of 10ft., this shall of 10 ft., this shall also be also be landscaped, landscaped, unless otherwise unless otherwise determined by the determined by reviewing official the reviewing during the official during the subdivision subdivision process. process. At least two (2) At least two (2) trees of a City-trees of a City- approved species approved species with a minimum with a minimum caliper of 1 W per caliper of 1 W tree shall be per tree shall be planted in the planted in the front yard or front yard or planting strip of planting strip of every lot prior to every lot prior to occupancy. occupancy. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-I Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 111312004 3:25 PMPage 5 of 5 • 4-2-UOD • 4-2-1100 To be amended by the following changes CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 1. a. Phasing, shadow platting, or land reserves may be used to satisfy the minimum density requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the current development would not preclude the provision of adequate access and infrastructure to future development and would allow for the eventual satisfaction of minimum density requirements through future development. b. In the event the applicant can show that the minimum density cannot be achieved due to lot configuration, lack of access, environmental or physical constraints, minimum density requirements may be waived by the Reviewing Official. 2. 2. Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions that are not eligible for a variance include: building size, units per structureJIot, or densities. Unless bonus size or density provisions are specifically authorized, the modification of building size, units per structure, or densities requires a legislative change in the code provisions and/or a Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezone. L Clustering may !leis allowed to meet objectives such as preserving significant natural features, providing neighborhood open space, or facilitating the provision of sewer service. Within urban separators desi gnaled in the Countywide Planning Policies clustering is required;-~ H:IEDNSP\Titie IV\R-I Clustering14-2-IIO D.doc -1- ;;.,cluster development is subject tp the following standards_" . a_ Cluster ae,<elsl'meats shall !le limitea Ie a R1&JdaUIHl sf (i lets iR eRe sh:lster. b. The maximum net density requirement shall not be exceeded. c. The area of individual lots shall not be less than 4,500 sq. ft. d. Except for density, the remaining development standards ofthe Residential-JLDwelling Units Per Acre Zone) shall apply e. Within designated Urban Separators: 0) All subdivision and short subdivisions shall be clustered. (ii) Development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors or community separators to the extent possible. (iii) The open space created by clustering shall be placed in separate permanent tracts that may include critical areas and shall total as least fifty percent of the site. (iv) Open space tracts shall be configured to connect greenbelt or wildlife corridors where possible. (v) Open space tracts shall not be altered or disturbed. Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within open space tracts. (vi) The tracts may be: (a) retained by the subdivider • (b) conveyed to the residents of the development (c) or conveyed to a third party. 4. Allowed Projections into Setbacks: a. Fireplace Structures, Windows: Fireplace structures, bay or garden windows, enclosed stair landings, and similar structures as Zoning Administrator may project 24" into any setback; provided, such projections are: (i) Limited to 2 per fa~ade. (ii) Not wider than 10'. b. Fences: See RMC 4-4-040. c. Steps and Decks: Uncovered steps and decks not exceeding 18" above the finished grade may project to any property line. Uncovered steps and decks having no roof covering and not exceeding 42" high may be built within the front yard setback. d. Eaves: Eaves and cornices may project up to 24" into any required setback. 5. In order to be considered detached, a structure must be sited a minimum of 6' from any residential structure. 6. A front yard setback of less than 20' is allowed·if equal to or greater than the average of the front yard setback of the existing, abutting primary structures; however, in no case shall a minimum setback of less than 20' be allowed for garages which access from the front yard street(s). 7. For pre-existing legal lots having less than the minimum lot width required by this Section, the following chart shall apply for determining the required minimum side yard width along a street: WIDTH OF MINIMUM H:IEDNSPlTitle IV\R-I Clusteringl4-2-11O D.doc ·2· • . EXISTING SIDE YARD LEGAL LOT WIDTH ALONG A STREET ReZONE 150 feet or less I 25 ft. R-IZONE Less than or equal 10 ft. to 50 ft. 50.1 to 51 ft. II ft. 51.1 to 52 ft. 12 ft. 52.1 to 53 ft. 13 ft. 53.1 to 54 ft. 14 ft. 54.1 to 55 ft. 15 ft. 55.1 to 56 ft. 16 ft. 56.1 to 57 ft. 17ft. 57.1 to 58 ft. 18 ft. 58.1 to 59 ft. 19 ft. 59. 1ft. and greater 19 ft. R-4 or R-8 ZONE Less than or equal 10 ft. to 50 ft. 50.1 to 52 ft. 11ft. 52.1 to 54 ft. 12 ft. 54.1 to 56 ft. 13 ft. 56.1 to 58 ft. 14 ft. 58.1 ft. or ~eater 15 ft. However, in no case shall a structure over 42" in height intrude into the 20' clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- 030. 8. In no case shall building height exceed the maximum allowed by the Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions, for uses located within the Federal Aviation Administration Airport Zones designated under RMC 4-3-020. 9. "Public Suffix" (P) properties are allowed the following height bonus: Publicly owned structures shall be permitted an additional IS' in height above that otherwise permitted in the zone if "pitched roofs," as defmed herein, are used for at least 60% or more of the roof surface of both primary and accessory structures. In addition, the height of a publicly owned structure • may be increased as follows, up to a maximum height of 75' to the highest point of the building: a. When abutting a public street, 1 . additional foot of height for each additional 1-112' of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum street setback required; and/or b. When abutting a common property line, I additional foot of height for each additional 2' of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum required along a common property line. 10. In order to serve as a transition between the lower density R4 zone and the higher density R -8 zone "small lot clusters" of up to a maximum of 50 lots shall be allowed within 600 feet of an R- 8 zone when at least 30% of the site is permanently set aside as "significant open space." Such open space shall be situated to act as a visual buffer between small lot clusters and other development in the zone. The percentage of open space required may be reduced by the reviewing official to 20% of the site when: a) Public access is provided to open space, _b) Soft surface trails are provided within wetland buffers, and c) Store water ponds are designed to eliminate engineered slopes requiring fencing and enhanced to allow passive and/or active recreation. 11. a) Lot size width and depth may be reduced by the reviewing official when, due to lot configuration or access, 4- dwelling units per net acre cannot be H:IEDNSP\Tillc IV\R-l Clusleringl4-2-1 IO D.doc --------- • achieved. The reduction shall be the minimum needed to allow 4-dwelling units per net acre and shall be limited to the following minimum dimensions: Lot size -7,200 sq. ft Lot depth -70 feet Lot width -60 feet 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose of achieving maximum density, setbacks may also be reduced. Setback reductions shall be limited to the following: Front -20 feet. Side yard along a street -15 feet primary structure, 20 feet attached garage with access from the side yard. Minimum side yard combined setback - 15 feet. Minimum for one yard - 5 feet. 13. For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to Nov. 10,2004, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within 5 years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum Density - 5 dwelling units per net acre Minimum Lot Size -7,200 sq. ft Minimum Lot Width -60 feet for interior lots, 70 feet for corner lots -3- Minimum Lot Depth -70 feet Minimum Front Yard -15 feet for the primary structure, 20 feet for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure may be • reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right of way or alley. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street -15 feet Minimum Side Yard - 5 feet (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) H:IEDNSP\Titlc lV\R-l Clusteringl4-2-110 D.doc • -4. , ,;~::\ ' I , .. ~J .. • Urban Separators Designated R-l or Shown in Renton Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential I. 2, 3, May Valley Jones Road Talbot/Springbrook NE 16th ~ m Il' '3 §. • ~ z m ", NE 12th S' • , ' .' '. \.. " . ~' . I. I I , ., .... ~. ;:: g o ~ .~ z m NE 4th St SE 164th,St May Valley 1'--, .-' I •• ' J , -,,-- I .. -SE~al' , "'-,f'NOOd 84, 0' en-_. ' m' I SE 142nd St Attachment I "-"" . SE ,12Bth S w w m '" SE 136th S. '" ::< '" 9' g » " ,. < w ~ m rn m ~dar Renton M';;;, • • Attachment 2 May Creek Greenbelt/Urban Separator PID Size Sensitive Current Develop. Assessed Public (ac.) Areas (%) KC Potential* Value Ownersbip Zonin2 3424059106 1.13 90% R-I Low 34,000 9113 0.04 90% R-I Low 65,000 9110 0.55 90% R-I Low 190,000 9109 0.56 90% R-I Low 154,000 9026 0.58 90% R-I Low 180,000 9108 0.56 90% R-I Low 153,000 . - 9016 0.83 90% R-I Low 148,000 9072 0.75 70% R-I Low 212,000 9099 3.90 50% R-I Medium 203,000 9117 1.41 50% R-I Medium 62,000 9116 1.03 50% R-I Medium 21,000 9058 0.98 70% R-I Low 321,000 ~ 1)e1.!i£.-~~,-;-, -r~{ -~_~;t';:'~) ~~-__ J~T __ --r~y'fI--=l.-.--=:-~~t)l'O~~----j 0323059116 0.74 0% R-I Low 236,000 9112 1.72 0% R-I Medium 259,000 9164 1.66 (lOla R-I Medium 304,000 L~ __ ~~~ ~=o;_l:j¥.' ~~~:.~~~~~ o~~{~~-_~~~_-~~.~ ~~~~:~:~~~~;.!E-__ ~ _, _-=-'!~-.~. ·~.R-;--L -::rJ_~~=~T J(-:.l~~ }JJ~'\--=--=~;';kCr~fL_[ _ ~ ~~~11~ --L]~·~f{ -~~~;----~~=~ ~rl~~-~i __ ~-=?~'J~U~-~ __ -_-.--~ 3424059047 6.11 50% R-I Medium 387,000 9048 1.82 80% R-I Low 382,000 9063 1.23 100% R-I Low 80,000 9019 0.45 5% R-I Low 217,000 9076 0.65 0% R-I Low 176,000 9077 0.75 70% R-I Low 42,000 9050 1.26 90% R-I Low 263,000 9051 3.97 100% R-I Low 180,000 0323059069 5.82 15% R-I Medium 368,000 __ ~)2)~~_~~~-t~· _t....~~_~~1~-_L_~-11~1·, _-~~l~;;jn ~ ___ - ~_~~~ . _L;~-.;;-!---[~-=~ __ ;~~-~---r' f~I@=~ :-;-;J~cf) : __ ~ ~-~~_ -; ~[~r~-__ ~ > ~ -=~~_~l~: I-=--=L. tIt~~ -=-r~_ :u~T!T>-r-----~ _____ ~:Iilq __ L ------- D IPI til eve ODmen o en a LOW MEDIUM HIGH Sensitive Areas Equal to or less than 75% 25% to 74% Less than 25% Assessed Value Ratio Greater than 2.0 1.0 to 1.99 Less than I. 0 Parcel Size Less than 1.5 acres More than 1.5 but less 3.0 acres or larger than 3.0 acres qost f.q(? \ R-B 1 [ 4-17,000 I I I • \ • • Attachment 2 Cedar River Greenbelt/Urban Separator PID Size Sensitive (ac.) Areas(%) 2223059134 0.89 100% 9105 0.47 100% 9104 0.47 100% 9155 1.65 100% 9139 1.32 100% 2323059037 2.61 30% 9169 1.92* 0% 9135 0.78 0% 9180 1.24* 10% 9078 1.25* 0% 9007 2.83* 0% 9015 3.23* 0% 9088 0.63 100% 9097 0.72 100% 9133 0.67 100% 9032 1.61 100% 9132 1.12 100% 9010 1.41 100% 9070 1.48 100% 9123 1.71 100% 9086 0.34 100% 9012** 1.31 100% 9127** 0.50 100% 9158** 0.22 100% 9108** 0.25 100% 9013 1.38 100% 9121 1.62 95% 9030 1.53 90% 9199--1.17 100% 9125--0.92 100% 9137 0.15 100% 9122 0.23 100% 9177 0.23 100% 9178 0.21 100% 9014 1.96 5% TOTALS • IndIcates only portIOns of mdlcated parcels. ** Indicates parcels under common ownership D t P t t' I eve opmen o en la LOW Current Develop. Current Public KC Potential* Assessed Ownersbip Zonin2 Value UR Low 45,000 UR Low 34,000 UR Low 69,000 UR Low 283,000 UR Low 179,000 UR Low 308,000' - UR Low 12,000 UR Low 132,000 UR Low 134,000 UR Low 57,000 UR Low 109,000 UR Low 80,400 UR Low 218,000 UR Low 55,000 UR Low 209,000 UR Low 44,000 UR Low 152,000 UR Low 242,000 UR Low 145,000 UR Low 263,000 UR Low 84,000 UR Low 145,000 UR Low 137,000 UR Low 18,000 UR Low 33,000 UR Low 292,000 UR Low 179,000 UR Low 172,000 UR Low 302,000 KC UR Low 197,000 KC UR Low 152,000 UR Low 144,000 UR Low 138,000 UR Low 177,000 UR Low 235,000 MEDIUM IDGH Sensitive Areas Equal to or less than 75% 25% to 74% Less than 25% Assessed Value Ratio Greater than 2.0 1.0 to 1.99 Less than 1.0 Parcel Size Less than 5.0 acres More than 5.0 acres but 10.0 acres or less than 10.0 acres larger • • \~~tachment 2 South 179th GreenbeltlU rban Separator PID Size (ac.) Sensitive Areas (ac.) • Indicates only portions of indicated parcels . •• Indicates parcels un~er common ownership Current KC Develop. Potential* Springbrook West GreenbeltlUrban Separator PID Size Sensitive Current Develop. (ac.) Areas (ac.) KC Potential* Zonin2 0622059098 0.92 0% R-I Low Current Public Assessed Ownership Current Public Assessed Ownership Value 240,000 --;>~,).;, --1 ;,. :~~ :~ .. ~ :---~----;~:o~ ~-' '~~-. ~-! l_-= ___ ~J 9061 4.94 60% R-I Medium 407,000 9051 1.73 40010 R-I Medium 290,000 9143 1.82 0% R-I Medium 238,000 9001 0.64 0% R-I Low 134,000 _'~i'. -: '~~=:J '_-~~---==-~"t ~~----_~=--;'-j~ ~i 1.----= ~~:I I:'~--:-:: ~/~ __ j 0005 2.00 0% R-I Medium 355,000 0010 2.06 0% R-I Medium 293,000 0025 0.38 0% R-I Low 1,000 0021 0.51 0% R-I Low 479,000 0022 0.51 0% R-I Low 436,000 0023 0.68 0% R-I Low 473,000 0024 0.68 0% R-I Low 498,000 TOTALS D tP t ti I eve oomeD oeD a LOW MEDIUM ruGH Sensitive Areas Equal to or less than 75% 25% to 74% Less than 25% Assessed Value Ratio Greater than 2.0 1.0 to 1.99 Less than 1.0 Parcel Size Less than 1.5 acres More than 1.5 but less 3.0 acres or larger than 3.0 acres • • I Attachment 2 Springbrook East GreenbeltlUrban Separator PID Size Sensitive Current Develop. Current Public (ac.) Areas (ac.) KC Potential* Assessed Ownership Zoning Value 3388320220 0.33 0% R-I Low 234,000 0230 0.27 0% R-I Low 230,000 0240 0.28 0% R-I Low 211,000 -0'-. -.-=-:]--:J -. --. ----I ------1 -. c ,----1 ________ ..mi.Bn:ma __ _____ -'-=_-J c..... ~ __ ---..-. ____ . 1 .-----, -----1 I , " , ______ J ___ ~_ _~ ____________ l 9046 3.56 0% R-I Medium 251,900 9305 0.38 0% R-I Low 192,000 9323 0.38 0% R-I Low 270,000 9332 0.25 0% R-I Low 198,000 9043 0.39 0% R-\ Low 378,000 9339 0.47 0% R-I Low 274,000 9136 1.41 0% R-I Medium 114,000 9137 0.93 0% R-I Low 236,000 9240 2.03 0% R-I Low 557,000 9331 1.23 0% R-I Low 192,000 9243 0.47 0% R-I Low 224,000 9234 0.34 0% R-I Low 217,000 9269 3.46 0% R-I Medium 226,300 9042 1.51 0% R-I Low 276,000 9007 1.51 10% R-I Low 278,000 TOTALS D eve oomenl p . I olentia LOW· ·MEDIUM. IDGH. ~iiSitive Ai'~!( . Equal to or less than 75% 25% to 74% Less than 25% ASseSsed V"meRatio Greater than 2.0 1.0 to 1.99 Less than 1.0 , Poarc~ Siie'':;'" Less than 1.5 acres More than 1.5 but less 3.0 acres or larger .. -'. . ':. ~,;., "; .',-" than 3.0 acres Proposed Merritt II Annexation o 600 1200 I~~ Wiiii!iiiiiiI~~~1 Figure 2: Topography Map Economic Development. Neighoorhoods & Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch, Administrator G. Del Rosario I September 2004 1 m Inlerval Countour Corporate Umits 1 ~ Original Annexation Area = Expanded Annexation Area 7200 Proposed Merritt II Annexation Figure 3: Existing Structures Map Attachment 2 Thio map Ia lor ~)' purro-..... y. o 600 1200 EI ~~iB!Em~~~1 Existing Structure Corporate Umits 1 : 7200 Original Annexation Area Expanded Annexation Area ;": ill r=[ ::=::::'" =,.~J R-8 IH ;"~ .~ . ~ 1M -j(==IM~ CO(P) /' Co • I • Statement From Jean Rollins CLUSTERING & OPEN SPACE Question: "What is open space in King County?" The short answer: open space are areas of natural, unaltered, undisturbed pennanent dedicated tracts as codified in King County Code, Title 21A. In GreenbeltlUrbanlCommunity Separators, King County code requires clustering, and designated open space tracts of at least 50% of the site. The open space tracts " ... shall not be altered or disturbed ... " "Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within an open space tract." METROPOLITAN KING COUNTY CODE Specific Metropolitan King County Code (K.C.c.) pertinent to GreenbeltlUrbaniCommunity Separators follows: o Title 21A.12.030 17a. "all subdivisions and short subdivisions in the R-I zone shall be required to be clustered if the property is located within or contains: ( 1 ) a floodplain, (2) a critical aquifer recharge area, (3) a Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Area, (4) existing or planned pubic parks or trails, or connection to such facilities, (5) a Class lor 11 stream or wetland, or (6) a steep slope, or (7) a "greenbelt/urban separator" or "wildlife corridor" area designated by the Comprehensive Plan or Community Plan. o 17b. "The development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors such as urban separators or the wildlife habitat network to the extent possible and the open space shall be placed in a separate tract that includes at least fifty percent of the site. Open space tracts shall be permanent and shall be dedicated to a homeowner's association or other suitable organization, as determined by the director, and meet the requirements of K. C. C. 21A.14.040. On-site sensitive area and buffers, wildlife habitat networks, required habitat and buffers for protected species and designated urban • • separators shall be placed within the open space tract to the extent poss~ble. Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural- surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within the open space tract. " o Title 2IA.14.040 A.: "In the R zones, any designated open space tract resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed except as specified on recorded documents creating the open space. Open spaces may be retained under ownership by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, or conveyed toa third party. If access to the open space is provided, the acces~ shall be located in a separate tract:" o Title 2IA.14.040 C. "In the R-I zone, open space tracts created by clustering required by K.c.c. 2IA 12.030 shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts required by the Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans or open space functional plans to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors designated by the Comprehensive Plan and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. King County may require open space tracts created under this subsection to be dedicated to an appropriate managing public agency or qualifying private entity such as a nature conservancy. In the absence of such a requirement, open space tracts shall be retained in undivided interest by the residents of the subdivision or short subdivision. A homeowner's association shall be established for maintenance of the open space tract. " DEFINITION: o Title 2IA.06.8I9: "Open space: areas left predominately in a natural state to create urban separators and greenbelts, sustain native ecosystems, connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, provide a visual contrast to continuous development, reinforce community identity and aesthetics, or provide links between important environmental or recreational resources." PROPOSED CITY OF RENTON CODE Therefore to make Renton code consistent with K.C.C. the essential elements of open space tracts in Community Separators must be permanent designated tracts which are natural, unaltered, undisturbed and are configured to connect greenbelt or wildlife corridors. City of Re.n Department 01 Planning / Building / Public .s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: I ~ I ~. 'Y) COMMENTS DUE: ASAP APPLICATION NO: LUA04·141, A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2004 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind _ ._"-__ totO" II" PROJECT TITLE: R·l Cluster in Urban Separators Zoning Text PLAN REVIEW: Jennifer Henning 1''''' Amendments SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA (qross): N/A LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is proposing new mandatory clustering provisions on properties occurring within its R·l zone when the area is also designated as an Urban Separator in the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments would specify that all new development in the R·l zoned Uran Separators must be clustered, provided development does not exceed the maximum net density allowed for in the zone. The City is reviewing two optional standards for required open space. Option A would require at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivisions in the R-1 zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary ,arth Housing Ii, Aesthetics leus. !!!!. Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Publfc Services ~;~:::::I Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ~~ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. City of Re.n Department of Planning I Building I Public .S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Plan ~ .. leJ..,.0 COMMENTS DUE: ASAP APPLICATION NO: LUA04-141, A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2004 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: R-1 Cluster in Urban Separators Zoning Text PLAN REVIEW: Jennifer Henning Amendments SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is proposing new mandatory clustering provisions on properties occurring within its R-1 zone when the area is also designated as an Urban Separator in the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments would specify that all new development in the R-1 zoned Uran Separators must be clustered, provided development does not exceed the maximum net density allowed for in the zone. The City is reviewing two optional standards for required open space. Option A would require at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivisions in the R-1 lone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mo," Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS ~JOV'-(, C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS l\.J 0\I'vL We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date I - City of R.n Department of Planning / Building / Public As ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pork..s COMMENTS DUE: ASAP _APPLICATION NO: LUA04-141, A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2004 _APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: R-I Cluster in Urban Separators Zoning Text PLAN REVIEW: Jennifer Henning _ Amendments _SITE AREA: NIA BUILDING AREA ross: N/A _LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is proposing new mandatory clustering provisions on properties occurring within its R-I zone when the area is also designated as an Urban Separator in the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments would specify that all new development in the R-I zoned Uran Separators must be clustered, provided development does not exceed the maximum net density allowed for in the zone. The City is reviewing two optional standards for required open space. Option A would require at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivisions in the R-1 zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS More Information Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housin Aesthetics Li htiG/are Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional info ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date upo/o1 City of Re.n Department of Planning / Building / Public .S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fire.. COMMENTS DUE: ASAP APPLICATION NO: LUA04·141, A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: N OM, APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: RebJbQ IL..tCIEU~~lE rr\\ PROJECT TITLE: R·1 Cluster in Urban Separators Zoning Text PLAN REVIEW: Jennifer Herin I Amendments llf"lll " BUILDING AREA (gross): Nt lLJ "v. L I. LUU'f ~ SITE AREA: NtA LOCATION: Citywide WORK ORDER NO: ClfY OF RFJjTmJ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is proposing new mandatory clustering provis t-IAE DEr,\RnJflNl, 'th' , il" ~o .. " " -..c R-l zone when the area IS also deSignated as an Urban Separator In the Countywide Planning PoliCies. These amendments would specify that all new development in the R·1 zoned Uran Separators must be clustered, provided development does not exceed the maximum net density allowed for in the zone, The City is reviewing two optional standards for required open space, Option A would require at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivisions in the R-l zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.9. Non·Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary ,arth Housin ", Aesthetics a Light/Glare Recreation USB Utilities Transportation Public Services ~~~::::I Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ;VA B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE·RELA TEO COMMENTS 00 \-'M-. ~~j,lt6 ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or s needed to properly assess this proposal. Date 7 ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Rtm Department of Planning I Building I Public _kS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: ASAP ---,APPLICATION NO: LUA04-141, A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2004 -"APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca lind PROJECT TITLE: R-l Cluster in Urban Separators Zoning Text PLAN REVIEW: Jennifer Henning Amendments SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA ross: N/A -"LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is proposing new mandatory clustering provisions on properties occurring within its R-l zone when the area is also designated as an Urban Separator in the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments would specify that all new development in the R-l zoned Uran Separators must be clustered, provided development does not exceed the maximum net density allowed for in the zone. The City is reviewing two optional standards for required open space. Option A would require at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. Option B would require 30% open space. These new provisions would apply to all future short plats and subdivisions in the R-1 zone. A_ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e_g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment ~ Earth Air I-Water Plants I-Land/Shoreline Use Animals I-Environmental Health Energy/ I-Natural Resources Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C_ CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS More Information Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housinq ~ ~' A:r:g~eet .. • Jean Rollins 9605 143rd PL SE Renton, WA 98059 November 12, 2004 • Rebecca Lind, Planning Manger Strategic Planning Division EDNSP Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: File Number LUA-04-141,A,PZ,ECF Dear Ms. Lind: CITYOFAENTcA RECEIVI!IPJ NOV 162004 BUILDING DIVISION I wish to submit the following comments for R -1 Zone Text Amendments - "Mandatory Clustering Provisions within Urban Separators". I strongly support this proposal. Pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), specifically WAC 197-11-444, consideration should be given to the relationship of a proposed action to existing land use plans. This proposal reinstates the existing land use plan presently in place under King County Code. The King County land use plan for urban separators maintains the open space corridor by requiring development to be clustered and retention of at least 50% of the site in permanent open space tracts. This proposal enacts similar code for the maintenance of urban separators within the City of Renton. This proposal rectifies the negative environmental impact of not providing for open space tracts. The lost of open space tracts could have significant adverse impacts on surface water, runoIDabsorption, erosion and flooding. The mandatory clustering of this proposal creates a more efficient provision of public services, a consideration under SEP A. Comments specifically for May Valley Area: • • One of the 3 affected areas of this proposal is the May Valley Area. Under King County Code, May Valley zoning has been one dwelling unit per acre with the requirement for clustered development and at least 50 % open space retention. Historically under King County's jurisdiction this has been a requirement since 1983, the year King County adopted the "Newcastle Community Plan" which designated the area Suburban Cluster with provisions (SC-P.) The SC zone was a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre with lot clustering. The P-suffix required permanent open space in reserve tracts created under the SC zone. In 1994, during the development of the King County Comprehensive Plan in response to the state Growth Management Act, the county changed the area's zoning to R-I-P. This R -1 designation still meant one dwelling unit per acre and the "P" "provision" required clustering and 50% permanent open space as it had been for the previous 11 years. In 1998 Renton adopted a pre-zone for the area should it ever be annexed to the city. The purpose of the pre-zone was "to give certainty to the citizen/residents and any future land purchasers in Renton's Potential Annexation Area (PAA)". Everyone was invited to participate in the public pre-zone process, which began in the spring of 1996, thus to avoid controversy when, and if, the residents chose to annex. After almost two years of public process the City of Renton concurred with the County's land use for the area and prezoned development at one dwelling unit per acre. (City of Renton, Ordinance No. 4732, July l3, 1998) Cooperatively identified and fully supported by the City of Renton, in 2001 King County amended its Comprehensive Plan and adopted the permanent GreenbeltlUrban Separator designation for 107 acres in the west end of May Valley, all within Renton's PAA. The City of Renton ratified the May Valley greenbelt/urban separator. Since the King County zoning change in 1983 this area has been one dwelling unit per acre with the requirement for clustered development and 50% permanent open space. Nothing has changed in that regard for 21 years. Urban separators are a regional provision and are part of the County's planning to meet the GMA requirements for open space. Urban separators are REGIONAL They provide for open space corridors within and between urban areas that each county and city shall identify pursuant to RCW 36.70A.160 of the GMA. The May Valley urban separator lies directly between the borders of the City of Renton and the City of Newcastle, i.e. between urban areas. • • • • Comments for all Urban Separators within the City of Renton: Besides historical zoning there exist a compelling rational why development regulations of the County must be retained for urban separators within the City of Renton. These 3 areas are designated Urban Separators ratified by the City of Renton. King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) implement the State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires designation of urban growth areas and each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. (RCW 36.70All0 (I) & (2). Further GMA states, "each county and city shall identify open space corridors within and between urban areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connection of critical areas." (RCW 36.70AI60) Countywide Planning Policies address the state's requirement for compact development densities as well as protection of environmentally sensitive areas though development clustering, greenbelts, open space and urban separators. The CPP call for preservation of open space and corridors through interconnected systems regionally and within jurisdictions locally. Specifically CPP CC-12 states, " All jurisdictions shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation tools available to create, maintain and steward the regional open space system which has been cooperatively identified." Therefore pursuant to CPP CC-12, the City of Renton , "shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation tools available to create, maintain and steward {this} regional open space system". The concept of Urban Separators was developed within the Countywide Planning Policies in response to the requirement ofRCW36.70AllO. Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 states in part, "The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional· as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence." (These specific King County Code development regulations are enclosed) The development regulations for urban separators under County jurisdiction and Renton jurisdiction are not yet in sync. Those regulations being in sync are paramount to the regional provision of urban separators and the open space they provide under GMA. As the City of Renton development regulations do not currently require clustering and 50% permanent open space, this is a modification to the development regulations • • governing this area. Without this proposal the development regulations for urban separators within the City of Renton directly conflicts with Countywide Planning Policies, specifically Policy LU-27 and CC-12. In summary, I am in:full support of this proposal. Urban separators are a regional provision and are part of the County's planning to meet the GMA requirements for open space. Urban separators are REGIONAL. They provide for open space corridors within and between urban areas that each county and city shall identify pursuant to RCW 36.70A160 of the GMA. The CPP call for development regulations that maintain urban separators and the open space they provide. The May Valley area has been zoned one dwelling unit per acre with provisions for clustering and open space since 1983. This proposal once adopted will make the development regulations governing urban separators within the City of Renton consistent with Countywide Plauning Policies specifically but not limited to LU-27 and CC-12. I thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Jean Rollins Enclosures: KingCounty Code Title 21A12.030 17a (7)&17b. King County Code Title 21A14.040 A King County Code Title 21A14.040 C Zoning History cc: ':Renton PlaJIDipg (3oJ1ll]]j~ioll:i Mike Thomas, Senior Policy Analyst, King County Office of Management and Budget C:\word\sepacluIlI\J6/04 .' .~. ---.. ' • • (King County 12·2001) 21A.14.010· 21A 14.0~O ZONING 21A.14.010 Purpose. ,he pc,;:os. of this chapter is to Improve the q~a:i'y of development by providing building and site cesign standar':s that: A. Redu=e the vlst.:al im;:a:::t o~ larga residential Cl!ildfngs fro;.': adjace::; s:reets and properties; 6. Enhance H'te aestnet[c character of large reslcer,~ial buildings; C. Contain sufficient flexibility o~ standards to encoura:;e creative and ;t~:1ovative sIte and building design; D. Meet the on·site recreaticjl needs of project residents; E. Etihance aesthetics and environmental p~oteclion through site desiGn; and F. Allow for cOiitinue:; ::r adaptive reuse of historic resources \Yhile preserving their historic and architectl.iral intagrity. (Ord.11521 §45, 1994: 10870 §361, 1993). 21A.14.020 Genera! layout standards. Fe: residentia.l develc.::-mer,!s in :he UR and R zones: A. The maxim:.!m length of blocks shall be 1,320 reet; 2nd 3. Scept for corner lots, lots for single deiached cVlelilngs sr,all nc: have street irontaga along tvvo sides unless one of sald stieeis is 2: neighbOihcod collector stree.t or an arterial street. (Ord. '"t0870 § 352, 1 SS3). 21A.14.030 Lot segregations. Zero lot line development. In any UR or R zone or in tne NB zone on property desJgtiated commercial outside c! cej''\.:'er in tr,a urbail area, j\',~e~:c; setbacks may be modified during subdivision OJ sheri subdi'.lision revlev.' ~s follows: A. !f a building is proposed to be locateo within a nOimaiJ;' required :!i:ed:., setback: ',. An easemen: shall be provided on the ebvtti"g lot of the SUbdivision that ;s wide enough to ensure a 10·foct separation bet\veen the wa!ls of structures on adjoinln; jets., excep~ as provIded for commor. wall construction; 2. The sasement area shall be·free of permanent structures c:~.:' ;ti"ter obstructior,s that would prevent nc;mal repair and ma!ntena:-lce of the structure's exterior; 3, EUild!ngs utilizing reduced setbacks shall n.ot have dec,s :'ijat open c';rectly onto the private yard areas of abutting property. \A.iir.dc\\'s iii such buHc'~llgs sha:: not t;e cr:ented toward such private yard areas unless they consist of materials su:::h as glass bicck, textured s:!ass, or othe; opaque materIals, and shall not be capable of being oPened, except for cfere$tory~style Wi,idoW3 or skyHghts; and 4. The final pia! or sn::rt plat shall sho'.\' the approxi;;,ate iocatlcn cf ouildings ~mp~sed to be placed in a standard setback ai;a. S. In the UR 0; R lenes, setbacks en existing individual lots ma)' :·e :ilcdifiec! piovicieo that the standards set forth in subsection A.', of this section are me:. (O,d. 12522 § 5.1996: Ord. 11978 § 6, 1995: Ord. 10870 § 363, ,,?3). 21A.14.040 l.ot segregations. clustered development. If res!centia! lot clustaring is proposed, the fo/lo\·."ing piovisions shaii :2 met· A Irl the R z=;-;e5, any' deSignated c;:e:i spzce tract result\n£j ~j:;:7) lo~ eli..starlng shall not be altered or disturbed except as specified on recorded c'c:::.::-::e:1ts creatirlg ~he open space. Open spaces may be retained under ownership by the subdivider, conveyed to ~es:cejjts of the development, or conveyed to a third paiiy. I: access tc the open space is provided, :he access shall be located in a separate tract; 8. In the RA zone: I. No r;",ore than eight :ots cf less than two and one·ha!f zcres 3tlaJi be aflowed in a cluster; 2. No mere than ei:;.r,l lets of less than r,'/e and one-h2lf 2cres Sh2i1 t:e served !:y a single cul- de·sac street; 3. Clusters contair.ir,g ";-,'IC) Of mere lets of Jess thar t'/.'o end o,,=-nalf aGes Whether in the same or adjacent developrr,6:--,:s, shall be separatad fro::: sj:i'j:!a( clusters "DY at least one' hundred twenty feet: 21.A.-'15 • 2iA.l2.030 ZO",lNG 14. The base height to be used cnly for projects as fo11o\\'s: a. in R~6 and R~8 zones: :l building with a foo!pr:~t built on slopes ex:e.edlng a ftfteen percent finished grade; and b. iIl R-18, R-2~ a.'1d R-48 zones using ~esidential density incentives and transfer of density credits in accordance \yith ti".:s :i:.le. . 1 S. Density applies cnly to dwelling Wtits and not to sleeping ur..i:s. 16. Vehi:le access points from garages. ,,:,?crts or fenced ,oxkieg a:eas shall be set back from' the property line O£1 which ajoint use driveway is located to provide a straight line lerlgt..lt of at least twenty· six feet as measured from Lite tenter line of t.he garage, carpon or feaced paricing area, from the access point to the 0pp0:iite side of the joint use driveway. 1 ia. all subdivisions and short subdivisions in LlJe R-l ZOn' shaH be require': to be c1ustereo if the property is located within or contains: (1) a floodplain, (2) a critical aquifer recha:g. area, (3) a Regionally or Locally Significant Reso~ce .:...rea, (4) existing cr plarJled public p;;rks Or trails. or connections to such ;acilities, (5) a Class lor n stream or wetland, or (6) a steep slope, or (7) a IIgreenbelVurbar: sepa:ator" or '\\~ldE.fe corridor" area ::esignated by the Comprehensive Plan or a community plan. b. The development shill be dusrered away [iom sensitive areas or ~1e axis of designated corridors such as urban separators or the wildlife habitat n~twork to the eXl.en£ possible c.J'id the open space shall be placed in a separate tine, that ir;cludes at least lifty percent of the site. Open spnce tracts shall be permanent and shall be dedicnt~d to Cl, homeov . .ner's association or oLler s:!itable organization, as determined by the director, and meet the requirerr:er.ts in K.C.C. 21 A.1~.040, On-site sensitive area and buffers, wildlife habitat networks, req";r.d habitat ar.c buffers for protoC:ed species alld designated urban 'separators shall be placed within the oper, space lIa;! to the extent possible. Pass:,," re-.."Teation (with no development of recreation a! facili~ies) and notural-surface pedestrian and eques::iu trails a:e acceptable uses \\ithin t.he open space t:2Ct. 18. SecK.C.c. 21A.12.085. 19. All subdhisic:1, and short subdi\~sions in R-l and R.P-. zones witl~n the North Fork and ,Upper Issaquah Creek subbasins of the Issaquah Creek Basin (the Nonh Ferk and Upper Issaquah Creek subbasins are identified in tr.e Iss"quah Creek Basin and Ncnpoint Action ?ia;lj and the portion of the Grand Ridge subar:a of th~ East SalTL'1larnish Community ?ia~jng Area thai: drains to Patterson Creek shall have a maximum imper/iaus surface area of eight percent of the gross acreage of the plat. Distribution of ille iuli>wable' 'impervious Rrca among ille pintted lots shail be recorded 'crith" face of the plat. Impen~cus surface of rcads need not be counted towards the alle,,'able impervicus area. \\rnere boill lot-and plat-speciflc impervious E~njt5 apply. the more l'estrictive shell 'je required. 20. This density may cfli' be achieved on RA 2.5 and R.P-. 5 zoned pucei; receiving density from rural forest focus areas through the transfer of density credil pilot prograr!1 outlined in K.C.C. chapter 21 A';5. 21. Base densit), may be ~"eeded, if the property is ic~ated in a designated rJrai city urbaIl growth area and each prop:sed lot contains art occupied legai residence UlGl predates 1,59. 22. The maxim:.u;: censity i~ four dwelHng units per acre for properties zoned R~4 when located in the Rural Town of Fali Cit)', 23. The minimum c!nsity requireffi~nl does not appiy to prc?elties located within the Rural Town of Fall City. (Ord. j4~29'2, 2002: Ord. 14190'33,2001:0d. i4045 , 18,2001: Ord.13881' 1, 2000: Ord. 1357 i ' 1, 1999: Ord. 13527 0 1, 1999: Ord. 13274' 10. i 998: Ord. 13086' 1, 1998: Ord . . 13022 D 16, i 998: Ocd. 12822 D 6. 1997: Ord. 12549' c, 1996: Ord. ,}523' 3, 1996: Ord. 12320' 2, 1996: Ord. 11978' 4. 1995: Ord. 11886 D 5, 1995: Orc. 11821' 2, 1995: Ord. liS02' 3,1995: Ord. 11798' I, 1995: Ord. 11621 ',\ I. 1994: Ord. 11555' 5, 1.994: Ord, 11157' ! 5, ,:193: Ord. 10870 D 340, 1993). ... • • 21A.14.040 -21A.14.070 ZONING C. In the R-1 zone, open space tracts created by clustering required by K.C.C. 21A.12.030 shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts as required by the Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans or open space functional plans, to connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas as defined in K.C.C. 21A.06.1065, to ccnnect and protect wildlife haMat corridors designated by the Comprehensive Plan and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. King County may require open space tracts created under this subsection to be dedicated to an appropriate managing public agency or qualifying private entity such as a nature conseNancy. In the absence of such a requirement, open space tracts shall be retained in undivided interest by the residents of the subdivision or short subdivision. A homeowners association shall be established for maintenance of the open space tract. (Ord. 14199 § 234, 2001: Ord. 14259 § 8, 2001: Ord. 14045 § 25, 2001: Ord. 13022 § 19,1998: Ord.12822 § 8, 1997: Ord. 11621 § 47,1994: 10870 § 364,1993). 21A.14.050 Lot segregations -UR zone reserve tract. SubdiviSion of UR zoned property of 10 or more acres shall be required to be clustered and a reseNe tract shall be created for future development pursuant to the following provisions: A. The reseNe tract shall be no less than 75 percent of the net developable area of the property to be subdivided. . B. The reseNe tract shall be configured to contain lands with topography and natural features that allow future conversion of the reseNe tract to reSidential development at urban densities. C. The reserve tract may contain a single dwelling unit, provided: 1. The unit was included in the overall density calculations for te.e original subdivision creating the reserve tract, and 2. The unit was noted on the face of the original subdivision (plat or short plat). D. The reseNe tract shall not be altered or disturbed except as specified on the face olthe original subdivision (plat or short plat). E. The reseNe tract may be retained under the ownership of the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the subdivisions, or conveyed to a third party. Regardless of ownership of the reseNe tract, all restrictions relative to Ihe reserve tract shall apply. F. The reserve tract shall not be used to satisfy the recreation space requirement of the original subdiviSion. G. The layout of the lots and roadways created in the original subdivision shall facilitate future development of the reserve tract. H. The lots created in the original subdivision shall be of a sufficient area to comply with on-site sewage disposal requirements, if public sewers are not available. 1. The reserve tract shall not be eligible for further subdivision until such time that reclassification of the reserve tract occurs pursuant to the community plan area zoning process outlined in K.C.C. 20.08.030, J. Any proposed subsequent development on the reserve tract shall be governed by the development standards in effect at the time of such development. (Ord. 10870 § 365, 1993). 21A.14.060 Townhouse development. In the R-1 through R-8 zones and in the NB zone on property designated commercial outSide of center in the urban area, a building that contains a grouping of attached townhouse units shall not exceed a 200-foot maximum length without a separation of at least 10 feet from other groupings or rows of townhouses. (Ord. 12522 § 6,1996: Ord. 11978 § 7, 1995: Ord. 10870 § 366, 1993). 21A.14.070 Attached dwellings and group residences -Applicability. The standardS of K.C.C. 21A.14.080 through 21A.14.090 shall apply 10 all new apartment developments exceeding four dwelling units, new townhouse development and new group residences except Class I Community Residential Facilities ("CRF-I"). Expansions of existing development that involve four or more dwelling units shall be subject to compliance with K.C.C. 21A.14.080 to 21A.14.090. (Ord. 13086 § 3, 1998: Ord. 10870 § 367,1993). 21A-121 r '" .' . ' -, " 1 t , , , ! Renton Community SeparAtorl King County Urban sepArator . ~ . 1 ZOl~jng History , I I 1 J ~, t ~ ~ i .,. Date Zoning Classilic~}liQJ} , I ('.Iu'sterior£ Qr~cn SRace Requirement i • 1 , , , i: 1983 sc-p , ~ , i , • ! I I i 1994 R-l-P , 1997 Renton-Prezone R-I , t! l i ~ , : :~ I :. i , ; , , 'j' , ' ',~ I .. ' -1 2001 H-I, IJrban Separator , 11 , 11 II,', "l,' 1 1 ~1 t c \I'H:~:ui.'\1Jl",'dl'lo:uomH ~ , I ! i i j l 1 Tl i 1 il , ! ( 'I' ; . I ' t ! .~" ~ " ,~ , ' ! J i I , i I I i 'i t~ I j , . j I i ,I ! ! 1 j " I, , -1' I ;,' , t ~. I' J • 9605 143rd SE Renton, WA 98059-3753 November 15, 2004 Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Strategic Planning Division PlanningIBuilding/Public Works Department Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 CfTYOFAENTON • RECEIVED NOli 1 J 2004 BUILDING DIVISION RE: R-l Zone Text Amendments -Mandatory Clustering Provisions within Urban Separators Dear Ms. Lind: I write in support of the proposed mandatory clustering and open spaces provisions within Renton's urban separators. Urban separators were identified through cooperative efforts by citizens, land use planning experts and elected officials of both the cities within King County, and the county itself. Citizen support, and in particular specific property owners support, made urban separafors possible. If land owners had not embraced the concept it would never have been possible. For example, attached is a copy of a letter received by the City of Renton on February 3rd, 1997. This letter was supportive of the R-l pre-zone Renton was considering in May Valley. The letter was from five elderly residents who together owned more than 25 _acres - about a quarter the size of the May Valley Urban Separator. Most of these holdings were large, the real estate market was hot, so anyone of these property owners could have sold to real estate developers and lived in relative luxury for the rest of their lives. These same folks, and others, embraced the urban separator concept which was first floated as an idea in 1992. At that time both King County and the City of Renton were developing their respective comprehensive plans in response to the recently enacted state Growth Management Act. Renton, like other cites within King County, was working together with the county on the "countywide planning policies." Urban separators ultimately developed from these efforts. Urban Separators exist within and between urban areas to create greenbelts between cities. Urban Separators, in addition to protecting environmentally sensitive areas, are a visual break that helps define a city's boundaries and create a sense of community. However, there have to be several technical aspects to urban separators if they are to be retained for future generations. First, they must be low density such as R-l. Also, there must be development • • regulations that maintain the sense of that greenbelt definition. I.e., lot clustering and permanent open space. Current King County regulations require clnstering and permanent open space in R-l zoning. In fact, these requirements have been in place in Western May Valley for the past 21 years when the King County "Newcastle Community Plan" was enacted December 1983. It is most important that the City of Renton require clustering and at least 50% permanent open space if the designated urban separators are going to continue to serve their purpose. Under GMA Renton began planning for these urban separators as part of a join city/county technical review in 1992. Later the city ratified the Countywide Planning Policies. We urge the city to keep the spirit and intent of the urban separators by enacting these proposed development regulations. Again, I repeat, if the urban separators are going to continue to serve their purpose, the City of Renton must require clustering and at least 50% permanent open space. We urge the planning commission recommend unanimonsly to full city council that the proposed development regulations be codified so the legacy of urban separators can be preserved forever. Thank you. Enclosures: 1. Letter From: Five May Valley property owners, January 30, 1997, "our retiremenf' 2. Resolution: City of Renton, No. 2960, Exhibit A, part IT, AprilS, 1993 3. Technical Review: Growth Management Planning Council, Renton Technical Study Area -R-2, June 16, 1993 4. Letter From: Jesse Tanner, Mayor, City of Renton, June 2, 2000 Subject: Executive Recommended King County Comprehensive Plan -Land Use Map Amendment 2 -May Valley Urban Separator 5. Letter From: Larry Phillips, Chair, Metropolitan King County Council, November 1, 2004 RE: City of Renton's Merritt IT Proposed Aunexation legaItr I I 1604mswPresarionC .' , ,. .,.-. • January 30th, 1997 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 Dear Planning Commission: • PLANNING DIVISION CITY 01' RP.JTON FEB 3 1997 RECEIVED At your meeting on Wednesday night you heard from one person who said he bought his property 10 years ago. He said he planned to live on it for the next ten years or so. He even mentioned how nice it was now and that there is wildlife. But when he is ready to retire he will build twenty houses. Well we have lived on our property for a lot longer than ten years. In fact there are nine of us property owners who have lived here for 30 to 40 years or more. Helen and Marl Andrews have lived here since the end of World War II. We bought our property to live on and raise our families. We are retired now. This is our retirement. It does not seem right that some one can live on their property for 10 or 20 years and then just because it suits them demand that Renton let them build 20 houses. Especially with all the flooding and erosion problems. This does not seem fair to us. We bought our property for retirement too and we would like the property to stay the way it is so that we can enjoy our retirement. We could probably put a bunch of houses on our property. But we have chosen not to because it is not the right thing to do, we care about our neighbors. It is not right to effect other peoples property. In other words we are not asking to have our cake and eat it too. To enjoy a nice quite rural life and then expect to turn it into a city. We long time residents are not asking for retirement funding or a windfall, we are simply asking that we not get washed away •. Please keep the zoning for the whole area either resource conservation or R-l. Yours truly, ;f L", r;t-<l /1-",,'-:1 I' . 1/«7/0 J{' //"'7 /I';,£t /r:...t;;:. I Iv 17 l' f'Q)f • ( CITY OF RENTON, RESOLUTION NO. • ,WASHINGTON 291511 ( ...... --. . ,". . .J ~ • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A RECOMMENDATION FOR URBAN GROWTH TECHNICAL REVIEW AREAS ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF RENTON DESIGNATED IN THE COUNTYWIDE PLP~~NING POLICIES. WHEREAS, the Countywide Planning Policies establish a'county- wide framework for the development of City and County Comprehensive Plans as required by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70Ai and WHEREAS, the King County Council enacted Ordinance No. 10350 adopting and ratifying the Countywide Planning Policies and setting up a. process for completion of additional work to refine and amend the. Countywide Planning Policies including adjustments to the Urban Growth Areasi and WHEREAS, the City and County have worked cooperatively together to analyze growth issues in the Technical Review Areas, and have conducted a public meeting for citizens in the areai NOW, THEREFORE,. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City Council intends to adopt the Urban Growth Area boundaries, indicated on the attached Exhibit A, as part of the Interim Land Use Element of the City' s Comprehensive Plan. . SECTION II I. The City Council find~ that the facts presented in Exhibit A are consistent with and support the deSignated Urban Growth Areas for the City of Renton. BY THE CITY COUNCIL this, 5th day of April 1993 ---'-=-----, . /\" I I yetersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ~ day of _dil.,p-Lr..li..Ji'--_____ , 19 9 3 . !.ayor RES.271:3/18/93:as. r- 2 I 1 j I ~--. u • • RESOLUTION "tfO. __ _ EXHIBIT A .': \. CITY OF RENTON URBAN GROWTH AREA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TECI3J'j1CAL REVIEW AREAS I. Technical Review Area NC-3 (Newcastle) Description: This area is within a partially urbanized portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin and contains a large undeveloped tract known as "Whitegate" which is proposed for development as a residential subdivision at densities of one dwelling unit per acre. An Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared for the proposed project. The area is not presentiy served by sewers, but sewer and water· service are accessible. The area is heavily forested, providing wildlife habitat linkages with the King County Park, and urban development will increase sedimentation and erosion in the drainage basin. Recommendation: The City of Renton recommends that this area be designated as Urban, and included within the City's Urban Growth Area. It should be classified within the City's Comprehensive Plan as an urban separator, "Low Density Single Family Residential (LDSF). This classification allows two zoning categories: Low Density Single Family (SFL) at one dweiling unit per acre, and Resource Conservation at 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. The recommended future zoning classification is Resource Conservation. n. Technical Review Area R-2 (May Creek) Description: The May Creek valley is a sensitive environmental area containing critical and resource areas identified in the Critical/Resource Area inventories completed by the City of Renton and King County. The area is surrounded by urban development but remains at low densities with large undeveloped tracts. Erosion and sedimentation are occurring in the May Creek fystem which is under review in a . basin-wide study. Recommendation: The City of Renton recommends that this area be designated as Urban and included within the City's Urban Area Growth Area. It should be classified within the City's Comprehensive Plan as an ) \ urban separator, "Low Density Single Family Residential" (LDSF). This classification allows two zoning categories: Low Density Single Family (SF) and Resource Conservation (RC). The recommended future zoning is Resource Conservation. m. Technical Review Area R-3 (East Renton) Description: Recommendation: This area begins at 148th Ave. SE. and extends to 156th Ave. SE. The area is semi-rural, with Some smaller lots and subdivisions, but there are many large tracts of vacant land. Opportunities remain for small scale agricultural uses and maintenance of resource lands. The area is not served by sewers, but has fire and water services. It is also located within the May Creek Drainage Basin which would. be severely impacted by .new urban deveiopment within the area. Expansion of services to urban ieveis would not be feasible within the 20 year planning horizon. :The City of Renton recommends that this Technical Review Area be designated as Rural, and remain outside the City's Urban Growth Area, although it would remain within the City's Sphere of Influence. IV. Techical Review Area R-l (Briarwood) Description: Recommendation: The Briarwood neighborhood is a suburban residential district which has been developed wi th inadequate urban services. Much of the area has been subdivided into urban size parcels of 15,000 square feet or less. The area has been developed with septic systems only, of which many are in poor condition, and sewer services are not presently available. It is within the Cedar River drainage system, and is located over the Cedar River aquifer, which is the City's sole source municipal water supply. The area presents a high risk for contamination of the aquifer, and sewer needs to be extended. The City of Renton recommends that the Briarwood district be . included within the Urban area as defined on the map. This area generally included properties that have already been subdivided at urban densities. The area should be designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan as Single Family (SF), but with a ten-year phasing overlay similar to the Soos Creek Plan that prohibit~ subdivision or development until sewers and other urban services are available. I( l N l)\ h '\A NUl S S A tJ U A H n~£ "n}'" li~ 11;/fT". ') 11)" ~:>;t~~>: <t;·(';fY,·-,~.;;~'>~<:t::?;' b · REAS~ 'n [;. U 'TIT" ':")'>'g-"('~('~" . " . , : :.' i IlL \~.<..' 01" 'P",,"',~ ...... ) .. ~ ) .... " ' .. '" ~~ ~~ TEe ICAl REVIEW A '~:; :: ~~ !~~!i ![j !I' . ~-~>:":<.>~<.):(>x I,,!: I" I 1-,.(",., ..... }",)~,,,, AS O(SIGIIHEO BY fHE " I '. 1 .(; i' '~':; I I. ' ,.!i ...t .,.v..(\"('."<".)'.>~'~ I . :' : I 11 I = I I ; ~ }~ 4 )~ • '~"i.f V ot v· V ~ ~ KING COUNTYP: .: : I~ '. _=:.:~: ~'ii 0 l5 f~ G ROW T H MA NAG E MEN T '~ .. 1-I,! I!I':I:!;; C· ;-l i ' ,\ I,. II: 'I I" ;::.'-' ,~ PLAI~NING COUNCIL 8~ i i ;!: !~~r~ir tn '~~I~tN (SFLO) h ~ URBAH . Lt,·~ b-7~):l r-1:I~:r!.~ ~==l"fV-' till lUL~I0)). GIAPC Currenll,Y DeslgnaJed Urban ! Jfl.P-.lW ( ~'e./" I~ -_ _ x;1P. [echnical ReView Areas: URBAN (SFLO) ~t Ilk ~ 8'-' -Do. -tT ~~ He -3., R-2, R-3, NC-l~lj~ I ""~~ i ; d\:A );\ ,<---t-n w-- R U r< A L '-'llJ 1 0 llr~! JF' ')I I'-. GhlP C Cur r en II} De signa led Rur 01 I _ _ n~l~ ~~ t\flr~ 2, ~, 1\,\ ~ '1172 ~H ,..,_ fechnicol ReVIeW Area: R-I ffl EBdhl;;~rTfl1n1lrrn n""r '~l !' '. I ' . Jt-lJ 3--,,-~ ,RURAL! !, i I; ; i I! ~ ;:1= . r-J Teelnied Revi .... Ar.a "" ~YlliT~~'~ ~~~III , jill: . ~~;.~ i I ; 1;: i::: III e-< ~?-~-'U!~..::I.. 'IT _ t,· l~ I!.,hl 'i'. / ~ -'\:J R E N TON:I [ ~" ~. ii' f-~ ~ ~~ : i ; ! ! ! ! ~Il ~ Il = ~ ~ ... r~l i~ll rUJ t 1 SE 2. r'1 ' --U f-Wl!: i ----I -"T::~' J" r: Im,= \1: nn1l -§III III [I~~ ~f\ I ; I [:I~l~~·, r ,i 1 t ~ l ~ lr~ ~ --I lll'::~-l' 1 :n. I ~lr.u:ll s I· ,I: J =:311·, ~liID I I ! i, '~' ~rfl t'l ~ - I I\:! r I'j 1-': I~ll::; 1 >:r I I' ,I I: . T -I 0 . • f} Hi! -IT! T!: -r' : I--:i i 1'1 I~ -- ] .r:; Id '-l , IL.---. ., I:-[I , ! . C c· ( : Ill, ,: 'i'l I' .,--, I 1 il I King C.unl) , , . r1 ' : . " ~ r.' : ~:: j rr! Ii II " " n, T., ,I 'l ;:JJ ~. _ PI.nnin, ond C.mmu,nil) O,,<l0pIO,"1 0,""0n _ _ _ _ TIillL· :: ,I l _ I I· URBAN (SF _ Phase 11) i=JD1i OJ 0 Gtoq".phi< Inlormol1on \pl.m I: I; i '~I~ ,,);'IlL. Ill-' I. 1. '. I Illilflf Illi/'» :J : O<lob" 07, 1l!1 ) ~ v. :illtllf 'ilft f nT I lID. ~! 1;U.~r Z 2 ! IIi, .,' h ,.1,,/, •• " ,',,,I., '''\'''' "" , (I ~ J t;0i'l~ It. ...~IJ.I. tlJ'l.' ~.. y-r--. I G) 0 ' .. ~ II .. \ IllI!,11I1 \, ,"'" I,,~II I ,.,,,n,unoa I. 21 p'~ff' '111_ ~ I.........:JJ I.~~''')OI "'I'~I 11111.,,,1''''.'1 Uri. \,,1 __ '~~1-' \ ~::_~ ,I,; , t:"'t--0 . .,.lhU, .1 IIi. , • .,._1 I",.. ....... -.... _.....: L-'==' ( ,." .,' .,' , .. ,./, P'"'' m' -iTh [ : : . t\ -.n~ -= " ~ "Iii hi tltar.h l ,." .. It. : .1-I • .uJ,1;1 ~ UOt , ' '. -~~:: -t I I 11",1,1,11 ,I '" h "I ,I.... i ,In I I I1'lh v Ih '-, i' !: I 6 '-r I ...,. F. ~. " " ':' liP Uill] ~ I ".:1= f.pi » :;1 uti I' .Iil,': 1i~1!. -I-! n!J ;:JJ ~(ff, ! I h:-.rtl$i{ll\I~Q, I L,(rlh1 i[Wf 0 ~ I lIilll Ql " ]I , a Gl.IPC OC), in. IT.<',I IJibm S.p<rolor o Pauls mEll SIMvisicru (cool Oil smoler p<rct!5) ,. 'llJ)l!tO.YXl1«XX1~ ~OJ __ " eee .;---.. \ • • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL I Co~tywide Plannlnl Policle. I Urban Growth Areas; Renton Technical Stud)' Area • R-2 ; June 16. 1993 Slams RIlPort: Renton l'echniw Review Area R·2 1922 cpp D.slgnatlgn: Urban i !2f3' St.ffRecommendatiOn: ~etain Urban,'designation: The OMPC directed City'lnd Coiloty staff to work together to address four Technical Review Areas concernioB the Urban Growth Boundary near Renton. These four areas are known as NC·3, R-2, R-3 and R-l. Technical Review.Atea R-2 is Ihown on the attached map. ; KinS Co¥nty and the CitY, of Re~ton held tv.·o pubUc workshops to discu5sland.u8c . dcslgnatloJ1S In the tcc:hriical reView areas near Renton. The first meeting was held on' September 17, 1992 and attended by about 70 people. The second meeting wu held on Apnl 28: 1993 and was aUended by approximately 60 people. Both King County and City of Renton staff flel~ed numeroUS calls from the public on the technical review areas and also met with Interested p~tles throughout the review process. 8ackmund • • • • • • • • • 182 acres encompassing 62 parcels '. Designated Urban:by 198;5 King COllnty Comprehensive "Ian Current zoning under Newcastle Community Plan is Sub\lfban Cluster with development conditions (SC-P). " . Not necessary to meet area capacity requirements for next 20 years Existing development p~item is rural. The area is sunounded by urban 'development but remalll! at low densities with large undeveloped tracts. Outside .of Local Service Area Boundary (not led by sewer) Sedimentation and erosion are occ:uring Vl-1thin May Creek drainage basin Amount of coilversion fr~m vegeta.tion to impermlable surf~e is an important COn5ideration.: . - Stonegate subdivision proposed for this area and neighboring land is to inc:1ude S3 lot5 on 38.4 acreS. Six of the lou are to be located within Technical Review Area R-2 ' " • • I"y,.: I . i cause of th environmentalse 'sitivi and 0 en S ice be neflts -2, Ita reco,mme,n 5 a 'ounty an t e lIyof enton consider the Separator ~eSI&nat~on through ti e Joint pl~8 proceu. tpV/ L U -1..1 The Urban Separator i:Iasslfication as described in Countywide Planning Policy-uFBis -"7 intended to j>rovide a framewor\t for further refmement. "Urban separator is cuneo!ly defined in Count)Wide 'PJannintPolicy LtMSas fonows: . . I .. J..u.. .. , -5> Urban separator. are lo~ density areas or areas or little development and must be ~ within the Urban Growtli Area. Urban ,eparalor •• han be defined as permanent low density land which protect resouree landa and environmentallyaen.ltive area and creale open &pace comdors within and between arban areas which.provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildUfe benem" These lands shall not be redesilllated In the fIltw:e to other urban Ulel Of hlper denlltles. . , King County and the City of Repton ~11 undertake coordinated l~~ for this area through the Potential AnnexatiQn Area process. The Potential exation Area will be established by Interlocal agreement b~fore July 1994. with phASIJ1& and development conditions to be addressee in a trubsequent interlocal to be completed by early 1995. King County and the City of Re~ton an cunently preplrlng a Basin Plan for the area. The Executive Proposed Basin Plan·is scheduled 10 be transmitted in October of 1994, with adoption anticipated in June of 1995. . , . The cicy or Renton currenll), recommends Resource Conservation zoning for this area (1 dwelll.nB unil per' 10 acres). Sp~cific zoning (densities) will likely result from the Basin Plan Process.. : • .' ! - tk:c:r2x \. R[tHO~ hID ISSAQUAH TECH~ICAl REVIEW' AREAS~ AS O[SICNA1£D BY Ttii: KING COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNiNG COUNCIL P'II ' v','v''''v ~:y·~·v 'J v • ~ . ...., '){',t. ... }( 'Y .. ~ h :' illl1 ::;'.4.>' .: •• ,;.~ R-dIHl!HHHiHII:; )Iill~~~ ,,' i' \ i i ) *--'" UlliJillIlllitll:l, : IJJI 0. " ::, 0 _ ·:?':ZT~,(>:,;(>:.~V:,~· \ ':"'-rrTIllIJ J;,"lIi Jii" ,m~' I ' , j II ;=i 1"\ Gr ~ rl II • ~ \. ) E ',')1 , • ilEu, :,ltt1I.iilll,:O.l j''' ~ ~ UR 8 A N 11Ift\; I ,,+-1'--'- GlIpe ,Cu~renll'y De~i9t1Oled Urban ;,' :::::;w: I ~~J lmiiTImlm~ Teclinicol ReView ~reQs: ' :"'m:l. ~ r ~ ~ ,}-:V .Iil.1.IJW\M ~ ~C<,3, R-2, R"~, I~t-l' iO • v \!>l ~ ~ I-~,' Rll!~~L, ~ ~ I 0 s'ii\:~ ~ j f-! C!in. i.!!rrenlly Designaled Rural I" Ilf ~ 'Ii) ~r\o" ~ r'i: " ' Techniclil R~view Area: R-l ' --_:«:, ~ h-\.., N ~mrl ~ '{ ~~ ,... C.:J r :dried Ruie.. Areo C WCU~~me I77'J t'.~~ C] urolil S!~altf Pllm~ WIn SJ/,d'Ii!'ons (<Miain %U pllcN) ling C .... " ~'Jnr.in~ !lind tOr.)manilJ Dntlopmfot Oi"ilion ~UI'grl)phlt 1"lormaliol'l S1'I,,,, Ij~ft'llt,' ~H. ,gn 1\1~ .:' ;;, '" .. "', •• .., ,t.I'i~, "~I"~ ,"ff 1'.>'( ;~ ;,.1 plUhd ........ I"'H 4 "flnraJunl .. "~~t.1 nl, h i.C'MIphh .. 4 ~ OI. \ul •• t",It. ,r 1M u~ 1_ nit 1\\. rU, fld.:" ,uull .... , fN I~' ,;,,..... SI,,,, ~~t 01 "!' ~ .., al.", , '",; ,!III lIQ 01IIII lII» ' .... 0 __ .. °' .... ""_ CJ.i'~ ~ ..... 1lIIL_.,.... 1 ' E'I1Jlj, '.: rn. 1\ i" ,"'& \\ "-. .. •. . I' !. I • • ~ /';t: I,; I' i, ·1 'ili,'\i 1'lJ,:J,. . I 19 ,m " I' ~;U,!!· !I ;~:'I' ' IIi': i '\i'\ I' 1--1,~ 1: 1 P--'. : , ,'" .-,,'" , ' , "I' T--',..., ,Jl ~ , 1 I' t'1;' " ,f'i ' : I ,i: l: I ! I ! \ '--~ . ~ .. . .' II:!I!! ...... I RENTON I .;::1-1 ;!,' I II CTnT. /; J T, I I h-H IJj am ;r: I J I ~ .'1 i -t - - ---, i1: ~!J I I ' : 12 I I ' I a: ':'1: l'H: 'I:':~ ~ 'ilt I I~~. tJ: I ~ '" ~I 11 -~I,I" ,II ~ " I ,. I iir= ~~I . ~ , ~ , ~i\,: ,: II nrllf ~{,fj{'i I I ' Ill: ,L, hi = l, I' 1 I:' lU1' ,,~ J , ", ' 'I .'. ',I' "' 'r= , ":;;: I . ,,' 1 I l: ,,' 'II i I l' t>i . I , I' ! . 1 ~' tnnl.l I t4::'I! i I :;';', , " , , 'I'~:; \ I I 1 :-t I " \ i'"-" :. I , ': J'" ' " n I: !: ~ . I :m ~l' ~ . ' ~ •• ...• .' ". I ." I' ---:-----\)1'' ",-.. :' :'.'\~' -:";'I~ill! ,q;;:, :1_/ 1'=;I,l=~ . '-.J 1 .; I\:~' t!!f' : -u-':I : " ',~. ti f-;,.,i ~ "':vc--J HIDtoi ~ I .... . ~ 1:3·. ~ dlnn, /JiU,i\ "-C !:~I;Wi , -=' ~ ~~I ill" I' ,. Ih. I~II 'I 1 ' ~' ',I'I j,: "'!iW i: ~ l:..:; ,,' "I ~q '''' J ~,;: ~. i~h t ,~~ll-[ I Ill... • ~ ;~!1 ilr I I~ \I'!r"'r, I L..r>.i~~ <-0 ' .! I ,fl n'l~ ~~ tl / o • CITY OF RENTON -June 2, 2000 . The Ho~orable lYlembers Metropolitan King County Council King COUlity Courthouse· c> ~=("") zr- --i-rrl -<~ " a Mayor Jesse TaoDer '"" = = Q ...,..., :z ..-v '::::> . m '..::: ! (") -'. m -0 < ::::!: ~. m 0 o Executive Recommended King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 ~Land Use Map· Amendment 2 -May Valley Urban Separator c: z· n 5.16 Third Avenue, Room 1200 .. Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: Dear Council Members: The Rento.n City Council and Administration bave reviewed the proposed Map Amendment 2 to .redesignate a portion of Renton's Potential Annexation Area from Urban Residential, . Low to· GreenbeltlUrban Separator. The City suppotts Ihe.proposed change. Recognizing its environmentally sensitive attribuid, the·Cityc.Collncil adopted R-I as a proposed z(ming regulation, or prezone, for the su1;>j~ct area in 1997: The susceptibilitybfthe area to erosion and flooding, the presence of May Creek and other potential issues recOmriiend· against higber density residential development alid higber intensity land uses. The area proposed for the GreenbeltlUrban. sep~rator. ·represents an extension of tbe public open space conidor that extends west· along May ·Creek··lo 1-4;05: The area proposed for designation as Greenbelt!Urban Separator, together with the ~tea·s'uilder· public o\\~ersbip, implements the intent of Countywide Plan.ning Policy LU-27. As stated· in Policy LU-27, the May Creek greenbelt provjdes "environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife· benefits" .. It also serves.as a visual break between the Cities of Renton and Newcastle, Finally, included in the draft May Creek Basin Action Plan, cooperatively produced by King COWlty' and . the City of Renton, is a recommendation ihat areas· draining ,to 1;~ay Valley be maintained at existing zoned densities. The parcels proposed ·for GreertbeltlUrban S.eparator designation· fall withi.n the area subject to this recommendation. Althougi{the Basin Action·Pian is not yet adopted, the Comprehensive Plan amendment implements the recominendation. As the King County Council considers the amendmentS· to the King County Compreh~sive Plan, the City of Renton encourages the Council to adopt Map Amendment 2. . !icerelY, ~c/~ Jesse Tanner Mayor OO'{)71I00cTTlJ' C"" Ron Sims. King COI.l:lt}' E:<ecuth"c ~enton.City Counc.il~m!xts h)" <;O\;ogton Sue Carlson Owe;, De;;oison 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 -(425)430-6500 / FAX(425)430c6523 • LARRY PHILLIPS Chair Metropolitan King County Council November 1, 2004 James Benton, Chair Washington State Boundary Review Board of King County 400 Yesler Way, Room 402 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: City of Renton's Merritt II Proposed Annexation Dear Mr. Benton: • Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Renton's proposed Merrill II annexation currently under review by the Washington State Boundary Review Board (BRB). I am pleased by the City of Renton's interest in the East Renton Plateau annexation area and their willingness to expand their original proposed annexation area. However, I remain concerned about a key issue raised by King County Executive Ron Sims in invoking this review, This concern Is: "The application of appropriate zoning to protect the regionally designated May Valley Urban Separator." The Urban Separator designation exists for several purposes. One purpose is to create and preserve open space corridors that define the boundaries between communities within the urban areas. Another is to create a seamless connection between open space lands that are part of the larger regipnal open space system. The May Valley Urban Separator was cooperatively identified by King County and the City of Renton as aregionally recognized and designated urban separator, as well as a part of the regional open space system. The Merritt II Annexation includes 20.59 acres of the May Valley Urban Separator. King County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code implement the Urban Separator designation through the R-l zone category. King County's R-l zone creates and maintains open space corridors by requiring development to be clustered to retain at least 50% of the site in permanent open space tracts. 516 Third Ave, Room 1200, Seattle, WA 981 04·3272 206·296·1004 TTyrrDD 206·296·1024 Fax 206-296-0370 larry.phillips@metrokc.gov .~'ttI" • • James Benton November 1, 2004 Page 2 Though the City of Renton proposes to continue the intent of the urban separator by maintaining low residential density Rl zoning, the City does not currently have zoning provisions such as clustering and open space retention. Without such provisions, development could occur on the entire lot, thereby losing any chance of preserving an open space corridor. At best, the open space corridor would be contained within a native growth protection easement on a lot. Experience shows that encroachment will eventually occur, diminishing the value of the Urban Separator designation. Clearly, the City of Renton should modify development regulations relating to Urban Separators in order to ensure the creation and preservation of open space corridors. Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) LU-27 provides that: "The maintenance of these urban separalors is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modification should be made to Ihe development regulations governing Ihese areas without King County review and concurrence." CPP CC-12 states: "All jurisdictions shall use Ihe full range of regulatory and land preservalion tools available to create, maintain and steward the regional open space system which has been cooperatively identified." I respectfully request that the BRB bring the Merrilt II annexalion into compliance with the CPP by making the annexation conlingent on the City of Renton's modification of Iheir developmenl regulations for urban separators. Thank you in advance for your consideralion. LP:lz Enclosure cc: The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive The Honorable Kalhy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of Renton The Honorable Dwight Pelz, Metropolitan King County Council The Honorable Rob McKenna, Metropolitan King County Council Lenora Blauman, Executive Secrelary, Washington Stale Boundary Review Board of King County Kurt Triplett, Chief of SIaff, King County Execulive Office Rick Baulisla, legislalive Analyst, Metropolitan King County Council Alex Pietsc, Economic Development, Renton Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department -.; \------------ • • DATE: November 3, 2004 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA.o4-141, A. PZ, ECF APPLICATION NAME: R·1 Zone Text Amendments -Mandatory Clustering Provisions within Urban Separators PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renton is proposing new mandatory clustering provisions In Its R·1 zone. These amendments would specify that all new development must be clustered, to the extent possible, away from environmentally sensitive areas not exceeding the maximum density allowed for In the zone. It would also set a goal of at least 50% of a development site being set aside as permanent open space, preferably in a tract protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. These new provisions would apply 10 all future short plats and subdivisions in the R-1 zone. PROJECT LOCATION: Applies citywide. Renton's R-1 zone is scattered throughout the City however these provIsions only apply to Urban Separators. Three areas have been identified where these new provisIons would apply. These are May Valley, Jones Road, and the TalboUSprlngbrook Springs areas. The May Valley Area includes the 100-acre plus area south of SE May Valley Road and east of Coal Creek Parkway in Renton's Potential Annexation Area south of Newcastle, which was prezoned R-1 In 1998. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the lead Agency, the Cily of Renton has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed non-project action. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issu~nce of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: November 3, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: November 3, 2004 Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: NOTICE OF APPLICATION R·l Clustering.doc Environmental {SEPAl Review on proposed R-1 Clustering Provisions N/A N/A PlanninglBuilding!Public Works Department, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 A public hearing has been established for December 6, 2004 before the City Council to consider these proposed amendments to the R-1 Zone. The subject new provisions will apply to development sites within the City's R-1 zone. This zone Is located in the Residential Low Density (RLD) land use designation as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed amendments are consistent with City land use and environment policies contained In its Comprehensive Plan. They are also consistent with relevant Countywide Planning Policies. Environmental CheckJ1st dated November 3, 2004. This non-project action will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development RegulatIons and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposed non-project action does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. These new provisions do not negate future environmental review at the project levellf.and when it occurs. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rebecca lind, Planning Manager, Strategic Planning Division, EDNSP Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on November 17, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receiVe additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND (425) 430-6581 ~' ,-"i ",1 i J\j" ... ~ t'e 11Ab)(c ... !! c\ Ii -" • If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and retum to: City of Renton, Development Planning, tOSS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA-C4-Itl ZA. ECF R-1 Zone Amendments -Mandatory Clustering Provisions NAME: __________________________________________________ __ ADDRESS: ________________________________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: _________________ _ NonCE OF APPUCATION R-1 etustenn. • • City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: ~/I;# PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: ~r ~ns ~/I1LdtJ.w 1(-1 ~ ADDRESS: PROJECTIADDRESS(S)lLOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: . ?~ ZIP: til1AJ/d~ ttJd-k.J~·<-LJ ,~ TELEPHONE NUMBER: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT. NUMBER(S): .. APPLICANT (if otherlhan owner) NAME: C46f~ COMPANY (if applicable): EX';STING LAND USE(S): • -. I. ,h:z.".; / .. '" N~: . PROPOSED LAN _ ~E(S): • I~ I"h I_ole, ~J •• FaA1/ ADDRESS: 1 ~ G ~ I" J. "S' 5. n ~'nNG COMPREHENSNE PLAN~ DESIGNATION: / "-" -./. ~'A</ /p. -, T);""", • W CITY: ~t?rJ ZIP: "7fj~ PROPOSED COMPREHENSNE PLAN ~ DESIGNATION (if applicable): TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: /f~/ CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING Cif apprlCable): . NAME: &~i'VI/~ SITE AREA . On square feel): COMPANY (if applicable): ~ /~ 'l SQUARE fOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED fOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE Cif applicable): ADDRESS: GOIP5I?'n..--L t$N~ if,';I;'1 6T#· CITY: ~,., ZIP: ff'tJs:s PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNIT~ ;;R NET ACRE (if applicable): / dJ ,,, "oJ 17b1~AA ./ I NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Q;IWEBIPWlDEVSERVlFonnsIPJanning'mas1eTapp.doc08I29103 • • Project Narrative This project is a code amendment work program addressing clustering and open space requirements applicable to urban separators in the R-l zone. The work program intent is to increase consistency between King County policies and zoning and Renton's requirements. King County zoning code requires clustering away from sensitive areas or the axis of the Community Separators. Permanent retention of open space tracts that includes at least 50% of the site are also required. Renton's current code allows but does not mandate clustering. • • CLUSTERING & OPEN SPACE Question: "What is open space in King County?" The short answer: open space are areas of natural, unaltered, undisturbed pennanent dedicated tracts as codified in King County Code, Title 21A. In GreenbeltlUrbaniCommunity Separators, King County code requires clustering, and designated open space tracts of at least 50% of the site. The open space tracts " ... shall not be altered or disturbed ... " "Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within an open space tract." METROPOliTAN KING COUNTY CODE Specific Metropolitan King County Code (K.C.C.) pertinent to GreenbeltlUrbaniCommunity Separators follows: o Title 21A.12.030 17a. "all subdivisions and short subdivisions in the R-l zone shall be required to be clustered if the property is located within or contains: ( 1) a floodplain, (2) a critical aquifer recharge area, (3) a Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Area, (4) existing or planned pubic parks or trails, or connection to such facilities, (5) a Class lor II stream or wetland, or (6) a steep slope, or (7) a "greenbelt/urban separator" or "wildlife corridor" area designated by the Comprehensive Plan or Community Plan. o 17b. "The development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors such as urban separators or the wildlife habitat network to the extent possible and the open space shall be placed in a separate tract that includes at leastfifty percent of the site. Open space tracts shall be permanent and shall be dedicated to a homeowner's association or other suitable organization, as determined by the director, and meet the requirements of K. C. c. 21A.14.D40. On-site sensitive area and buffers, wildlife habitat networks, required habitat and buffers for protected species and designated urban .. • separators shall be placed within the open space tract to the extent possible. Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural- surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within the open space tract. " o Title 2IA14.040 A.: "In the R zones, any designated open space tract resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed except as specified on recorded documents creating the open space. Open spaces may be retained under ownership by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, or conveyed to a third party. If access to the open space is provided, the access shall be located in a separate tract:" o Title 21A14.040 C. "In the R-I zone, open space tracts created by clustering required by K.C.C. 2IA 12.030 shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts required by the Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans or open space functional plans to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors designated by the Comprehensive Plan and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. King County may require open space tracts created under this subsection to be dedicated to an appropriate managing public agency or qualifying private entity such as a nature conservancy. In the absence of such a requirement, open space tracts shall be retained in undivided interest by the residents of the subdivision or short subdivision. A homeowner's association shall be established for maintenance of the open space tract. " DEFINITION: o Title 2IA06.8I9: "Open space: areas left predominately in a natural state to create urban separators and greenbelts, sustain native ecosystems, connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, provide a visual contrast to continuous development, reinforce community identity and aesthetics, or provide links between important environmental or recreational resources." PROPOSED CITY OF RENTON CODE Therefore to make Renton code consistent with K.C.C. the essential elements of open space tracts in Community Separators must be permanent designated tracts which are natural, unaltered, undisturbed and are configured to connect greenbelt or wildlife corridors. • 4-2·110D • 4·2·11OD To be amended by the following changes CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 1. a. Phasing, shadow platting, or land reserves may be used to satisfy the minimum density requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the current development would not preclude the provision of adequate access and infrastructure to future development and would allow for the eventual satisfaction of minimum density requirements through future development. b. In the event the applicant can show that the minimum density cannot be achieved due to lot configuration, lack of access, environmental or physical constraints, minimum density requirements may be waived by the Reviewing Official. 2. 2. Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions that are not eligible for a variance include: building size, units per structureJIot, or densities. Unless bonus size or density provisions are specifically authorized, the modification of building size, units per structure, or densities requires a legislative change in the code provisions and/or a Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezone. L Clustering may eeis allowed to meet objectives such as preserving significant natural features, providing neighborhood open space, or facilitating the provision of sewer service. Within urban separators designated in the Countywide Planning Policies clustering is required.,.;. H:IEDNSPlTitle IV\R-l Clusteringl4-2-110 D.doc -1- J,Cluster development is subject to the following standards_+ a. Cllister de'relepmellts shall ee limited te a mllJ<imlim sf f3 lets ill elle allister. b. The maximum net density requirement shall not be exceeded. c. The area of individual lots shall not be less than 4,500 sq. ft. d. Except for density, the remaining development standards of the Residential-li.,Dwelling Units Per Acre Zone) shall apply e. Within designated Urban Separators: (i) All subdivision and short subdivisions shall be clustered. (ii) Development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors or community separators to the extent possible. (iii) The open space created by clustering shall be placed in separate permanent tracts that may include critical areas and shall total as least fifty percent of the site. (iv) Open space tracts shall be configured to connect greenbelt or wildlife corridors where possible. (v) Open space tracts shall not be altered or disturbed. Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within open space tracts. (vi) The tracts may be: (a) retained by the subdivider • (b) conveyed to the residents of the development (c) or conveyed to a third party. 4. Allowed Projections into Setbacks: a. FIreplace Structures, Windows: Fireplace structures, bay or garden windows, enclosed stair landings, and similar structures as Zoning Administrator may project 24" into any setback; provided, such projections are: (i) Limited to 2 per fa~ade. (ii) Not wider than 10'. b. Fences: See RMC 4-4..Q40. c. Steps and Decks: Uncovered steps and decks not exceeding 18" above the finished grade may project to any property line. Uncovered steps and decks having no roof covering and not exceeding 42" high may be built within the front yard setback. d. Eaves: Eaves and cornices may project up to 24" into any required setback. 5. ill order to be considered detached, a structure must be sited a minimum of 6' from any residential structure. 6. A front yard setback of less than 20' is allowed if equal to or greater than the average of the front yard setback of the existing, abutting primary structures; however, in no case shall a minimum setback of less than 20' be allowed for garages which access from the front yard street(s). 7. For pre-existing legal lots having less than the minimum lot width required by this Section, the following chart shall apply for determining the required minimum side yard width along a street: WIDTH OF MINIMUM H:IEDNSPlTitle IVIR·\ Clusteringl4-2·11O D.doc ·2· • EXISTING SIDE YARD LEGAL LOT WIDTH ALONG A STREET RCZONE 150 feet or less I 25 ft. R-IZONE Less than or equal 10 ft. to 50ft. 50.1 to 51 ft. 11 ft. 51.1 to 52 ft. 12 ft. 52.1 to 53 ft. 13 ft. 53.1 to 54 ft. 14 ft. 54.1 to 55 ft. 15 ft. 55.1 to 56 ft. 16 ft. 56.1 to 57 ft. 17 ft. 57.1 to 58 ft. 18 ft. 58.1 to 59 ft. 19 ft. 59. 1ft. and greater 19 ft. R-4 or R-8 ZONE Less than or equal 10ft. to 50 ft. 50.1 to 52 ft. 11 ft. 52.1 to 54 ft. 12 ft. 54.1 to 56 ft. 13 ft. 56.1 to 58 ft. 14 ft. 58.1 ft. or greater 15 ft. However, in no case shall a structure over 42" in height intrude into the 20' clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- 030. 8. ill no case shall building height exceed the maximum allowed by the Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions, for uses located within the Federal Aviation Administration Airport Zones designated under RMC 4-3-020. 9. "Public SuffIx" (P) properties are allowed the following height bonus: Publicly owned structures shall be permitted an additional 15' in height above that otherwise permitted in the zone if "pitched roofs," as defmed herein, are used for at least 60% or more of the roof surface of both primary and accessory structures. ill addition, the height of a publicly owned structure • may be increased as follows, up to a maximum height of 75' to the highest point of the building: a. When abutting a public street, 1 additional foot of height for each additional 1-1/2' of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum street setback required; and/or b. When abutting a common property line, 1 additional foot of height for each additional 2' of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum required along a common property line. 10. In order to serve as a transition between the lower density R-4 wne and the higher density R-8 zone "small lot clusters" of up to a maximum of 50 lots shall be allowed within 600 feet of an R- 8 zone when at least 30% of the site is permanently set aside as "significant open space." Such open space shall be situated to act as a visual buffer between small lot clusters and other development in the zone. The percentage of open space required may be reduced by the reviewing official to 20% of the site when: a) Public access is provided to open space, __ b) Soft surface trails are provided within wetland buffers, and c) Store water ponds are designed to eliminate engineered slopes requiring fencing and enhanced to allow passive and/or active recreation. 11. a) Lot size width and depth may be reduced by the reviewing official when, due to lot configuration or access, 4- dwelling units per net acre cannot be H:IEDNSPlTitle IVIR·I Clusteringl4-2-11O D.doc • achieved. The reduction shall be the minimum needed to allow 4-dweIIing units per net acre and shall be limited to the following minimum dimensions: Lot size -7,200 sq. ft Lot depth -70 feet Lot width -60 feet 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose of achieving maximum density, setbacks may also be reduced. Setback reductions shall be limited to the following: Front -20 feet. Side yard along a street -15 feet primary structure, 20 feet attached garage with access from the side yard. Minimum side yard combined setback - 15 feet. Minimum for one yard - 5 feet. 13. For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to Nov. 10, 2004, and for the Mosier 11, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within 5 years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum Density - 5 dwelling units per net acre Minimum Lot Size -7,200 sq. ft Minimum Lot Width -60 feet for interior lots, 70 feet for comer lots -3- Minimum Lot Depth -70 feet Minimum Front Yard -15 feet for the primary structure, 20 feet for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure may be • reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right of way or aIley. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street -15 feet Minimum Side Yard - 5 feet (AJnd. OTd.4963, 5-13-2002) H:IEDNSPlTitle IV\R-l Clustering14-2-11O D.doc • -4- • R-I Cluster Cod~endmeDt Draft November 3, 2004 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS Housing Density for proposed short plats or subdivisions Maximum Housing Density" per legal Lot Size for lots created after November 10, 2004 Minimum Width for lots created after November 10, 2004 Depth for lots created after November 10, 2004 10 acres interior lots. 175 ft. for comer lots. 4,500 SQ. ft. for cluster development" lots. 85 ft. for comer lots. unit SQ. except where small lot clusters 10 are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply. lots. 80 ft. for comer lots. 11. 13 except where small lot clusters 10 are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply. 8 dwelling units per 1 net acre 1 dwelling unit sQ. parcels greater than 1 acre. 5,000 SQ. ft. for parcels 1 acre or less. 50 lots. 60 ft. for comer lots 80 except 65 ft. where small lot clusters 10 are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-l Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 111312004 3:25 PMPage 1 of 5 • R-I Cluste~e Amendment Draft November 3, 2004 RC I R-1 R-4 I R-8 SETBACK~ ,I' ~ ... . , .. .. .';'i"., " ,,' ." .. , ,".'" > Minimum Front 30ft:' 30 ft:" 30 ft. ><. ,. except 15 ft. for primary Yard where small lot structure. clusters 10 are allowed, R-B 20 ft. for attached standards shall garages accessed apply. from front or side Unit with Alley yard street. Access Unit with Alley Garage: The Access Garage: front yard set-The front yard ba.ck of the set-back of the primary primary structure structure may may be reduced be reduced to to 10 ft. if all 20 ft. ~ all parking is parking is provided in the provided in the rear yard of the lot rear yard of the with access from lot w~h access a public right-of-from a public way or alley. 6 right-of-way or alley. 6 Minimum Side 30 ft. 20 ft.' 20 ft~ except 15 ft. for the Yard Along a where small lot primary structure Street clusters 10 are and 20 ft. for the allowed, 15 ft. is attached garages allowed. which access from the front and side yard along a street. Minimum Side 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined 5 ft. Yard ft.'2•'3 are allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard, except where small lot clusters 10 are allowed, 5 ft. H:\EDNSP\Titie IV\R-l Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 1113/2004 3:25 PMPage 2 of 5 ·, • R-t Cluster Co.meDdmeDt Draft November 3,2004 no case no case a structure over a structure over structure over 42 42 in. in height 42 in. in height in. in height intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the 2011. clear 20 It clear 20 It clear vision vision area vision area vision area area delined in delined in RMC delined in RMC delined in RMC RMC 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 10 It 10 It 10 It landscaped Freeway landscaped landscaped landscaped setback Irom the Frontage Setback setback Irom the setback Irom the setback Irom the street property street property street property street property line. line. line. and 30 Building Height It lor standard and Number of roof. Stories, except lor uses having a 2 stories and 35 ·Public Suffix" (P) It lor rools deSignation" having a pitch greater than 3/12. Height See 4-4-See RMC 4-4-4-4- for Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-I Clustering\E. 4-2-110 AdocLast printed 11/312004 3:25 PMPage 3 of 5 • R·t Clusterte Amendment Draft November 3, 2004 I RC I R-l I R-4 I R-8 Bt:JILDINGSTANDARDS:(CofltinuedF:: .. . -,~ .... ','~~~--"'''''''' '.'-"" . . '-.- Maximum Lots 5 acres or 35%. Lots greater Lots 5,000 sq. fl Building more: 2"10. An than 5,000 sq. or greater: 35% Coverage additional 5% of fl: 35% or or 2.500 sq. ft .• (Including primary the total area 2.500 sq. ft., whichever is and accessory may be used for whichever is greater. buildings) agricultural greater. buildings. Lots less than Lots 10,000 sq. Lots 5,000 sq. 5,000 sq. fl: fl to 5 acres: fl or less: 50% 50%. 15%. On lots greater than 1 acre, an additional 5% of the total area may be used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq. ft. or less: 35%. Vertical Fa~de All dwelling units Modulation shall provide vertical falfade modulation at least every twenty hOrizontal feet (20'). including front, side and rear falfades when visible from a street. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R·I Clustering\E. 4-2·110 A.docLast printed 111312004 3:25 PMPage 4 of 5 • R-t Cluster C.meOdmeOl Draft November 3,2004 RC R-l R-4 I R-8 ~LANDSCAPING!ANa'Of!EN,SP.:ACEi";;<:"'J'·" ',;"r",·,,'''''-;,. ~l,: " "('>' , .• ::{ ,j:J Minimum Off-5 ft. wide irrigated 5 ft. wide irrigated Site or drought or drought landscaping resistant resistant Abutting Non-landscape strip landscape strip Arterial Public provided that if provided that if Streets for Plats there is add~ional there is addHional and Short Plants undeveloped right undeveloped right Submitted on or of way in excess of wa y in excess after November of 5 ft, this shall of 5 ft, this shall 10,2004 also be also be landscaped. landscaped. Minimum Off-10 ft. wide 10 ft. wide Site irrigated or irrigated or Landscaping drought resistant drought resistant Abutting landscape strip landscape strip Principal, provided that if provided that if Minor Bnd there is addHional there is additional Collector undeveloped right undeveloped right Arterial Streets of way in excess of way in excess for Plats and of 10ft., this shall of 10ft., this shall Short Plants also be also be Submitted on or landscaped, landscaped, after November unless otherwise unless otherwise 10,2004 determined by the determ ined by reviewing official the reviewing during the official during the subdivision subdivision process. process. Minimum On or At least two (2) At least two (2) Off-Site Street trees of a CHy-trees of a CHy- Tree approved species approved species Requirements with a minimum with a minimum for Plats and caliper of 1 W per caliper of 1 W Short Plants tree shall be per tree shall be Submitted on or planted in the planted in the after November front yard or front yard or 10,2004 planting strip of planting strip of every lot prior to every lot prior to occupancy. occupancy. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-I Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 111312004 3:25 PMPage 5 of 5 '. Urban Separators Designated R-\ or Shown in Renton Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential -~ .. ~ . -~. 1. May Valley 2. Jones road 3. Talbot/Springbrook NE 16th It m z ~' -"L . ""'r .... iuc' ... '. ~\ J.:', . L. _~ • .J • m ;;: • .' ~ :D :~ ~ .1 .'" Benson J ...""""", I. NE 12th St : NE4th St f! z m , .~ .f:> •• , I -.~ ~------~,~~~ .. : .. ·SE128th~ I -,.! SE 142nd SI _. -. J..---: .!; ~ ~ '" m Cj~dar Fiivii'/-E l.44thSI . % SE 136th SI ~Ja, A~ntonM~, • • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all· proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your'" proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. . INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. H:IEONSPlPAAlAnnexationslMerritt #2IMerritt Expanded\SEPA Checklist(rev)_docll/04/04 SEPA Checklist for R-I Zone Te.mendments Requiring Cluster Development in ur.eparalors 11104104 A-BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: R-1 Zoning Text Amendments to Require Cluster Development in Urban Separators 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Economic Development, Neighborhoods, & Strategic Planning Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Contact Person: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Phone: (425) 430-6588 4. Date checklist prepared: November 3, 2004 5. . Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): NI A Non-project Action 2 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NI A Non-project Action 8. Ust any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. N/A Non-project Action 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, a portion of the affected area is proposed for future annexation into the City of Renton. 10. Ust any govemmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City Council Approval 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. H:IEDNSPlPAAlAnnexationslMerritt #2IMerritt Expanded\SEPA Checklist(rev).doc 2 SEPA Checklist for R-I Zone Text .ents Requiring CJust~ Development in Urban s.tors 11/04/04 3 This non-project action involves amending the R-1 Zone to require the clustering of new development, to the extent possible, away from environmentally sensitive areas when located in Urban Separators. 12. Location of the proposal. Applies only to that portion of Renton's Potential Annexation Area (PM) located in the Urban Separator and zoned R-1. This area is principally located south of SE May Valley Road and east of Newcastle Road (136" Avenue SE) and north of SE 101 st Street, if extended, to the City of Renton boundaries. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ Non-project action. The site however is relatively hilly. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Non-project action; N/A c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the Classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Non-project action; N/A d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Non-project action; N/A e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Non-project action; N/A f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Non-project action; N/A g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Non-project action; N/A h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Non-project action; N/A H:IEONSPlPAAlAnnexationslMerritt #2IMerritt Expanded\SEPA CheckJist(rev).doc 3 SEPA Checklist for R·I Zone Te~endments Requiring Cluster Development in uraeparalors 11104/04 2. AIR 4 a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Non-project action, N/A b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Non-project N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Non-project N/A 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Non-project action; N/A 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Non-project action; N/A 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Non-project action; N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general deSCription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Non-project action; N/A 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Non-project action; N/A 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Non-project action; N/A H:IEDNSPlPAAlAnnexationslMerritt #2IMerritt Expanded\SEPA CheckJist(rev).doc 4 SEPA Checklist for R-l Zone Text Aneents Requiring Cluster Development in Urban s.ors 11/04/04 b. Ground Water: 5 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Non-project action; N/A 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Non-project action; N/A c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stann water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Non-project action; N/A 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Non-project action; NI A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Non-project action; N/A 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: __ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs __ grass __ pasture crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, miifoil, other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Non-project action; N/A c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Non-project action; N/A H:IEDNSPlPAAlAnnexationslMerritt #2IMerritt ExpandedlSEPA CheckJist(rev).doc 5 SEPA Checklist for R-I Zone Tex.endments Requiring Cluster Development in Urb.epara1on; 11/04/04 6 d_ Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the sfte, if any: Non-project action; N/A 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the sfte or are known to be on or near the sfte: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ________ _ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other -;-"""7,"-------- Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _____ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sfte. Non-project action; N/A c. Is the sfte part of a migration route? If so, explain Non-project action; N/A d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Non-project action; N/A 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether ft will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Non-project action; N/A b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Non-project action; N/A c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Non-project action; N/A 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Non-project action; N/A 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. H:IEDNSPlPAAlAnnexationslMerritt #2\Merritt ExpandedlSEPA Checklist(rev).doc 6 SEPA Checklist for R·I Zone Text Aements Requiring Cluster Development in Urban s.tors 11104/04 Non-project action; N/A 7 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Non-project action; N/A b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Non-project action; N/A 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-tenn or a long-tenn basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Non-project action; N/A 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Non-project action; N/A 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? No specific site. This is a non-project action. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No specific site. This is a non-project action c. Describe any structures on the site. No specific site. This is a non-project action. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No specific site. This is a non-project action. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-1. 1 unit per gross acre (King County); Prezoned R-1. 1 unit per net acre (Renton). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Greenbelt/Urban Separator4-12 dulac in King County and Residential Low Density (RLD) in Renton. g. If applicable. what is the current shoreline master program deSignation of the site? Non-project action; N/A H:IEONSPlPAAlAnnexationslMerritt #2IMerritt ExpandedlSEPA Ched<list(rev).doc 7 SEP A Checklist for R-l Zone Te.mendments Requiring Cluster Development in uAeparators 11104/04 8 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Non-project action. N/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Non-project action; N/A k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Non-project action; N/A I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Proposed pre-zoning will help ensure that future development is compatible with similarly zoned properties in the area. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Non-project action. Future housing will be developed in a clustered development pattem. Future housing is likely to be in the middle to high income range. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Non-project action. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Non-project action; N/A 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material( s) proposed. Non-project action; N/A b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Non-project action; N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Non-project action; N/A H:IEDNSPlPAAlAnnexaUonslMerritt #2IMerritt ExpandedlSEPA CheckJist(rev).doc 8 SEPA Checklist for R-I Zone Text AnAents Requiring Cluster Development in Urban s.-ors 11/04/04 11. LIGHT AND GLARE 9 a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Non-project action; NtA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Non-project legislative action. NtA c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Non-project action; NtA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Non-project action; NtA 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Non-project action; NtA b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Non-project action; No recreational uses are know to be displaced. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Non-project action; NtA 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Non-project action; Nt A b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Non-project action; NtA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Non-project action; Nt A 14. TRANSPORTATION H:IEDNSPlPAAlAnnexationslMerritt #2IMerritt ExpandedlSEPA Checklist(rev).doc 9 SEPA Checklist for R-I Zone Te.mendments Requiring Cluster Development in Urb"eparators 11/04/04 10 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Non-project action; N/A b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Non-project action; N/A c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Non-project action; N/A d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Non-project action. N/A e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Non-project action; N/A f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Non-project action; N/A g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Non-project action; NIA 15_ PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Non-project action; N/A b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Non-project action; N/A 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Non-project action; N/A H:IEDNSPlPAAlAnnexatiooslMerritt #2IMerritt ExpandedlSEPA Checkllst(rev).doc 10 SEPA Checklist for R·I Zone Text Am.ents Requiring Cluster Development in Urban sArs 11104/04 11 b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Non-project action; C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: . City of Renton Name Printed: __ R,-",-eb!<!e;<lc~ca2..!L=!Jinl.!!d~fo!!.r-"Ca;itv~o!!.f,!;R~e",nl.!!to,!!.nL-________ _ Date: November 3. 2004 H:IEONSPlPAAlAnnexations\Merritt #2IMerritt ExpandedlSEPA Checklis~rev).doc 11 SEPA Checklist for R·I Zone Te.endments Requiring Cluster Development in Urb.eparators 11/04/04 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS 12 Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This is a non-project legislative action. The proposed text amendments most likely would reduce the discharge to water from future development. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: This is a non-project legislative action. No increases are anticipated as a result of these proposed amendments. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed text amendments would reduce intrusion into environmentally sensitive areas by clustering new development away from these areas. Proposed measures to protect or conseNe plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The proposed text amendments would reduce intrusion into environmentally sensitive areas by clustering new development away from these areas. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed non-project action will not deplete energy or natural resources. Proposed measures to protect or conseNe energy and natural resources are: The proposed text amendments would reduce intrusion into environmentally sensitive areas by clustering new development away from these areas. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for govemmental protection; such as parks, wildemess, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime fannlands? The proposed text amendments would reduce intrusion into environmentally sensitive areas by clustering new development away from these areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: H:IEDNSPlPAAlAnnexationslMerritt #2IMerritt ExpandedlSEPA Checklist(rev).doc 12 • SEPA Checklist for R-I Zone Text AAents Requiring Cluster Development in Urban se.tors 11104/04 13 The proposed text amendments would reduce intrusion into environmentally sensitive areas by clustering new development away from these areas. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed text amendments will only affect lands that are zoned R-1 and located in deSignated Urban Separators. As a result they will help protect these areas from incompatible development since new development will be clustered away from environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None are proposed for this non-project action. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed text amendments to the R-1 zone are unlikely to increase demands on transportation or public services since they do not increase permitted density. In fact, by clustering development into more efficient service areas they are likely to reduce demands on public services and utilities. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal will not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for protection of the environment. In fact it is based upon adopted King County Countywide Planning Policies. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: IMvtMJb 11 hI! . City of Renton Name Printed: _-,Rc.:.e""b",e",cca=wL""in",d",._f""o"-r...,th...,e ... C::.=.itv,-",of!...Ro.=.en",t",,o,.,n ___ _ Date: ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6198 November 3. 2004 H:IEDNSPlPAAlAnnexations\Merritt #2IMerritt ExpandedlSEPA Checkllst(rev).doc 13