Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council 04/17/2006
AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING April 17, 2006 Monday, 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Annexation and R-8 zoning of 20.5 acres located between 140th Ave. SE and 144th Ave. SE, and north of NE 6th St. (Hoquiam) b. Annexation and R-8 zoning of 6.29 acres located at 102nd Ave. SE and SE 185th St. (Falk II) c. Highlands Sub-Area rezoning and zoning text amendments 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 5. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer,please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 6. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. • a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 4/10/2006. Council concur. b. City Clerk submits petition for street vacation for portion of walkway between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. S.; petitioner AHBL Civil & Structural Engineers, 2215 N. 30th St.,#300,Tacoma, 98403 (VAC-06-001). Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; set public hearing on 5/8/2006 to consider the petition. (See 9. for resolution setting public hearing.) c. City Clerk submits Quarterly Contract List for period of 1/1/2006 to 3/31/2006; 50 contracts and ten addenda totaling$3,191,453.83. Information. d. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends adoption of an ordinance extending the effectuation date for Phase II of the Merritt Annexation from 6/1/2006 to 3/31/2007. Council concur. (See 9.e. for ordinance.) e. Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends approval of amendments to the City's street grid system to change the current practice of renaming all streets that annex into the City. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. f. Hearing Examiner recommends approval, with conditions, of the Reedshaw Preliminary Plat; 13 single-family lots on 2.25 acres located at 3705 NE Sunset Blvd. (PP-05-091). Council concur. 7. CORRESPONDENCE 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Community Services Committee: Kristi Hand Appointment to Municipal Arts Commission (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) 9. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution: Setting public hearing on 5/8/2006 for AHBL street vacation petition (see 6.b.) Orli 1/410•01firatrea ittg: a. Approving the Hoquiam Annexation(see 3.a.) b. Establishing R-8 zoning for the Hoquiam Annexation(see 3.a.) c. Approving the Falk II Annexation(see 3.b.) d. Establishing R-8 zoning for the Falk II Annexation(see 3.b.) e. Extending effectuation date for Phase II of Merritt Annexation (see 6.d.) Ordinance for second and final reading: Airport related uses zoning text amendments (1st reading 4/10/2006) • 10. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 11. AUDIENCE COMMENT 12. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Conference Room 5:30 p.m. Gene Coulon Park Traffic and Safety Concerns Council Chambers Approximately 6:15 p.m. North Harrington Redevelopment Outreach 1/414 Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES.&THURS.AT 11:00 AM&9:00 PM,WED.&FRI.AT 9:00 AM&7:00 PM AND SAT.&SUN.AT 1:00 PM&9:00 PM RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Council Chambers Monday, 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF RANDY CORMAN, Council President; DON PERSSON; MARCIE PALMER; COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI BRIERE; DENIS LAW; DAN CLAWSON; TONI NELSON. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative ATTENDANCE Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; LINDA HERZOG, Interim Assistant to the CAO; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; REBECCA LIND, Planning Manager; INTERIM CHIEF KEVIN MILOSEVICH, COMMANDER KATIE MCCLINCY and COMMANDER KENT CURRY, Police Department. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Hoquiam, 140th accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing Ave SE&NE 6th St to consider the proposed annexation and R-8 zoning of 20.49 acres, including the abutting street right-of-way, located between 140th Ave. SE, if extended, on the west, and 144th Ave. SE, if extended, on the east, and between SE 122nd St., if extended, on the north, and SE 124th St. on the south(Hoquiam). Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that this is the second of two public hearings on the annexation proposal,the area of which was approved by the Boundary Review Board in February 2006. He reported that the site contains 19 single-family dwellings, and most of the future development, a potential of 121 new homes, would likely occur on the larger, undeveloped parcels on the outer edge of the annexation. Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson stated that the area is served by Fire District#25, Water District#90, Renton sewer, and the Renton School District. Continuing,Mr. Erickson indicated the site's current King County zoning is R- 4, which bonuses up to six dwelling units per gross acre, and Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Residential Single Family, for which R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre)zoning is proposed. He reviewed the fiscal impact analysis, estimating a nominal surplus at current development, and a surplus of$24,703 at full development. Mr. Erickson also noted the estimated one-time parks acquisition and development cost of$60,761. In conclusion, Mr. Erickson stated that the proposed annexation is generally consistent with Boundary Review Board objectives and City policies, serves the best interests and general welfare of the City, and furthers City business goals. Public comment was invited. Mayor Keolker reviewed the policies and rules of decorum regarding citizens addressing Council. • Kay Haynes, 551 Elma Pl. NE, Renton, 98059, expressed concern about traffic and safety issues on NE 6th St., and declared her opposition to the annexation. Responding to an inquiry from Mayor Keolker, Mr. Erickson stated that he anticipated a reduction in traffic from the east, but the full impact would not be known until the project development stage. Mayor Keolker stated that Ms. April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 113 Haynes will be added to the party of record list and will be notified of any future development, should Council approve the annexation. Stephanie Nelson, 522 Elma Pl.NE, Renton, 98059, voiced agreement with the previous speaker and indicated that she opposed the annexation. Councilwoman Briere clarified that both of the speakers live within City limits and that the annexation abuts their properties. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL SUPPORT R-8 ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ACCEPT THE HOQUIAM ANNEXATION, AND CONCURRENTLY IMPOSE R-8 ZONING ON THE NON-STREET PORTIONS OF THE ANNEXATION SITE. CARRIED. (See page 123 for ordinances.) Councilwoman Briere emphasized that there will be further opportunity to discuss transportation and safety issues during the development review process. Councilwoman Palmer indicated the Transportation (Aviation) Committee will make note to look at any projected traffic and safety concerns when development is proposed. Annexation: Falk II, 102nd This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Ave SE & SE 185th St accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing to consider the proposed annexation and R-8 zoning of 6.4 acres, including the abutting 102nd Ave. SE right-of-way, located generally west of 102nd Ave. SE and south of SE 185th Pl., if extended(Falk II). Don Erickson, Senior Planner, explained that the King County Boundary Review Board approved the annexation proposal in January 2006, and this is the second of two required public hearings on the zoning. He stated that the original Falk Annexation was split into two annexations,with Falk I,to the immediate north,having been approved in 2003. Mr. Erickson reported that the proposed annexation site contains five existing single-family dwellings. He described the topography, stating it is essentially flat with the exception of the 15%to 20% slopes on the western edge of the site. Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson stated that the area is served by Fire District#40, Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and the Renton School District. He noted that future road and storm water improvements are likely, due to a lack of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in the area. Continuing, Mr. Erickson indicated that the site's existing King County zoning is R-4, which bonuses up to six dwelling units per gross acre, and Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Residential Single Family, for which R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre) zoning is proposed. He reviewed the fiscal impact analysis, estimating a surplus of$8,025 at full development, which assumes a new home value of$400,000, 38 new single-family homes and two existing homes. Mr. Erickson noted the estimated one-time parks acquisition and development cost of$22,381. In conclusion,Mr. Erickson stated that the proposed annexation is generally consistent with the Boundary Review Board objectives and City policies, serves the best interests and general welfare of the City, and furthers City business goals. April 17, 2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 114 Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL SUPPORT R-8 ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ACCEPT THE FALK II ANNEXATION, AND CONCURRENTLY IMPOSE R-8 ZONING ON THE NON-STREET PORTIONS OF THE ANNEXATION SITE. CARRIED. (See pages 123 and 124 for ordinances.) Planning: Highlands Subarea, This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Zoning Text&Zoning Map accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing Amendments to consider the zoning text and zoning map amendments for the area identified as the Highlands Subarea, which is generally located between NE 6th St. and NE 21st St., and between Edmonds Ave. NE and Monroe Ave. NE. Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Administrator, stated that Council enacted a moratorium on new development in the subarea last May. The once extended moratorium expires on May 14th, and staff is presenting a zoning proposal, which if adopted, allows the moratorium to expire and allows property owners to develop their property under zoning that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager,reported that this topic is still before the Planning Commission, who will be deliberating on the amendments on April 19th. She briefly reviewed the history of this proposal,pointing out that discussion concerning this area started with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Over the last ten years the City has attempted to revitalize the Highlands area by: increasing the zoning, adding the area to the City's Business Plan, creating the Residential Demonstration Bonus District, and initiating a commercial area visioning process. When refining Comprehensive Plan policy direction in 2000, Ms. Lind explained that the Center Village(CV)land use designation was extended up to NE 16th St. to an area currently zoned R-10. This area contains the majority of the World War II duplex properties. She noted that the R-10 zone did not implement the vision of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, staff needed to start reviewing the zoning to implement the vision, and to develop a subarea plan in the next five to ten years. Continuing, Ms. Lind stated that a moratorium on new development was declared in 2005 to prevent the subject area from being fragmented while staff conducted a land use study. Staff has now developed a zoning proposal intended to stimulate private redevelopment of the area. Turning to the zoning proposal,Ms. Lind described the vision and purpose of the CV land use designation, which includes: redevelopment of low density suburban land use patterns; creation of medium and high density residential areas; compact urban development(transit oriented, structured parking, and alley loaded); a high standard of design; and clustering of commercial and community uses. Within the CV land use designation,Ms. Lind reported that two new zones are proposed. The first, Center Village Core(CV-C),which replaces the existing Center Village zone, is proposed to be an area of high density residential development on top of, and surrounding, commercial development. Base April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 115 density is ten to sixty units per acre, with a bonus of up to eighty units per acre that is only available for affordable housing. Ms. Lind stated that the second zone, Center Village Residential (CV-R), is proposed as residential only, and is limited to townhouses and cottages. Base density is ten to fourteen units per acre. She indicated that bonus density is available with participation in the Center Village Flex Bonus District. To participate,property owners must consolidate a minimum of one acre (adjacent land), and provide at least two units of affordable housing per net acre. Participation in the district allows a density bonus of up to eighty units per acre, but flats are limited to the area east of Kirkland Ave. Therefore, development will most likely take place in most of the area at about twenty to thirty units per acre. She added that the bonus density provides flexibility for both individual property owners and a group of people who put parcels together. Ms. Lind listed additional proposed City Code changes as follows: establish development standards for cottage housing; amend the master planning regulations to accommodate review of projects in the Highlands Subarea; amend procedural requirements in the planned unit development regulations; and adopt design guidelines for all residential development in this area. Continuing, Ms. Lind stated that an amendment to the R-10 zone is proposed that makes all existing single-family homes and duplexes non-conforming in the Highlands Subarea. She explained that this will stop the continuation of the current inefficient, low-density land use pattern. Existing duplex and single- family uses would become legal non-conforming,which means that non- conforming uses may be maintained but not expanded. Ms. Lind reviewed the areas proposed for rezone to the CV-C and CV-R zones. She explained that the rezone proposal is a standard zoning implementation package and can stand on its own. How the development actually occurs in the future depends on other decisions that Council may make, or other City actions. Ms. Lind concluded by saying that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and moves the City towards implementation of the Center Village land use designation. Responding to Councilman Clawson's inquiries, Ms. Lind confirmed that current zoning allows the expansion of a duplex footprint, and noted that the City has received very few applications of this type. In response to Council President Corman's inquiry, Ms. Lind reviewed the public hearing process for this proposal, saying that the zoning text amendments and zoning map amendments are so intertwined that the Planning Commission and Council are each conducting hearings on both items. In response to Councilman Persson's questions, Ms. Lind explained that a legal non-conforming duplex can be rebuilt, if it burns down, with a rebuild permit from Council. In the case of a legal non-conforming single-family home, an administrative rebuild permit is needed. Ms. Lind indicated that staff is still researching concerns regarding the ability to obtain remodel loans for legal non-conforming structures. City Attorney Larry Warren stated that a deck installation is generally not considered an expansion of a footprint; however, other factors such as setbacks must be taken into account. Mayor Keolker encouraged people to visit developments that contain the housing types discussed, and she requested that staff prepare an address list of applicable developments. April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 116 Regarding the upcoming public testimony, Mayor Keolker asked that speakers stay on topic and refrain from commenting on the subject of eminent domain. She stated for the record that the City is not taking any property with this proposal. She reminded Council that there is opportunity for debate and deliberation of the matter at a later date. Mr. Warren advised that adoption of an ordinance is required before the City can use its powers of eminent domain. He indicated that he could not recall an instance in which the City has used eminent domain to condemn a single-family home. Correspondence was read from John Smith, 12216 164th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059 (properties located at 1033 Sunset Blvd. NE and 1224 Jefferson Ave. NE); Tareasha Salinas, 1211 Jefferson Ave. NE, Renton, 98056; Patricia Sado, 9902 126th Ave. SE, Renton, 98056; Jon and Nancy Troxel,PO Box 1864, Friday Harbor, 98250 (property located at 922 Glennwood Ave.NE,Renton, 98056); and Howard McOmber Sr.,475 Olympia Ave.NE, Renton, 98056. Comments included: support for the rezoning proposal; suggestion to move the low-income housing and improve the shopping mall; concern regarding loss of home; a request for the City to improve communication with residents; concern about being forced to sell property; concern that all residents are being punished for the few who do not maintain their homes; belief that newer buildings,new housing for all income levels, and nicer retail shops will revitalize the community; concern regarding increased density; a request for reconsideration of the zoning proposal; concern that the moratorium has prevented residents from improving their properties; and a request that residents be given a chance to improve their properties with zoning and regulations that encourage property improvement. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber, 475 Olympia Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, asked for reconsideration of the zoning proposal. He indicated that although he favors new zoning, he objects to the zoning text proposal. Mr. McOmber expressed concern about the allowance of only townhouses and cottages and the limitations of that type of development. He stated that the zoning must not preclude property owners from increasing the footprint of their homes. Mr. McOmber expressed concern that the private developers will not have to follow the same zoning requirements as are required of the property owners. Terry Persson, 2821 NE 8th Pl., Renton, 98056, stated that making existing structures legal non-conforming restricts property owners from improving their property. He stressed that this is unacceptable, as property owners should be able to make desired improvements. Inez Petersen, 3306 Lake Washington Blvd.N., #3,Renton, 98056, displayed photographs of non-maintained and maintained area duplexes, pointing out that the proposed zoning will make well-maintained homes non-conforming. She proposed that Council consider the following: not creating legal non- conforming property by virtue of rezoning; not blighting the neighborhood by use of the community renewal act; increasing police presence and code enforcement; revisiting the zone density, which is too high; and reviewing the Environmental Review Committee's determination regarding subject area zoning. April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 117 Council President Corman expressed his concern regarding the several cautioning statements made by the City Attorney and Mayor to the speakers to confine comments to the subject of the public hearing. Councilman Clawson commented that per State law,the Council has no legal authority to take public testimony on non-subject, unannounced issues. City Attorney Larry Warren stated that the focus of the public hearing is on the rezoning. He also indicated that later in the agenda, under the audience comment portion of the Council meeting,comments are allowed on any topic. Council debated whether the public should be allowed to speak on non-zoning, Highlands-related concerns during this public hearing. Council President Corman indicated that people want to know how this is going to affect them. He asked that the minutes reflect that the Mayor accused him of breaking State law by his making of a motion to allow comments regarding non-zoning issues. Mayor Keolker stated that the motion was out of order, and it is her responsibility to follow Council rules and State law. Responding to Council inquiry, Mr. Warren stated that tonight's public hearing was announced as "Highlands Subarea rezoning and zoning text amendments," and comments should be limited to the topic per the State Open Public Meetings Act. Sandel DeMastus,Highlands Community Association Vice President, 1137 Harrington Ave. NE,Renton, 98056, expressed concern regarding the high- density zoning, and about how the area's low income senior and disabled citizens are going to be able to afford to relocate. Marie McPeak,409 Jefferson Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, suggested that any Planning Commission and Council deliberations and decisions on the proposal take place after the Highlands Open House on May 18th. She also suggested that the comments made at the open house be recorded and distributed to audience members along with answers to the comments. Ms. McPeak noted the misunderstandings surrounding this issue, stating that the public needs more information regarding what will and will not be allowed under the zoning designations. Fred Crothamel, 2951 74th Ave. SE,Mercer Island, 98040,indicated that he owns five properties in the subject area across from McKnight Middle School (Harrington Ave. NE), which equal approximately one and a half acres, and another property on Index. He favored the rezone and its vision, saying that the cottage concept will work well in the area. Additionally,Mr. Crothemal supported the City-led development proposal,pointing out that the area needs a jump-start. Concluding, he thanked the City for taking the time to study the matter and for keeping property owners informed. Brett Hawton, 1308 Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, commented that the zoning has a plan behind it, as supported by information on the City's website and by an aerial photograph provided last Fall that shows an alley going through his backyard with townhouses surrounding his property. He stated that the past density increase did not result in the cleaning up of the area,that the proposal will cause his five-year-old home to become legal non-conforming, and that the addition of a garage on his property is prohibited by current zoning and by the proposed zoning. April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 118 Jennifer Hawton, 1308 Harrington Ave. NE,Renton, 98056, acknowledged the amount of work that has gone into this process, and stated that she has also conducted her own research. Ms. Hawton indicated that she visited a cottage style development in Seattle,noting that the development did not feel any different than large apartment complexes. She asked Council to question whether the proposed path is the correct one and to make a decision based on all of the information. By making her home legal non-conforming, she pointed out that the City is placing constraints on what improvements she can make. Marcie Maxwell, PO Box 2048, Renton, 98056, said her business offices have been located in the Highlands area for the past 17 years, and she resides in the area immediately surrounding the Highlands. As a realtor, Ms. Maxwell noted the need for new mixed housing, and expressed her support for the City's efforts to move these ideas forward. She indicated that new affordable housing will promote home ownership and improve rental housing choices for Renton's growing diverse populations. Ms. Maxwell concluded that this is the right time to move forward with improvements and investments in the Highlands area. Mary Irwin, 1100 Harrington Ave.NE, Renton, 98056, indicated that she has lived at the 30-unit location for 20 years, and recently bought her condominium. She stated that she is confused about the proposal and the future of her residence. Ms. Irwin questioned her own decision to purchase the property, and whether improving the property is pointless. Mr. Pietsch commented that the proposed zoning will make her condominium complex more conforming than it is currently. Bob Gevers, 900 Kirkland Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, stated that the purpose of the zoning is strictly for revenue enhancement and little consideration has been given as to how the rezoning will affect residents. Karen Murph, 1127 Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, stressed that the City's vision and her vision are not the same, and she hoped the City will take this under consideration. Ms. Murph expressed disappointment that she will not be able to replace her duplex with a single-family dwelling, and stated that she does not want to live in a downtown Seattle-type setting. Gary Williamson, 2011 Harrington Ave. NE,Renton, 98056, agreed with the previous speaker's comments, and said he is also confused about the proposal as he has seen maps that include and do not include his property. Mr. Williamson questioned if the rezoning will continue with surrounding areas, what rights he has as a property owner, and what other options were considered. Mr. Pietsch indicated that the proposal affects only the existing Center Village land use designation, and it is unknown at this time whether future Comprehensive Plan changes will be proposed for surrounding area rezones. RECESS MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:09 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present. Donovan Boyd, 2901 NE 8th P1., Renton, 98056, noted that second story levels may be allowed for legal non-conforming duplexes, which is a change from what he heard at the Planning Commission meeting. He also noted that the zoning area is smaller than what was presented at the Planning Commission April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 119 meeting. Mr. Boyd stated that residents moved to the Highlands area based on the area's present attributes, and the proposed zoning will change the area. He stressed that the property owners are the primary stakeholders,pointing out that the City's decision will affect what owners can and cannot do with their property. Sheridan Botts, 1115 Tacoma Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, applauded the City's efforts to revitalize various areas of the City. She noted that although she does not live in the affected area, she does frequent the neighborhood. Stating that she supports this program,Ms. Botts expressed her hope that the rezoning will increase the density needed to support the businesses and the vision for the area. Pat Sado, 9902 126th Ave. SE,Renton, 98056, spoke on behalf of her mother who lives on Harrington Ave. NE. She expressed her fear that due to the rezoning, her mother will lose her house. Ms. Sado pointed out that a number of senior citizens are fearful of losing their homes. Mayor Keolker said the rezoning will not cause Ms. Sado's mother to lose her house. Terence J. Agnew, 1551 Hillside Dr. SE, Issaquah, 98027, owner of property at 1801/1803 Index Ave. NE, supported the rezoning. He commented on the deterioration of the area, acknowledged people's fear of change,and recognized the area's optimum location. Doug Kyes, 2837 Blaine Ave.NE, Renton, 98056,noted that he moved away from the Highlands area due to its deterioration. Stating that he favors redevelopment of the area, he pointed out that this effort was not rushed into and residents will be better off as a result. Bambi Jilek, 83 Monterey Pl. NE, Renton, 98056, owner of a condominium on Harrington Ave. NE., expressed her support for the City's efforts to improve the Highlands residential and business districts. She indicated that she has waited several years for signs of significant improvement,which have been minimal on their own without zoning changes. Phil Beckley, 806 Index Ct. NE, Renton, 98056, stated that he favored the zoning proposal. Heidi Beckley, 806 Index Ct. NE, Renton, 98056, stated that she founded the Highlands Community Association in 1997. She indicated that she has noticed the deterioration of the Highlands over the last ten years, and she does not want it to continue. Ms. Beckley noted the large meeting attendance this evening, pointing out that area residents are not apathetic. Expressing her support for the rezoning, she encouraged Council to continue its effort to work with residents towards a suitable plan. Eric VanBuren, 1204 Pierce Pl.NE, Renton, 98056, expressed concern regarding how the rezone affects the value of the land, saying that to make this a market-based redevelopment, the value of the underlying land must be raised in excess of the market value of the current duplexes. He shared some general market value figures for the area,which he said showed a net loss in most cases under the proposed zoning. Carole Wright, 13307 SE 151st St., Renton, 98058, stated that this project is worth the effort. Pointing out her familiarity with cottage style housing,she indicated that this is a prime location for housing of this type because it is close April 17, 2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 120 to transit, shopping, and other needs of senior citizens. Ms. Wright also noted that cottage housing is energy efficient,community oriented, and more affordable. Raymona Baldwin, 1150 Sunset Blvd.NE, #218, Renton, 98056, owner of a multi-family unit, stated that the Highlands is a great community and she would like to see it improve as did the downtown area. Ms. Baldwin expressed her hope for housing that serves the needs of everyone whether they live in a single-family house or a condominium. Jerrilynn Hadley, 901 S. 3rd St., Renton, 98055, said the proposed changes are positive and can make a huge difference in the viability of the community. The proposal encourages business as well as occupancy, and will result in a safer, cleaner, and more prosperous neighborhood. John Visser, 19404 102nd Ave. SE,Renton, 98055, owner of property at 1131 Glennwood Ave. NE, indicated that the neighborhood is not as bleak as reported, and units are being upgraded. He stated that if higher density housing is desired, then properties should be bought out at a reasonable price. Greg Fawcett, PO Box 402, Fall City, 98024, stated that he owns a duplex at 1222 Kirkland Ave. NE., which is proposed for a downzone to CV-R. He requested that the property remain commercially zoned, saying that commercial zoning provides greater flexibility for redevelopment. Pointing out that this also affects three other adjacent properties, he noted the benefits of having a commercially zoned cluster of properties. Mr. Fawcett reported that the commercial zoning is in keeping with surrounding properties, which include Fire Station#12 and a drug store. Rebecca Alder, 3112 NE 14th St., Renton, 98056, indicated that she owns a triplex and lives in one of the units. She explained that she lived out-of-state for six years, and upon returning home to Renton, was shocked to see how her home and the neighborhood had deteriorated during her absence. Ms. Alder pointed out that she has since done a lot to improve her property. She stated that CV-R zoning is proposed for her property, for which she is happy about since it meets the minimum conforming standards. Ms. Alder expressed her support for the proposal, and asked for more information about affordable housing, including income levels,related bonus systems, and definitions. John A. Hansen, 1108 Anacortes Ave. NE,Renton, 98059, said the Highlands is a great area, close to recreation opportunities and highway access. He expressed his happiness about the proposed improvements, and encouraged the City to continue its efforts in this direction. Cristin Mandaville, 6035 SE 2nd Ct., Renton, 98059, owner of property at 1409 Jefferson Ave. NE, favored increased densities with provisions for mixed housing types that include flats, townhomes, cottages, and single-family homes. She voiced concern that the zoning text changes as written seem to undermine the goals that the City is setting out to accomplish. Ms. Mandaville explained that some projects may be blocked, as they would be dependent on specifics such as the way the parking garage faces and how setbacks interrelate with street and alley networks, which do not even exist yet. Continuing, Ms. Mandaville stated that under the CV-R zone, the requirements appear too restrictive for townhome development at R-14. Items including setbacks, lot coverage, types of housing, and housing height are key to R-20 densities not R-14. Building is precluded at an R-14 density for some of the April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 121 smaller projects that may be lined up. She pointed out that master planned developments are allowed on sites that are one acre or more; however,the zoning text as written, makes it difficult to carry out the infill projects that would help the City be successful in this effort. Steve Beck,4735 NE 4th St., Renton, 98059, stated that he owns a duplex at 11th and Harrington Ave.NE, on which he spent approximately$30,000 to rehabilitate. Mr.Beck said war-time structure owners are aware of the construction problems,and simply rehabilitating the homes does not solve the problems. He pointed out that the proposed incentives through zoning enhancements make it now feasible to be rewarded, if and when owners decide to sell or redevelop property. Mr. Beck requested one zoning change: the exemption of stormwater retention and detention requirements when property owners develop one acre or less. He explained that this will continue to allow the conveyance of stormwater from one-acre parcels into the existing City system. He stated that construction costs of retention and detention facilities on larger parcels of land can be spread across projects, but if small property owners are expected to combine their properties for co-development, there must be added incentive and upzoning is not enough. Mr. Beck concluded by expressing his support for the plan. Mayor Keolker suggested that Council consider holding a special public meeting to allow for public testimony on topics other than the one that was duly announced tonight. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Planning: Highlands Subarea MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL SET A Redevelopment PUBLIC MEETING ON 5/8/2006 TO CONSIDER OVERALL ISSUES OF REDEVELOPMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Heidi Beckley, 806 Index Ct. NE, Renton, 98056, stated that as the founder of Citizen Comment: Beckley- the Highlands Community Association(HCA), she is concerned that the Highlands Community organization has recently spread misinformation and rumors regarding potential Association redevelopment in the Highlands area. She noted that the HCA was founded to be a source of information for people working for solutions,not as a political action committee. Ms. Beckley complimented City officials and staff for their efforts, and stated that the HCA,as it exists now, has nothing to do with its original bylaws and tenets, has lost its credibility, and as an entity is not associated with the City. Citizen Comment: Hawton - Brett Hawton, 1308 Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, commented that Highlands Subarea,Zoning several supporters of the potential rezoning were either real estate agents or Text&Zoning Map absentee owners who do not even live in the area. He stated that most people Amendments have gathered their own information from sources such as the City's website, and not relied on notes left on their front doors. Citizen Comment: Petersen- Inez Petersen, 3306 Lake Washington Blvd.N., #3,Renton, 98056, stated that Highlands Subarea Plan information passed out by the Highlands Community Association is essentially the same information that is posted to the City's website. She stated that she did not believe it to be appropriate for a member of the Planning Commission to be lobbying for a plan they are supposed to still be reviewing. Ms. Petersen expressed her belief that adequate code enforcement and police presence would enable residents in the Highlands Subarea to reclaim their neighborhood • April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 122 without changing zoning. She urged Council not to enact or support the proposed zoning and especially not to support legal non-conforming status for existing homes. Citizen Comment: Hawton - Jennifer Hawton, 1308 Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, stated she would Highlands Subarea, Zoning like to know where she could get current information regarding the potential Text&Zoning Map rezoning, and spoke in support of revitalizing the area if more information Amendments could be made available for review. She stated she would like to see single- family homes included in the proposed rezoning. Citizen Comment: DeMastus - Sandel DeMastus, 1137 Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, expressed dismay Highlands Subarea Plan at the negative comments regarding the Highlands Community Association. She expressed her wish that City residents and Council work and communicate together to bring positive results to the Highlands area. Councilman Clawson clarified that Council has made no decisions regarding rezoning and any decision made by Council would have to be made at an announced public meeting. He emphasized that there have been no decisions to declare the area blighted or to condemn anybody's property, and anyone implying that would be wrong. Citizen Comment: Williamson Gary Williamson, 2011 Harrington Ave. NE,Renton, 98056, expressed his -Highlands Subarea,Zoning appreciation for comments made by Councilmen Corman and Persson regarding Text&Zoning Map restriction of public comment, and opined that when a speaker was in favor of Amendments the proposed zoning they were allowed to speak off topic. He stated that a resident who was unwilling to sell could complicate plans to develop the area. Mr. Williamson noted that renewal that has taken place in neighboring communities was accomplished without changing zoning. Mayor Keolker noted that she advised speakers to stay on topic. She also stated that there is no adopted plan and that the phrase "eminent domain"had been taken out of context and is just one tool of the Community Renewal Act, which is a State law that has been in effect since approximately 1957. She noted that Council has not adopted the Act and that the public testimony gathered will help with the decision making process. Mayor Keolker also stated that she stands by what she said in her State of the City address, that no one will end up homeless as a result of anything done in the Highlands. Citizen Comment: Baldwin- Raymona Baldwin, 1150 Sunset Blvd. NE, #218, Renton, 98056, stated that not Highlands Subarea,Zoning everyone perceives things the same way, and suggested that persons from other Text&Zoning Map neighborhoods that have gone through a recent revitalization be invited to Amendments attend future meetings on this topic. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 4/10/2006. Council concur. 4/10/2006 Vacation: Walkway,NW 6th City Clerk submitted petition for street vacation for portion of walkway St&Rainier Ave N,AHBL, between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave.N.; petitioner AHBL Civil& Structural VAC-06-001 Engineers, 2215 N. 30th St.,Tacoma, 98403 (VAC-06-001). Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, set public hearing on 5/8/2006 to consider the petition. (See page 123 for resolution.) City Clerk: Quarterly Contract City Clerk submitted Quarterly Contract List for period of 1/1/2006 to List, 1/2006 to 3/2006 3/31/2006; 50 contracts and 10 addenda totaling$3,191,453.83. Information. April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 123 Annexation: Merritt II, SE Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department May Valley Rd&Coal Creek recommended adoption of an ordinance extending the effectuation date for Parkway Phase II of the Merritt II Annexation from 6/1/2006 to 3/31/2007. Council concur. (See page 124 for ordinance.) Planning: Street Grid System Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Amendments recommended adoption of amendments to the City's street grid system to change the current practice of renaming all streets annexed to the City. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Plat: Reedshaw,NE Sunset Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions,of the Reedshaw Blvd, PP-05-091 Preliminary Plat; 13 single-family lots on 2.25 acres located at 3705 NE Sunset Blvd. (PP-05-091). Council concur. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Community Services recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Mayor Committee Keolker's appointment of Kristi Hand to the Municipal Arts Commission for an Appointment: Municipal Arts unexpired term expiring December 31, 2006. MOVED BY NELSON, Commission SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3802 A resolution was read setting a public hearing date on 5/8/2006 to vacate a Vacation: Walkway,NW 6th portion of unimproved road(walkway)between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. St&Rainier Ave N, AHBL, N. (Matt Weber,AHBL, VAC-06-001). MOVED BY CLAWSON, VAC-06-001 SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/24/2006 for second and final reading: Annexation: Hoquiam, 140th An ordinance was read annexing approximately 20.5 acres generally located Ave SE&NE 6th St immediately north of NE 6th St.,and east of 140th Ave. SE(Hoquiam Annexation). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/24/2006. CARRIED. Annexation: Hoquiam, R-8 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of property Zoning annexed within the City of Renton generally located immediately north of NE 6th St., and east of 140th Ave. SE, from R-4 (Urban Residential—four dwelling units per acre, King County) to R-8 (Residential—eight dwelling units per acre) zoning (Hoquiam Annexation). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/24/2006. CARRIED. Annexation: Falk II, 102nd An ordinance was read annexing approximately 6.29 acres generally located Ave SE& SE 185th St south of SE 185th St.,and on the east side of 102nd Ave. SE(Falk H Annexation). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/24/2006. CARRIED. April 17,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 124 Annexation: Falk II, R-8 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of property Zoning annexed within the City of Renton generally located south of SE 185th St., and on the east side of 102nd Ave. SE, from R-4 (Urban Residential—four dwelling units per acre, King County)to R-8 (Residential—eight dwelling units per acre) zoning(Falk II Annexation). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/24/2006. CARRIED. Annexation: Merritt II, SE An ordinance was read amending Ordinance No. 5142 by changing the timing May Valley Rd&Coal Creek for effectuating Phase II of the Merritt II Annexation to the City of Renton. Parkway MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/24/2006. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5201 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Planning: Airport Related Uses Standards; and Section 4-11-010 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV Zoning Text Amendments (IM (Development Regulations)of City Code by revising the air transportation uses Zone) section of the medium industrial,heavy industrial, and center downtown zones, and the airport and aviation operations uses; and by revising definitions. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CANCEL THE Council: Meeting Cancellation 5/1/2006 COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. (5/1/2006) Finance: Financial Policies & MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE Investment Strategies TOPIC OF FINANCIAL POLICIES AND INVESTMENT STRATEGIES TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Brett Hawton, 1308 Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, expressed concern Citizen Comment: Hawton - about adversarial relationships between City officials, and encouraged Council Highlands Subarea,Zoning to review the information posted to the City's own website regarding the Text&Zoning Map Highlands Subarea, which is where he had gathered his information. Amendments ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 10:48/ p.m. �7t,YtJ e Net1, 9a v ) Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Jason Seth and Michele Neumann April 17, 2006 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 17, 2006 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 4/24 The Landing Development Agreement (Corman) 6:00 p.m. COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE MON., 4/24 Vouchers; (Persson) 4:30 p.m. Interlocal Joint Purchasing Agreement with City of Tacoma(briefing); 2006 Budget Amendment Ordinance PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT THURS.,4/20 Highlands Sub-Area Zoning Amendments (Briere) 3:00 p.m. PUBLIC SAFETY . (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 4/20 Sound Transit Interlocal Agreement for (Palmer) 2:00 p.m. Funding Rainier Ave. S, Hardie Ave. SW & SW 27th St/Strander Blvd. Project; Airport Quonset Hut#790 Bid Award; Update of Regional Transportation Issues UTILITIES CANCELLED (Clawson) NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. <SY_• 4000, )+ .0 HOQUTAM ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE HOQUTAM ANNEXATION AND EFFECTUATION OF R-8 ZONING April 17, 2006 The first of the two required public hearings on future zoning for this annexation was held on September 26, 2005. Pursuant to the authorization of the City Council, the Notice of Intent package was sent to the Boundary Review Board on December 23, 2005, beginning their mandatory 45-day review. The Board notified the City that it had approved the Hoquiam Annexation effective February 7, 2006. The 20.5-acre Hoquiam Annexation is located immediately north of NE 6th Street, if extended, and east of 140th Avenue SE, if extended. It abuts the recently approved 65-acre Park Terrace 'its✓ Annexation on its northern boundary and goes east as far as 144th Avenue SE, if extended. This rectangular shaped annexation is bisected through its middle by 142" Avenue SE (Hoquiam Avenue NE) and is located in Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The site is designated for R-8 zoning under Renton's Residential Single Family (RS) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. This annexation, if approved by Council will, along with the recently approved Park Terrace Annexation, fill in the large peninsula of unincorporated land on the north side of NE 4th Street west of 144th Avenue SE (Jericho Ave NE). It is anticipated that at full development, approximately 104 additional single-family detached dwellings could be added to the 20.5 acre area under the City's R-8 zoning. Council is holding tonight's public hearing in order to decide whether it now wishes to "effect" this annexation by ordinance, annexing all or any portion of the proposed area. Council is also holding the second of two required public hearings on the proposed R-8 zoning for the annexation area, or portions thereof. Council will consider ordinances adopting the annexation itself, and concurrent rezoning, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending R-8 zoning. Ordinances have been prepared for their first reading (later in the meeting) if the Council decides to proceed with the annexation boundary as approved by the Boundary Review Board. wear Council Hearing Handout 04-17-06.doc\ { r Hoquiam Annexation Annexation and Zoning Public Hearing April 17, 2006 1 City of Renton „ £Merritt It(Phase u), Current Annexations .. Perkins 52,7 ac. hM - �- r Aster Park 4.‘,4 s --'' 19,5 ac. »» S y1 Guerin % -%-, '�S :1, ;a. ,..,,,,'4 t '2a 0 ac. J. P # '.- F k��t(,,--,4 ` ti t as 3#Iger riuiain,° > . 20.4 ac. p "4=' Preserve ` • 1K, : • ; 1` Our Plateau .� s 7. ,40'41.4t; f 1474.51c. • S 9-' , . -4.,,,1., :,, , , '' '1- '-*; -rirl.fmo,.,,, kr1 r } •'' ":... 'Leitch w m ; Maplewood .r� r : �i F t 4 Addition ill ti Fp 60Sac_, i F xM. : :.-y,*Akors farms ', . » _ + „ 2 n( ,,.....g ucleon-, ^', ,,13.9ac. w ,, 7 ..ir,3 7,-i,,:,,,';':,,Falk il' R { <a \. . {,Anthone': • f `<, ' , s-. - 27C. e` yw ' Background • Original annexation petition submitted in February 2005 • Public meeting with proponents held on April 25, 2005 • 60% Direct Petition received in July 2005 • First public hearing on zoning held in August 2005 • Boundary Review Board approved in February 2006 • Tonight is the second of two required public hearings on future zoning if annexation approved 2 Existing Conditions • PAA - Within Renton's Potential Annexation Area • Location—Abuts both sides of Hoquiam Ave SE, between SE 124'/NE 6th Street and SE 122nd Street • Size - + 20.49 acres, including abutting street ROW • Uses - 19 existing single-family dwellings • Boundaries - site abuts Renton on its southern and western boundaries. Existing Conditions - Vicinity ---... 1. .711T!!!1 • Located north of mak.[ .u:x.T. .izrz IIt1111iltiliii, uu,r,t.:e 1 maw iste3-+ City boundary at .,....„11� � 8_1 !! I!:.;15:11 I' 51 li SE 124th/NE 6th St -ta,.a_.. .� .r,lr._ ie.. . aisle=•*�-, !-, .■_-._•� n rnilr 0111111 .. IndME • Located south of -.•�::\. l:nn ea SE 122" Street --.. „f, .f -■1. �tYFYe-' t a itf-"i •J3 '.�(t -i�li.it Oral .Irr7'A1' ��f`ip "J111i1Li .I ..ra+Y�'+,+.eCt dui- �1 .r w • Located between `lf ;:�; 1 EI 140th Ave SE on the -� a. r T •'><, ! west and 144th Ave i -I� i '' } � I.1 Ti SE on the east, if ■ter uth■ =!II. :- - , 3fs Nina;lni' extended •P l 4,4! Emma _ 1111r.,i :rrqr a1ai a! r qF n:. ipi -Yin nut. �: �a�'-• i Mmol ' I 1 _► 1 �:'J Vicinity Map =r 3 Existing Conditions - Structures PO o H`c' o CSG • Currently 19 single- family detached 4j 4 a° dwellings on site 1q.... - [_a_____._____ _ • Most likely future + • development on larger under- .' developed parcels I fir, ' W Structures Map ,R e � f n 4A n " ._rn 1 — a» x k r x s ",iva Mta te..-7,. c^ a.i?? „:�, xa„ate.,e .azM':.A} ti Vis:�M.,. .. t Y r ... ... .. _ .... View looking north along 142nd Ave SE/Hoquiam Ave NE near middle of site 4 Existing Conditions - Public Services • Fire • District 25 /00` ,Ea/ • Utilities • Within Water District#90 Service Area • Within Renton Sewer Service Area11 I • Schools +• • • Within Renton School District GPI King County Comp Plan Designation and Current Zoning . K.C. Land Use Map • Urban Residential,4-12du/ac rr „_ , - . �, Pi's K.C. Zoning w L Aikt • f • R-4-Residential 4-6 du/gr ac 6 .. • Would allow up to 117 ' > 3 ,-, " units ` , �r z SITE 2.,1. r~ � County Zoning Map 5 • Renton Comp Plan Designation and Proposed Zoning Renton Comp Plan Land Use Map III �, • Residential single-family z i „yet 4t ��`iiia �:,.�:������ � ,�: Possible Renton zoning t , • R 8 (8 dulnet acre) _ 1=2, • Would allow up to 131 dwelling units ,,. , l� �° ''''''' r&.;Pliiiij Renton Comprehensive PIan Fiscal Impact Analysis • General Fund cost and revenue implications — Assumes potential of 131 single-family homes at full development based upon City's R-8 Zone = Assumes 10 existing dwellings remain with average assessed value of$255,450 each — Assumes 121 new homes with an average assessed value of$400,000 6 Fiscal Impact Analysis as Proposed Estimated one-time Parks Acquisition&Development Fee of$60,761 Conclusion • Approved by Boundary Review Board as consistent with their relevant objectives • Generally consistent with relevant City annexation policies and policies for single-family rezones • Moderate projected revenue surplus of over $24,700 per year at full development • Except for parks no major service issues identified by reviewing staff — One-time parks acquisitionfdevelopment cost$60,761 • Annexation is consistent with City's Business Plan and is in best interest of the City Recommended Motion: The Administration recommends that Council: • Support R-8 zoning for the Hoquiam Annexation consistent with Renton's adopted Comprehensive Plan • Accept the Hoquiam Annexation by adopting the annexation ordinance it previously authorized staff to prepare in September 2005 • Concurrently rezone the non-street portions of the Hoquiam Annexation R-8 by adopting a zoning ordinance to that effect • Present both ordinances for first reading tonight r � � «s max, • } 8 ,NryO'� FALK II ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE FALK II ANNEXATION AND EFFECTUATION OF R-8 ZONING April 17, 2006 The Falk II Annexation was received by the City of Renton on October 18, 2004, and had its first public hearing on December 6, 2004. A 50/50 Method Petition was submitted on May 25, 2005 and certified by King County on June 7, 2005. On August 1, 2005 the first public hearing on this annexation and consideration of future zoning was held. Previously the "50/50 Method" Direct Petition to Annex was certified by both the King County Department of Assessments and the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Division as a valid petition. The petition signers, representing a majority of both the registered voters and the acreage within the annexation area, agreed to accept R-8 zoning upon annexation low as well as have property owners within the annexation area assume their proportionate share of the City's outstanding indebtedness. The City is now in receipt of the Boundary Review Board's notice of approval for this 20-acre annexation site. The subject site is located within the City's Potential Annexation Area and is designated Residential Single Family(RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. It is proposed for R- 8 zoning, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. With such zoning, it could support an estimated 40 single-family detached dwellings, with an estimated future population of up to 100 persons. Council is holding tonight's public hearing in order to decide whether it now wishes to "effect" this annexation by ordinance, annexing all or any portion of the proposed area. Council is also holding the second of two required public hearings on the proposed R-8 zoning for the annexation area, or portions thereof, if it decides to effect the Falk II Annexation. Staff is recommending R-8 zoning. Ordinances have been prepared for their first reading (later in the meeting) if the Council decides to proceed with the annexation boundary as approved by the Boundary Review Board. `fir+ Council Hearing Handout 04-17-06_1.doc\ • 46 �.,;x '�.. fi _-mow . <C fAS as y i aw v°N � Falk II Annexation Annexation and Zoning Public Hearing April 17, 2006 1 • City of Renton � Merritt II(Phase II) Current Annexations ° Perkins ` 52.7 ac. 15.8 at. �,. -• b Aster Park 18.5 at "Querin LL• a Rxe:.,,�M 24.0n ry , .<s ., Preserve Our Plateau ti•i ,' 1474.5 ac. '' I Maplewood r7 Addition _ Ir '. +n __60.5 ac. �_. HAkers Farms : j 1u4daon 13.9 i f Falk it ', 6.8 at. - 1 t 25.7 ac. Background • Original petition submitted in October 2004 • Public meeting with applicants held in December 2004 • 50/50 Petition certified in May 2005 • First public hearing on zoning held in August 2005 • Boundary Review Board approved in January 2006 • Tonight's public hearing is second of minimum two required 2 Existing Conditions • PAA - Within Renton's Potential Annexation Area • Location - west side of 102nd Avenue SE and south of SE 185th Place, if extended • Size - 6.4 acres, including abutting 102nd Ave ROW • Uses - 5 single-family dwellings • Boundaries - site abuts Renton on its north, and west boundaries Existing Conditions - Vicinity •� ` ufft•Y� �IF� /TreeVJil f M�,.M S 17.th •.," G_y lir �If. S 4 IV St i rP�,1� : /I Located immediately I P south of 2003 Falk I _i Annexation L -n'i alk i�ll J ' :H.I . `a .. - a MILU/ .7• ILP! 7 74 NIII or,15 bvmo II Nil 1110 ry i_ i v St III Irdr +.t� ��••.�fE.,.h :`r� Vicinity Mapi��: apj ri St •y n"�iA in KIM �Ihf._....r,_.l i-i.T_TT�1���i 3 1 Existing Conditions - Structures C •.. ,,' 1--, •1 Five single-f. y H , dwellings currev 1- ..i. 0 a - on 6.29 acre site R-8 IS kci irr/--- , - rSJ - -5--- 1 i ' cP ,c--- , Structures Map , „ .-,:-,t.; •'`'.1'I'!•••;:?,••• '...',4... .° ,,I, ' f t- 4', '•' i* '• it" ' -I ' 4*.4 .1 ..** kikti';4' ,*f; f 1 ''.`f•Il!,*,..,i f '9.4,I. ,j. '4'f*.414. .,:t4: i.4.S'n, 0,:1,4 4,gr.f,4 1 f j ''''''". ,-74,14,-. -11•.: ,:, .,, ...'.4 #'14:1 'it*TolitAtt,„•,„rs.Z. r, S.,''''', ' ''''' ..;..*###01'r "rt. ' . -x.,.\*.I . s. .2' f.o.- •t.- .0 •0.•• , ' -,„ oik e.„),„,,-1 ,,, .4:".,,,,,,,, - --,>:,i,.. :,••,.. - •.,,• °...t.ii.,,,,,,444,...;.•°, . .,, , _mi.*,'',,',"\s'—` ' ,.41,-, ..,-",,';'‘, - , '..4' ,•,..1,4' .' • -4,...i1‘,:$7.-'' '• *°':,11:', w'' 4'\‘1 ^ V`- .^4,**t'•.° ' -i''''•.A.0,4.1s, .. '', ' :•'•*44..t.t 4*.t,'$'414.4,* , ,4,- ,N. A ."\.,4%- V*;4• ,."' " - , 4' '--, -It..."% . "' .,. 5N5.*.• - ' = 4,• *t'A*' 1*.. t.\t,„ ,• ,1'*. ..;" • **.'l ' tr '"'4‘:-' A'4;:•*, -.,.....,!:..k. ... „, ' -!A*, '....".• " ,. ,?,'..-4,.,;,. •, , , • Slitvil . 7...1. , . I. . ' : • ..,...; - r.,- ., ...,,,ii-v,,.,. , ',„7. - . ':‘ ,.. ..., • ' ", f • • , -1111 1 -1 I',.•• - i . • ,:.• ' , :., ...... .. . .'i.. .,•-„*„.?,t,,„;e:44.f. ,,,,:,,,,,,.....,,,,,:-.,,::,,,„,,,;=,-,:.....:•t?".t.,...sg.• •4,,,,,.:?..4400;7:1,1 '.„ ,;,,,,I.,,,,,' ,t,,';.•'4 1.,-,c4pr.. • ,;;;'it,I.''r ' :7`i.•e',74-:i..-4.4.:4#4‘.` .,• "4, vi`..'. ',.., #,",,.,;##IS:,:'•#:••:rel',,,,4.V,41,#,#4.4.....:.'-,,,,,4„ .. , -, '..• ,,, - , -,'^ v..41•44....4.1:44:k 1 ..1., .,::-.. :,., ,.„„7,.,:,....,,4.4k.t.,044_4.),,,, ; . k .21't' °,41.- -sA-'''''''y°-''''' . . ,••,- ' t• .i• ..,..Az,...-•r4=, °.°*.- -„, •••-•—"tfar....- - , ,, ',Ik.•"°,1°-'4:"..v, ,v`"••• ° .?•,-,• —-•h°,... "-'•,•• .0.0;4%,r...‘,1••,t` -4,. '-- '''' s'''''' ....^, ,, ,,,''',',',.. e'.',''''' 4.4k;**4,,,4freil',.4.:''15,.. 4''''''' .'• 110:000W;P : ' ' ' ' 1;4' '';';'.,.7'1 '''*' ° , ' , ..,• , 2,'' '• • '''' ttAk, - , isillitgiti • Figure 1 -View looking west at southeast corner of site from 102nd Avenue SE 4 Existing Conditions - Environmental • Topography-essentially • flat on eastern 2/3's of site .;t , with steeper slopes on w, western 1/3 of site. • Environmental constraints—slopes of 15%to 20%on western portion of site View looking northwest from 102°d Avenue at site. Existing Conditions - Public Services • Fire -Fire District 40 PP'_.. *°N • Utilities - Within Soos Creek Water and Sewer District - Roadway and stormwater improvements likely 1 ...w • School District - Renton School District 5 County Land Use Designation and Existing Zoning King County Comp Plan t" f Designation �"""� �tit(Ty1 wM �'t f i �jj ..'�Ake'""�' '"! �� � 44 —Urban Residential 4-12 du/ac 4 '�= 1140cati �-^- C "7.* - ►� +i rwu • u �qa King County Zoning 11 --R-4, 4 du/gross acre Site �• mith , 21.1 NI Figure 2-King County Zoning Map Renton Land Use Designation and Potential Zoning Renton Comp Plan Land RS Use Map - Residential Single Family Renton Zoning Map -R-8 (8 du/net acre) Consistent with zoning to ` RS -. . west and compatible with K.C. zoning to east RS SITE • Figure 3-Renton Zoning Map 6 Fiscal Impact Analysis • General Fund cost and revenue implications — Assumes 38 new single-family homes at full development — Assumes a new home value of$400,000 — Assumes 2 dwellings remain on site • Annual Estimated Net Impact = +$8,025/yr. — Estimated one time City cost of$22,381 for future park acquisition and improvements Conclusion • Generally consistent with City policies for annexation • Proposed R-8 zoning consistent with single-family land use policies and Comp Plan land use designation • Consistent with Boundary Review Board objectives having been approved by the Board in January 2006 • Modest annual revenue surplus of over $8,025 per year at full development • Except for parks no major service issues identified by reviewing staff — One-time parks acquisition/improvement cost $22,381 • Annexation is consistent with City's Business Plan and is in best interests of the City 7 Recommendation The Administration recommends that Council: • Support R-8 zoning for the Falk II Annexation consistent with Renton's adopted Comprehensive Plan • Accept the Falk II Annexation by adopting the annexation ordinance it previously authorized staff to prepare in August 2005 • Concurrently rezone the non-street portions of the Falk II Annexation R-8 consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan by adopting a zoning ordinance to that effect • Present both ordinances for first reading this evening ss Y eP Q' YEh •F • q • ''`Arlt' .' 8 Nov C.,`SY O ft � p� HIGHLANDS SUBAREA REZONES AND ZONING TEXT PROPOSAL PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING THE CENTER VILLAGE ZONE April 17, 2006 The proposal presents a series of zoning text changes and map amendments for the Highlands Subarea. The proposal makes zoning changes primarily to properties currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The implementing zoning of the CV land use designation is proposed to be changed to include two new zones- Center Village Core (CV-C) and Center Village Residential (CV-R). There are also changes proposed to the R-10 (Residential, ten units per net acre) zone. Design guidelines are proposed to be adopted for the Highlands Subarea. Amendments are also proposed that affect procedural subsections of Title IV related to Master Plan Review and Planned Unit Developments. Development standards for cottage housing are also proposed CV-C Zone The CV-C is proposed to be an area of high density residential development on top of, and surrounding, commercial development. Allowed residential use types include flats and townhouses. Minimum density is 20 du/acre. Densities up to 60 du/acre may be built without any special requirements being met. However, densities up to 80 du/acre require the provision of affordable housing at a minimum of five (5) units per net acre. Parking is required to be located underground or under building for residential uses, and for commercial uses parking may not be located in the front setback unless it is structured. The CV-C zone replaces the existing CV (Center Village) zone and uses most of the existing development standards already in place for this area. CV-R Zone The CV-R zone is a residential zone that allows both townhouses and cottage development. Densities range from 10 to 14 du/acre. Development standards are based on existing standards in the R-14 (residential 14 units per net acre) zone. Alley access is required. This zone was written to allow only a narrow range of uses, at limited intensity. It prohibits single family homes and duplexes, making the existing single family and duplexes in the area non-conforming. Non- conforming uses may be maintained, but not expanded. Properties greater than one acre in size, that provide a minimum of two affordable units per net acre, may participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District. Projects in the Flex district are proposed to be master planned to allow maximum flexibility for the proponent and ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan CV vision and Subarea Plan policies. Participation in the Flex District allows a density s bonus of up to 80 units per acre, but flats are limited to the area east of Kirkland, so development will most likely take place in most of the area at about 20-30 units per acre. Single family homes may be allowed in the bonus district. Also, there is an ability to vary the underlying development standards through a PUD (planned urban development) process. R-10 Zone A change has been proposed for the R-10 zone to make all existing single family homes and duplexes non-conforming in the Highlands Subarea. This would limit the ability of the property owner to expand these uses, but they would still be able to maintain them. Design Guidelines Design Regulations are proposed for the Highlands to ensure high quality development projects that implement the vision for the area. The standards are based on the existing Urban Design Guidelines already adopted for the Urban Center and for the South Renton Neighborhood. Compliance with the design regulations is required of all development in the Subarea, regardless of zone or participation in the Flex District. Cottage Regulations Cottage housing development relates to a site a little bit differently from other types of dwelling units. This is because they are oriented around a common area and share common parking and other features. Cottages are limited in size and scale to preserve the quality and integrity of the development. Currently, there are no cottage developments in Renton. The Highlands Subarea would be the first place they were allowed in the City. Development standards regulating this specific use type have been proposed. Procedural Amendments The following procedural changes are proposed: • A pre-application meeting to be required for all development in the Center Village Flex Bonus District. • Changes to the submittal requirements for PUDs • Changes to the Master Planning regulations to include special criteria for review of projects in the Highlands Subarea • Giving City Council final approval authority for Master Plans in the Highlands Subarea Map Amendments The attached map shows the proposed zoning map amendments for the Highlands Subarea. �■ IIIiI&I. • loll,,`. ,�� pii .• .....d r.1 n ru1li l) jj ; � �■ —■� •►�■■a ■ 4 ig• alIii A■■a � j� 16thkw ■ Animal!w, II �■ nisi ■�11.81 , ' ,,-41, '// ,illiep2 / mino• r ■i6�� MI nisi I. . I//��i.I/�� rem-a III iMh? II 1IIIt1 !tII 1:1124 ill II ./. -:-. Evion .1-• , 4* /a 1 El i1LL1'1 ji reflA�r Fs,�O` i/% CN n/:;T0° Oir#ter/%/ � EN pi 1 4.: • - - - - ' .'21.,„' , ' .. A g Aail IN ■ :■ 111111119111116=111—=-==.7 ■■■ nisi■ ` . ■■■rte ■1 1 amil poll Ems iiiI cr , 1 th I�7I! /� �t.. . Was; *� ii 11 No vii11. on , *IEI nthJilics:\i.i. - %!!�I/, ,,, , , ........*-----itft iv 44; -t! � AV 11116,gan1iiire ih 0,. .. :wi rlaui mif Allan' MN''' �� 4IE R nisi � J1UlII■ lillimmil Mak. # 3 ii Its ...„ •II 1110111/01111— ■- ��'�� ������ meIllm Ei;-- - . . £� � I NM IRVIN h i. I ' !! .0.1. si -=mar 41111121111 tiOn in A�IllllllMI .�I� ■�■ �j�liriplistihit.MI ■�I.■ �• � ■■�I ��■ Gly �illl�'� III i■i i£ �h St ■m ;E •■u■iu■ e. •a■ 0 41P1,471111111 Pi ■ 111/ 41 \ � -‘11111111 Elm irornilli■ i� �� i I mos 11111111111101111r IN ng i I'I � R �� tt� it■iis ii1111114-kkilirsj -*Iii itl.1 IW -f'Z''��n��� Q / �� �� ■■■111R11,'•4!w■1! ‘ Omani' Fili.- lfittli �l1Rs �1 .. - ��1I i 4 ►C It. giks‘To •,•-, 11 nisi I rsig� � Nilo sio..,,,a4. $' r-m- o --wigs Ni� �►t� �� /in !IL liii, if.. mg; mirel.Rsoss Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones T • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Rezone to Center Village Core(CV C) ®• Alex Pietsch,Administrator �j/,� Rezone to Center Village-Residential(CV-R) G.Del Rosario 1'NTD 29 March 2006 rrr+° 'rrJ Zoning Text and Map Amendments i '. F. Highland Subareabelt, ` April 17, 2006 ienton:City+ uncia 1 I bIik He iriing Purpose Project History Take public testimony on the#oItowing proposals 1 7993 a vision for the Highlands CertterSubwban in the { regarding the Highlands Subarea: buerimLandUse tlnrlt 1994 Adopt Center Suburban In Comprehensive Plan and es -up to sodurac • Zoning text amendments 3 1997 Highlands Redevelopment added to City Business Plan • Zoning map amendments 1997 31"5 Million set aside as a redevelopment incentive 1999 Residential Demonstration Bonus District created to allow multi-family and mixed use with commercial dip to 80 duras along Sunset and -up to 36 dulac in the reet of the area Project History Project History 2000 Commercial Area Urban V Pitmec2000 Bonus t�Iettlot created along Sunset Avenue -Conducted a survey -up to 80 duiacti9" z -field public maeU4' ! 2004 Re-edDpboh of die Citmta YiNaye t.sirrd use Desippnaeorr in the Comps lve Plan 2000 Renaming from Center SuburbOrt to nt9t' q i -Extended Cent0 Vi to IS° 2005 City Council enacts and extends development moratorium , -Strengthened urban, 2005 Cay commissions I taartFand,LLC to study the Market forces in -No commercial develtipMent rkm of to work in the Highlands subarea` 2005 Mayor highlights Highlands Redevelopment in her State of the -Required zoning review OS yoar3 City address -Required Suberee gbh in 540 Areal 2006 City Council provides direction to staff at workshop 1 Naar' Proposed Zonin• Center Village Vision and Purpose csuent Ler,use.se The proposed map • 10-80 dwelling units per acre amendments all occur within the Center Village(CV)land r • Redevelopment of low density suburban land use use designation in me patterns Comprehensive Pfau 1 • Creation of medium also high density residential areas • Range of commensal goods end sarvtces Within the CV land use • 1:• ,44C41' • Compact e'en dev9irt designation two new zones " are proposed: r ? -TSransit, p t p Wedded —(CV C Cote • —Alley Welled : ,� • � • High standard of 4esfgP1 —Center f ACV-r7> # • Clustering of commercial and community uses tri Center Village-Core Center Village- Residential • Land use • Land use limited to mittage and townhouse,with —Commercial,mixed use,multi-family { flats only allowed east Kirkland Ave. • Heart of Center Village • Base density 10.14 units per acre —Transit hub,commercial center,employment —Neighborhood services,open space and _ • Bonus density with participation in Center Village recreation Flex Bonus District • Base Density 10.60 units per acre • Existing duplex and single-family would be legal • Allows up to 80 units per acre with affordable non-confornnng" housing at 6 Units per acre Center Village Flex Bonus District Other Proposed Code Changes If the property owner The following bonuses • Establish development standards for Cottage does all of this: may be granted: housing • Amend the Master Planning regulations to • Consolidates a minimum ` Bonus density up to 80 accommodate review of projects in the of one acre units per acre Highlands Subarea • Provides at least two • Allows new small lot • Amend procedural requirements in the PUD units of affordable single family uses regulations housing per acre = Allows Planned urban • Require compliance with the existing Urban Development proms to Center Design Regulations in the Highlands • Participate to a master modify developMent • Subarea plan standards 2 A Amendment to R-10 Zone Legal Non-Conforming Use • Prohibit detached and semi-attached units in the j • The existing duplex and single-family uses are proposed R-10 tone in the Highlands Subarea i to be prohibited to stop the continuation of the current inefficient,low-density land use pattern • This would make the existing single-family homes and duplexes in the Highlands"legal • The existing units are proposed to be prohibited to make non-conforming" the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 'j • Legal Non-Conforming uses are"grandfathered in"-they are allowed to continue as long as they don't expand Legal Non-conforming Use What CAN?be done: What CAN be done: • Put in an addition that * Re-wiring increases the building . Re-roofing footprint • Regular Maintenance • Landscaping • Interior remodeling • Updating the unit • Add a second story" "May be allowed In some Instances • Rebuild with new use 1 1 Re .one from CV to CV-C Rezone from RMF to CV-C ) j - 3 j7 W13 Jpp JuawdolanepaJ a,tew suoilein6ai ang314se1 Apano • 6uoped y6noua Jou pue 3 qen yonw ooJ aq pinont matt We3u03 • 0-A3 of pauoz-al eq pinoys saivadojd A3 eql il'• - spit Jo;aoeds NO.y6noua Jou si ahapong wa3uoo • paimbal sl 6ulsnoq aigepioue ap81 cot NV we3u03• 146:y ooJ we sag!susp pesodoid alp ley!wa3uo0 . Auadad w e „6uluuoluoo-uou ie6a1,.6wm uo to s3age iequaJod ay)WOge weouo3• :1esodoad 6uiuoz a!)Bu1p3e6aJ i- -, 6uueaH uoissIwwo3 6wuueid ay;woy s4uaww03 -7'3x.3 -`'4 AO .�.. 'Sze : illticri .' - , L . '" 01 0 .-. ILI 0.1 1 3UOZ3j A r"^) 0; !!'! ! nJC J l ' o30Zeb tc� r I t ati --- FL.ppYv3 .Y UOr4v3 e t k 3-A0 ©i 06-ej woij ouozej 3-AD Oj NO WO,J4 euoze j///7/(i4, �tifcY o fir%'Idt 776 ft FAQ Sheet Frequently Asked Questions About the Highlands Redevelopment Initiative VISION What area of the Highlands is being discussed? The area, identified as the "Highlands Subarea," is located between NE 6th Street and NE 21' Street AND between Edmonds Avenue and Monroe Avenue. (See attached map). What is the vision for Highlands Subarea? • The Highlands is envisioned as a dynamic urban village, for current and future residents from all income levels, centered around a community and commercial core. • Neglected and potentially hazardous housing would be replaced by safer, permanently affordable housing for seniors, low-income families, and first- time homebuyers. • The neighborhood would be walkable, with sidewalks, and landscaped pathways providing easy access to goods and services. • Current residents of the area would be able to stay in their homes or move to improved, affordable housing nearby. When was the vision for the Highlands Subarea developed? The vision was created through a public process when the City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1993, refined in 2000, and readopted through public process in 2004. Why is the City focusing attention on the Highlands now? There is growing poverty and crime in the Highlands area. Much of the housing is in poor condition and the rate of ownership in the area is declining. Statistics show that the Highlands has disproportionately higher rates of serious crimes such as murder, car theft, and substance abuse than the City as a whole. The City wants to support investment in the Highlands to help improve these conditions. REDEVELOPMENT What happened to the 2000 Redevelopment Plan? sow ►' Businesses will only come to an area if there is a market to support them. Market analysis done on the Hi-Lands Shopping Center showed there were not enough households or sufficient spending to support a neighborhood shopping center. However, the study also showed that a small increase in households would provide an attractive market for new businesses. What has the City done to revitalize and redevelop the Highlands? • Instituted the REACT program to clean up problems in the neighborhood. • Hired a consultant to study both the residential and commercial market. • Researched the physical, social, and economic conditions. • Drafted proposed zoning regulations to improve revitalization opportunities. How will redevelopment improve the Highlands and preserve affordability? • By increasing the total number of housing units and partnering with home ownership programs, there will be additional opportunities for affordable home ownership. • Additional housing units will also bring more families with a mix of incomes to the neighborhood, encouraging new businesses to locate there. • The City's proposal would require new housing developments to build affordable units in order to preserve affordability. • Without a redevelopment initiative, new development will NOT be required to provide any affordable housing units. REZONING Why are some properties being rezoned and others not? The City's plan for present and future land use is called its "Comprehensive Plan." The Comprehensive Plan designates much of the Highlands Subarea as "Center Village." The proposed changes to zoning are consistent with the policies already established in Center Village. Won't a rezone increase the number of housing units and affect traffic? The affect of additional units on traffic was studied. The analysis revealed that while there will be more cars if more people live and work in the Highlands, there would be no noticeable reduction in the level of service under the proposed rezoning concept, with the exception of the intersection of Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street. This intersection would need southbound and westbound left turn pockets to accommodate increased traffic volumes. What other zoning and land use changes are expected? Some changes may be proposed to expand the Center Village designation in the Comprehensive Plan. These changes require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and will be proposed later in the year. What determines the `Center Village" designation in the Comprehensive Plan? • Although it was originally called "Suburban Center," the essential vision and polices of the Center Village designation were first adopted through public process in 1993 with the City's first Comprehensive Plan. • The purpose of the designation was to redevelop existing low-density suburban areas into compact higher density urban villages. • The urban village is intended to be pedestrian friendly and transit oriented with neighborhood-oriented commercial development and medium- to high- density housing. If my property is to be rezoned, what does that mean? Perhaps the biggest change will be that existing single-family and duplex units will be considered "non-conforming uses." This means that existing development is "grandfathered." • Non-conforming uses that were legally built and constructed are allowed to continue. • Non-conforming uses can be maintained (re-roofed or remodeled on the inside), but cannot be expanded (adding second story or rooms). • Non-conforming uses, if destroyed by fire, for example, can only be rebuilt to the same square footage of what it was before and within two years of being destroyed. • Non-confirming uses may also be changed in a way that makes them consistent with the required zoning rules. Proposed Rezoning: CV-R = (Center Village-Residential): Allows townhouses and cottages with a base density of 10-14 dwelling units per acre. Property owners who can consolidate at least one acre of property and provide affordable housing are eligible for the Flex Bonus. ■ Flex Bonus = Single-family homes and multi-story apartments can be built (stacked flats, also called multi-family, are limited to the area east of Kirkland Ave.), and higher density is allowed. CV-C = (Center Village Core): Allows townhouses, flats, commercial uses, and mixed residential and commercial uses with a base density range of 20-60 dwelling units per acre. Property owners who provide affordable housing can build at densities up to 80 units per acre. R-10 = (Residential-10 units per acre): The area that will remain zoned R-10 in the Highlands Subarea will be subject to a change in development regulations. Detached and semi-attached homes will be prohibited in the R-10 zone within the Highlands Subarea. This means that existing single-family homes and duplexes will be considered non-conforming uses. (See above) Does this rezoning mean that my property will be condemned? No. This rezoning proposal has nothing to do with the condemnation of property. In nearly every case, the proposed rezone may provide a small increase in land value because the land has the potential to be developed for a higher density use. Rezoning allows property owners who want to develop their property to go ahead and invest in the neighborhood by building housing that is consistent with land use plans for the area. DECLARATION OF "BLIGHT" Is the City going to declare the Highlands as "blighted?" `fir A determination of"blight" must be agreed to and adopted by the City Council. At ' this time, the City Council has not made a decision to proceed with a declaration of blight. In the future, the City MAY have an interest in buying property in the Highlands for the purpose of consolidating parcels of property for redevelopment. Cities are not allowed to buy property unless it is for a public use. By declaring an area "blighted," the City would be able to purchase properties for the purpose of removing the "blight" under Washington's Community Renewal Act (Chapter 35.81 RCW, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.81). This action would also provide the City with other powers such as the ability to force landlords to make repairs to rental units. What area is being considered for inclusion in the blight declaration? At this time, the City is considering an area described as the North Harrington Redevelopment Core (see attached map). This includes: • Sunset Terrace, • The commercial areas on the north side of Sunset Boulevard (west of the intersection with NE 12th), • The Glennwood area, and • Properties between NE 12th and the Kirkland-Harrington Loop, between Harrington and Kirkland. This does not mean that every property in the boundary is considered blighted or potentially feasible for redevelopment. The boundary was drawn around a concentration of poor conditions and is subject to change. How did the City rate the conditions of houses in the Highlands? The ratings were only used to make general correlations and assessments about the study area, not to make assessments as to the value or worth of individual homes. City staff evaluated the condition of each property based on what they could observe from the street. Property condition ratings were then used to compare housing conditions to other information collected. These ratings have not been formally adopted by the City Council, nor will they be. The following information was found using this method: • Blocks with the worst housing conditions tended to have more police cases. • Blocks with the worst housing conditions had more calls for fire and aid service. • Blocks with the best housing conditions had more homes occupied by owners. Won't a Declaration of Blight lower property values? • Owning property that is in the vicinity of neglected and dilapidated properties is already lowering the value of property. • Redevelopment in the neighborhood and the removal of poor housing should increase property values. • In general, property values may be raised slightly by the proposed rezone prior to any declaration of blight. New, Is the City going to use eminent domain to condemn people's homes? • There is no plan to remove all of the existing housing in the North Harrington Community Renewal Area. It is anticipated that much of the housing would stay under its present ownership. • If the City were to adopt a Community Renewal Plan, it MAY be interested in working with property owners willing to sell their properties and participate in the redevelopment process. • All efforts would be made to create new housing options for existing residents. The City would work with the Renton Housing Authority and other non-profit affordable housing providers that would create new affordable housing options. Existing residents would have the first opportunity to take advantage of these new opportunities. • The vision for redevelopment will only occur in a timely fashion if several parcels can be acquired and be redeveloped in chunks. • Once an area is declared as "blight," the City may use the tool of eminent domain under the Washington Community Renewal Act to buy individual properties at fair market value. • This will only be used as a last resort after all efforts to consolidate property through the private marketplace are exhausted, and then, only if a specific property is essential to redevelopment. • Each property acquired through the use of eminent domain requires a separate process, establishment of fair market value, and City Council action. DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE I received some information about an environmental determination of non- significance. What was that about? Any time the City makes a change in its development regulations, it must review the changes to determine what the environmental impacts might be. These notices provide basic information about the determination and alert the public that the City is asking for public comments. How can the City say that the redevelopment of the Highlands is "non- significant?" The use of the term "non-significant" has a technical meaning and in no way indicates that the redevelopment of portions of the Highlands is not meaningful to the City and does not warrant substantial public review. In this case, "non- significant" means that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required to fully disclose the potential environmental impacts of an action. Under existing regulations, additional environmental review would occur when actual development occurs. The City's Environmental Review Committee made a determination that the proposed change in zoning regulations will not require an EIS. OPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT Why can't the City just fix the physical or health problems in the Highlands? • Many of the problems can only be addressed through voluntary compliance of the property owner. • In 2003, the King County Health Department sent letters to the neighborhood about potential asbestos, lead based paint and indoor air quality hazards in many homes. Even though they offered free home assessments, only three property owners participated. • The City can only address other issues, such as junk in the yard, when it becomes bad enough to be a "nuisance," as defined by City Code. • The Washington State Constitution prevents the City from entering homes to inspect conditions. Why doesn't the City just assign more police to the area? • The City has already dedicated several police officers to the area. • There is already a disproportionate amount of resources devoted to crime in the Highlands. • As long as the physical conditions of the neighborhood reflect neglect, non- intentional or otherwise, criminals will view the Highlands as a good place to do business. Why can't we just let the free market redevelop the Highlands? • The Highlands has been in a slow decline for many years and redevelopment has not occurred, despite the fact that the existing zoning on many properties allows a substantial increase in density. • Market analysis shows that some property owners can make more money renting dilapidated property than they can from investing in high-quality redevelopment. • More than 60% of the existing units in the Highlands Subarea are rentals. • Without City intervention, existing affordable rental units will be forever lost as property values rise and investors redevelop their properties individually. • Developers are only interested in investing in the neighborhood if it is a part of a larger redevelopment initiative. The proposed rezone is a sign to the development community that the City is serious about revitalizing the neighborhood. What will happen to the people who live in the area today if redevelopment occurs? • It is the policy of the City Council to increase the amount of affordable housing in the community. • A coordinated redevelopment effort will allow the City to work with the Renton Housing Authority and other non-profit affordable housing providers to create new, higher quality replacement housing that will remain affordable over time. • The City's current policies would require replacement and expansion in the amount of affordable housing units by 30%. • A coordinated redevelopment effort may also allow existing property owners to swap their land for newly constructed units. • Existing residents will be given the first opportunities to move in to new subsidized developments that are safer, higher quality and possible more affordable than their existing homes. OPTION A & OPTION B There has been talk in the community about "Option A" and "Option B," what are these options? *se Noe Two possible implementation strategies were presented to the City Council during its recent workshop. • "Option A" implements the revised zoning by utilizing the Community Renewal Act. This would bring about improvement of the poor physical, social and economic conditions in the area more quickly through a coordinated redevelopment effort and creation of higher quality, safer, permanently affordable housing. • "Option B" calls for the rezone of properties, pursuit of code enforcement and allows market forces to eventually redevelop the area. Existing conditions would persist until piecemeal redevelopment occurs and affordable housing would be lost over time due to gentrification. Are "Option A" and "Option B" related to the land use concepts on display at the Highlands Planning Open House Last Fall? No. Those land use concepts were completely different from the Council discussion on redevelopment strategies. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT It seems like the City is moving too fast in its planning efforts. • The City began studying redevelopment of the Highlands in 2000. • In 2001, the City created the Center Village land use designation, but redevelopment did not happen. • The City began a new approach in late 2004, and has been studying and working on the Highlands Redevelopment Initiative ever since. • All property owners were invited to participate in this new planning effort in Spring 2005. • At this time, the results of the City's planning efforts are being released for public review through a series of public meetings and hearings in the coming months. What public input has there been into the City's recent work on the Highlands Subarea so far? • The City sent all property owners in the Highlands a survey about potential redevelopment in Spring 2005. • In Summer 2005, the City invited property owners to a series of focus groups. • In November 2005, the City held a public Open House at the Highlands Community Center. • Residents and property owners have been sent several notices by the City, inviting comment on the development moratorium, the environmental review for the proposed zoning changes and public hearings for the proposed zoning changes. Why did the City enact a development moratorium for The Highlands? • The City enacted a development moratorium development allowed under the existing zoning was not consistent with the vision established in the Comprehensive Plan. • The moratorium gave the City time to figure out how best to achieve redevelopment and revitalization of the neighborhood. .0000006. Under the rules of the moratorium, property owners can remodel, clean up and otherwise improve existing structures. However, they cannot subdivide, expand or build new units. When does the moratorium end? The moratorium is scheduled to expire May 14, 2006, unless extended by the City Council. How can I get involved in the Highlands planning effort? • Attend Planning Commission and City Council meetings where the Highlands Subarea is an agenda topic. • All property owners are sent notices when required by state or local law, such as a Notice of Application when a project begins environmental review or when a public hearing is held to collect input. • If you wish to receive notification of project milestones, you should contact Judith Subia (below) to be added to the parties of record list for the Highlands Subarea. Judith Subia at jsubia@ci.renton.wa.us or (425) 430-6575 There has been a lot of speculation about the Highlands planning effort. Where can I get additional and accurate information? Highlands Redevelopment: www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/highland.htm Planning Commission: www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/pcinfo.htm You can also come into City Hall (6th Floor) and talk to a strategic planner about it, or call us on the phone at (425) 430-6575. ■Ire1!=+�■Fps■�.. It 1✓��:� ■■■s ! ■ ■1_ v . � . � ■��■ _I�� ■IIE+■ .SEI � err■ ■Yi■i1■■ ■■■■■■ 1 Ii j � LIIILI! :i i!III ! 1fIF?.WUL2I ! ■� ■I !■ �, vii , ■■•!■ ■!r .IIkl pIi'#1j' jI ■�,,,• , � , �- �� �� 4011i � s ii , EIW9uIj ■. � , r , 3&Z$atW .1�■■■w . , ■■■�_�11, ��■17t Illllr�� �: :■a :: D111111111 ! �fF.:,i= �ICI:ILI01J11111 L ��A mil w �■`��i �� ■■ -- �, S � ���- — X11111111 .� .. ti ■ ■ rar ■s, �■ �1111��� � , L�.�r■ �:= "_r is ■ ��i-ri■�■■��__/I��11■ ■ww s, N E 20th �`���_�� j �� � J..,. X11 ■11: ���� :'L!� .i� ■�:��� 11�1�� 1II ! JIP!' �■ .. ._�© ..1111►�IISI •• � II _■ ' it ■■■■■ ��� � •�... s,i ■■I�r���lla ■■■■■��, , 1 � ■Ilii ■1�1■� i1J � ii��17 u►■i# i� i�r�� ,�; a ��, > >� �J � �1 � j :- 1f4L11111;!%IrlIII!!JIIi .■�■ ■1 ■ . ■� ��1��� ti s ' ■„I �� � �� �� ■rte■ ■ �■° �1 �I , i�{ J �� � ■■11 ■ ■i i �■ =i { 3 j {� ���■ I.. ■sig ■ ■� ■ �■ r i i� �, ,.� r,� - ■�,��■� �■ E� ■ � � i � j� �j > � � � J II � � 1� � .e+Rlmr.r ■ ' ' � '1 l � �l :l, � i+�E 1 f►1 ■.� ��llllli��' =✓� 'i ' �1 a�� i •. � . �� M � 1��''lll� ■■■■ ' , - -� �o -I••�'1L�II��Il1i1�1 r i■�� �����■ � 1 � �alp,�i Y� � � ' � � i i � 3 �=cls � �/ �^� 3 , , � ' ���,' �I•!•a � i ����■w l 1 3� ', I ■■ �4 �'' ix' j� �� ■�'ia10!1■ � �w r�� SAW/ __ 900 i I ;� ) a� ■■■■a�■■■ .■� ■W�rr SII 11 c , � ' � - ■ ■WL1■iWW■ ■Y■■Lil��i� ■�SA �� � � I ' t�� ■■■■■■� �u��l�s ��� of � �, ��/Ip iGllll� � ,. '� ;moi i ■. • � i� ��■ ■ r �, �■ ■_ I/s. ■■�W■■ya■ �a� I: 111111111 �■ �� ���� %Ii i■ J1■ar■�rg!■■■■is �y � u�I111111Lsc- :� !� 111111111 X11111111!1111111■ ■■■' � �Illllllli �� �i ■� 11111L1111 ■11111i'1111I111/i moi■ � _.- ..LIIJSIIIC:: ii� �■ cs■ 1111111111 ■It■ ■1■ IT7$j �:� : �11?Is!■ r_ � . ss ss "1 I111I 9lh .�L ! 7" i1I :Q �� .■■AnR11:'A11rn111111 � =1�i��:� �IIp III • Wy1j�� �I ��,� E�II h caii m 111I1/ij llili , . ■11 ■ ■ mijt: �� ►�. .► X111 ►� 111! �i7■•� ■ ��� G����� 11 11 ' ����� 11:1111111\���wV���,. s� ^ I .■ O A1C ► �� �►�.� ■� ��i1 � 1��I►� ���. � hA.1/IIII-� �� ;���;s �I"' s7i► 1� ■• 1JJLAIUhI �&%iII: ._ ,=�1�������AIII ■�1:%`�1�0�'��� �. i r' � IIIIAl1Illii 111l11111 1111'� ��ws1\� ��� �! EQ a IIIIm:u IIIo1111 11111111' 1111/��j�111�j1 �� . Ilei ♦ �!I■ .�w �■ D ��!1 111111111 !noun■■n I V l .111111 Iiia ��r �.■w■■�J■�I_CT1TD UI ra _■i��■■ ■■ �� ' 111 J;'� �� Ei u �1►L �17L�If ■■ is�, ■ Ei o �� m■.� I if mii" IlUmul Highlands Sub-Area Plan Study Area & North Harrington Redevelopment Core • � Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ♦ • Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario � � 20 February 2006 /cded ,* kk,Akcp,71.3 Frequently Asked Questions about Legal Non-Conforming Uses What does it mean if my property is a "legal non-conforming" use? A non-conforming use is a lawful use of land that does not comply with the current use regulations for its zone, but which complied with the regulations in effect at the time the use was established. According to the Renton Municipal Code, legal non-conforming uses may be continued, but not expanded. Why can't I be "grandfathered in"? There is some misunderstanding about what the term "grandfathered in" really means. To be "grandfathered in" means exactly the same thing as the technical term "legal non-conforming". When a use is "grandfathered-in" it means that it is allowed to continue even though the zoning rules have changed. What can I do with my property if it is a "legal non-conforming" use? Properties that are legal non-conforming uses are allowed to continue, but not allowed to be expanded. This means that the buildings on the property are not allowed to get bigger, and new buildings may not be added (unless they conform to the zoning regulations). People with legal non-conforming property may remodel the inside of their units, install new wiring, install new plumbing, put on a new roof, landscape their yards, clean up litter and debris, paint, and perform other normal maintenance activities for their homes. People with legal non- conforming property may decide to replace the existing structures with buildings that conform to the zoning regulations. What would happen if my property were destroyed, for example, in a fire? Would I be able to rebuild? If the property is a single-family home, the Renton Municipal Code allows for the home to be rebuilt within two years of being destroyed. If the property is not a single family home, the Code allows the building to be rebuilt if the damage is up to 50% of the value of the structure. Structures that suffer more than 50% of their value may only be rebuilt if the City Council approves a Rebuild Approval Permit. CITY OF Re- NIN Pi/ (arrespvrde4ce APR 1 4 2006 RECEIVED CO /z -0 (o Y CLERK'S OFFICE L,� k&dsAi &.amej ),L - Q /0&3 $a /tJd ") 114 �7" ,�-,.� N use.. Ayer a . J4 aiLe Lely d4 11/14r- _ - /tai / 447.41-€ SE eofferandmee S4/7-06 %kw Nov Tareasha Salinas 1211 Jefferson Avenue NE r - Renton,WA 98056 -< 425.226.6754 Home 206.313.6862 Cell April 14,2006 CMOFReiro, Renton City Hall •Rcfrer'ved -E'ro,n chi; APR 1 7 1006 Planning committee for Highlands improvement study by Illy ZEKIWEIF'S alTYFlCE Dear Sir or Madam: My name is Tareasha Salinas. I am a mother of three young children on a more than tight income. I moved into the Renton Highlands four years ago, but have had family here all my life. In October I moved into my current residence. My duplex that I'm renting is owned by my great aunt Lennice Dalrymple, who has lived there a great portion of her life. My mother was raised in the same duplex that I am now renting. My great aunt is a single woman with numerous health problems and the previous tenant left our home in unlivable conditions. My aunt could not afford to repair the damage and we needed somewhere bigger, so we agreed to move in. In order to start living there we spent 2 weeks repairing and several thousands of dollars in repairs since October. The inside is looking great and then anonymous people started leaving notes attached to our doors and windows saying the city was going to take our homes because they didn't meet standards. We tried cleaning the outside of the home as soon as weather permitted. I became panicked that all the work and pride I was putting into my home was all going to be destroyed. I recently talked with someorwricortcycity hail who clarified lots of things for me. She explained that what the city wanted to accomplish was to try to clean up, not tear apart, the Highlands. That they wanted to do similar things like they are doing in High Point. My hrslrorked for Absure construction that was building the renovations in High Point. I was in the area numerous times. I feel that this type of renovation would be great for Renton, Assuming that people including myself, won't loose their homes. I think that city officials need to counter act the slanderous messages and reassure people that their homes are safe and this is in attempt to make the Highlands what it used to be. The same loving people, maybe a fresh coat of paint, eliminate the crime and riffraff and make the Highlands great again, and not an attempt to turn it into " the new Redmond, or Bellevue". I take great pride in my home. I'm not being reimbursed for any of the work I am putting into it, so I feel almost like a home owner instead of a renter. However, I can not afford to move anywhere else. Please consider helping people understand the council's true intent, and help me to be reassured I am safe to stay in my home. Sincerely, Tareasha Salinas Proud Highlands Resident/Homemaker • °5; IONS Do 4) A)L-f & z ���Qyi, P� C'orr p. ''�' i� , i fl l!l(d1Ll3 4/-27-06 Gip Lc. !9� 1g6- .S llobv6/3/ l4.6- c1 c 0,1 I,.6 /44, S eT zji/J'b/N6 i� 71 -K 'iVN., i )A. 9 rot TON .-r Tha nu, koti _to)2 (e )R& 7&k) c Ty c , iL 1 nus, Pae-hck,� f11 s • Li rib----- APRR1 7 2006 �, CEIVED avh 1,41-3:65 on of Vvwf 8 7 y',.�/Z.r�PcPFFICE tO MAW-, S lam.l i i/'t.S i h Lrita h-hr,:,' 4.5h 1 a-i- • 514R., .41„ r , gut P4-41 l?4 s i,k ii,190- �- vr i�� I+ A K.,vvx01��!$4,-rtitrz. of tt te.. &4 dvi F krri LIT- . This IhcIklS rp1ci.cci 1 a s-it.dt� i -pis I OJ Cc) ems 1 Na l¢� • k, tt n P(�& ii ra -W ovn ow ioa, s Joz I I t 1 tri ii&c1- of wily L) A yfj rt& i-p f� ` /;v,i1c) 12 '�f > V 4;XIw //(0-6, PI�lo4: irVV74) ' 0(:". 1 9- vt-1- . s, 149446se 1,0 Olt AO "C‘ . r ,vvui-l_ -I "sc 1A.4.<-, itiOvi 13 4., f 4 O.* id-- 4 evpi pc.z/ii 64 Ati../.. .A. tocia,c._ `g‘ 4 N ''`itiVes& I SGS L, _ A'0 t.) —tor i cor miutil a5 a,, e ,.iZ c)yo,f: A Is- viz, L„,; tea% a .vl. ` "'` 'A 641)°4 % w ,I.:- -eilt put.t...tifiti4e.;6 6,... Ifita4:4---P 3 e)c, .!6/31:1;1` cAYA 4;11- -P4cci-S-k- )1 -ek, Sd4.4.a. ci )c, 4`rtug-i ' '"1-61.-11 ce,(iti'm fr-t oz, ifivirvux414-4- VII tk5 eitse.:vcol-4,e. iiv-t-- A . '4. Cd"titi,141-u-rly12, Zit C, %.109147) L;t .1J'i7f41141i ) C ,$(4.d c7 0 . V j'ang.,litit'VS-, Me-(144411411:j ‘Pf--i r e f-e 1 e-S P ' ci4d...- . 14‘&4^L , aavis A 1?(.4C , ini A/ 4 chlib.,,taiii&a, ( 5,t ,, Ms& s 4he k� Jc hd rb4� fix/ _ L `. . i 6644,1-Z,sitair /-&e ql-w- t saritelebs" u A", /x ft 1A.6" , Lam, fAtie �,��c + 14-.;cy / () ,f atievrpttoem, I ' a,.✓ frvi (t 1,4414.. 4U1111- "11�15#,?lib c �L-- ' al.:•:. : , 5LOm Li 4. ate- N�7 rot , 0 A li yvykixi4,1, bpit4pds 9- t , % ';,,3:: dem i+ Lkko-i4.-/1414 ked.rid71/ti V444-1 _ 1C teas s. ;Vee4,,i`f- J! 4� 2��e +l651 5f Wit[. " ale.L. .t. " 4444 - t ow" } oewtrdei ,ia. ,4 r vu p a- ��g//civ c L YAAA. 04 we ct. t 1, 'e.ri) 4 stivrs -r e i+ ()c 4 ,c..—f in e ! C-3).{ • t� � d. &L,972,,,i rim) �, .. , 30 " 4 riC ., _ 0 - tl 010, -..i. 4,4•:. -- .0.-u. .41'hi r ��7 .' , • t g,,,..el .. &eve d 0 /,U.e 4 -474, i ---kiALkittmi 471'42, Z G ?-` ``bj4 ft v (1/7-4 .� /lost eiL -/`e,,`ecL. f/ F T 4z.SaZ: �'4" 11 _ . 4/4 �"F��LAG�llrv"�'I '� �%// ��SL1e C yJ�s�f�/ it � _"Ii("ell fJa�d t, eitiii4.0 1 ..t., .re Atart4!--. ' "Ad ''-`16e-71 i Aiot#'Je -o',1144-i-ltsetzz-e4:ti I'i� lid; A'�° (� 1� it t41 airiv) cielv'-i A.1.4.4( a;44-1 ")i .1' t�l%JAfi'� 141.04-1v .v..:...1,.. <�12��1�� ! 2'4162/4 • /py t=* . ik4 , - ` ` e , � 11) ,49u /r � 1: : dam- �'�►'�_ Y�, .c� Y`lc e-- 11;11' 01-40-, rte., - i r J urytgratel L�� 4 _ � Uj�r,�RA�- 0 V //� LN K� t Vl / ( "`�` e. tw"tc�st E -- " Y t ell Nn2-.1* a“,eira44,/ i0.014 gylit_/4--(64-a) 'It4 l'al,(--AC tAticile, 611 4 40- w+ w - l Sttt SIlleci L . 1 t Ito r' b 'r: rdi ' _` er - ii,=-_il/Lift2444-4-' , Ai ,o-rt/v-d1-=' tati.t.t-A-:: _ 1A-14#-g-a-4'-`44/4":2- (2)2-112‘.04') -IS L C: VJ . nVt t L1Lj V /• $ V 4 Z.1! 0 ' �Gig, _,vezt"11�c 1Ut" r 1 14% /Il .EI. : : ; ti ,„ 1 04. e ro• s t:'� �i%r�' a _�_ — ,1 ,w. ' ,fir / eifk// Cdr r -a. I,el r ;• •/ "P faro 112144431 r I .- 11A Pr . i j‘n -V -d ' ael..I / IV 01 V '41 2!A= *1 S. Tl( 1 ^797% Fat ,' ' '°1 . le -1 #7' )111`,J14 4eYrg -7479j1!_.11 511441"7/1917_ , irel , 7rmut2vo y-r4,Q 0(7,-9.-v,,k-v-wv.4110`-'re?-s-AP-x 1; 4 o-Y71. J 7 , 1r, xc3t --A/71-1°7-6- c ifiLi ,,ccnm 01 vf07c)7 7Y- 47 --:�•<< j 117.7":") 'fir W D717 i 'nulA 'il" 41 Jif- �� .�- isik -- -r �v Pte' '-) '' 0 _,• _45,i-f--- -1,,,n7„:"p- -a-r-140-7 \AfT# -?‘rviiL`'D 0.•.., , **T‘v h c u e r -Plo, , 4 G 94 �1 , 4 Ilk ,mac ► tiwil5 - 0n C l �ik '', ,12 ._ ! so -b cavo 1 ! 1i thePrer 1.4°.:•...; . ..?--,2,,,-Ar-1470 17---7.,r0 7s oili,h6)- .1 A, * -?')/ r1931jrz(17,-)st'l '-114rrev p '2 10" -5 s .t/.. X45 : --- 1 • --,72,4a4 "Yr ( c ' (/`11' l 'iorj VIM b ei,i -p l 1- II4 iy ' -wr extt. 91,14,7702 h. zwri•vviarrykv,-,-„,, --,./kev.v0A1-. • ---7-i-kra 'T 51 , 7j.-..:171(1) 1(49r ,:21.417e71.34,71,71-7-d-r '( " 2n'$ ) :APO ; 7 ,_„ ,h ; 9 - f cre eri . Nrero Proud Supporter of The Humane Society of the United States USA - 7 Patricia Sado SE SEATTLE WA 981 , 4- PIP 9902 126th Ave • , - - Renton,WA 98056-2430 14 APR 2.ka.16 PFW 6 I" . Adak • 111)(1 'oi kOR.1 -72- OfreEeL-7e /( \77-0/1/ ciTY 6,o0/Ocu4/ 141i2 P167-5c-i-l/M5 4../A).6 /0 55 so6)-7-1/ GR,4b/ to/c1 /y 7RE-Arral k)4r OF RENTON APR 1 7 2006 'Vg0 55 CaY ACREK'S OFFICE StIOSS+:21:21:::;.-1 P Correspotdence ,....4 ,...0, y-i 7-06 CITY OF RENTON Sunset Vista Apartments APR 1 7 2006 922 Glennwood Ave. NE-Renton, WA 98056 RECEIVED ate'CLERK'S OFFICt Renton City Council April 12, 2006 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Members of the Renton City Council, We are writing in support of the new vision for the Renton Highlands and the sub area rezoning for the Center Village concept because we believe the Highlands is in great need of a facelift. We have owned an eleven-unit apartment building on Glennwood Avenue since 1978 and though our building is vintage 1960's we have worked very hard to keep it attractive in appearance and landscaping, with well maintained apartment units. With much regret we have watched other buildings along our alley, as well as much of the surrounding neighborhood, deteriorate. The quality and safety of the neighborhood has declined substantially, as well. We have been especially concerned about public drunkenness' and vagrants sleeping on the back streets and empty lots, and we have on occasion had to call upon the Police Department to assist us in removing vagrants from around our property. Parking for our tenants is outside in a well-marked, well-lit lot; still some of our tenants have been victims of stereo and battery theft and broken windshields. We support the rezoning proposal permitting mixed residential and commercial use because we believe the newer buildings, new housing for all income levels, nicer retail shops and employment opportunities will revitalize the community. Investing in the community, aggressively addressing crime issues and upgrading the neighborhood's appearance will return a sense of pride to the Highlands. We look forward to learning more about the progress of this project and its ultimate culmination. in -rely, on ro .nd Nancy V xelgy/t x"`� ( pi_ Jon Nancy TroxelajM :; 'b+S #� �ti '� PO Box 1864 _ • Friday Harbor, WA 98250-1864 4 APR 2.006 PM 4, T „ SSA CITY OF RENTON APR 1 7 7008 Renton City Council RECEIVED City of Renton OfNCLERK'S OFFt, 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 r;rj -i--:4 RECEIVEd `my APR 17 2006 l • To The 'Mayor t Ci 1y cokh€T J .4p,', 17 42406 RENTC}N rlr ' Cou!vCl P�! 6olres pandenc& U-11-0& Ladies and gentlemen, I come here to ask you to reconsider the zoning package which the city staff has prepared for you to adopt. A month ago on March 8, all of you and those of us fron the Highlands Comunity Council met for a long Saturday at the Renton Technical College. There the staff laid before you and us 2 plans. Option "A" and option "B" I have provided a copy to the people here and an additional copy for you. Of course, you arleady received a copy there at the meeting when I received mine. These were the two plans presented. One plan, "Option A" calls for the city to take "acquire and assemble" the private property from the owners. On this "Option A" the city is going to declare this area "Blighted" That will give themrpecial powers. The city will then take ownership of the houses, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes etc in the area. The Mayor and the City Council then become the landlords for the residents who live there. At that point according to YOUR "Option A" the city evicts all of the residents,and turns over the property to their "DEVELOPER PARTNERS" who tear down the homes of the people. According to the city staff at the hearing last Wednesday before the Planning Commission, the develpoer will Dq_t be required to adhere to the zoning ordinances and regulations that you are enacting to control us. According to the staff SPECIAL dispensation will be granted to the developer so that the developer is not held to following the rules imposed on the rest of us. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD! ! Next according to your "OPTION A" the city will provide assistance from the taxpayers to further enhance the profits for the developer. ie. A. Special grants from the feds and the county will be provided to the developer. B. Special compensation in the form of tax credits,incentives etc. etc. usually in the past this amounted to millions of dollars. That's a GREAT deal for the developer. You Folks are great partners for him! But what about the people of modest means? What about people who own these duplexes, fourplexes, and homes now? You have been depressing the values of these properties by your moratorium for about a year now. This has been a HUGE deterrent for many of us who wanted to improve our properties. My collegues and I bought a couple of duplexes a year ago. I went to the city in what is now a famous meeting to obtain a permit to improve the duplex where my daughter lives on Jefferson and was told that a moratorium had just been placed on the area but that it would be lifted in October. I came back and was told that the moratorium had been extended. I started to ask some real questions and was told thatthe city, That's the MAYOR and the CITY COUNCIL did not want the properties in the Highlands to be improved! ! ! The city government, that's you folks here, stopped the improvement in the area. You forced down the values of the properties. And, you stopped private citizens like me from improving the property. IF THERE IS CURRENTLY A "BLIGHT" IN THE AREA YOU ARE MOST CERTAINLY AT LEAST PARTLY TO BLAME! ! ! ! Now let's talk reason. Option "A" and the really bad zoning package that is before you is proposed to upgrade the area by taking the property away form the private home owners and investers,tbeir .y. It is also, FLAT OUT, designed to put my daughter and her friends and neighbors on the street. No one has even suggested a possible plan to help them to find affordable housing or ease their being ejected from their homes. THAT'S "OPTION A" Let's look at "OPTION B" As you can see from the staff comments on "Option B" Option "B" is being presented as much less desirable than Option "A". But, under "Option B" The residents are allowed to stay in their homes! Under "Option B" the private property owners are encouraged to fix up their properties. Individual freedom is maintained. The values that many of hold dear of Individual freedom, libery rights and fair play are encouraged. I PLEAD WITH YOU TO REFECT "OPTION A" and the associated zoning package that is before you and to RECONSIDER "Option B" I will offer you a deal y l l 6fd.bay 116.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=00000000%2d0000%2d0000%2d0000... 4/17/2006 MSN Hotmail - Now *iv If you will work with us in the spirit of Option "B" and allow my daughter and her friends and neighbors to stay in their homes for just 2 YEARS! If you will just give us 2 years after this repressing moratorium ends next month to fix up the properties and cure this supposed "blight", If you will just give the economic free market system two years to allow us to turn this area around, If we haven't in two years made a major leap forward in improving the Renton Highlands then I will step aside! You can go back then to "OPTION A" and take the property away from the private property owners and pay them a just and fair market value for their properties. You can go ahead thenand evict these folks that are residents from their homes and you can then make your developer partner rich and I will stand aside and count it fair that at least you gave us a chance! BUT! ! If you don't give us a chance to do it ourselves with some real help from the CITY- the same kind of help that you are offering your "developement partner" then all the world and especially every citizen of RENTON who cares for either private property rights or the homes of those with modest means, every citizen will know that YOU are devoid of compassion. And, that you spit on the rights of the people of RENTON. You stomp on the rights rights of common, private, citizens to own and keep their investments and their homes! ! I challenge you, I invite you HERE THIS DAY to accept our fair proposal to give the individual owners and residents a chance to clean up and improve our neighborhood ourselves! Give us our rights to improve our properties. Give us better, more appropriate, more frindly zoning and regulations that will encourage improvement of our properties. Give us 2 years to prove that we can do what you have prevented us from doing by your moratorium and your unreasonable restrictions. We invite you to work with us at improving our area. I give you my pronise that I will do all that I can to aid in preserving the homes for these residents and cleaning up and improving OUR HIGHLANDS. OUR HIHGLANDS WHERE WE LIVE! ! ! We have a very simple concrete plan: A. Restore to us that we will be legal and CONFORMING so we can improve our properties. B. Encourage and stream line the permitting process at city hall so we can get permits to improve our properties in a timely manner. C. Work with us like youpropose to work with the developer of "Option A" . Give us similar support to what you offered to him and we will make the RENTON HIGHLANDS the jewel of Puget Sound! We hold the Mayor and you Council members with no ill will. We want to be your friends. We hold the same desires to see Renton and especially OUR Highlands improved! We ask a fair chance to improve the area while preserving the homes of the residents , the renters and home owners. We want to preserve the private property rights and freedoms of the property owners. We ho.lJ out to you the hand of fellowship and goodwill. Please reject this SHAMEFUL "Option A" with its equally shameful zoning package and work with us as your partners to improve OUR HIGHLANDS! ! Thankyou, Howard Mcomber Sr. 475 Olympia Aye. NE �en�dH, w 'SOS, 'ww TO THE RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE "HIGHLANDS" NOTICE At the Renton City Council Meeting held March 8, 2006 at Renton Technical College the following pages were presented to the City Council by the City Planning Department. { See pages 3,4,5,and 6 attached} At that meeting the planning staff received the assignment to prepare the zoning package now up for consideration by the City Council which is to implement "Option A". If the City Council adopts the now proposed "New zoning package" without major revisions the following will occur according to their own "Option A" A. The City will acquire the property from the present property owners. If necessary the City, "RESERVES the RIGHT to COMPEL property owners as a last resort" B. After the City ACQUIRES title through what ever means it finds necessary the City will then be the LANDLORD of all the properties. Does it plan to rent the properties to the present residents? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! It will then sell the properties to its developer partner and EVICT EVERY resident!! C. Has the City put forward any plan to assist the residents who are evicted to find other housing? NO!!! D. The CITY has created the present low prices in the area through their moratorium and the threat of this present zoning package. This present zoning package continues the same "STOP" to improving the properties in the area. 'vim` E. Through the current moratorium and the proposed • restrictive zoning package the City itself has stopped the revitalization and improvement of the Highlands. Given the market forces now and that have been in effect during the term of the moratorium many if not all of the "blighted" properties would have been or would now be in renovation. The blighted properties in other areas in South King County have been improved while the moratorium has CAUSED our "blight" to remain. F. If the current zoning package is not altered, the City plans to acquire the properties good and bad. When that time comes I will offer my professional services to the property owners to prove that the low values on their properties are the result of the overt actions of the City Government and that the Just and Fair Market Value is much higher than what the City's appraiser is likely to value because of the City's depressing the market through their own regulatory actions!! f Highlands Redevelopment Strategy Option A Description: Comprehensive,strategic approach based on public/private partnerships to make dramatic improvements within a few years Elements: • Develop a North Harrington Community Renewal Plan: Develop a detailed, comprehensive strategy combining new land use policies and zoning; investments in infrastructure and community facilities; partnerships with one or more private homebuilders, the Renton Housing Authority and non-profit homebuilders; a plan for property arc uisition and assembly;property owner and community engagement and where needed,resident relocation assistance. •• Make Blight Declaration: City would declare targeted areas in the Highlands blighted based on analysis of deteriorating conditions in the neighborhood to trigger provisions of the Community Renewal Act. • Use Community Renewal Act: Implement the State Community Renewal Act to create ,a partnership with aprivate developer to create a redevelopment master plan and acquire an assemblage of property large enough to justify higher value new homes and investment. • Invest in new public infrastructure and facilities, such as low-impact storm water systems, streets and alleys, the library and North Highlands community center. • Select a private homebuilder to partner in a master plan redevelopment. • ' Develop partnership with Renton Housing Authority and non-profit homebuilders to assist with relocation and replace and increase a wider range of quality affordable homes. • Create opportunities for existing property owners to own and occupy new homes in the redevelopment. • Extensive community engagement strategy. C • Reserve the right to compel property owners to sell on a limited basis as a last 7� resort, after all other tools and incentives have been exhausted. Results: • Faster, more comprehensive redevelopment of the North Harrington portion of the sub-area, the area with the worst conditions. • Large-scale land assembly justifying higher quality development and investment in the area. • Comprehensive-approach to public infrastructure investment to stimulate private redevelopment. • Larger public investment in affordable housing, increasing the overall availability of new, quality affordable housing in Renton. • Attractive, mixed-income neighborhood with a wider range of new quality homes serving existing and new residents. • Increased redevelopment prospects for the adjacent Hi-Lands shopping center. Highlands Redevelopment tegy Option B .sv Description: Incremental, market based approach that is reactive and small scale Elements: • Develop a set of zoning changes,code amendments and policies to encourage redevelopment of many smaller parcels over longer period of time. • Continue aggressive code enforcement strategy to get private property owners to correct hazards at their properties within the limits of the law. • Work with Renton Housing Authority to implement their plan to replace their aging housing stock in the Highlands with new homes and apartments to meet the changing needs of existing clients and partner with non-profit homebuilders to build new housing for new and future clients. • React to opportunities by connecting willing sellers of property to buyers interested in redevelopment on a smaller scale. • City would still make new investments in library and community center. Results: • Slower,piecemeal redevelopment over many years with existing social conditions and drain on City services continuing until sometime in the future when incremental new investment reaches critical Mass to draw a.wider range of market.interest and family incomes. • Existing duplexes would remain and o ed.to be.ex andel and/or -�. �Y �,. .. .P ,improved. • - Below market.property values would likely continue for sometime and attract lower value projects reflecting the poor condition of many individual properties next door. An exception is by happenstance,a landowner is able to acquire large enough property to attract higher value development. • Revitalization or redevelopment of the Hi-Lands Shopping Center is unlikely. Please endeavor to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on April 12th and the City Council Meeting-on April 17th. This is YOUR opportunity to let city leaders know how YOU want to improve the Highlands. This is YOUR home, and YOU should have been the first ones consulted, not the developers. If you have property valuation questions related .to: blighted property, you can call HCA property advisor, Howard McOmber, 206-679-6694. If you want to verify date, time and place'for the two public meetings, please contact the mayor's office, 425.430.6500. Highlands Redevelopment Inative Problem Today, where there were once well kept homes and high homeownership,the North Harrington neighborhood has become one plagued by absentee landlords,poorly maintained aging duplexes, increasing crime and growing poverty. The area is dominated by deteriorating WW II-era duplexes, originally built to temporarily house wartime workers at the Boeing and PACCAR plants. These are the same duplexes the Seattle and King County Housing Authorities have been demolishing around the region because of their poor condition. The Health Department has cited the area for lead paint exposure and hazardous indoor air quality due to mold and mildew. Less than 3 percent of Renton's land mass and 12.5%of the population, the area draws 20%of first aid calls, 19%of fire calls, 20%of code enforcement complaints, 24%of auto thefts and 15% each of the City's murders and armed robberies. This blightedneighborhood requires dramatic action to again be the great neighborhood it once was and to right the disproportionate demand for City services. Existing market forces threaten to perpetuate and deepen the decline of the neighborhood. As social problems worsened, homeowners have left the neighborhood. Absentee landlords have little incentive to redevelop. Their duplexes are leased and rented, creating positive cash flow without high carrying costs. Replacing and upgrading structures is not cost effective given the current below-market land values in the area and the low density of development allowed under existing regulations. The Vision Our vision is to transform the North Harrington neighborhood into a renewed, redeveloped community that is safe, walkable and attractive to people of all income levels with a mix of single-family houses, townhomes, carriage houses,condominiums and apartment homes. A new street and alley network will make better use of the land. Pedestrian connections and a greenway will link homes to nearby new shops, parks, library,the community centers, and Renton Technical College. Innovative storm water systems and landscaping will add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood and reduce the environmental impacts of redevelopment. New housing will help stimulate revitalization of the Hi-Lands Shopping Center, attracting new shops, restaurants and services to serve residents of the greater Highlands. The Highlands Redevelopment Initiative will improve the quality of life in the North Harrington neighborhood, making it a place that people of all walks of life want to be—no longer a place where people have to be because they have no other option• To achieve this vision, the goal of the Highlands Redevelopment Initiative is to improve quality of life by attracting new residential and commercial investment to the area. Concentrating on the North Harrington neighborhood, the area with the worst problems and the greatest opportunity for change, the initiative seeks to spur new private and public investment for redeveloping blight. Once this initial area is cleaned up, the market will take the reins—revitalizing the remaining portions of the Highlands sub-area without significant additional City involvement. To achieve these goals, EDNSP is developing a Sub-Area Plan that combines in a comprehensive strategy new,higher-density zoning,key public sector investments in new infrastructure,parks, library and North Highlands Community Center; partnerships with private and non-profit homebuilders and the Renton Housing Authority; and potential use of the State Community Renewal Act, which allows cities to accumulate properties as part of a community redevelopment plan. EhtioiSP is presenting two options for implettation: 1) Incremental market-based development, combined with Housing Authority/non=profit housing group , partnerships; and 2)These actions aforementioned, plus a redevelopment plan using the Community Renewal Act targeted at the worst blighted area in the Highlands. The latter option, our tion A, isrefp_ened as it has the greater chance of bringing about more meaningful investment in a timelier manner, allows the City to make comprehensive infrastructure improvements(e.g., storm water detention and street/alley network) and will halt the deterioration of the neighborhood. z! I-�I- .1- '1_�_ Z' '- 1}1I I� t.�`,'Q.�7 _ , 1--: I 4 1 • f --q--g ii-H- __, .�,1-j -I -T I_` f a _ -, '.\ 1 �._ .--I ' - . `1,1 1 j -;17th 1.:Q, I ' -1 i 6th 1 ' Li. iii. • =.1 :_] :-_- .' b - .ridfe S.. 2--_ 1 '. -: NE,1,7th; 5t -''''''''' AV/70 l I 1 . SII 1 ./� ., ' ! �- `-1 ' .• 1-- CII t�� /%/6- S -- I -:, .---ri--•---- .--.1--- - rt'7 ,,,,,,o,/ .... , ..) . __ I.I _ 1' III' /a • : --- 1 , .a + _;_ 1 Li ' 'c5: . 1 -1 - r ;__7 _1¢i ' ,r;i . - I 1- `..0 d FY I ezx l _�;i -i '-L r tii_._-/ p 1 1 3---1 1_0 . ' , ! , r� IUI I t r I 77 -i—•. _ r 1' I ,,UI -- -%i _ I r-1_ ,_.�.: r-1 r .,._- .r.,:: 1 i i *AO• --7-1., I i Tit.I.4 - /4 -f - _._���- -1t.`;--I I-- ,- LI:i __- -r �, 1•'.—.J .- !:1-1- --i i. 1 I - ETflhI]J .. ,; _ T-' r- -- 11 - Ca�T(lht li.-14 ---:LT i i 1f I _17T77:-.:-.-,.:-1 �T 1 _L T.,jrF, 1.-_, *cc7._i {• 1 I 4 ! r -J'~__J`• ,7 , -.4_..-! i--' 'rt -i _.--_.. _-_ �- L L i4re, [�tij i 1Li-.--; V ?C'�i'j 1 i G __- _s'.-..x...:- "f i`__1i t _ \`--', --i--_. -'• 1--i_I._�ryj,yL 1 I �1-_�. ' � I � 1'{ ,---, 1-1 \. --!--111----1..i r..\- -�—. i ,� .1 I.' I ! • _NE ,: _- '411 ; I )6k},- ir, , _ . I NE 7th s T2 I `- Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones �� &s Ondero�a0. 'fi< ® Rezone b Center Vttepe-Commerc ei(CVL) � � rzi fiszone b Cerfier' sg. teiidersYe!(CV4) i:' . � Iii' /'.•- :I.0.,‘, ..i-o .it[. . . .. . 'Cl,'. , '' ,V i 1 • t e i`f 1J1i}: .. u��rea � Comments for Public Record for City Council Meeting Pur�i4c .� maid fi and Prop 'd Rezoning of Renton HighlE 's Subarea by arfi+LGn Nisi" ` of 9474°614' • 'SGC �t�'+ cL1�n, Pca�//G /fearing Based on analysis of the data, rezoning to R14 only creates economic incentive to redevelop single lots sized at 12,700 to 13,337 square feet, and on other larger lots only serves to reduce the underlying value of the land as compared to the PL's existing R10 zoning. C4040101 I want to share with you a comparison of the values of single family redevelopment to town home redevelopment, and call out from these comparisons values of common single lots and contiguous lots. According to King County tax assessments for new construction, in the Highlands in the last 2 years, land values are assessed at 1/3 the value of the total assessed value. This is the same for R10 single family detached and for R20 town homes. The subject properties researched included Cobblestone at NE 4th and Union and the 3700 block of NE 12 th, among others. According to NWMLS as published in the Seattle Times article (Median Price of Home Tops $400,000, April 14th, 2006), the median condo or town home price in King County is$249,500, and the median Single Family home is$405,000. 249,500 = .616 or 62% 405,000 According to Renton Market.com (htto://www.rentonmarket.com/about/neighborhood.htm), based on the NWMLS in December 2003, the condo and town home median was$160,825, and the single family was$255,855. 160,825 = .629 or 63% 255,855 So, we can reasonably assume the value of a town home is 63% of the value of a single family home, and that the value of the land isb3% the total value of a property regardless of whether it is a town home or a single family home. Because these are so close but taken two years apart, the market seems to be relatively stable in this regard. Applying these values, to current R10 single family zoning and the proposed R14 town home zoning, we get the following numbers, which support that the R14 zoning overall actually reduces the value of the underlying land compared to the existing R10 zoning. R14 (per acre)x .63 = 8.82 = .882 or 88% R10 (per acre) x 1 = 10 This correlates to a 12% reduction in value with the proposed zoning. Note that this does not include the loss of land to the proposed alley system, which would further reduce the total land available for development by 10% (per the city table presented with Concept El, Attachment 4, 2/28/2006.) CVR Town House net acreage 19.43= .90 or 90% CVR Town House gross acreage 21.59 Property owner and neighborhood resident, Eric Van Buren Land values R10 versus R14 by lot size* i Lot size Lot size 141.4Num type of value"' adjusted percent sg ft acre units units factor value change less than 1 R10 SF 1 1 6350 1 R14 TH 0.63 0.63 -37.0% 0.14 6350 1 R10 SF 1 1 8889 2 R14 TH 0.63 1.26 26.0% 0.20 8890 2 R10 SF 1 2 9524 2 R14 TH 0.63 1.26 -37.0% 0.21 9525 2 R10 SF 1 2 12699 3 R14 TH 0.63 1.89 -5.5% 0.29 12700 2 R10 SF 1 2 13337 4 R14 TH 0.63 2.52 26.0% 0.30 13338 3 R10 SF 1 3 15874 4 R14 TH 0.63 2.52 -16.0% 0.36 15875 3 R10 SF 1 3 17783 5 R14 TH 0.63 3.15 5.0% 0.40 17784 4 R10 SF 1 4 19049 5 R14 TH 0.63 3.15 -21 .3% 0.43 19050 4 R10 SF 1 4 22229 6 R14 TH 0.63 3.78 -5.5% 0.50 22230 5 R10 SF 1 5 25399 7 R14 TH 0.63 4.41 -11 .8% 0.57 25400 5 R10 SF 1 5 26675 8 R14 TH 0.63 5.04 0.8% 0.60 26676 6 R10 SF 1 6 28574 8 R14 TH 0.63 5.04 -16.0% 0.64 *R10 SF-10 unit per acre Single Family; R14 TH-14 unit per acre Townhouse Value factor based on values obtained from http://www.rentonmarket.com/about/neighborhood.htm Ratio of the value of the land to total assessed value for R10 Single Family to R20 Town Home is the same per King County assessor's office for new construction. Value of commonly si—Nd single lots. Lot Lot size # of Type of Value Total • Sq ft Acre Units Units per lot value 7000 0.16 1 R10 SF 135,000 135,000 2 R14 TH 85,000 170,000 26.0% 1111 2 R14 TH 85,000 170,000 37.0% 3 R14 TH 85,000 255,000 -5.5% 13000 0.29 2 R10 SF 135,000 270,000 4 R14 TH 85,000 340,000 26;0% 111 4 R14 TH 85,000 340,000 16.0% Values assuming large single, or 2 or more contiguous lots. Total Lot size Lot size # of Type of Value Total Sq ft Acre Units Units per lot value 16000 0.36 3 R10 SF 135,000 405,000 5 R14 TH 85,000 425,000 5.0% I MI 5 R14 TH 85,000 425,000 21 .3% 01111111 MEIN 6 R14 TH 85,000 510,000 -5.5% 14 R14 TH 85,000 1,190,000 11 .9% Buildable After change due to new alley* 0.9 14 R14 TH 85,000 1,071,000 20.7% *Per city Concept El, Attachment 4, 2/28/2006 ilan4ect Pub- by � lneL at • y_ 11-06 Council COME AND DEFEND me" YOUR RIGHTS ! ! ! THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 17, AT 6: 15 PM 7TH FLOOR OF RENTON CITY HALL 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY AT STAKE ARE YOUR HOME AND YOUR PROPERTY SEE THE ATTACHED OPTIONS FROM YOUR CITY GOVERNMENT IF YOU DON'T PROTECT YOURSELF WHO WILL? Noe New TO THE RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE "HIGHLANDS" NOTICE At the Renton City Council Meeting held March 8, 2006 at Renton Technical College the following pages were presented to the City Council by the City Planning Department. { See pages 3,4,5,and 6 attached} At that meeting the planning staff received the assignment to prepare the zoning package now up for consideration by the City Council which is to implement "Option A". If the City Council adopts the now proposed "New zoning package" without major revisions the following will occur according to their own "Option A" A. The City will acquire the property from the present property owners. If necessary the City, "RESERVES the RIGHT to COMPEL property owners as a last resort" B. After the City ACQUIRES title through what ever means it finds necessary the City will then be the LANDLORD of all the properties. Does it plan to rent the properties to the present residents? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! It will then sell the properties to its developer partner and EVICT EVERY resident!! C. Has the City put forward any plan to assist the residents who are evicted to find other housing? NO!!! D. The CITY has created the present low prices in the area through their moratorium and the threat of this present zoning package. This present zoning package continues the same "STOP" to improving the properties in the area. E. Through the current moratorium and the proposed restrictive zoning package the City itself has stopped the revitalization and improvement of the Highlands. Given the market forces now and that have been in effect during the term of the moratorium many if not all of the "blighted" properties would have been or would now be in renovation. The blighted properties in other areas in South King County have been improved while the moratorium has CAUSED our "blight" to remain. F. If the current zoning package is not altered, the City plans to acquire the properties good and bad. When that time comes I will offer my professional services to the property owners to prove that the low values on their properties are the result of the overt actions of the City Government and that the Just and Fair Market Value is much higher than what the City's appraiser is likely to value because of the City's depressing the market through their own regulatory actions!! MIME111\ r Highlands Redevelopment Strategy Nse ',410 Option A Description: Comprehensive,strategic approach based on public/private . partnerships to make dramatic improvements within a few years Elements: • Develop a North Harrington Community Renewal Plan: Develop a detailed, comprehensive strategy combining new land use policies and zoning; investments in infrastructure and community facilities; partnerships with one or more private homebuilders,the Renton Housing Authority and non-profit homebuilders; a plan for property acquisition and assembly;property owner and community engagement and where needed,resident relocation assistance. • Make Blight Declaration: City would declare targeted areas in the Highlands blighted based on analysis of deteriorating conditions in the neighborhood to trigger provisions of . the Community Renewal Act. • Use Community Renewal Act: Implement the State Community Renewal Act to create a partnership with aprivate developer to create a redevelopment master plan and acquire an assemblage of property large enough to justify higher value new homes and investment. • Invest in new public infrastructure and facilities, such as low-impact storm water systems, streets and alleys,the library and North Highlands community center. • Select a private homebuilder to partner in a master plan redevelopment. • ' Develop partnership with Renton Housing Authority and non-profit homebuilders to assist with relocation and replace and increase a wider range of quality affordable homes. • Create opportunities for existing property owners to own and occupy new homes in the redevelopment. • Extensive community engagement strategy. 4 . Reserve the right to compel property owners to sell on a limited basis as a last resort, after all other tools and incentives have been exhausted. Results: • Faster, more comprehensive redevelopment of the North Harrington portion of the sub-area, the area with the worst conditions. 4 • Large-scale land assembly justifying higher quality development and investment in the area. • Comprehensive-approach to public infrastructure investment to stimulate private redevelopment. • Lam .m_public investment in affordable housing, increasing the overall availability of new, quality affordable housing in Renton. • Attractive, mixed-income neighborhood with a wider range of new quality homes serving existing and new residents. • Increased redevelopment prospects for the adjacent Hi-Lands shopping center. Highlands Redevelopmenteategy Option B 1 •tv Description: Incremental, market based approach that is reactive and small scale Elements: h • Develop a set of zoning changes, code amendments and policies to encourage redevelopment of many smaller parcels over longer period of time. • Continue aggressive code enforcement strategy to get private property owners to correct hazards at their properties within the limits of the law. • Work with Renton Housing Authority to implement their plan to replace their aging housing stock in the Highlands with new homes and apartments to meet the changing needs of existing clients and partner with non-profit homebuilders to build new housing for new and future clients. • React to opportunities by connecting willing sellers of property to buyers interested in redevelopment on a smaller scale. • City would still make new investments in library and community center. Results: • Slower,piecemeal redevelopment over many years with existing social conditions and drain on City services continuing until sometime in the future when incremental new investment reaches critical mass to draw a.wider iange of market,interest and family incomes. • Existing duplexes would remain and.alilowed.to.be.expanded and/or,;mproved. • --Below.market_property values would likely continue for sometime and.attract lower value projects reflecting the poor condition of many individual properties next door. An exception is by happenstance,a landowner is able to acquire large enough property to attract higher value development. • Revitalization or redevelopment of the Hi-Lands Shopping Center is unlikely. Please endeavor to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on April 12th and the City Council Meeting on April 17th. This is YOUR opportunity to let city leaders know how YOU want to improve the Highlands. This is YOUR home, and YOU should have been the first ones consulted, not the developers. If you have property valuation questions related to, blighted property, you can call HCA property advisor, Howard McOmber, 206-679-6694. 'If you want to verify date, time and place'for the two public meetings, please contact the mayor's office, 425.430.6500. ,mrr. Highlands Redevelopment Initive Problem Today, where there were once well kept homes and high homeownership,the North Harrington neighborhood has become one plagued by absentee landlords,poorly maintained aging duplexes, increasing crime and growing poverty. The area is dominated by deteriorating WW II-era duplexes, originally built to temporarily house wartime workers at the Boeing and PACCAR plants. These are the same duplexes the Seattle and King County Housing Authorities have been demolishing around the region because of their poor condition. The Health Department has cited the area for lead paint exposure and hazardous indoor air quality due to mold and mildew. Less than 3 percent of Renton's land mass and 12.5%of the population, the area draws 20%of first aid calls, 19%of fire calls, 20% of code enforcement complaints, 24%of auto thefts and 15% each of the City's murders and armed robberies. This blighted neighborhood requires dramatic action to again be the great neighborhood it once was and to right the disproportionate demand for City services. Existing market forces threaten to perpetuate and deepen the decline of the neighborhood. As social problems worsened, homeowners have left the neighborhood. Absentee landlords have little incentive to redevelop. Their duplexes are leased and rented, creating positive cash flow without high carrying costs. Replacing and upgrading structures is not cost effective given the current below-market land values in the area and the low density of development allowed under existing regulations. The Vision Our vision is to transform the North Harrington neighborhood into a renewed, redeveloped community that is safe, walkable and attractive to people of all income levels with a mix of single-family houses,townhomes, carriage houses,condominiums and apartment homes. A new street and alley network will make better use of the land. Pedestrian connections and a greenway will link homes to nearby new shops,parks, library,the community centers,and Renton Technical College. Innovative storm water systems and landscaping will add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood and reduce the environmental impacts of redevelopment. New housing will help stimulate revitalization of the Hi-Lands Shopping Center, attracting new shops, restaurants and services to serve residents of the greater Highlands. The Highlands Redevelopment Initiative will improve the quality of life in the North Harrington neighborhood, making it a place that people of all walks of life want to be—no longer a place where people have to be because they have no other option. To achieve this vision, the goal of the Highlands Redevelopment Initiative is to improve quality of life by attracting new residential and commercial investment to the area. Concentrating on the North Harrington neighborhood, the area with the worst problems and the greatest opportunity for change, the initiative seeks to spur new private and public investment for redeveloping blight. Once this initial area is cleaned up, the market will take the reins—revitalizing the remaining portions of the Highlands sub-area without significant additional City involvement. To achieve these goals, EDNSP is developing a Sub-Area Plan that combines in a comprehensive strategy new,higher-density zoning,key public sector investments in new infrastructure, parks, library and North Highlands Community Center;partnerships with private and non-profit homebuilders and the Renton Housing Authority; and potential use of the State Community Renewal Act, which allows cities to accumulate properties as part of a community c redevelopment plan. E -SP is presenting two options for impltllntation: 1) Incremental • market-based development, combined with Housing Authority/non=profit housing group partnerships; and 2)These actions aforementioned,plus a redevelopment plan using the Community Renewal Act targeted at the worst blighted area in the Highlands. The latter option, our tion A, is preferred as it has the greater chance of bringing about more meaningful investment in a timelier manner, allows the City to make comprehensive infrastructure improvements(e.g., storm water detention and street/alley network)and will halt the deterioration of the neighborhood. t----Z, -,.l V,: ,LI Z, . H , , ;J ; r- --- i 'i I y — 1 • ! .i 1 F tui I ;i11 1H ),I. L� ;1 I -J I. i ,- 1 1 _I i L 11—i--.-_ ,'-‘.1-1111.1111 �,1< i i I .:t .IF-I'll: _ _N ;��tti t 1 :. : ' �l 16th 1E . • -- id? , . - 1 .__. rn I •�' �G1.--1 - I ' ' NE 171h S# ./f IH i_: :_1 SII - ; 0�s-,,/74 I - z l .___-t.:3_.--11---. Ns 4 ;_iii 'i -f-- T - it NF-Att * -.T- l • _ ' t ("1 ' ,-� _ i ... 44 • 1 111 is ��.:t i I_____ rj ,. 1... l H 1..i.,.:.: ,:, —tl 1j Ilei I ;�I1_ Pff , r1 _I� --< jI t} ;--1-----.) r_ I- -_ �;i j_,J.icill' ii IT-- 1:---: O. 1 -- I -t. - , LI .--rsil---FIP! - - -t -_r__., -_-,:r. ,,,,,,(§c, ..4, , : ..2-.-_:._ WI.M...:1,1-: ' - X--:1 I � ' -1A.;µ11.:�.'_ �Yj �11111., .r „Jy F�r Lt'--r 71 J1 L _. ,411 J moi. T Y ' II '•-‘. I I R -II-1 1 .'--,--Ale= ,T` --- ' 34.,1 (i' ki . '.r..- I 15° I _ NE 7th_‘s -? Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones �� hoes+eic OevdsroaK Ne I.b oodi l&,....k7.,... ttttt E Rezone b Center VA4pe-Gommen.�el(CV-C) �'r v �a""■n" PJB.f zon.W C.ser VMepe•Reaider*tl(CV-R) -1.' q.• .ee lsWM i". +it: . /' ..I..P.-., -_L.; .!/ • 1'i. 't`- - e. i i ' 1a''i`+IJ fiJ: New r.rrr Page 1 of 7 tfana/ed &uf by - Viko- • Date: April 12th, 2006 _L he z re7Yse Q , To: City council members & Planning Commission q- 11-04 eouno/ From: Inez Somerville Petersen vvi eci-iny CC: People attending 7:00 P.M. City Council Meeting 4 d1�p/Qcd duv"'^y Subject: Your vote matters Pµ comment. Ref: Highlands Rezone How you vote matters-it matters to the property owners in the target area; and it matters to the tenants. Please consider the ramifications of your actions very carefully. And ask yourself these questions: Assume you are a property owner who will be affected by your vote: 1) Will my property be taken by the City? 2) Will my property become NON-CONFORMING? Assume you are a renter who will be affected by your vote: 1) Where can I move with affordable rent? 2) How will I pay to move there? Here is a picture of one of the worst homes in the target area located at the corner of 16th and Harrington, and it has a post foundation. But, is that all that bad? Consider all the earthquakes we have had since the 1940's? This home is still standing solidly on those blocks. Two people with jacks can raise a home like this and replace the foundation. I know two people who did just that—a married couple. They rented the house jacks and did the work themselves. A contractor could do it even easier. 17 k i..... , ,.. _. , 4, ,,,, ilk \ 1 iv - A ''% .0,, ' - a 44, , :. z ,-, 4 r. ,;:iirt,—0 ; :, ,/,- i 4 loptill i Int r , Y , ,, , € 10 10 Page 2 of 7 t Here's a picture representative of many of the sidewalks in the target area. The City has millions of dollars of sidewalk repairs on its "to do" list, yet the mayor wanted the city council to approve $5 million at last night's city council meeting for the Sam Chastain Trail. The mayor is out of touch with reality. Please don't join her. Decent sidewalks can do much to improve the look of a neighborhood as the picture below shows, AND it wouldn't require uprooting the population. r z -,,,f` :,. ;,'" -'-i...- --f,e„ f,e,,- -..'2....- : _, -4.,*4 ,-.t ..r. ,. .. .4 ..''' , 4 a4,'ems?'� '. rt �Y * , „sem•'"I -' `, '' "4'x'4' v t ! - gni :} r a % ,'. Can the duplex on the previous page be reclaimed? Can it become a cute little bungalow to serve as affordable housing for ordinary citizens? Here is an example of a remodeled duplex which is just that—well reconstructed, well maintained, cute, and affordable. This is the front view of 1137 Harrington Ave NE. Please save this home. L__J ' , ,, P t a Nioe *ow' rage3of7 • Did you notice the sidewalks and new driveway? It did a lot to improve the look of the property. This is the back yard of that same property at 1137 Harrington. Who needs the Jefferson Greenway when residents can create a yard like this? And do you remember Linda Perrine talking about her backyard and her dog? This is what can be done with the duplexes, as opposed to bulldozing them for high density housing. 4-2 s. - a� ++ or , x . ., . 4tit r fix * 4'0041,..,.._ -..„..-v.,iai3'"*--,-.':4'-'..' '..-. _ hr �# e 'er ' ':s.+�� n ",rs,-� �' w� ' 4 � :x�� e • • d i J. 4 t• '. A '• ] 4 1 ittr •�: e� 6i., �'pro°•:! 'ry_ _ „'r+-i. - .. XS *,... r'-t, *. ,re•••*****Nt.,,, -l'*`A. ,,,,„ , 4..",-1--44 , ,- ,- ,.... ... ... ..,,„.... ., ..,..„..„. _.,,,,,,,, , ,_ , , :. , -„, ,, , ,- .,„.., _. . „,_,... ,.. . „... , tot,, 4 'e "•,, .- -•,.t • ,/ ' t- , C N el r 4 0 %iv Page 4 of 7 If an upgraded neighborhood is the goal, then this can happen for all the duplexes. But if high density housing to generate more revenue for the City is the goal, then I think city leaders are governed more by greed than by a desire to work for the People who elected them. Here is another remodeled duplex. Please save this home. 4 °^ - F r � What will become of these remodeled duplexes if the Highlands Rezone is adopted by the Renton city council? City leaders need to answer that question BEFORE voting. I believe these properties will become NON CONFORMING. The result will be that the City of Renton will deny the owners permits in the future to maintain or upgrade their property. And who will buy such a property? Only a party who wants a "steal." Ordinary citizens put their life's blood into their homes; it is the main source of their net worth. These low and middle income citizens will be hurt emotionally and financially when the Renton city council votes to approve the Highlands Rezone in a way that makes their property NON CONFORMING. But the Renton city council can require a change in the mayor's direction by voting NO to force the mayor to eliminate NON-CONFORMING property. This is an absolute MUST in any Highlands redevelopment plan. It is the only fair thing to do. New Page 5 of 7 Here is a picture of a single family dwelling on Harrington across from the middle school. The young couple, the Hawton's, have put their heart and soul into their first home. They spoke before the Renton city council, but did the city council listen? I don't think so. Will this house be NON CONFORMING when the city council is done voting for the Highlands Rezone? Please save this home. 44 ; . ...'1ta S. , ok- Ya, hittAy 56,1,4 • to 1 f i' - i i- 1 F :yf e p If you view the last 15 minutes of the city council meeting of April 10, 2006, you would be shocked at how city council members behaved, namely, the Council President Randy Corman and Vice Chairman of the Planning & Development Committee Dan Clawson. Dan Clawson even did a "thumbs down" on further citizen comment, laughing as he did so. And it appeared to be pre-scripted that Randy Corman would make a motion to that effect. He asked if it was time for him to make that motion yet. What kind of leaders are these people? If the Highlands Rezone creates NON CONFORMING property, then I don't believe that any city council member who supports this deserves to be re-elected. And Mayor Koelker should be a one-term mayor for pushing this project in a way that financially hurts the citizens of the Highlands who unknowingly elected her. Since the mayor's SEPA Environmental Review Committee is made up of her department heads, you can guess how they voted. It's a GO for the mayor's Highlands Rezone as far this committee is concerned. And if we citizens want to appeal the committee's decision, it will cost $75.00! But we have until April 24, 2006, to do so. 44twr` toe Page 6 of 7 The owners of the homes I've shown on the preceding pages are not the only ones to be hurt by the Highlands Rezone as currently defined. Here is a picture of a lovely remodeled duplex next to two new duplexes. The mayor took the new duplexes out of her target area, but left the older remodeled duplex in the target area. Is this home subject to becoming NON CONFORMING if the Highlands Rezone is adopted by the city council "as is." This is another example of what can be done with a Highlands duplex. Please save this home. _ y H 2006 0411 4..1411 IIa<. 2006 0411 NNE, + 'r` Page 7 of 7 The Highlands Community Association has been asking the mayor to do a financial analysis to determine if the City has the money to "accumulate" property under the Community Redevelopment Act. Under this Act (ref the Kelo decision of last summer), the City would declare an entire neighborhood "blighted," and then the good homes go with the bad. The City would declare eminent domain on any property owner unwilling to sell his/her property, and the tenants would be relocated. City leaders have been reluctant to explain the details of this, although it is part of the Option A plan which they verbally agreed upon on March 8, 2006, at the City Council Retreat attended by several "outsiders." We all agree that something needs to be done with the duplexes in need of repair. But replacement by high density housing up to 80 units per acre is not the way in my view. The people who live in the Highlands and who own property there should be given a chance to upgrade their neighborhood, with the City's help. The mayor said in her State of the City address presented to the politicians and businessmen of the Chamber of Commerce, not the People of the city, that many things had been tried and failed. I'd like to know what these "things"were. And I'd think that the city council members would want to know too. Crime has been one of the mayor's talking points. But consider this. Three (3) patrols are routinely assigned to the Highlands at any given time. This is less than 4% of the patrols available, and I believe the mayor indicated that 60% of the city's population resides in the Highlands. Shouldn't the police resources be assigned based on population density? If that were done, I don't believe there would be any crime in the neighborhood. The Highlands is not a "throw away" neighborhood, and neither are the People. I hope that enough people come to the April 17th city council meeting to "turn the tide." If not, if the Highlands Rezone goes through "as is" and property of a lower density than the Rezone provides becomes NON CONFORMING, then remember this in Nov 2007. Vote for new faces and break the juggernaut of the "city hall in crowd" which is running this town. Sincerely, Inez Somerville Petersen fribu/ed 4 �'nez Pe/-ersc' ftraf- firc- P.N. 'f-�/7-O!� `` April 1 i, 2006 .Influencing Our Curumunit " ii<t;;if/u leiti (- (///1//,r`t/7(f;.-1.y,e) :cl,"Pi1r Proposal from Highlands Comm Association for Renton city council consideration: ,L9c4' • N ON-CONFORMING property will be created by virtue of rezoning • Do not BLIGHT the neighborhood to facilitate use of the COMMUNITY RENEWAL ACT and its use of EMINENT DOMAIN • Use EXISTING TOOLS and INCREASE CITY RESOURCES (police and code enforcement, etc.) to facilitate neighborhood IMPROVEMENT • Revisit REZONE DENSITY which HCA believes is too high. This should involve withdrawing the Environmental Review Committee's DETERMINATION of NON SIGNIFICANCE before it becomes final on April 24, 2006 • HCA is willing to work with the City in any way to help to facilitate revitalization of the area and to do the best thing for the property owners and tenants alike ei izen d,' /t, u/ed V-/7-o; ?1f Iwo This is longtrltlt worth reading, it's the City's webpage about Highlands Redevelopment Plan Page 1 of 4 What follows I s the webpage of the City of Renton's Economic Development Neighborhoods& Strategic • Planning (EDNSP), a long name for the group over which Alex Pietsch is manager. Alex Pietsch referred to his website during the last public meeting regarding the Highlands Subarea Redevelopment Plan, now called the North Harrington Redevelopment Plan. Later, I went to his website and found a webpage which had the same general "statement of work"that was handed out at the March 8th City Council Retreat called Option A. But the webpage also contained a schedule for implementation by quarter. This made me very mad, and I immediately emailed Alex Pietsch, and he immediately took the webpage off the City's website. This information makes these public meetings look like a sham, as much of a sham as the open house on Nov 15th was. In this webpage, Alex Pietsch indicates he has a "detailed, comprehensive strategy." Strategy for what? Option A, of course. On March 8th at the City Council Retreat, every councilmember and every city employee unanimously agreed that Option A was the way to go. Sandel Demastus, past president of the Highlands Community Association (HCA), mentioned this in her comments in one of the recent public meetings, and Alex said this didn't happen. He had to apologize to her because there were other witnesses. What Sandel said was true. If some of the council members are having second thoughts now, we are glad to hear it. Here is the webpage for you to read and make your own decision about whether city leaders have been truthful with you. And you can decide whether Highlands Community Association's support of Option B is what you want too. City leaders need to listen. In Option B, upzoning would not result in non conforming property and only those owners who absolutely will not fix up and clean up would be subject to eminent domain. Owners could sell if they wanted or stay and remodel if necessary or rebuild to a high density. This is the only fair way AND the only way that truly preserves affordable housing for the people who live there now. If Option A proceeds much further, there will be no turning back.The City will officially "blight" the neighborhood, and the Community Renewal Act will be used to "accumulate" YOUR property either under the threat of eminent domain or via er actual use of eminent domain. I also believe it is unethical for the Environmental Review Committee to find there are no environmental impacts from a rezoning effort which increases density up to 80 units per acre. This was done to avoid an EIS, the very thing that is needed. --Inez Somerville Petersen, Secretary, HCA What follows came from the City of Renton website, it was NOT authored by the HCA We,we're RIGHT ON! E f j / kr uvH 1' .1dM1b R .Me u''[ k � gZ _ 2..ftt"M1:^e. kd 4 � �� " HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE The proposals for the Highlands Subarea are currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. For updated information, please visit the Planning Commission Information Page. The Problem Today,where there were once well kept homes and high homeownership, absentee landlords, poorly maintained aging duplexes, increasing crime and growing poverty plague portions of the Renton Highlands. The area is dominated by deteriorating WW Il-era duplexes, originally built to temporarily house wartime workers at the Boeing and PACCAR plants. These are the same duplexes the Seattle and King County Housing Authorities have been demolishing around the region because of their poor condition. The Health Department has cited the area for lead paint exposure and hazardous indoor air quality due to mold and mildew. Less than 3 percent of Renton's land mass and 12.5%of the population, the area draws 20% of first aid calls, 19%of fire calls, 20% of code enforcement complaints, 24% of auto thefts and 15% each of the City's murders and armed robberies. Existing market forces threaten to perpetuate and deepen the decline of the neighborhood.As social problems worsened, homeowners have left the neighborhood. Absentee landlords have little incentive to redevelop. Their duplexes are leased and rented, creating positive cash flow without high carrying cost. Replacing and upgrading structures is not cost effective given the current below-market land values in the area and the low density of development allowed under existing regulations. This blighted neighborhood requires dramatic action to again be the great neighborhood it once was and to right the disproportionate demand for City services. The Vision The City of Renton's vision is to transform the core of the Renton Highlands-the North Harrington neighborhood-into a renewed, redeveloped community that is safe,walkable and attractive to people of all income levels with a mix of single-family houses,townhomes, carriage houses, condominiums and This is long but worth reading, it's the City's webpage about Highlands Redevelopment Plan Page 2 of 4 apartment homes. A new street and alley network will make better use of the land. Pedestrian connections and a greenway will link homes to nearby new shops, parks, library,the community centers, and Renton Technical College. Innovative storm water systems and landscaping will add to the appeal of the neighborhood and reduce the environmental impacts of redevelopment.New housing will help stimulate revitalization of the Hi-Lands Shopping Center, attracting new shops, restaurants and services to serve residents of the Greater Highlands. The Highlands Redevelopment Initiative will improve the quality of life in the North Harrington neighborhood making it a place that people of all walks of life want to be-no longer a place where people have to be because they have no other option. Once this initial area is cleaned up,the market will take the reins-revitalizing the remaining portions of the Highlands Sub-area without significant additional City involvement. To achieve these goals, the City is developing a Sub-area Plan and redevelopment initiative that combines in a comprehensive strategy new, higher-density zoning, key public sector investments in infrastructure, parks, library, and North Highlands Community Center; partnerships with private and non- profit homebuilders, and the Renton Housing Authority; and use of the State Community Renewal Act, which allows cities to accumulate properties as part of a Community Redevelopment Plan. t, ; E. 4i�' r ..w, _ _ a,- f • _ _ • 1 ; ' — ,._. _ 4'moi ... ., _ :i .f r {, ,. qtr f t f'�" !f,. , -"n`,..1::•,1,1 4 ., •!'1 1 � j a x -e:} p , _ _ L,. Iy Y _ k t t.� ,>dei, '`.?',4.-.'.';,1,::d � . w jk, T i t „p,-, rr EE i. yz• rpt 1 +9.i 4 r 7 .- .r',11 :'-I t,, !; tt_ ' .9.3 '4' t.'• -�I ' : 'OV ,*1-Z ,;. to .,.. ' �: I t � a � f ,a�, ,'” '• }} `f :.4 . N -'fin, {{ .1 - _ " z • N; _ _.. . __...., .Sri,+..Mar,�...{..,.......1;.:�._.y ::�.- -ri"`��.'*�:^t . {}`. • y ,'I,a�4 , S, .; _i x..-.,:t_;-.......' -...!--:.. ,,..yam„- -:f... : .. -_: ,w- .-- ' :$ ri f>:t' tls f li t. .._-. a,; - '"""i'tt,i4-i i.,;r %. j �� 'L ', ':Nib 1: :7-,="-'. -I r' ',4 , i ''',7,t4-!7'."' A --i-",;7,)„.;-.:';•;--':'. 9 t, – m t-`^,eta' "�,4 1.4.:j'=.Y4---t-� x ✓:�' 3 t —-t.t _ `� t ' _ .:G.^ Y _ fin.• !- , .-�:.<n -x 45�x• , yy , 141 .... w` .t . F ^ is v'�.` �1'- .,f. -,:,::.::..,;.,:_,_,:.:_l'. - fns r„ .., ;` e3 na 1.. .C. � i l..,ill : -J Highlands Sub-Area Plan Study Area & North Harrington Redevelopment Core 1,4414 4 Ecanoose Dc'ckpncit Ncigkborkooda&StraMgtc R3annmg p A1n Nasal.n Eistrator CC�1 _ it I rtes 20 �; yr'+ 201"n7xars:t[7E •• 4 yrs This is long">lit worth reading, it's the City's webpage about Highlands Redevelopment Plan Page 3 of 4 Description: Comprehensive, strategic approach based on public/private partnerships to make dramatic improvements within a few years. Elements: • Develop a Highlands Sub-area Plan that includes land use policies and development standards to stimulate revitalization. • Develop a North Harrington Community Renewal Plan: a detailed,comprehensive strategy combining new land use policies and zoning; investments in infrastructure and community facilities; partnerships with one or more private homebuilders,the Renton Housing Authority and non-profit homebuilders; a plan for property acquisition and assembly; property owner and community engagement, and where needed, resident relocation assistance. • WillgalgaMMINIOSOME City would declare the North Harrington Community Renewal Area blighted based on analysis of deteriorating conditions in the neighborhood to trigger provisions of the Community Renewal Act. • its Rene halt': Implement the State Community Renewal Act to create a partnership • •r ore private developers to create a redevelopment master plan and acquire an assemblage of property large enough to justify higher value new homes and investment. • Invest in new public infrastructure and facilities,such as low impact storm water systems, streets and alleys,the library and North Highlands community center. • Select private homebuilder(s)to partner in a master plan redevelopment. • Develop partnership with Renton Housing Authority and non-profit homebuilders to assist with relocation and replace and expand the range and number of quality affordable homes. • Create opportunities for existing property owners to own and occupy new homes in the redevelopment. • Extensive community engagement strategy. • Reserve the right to compel property owners to sell on a limited basis as a last resort after all other tools and incentives have been exhausted. Results: • Faster,more comprehensive redevelopment of the North Harington portion of the Sub-area,the area with the worst conditions. • Large-scale land assembly justifying higher quality development and investment. • Comprehensive approach to public infrastructure investment to stimulate private redevelopment. • Larger public investment in affordable housing,increasing the overall availability of new, quality affordable housing in Renton. • Attractive, mixed-income neighborhood with a wider range of new quality homes serving existing and new residents. • Increased redevelopment prospects for the adjacent Hi-Lands Shopping Center. Outline of Implementation Timing and Steps: 1st Quarter(Jan-Mar)2006 • $150,000 set aside in 2006 Budget for planning and public outreach (completed). • Analyze the real estate market to guide new zoning and density incentives(completed). • Develop conceptual land use plan identifying land uses,densities and growth assumptions. (nearly complete) • °te Ott . =r • of blig s under the Cori unity Renevct (rift corripkAe) •,Continue public outreach (four property owner, one developer, and one institutional owner(school and church)focus groups, and one open house completed). • Mayor outlines the City's Initiative in the State of the City Address. • _ � Retre:i ayor and Council determine directio 0-,4 d request additional$1 million of unaito• -'• d balance to Highlands Redevelopments million total) S cbw `a This is long but worth reading, it's the City's webpage about Highlands Redevelopment Plan Page 4 of 4 • Based on Mayor and City Council's direction,develop expanded public outreach program. 2nd Quarter(April -June)2006 • City Council committee and Planning Commission hold meetings on proposed implementation legislation including interim zoning, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Sub-area Plan. • City meets again with expanded focus groups of property owners to discuss plan. • City meets with residents of the Highlands and adjacent neighborhoods in community open house and other meetings as part of larger communications and outreach strategy. • Engage Renton Housing Authority(RHA) and other non-profit housing organizations to develop affordable housing replacement plan. `* •iration of the Highlands Building Moratorium, City Council adopts a package of new, interim zoning to attract new investment to the Highlands residential and commercial areas. • Complete DRAFT Sub-area Plan,which includes a package of Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezones, development standards, and capital facilities plan. • '. firte 30„co, plete DRAFT • d North Harringtostr• unity Renew: Plan includes plans • -• '- •pment, infrastructure and facility : , and housing relocation and replacement. 3rd Quarter(July-Sept.)2006 • City encourages redevelopment of area outside of targeted Cs �a iter Renewal/We by connected willing sellers with developers of smaller scale. • City continues to work with existing commercial property owner to identify new commercial development with emphasis on leveraging adjacent new m.o. -• income residential development. ubmit Sub-area Plan -_-. y�p �tht a • HCRP to City Council for consideration and subsequent adoption. • City launches media outreach to explain t e NHCRP. • City issues RFP and selects development partner(s)for master planning and redevelopment envisioned in NHCRP. 4th Quarter(Oct.-Dec.)2006 • RHA identifies new housing locations for existing Section 8 voucher holders displaced by redevelopment. • RHA partners with non-profit housing developers to identify and build new affordable housing in smaller, scattered developments around the City. • City and development partner complete Development Agreement. • Development partner begins to purchase property from tern : - • City offers Commupity Renewal purchases for willing sellers seeking tax advantages o i•ly,, (Witemnation." • City explores with Development Partner and commercial property owner possible joint redevelopment of both the residential and commercial areas. • RHA partners with non-profit housing developers and Development Partner to develop mixed-income housing on existing, new, and/or swapped property within the NHCRP area. 2007 • Development Partner initiates first redevelopment project(s). For further information: Please mail,fax, or e-mail questions, comment, or suggestions to: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Economic Development, Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Department City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055 Phone: 425.430.6588, Fax: 425.430.7300 [Economic Development Main Pawl [Economic Development, Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Home Pagel gegyAton, • home page RECEiVEd *ayNew APR X17 2006 fcy O ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, RENTON CITY Cotmcit NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT OTtrOF MEMOR RENTON ANDUM APR 1 7 2006 OITY° E RECEIVED DATE: April 14, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council CC: Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch Pat,'f STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind(ext. 6588) SUBJECT: Highlands Subarea Rezoning Public Hearing Materials The public hearing scheduled for Monday, April 17th, is focused on proposed zoning text amendments and re-zones of property within the Highlands study area. he City Council will not be asked to deliberate on the rezoning and text amendment package on Monday evening, as the issue is still before the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission held a first public hearing on this information on April 12th. The Commission will deliberate on April the 19th, following the City Council public hearing, and will make its recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee on April 20th. The Commission left the written record open until 5 PM, April 19th, so that further comments could be received following the City Council public hearing. Although the complete minutes of the Planning Commission hearing are not available, we prepared a summary of public comments received for Council review. Of the 46 people (representing 43 households) who signed the list to become "Parties of Record," 25 live in the rezone area. Seven are property owners. Of the 27 people who spoke, 12 live in the rezone area or have a family member living in the rezone area. Of that 12, half live in a home they own. Six more own property in the rezone area, but do not live there. The following background materials are attached for your information: • Staff report to the Planning Commission March 31, 2006 • Summary of Public Comments from the Planning Commission meeting April 12th • Comment letters received by the Commission • Frequently Asked Questions Sheet • Map of areas proposed for re-zoning • Map of Subarea Land Use Concept El • Matrix of Projected Capacity under Current Zoning and Proposed Zoning • Draft zoning text amendments Attachments New New" ti(CY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, G A NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC + ♦ PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 31,2006 TO: Ray Giometti,Planning Commission Chair CC: Planning Commission Members FROM: Rebecca Lind, anning Manager STAFF CONTACT: Erika Conkling,Associate Planner x6578 SUBJECT: Highlands Rezone-.Text and Map Amendments DESCRIPTION: Rezones are proposed for the Highlands Subarea to better implements the current Center Village(CV) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. ISSUE SUMMARY: • Does the existing zoning in the CV land use designation best implement the vision for this area as stated in the Comprehensive Plan? • What type of zoning best implements the vision of the CV land use designation? • How can the City allow flexibility in its zoning regulations to encourage innovation and accommodate changing market forces? • What can be done to encourage the provision of affordable housing? • How can the City ensure high quality design in both residential and commercial developments? • Which areas of the Highlands require a rezone prior to the end of the development moratorium in May? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: • Create two zones from the existing Center Village (CV)zone: Center Village Core (CV-C) and Center Village Residential (CV-R). • Allow the CV-C zone as a high intensity, mixed commercial and residential use zone. • Allow the CV-R zone as a medium density residential zone that allows higher densities with the provision of affordable housing. • Create the Center Village Flex Bonus District in the CV-R zone, which allows flexibility in development standards and use types for projects over one acre in size. h:\ednsp\comp plan\sub area plans\highlands\briefing&issue papers\planning commission\highlands subarea rezone- map and text(4-06).doc Ray Giometti,Planning C nission Chair Page 2 of 5 '' '' • March 31,2006 • Change the R-10 zone to prohibit detached single family homes in the Highlands Subarea. • Put design regulations in place to guide the development of the Highlands into an attractive,compact,urban development. • Adopt development standards for cottage style development. • Rezone that part of the Highlands Subarea that is currently designated for CV land use. Existing multifamily and commercial areas should be rezoned as Center Village Core(CV-C) and existing single family and duplex areas should be rezoned as Center Village Residential(CV-R). BACKGROUND: In May 2005, the Renton City Council adopted a development moratorium to prevent new development in the Highlands Subarea to give City staff time to conduct a land use study of the area. The moratorium is due to expire on May 14,2006. New zoning should be in place at the time that the development moratorium expires. ANALYSIS: In the area proposed for rezoning,there are currently four zones in place. Three of the zones, Center Village(CV),Residential-10 (R-10), and Residential Multi Family(RMF), are currently implementing zones of the CV land use designation. One of the zones, Commercial Neighborhood(CN),has been mistakenly placed in the CV land use designation,which should be corrected with the recommended change. There is a clear mandate in the Comprehensive Plan to alter the zoning that implements the CV land use designation. Strategy 319.1 states that the City is to: Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village and replace zoning designation or re-zone with the vision for a Center Village Designation. City staff has conducted a land use study for the Highlands Subarea and determined that zoning changes are needed to better implement the CV land use designation. At the present time, the Highlands is the only place within Renton's planning area that has been designated for CV land use. Under the purpose for the CV land use designation, a much different vision is presented for the CV than what now exists in the Highlands. The Center Village should be a pedestrian oriented community with opportunity for residential, commercial, and mixed use redevelopment. Densities should be planned in the medium to high range in order to modify the existing low density suburban land use pattern. Development should be well designed, compact, and transit oriented. Two new zones are proposed to implement the CV designation: the Center Village Core(CV-C) zone and the Center Village Residential (CV-R) zone. The CV-C zone modifies and replaces the existing CV zone. Land uses are oriented toward creating a vibrant district of mixed commercial and residential uses, located along h:\ednsp\comp plan\sub area plans\highlands\briefing&issue papers\planning commission\highlands subarea rezone- map and text(4-06).doc Ray Giometti,Planning C fission Chair 'tow' Page 3 of S Noe March 31,2006 Sunset Boulevard. This is the highest density area,with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a base density of 60 units per acre. Development greater than 60 units per acre is allowed with the provision of affordable housing at a minimum of five units per net acre. Development standards are essentially the same as in the current CV zone,with two exceptions. Parking requirements are tougher in the CV-C zone,requiring structured, underground, or under building parking for residential projects, and disallowing surface parking in the front setback. The Center Residential Bonus District, which allowed bonus density with mixed use and adherence to design standards, has also been eliminated. Design standards are now required with or without a density bonus. The CV-R zone is a completely new zone, modeled after the existing R-14 zone. Uses are limited to residential uses and those uses that support residential use. One of the major differences between the CV-R and the R-14 zone,though,is that residential uses are further limited in the CV-R zone to only cottages and townhouses. Cottage housing developments have their own set of development standards because the cottage style of development relates to the site in a very different way than traditional residential development. Since the R-14 standards have been successful in building quality townhouse projects in the City, those standards were used for townhouse development in the CV-R zone,with a few minor changes. Changes include requiring a larger lot depth, to prevent the creation of flag lots on the existing deep parcels in the Highlands, and requiring alley access, consistent with the CV vision in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the standard regulations in place for the CV-R zone,property owners also have the option of participating in the Center Village Flex Bonus District. The Flex District allows three types of bonuses: a density bonus of up to 80 du/acre; a use bonus which allows accessory dwelling units, detached and semi-attached units, and flats (flats only allowed east of Kirkland Ave.); and the ability to vary the underlying development standards. In order to participate in the Flex District,properties must be greater than five acres in size, and must provide affordable housing at the minimum rate of two units per net acre. Projects in the Flex District would be negotiated between the City and the proponent using two possible processes. One process would be to complete a master plan. Master plans are used to arrange the siting and phasing of projects with multiple buildings on the same site. The purpose of a master plan is to review the project to ensure that it complies with existing City plans and policies. Master planned projects must comply with general criteria to ensure health, safety, and welfare. There are additional criteria proposed for projects in the Highlands Subarea, to ensure that development meets the intent and vision that is created for that district. The second process that could be used to process projects in the Flex District is a Planned Unit Development(PUD). It is the purpose of the PUD to act as a master variance to alter the underlying development regulations. In order to receive PUD approval the plan must demonstrate a public benefit. These two processes could be combined and handled at the same time, or, the master planning could be accomplished first and future builders or developers could work through the detailed PUD work last. Alternately, if there were an approved master plan, the property could be developed under the normal development standards without further processing. h:\ednsp\comp plan\sub area plans\highlands\briefing&issue papers\planning commission\highlands subarea rezone- map and text(4-06).doc Ray Giometti,Planning G vssion Chair Page 4of5 " March 31,2006 In addition to the underlying development standards in the CV-C and CV-R zone, and the criteria for approval of projects in the Flex District, the entire subarea would be subject to design guidelines. Within the Highlands Subarea, the CV-C zone will be designated as District `D' and the CV-R zone will be designated as District 'E' in the Urban Design Regulations. With only a few tweaks and alterations,the existing regulations for the downtown and the South Renton neighborhood are proposed to be used. There will also be a small text amendment that affects the R-10 zone. A portion of the Highlands Subarea zoned R-10 is not in the CV land use designation, but in the Residential Medium Density(RMD) land use designation. During the annual amendment cycle, a comprehensive Plan amendment will be needed to change the land use designation of these areas from RMD to CV. Prior to the adoption of that amendment, it is necessary to prevent the development of new single family homes and duplexes in an area that will eventually be designated for higher intensity development. The proposed code amendment does this by prohibiting the development of detached or semi-attached dwellings in that portion of the R-10 zone that is in the Highlands Subarea. Based on the proposed zoning text changes, changes have also been proposed to the zoning map as well. Changes proposed in this rezone effort only affect properties the Highlands Redevelopment Core. The Redevelopment Core includes the blocks within the Highlands Subarea that are slated for the most intensive redevelopment effort. The new CV-C zone is proposed to include the commercial development along Sunset and the existing multifamily areas that surround it. The new CV-R zone is proposed to take the place of the residential areas currently characterized by the prevalence of old World War II duplexes. Additional changes to the zoning in the Highlands will be proposed concurrent with the adoption of the Subarea Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The recommended changes comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 319.1 requires a review of zoning implementation of CV land use policies. ZONING CONCURRENCY: The proposed rezones and text amendments better implement the purpose of the CV land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. DECISION CRITERIA FOR CHANGE OF ZONE CLASSIFICATION The proposed rezone must meet the review criteria in RMC 4-9-180F: a. The proposed amendment must meet the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020G; and b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and c. At least one of the following circumstances applies i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or h:\ednsp\comp plan\sub area plans\highlands\briefing&issue papers\planning commission\highlands subarea rezone- map and text(4-06).doc Ray Giometti,Planning C Fission Chair • Page 5 of 5 '0111, March 31,2006 ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements,permitted private development, or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. The proposed rezone is mandated by the Comprehensive Plan and meets the above criteria. CONCLUSION: Approval of the recommended changes would ensure that zoning in the Highlands Subarea is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the area. Immediate action will result in the zoning being put in place prior to the expiration of the development moratorium in the Highlands. h:\ednsp\comp plan\sub area planslhighlands\briefing&issue papers\planning commission\highlands subarea rezone- map and text(4-06).doc ver ,oe Summary of Public Comments from Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 2006 1. Julia Franz, 1721 Harrington Ave - Concerned about poor neighbors. Concerned about undoing neighborhood. Opposed to rezoning. Bought for single family. 2. Pat Sado, 9902 126th Ave SE—Grew up in Highlands. Mother in neighborhood, doesn't want to move, "getting rid of senior citizens, not fair." 3. Inez Peterson, 3306 Lake WA Blvd N#3—Impact of zoning, take"non-conforming" designation off(trouble selling). Mayor letter, four or five pictures of remodeled duplexes. Supports upgrading. 4. Ruthie Larson, 714 High Ave S—Humanity lacking, older people are afraid—older people don't want change. Horse before cart, define affordable housing, need to address the people. 5. Sheila Vandernam, 1918-16 Harrington Circle NE—Interest in family living there, concerned about taking away kids. Don't know if should make investment in rehab. Plans to upgrade unit. 6. Jerri Broeffle, 858 Monroe Ave NE- In Highlands since 1924—R-8 construction is crap, don't need R-10 zoning. Crime is not running rampant. Opposes transit center. Increasing number of housing units. Have most rental single family. Opposed to losing diversity. 7. Howard McOmber Sr., 475 Olympia Ave NE—Major change, extreme makeover, use $ to repaint, too extreme. We can clean up our own community, if you help us. Daughter on Jefferson, can't add bedroom. Get rid of moratorium, no"non- conforming." Problems are not in sync with solution. Solutions are too severe. Affordable housing, two per acre. Opposes making uses non-conforming. 8. John Visser, 19404 102 Ave NE—Area has improved quite a bit over past year. RHA housing is good, not in poor condition. Lots of room out of the city, do what you want out there. Give them a fair price, each duplex. Opposed to transit, leave it as it is. Houses have a yard to play in. 9. Steve Stout, 1157 & 1155 Glennwood—Doesn't like the 80 du/acre. In agreement with everything stated before him. 10. Theresa Elmer, 3101 NE 13th St—Has an 11-year-old building, zoned commercial. Minimum landscaping a plus w/police,but a negative for building rating. Non- conforming is bad connotation. New buildings don't create affordable rates. Code enforcement can't keep up. Increase traffic and crime. 11. Tom Fields, PO Box 641 —Has property near commercial,outside rezone area. People camp on property. Police have done a good job,but will property owners be able to participate? Needs something to improve the Highlands,but is this the right thing? It seems like a semi-good thing. Required mix of residential/commercial. Consider marketability. Property specific. Supports rezoning. Be specific. 12. Phyllis Besaw, 1530 Index Ave NE—"Poor"rating—former owner put$20,000 into front unit. How do I get ranking changes? Will send another... Gut and remodel on front unit. 13. Jennifer Houten, 1308 Harrington Ave NE-Most people are scared. You say the decisions have not been made,but I see these plans. I see where the vision is. Has had asthma attacks, has the right to call emergency services—shouldn't be penalized. What is our recourse if our property is determined essential to redevelopment? 14. Bonnie Lewis, 1520 Harrington Ave NE—First year taxes have gone down. Improvement went down, land remained the same. 15. Pam Curley, 1225 Kirkland Ave-Raised in Bellevue, has two duplexes, up to code. Resents someone telling her she has to sell her home. Resents someone rating her home"poor." 16. Brett Hawton, 1308 Harrington Ave NE—Drive by assessment—Six year old home rated lower than duplex next door. Don't want more people/more traffic near schools. Non-conforming—wants to be able to expand. 17. Raymona Baldwin, 1150 Sunset Blvd NE#218 (Secretary, Sunset Heights Condominium Board)—Bought property in Highlands in 2003. Condo owner, affordable,Highlands due to location. Like to see improvements. Worked in Renton six years, lived three years—won't walk after dark in the Highlands—not comfortable. Need to redevelop carefully. Mixed use is a good idea. Doesn't support eminent domain. 18. Donovan Boyd, 2901 NE 8th P1—Lives in area that doesn't have duplexes. He is R-8, if he is rezoned to R-10, he will be non-conforming; rezone will cause duplexes to be replaced, will impact people. Design Guidelines in R-10 Zone. Check on zoning— Fairview Terrace. 19. Dr. Greg Fawcett, 1222 Kirkland Ave NE—Duplexes at 1222 Kirkland. Wants commercial zoning, wider range of uses. Opposed to down zoning to CV-R. Three other parcels in same situation. Planning Commission. 20. Sandel DeMastus, 1137 Harrington Ave NE—Concerned about elderly. 21. Gene Garot, PO Box 5001, Kent- Asked if PC owns property in area. In are 30 years. Numerous duplexes, good condition, good tenants, suitable for retirement. "r✓ ,,,me You are making decisions about other people. More people would make area more dangerous. Is the idea to move everyone out in favor of commercial? 22. Richard Cook, 9624 Coal Creek Pkwy SE-Mother-in-law lives in area, 1633 Harrington. Statement in FAQ—transportation is bad in Highlands. "Devil's Elbow" should be opened up. Need public parks, room cars. 13 years too late for Comp Plan. Had a vision for Renton—big park and ride, with restaurants/fast food and shops. 23. Inez speaking for Tsiuri Gelas Hvili, 1518 Jefferson Ave NE- SFR family close-by, language issues, many improvements,no problems with neighbors. Condos on property are bad idea. Will non-conforming use reduce property values. 24. Eric Van Buren, 1204 Pierce PINE—Will decrease property value by 13%(has several duplexes in area)based on difference between townhomes and SFR. Has been approached by developers who want to put a SFR on lot—has fixed up insides, they need paint, hasn't painted because he has been waiting 13 years for City to do something. Create value of land greater than the duplexes. Commercial zoning, multiple subprime tenants. 25. Howard Baldrich—Did not speak. 26. Cristin Mandaville, 6035 SE 2nd Ct/1409 Jefferson Ave NE)—Main concern is text changes and design guidelines too specific, too restrictive. Makes it challenging to people who want to get started in the planning process. 27. Bob Gevers, 900 Kirkland Ave NE—Lived there since 1961. June 2001 started when AP came on board. Survey was interesting—"How can we serve you people in the Highlands?" Still exists. Now it is a revenue enhancement program. Ask Council. Is this something the people in the Highlands want? Zoning in place now is suburban so it will not affect people too much. We want changes,but you need to consider. Roads, overhead electrical wires. 28. Bruce Loney, 16920 NE 100th St,Redmond—Bought duplex four years ago, saw opportunity. We are landlords,but not"absentee landlords." We have fixed up property. As a property owner, how can I participate? Can I redevelop my property? CHECK: Homeowner's insurance cost—Is there an increase in homeowner's insurance of non- conforming use? Upzone increase value of property Realtors to talk about other areas Nancy—2 acres affordable housing. err► ' April 13, 2006 Attention: Planning Commissioners & City Council Members Subject: Highlands Subarea - Proposed Rezones and Zoning Text Amendments I regret that I will not be able to be present for the Planning Commission's deliberation and the recommendation of the group to the City Council regarding the proposed rezones and zoning text amendments regarding the Highlands Subarea. Although as the chair of the Planning Commission, I traditionally do not get to vote, I feel the need to share my opinion on this manner in the hope that I can influence your decision. I think that the City Planning Staff has done a very good job of working out the plan in a short amount of time and although there are parts of the plan that I would endorse, I think that the premise that the staff has been working under is false so I cannot support the plan in any manner. The city is now seeing positive changes in the Highlands neighborhood with the present zoning and I believe there are other easier and more neighborhood friendly methods to keep the momentum of the change moving. It is my opinion that should the city provide more aggressive code compliance enforcement and more police focus in this neighborhood, the positive changes that we are starting to see will continue and spread. As a supporter of established strong neighborhoods, it is impossible for me to ignore the many citizens that showed their distaste for the current proposed changes. Many of these people share the same values that I do and I support their efforts to improve their neighborhood while continuing to allow single family and duplex housing units. While the city administration seems to enjoy high density, mixed-use neighborhoods, I am not aware of the need for more of these to meet our established housing targets under GMA. If the proposed changes are required for Renton to meet our established Comprehensive Plan goals, then I would like to recommend that the Renton City Staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission spend 2007 updating the current Comprehensive Plan to be in alignment with the values of a city that would like to continue to be a great place to live, rather than accept the proposed changes now. Respectfully, Ray Giometti Page 1 of 7 . fir' Date: April 12, 2006 To: City council members & Planning Commission members From: Inez Somerville Petersen CC: People attending Renton city council meeting, 7 pm, April 17th Subject: City council votes matter! Ref: Highlands Rezone(or North Harrington Rezone, whichever applies) Your vote matters—it matters to the property owners in the target area; and it matters to the tenants. Please consider the ramifications of your actions very carefully. City council and Planning Commission members, please ask yourself these questions: Assume you are a property owner who will be affected by your vote: 1) Will my property be taken by the City? 2) Will my property become NON-CONFORMING? Assume you are a renter who will be affected by your vote: 1) Where can I move with affordable rent? 2) How will 1 pay to move there? Here is a picture of one of the worst homes in the target area located at the corner of 16h1 and Harrington, and it has a post foundation. But, is that all that bad? Consider all the earthquakes we have had since the 1940's? This home is still standing solidly on those blocks. Two people with jacks can raise a home like this and replace the foundation. I know two people who did just that—a married couple. They rented the house jacks and did the work themselves. A contractor could do it even easier. ilk ...,,,,,,,, „. . , .,. , 1 5' ....., N N- _Al!. -- - ' . .6F"- Vf‘ Y ftfts ,f, ''" 'rc' a .. �(r k ✓AY t . 'X, ` r flT�e4' . f p n { _ , AR il 'Ir- ..''''z , I r Page 2of7 Here's a pictue representative of many of the sidewalks in the target area. The City has millions of dollars of sidewalk repairs on its "to do" list, yet the mayor wanted the city council to approve$5 million at last night's city council meeting for the Sam Chastain Trail. The mayor is out of touch with reality. Please don't join her. Decent sidewalks can do much to improve the look of a neighborhood as the picture below shows, AND it wouldn't require uprooting the population. - -_— - i r Y � r . AZ Can the duplex on the previous page be reclaimed? Can it become a cute little bungalow to serve as affordable housing for ordinary citizens? Here is an example of a remodeled duplex which is just that well reconstructed, well maintained, cute, and affordable. This is the front view of 1137 Harrington Ave NE. Please save this home. INF ,,gee Page3of7 ' Did you notice the sidewalks and new driveway? It did a lot to improve the look of the property. This is the back yard of that same property at 1137 Harrington. Who needs the Jefferson Greenway when residents can create a yard like this? And do you remember Linda Perrine talking about her backyard and her dog? This is what can be done with the duplexes, as opposed to bulldozing them for high density housing. t�"5 . •s- 4 a .. r , f — , ‘s . ,.. - d 1^ .`z ,r 4 R J : - a • ' n fip 11/1111111111111111111111116.0 :'' — ' iv +,tea > •t.' I . Page 4 of 7 *INF ' If an upgraded neighborhood is the goal,then this can happen for all the duplexes. But if high density housing to generate more revenue for the City is the goal, then I think city leaders are governed more by greed than by a desire to work for the People who elected them. Here is another remodeled duplex. Please save this home. __a --- I_ . • What will become of these remodeled duplexes if the Highlands Rezone is adopted by the Renton city council? City leaders need to answer that question BEFORE voting. I believe these properties will become NON CONFORMING. The result will be that the City of Renton will deny the owners permits in the future to maintain or upgrade their property. And who will buy such a property? Only a party who wants a "steal.' Ordinary citizens put their life's blood into their homes; it is the main source of their net worth. These low and middle income citizens will be hurt emotionally and financially when the Renton city council votes to approve the Highlands Rezone in a way that makes their property NON CONFORMING. But the Renton city council can require a change in the mayor's direction by voting NO to force the mayor to eliminate NON-CONFORMING property. This is an absolute MUST in any Highlands redevelopment plan. It is the only fair thing to do. yu,, ,,,ear Page 5 of 7 Here is a picture of a single family dwelling on Harrington across from the middle school. The young couple, the Hawton's, have put their heart and soul into their first home. They spoke before the Renton city council, but did the city council listen? I don't think so. Will this house be NON CONFORMING when the city council is done voting for the Highlands Rezone? Please save this home. . .• �. 1 . ._ rZ . 14 ..e m III if you view the last 15 minutes of the city council meeting of April 10, 2006, you would be shocked at how city council members behaved, namely, the Council President Randy Corman and Vice Chairman of the Planning & Development Committee Dan Clawson. Dan Clawson even did a `thumbs downs on further citizen comment, laughing as he did so. And it appeared to be pre-scripted that Randy Corman would make a motion to that effect. He asked if it was time for him to make that motion yet. What kind of leaders are these people? If the Highlands Rezone creates NON CONFORMING property, then I don't believe that any city council member who supports this deserves to be re-elected. And Mayor Koelker should be a one term mayor for pushing this project in a way that financially hurts the citizens of the Highlands who unknowingly elected her. Since the mayor's SEPA Environmental Review Committee is made up of her department heads, you can guess how they voted. Its a GO for the mayor's Highlands Rezone as far this committee is concerned. And if we citizens want to appeal the committee's decision, it win cost$75.00! But we have until April 24, 2006, to do so. Page 6 of 7 err' NNW The owners of the homes I've shown on the preceding pages are not the only ones to be hurt by the Highlands Rezone as currently defined. Here is a picture of a lovely remodeled duplex next to two new duplexes. The mayor took the new duplexes out of her target area, but left the older remodeled duplex in the target area. Is this home subject to becoming NON CONFORMING if the Highlands Rezone is adopted by the city council "as is." This is another example of what can be done with a Highlands duplex. Please save this home. F /"-"�-.: 200E1 04 11 e- for `� t . . 11 _. . . 2006 04 11 Page 7 of 7 Aele Nee • The Highlands Community Association has been asking the mayor to do a financial analysis to determine if the City has the money to`accumulate" property under the Community Redevelopment Act. Under this Act(ref the Kelo decision of last summer), the City would declare an entire neighborhood`blighted," and then the good homes go with the bad. The City would declare eminent domain on any property owner unwilling to sell his/her property, and the tenants would be relocated. City leaders have been reluctant to explain the details of this, although it is part of the Option A plan which they verbally meed upon on March 8, 2006, at the City Council Retreat attended by several`outsiders." We all agree that something needs to be done with the duplexes in need of repair. But replacement by high density housing up to 80 units per acre is not the way in my view. The people who live in the Highlands and who own property there should be given a chance to upgrade their neighborhood, with the City's help. The mayor said in her State of the City address presented to the politicians and businessmen of the Chamber of Commerce, not the People of the city, that many things had been tried and failed. I'd like to know what these`things"were. And I'd think that the city council members would want to know too. Crime has been one of the mayor's talking points. But consider this. Three(3) patrols are routinely assigned to the Highlands at any given time. This is less than 4% of the patrols available, and I believe the mayor indicated that 60% of the city's population resides in the Highlands. Shouldn't the police resources be assigned based on population density? If that were done, I don't believe there would be any crime in the neighborhood. The Highlands is not a`throw away' neighborhood, and neither are the People. I hope that enough people come to the April 176 city council meeting to"turn the tide." If not, if the Highlands Rezone goes through"as is"and property of a lower density than the Rezone provides becomes NON CONFORMING, then remember this in Nov 2007. Vote for new faces and break the juggernaut of the`city hall in crowd" which is running this town. Sincerely, Inez Somerville Petersen Noe ver, 4/12/06 Points to be made at Planning Commission Meeting I own a duplex at 1222 Kirkland Ave. N.E, At present the property is commercially zoned. The proposed plan shows a"downzone"to (CV-R)or residential. I would ask the planning commission to keep the existing higher usage of commercial zoning. In my discussion with Ms. Rebecca Lind on 4/3/06 she felt that the commercial zoning designation could allow more flexibility for re-development. Ms Lind felt that you could have commercial business on the ground level, and residential above that.It is my opinion that keeping the existing commercial zoning would be in keeping with the Cities intent to try to foster re-development of the area. Therefore I would ask the planning commission to recommend that the existing commercial zoning for my property remain. It is my understanding is that there are also three other parcels that may have the same concerns. One directly East of my property, and two directly West. So there are a total of four parcels that are currently zoned commercial but in the proposed plan are "downzoned"to residential. I would ask the planning commission to keep the existing higher commercial zoning for these other parcels as well. By Keeping a cluster or group of properties with commercial zoning it makes it far more likely for up-grading, and re- development to occur. Sincerely, Greg Fawcett P.O.Box 402 Fall City, WA 98024 425-222-7912(home) 425-222-7011 (office) 425-466-5229(cell) e-mail gfawcettQnwlink.com Page 1 of 1 Theresa•Eimer *se Noe From: "Theresa Elmer"<tenacious_tic@msn.com> To: <tenacious_tic@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 12, 2006 5:33 PM -----Original Message--- From: To: tenacious ticOmsn.com Sent: Sunday,April 09,2006 6:47 PM April 1, 2006 This letter is directed to City of Renton, Renton City counsel and associated depart-ments. I give Theresa Elmer full authorization to act on my behalf in all matters which may directly or indirectly affect my fourplex located at 3101 NE 13th street, Renton Wa.98056 As the actual property owner I respectfully request that Ms Elmer be treated with the same courtesy as I would expect if I were able to participate in this matter. Furthermore it is my wish that Ms Elmer be given all the information provided by the city counsel. Including but not limited to notices,dates and times of meetings,any and all proposed changes which may directly or indirectly effect my property. If you have any questions concerning this letter of authorization please feel free to contact my attorney, Mr. Bobman,who will be working with Ms Elmer,and is fully empowered to act on my behalf. Sincerely JamesR.Greenlund 4/12/06 Page 1 of 1 Theresa Elmer 440 lir®rr From: "Theresa Elmer"<tenacious tic@msn.com> To: <tenacious_tic@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 12,2006 5:49 PM Subject: Fw: —Original Message----- From: To:tenacious tic ajmsn.com Sent:Sunday, April 09,2006 6:46 PM Members of the Renton City Council My name is Jim Greenlund and I own the fourplex located at 3101 NE 13th street. I have owned the fourplex since it was built in 1993. I am not a rich person,I have to work at a full time job like everyone else,putting in far more hours then the average person. I have always taken great pride in my fourplex. Doing my best to maintain the inside and out in a like new condition. Replacing carpet appliances and paint on a regular basis. In other words providing a safe clean and affordable place for people to live as long as they choose to. Many owners now charge the tenant for water,sewer and garbage, I don't. Which again makes it more affordable to people with moderate means. Presently I have four single women as tenants,three of which have children. It would be a very real hardship for at least two of the single mothers to find comparable places for the amount they are now paying. Furthermore I have taken several classes,along with my property manger Ms Elmer,which were provided by the Renton Police Dept. for rental property owners These classes included screening of tenants,what to look for in bad tenants and how to make proper inspections of the property. I was more then a little shocked to learn the city of Renton intends to take my fourplex and force me out. I was more shocked to learn my fourplex was being rated as poor. I have done my best to maintain my fourplex in such a way as to make the neighborhood a better and safer place to live. In closing, it was never my intention for the property to be sold,at least not in my life time. My long range plans were to hopefully have a positive cashflow which would supplement my retirement. 4/12/06 Rebecca Lind;Citizen Inst .. � . r..._a .-�. . ....._ .._ - . .-,...._.. �__.. ..... . . ........_.... .. ...,._.-. . .�...-_ .. Pie 1 44400, Noe From: Bonnie Walton To: Rebecca Lind Date: 4/12/2006 4:00:22 PM Subject: Citizen Inquiry Nancy Warhrman called from Florida as the "trustee"owner of the St.Vincent DePaul store located at 2825 Sunset BI. in the Highlands, plus other properties they own in Renton. She received the Council public hearing notice and has questions. She asked if: 1) Someone could fax her today the notice regarding the 4/12 Planning Commission hearing, as she did not get that notice, and 2) If you could call her tomorrow morning (4/13)to answer questions she has and explain what impacts the rezoning would have on their property, etc. Her Fax number is: 561-955-9921. Her phone number is: 561-620-9200, x174 Bonnie, x6502 CC: Judith Subia FU 1 `"�� Page 1 of 1 �r Rebecca Lind -RE: Highlands Redevelopment Initiative information request .�. From: "Sean Malowney" <malowney@gmail.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 4/10/2006 12:03 PM Subject: RE: Highlands Redevelopment Initiative information request Hello Rebecca, My name is Sean Malowney and I'm a highlands homeowner just outside the Harrington Study Area. I'm excited about the city's work to revitalize the region, and I'd like to find out more about the initiative. If there is any mailing list you can add me to please do so. I am willing to help move the initiative forward in whatever small way I can,even if its just talking to my neighbors and expounding the benefits. Thanks for your time. Regards, Sean Malowney 679 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 425-228-3179 malowney@gmail.com file://C:\Documents and Settings\rlind\Local Settings\Temp\GW 100003.HTM 4/12/2006 vow .400 April 3, 2006 E Ms. Rebecca Lind ! � g..�4 0 ;4 200 , r Planning Manager i>mE ; Renton City Hall-6th Floor ' ' r i ,NdiNG -.�- 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Rebecca, My family owns a duplex at 1222 Kirkland Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98024. Thank you for meeting with me today, and helping me understand some of the proposal to rezone portions of the Highlands. Hopefully I can attend, and learn more at the planning commission, and the City Council meeting regarding this issue. Currently the zoning on the above address is CV. Under the proposal I received in the mail, the zoning would be"down zoned"to CV-R. I would ask that the current zoning of CV remain and that the above property not be re-zoned to a lesser more restrictive zoning. Keeping the existing commercial zoning allows more potential for re- development and this I believe, is in keeping with what the City is trying to accomplish for the Highlands. Rebecca, I would ask you to forward this letter to the members of the planning commission for their consideration. Sincerely, Greg Fawcett P.O. Box 402 Fall City, WA 98024 Va� April 14 , 2006 Renton Planning Commission 1055 S. Grady Was APR U 6 TM Renton, Washington 98055 Gentlemen and/or Ladies: == YT4 I am in agreement with your plan to rezone and revitalize the Renton Highlands area. I am a property owner in the area, who has seen the gradual deterioration of this area. As a property owner at 1801 and 1803 Index Ave. N. E. I strongly agree with your persent assessment of the area, and hope you are successful in getting your plan put into action. At present I have a building to the West of my back yard that has been boarded up. I have been told that people were dealing drugs from that location, and maybe producing drugs there. From 1990, I have seen the area have increasing problems. It is harder to get a good rentor in this area, because of what is going on around the neighborhood. I do not live in this area. I do not believe many property owners live in this area. I think most of the people who will come to your meetings to complain about this new project are rentors who do not want to see a change in the area, nor what they may have to pay if values increase. What I think is important to many people like me, is: When will this situation for the new project start; when will they be able to sell their property; to whom will they sell- or put another way, who is going to be their buyer; how long will they have to replace this property with a tax free exchange--vs the regular 45 day--18') day tax free exchange formula; and how will the value for purchase be determined. Because I can't make the meeting on April 12th, I am sending this letter. I plan to make your meeting on the 17th of April. If you have any questions concerning my letter, please contact me at 425 -392-1421. I will be out of town from April 10th through the 13th. Lte's hope your meetings are successful. But please do not be dismayed by the many negative people you will face, who want to stop progress. Since ely, Terence J. , ew f04-, Et' I- Renton, April 2, 2006 APR 0 4 200h ECONOMIC DC.:= C. From: Dave Smith Nguyen and Nen Kim Phan "'E 1422 Jefferson Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056-3114 To: City of Renton, Highlands sub-area rezones and zoning proposal, LUA-06-030 R, ECF Subject: Absentee voting, or absentee opinion on Highlands subarea re-zoning, LUA-06- 030 R, ECF Wednesday Meeting April 12, 2006 Dear the Highlands Rezoning Committee of Renton, WA I and my wife, Dave Smith Nguyen, and Nen Kim Phan, at the above address. We support the outlines in the pink letter we received from City of Renton. We could not attend the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 12, 2006. We support both la, and 1b"Center Village Core", and"Center Village Residential" For"Center Village Residential", we not only support, we also want to increase the minimum density further. Instead of minimum density of 10 units/acre, we would like to increase to minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre, and a base density of 35 dwelling units per acre. Our rationale is as follows: 1. Population increase fast 2. Land, and houses prices increase fast, that makes housing un-affordable to many working families. Thus, increasing density help to moderate the rate of price increase We even want to increase density in more areas of Renton, and entire King County, WA. Thank you, c'D oirtryN NeA--rr-ak -/ Dave Nguyen Nen Kim Phan Nov prfr, From: Lloyd Hoshide MAR 3 0 2006 833 Kirkland Ave NE Ems. ,. Renton, WA 98056-3810 AND S7 AC PLANNING 1G March 30, 2006; Voice Phone: 425-226-5891' To: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Plannning Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: LUA-06-030 R,ECF Application Name: Highlands Subarea Zoning Dear Ms. Lind: Subject application states that the proposed rezones have the potential to add 1623 housing units. The planned higher density land use can be seen as impacting the traffic volume on Kirkland Ave NE, a residential street. Kirkland Ave NE runs north and south in front of my house. The added housing units as well as the magnetic attraction of the added new big box retailers cannot help but add to the traffic volume on Kirkland Ave NE. Certain things should be done by the City of Renton to mitigate this increased traffic volume. While much of the traffic is not controllable, certain traffic running on Kirkland Ave NE is controllable: • For instance, the nuisance of having large articulating transit buses running on a residential street can be mitigated by telling Metro to route their number 111 bus on Monroe Ave NE, an arterial, to NE10th Street rather than making a dogleg at NE7th Street(where virtually no one boards the 111 bus)to run north and south on Kirkland Ave NE, a residential street, (where there are no bus stops)to NE 10th Street. • A second instance of controllable traffic that could be mitigated would be to have the Renton School District instruct their school bus drivers to route their empty buses over arterial streets to access the Highlands Elementary School. Certain drivers run empty buses over Kirkland Ave NE to NE 9t'Street and hence to Harrington Ave NE to access Highlands Elementary School. • It maybe that speed bumps should be considered to slow down the uncontrollable traffic. Fast north/south traffic is being currently experienced from drivers diverting off of NE.4th Street to get to NE Sunset Blvd over Kirkland Ave NE. Fast north/south traffic is also being experienced on weekends from drivers going to/leaving from the Highlands Community Church. • • Thei-440 'c!'e'e i '1'4*.- :itg4itbrnittObreownerir.,- .. to be Rue . ,,,, ,., (:-.40, .,i-ritrodnetthifttrbsotom Thefts, i *,:, .40' .4,e4w / Lloyd Hoslilde Pa tO4tneettikirfOrdf 31 :20004:015; '111!;:tkrT7; iita*rtzatitielt*, ';''; :i,;:clifl-i.4,10, follow by Mai cc: Bob Gevens .., . . .. . , _ -} - -.„-- .- . . ., „..,- i- Fir LIAR 3 0 2006 Rebecca find March 28,2006 Planning Manager Economic Dev.Neighborhood Strategic Dept. 1055 S Grady Way Renton,Washington 98055 To whom It may concern. RE Zoning Changes I have owned my property since 1964 and itis now still owner occupied.My husband purchased This particular piece of property so in case anything happened to him i would have an Income.. I have wonted for 27 years until I retired from Seattle First National Bank.I withdrew my Retirement money in one lump sum and put it into an IRA.When I was old enough I took out my Funds and have remodeled my home so that I can live in comfortably. My home has a forced air furnace with a air conditioner because when I had to remove my tree so the City could fix the sidewalk in front of my house it left me no shade and I could not Take the heat I have hada kidney transplant and the medicines require me to stay out of the Heat. So my Brother paid to install air conditioning with an air r purification system to Be paid when the property is sold. I also have to have clean air as I have bronchial problems Which turn into bronchial pneumonia. There is now,no place that I could buy with what you want to pay me for my home as I have had to Refinance my home in order to cover my medical expenses and to sell it now and pay off my ills would leave me withoUUt enough for a down payment on some other less desirable home. Much less not having the extra income from the rental. I realize that the outer part of my propertyis run down as I have not been able to do the work.I Now have Tenants in the Rental that are taking care of the yard and have already hauled 5 loads of Garbage left by previous tenants.And my Nephew has agreed to paint my duplex this Spring. I am disabled because of diabetes.I have had surgery on my eyes so I have given up driving as I have no peripheral vision.I take the Access Bus because I can't get my legs high enough to get into a regular bus and sometimes I need to use a walkier. rv° vry When I applied for assistance from the organization that is suppose to help elderly low income people they would not even consider me because I have a rental property. All other organizations I have tried to get help from are the same. Can you explain to me how you are going to compensate for the loss of my beautiful and comfortable home and for the loss of my rental income and still let me live in the City of Renton that has been my home for 42 years? The loss of my association with my family,friends and Church Family who reside in Renton and who look after me and take me to my many Doctors,pick up my Medicines,and take me shopping,or if I'm under the weather,do my shopping for me? This is what I will lose if you rezone the area in which I live and let the City of Renton forces me out of my home. I don't see how a Government Agency can rezone and then take the property of a hard working and now disabled American Citizen and put them out on the street with no place to go except on welfare and Other public assistance.I was raised to believe in our Country and the rights of our people to own property.It doesn't say anything in the Constitution that when you get old and disabled and can't maintain it as others would like, that the Government can come along and take everything you have worked so hard for. Therefore I am totally against this rezoning project of the City of Renton. yiy, I*, • / Lennice A Dalrymple 1209 Jefferson Ave NE Renton,Washington 98056-3119 14.1 Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Economic Development Neighborhoods/Strategici v4 Planning Department " :c 1055 S. Grady Way MAR 2 9 2006 Renton, WA 98055 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PL-.N=G March 28, 2006 Dear Ms. Lind: I am a resident at the Olympic Condominium, located at 1100 Harrington Ave. NE, right in the middle of the study area that is the subject of the Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezone. I strongly urge the City of Renton to allow our property to remain undisturbed. We are thirty units of mostly owner-occupied property, limited to nine units rented at any given point, and allowing many individuals(such as myself)to buy property and own a home for the first time. Other owners here have purchased units for elderly relatives, allowing them a safe, convenient, and congenial atmosphere that should not be disrupted. As a multi-unit building, we already satisfy many of the desired attributes of properties you intend to see developed for the area in question. Therefore we are already on the City's trajectory toward higher density in the Highlands. £ We take pride in our homes and have recently voted to accept an annual budget that includes a special assessment for painting, landscaping and exterior repairs. This will add to our"curb appeal"and invite surrounding neighbors to step up and do likewise. I urge the City to consider all these matters when planning for the project. Whatever the problems in our neighborhood, we at the Olympic are victims, not perpetrators. Please go after the wrongdoers here-don't throw the baby out with the bath water! Sincerely Moira MacLean 1100 Harrington Ave. NE#301 Renton 98056 (425) 793-6350 .. Marian 1?. McCready 2318 N E. 10"'Street r? t n _ Renton, WA. 98056 MAR 2 8 2006 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Rebecca Lind AND STRATE RHOOQ�iING Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA. 98055 March 27, 2006 Dear Rebecca Lind Who decides which homes in the Renton Highlands neighborhood are in poor condition? If you change the zoning to Center Village Residential(CV-R)zone, does this mean the homes that are there are to be condemned? I took a drive through the proposed location in the Highlands, the area to be rezoned south ofNE 16*Street, north of NE 9th Street, east of Edmonds Ave. and west of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and NE 12'"Street. Some of these houses are new. What happens to them? I live at 2318 N.E. 10#1Street and don't think my house will be affected I am concerned very much about my son who lives at 626 Index Ave. Can you tell me if his house will have be replaced? ii t /I I also have a son who lives att 3St. and don't think his house will be affected. So,you can see why this is so disturbing to me. Sincerely, Marian R McCready ----....• , .............., f-elE WO -Acixt._.O6_036 ,e, c QE/.51-7. 726i,e. , ig&e1--Ce / ylete X712/12g /-6' a0 er,)/1/4h7E, gi,,, o-j xfcsefe e-o,,c... ./1/7/ . /1E le5/„;9:49-4-cui Gi.o.K472' 2, /4( 7z-17 "/ /1.51/247(5' 49 -41:2, Xca.-?- 12e'f-,44/./;01rAl 7k3e/g6: ,&,,e7 Vi7/ eliz al Rfr A-57a .,.- . .,, 't \ 01 0 \ vw�r+ (cY Cm* FAQ Sheet Frequently Asked Questions About the Highlands Redevelopment Initiative VISION What area of the Highlands is being discussed? The area, identified as the 'Highlands Subarea', is located between NE 6th Street and NE 21st Street AND between Edmonds Avenue and Monroe Avenue. (See attached map). What is the vision for Highlands Subarea? • The Highlands is envisioned as a dynamic urban village, populated by people from a variety of socio-economic groups, centered around a community and commercial core. • Neglected and potentially hazardous housing would be replaced by safer, affordable housing providing homes for seniors, low-income families and first time homebuyers. • The neighborhood would be walkable, with sidewalks and landscaped pathways providing easy access to goods and services. When was the vision for the Highlands Subarea developed? The vision was created through a public process when the City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1993, refined in 2000 and readopted through public process in 2004. Why is the City focusing attention on the Highlands now? There is growing poverty and crime in the Highlands area. Much of the housing is in poor condition and the rate of ownership in the area is declining. Statistics show that the Highlands has disproportionately higher rates of serious crimes such as murder, car theft and substance abuse than the City as a whole. The City wants to support investment in the Highlands to help improve these conditions. REDEVELOPMENT What happened to the 2000 Redevelopment Plan? Businesses will only come to an area if there is a market to support them. Market analysis done on the Hi-Lands Shopping Center showed there were not enough households or sufficient spending to support a neighborhood shopping center. 11110V *0, However, the study also showed that a small increase in households would provide an attractive market for new businesses. • What has the City done to revitalize and redevelop the Highlands? • Instituted the REACT program to clean up problems in the neighborhood. • Hired a consultant to study both the residential and commercial market. • Researched the physical, social and economic conditions. • Drafted proposed zoning regulations to improve revitalization opportunities. How will redevelopment improve the Highlands and preserve affordability? • By increasing the total number of housing units and partnering with home ownership programs, there will be additional opportunities for affordable home ownership. • Additional housing units will also bring more families with a mix of incomes to the neighborhood, encouraging new businesses to locate there. • The City's proposal would require new housing developments to build affordable units in order to preserve affordability. • Without a redevelopment initiative, new development will NOT be required to provide any affordable housing units. REZONING Why are some properties being rezoned and others not? The City's plan for present and future land use is called its "Comprehensive Plan". The Comprehensive Plan designates much of the Highlands Subarea as "Center Village". The proposed changes to zoning are consistent with the policies already established in Center Village. Won't a rezone increase the number of housing units and affect traffic? The affect of additional units on traffic was studied. The analysis revealed that while there will be more cars if more people live and work in the Highlands, there would be no noticeable reduction in the level of service under the proposed rezoning concept, with the exception of the intersection of Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street. This intersection would need southbound and westbound left turn pockets to accommodate increased traffic volumes. What other zoning and land use changes are expected? Some changes may be proposed to expand the Center Village designation in the Comprehensive Plan. These changes require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and will be proposed later in the year. What determines the "Center Village" designation in the Comprehensive Plan? • Although it was originally called "Suburban Center," the essential vision and polices of the Center Village designation were first adopted through public process in 1993 with the City's first Comprehensive Plan. • The purpose of the designation was to redevelop existing low-density suburban areas into compact higher density urban villages. • The urban village is intended to be pedestrian friendly and transit oriented with neighborhood-oriented commercial development and medium- to high- density housing. If my property is to be rezoned, what does that mean? Perhaps the biggest change will be that existing single-family and duplex units will be considered "non-conforming uses."This means that existing development is "grandfathered." • Non-conforming uses that were legally built and constructed are allowed to continue. • Non-conforming uses can be maintained (re-roofed or remodeled on the inside), but can not be expanded (adding second story or rooms). • Non-conforming uses, if destroyed by fire, for example, can only be rebuilt to the same square footage of what it was before and within two years of being destroyed. • Non-confirming uses may also be changed in a way that makes them consistent with the required zoning rules. Proposed Rezoning: CV-R = (Center Village-Residential): Allows townhouses and cottages with a base density of 10-14 dwelling units per acre. Property owners who can consolidate at least one acre of property and provide affordable housing are eligible for the Flex Bonus. ■ Flex Bonus = Single-family homes and multi-story apartments can be built (stacked flats, also called multi-family, are limited to the area east of Kirkland Ave.), and higher density is allowed. CV-C = (Center Village Core): Allows townhouses, flats, commercial uses and mixed residential and commercial uses with a base density range of 20-60 dwelling units per acre. Property owners who provide affordable housing can build at densities up to 80 units per acre. R-10 = (Residential-10 units per acre): The area that will remain zoned R-10 in the Highlands Subarea will be subject to a change in development regulations. Detached and semi-attached homes will be prohibited in the R-10 zone within the Highlands Subarea. This means that existing single-family homes and duplexes will be considered non-conforming uses. (See above) Does this rezoning mean that my property will be condemned? No. This rezoning proposal has nothing to do with the condemnation of property. In nearly every case, the proposed rezone may provide a small increase in land value because the land has the potential to be developed for a higher density use. Rezoning allows property owners who want to develop their property to go ahead and invest in the neighborhood by building housing that is consistent with land use plans for the area. DECLARATION OF "BLIGHT" Is the City going to declare the Highlands as `blighted'? The City MAY have an interest in buying property in the Highlands for the purpose of consolidating parcels of property for redevelopment. Cities are not allowed to buy property unless it is for a public use. By declaring an area "blighted", the City will be able to purchase properties for the purpose of removing the "blight" under monfammusimily NO Washington's Community Renewal Act. Chapter 35.81 RCW, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.81 A determination of"blight" must be agreed to and adopted by the City Council. At this time no declaration proposal is before the Council for its consideration. What area is being considered for inclusion in the blight declaration? At this time, the City is considering an area described as the North Harrington Redevelopment Core (see attached map). This includes: • Sunset Terrace • The commercial areas on the north side of Sunset Boulevard (west of the intersection with NE 12th) • The Glennwood area • Properties between NE 12th and the Kirkland-Harrington Loop, between Harrington and Kirkland. This does not mean that every property in the boundary is considered blighted or potentially feasible for redevelopment. The boundary was drawn around a concentration of poor conditions and is subject to change. How did the City rate the conditions of houses in the Highlands? The ratings were only used to make general correlations and assessments about the study area, not to make assessments as to the value or worth of individual homes. City staff evaluated the condition of each property based on what they could observe from the street. Property condition ratings were then used to compare housing conditions to other information collected. These ratings have not been formally adopted by the City Council, nor will they be. The following information was found using this method: • Blocks with the worst housing conditions tended to have more police cases. • Blocks with the worst housing conditions had more calls for fire and aid service. • Blocks with the best housing conditions had more homes occupied by owners. Won't a Declaration of Blight lower property values? • Owning property that is in the vicinity of neglected and dilapidated properties is already lowering the value of property. • Redevelopment in the neighborhood and the removal of poor housing should increase property values. • In general, property values may be raised slightly by the proposed rezone prior to any declaration of blight. Is the City going to use eminent domain to condemn people's homes? • The City plans to work with property owners willing to sell their properties and participate in the redevelopment process. • The vision for redevelopment will only occur in a timely fashion if several parcels can be acquired and be redeveloped in chunks. wie New • Once an area is declared as "blight", the City may use the tool of eminent domain under the Washington Community Renewal Act to buy individual properties at fair market value. • This will only be used as a last resort after all efforts to consolidate property through the private marketplace are exhausted, and then, only if a specific property is essential to redevelopment. • Each property acquired through the use of eminent domain requires a separate process, establishment of fair market value, and City Council action. DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE I received some information about an environmental determination of non- significance. What was that about? Any time the City makes a change in its development regulations, it must review the changes to determine what the environmental impacts might be. These notices provide basic information about the determination and alert the public that the City is asking for public comments. How can the City say that the redevelopment of the Highlands is "non- significant"? The use of the term "non-significant" has a technical meaning and in no way indicates that the redevelopment of portions of the Highlands is not meaningful to the City and does not warrant substantial public review. In this case, "non- significant" means that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required to fully disclose the potential environmental impacts of an action. The City's Environmental Review Committee made a determination that the proposed change in zoning regulations will not require an EIS. OPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT Why can't the City just fix the physical or health problems in the Highlands? • Many of the problems can only be addressed through voluntary compliance of the property owner. • In 2003, the King County Health Department sent letters to the neighborhood about potential asbestos, lead based paint and indoor air quality hazards in many homes. Even though they offered free home assessments, only three property owners participated. • The City can only address other issues, such as junk in the yard, when it becomes bad enough to be a "nuisance," as defined by City Code. Why doesn't the City just assign more police to the area? • The City has already dedicated several police officers to the area. • There is already a disproportionate amount of resources devoted to crime in the Highlands. • As long as the physical conditions of the neighborhood reflect neglect, non- intentional or otherwise, criminals will view the Highlands as a good place to do business. Why can't we just let the free market redevelop the Highlands? • The Highlands ha been in a slow decline for many years and redevelopment has not occurred, despite the fact that the existing zoning on many properties allows a substantial increase in density. • Market analysis shows that some property owners can make more money renting dilapidated property than they can from investing in high-quality redevelopment. • More than 60% of the existing units in the Highlands Subarea are rentals. • Developers are only interested in investing in the neighborhood if it is a part of a larger redevelopment initiative. The proposed rezone is a sign to the development community that the City is serious about revitalizing the neighborhood. What will happen to the people who live in the area today if redevelopment occurs? • It is the policy of the City Council to increase the amount of affordable housing in the community. • A coordinated redevelopment effort will allow the City to work with the Renton Housing Authority and other non-profit affordable housing providers to create new, higher quality replacement housing that will remain affordable over time. • The City's current policies would require replacement and expansion in the amount of affordable housing units by 30%. • A coordinated redevelopment effort may also allow existing property owners to swap their land for newly constructed units. • Existing residents will be given the first opportunities to move in to new subsidized developments that are safer, higher quality and possible more affordable than their existing homes. OPTION A & OPTION B There has been talk in the community about "Option A" and `Option B", what are these options? Two possible implementation strategies were presented to the City Council during its recent workshop. • "Option A" implements the revised zoning by utilizing the Community Renewal Act. This would bring about improvement of the poor physical, social and economic conditions in the area more quickly through a coordinated redevelopment effort. • "Option B" calls for the rezone of properties, pursuit of code enforcement and allows market forces to eventually redevelop the area. Existing conditions would persist until piecemeal redevelopment occurs. Are "Option A" and "Option B" related to the land use concepts on display at the Highlands Planning Open House Last Fall? No. Those land use concepts were completely different from the Council discussion on redevelopment strategies. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT It seems like the City is moving too fast in its planning efforts. • The City began studying redevelopment of the Highlands in 2000. w Now • In 2001, the City created the Center Village land use designation, but redevelopment did not happen. • The City began a new approach in late 2004, and has been studying and working on the Highlands Redevelopment Initiative ever since. • All property owners were invited to participate in this new planning effort in Spring 2005. • At this time, the results of the City's planning efforts are being released for public review through a series of public meetings and hearings in the coming months. What public input has there been into the City's recent work on the Highlands Subarea so far? • The City sent all property owners in the Highlands a survey about potential redevelopment in Spring 2005. • In Summer 2005, the City invited property owners to a series of focus groups. • In November 2005, the City held a public Open House at the Highlands Community Center. • Residents and property owners have been sent several notices by the City, inviting comment on the development moratorium, the environmental review for the proposed zoning changes and public hearings for the proposed zoning changes. Why did the City enact a development moratorium for The Highlands? • The City enacted a development moratorium development allowed under the existing zoning was not consistent with the vision established in the Comprehensive Plan. • The moratorium gave the City time to figure out how best to achieve redevelopment and revitalization of the neighborhood. Under the rules of the moratorium, property owners can remodel, clean up and otherwise improve existing structures. However, they cannot subdivide, expand or build new units. When does the moratorium end? The moratorium is scheduled to expire May 14, 2006, unless extended by the City Council. How can I get involved in the Highlands planning effort? • Attend Planning Commission and City Council meetings where the Highlands Subarea is an agenda topic. • All property owners are sent notices when required by state or local law, such as a Notice of Application when a project begins environmental review or when a public hearing is held to collect input. • If you wish to receive notification of project milestones, you should contact Judith Subia (below) to be added to the parties of record list for the Highlands Subarea. Judith Subia at jsubia@ci.renton.wa.us or (425) 430-6575 l There has been a lot of speculation about the Highlands planning effort. Where can I get more information? Highlands Redevelopment: www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/highland.htm Planning Commission: www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/pcinfo.htm You can also come into City Hall (6th Floor) and talk to a strategic planner about it, or call us on the phone at (425) 430-6575. MIEN OWN= ifil lArja 11141111:1111 i!ii 'W mu woo •121w viiii" dv ads town ill gi FM-sat 1111 BEIM �■` , r ■ •jla Lv ,llM •■ ■•im �■11a J 16th PN r613 mill ml miry' IIIIIIIIIE �� 44 arra BMW ���.�I li/�`„//.fir PI p 111..■ ■ II _ i / .!/ ■ ■'7 iJi f;r 0Avor r 111111■iii RRIKIRI i .c , II /� 1--./�v •. !! ■ �Ia ■ L__ rAMOvole4.0aarg (zi aciima I. IP Mills se � /� Imo%_#"40 %.%% � AMA NI 1111 ■ /` / r��i�f i co AMP ii ii 1 1 Irk ■ij Om :=4,9%e %0 � i - I WIWI A IMO v, A I =---r---- mil. so mow IIPROLS UM iL "r4I it, 4, #ei re mom. ! !II! miii./ 4. 1. mu ii•will Wm lel -1 .1c Eiri INI IN rAislied 111 �� ;�� YRY if PII• - mm" EN 1r isMit 4 4. 1., • nu .1 • eal NEN _______ mg i NIL low F umunigigiumum molt, nil ems FAMMINIPOINI Mr 0 f ■■/AP IN tikil ili, , p a a ma 1 -.111 11l =EP USEI�iilM ILM Erlij m■ ilt. goiniiin ii- INN gs. O. in Ix. ulim NEI 1 Mt NI 'Limo Nu aim umi st ma rial MUM MI 1`1�i[l���'I� l.�;■ liii ■ ' g limo I gbh :. c' i! "�'E `W carman ma ■. mumu►,, • � ■ !r■ -: L— r "i ! !'I1 1 r ct. EI �■ "IiI a:im4. ii. > IV�� Ri� Siam 1. vzim=iv Paso Q ► �� . l�� a ?lame p ,4 ■. P► / E• .p „Siam ■■■MI MINI I Vil 4 044-ri rit 4"44 . KM MI II 00i ii_ ... pants. -44.4 gm • .... ID- mug* 41 . 111111,1111 ..nanatettr. bit rishiar-_itaki mall 0 __mid.] um= ..A_..- Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones 40. Economich Developmnistrator ent,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning EMI Rezone to Center Village-Core(CV-C) • Alex PietacAdmi G.Del Rosario 177) Rezone to Center Village-Residential(CV-R) :•- 29 March 2006 P ' f ^III -- - - ' ' � r . swill W/Al Land Use Concept El iii Focus Area %so K ' , i ,- �, t'l er fry rIIIIII CN11111111111111111111 7 �01 � •', ® CV-C(20-80 du/acre with res/com mix) ® CV-R(10-18 du/acre(to 80 with CV-x rezone)) ; �r h ' i , _ l ��•�•• `� 10 in RS(4-8 du/acre) 4r L e ,.,��Si il NW RMD(4-18 du/acre) �� r ' t 1 S i Si.,, IVil� 64 la ® RMF(10-20 du/acre) L111___, i alb OA C Mill Public Open Space/Parks r+fu - �• `, Interim zoning in core with existing (01: NL 20:- _ `n - / zoning outside core(existing comp +a' �,7 c:_-_, I In=' plan throughout) _ Ilk•-`�qcaw= mirear. Mall p 11)f ,, 11 IC x% polia_2 1, Rims Ma is PIM' ""•111 EminumavA TIE 4'Pa sl �s ■ in ■ N ...de mu. �i NIa1/1Hi ®•�• /num .2,., ft, Ail gmme ii• ak Ain imial lit . .plfz ._ a ammo , Pill meiWWI WM 111421 MI MI. yWyO � � 11 - µ i � �tA_ * 1 imakil RI NE 1 MIMI Phi II :, • _ ,, , - SI *NI SI■N IIIiJI • O■ ii; ■■ i ■!n_es, 1, a m� s _ �� _ liii._v - lo MINN • . NN i � � ��'rillii°112114ii ` iii mi Flo=/ I. II ITVIIIIMIIIII ail am El se w�II::"I ■B is �WLY7wW� �YnY■■�,.�m 4I ■■■Yi■■i anei�. izt� - �� �YY�I.Ila��ff, �■� a .= 5 �YiaYVIImo - `\ t L ilii v ii•11p 411•• ltionsi �■ 6.01mIn11GIN1 11111111111 ty N : wi1111111i -: 1 : Cm 111111111111 .111111111 .RF ,_�• .L!!!!I�/rfi ��� • gbh St �� 11N111111 •1i1 IIsi II d -�� k�`��III Z t46 p Re js r - ' ,61 11 - IL' 6�= FLINI � i IF • R■ INYIli rad ii■ psi ■�i•insEi=p HO libiTig NM krN, Ammilim E11111111211111111 o !! i -1, IIiYiuIIIIII limmisa oiti 411 ." MOP ���'� 44 e1��&� Illmta17 Q 11!111■'"_'%.** ►♦ei m mkt �j dan Et. •. m, .. fi�I is 11:IL'1111iii► ��V��� f i.• i�'�`/ � ���� Ilk;::�r�:#:�r �1 1®MRI■Ii IN■1111111 X111/ � �Inr D • .� �, 1■111111En IIIINI Y111I ♦ ♦ , *isAO � a: —1. g- > mN den 11u11111 �'��'��J �,� SILL _ lir tet. Current Zoning -Focus Area Multifamily Residential Development Capacy ' Zoning Gross Land Net Land Area Assumed Assumed Develop Area (Adjusted) Future Future Density ment Density (80%of Capacity (Maximum) Maximum) From Tables 14 and 20 80%of max Units _ C*D RMF 21.31 19.18 rye';" 16 307 CV-BONUS-MULTIFAMILY 4.11 3.70 �- x3;`, 64 237 CV-MULTIFAMILY 5.83 5.25 16 84 R-10 56.42 50.78 • 8 406 CV-MIXEDUSE 4.37 4.11 16 16 66 CV-BONUS-MIXEDUSE 3.08 2.89 :;s j 64 185 _ 95.13 ( 85.91 1,285 Commercial Development Capacity Zoning Gross Land Net Land Area Assumed Development Area (Adlusted) Future FAR Capacity From Tables 16 and 20 Sq. Ft. C*D CV-MIXEDUSE 1.46 1.37 �. T 17,894 _ CV-BONUS-MIXEDUSE 1.03 0.96 - - ' A 12,610 CV-RETAIL 7.78 7.31 - ' 95,520 _ ( CV-BONUS-RETAIL 5.48 5.15 " y ;, 67,316 15.74 I 14.79 193,340 4/4/06 Land Totals Concept El-Focus Area Estimated Required Estimated Estimated Middle Estimated Amount of Trip Ends Elem. School High School Total Neighborhood (per unit Trip Generation Gross Net Density/ Population Estimated Pupils Pupils Pupils Estimated Parks(75 or per in Vehicle Trip Land Use Type Acreage Acreage FAR Units Retail SqFt factor Population (0.276/unit) (0.079/unit) (0.070/unit) Pupils sqft/pp) 1,000 sqft) Ends CVR-Cottage 9.25 8.33 12 100 n/a A 1 140 0' 0' 0" 0 10,492-i. 586 CVR-Townhouse 21.59 19.43 21 404 n/a =�`;t.•A; A 727 201 57 51 309.2+ 54,557 -.x:1,1 7xt1 4,328 CVR-Multi-Family 0.00 0.00 64 0 n/a ;. 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 1, 6s 0 CVC-Multi-Family 14.45 13.00 64 832 n/a »-�1,498 413 118 105 637 112,348 6a'6I 5,518 RMD 18.70 16.83 14 242 n/a 436 120 34 31 185 32,718 i<!,„P;'(x;7'1- 2,596 CVC-Mixeduse Housing 10.84 10.18 64 651 n/a !;_ ' ;y;1:$' 1,172 324 93 82 498 87,926', :z6s63 4,318 CVC-Mixeduse Commercial 3.61 3.39 0.30 n/a 44,329 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a )140;87 1,803 CVC-Retail 19.26 18.11 0.30 n/a 236,637 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ,1.4 6Z 9,624 : ,., School 7.18 0.00 n/a Na n/a n/a n/a Na n/a n/a n/a Na ??°;, :'_ Parks/Public Open Space 5.98 5.98 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Totals 110.86 95.25 2,230_ 280,967 3,974 1,058 303 268 1,629 298,040 28,772 'Predominantly singles,childless couples and"emptynesters" Existing Park 3.32 150,780 Existing Retail 223,019 Existing Residential 607 -', s 1,335 167.5 48.0 42.5 45,525 Net Change 2.66 1,623 2,638 891 255 226 _ Commercial ( Summary 2/28/06 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS HIGHLANDS SUBAREA-APRIL 2006 4-2-010 ZONES AND MAP DESIGNATIONS ESTABLISHED: D ZONES IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Designations are implemented by certain zones: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION IMPLEMENTING ZONES Residential Low Density(RLD) Resource Conservation (RC)Residential— 1 DU/AC (R-1)Residential—4 DU/AC (R-4) Residential Single Family(RS) Residential—8 DU/AC (R-8)Residential Manufactured Home Park(RMH) Residential Medium Density(RMD) Residential—10 DU/AC(R-10)Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH)Residential— 14 DU/AC(R-14) IResidential Multi-Family(RM) Residential Multi-Family(RM-UV, RM-Ti, RM-F) Urban Center Downtown (UC-D)Center Downtown (CD)Residential Multi-Family Urban Center(RM-U)Residential Multi-Family Traditional (RM-T) Urban Center North (UC-N) Urban Center-North 1 (UC-N1)Urban Center-North 2 (UC-N2) Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Center Village(CV) Residential—10 DU/AC(R-10)Residential Multi-Family (RM-F)Center Village-Core(CV-CL and Center Village-Residential(CV-R) Commercial Corridor(CC) Commercial Arterial(CA)Commercial Office(CO)Light Industrial (IL) Employment Area Industrial (EAI) Light Industrial (IL)Medium Industrial (IM)Heavy Industrial(IH) Employment Area Valley(EAV) Commercial Arterial (CA)Commercial Office(CO)Light Industrial (IL)Medium Industrial (IM)Heavy Industrial (IH)Resource Conservation(RC) Commercial Neighborhood (CN)Commercial Neighborhood (CN) 4-2-020 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS: K CENTER VILLAGE ZONES (CV-C, CV-R): H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Develonment Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April O oeH:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Develovment Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc-:._e• -• - • • ..• ..: • . • . _ .. .. .e, . .. _ -- _: _ • . . ::,. !: . ..Page 1 of 88 NOW 1. Purpose:The purpose of the Center Village Zone(CV)is to provide an opportunity for concentrated mixed-use residential and commercial redevelopment designed to urban rather than suburban development standards that supports transit-oriented development and pedestrian activity.Use allowances promote commercial and retail development opportunities for residents to shop locally. Uses and standards allow complementary, high-density residential development, and discourage garden-style, multi-family development. The Center Village zones-Residential Bonus District supports superior residential projects that complement commercial uses, provide ground floor commercial activity along arterials, and provide transition between intensive commercial areas and surrounding single family and multi-family neighborhoods. Incentives for affordable housing are provided to encourage economic diversity. 2. Scale and Character:The Center Village Zone(CV)is intended to provide suitable environments for district- scaled retail and commercial development serving more than one neighborhood, but not providing City-wide services. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statement, objectives and policy direction established in the Center Village land use designation, Objective LU-CCC, Policies LU-317 through LU-332, Residential Medium-Density land use designation, Objectives LU-GG through LU-II, Policies LU-157 through LU-181, or the Residential Multi-Family land use designation, Objectives LU-JJ through LU-LL, Policies LU-182 through LU- 192, and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Classifications: The Center Village is implemented by two\ zones: a. CV-C (Core): Geographically located in the center of the Center Village, the Core zone provides a concentration of goods, services, and amenities for the Center Village as a whole and for surrounding neighborhoods. The Core serves as the primary hub for transit service,with pedestrian connection connecting the Core to the rest of the Center Village. Commercial uses, office and professional uses,recreational uses, and community services are located in this community Core. Hiqh density residential uses are allowed to support the concentration of business uses in the Core zone. Mixed uses are encouraged to provide vitality in the core. b. CV-R(Residential): This zone provides for medium to high density urban development in the Center Village. Development in this district should be compact and urban in size, scale, and intensity. A variety of residential land uses will be allowed to encourage economic diversity. Low density suburban uses will be disallowed. An interconnected system of pedestrian pathways in this zone will link uses in the Center Village and provide connection to the Center Village-Core. The Center Village Flex Bonus District within the Center Village Residential Zone provides an opportunity for innovation and a way to respond to changing market conditions, while still resulting in a high quality environment. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Rea Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc-: - !• .' _. : ' ..• ..: : • :.•.. ..•...!: _ .. • • . . • -• •. .•. 06).docH:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Hiahlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April O6).doc-`- !• -' _:..: • .. ..: • •: • :.•.. • ..•:. !: _ .. _ • ._ .. _. • _ . ... !: . :-Page 2 of 88 4-2-060 ZONING USE TABLE—USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS: ( ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS - UC- USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH 10 14 _R RM IL IM IH CN CCV- CA CD CO COR N1 UC-N2 ( A. AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Agriculture P P Natural resource HHHH H H H H H H H59 H H HHHH H extraction/recovery ( B. ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Animal husbandry(20 or fewer small animals per P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 acre) Animal husbandry(4 or fewer medium animals P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 per acre) Animal husbandry (maximum of 1 large P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 animal per acre) Greater number of animals H36 H36 H36 H36 H36 than allowed above Beekeeping P35 P35 P35 P35 Kennels AD3 P37 P37 P37 AC Kennels, hobby AC3 AC3 AC3 7 7 7 37 AC37 AC37 AC37 37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 Pets, common household, I upor business tou 3per dwelling unit AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AQ AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC establishment Stables,commercial AD3 AD3 7 7 ( C.RESIDENTIAL Detached dwelling P19 P19 P19 P19 R1-9P P19- H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc-: _ • _• _: • •: • :,-. ;• .•. `•- : ::---- -'• _ -- =H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg_Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).do . _.. -• _. . • .. _.. •. .. • . . • - ..•.- 3 - _ 4.. _ .-. - _ ' • - e- . .:Page3 of 88 113 P11 2- Detached dwelling (existing P P P legal) P1-9Semi-attached dwelling 12 P19 113 921 Attached dwellings P50 P50 P211 P19 P18 P73 P18 P16 P19 P74 P87 Flats or townhouses P P w-3 (existing legal) Flats or townhouses, no greater than 2 units total P P P P P P - per building (existing legal) Cottages P C. RESIDENTIAL(Continued) Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes P19 Manufactured homes, P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 designated Mobile homes P19 ` (Amd. Ord.5018, 9-22-2003) D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Accessory dwelling unit AD7 I Adult family home PPPP P PPPP P P3 Caretaker's residence AC AC AC AC - AC AC AC AC I Congregate residence AD P P P3 Group homes I - H H3 Group homes II for 6 or P P P p P19 P PP P P P3 P less Group homes II for 7 or PHHH HHHPH P H H3 AD more Home occupations AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 A6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC AC H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06),do -: - `• _' -: ' - -•• . -_ ' :•• : `• _ •••• • : .::-H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).do ..:e _• _: _• .. : .e. - - e . _ .-. - - _ ' - _ - _ . . i; ::Page 4 of 88 I Retirement residences H H AD P P P P3 P39 P P75 P88 I E. SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H H H H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H76 H89 (public or private) K-12 educational institution (public or private), P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P2 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 existing Other higher education P38 P38 P38 P P P P21 P H88 institution Schools/studios,arts and P P38 P38 P22 P P P crafts Trade or vocational P P H H H77 school F. PARKS.. Parks,neighborhood PPPP P P P PPPPP P PPPP P P P Parks, regional/community, PPPPP PPPPP PP P P PPP P P P • existing Parks, regional/community, AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P P new G. OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery HHHH H H H HHHH H 14 HHH H Religious institutions HHHHH HHHHHHH H HHHH H H H90 Service and social HHHHH HHHHHHH H H H H H12 H21 H78 H90 organizations Public Facilities I City government offices AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P AD AD AD90 City government facilities HHHHH HH HHHH H HHHH H H H90 Jails,existing municipal - P Secure community Y transition facilities H71 H71 Other government offices H H H H H H H HHHH H HHHHHH H90 H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).do •`_!• _• _:..• • :.-`_.: • -: • :. ,, ••- -- - .==-H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans`Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 16 .do :..e _• _: _.: . _: • .. _. .. ...r: . .. : _ ..:_ .- _ -. e. .:Page 5of88 and facilities H. OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference centers P38 P38 P38 H P38 P P P21 P P91 Medical and dental offices P42 P38 P38 P38 AD17 P22 PPP P P P92 Offices, general P42 P13 P13 P13 AD17 P22 P PP P P P93 Veterinary offices/clinics P P42 P38 P38 P38 P22 P P P38 P P78 I. RETAIL Adult retail use P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 I Big-box retail P P P - P20 P72 P79 Drive-in/drive-through, AC AC AC AC AC28 AC AC28 AC78 AC80 retail — Eating and drinking establishments P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 1133 P42 P P P P22 P22 P P P12 P27 P81 P94 Horticultural nurseries, HHHH H HH HHHH H HHHH H H existing Horticultural nurseries, H new I Retail sales H33 AD P34 P34 P34 P60 P22 P68 P P54 P21 P82 P95 Retail sales,outdoor P30 P30 P30 P15 P15 P15 Taverns AD P20 AD P21 P82 P99 Vehicle sales, large P P P P41 Vehicle sales, small P P P P20 (Amd.Ord. 5001,2-10-2003) I J. ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION I Entertainment Adult entertainment P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 business Card room P52 P52 P52 P52 Cultural facilities H H H H H HHHH AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD90 I Dance clubs P38 P38 P38 AD22 P20 H P38 H Dance halls P38 P38 P38 AD22 P20 H P38 H Gaming/gambling H38 1129 H38 H2O H38 facilities, not-for-profit H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc-:' `• _•'_: : • :. - • •: • .--` -'•. : ::•--• ' -'• -• -• - !. .:::H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).do :._!.•• -• _. . • ..• _.. . _. • : _ .. _ .e_ _ ._- _ • -_ a :_ - - _. _ - ' . •: . : Page6of88 I Movie theatersP38 P38 P38 RAD P20 P P12 P83 P94 Sports arenas, . auditoriums,exhibition P38 P38 P38 P20 P H84 H96 halls, indoor Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition P P38 P38 AD20 H84 H96 halls, outdoor Recreation Golf courses (existing) P P P P P Golf courses, new HPHH H H Marinas P P21 H97 Recreational facilities, ( P33 P33 P38 P38 P38 P22 P P P65 P21 P78 P94 indoor, existing _ Recreational facilities, H all P indoor, new Recreational facilities, P33 P33 P32 P32 P32 H2O H38 outdoor K.SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P accessory Bed and breakfast house, AD AD AD5 AD P professional Hotel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 P P38 P P P98 Motel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 Off-site services P42 P38 P38 P38 P38 On-site services H33 P42 P38 P38 P38 P63 P22 P69 P P54 P21 P78 P99 K.SERVICES(Continued) Drive-in/drive-through AC62 AC62 AC62 AC AC28 AC AC70 AC61 AC61 AC78 AC80 service Vehicle rental, small P P P AD P20 Vehicle and equipment P38 P29 P29 rental, large Day Care Services I Adult day care I I AC I AC I AC I AC I AC 1 ACIACILQIACIP55 1P55 I P55 I P22 I P22I P22 IP P I P I P78 I P100 H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(Anti]06).dog : e• _• _:--: • :.- _.: -: • :.-. •-• .-:. .,: : ::-. - _• :.=. ._.. _ _. !: .::-H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg-Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).do . _.• _. _ . _: • . _ .e: . .. : _ ? .r ._. _ - _ •-- _. _ • - .-Page 7of88 Adult day care II HHHH H H H33 jj33 H AD AD H P22 P22 P22 P P12 P21 P78 P100 Day care centers H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H33 H25 P54 P54 P54 P22 P22 P22 P P P21 P78 P100 Family day care home AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC3 AC AC AC AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers H H H H H P22 H P3 P39 AD AD85 AD101 Medical institutions HHHH H HH H H56 H56 H56 H H H H P40 H H H93 L.VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops P31 P31 P31 H31 Car washes P P P AD2 P22 P22 Express transportation services AD P AD22 AD20 Fuel dealers H59 P Industrial engine or transmission rebuild P31 P31 P31 Parking garage, structured,commercial P P P P22 P20 P3 P P P P102 or public Parking, surface, P38 P38 P38 P P20 P3 AD commercial or public Park and ride, dedicated P105 P105 P105 P106 P105 P107 P105 P107 Park and ride, shared-use P108 P108 P108 P108 P10 P$ P108 P P P P108 P109 P107 P P107 Railroad yards P I Taxi stand P AD AD Tow truck operation/auto impoundment yard H59 P I Transit centers H38 H38 H38 P H2O P H38 P P103 L.VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES(Continued) Truck terminals P Vehicle fueling stations P P P P P P38 Vehicle fueling stations, existing legal P P P AD110 P P P38 Vehicle service and _ AD P P repair, large H:\EDNSP\Como Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc : - `•r. : • . • -. .-.`. '•- ..• `,!.•• : ::• -• .H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).do .. _.. _• _. _ • :.• -•: ' •. • . .. . .e: : .. e :Y _ • _ . . . • . .-Page 8 of 88 Vehicle service and P P P AD2 RAD P repair, small Wrecking yard, auto H59 H 1 Air Transportation Uses Airplane manufacturing H59 P Airplane manufacturing, AC AC accessory functions Airplane sales and repair P Helipads, accessory to H H38 H38 H2O H H H97 primary use Helipads, commercial H H97 Municipal airports _ H M.STORAGE Hazardous material storage,on-site or off- H24 H24 H24 site,including treatment Indoor storage P P P AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 I Outdoor storage P57 P57 P57 AD64 P64 I Self-service storage P8 P58 P59 P H26 1426 H26 Vehicle storage AD38 Warehousing P P P N. INDUSTRIAL I Industrial, General Assembly and/or l packaging operations P P P P86 P104 Commercial laundries, P38 P38 P38 P4 existing Commercial laundries, P38 P38 P38 new Construction/contractor' s office P14 P P N.INDUSTRIAL(CONTINUED) Laboratories: light P38 P38 P38 AD P20 P3 AD54 P P104 manufacturing H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).do : _t•• .• _: : ' •• • •• • • .•• - : :: :• . .::-H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Pub1ic Hearing_Draft Zoning(April 06).do ..=e - -. .. • ... .-.. •. . ' . e: _ ` •: -- _ - ' • : !: . .:Page 9 of 88 Laboratories: research, I development and P31 P P H P20 AD3 AD H P P104 testing Manufacturing and fabrication,heavy H59 P67 P23 Manufacturing and fabrication, medium P67 P67 P23 Manufacturing and P P P P fabrication, light I Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection and -P processing center P14 P38 P38 P38 Recycling collection PPP P PPPP P station Sewage disposal and treatment plants H59 H Waste recycling and transfer facilities H59 P I O. UTILITIES _ Communication broadcast and relay HHHH H H H H H H38 H29 H38 H HHHH H towers Electrical power generation and H H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 cogeneration I Utilities,small PPPP P P P33 P P P P P P PPPP P P P Utilities,medium AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD I Utilities, large HHHH H H H FI H H H H H HHHH H H H I P.WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support H48 AD47 AD47 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 structures Macro facility antennas A64 AD4 A64 AD46 AD46 AD46 46 AD P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 H H Micro facility antennas PPPPP PPPPPPP PPP PP P AD AD Mini facility antennas P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P P H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc : - `• _• _:--: • ••-',-.: • -: ' :•-, ••- .- , • • -°• --• -• _ • !: .:::H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Higlilands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).do- ...e _ _. .. • .. _.. • _. • .• -•_: • ! :_ _ , _ • - -. _ • - !: . .:Page 10 of 88 Minor modifications to existing wireless P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P P communication facilities Monopole I support structures H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 AD46 P44 P44 P44 AD46 P44 P44 AD46 P44 AD46 Monopole II support H48 AD47 AD47 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 structures Q. GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC where not otherwise listed in Use Table R.TEMPORARY USES Model homes in an approved residential development: one P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 model home on an existing lot Sales/marketing trailers, p53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P153 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P10 P10 on-site Temporary or manufactured P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 buildings used for construction Temporary uses P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 Blank=Not Mowed P#Permitted AD=Administrative Conditional Use AC=Accessory provided condition can be Use P=Permitted Use met H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use #=Condition(s) I Uses may be further restricted by:RMC 4-3-020,Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions;RMC 4-3-040C,Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement District;RMC 4- 3-050C,Aquifer Protection Regulations;RMC 4-3-090,Shoreline Master Program Regulations (Ord.4736,8-24-1998; Ord.4773,3-22-1999;Ord.4777,4-19-1999; Ord.4786, 7-12-1999; Ord.4802, 10-25-1999; Ord.4803, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4827, 1-24- 2000;Ord.4840, 5-8-2000; Ord.4857,8-21-2000;Ord.4915,8-27-2001; Ord.4917, 9-17-2001;Amd. Ord.4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord.4982, 9-23-2002; Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003; Ord. 5027, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5080, 6-14-2004; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) H:\EDNSP\Coma Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc : =`• -' -:--: ' . • : ' :.•.. • .• •- • ::• •• :H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).do :.-e• -' _. .. ' .. ,_.. _ .. . .s: :s ._. : . _. e: . ..•age 11 of 88 4-2-070F eros 1 . Uses are allowed in the R-10 zone as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Animal husbandry(20 or fewer small animals P#51 per acre) Animal husbandry(4 or fewer medium animals P#51 per acre) Animal husbandry(maximum of 1 large animal P#51 per acre) Greater number of animals than allowed above H#36 Beekeeping P#35 Kennels, hobby AC#37 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling AC unit or business establishment RESIDENTIAL I Detached dwelling P#4-9113 I Semi Attached dwelling P#99113 Attached dwelling P#50 Flats or Townhouses (existing legal) P Flats or Townhouses, no greater than 2 units P per building (existing legal) Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes,designated P#19 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home P Group homes II for 6 or less P Group homes II for 7 or more H Home occupations AC#6 Retirement Residence AD SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) H#9 K-12 educational institution (public or private), P#9 existing PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community,existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\H ighlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc-. !• . -. . ' •..• .-.. . ' ..•.. •_• ..•.. .l: 5-: _. _ • -. _ . . .•. 06)..decH:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Develonment Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc !• -' _. . ' .• .... . ' .•.. _ .. . .!: . .. .• • _ • :--• -. : . !: . .:Page 12 of 88 v44 USES:' TYPE: "_ City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H RETAIL Horticultural nurseries (existing) P#1 Horticultural nurseries (new) H ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural facilities H SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, accessory AD Day Care Services Adult day care I AC Adult day care II H Day care centers H#25 Family day care AC Healthcare Services Convalescent Centers H Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Park and Ride, shared use P#108 UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existing wireless P#49 communication facilities Monopole I support structures H#45 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES USES: TYPE: Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as AC defined in chapter RMC 4-11, where not otherwise listed in the Use Table TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential P#53 development:one model home on an existing lot Sales/marketing trailers, on-site P#53 H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06)zloeH:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zonina\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc :`. !• _ _. . ._.: . .•..- .. .. !: . .. • ' -_ ..y :. ,_. . _ .. _.• _ - !: . .-Page 13 of 88 14600 • Temporary or manufactured buildings used for P#10 construction - Temporary uses P#53 4-2-070J CENTER VILLAGE-CORE (CV) Uses allowed in the CV-C Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: Community Facilities AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL Cemetery 14 RESOURCES Religious institutions H Natural resource extraction/recovery H USES: TYPE: Service and social organizations H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Public Facilities Kennels,hebby AG-#37 City government offices AD Pets, common household, up to 3 per AC City government facilities H dwelling unit or business establishment Other government offices and facilities H RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Attached dwelling P73 Medical and dental offices P#22 • .. .. .. w-3 Offices,general P#22 • . _ _ _ _ _ _ P Veterinary offices/clinics P#22 Conference Center -H OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND RETAIL HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult retail use P#43 Adult family home P Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC#28 Congregate residence P Eating and drinking establishments P#22 Group homes II for 6 or less P Horticultural nurseries H Group homes II for 7 or more P Retail sales P#22 Home occupations AC#6 Retail sales, outdoor P#15 Retirement residences P Taverns AD SCHOOLS ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION K-12 educational institution (public orH#9 Entertainment private) P#43 K-12 educational institution (public or P#9 Cultural facilities AD private), existing Schools/studios, arts and crafts P#22 Dance clubs AD#22 Dance halls AD#22 PARKS Movie Theatres AD Recreation Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Recreation facilities, indoor existing P#22 Parks, regional/community, new AD Recreation facilities, indoor new P SERVICES OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC Services, General FACILITIES Hotel P#22 H:\EDNS.P\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\H:ighlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April O(>�}AIeEH:\EDNSP\Comp Plan \Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc-: _9• - - ' .. : ' .•. - ..•:. 9: : :: • -_ ..-:,:. ._ . . _ -- -_ : !: . ..Page 14 of 88 Nome I . Motel err P#22 cogeneration • On-site services P#22 Utilities, small P I Drive-in/drive-through service AC#28 Utilities, medium AD Day Care Services Utilities, large H I Adult day care I P#22 I Adult day care II P#22 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION I Day care centers P#22 FACILITIES USES: TYPE: Lattice towers support structures H#48 Family day care AC Macro facility antennas P#44 Healthcare Services Micro facility antennas P I Convalescent centers P#22 Mini facility antennas P#44 Medical institutions H Minor modifications to existing wireless P#49 communication facilities VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Monopole I support structures P#44 Monopole II support structures H#48 Gar-washes P#22 I Parking garage, structured, commercial GENERAL ACCESSORY USES or public P#22 Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter RMC 4-11,where Ac I Parking, surface, commercial or public P not otherwise listed in the Use Table I Park and ride, shared use P#108 Park and rides, dedicated P#106 TEMPORARY USE Vehicle fueling stations P Model homes in an approved residential I Vehicle service and repair, small PAD#2 development: one model home on an P#53 Taxi Stand P existing lot -Transit Centers -P Sales/marketing trailers, on-site P#53 STORAGE Temporary or manufactured buildings P#10 Indoor storage AC#11 used for construction Outdoor-sterage Ali-#84 Temporary uses P#53 ge INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Laboratories: light manufacturing AD#22 I Laboratories: Research, Development H and Testing Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay H towers USES: TYPE: Electrical power generation and H#66 H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06)..doeH:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Public Hearing Draft Zoning(April 06).doc-: - ?• -. _:,.: . . . • • :•, .•,• :.-..,_. . .. -_ :.t.. ._. • _ •• _. . .•.•. !: .::-Page 15of88 Nr (Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord.4777,4-19-1999; Ord.4786, 7-12-1999; Ord. 4803, 10-25- 1999; Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000; Amd. Ord.4963, 5-13-2002; Ord.4999, 1-13-2003; Ord.5018, 9-22-2003) 4-2-070T CENTER VILLAGE-RESIDENTIAL(CV-R) Uses allowed in the CV-R Zone are as follows: USES: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural Resource Extraction and Recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Attached dwellings P #111 Detached dwellings P #112 Semi-attached dwellings P #112 Cottage dwellings P OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Accessory dwelling unit P Adult family home P Congregate residence P Group homes II for 6 or less P Group homes II for 7 or more P Home occupations AC#6 Retirement residences P SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) H#9 K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P#9 PARKS Parks, neighborhood Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural Facilities H Recreation Recreational facilities, indoor, existing P#33 Recreational facilities, indoor, new P#33 I Recreational facilities, outdoor P#33 I SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, accessory AD Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 16 of 88 *re Noe Day Care Services Adult day care 1 AC Adult da care II H#33 Day care centers H#33 Family day care home AC VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Parking garage, structured, commercial or public Parking, surface, commercial or public Park and ride, shared-use #108 INDUSTRIAL Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection station UTILITIES Communication broadcast and relay towers Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#44 Micro facility antennas Mini facility antennas P#44 Minor modifications to existin• wireless communication facilities P#49 Monopole I support structures H#45 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC,where not otherwise listed AC in Use Table R. TEMPORARY USES Model homes in an approved residential development:one model home on an existing lot P#53 Sales/marketing trailers, on-site P#53 T-m•ora or manufactured buildin•s used for construction P#10 Temporary uses P#53 4-2-080 CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ZONING USE TABLES: 33. •- -- -. --- :. . _ . .. _. . . . .. . . . .. _ - ••••' • - -, -- - e"- -, e- - -- - -, - -- . - - . Use permitted only in conjunction with and-or if intended to serve residential development in the R 11the Zone. Project size limitations as listed in the development standards chart for the zone at of RMC 4-2-110F apply. A preschool or day care center,when accessory to public or community facilities listed in RMC 4-2-060J, is considered a permitted use. 73. Within the Center Village-Core Zone, Residential Bonus District,"residential only uses" are limited to townhouse development in the range of seven-(7-)ten (10)to twenty(20) dwelling units per net acre. Garden style apartments are prohibited. Flats or townhouses, when in a mixed-use structure that combine residential with first floor commercial uses,have a maximum density of eighty(80)dwelling units per net acre. Projects within the Center Village-Core are also subject to the provisions and development standards in RMC 4-3- Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 17 of 88 '4%.1? `err 095C and D,Center Village-Core Residential Bonus District and the Highlands Subarea Design Guidelines in RMC 4-3-130.. • -. . . • - • • - -• • . - - - - - - •- -- - ••. .• .. .. . . 111. Garden Style Apartments are prohibited. Flats are only allowed east of Kirkland Avenue. 112. Detached dwellings limited to cottage dwellings only, subject to the regulations of RMC 4-3-120. Other detached and semi-attached dwellings only allowed as part of the Center Village Flex Bonus District. See RMC 4-3-095. 113. Detached uses limited to cottage uses only,subject to the regulations of RMC 4-3-120 within the bounds of the Highlands Subarea, as defined in RMC 4-3-100 B6. Other types of detached and semi-attached dwellings are not permitted in the R-10 zone within the bounds of the Highlands Subarea, as defined in RMC 4-3-100 B6. -4-2-110F NOTE: PLEASE ADD THE CV-R COLUMN TO THE TABLE "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS" CV-R Minimum Housing Density 4'13 10 dwelling units per net acre 14 dwelling units per net acre Center Village Flex Bonus District: 80 dwelling units per net acre if: Maximum Housing Density a. Affordable housing is provided at a minimum of two(2)affordable units per net acre, and b. The project complies with the requirements in RMC 4-3-095. Center Village Flex Bonus District Uses may be developed on either: a)properties which are platted through the subdivision process; or b)properties which are to remain unplatted. For properties which are to remain unplatted, the development application shall be accompanied (PLATS AND SHADOW PLATS) General by a shadow plat and if, applicable, phasing or land reserve plan. For purposes of this zone, "lot"shall mean legal platted lot and/or equivalent shadow platted land area.18 Covenants shall be filed as part of a final plat in order to address the density and unit mix requirements Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 18 of 88 *re Nue Iof the zone. (DWELLING UNIT MIX) General Only 1 residential building (e.q., cottage, townhouse,flat, etc.)with a maximum of 4 residential units and associated accessory buildings for that structure shall be permitted per lot. For the purposes of this subsection,"legal lot"means a lot created through (NUMBER OF UNITS PER LOT) General25 the subdivision process, or through another mechanism which creates individual title for the residential building and any associated private yards(e.q., condominium).4.25 Density requirements shall take precedence over the following minimum lot size standards. Cottages: 1,600 sq.ft. Townhouse Units: Minimum Lot Size for lots created after July 11, 199Attached exterior/end townhouse 325 unit:2,500 sq.ft. Attached interior/middle townhouse unit:2,000 sq. ft. Cottage: 30 ft. Townhouse Units: Attached exterior/end townhouse unit: 25 ft. Minimum Lot Width for lots created after July 11, 199325 Attached interior/middle townhouse unit: 20 ft.25 Minimum Lot Depth for lots created after July 11, 1993 80 ft.25 Cottage Housing: See Cottage Housing Regulations in RMC 4-3- Minimum Front Yard25 120. All other: 10 ft., unless the lot is adiacent14 to a property zoned RC, Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 19 of 88 'bra 'w R-1, R-4, R-8, or R-10, then setback must be 15 ft.2°'25 Minimum Side Yard Along a Street 10 ft. Cottage Housing: See Cottage Housing Regulations in RMC 4-3- 120, Minimum Side Yard25 All other: 5 ft. on both sides. 10 ft. when the lot is adiacentl4 to a lower intensity residentially zoned property.25 Cottage Housing: See Cottage Housing Regulations in RMC 4-3- 120, All other: 3 ft. provided that the garage must be set back a sufficient distance to provide a Minimum Rear Yard25 minimum of 24 ft. of back-out room, counting alley surface. If there is occupiable space above the garage, the minimum setback for the occupiable space shall also be 3 ft.25 In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 Clear Vision Area ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. 10 ft. landscaped setback from the Minimum Freeway Frontage Setback street property line. Cottage Housing: See Cottage Maximum Number of Stories and Maximum Building Height, Housing Regulations in RMC 4-3- except for Public uses having a"Public Suffix"(P) 120, designation.7'21 zs All other: 2 stories and 30 ft.25 Maximum Height for Wireless Communication Facilities See RMC 4-4-140G. Building Orientation and Location See RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations Building Design See RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations Project Size Limitations Maximum Building Length25 Up to 3 Consecutively Attached Townhouses: Building length shall not exceed 85 ft35 Over 3 Consecutively Attached Townhouses; Flats: Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 20 of 88 *me 'fano Townhouses/Flats in One Structure: Shall not exceed 115 ft. in length25 50%, or 65% if the parking is Maximum Building Coverage-21 underground or under building. 60%, or 75% if the parking is provided underground or under Maximum Impervious Surface Area2 building25 (LANDSCAPING) General See RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations. Surface Mounted or Roof Top Equipment,or Outdoor See RMC 4-4-095. Storage Recyclables and Refuse See RMC 4-4-090. Minimum Size and Location Requirements See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-080. (PARKING) General Required Location Required Parking may be located for Parking25 underground or under building(on the first floor of the residential structure), or in an attached or detached structure. All parking must be accessed from a rear alley located behind the front setback of the primary structure.25 See RMC 4-4-080. (SIGNS)General (CRITICAL AREAS) General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. (DESIGN GUIDELINES) General See RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations Pre-Existing Legal Lots 4-2-100 G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Detached Accessory Structures) Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 21 of 88 ry� NIISO MAXIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE CV-R For Cottages: See Cottage Housing regulations in RMC 4-3- 120. For all other Units: 1 per residential unit. Maximum of 400 sq. ft. and less General25 than the floor area of the principal unit. The lot coverage of the primary residential structure along with all accessory building shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage of this Zoning District. Accessory structures shall only be allowed on lots in conjunction with a primary use.25 LOCATION General NA HEIGHT Maximum Number of 15 ft., but may be 25' if the Stories and Maximum structure includes an Accessory Building Height21 Dwelling Unit. SETBACKS8 Not allowed within the required Minimum Front Yard front yards or side yards along the streets. Minimum Side Yard Side Yard: 5 ft. 3 ft. Garages and carports must provide a minimum of 24 ft. of Minimum Rear Yard back-out room, either on-site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way- surface. Special Setbacks of NA Animal Husbandry Related Structures In no case shall a structure over Clear Vision Area 42 in. in height intrude into the Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 22 of 88 Ni✓ wee 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. 4-2-110H CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 25. Development standards may be negotiated through the PUD process in RMC 4-9-150 for protects developed in the CV-R zone under the Center Village Flex Bonus District(see RMC 4-3-095). 4-2-120A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS NOTE: MAKE CHANGES TO CV COLUMN AS SHOWN CV-C Minimum Lot Size 25,000 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Width/Depth None 65%of total lot area or 75% if parking is provided within the Maximum Lot Coverage for Buildings building or within an on-site parking garage. IMinimum Net Residential Density9 40-20 dwelling units per net acre. 60 dwelling units per acre Bonus: up to 80 dwelling units per acre with the provision of affordable housing at a minimum five(5)affordable units per net acre). Maximum Net Residential Density9 - - e • _ _ _ structure, and 10 ft.The minimum setback may be reduced to 0 ft.through Minimum Front Yard18 the site plan development review process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. Maximum Front Yard18 15 ft.5 10 ft.The minimum setback may be reduced to 0 ft.through Minimum Side Yard Along a Streetl8 the site plan development review process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 23 of 88 4111,9 '40.0 Minimum Freeway Frontage Setback 10 ft. landscaped setback form the property line. None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential Minimum Rear Yard18 zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F. None, except 15 ft.if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential Minimum Side Yard18 zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F. In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into Clear Vision Area the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. Maximum Gross Floor Area on Any Single None Commercial Use on a Site Maximum Gross Floor Area on Any Single None Office Use on a Site Buildings shall be oriented toward the street and arranged within an overall development to be connected through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, central places, Building Orientation and Location pedestrian linkage and amenity features. Commercial and Civic uses shall provide entry features on all sides facing a public right of way or parking lot.-NA Minimum On-site Landscape Width 10 ft. except where reduced through the site plan Required Along the Street Frontage development review process. Minimum On-site Landscape Width Along 15 ft.wide landscape buffer is required3 unless otherwise the Street Frontage Required When Lot is determined by the Reviewing Official through the site plan Adjacent8 to Property Zoned Residential, development review process. RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM Minimum Landscape Width Required When 15 ft.wide landscaped visual barrier consistent with the Lot is Abutting?to Property Zoned definition in RMC 4-11-120.A 10 ft. sight-obscuring Residential,RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, landscape strip may be allowed through the site plan or RM development review process.3,4 Maximum Building Height,14,16 except for 50 ft.except when abutting lots zoned R-8, RMH, R-10, R- Public uses with a"Public Suffix"(P) 14, or RM-F, then 45 ft. designation20 Maximum Height for Wireless See RMC 4-4-140G. Communication Facilities Outdoor, Loading, Repair, Maintenance, Work,or Storage Areas; Surface-Mounted Utility and Mechanical Equipment; Roof See RMC 4-4-095. Top Equipment(Except for Telecommunication Equipment) Refuse or Recyclables See RMC 4-4-090. Parking General See RMC 10-10-13 and RMC 4-4-080. Residential Uses: Required parking may be located underground or under Required Location for Parking building (on the first floor of the residential structure), or in an attached or detached structure. All parking must be accessed from a rear alley. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 24 of 88 Nire Nose Commercial Uses: Parking may not be located between the building and the public street unless located within a structured parking garage. Mixed Use Development: Shared parking is required in compliance with RMC 4-4-080E(3). A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street, in order to provide direct, clear and Pedestrian Circulation General separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and internally from buildings to abutting retail properties. Signs General See RMC 4-4-100. See RMC 4-4-080. Shall not be permitted on the side of the lot adjacent to or Loading Docks Location within Site abutting a residential zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM.3 Size and Location of Refuse or Recycling See RMC 4-4-090. Areas Critical Areas General See RMC 4-3-050. I Design Guidelines Subject to the Design Guidelines in RMC 4-3-100 14-3-095 CENTER VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-FLEX BONUS DISTRICT: A PURPOSE: These regulations are intended to ensure high-quality residential developments within the Center Village Residential Ming-District.Zone The intent is to - - .--_ _ -- - - -- . •. _- •• :• • ' •.••'• • •- •'••- ••• - ••' -••- • :-.allow maximum flexibility in the the redevelopment of property in the Center Village Residential zone through the use of a Planned Urban Development. The Flex Bonus District will allow the redevelopment of the Center Village according to prevailing market forces,which change over time. The Flex Bonus District also allows new and innovative projects to be built. B APPLICABILITY: This section applies to all residential development -• ••• _. .. •• _ _ - .. _ : _ ._ . -•- - within the Center Village Residential Benes-Dis#ictZone. 1. Center Village Residential-Flex Bonus District: . . _. _ -. . _. • - - •• - - - __. ' - - -• : - -- - - -- - • •.Any area zoned CV-R is eligible to participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District if all of the following conditions are met: a.The property for redevelopment shall be at least one acre in size. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 25 of 88 Orr" 4100 b.The proposal shall include provision for the development of affordable housing at the minimum rate of two(2)dwelling units per net acre. c. The proposal shall be processed as a Master Plan, subject to the requirements of RMC 4-9-200. C USES PERMITTED IN CENTER VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL BONUS DISTRICT: The following residential uses are permitted in addition to . = •- •- - •-: • -.: , : - a. e •'e••:., --: - -- he uses permitted in the underlying zoning. Uses are subject to the underlying density requirements of the zone. 1. Fiats, located east of Kirkland Avenue only. e e • --- , • • . ••• :e - - - -- - - •- -- - •- 2.Adult-family-hemes-Detached dwellings, all types. 3. Semi-attached dwellings, all types. D SPECIAL-DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND - • - e - - - - e - • : WITHIN THE CENTER VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-FLEX BONUS DISTRICT: Projects shall comply with underlying zoning standards for the CV-R zone, as listed in the development standards table at RMC 4-2-110. If the proposal seeks a variance from the underlying development standards, the required masterplan shall be concurrently processed with a Planned Urban Development (PUD), subject to the requirements of RMC 4-9-150. GENERAL Site Layout NA Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 26 of 88 Noe *se by the Reviewing Official. LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size None SETBACKS the alley. BUILDING LIMITATIONS uses. HEIGHT requested. PARKING :.:••••:•:. •: . . -••:: • • - •: .. . - : . - • . ' - ... .. . .- . • : e:••:• , Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 27 of 88 Now 1111111119 • -• . . _ • - ._ - - •- • -- •- .• .. -• • -• .. . - _. .-- . _ :-.•e•-: - - •- - - - - es" -. - ' ---- - •- -.•::• •- •- . -- - .. . . - - _ - .. . ..• . • .- --- -• - - - - • . .. . .. - •- •- .• - areas: are-used: ••. *•. • - - - ::.•e• • - • •- - • • - - - - - - - . - -- • -e; - - - - - .. - . .- .• . II-. ._ . z" : II - - -II . the-projes _. . • • • • 0- -• I f --I 1 •i -I 200 4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: A PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to: Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 28 of 88 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. 2. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District'A'(the Downtown Core)that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center—Downtown. This Vision is of a downtown that will continue to develop into an efficient and attractive urban city. The Vision of the Downtown Core is of mixed uses with high-density residential living supported by multi-modal transit opportunities. Redevelopment will be based on the pattern and scale of established streets and buildings. 3. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District'B'(the South Renton Neighborhood)that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City's South Renton Neighborhood Plan. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan,for a residential area located within the Urban Center—Downtown, maintains the existing, traditional grid street plan and respects the scale of the neighborhood, while providing new housing at urban densities. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan supports a residential area that is positioned to capitalize on the employment and retail opportunities increasingly available in the Downtown Core. 4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center—North (District'C')that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center—North.This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a"grid pattern"of streets and blocks.The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. 5. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of"big-box retail"as defined in RMC 4- 11-180, Definitions. 6. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Highlands Subarea commercial core(District 'D')that ensure design quality of structure and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for the Center Village and Commercial Neighborhood designations and the Highlands Subarea Plan. Uses within this district include business and professional offices, services, retail, restaurants, recreational businesses, mixed-use commercial and residential buildings, and multi-family residential. This portion of the Highlands Subarea is intended to provide a vital business district serving the local neighborhood and beyond. 7. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the residential portion of the Highlands Subarea (District'E')that ensure design quality of structure and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for the Center Village designation and the Highlands Subarea Plan. Areas subject to these regulations may be designated Center Village, or Residential Medium Density in the Comprehensive Plan. A variety in housing options allows for economic and lifestyle diversity in the Highlands Subarea,with design guidelines to tie the range of styles and types together. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 29 of 88 4usr lee • I 8. Establish two categories of regulations: (a)"minimum standards"that must be met,and (b) "guidelines"that,while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if Ithe proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. • •: - :.• - :• : `:.•-• e : - - :.,Set specific minimum standards and guidelines that may apply to all three districts, or certain districts only (Districts 'A', 'B', or'C'), as indicated herein. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03;Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) B APPLICABILITY: 1. This Section shall apply to all development in the Urban Center—Downtown and Urban Center— North. For the purposes of the design regulations, the Center Downtown is District 'A', South Renton is District'B', and the Urban Center—North is District'C.'Districts A through C are depicted on the Urban Center Design Overlay District Map, shown in subsection B4 of this Section. 2. This Section shall also apply to big-box retail use where allowed in the Commercial Arterial (CA), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM), and Heavy Industrial (IH)zones, except when those zones are located in the Employment Area—Valley south of Interstate 405. Big-box retail uses within these zones, except in the Employment Area—Valley, must comply with design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center—North(District'C'). 3. Where conflicts may be construed between the design regulations of this Section and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code,the regulations of this Section shall prevail. 4. Urban Center Design Overlay District Map: 5. This section shall apply to all development in the Highlands Subarea as shown on the Highlands Subarea Design Districts map in subsection B6 of this Section.. For the purposes of the Design Regulations, areas within the Highlands Subarea zoned as Commercial Neighborhood (CN)and Center Village-Core (CV-C)shall comprise District"D". Areas within the Highlands Subarea zoned Center Village-Residential (CV-R), Residential Multi-family(RMF), Residential-10 (R-10 ), area Residential-10(R-10)shall be in District"E". 6. Highlands Subarea District Map: Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 30 of 88 Highlands Subarea ;;-,bg1 �•'��s! �� e'l 4°91 PIM. Design DistrictsII •■1111) iijill illi �1441k 46 a � ���■ In bin' 1111.11■1111 2�1k...........11111111111111111111111111/ 1 Ioo ♦ �■ riPANNl Mt A ���11■ .i■LILy3L u - MO District D 1111*111111�11111n11■■11■ • 1►� • ��� �� .u11liilli111111■IIII►/ 1 c�,�`. Ir.'', � rl■tsu, T` District E 1111iu111111i Ili � el rt �� ��EL�'a�E���i PEN � ���i �op 1�14111:10: �, � ���1111�■iiii-=■� a1111■ gFram �. �i.Nay , Pte:■ me�IIIIIII.. Yr1st St f� .�%= ==C•IIIG'u11911I "':�°,� r �al M1■1111 L* �11 %i i .. ■� 111111111 t aultil Bill M■�YII■iiifrll■(i7■,■■ ►��■1111. �.. �� NE 20th i1 ,, �1�1: ��■� �L!� S. ■� . 111111 p � M wpm ��: TEMA1111/ 1111■■ �� ■� ■� . tI � � .1 ..g ■1111 ■� ■ ■■ ■l 2© Mill"„ff:',-4' igii .: MI �• . sad II rjE, =Figs ■• 4 � - K:fes /a rig 14'1 ���1�- `� ��■ �>.a ■IIS• .�.� _� �l �`� ■ • ■ ■■.i 1111111111 ��Ilb�1 •■ ■ ■.i mpi Immu ■111111►MI � . iàiiJ \ 1111■■IA '-WM ■ JiI4I13Ip op ■1i■ r A� t ' --i -: fa�� � 7 aka angipp �P so i • nn:_ 1111 �III� 1111 �■ •11�■ 9111 ■ � -�;�� ■ -.; ��1� t MI ■!!.!i 11Ci ■�1�� � �- a� ISL �� IIf;JtP g� ■1131 o■n s. •1 1 �� : zrr,l, �� •INF air llIL7 _ . ��* t 1111 ■ .: umbh \ � n 11BENI otiiM .�/, �� % y ��. . ��mu ii ./ / 0 . �/,4.%rte ■ ■� ■-- -1111 ■■1111 ' ► :4 / . 0. r . o ■�. ■�■■� 11��i1i17�/ _.,,iii '� jj/iii %�� ��•/ •,: ,% 1111 1�� •:�: �E :��� salmi silo i 900 / 1#474P ���♦ /dove; ■11211111■ Ao ir,:o // J __mil J 'i: m % . . , , ,, a 11 ,� _♦�//�+- �►•.I ■ 11.11 �\■I/.. liYiilif/ msu� i�������--- Y"� ■ fir• %� ;�1ii1Yli11fIL'�,�i �F ': ���%% � S ` 111 � ■l ►� Vi■/■I. . . ■� = .. II u� 11r1111 ri11111. 11111�yNIE i =I . ..11111111■ . � ��.// � 11111'11111 ■111USY1.11f1111: i�. a 1_■• .L11JSIlli: ma no l : ,% *.,..?: II c� 1111111111 iii 1111 RA1111�� G3 llo�1:117T,R1■ A■ 1111 i., / / Aia: '` no ge c:Bi■ r. ■■ 11111111 //L ■ e� �� IIIC�:� .� /11 . i. �;■ :r E■ ■ s .1411 101.1 ��1 AO wit ■o 111 11■ i ,��,■ an j� r� �^ l >� r.�■ WO. WO'.�� von ,n 111■ / R a'11116 En ■1■ ■11. 1111_ M// /171; . tr.►-y. ^-■ Q ■ 1 �� ■ 1111 • Ilry■1,'LI"-ill _ .:,■ / E■ �■� ■■■■�Ri1llA11A111111 1 ;: .�V` ■ ��111 =i � o Mr WOO ■ ►411p. E�11■ ;: GIS .' 4' /1.r. /1111• ►1 ■ .. ��\I Mme. •1 uvii • o ' ����� .d ►;*.; NMI 1 ��� "e r: -r. i. Imo'114111 4- ►i -. NI • ► o■ ►111111j� /"rim 11 ..-40., ■11 ■ ■ •i`. .es : .1�l11� 11 Ise ... �►��► �■ �•,� ��Is. M � �� 1111 1:11611111A2 I� 11! t� .: IN 11.111 • f741 era ilia fp ��� ♦I♦4. ■Ic31t:e T/! !A11111'-� �� � a' 11,9°,1111 r. llal 1111.%) - •., ■ i m ♦ 1111 I iil L ` �� Ill/. � F � z 111 ■al .. ■u =/iu� . tt���se ■ii;;Aw.* .1, ��' .2 r■ Q 1111111Mil 111111111111 1111x111 —�� ••11`♦ ti ■. v` &`I �/• 1 t, 4 • oil■ a 1111u�111:! 111u7iu1111 1111�L9 Nita 1111I���=�11■r� �!��•;84 i\ 11 t, j��` n :��i 111111111 ��um�ulr•nll�� .4 1!�� gi� �J1011 E■1 .: 440,0&-, Ls3li s■1�J■' In�� 111 n �■ 7 -I-Iwo • 0 :44 '' \� ra ��I ■11■ ■■ 1111 ► ■ ■:elopp : -nllr■■1/■��� v r'11;1%4:: Lr ■■ '�Ij I ■ m .� 111141=, � • �1►v. \y,oso'itY >ipi� 1111 ��rs. `�� grim.NI co iliummul :: onsimmetENIFillm iiu11iim ,/ ■■1111��1111111111�� =mat NE 4th St. ,'♦. tl�7:it ��! ',taw -N✓ (b)Arterial Street.A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c)Pedestrian-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on-street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). I (e) Drive aisles. 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. a. Minimum Standard for Districts'A'ander'B', 'D',and `E': Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. b. Minimum Standards for District'C': i. Buildings on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall feature"pedestrian-oriented facades"and clear connections to the sidewalk(see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian-oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian-oriented streets is prohibited. ii. Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses. iii. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. iv. Buildings containing street-level residential uses and single-purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet(10')and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7b). v. If buildings do not feature pedestrian-oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet(10')in width as measured from the sidewalk(see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). c. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': i. Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light(both direct and reflected)and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). ii. Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents'privacy. 3. Building Entries: Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 33 of 88 VIOW 141110 Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access,and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. a. Minimum Standard for Districts'A'and 'B': Entrance Location: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street. Such entrances shall be prominent,visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human scale elements. b. Minimum Standards for District'C': i. On pedestrian-oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. ii. On non-pedestrian-oriented streets, entrances shall be prominent,visible from surrounding streets, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. iii. All building entries adjacent to a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings with frontage on designated pedestrian-oriented streets(see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100E7d). iv. Weather protection at least four and one-half feet(4-1/2')wide and proportional to the distance above ground level shall be provided over the primary entry of all buildings and over any entry adjacent to a street. v. Pedestrian pathways from public sidewalks to primary entrances or from parking lots to primary entrances shall be clearly delineated. c. Minimum Standards for Districts 'D' and `E': i. Entrance Location: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street. Such entrances shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human scale elements. ii. Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. iii. Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. iv. Secondary access (not fronting on a street)shall have weather protection at least four and one-half feet(4-1/2')wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. v. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges, adiacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. d. Guidelines Applicable to-A44 Districts'A', 'B',and 'C': i. Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 34 of 88 ii. Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. iii. Secondary access(not fronting on a street)should have weather protection at least four and one-half feet(4-1/2')wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. iv. Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks,and transit stops. v. Features such as entries, lobbies,and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian- oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork,murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street-oriented facade. Ide. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A'and 'D': i. For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area,terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. ii. Features such as entries, lobbies,and display windows should be oriented to a street; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises,artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street-oriented facade. iii. Entries from the street should be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements,ornamental lighting, or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings within District'A'. ef. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B'and `E': Front yards should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace,or similar feature. fg. Guideline Applicable to District'C': For projects that include residential uses,entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent:To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'A'and 'D': Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 35 of 88 Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; ii. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels; iii. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or iv. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. b. Minimum Standards for Districts'B' and `E': Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk, and scale.At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: (a)Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; or (b)Building articulation provided to divide a larger architectural element into smaller pieces; or (c)Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. ii. In areas with older style, steeply pitched, single family homes, similar roof styles are encouraged to achieve more harmonious relationships between new and old buildings. c. Minimum Standards for District'C': For properties along North 6th Street and Logan Avenue North(between North 4th Street and North 6th Street), applicants shall demonstrate how their project provides an appropriate transition to the long established, existing neighborhood south of North 6th Street known as the North Renton Neighborhood. ii. For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue North, applicants must demonstrate how their project appropriately provides transitions to existing industrial uses. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent:To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements(i.e.,waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use(see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e). ii. Garbage, recycling collection,and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 36 of 88 Now Near iii. In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage,recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7f). iv. The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. v. If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum three feet(3')wide, shall be located on three(3)sides of such facility. b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 16. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways,while they are distinctive within • the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Ia. Minimum Standards for Districts 'C' and 'D': Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features(see illustration, subsection E7g of this Section). ii. Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection E7h of this Section). iii. Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two(2)or more of the following: (a)Public art; (b)Monuments; (c)Special landscape treatment; (d)Open space/plaza; (e) Identifying building form; (f)Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; (g)Prominent architectural features(trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); (h)Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). 7. Illustrations. a. Pedestrian-oriented facades(see subsection E2b(i)of this Section). Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 37 of 88 b. Street-level residential (see subsection E2b(iv) of this Section). c. Buildings without pedestrian-oriented uses(see subsection E2b(v)of this Section). d. Building entries(see subsection E3b(iii) of this Section). e. Service elements located to minimize the impact on the pedestrian environment(see subsection E5a(i)of this Section). f. Service enclosure(see subsection E5a(iii) of this Section). g. Distinguishable building form appropriate for gateway locations(see subsection E6a(i)of this Section). h. Gateway landscaping, open space, pedestrian amenities and signage that identifies the commercial area(see subsection E6a(ii)of this Section). (Ord.5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124,2-7-2005) F PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Highlands Subarea; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles;ensure sufficient parking is provided,while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent:To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'A'and 'B': No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. b. Minimum Standards for District'C': Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 38 of 88 . •441Newr •w i. On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street parallel parking. No more than sixty feet (60')of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. (b)On-street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c)On-street, parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. ii. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. iii. Surface Parking Lots:The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot(1,500')maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet(200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection F5a of this Section). I c._ Guideline Applicable to All-Districts 'A', 'B', and 'C': In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. d. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': i. If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building facade. ii. When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian-oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or Igateway features as dictated by location. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent:To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses,and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Ia. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A'-and.,_'C'.and 'D': i. Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection F5b of this Section). ii. All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact(see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: i. Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 39 of 88 `may' ii. Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. iii. Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Highlands subarea;physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. a. Minimum Standards for District'C'and 'D': i. Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a)Parking structures shall provide space for ground-floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of seventy-five percent(75%)of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection F5c of this Section). (b)The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. ii. Parking Structures Fronting Non-Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a)Parking structures fronting non-pedestrian-oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian-oriented facade shall be set back at least six feet(6')from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping.This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover.This setback shall be increased to ten feet(10')adjacent to high visibility streets. (b)The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1)Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2)Decorative artwork; (3)Display windows; (4)Brick,tile, or stone; (5)Pre-cast decorative panels; (6)Vine-covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8)Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c)Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 40 of 88 "ew• • masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials(see illustration, subsection F5d of this Section). _ . b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. c. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A'and--,'C' and 'D': i. Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. ii. The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. iii. Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. iv. Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. v. Residential garage parking should be secured with electronic entries. vi. Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. Id. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B'and `E': i. Attached personal parking garages at-grade should be individualized and not enclose more than two (2)cars per enclosed space. Such garages should be architecturally integrated into the whole development. ii. Multiple-user parking garages at-grade should be enclosed or screened from view through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. iii. All garage parking in this district should be secured with decorative doors. iv. Personal parking garages should be individualized whenever possible with separate entries and architectural detailing in character with the lower density district. v. Large multi-user parking garages are discouraged in this lower density district and, if provided, should be located below grade whenever possible. vi. Service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent:To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian-oriented streets. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'B'and `E': Parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available: Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 41 of 88 Norio b. Minimum Standards for District'C': Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non-pedestrian-oriented streets when available. ii. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets. iii. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred(500)linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. c. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A'and 'D': Parking lots and garages should be accessed from alleys or side streets. ii. Driveways should be located to be visible from the right-of-way, but not impede pedestrian circulation on-site or to adjoining properties.Where possible, minimize the number of driveways and curb cuts. d. Guidelines Applicable to Area 'B' and `E': Garage entryways and/or driveways accessible only from a street should not impede pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk. ii. Curb cuts should be minimized whenever possible through the use of shared driveways. 5. Illustrations. a. Parking and vehicular access in District'C'(see subsection F1b(iii)of this Section). b. Parking lot lighting (see subsection F2a(i)of this Section). c. Parking structure fronting on pedestrian-oriented street with pedestrian-oriented uses and facades along the ground floor(see subsection F3a(i)(a)of this Section). d. Parking structure designed to enhance streetscape(see subsection F3a(ii)(c) of this Section). (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124,2-7-2005) G PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent:To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable,and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 42 of 88 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent:To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings,parking garages, and parking lots. Ia. Minimum Standards for Districts 'C'and `D': i. Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. ii. Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of one hundred and fifty feet(150')apart(see illustration, subsection G4a of this Section). 12. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Ia. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A'arid,--'C'and 'D': Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties(see illustration, subsection G4b of this Section). ii. Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. iii. Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials(see illustration,subsection G4c of this Section). iv. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a)Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings one hundred (100)or more feet in width (measured along the facade)shall provide sidewalks at least twelve feet(12')in width.The walkway shall include an eight foot(8')minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees(see illustration, subsection G4d of this Section). (b)To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users.A ten to twelve foot(10'—12')pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four(4)abreast, or two(2)couples passing one another.An eight foot(8')pathway will accommodate three(3)individuals walking abreast,whereas a smaller five to six foot(5'—6')pathway will accommodate two(2)individuals. v. Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. vi. All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 43 of 88 NNW 41 . b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: i. Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. ii. Mid-block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. iii. Decorative fences,with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. c. Guidelines Applicable to District'C'Only: Through-block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through-block connections is mid-block(see illustration, subsection G4e of this Section). ii. Between buildings of up to and including two(2)stories in height, through-block connections should be at least six feet(6')in width. iii. Between buildings three(3)stories in height or greater,through-block connections should be at least twelve feet(12')in width. iv. Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum of one-quarter(0.25) mile apart. v. As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian-scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than fourteen feet(14') in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per sixty(60)lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent:To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year,and under typical seasonal weather conditions. a. Minimum Standards for District-'C': i. On designated pedestrian-oriented streets, provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees,canopies, or building overhangs.These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet(4-1/2')wide along at least seventy five percent(75%)of the length of the building facade facing the designated pedestrian-oriented street,a maximum height of fifteen feet(15')above the ground elevation, and no lower than eight feet(8')above ground level. ii. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable,vandal-and weather-resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. iii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. b. Minimum Standards for District`D': Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 44 of 88 ^wr+ Nape° i. Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet(4 W)wide along at least seventy five percent(75%)of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of fifteen feet(15')above the ground elevation, and no lower than eight feet(8')above ground level. ii. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather-resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. iii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. c. Minimum Standards for District `E' only: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal-and weather-resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. ii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts'C', `D'and `E': i. Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. ii. Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks,fountains, and public art should be provided. iii. Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade-mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground-related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian-oriented streets (see illustration, subsection G4f of this Section). 4. Illustrations. a. Pedestrian walkways within parking lots (see subsection Gla(ii) of this Section). b. Integrated pedestrian access system (pathways are shown in solid black lines) (see subsection G2a(i) of this Section). Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 45 of 88 c. Parking lot pedestrian interior walkway(see subsection G2a(iii) of this Section). d. Sidewalks along retail building facade(see subsection G2a(iv)(a)of this Section). e. Through-block pedestrian connections(see subsection G2c of this Section). f. Pedestrian amenities incorporated into development(see subsection G3b(iii) of this Section). (Ord.5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124,2-7-2005) H LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent:To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents,workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures;channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). ii. Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. iii. On designated pedestrian-oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration,subsection H3a of this Section). iv. The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building,the site,and use. v. The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and non-vegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. vi. Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscaping Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet(10') in width as measured from the sidewalk(see illustration, subsection H3b of this Section). Standards for planting shall be as follows: Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 46 of 88 *ow w (a)Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per thirty(30)lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty five feet(35'). Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet(8')or two inch (2")caliper(as measured four feet(4')from the top of the root ball) respectively. (b)Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty(20)square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least twelve inches (12")tall at planting and have a mature height between three feet(3')and four feet(4'). (c) Groundcover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent(90%)coverage of the landscaped area within three(3)years of installation. (d)The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three(3)years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. (e)Surface parking with more than fourteen (14)stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number of SpacesMinimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space *Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. (3)Plant at least one tree for every six(6)parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty five feet(35'). Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet(8')or two inch (2")caliper(as measured four feet(4')from the top of the root ball)respectively. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five(5)per one hundred (100)square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least sixteen inches (16")tall at planting and have a mature height between three feet(3')and four feet(4'). (5) Up to fifty percent(50%)of shrubs may be deciduous. (6)Select and plant groundcover so as to provide ninety percent(90%)coverage within three(3)years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than fifty feet(50')from a landscape area. vii. Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 47 of 88 Nisol • viii. Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. b. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: i. Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. ii. Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. iii. Use of low maintenance, drought-resistant landscape material is encouraged. iv. Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. v. Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. vi. Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets,or other planting feature elements should be made of weather-resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. vii. Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. c. Guidelines Applicable to Districts'B'and `E': i. Front yards should be visible from the street and visually contribute to the streetscape. ii. Decorative walls and fencing are encouraged when architecturally integrated into the project. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent:To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian-oriented streets particularly at street corners. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'A',an -'C'and and 'D': Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10)or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to fifty(50)square feet per unit.The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s)for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director.The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units. (a)Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces,or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 48 of 88 ',Noy Noe (d)Recreation facilities including, but not limited to,tennis/sports courts, swimming pools,exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e)Children's play spaces. iii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. iv. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from abutting or adjacent properties)courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development(see illustration, subsection H3c of this Section). v. Private decks, balconies,and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. vi. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. vii. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000)square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas)shall provide pedestrian-oriented space(see illustration, subsection H3d of this Section)according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1%of the building area =Minimum amount of pedestrian-oriented space viii. To qualify as pedestrian-oriented space,the following must be included: (a)Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access)to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b)Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c)On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four(4)foot-candles (average)on the ground; and (d)At least three feet(3')of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.)or one individual seat per sixty(60)square feet of plaza area or open space. ix. The following features are encouraged in pedestrian-oriented space (see illustration, subsection H3e of this Section)and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian-oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian-oriented space. (b)Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security— such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian-oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d)Provide movable public seating. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 49 of 88 ilove 4180 x. The following are prohibited within pedestrian-oriented space: (a)Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b)Adjacent chain link fences; (c)Adjacent blank walls; (d)Adjacent dumpsters or service areas;and (e)Outdoor storage(shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.)that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. xi. The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian-oriented space. However,where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian- oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian-oriented space. I b. Minimum Standards for Districts'B' and 'E':Attached housing developments shall provide a minimum area of private usable open space equal to one hundred fifty(150)square feet per unit of which one hundred (100)square feet are contiguous. Such space may include porches, balconies, yards, and decks. c. Minimum Standards for District'C': The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro-climatic conditions. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A'=and-'C'and 'D': i. Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. ii. Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. iii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located,visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. e. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': Developments located at street intersection corners on designated pedestrian-oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian-oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity(see illustration, subsection H3f of this Section). 3. Illustrations. a. Street tree installed with tree grate(see subsection Hla(iii) of this Section). b. Parking lot landscaped buffer(see subsection Hla(vi) of this Section). Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 50 of 88 yaw yaw c. Visible and accessible common area featuring landscaping and other amenities(see subsection H2a(iv) of this Section). d. Pedestrian-oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building (see subsection H2a(vii) of this Section). e. Pedestrian-oriented spaces,visible from the street, including ample seating areas, movable furniture,special paving, landscaping components and pedestrian-oriented uses(see subsection H2a(ix)of this Section). f. Building setbacks increased at street corners along pedestrian-oriented streets to encourage provisions for pedestrian-oriented spaces(see subsection H2e of this Section). (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent:To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent:To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. a. Minimum Standard for Districts'A'and 'D': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet(40'). I b. Minimum Standard for Districts'B'and `E': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than twenty feet(20'). c. Minimum Standards for District'C': i. All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances,and display windows(see illustration, subsection 15a of this Section). ii. All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (b)Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft- Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 51 of 88 (d)Roofline features; or • (e)Other features as approved by the Director. iii. Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection 15b of this Section): (a)The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior)without building modulation shall be forty feet(40'). (b)The minimum width of modulation shall be fifteen feet(15'). (c)The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet(6')or not less than two tenths (0.2) multiplied by the height of the structure(finished grade to the top of the wall). d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A'and-, 'B', 'D', and `E': i. Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls,add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. iii. A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects. e. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A'and 'D': Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet(2') in depth and four feet(4') in width. If. Guidelines Applicable to Districts'B'and `E': i. Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet(2')deep, sixteen feet(16')in height, and eight feet(8')in width. ii. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, off-set planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered; provided,that the intent of this Section is met. g. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': i. Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Style: Buildings should be urban in character. iii. Buildings greater than one hundred and sixty feet(160')in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest(see Iillustration, subsection I5c of this Section). Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 52 of 88 2. Ground-Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet(6') in height, has a horizontal length greater than fifteen feet(15'), and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b)Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of four hundred (400)square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. ii. Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection I5d of this Section): (a)A planting bed at least five feet(5') in width containing trees,shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b)Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c)Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d)Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e)Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. iii. Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. iv. Provide human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture,trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. v. Facades on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall have at least seventy-five percent(75%)of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade(as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian-oriented street)comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. vi. Other facade window requirements include the following: (a)Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be fifty percent(50%). (b)Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft- Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 53 of 88 X11'' (c)Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. (d)Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type)glass and film are prohibited. b. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A'and-,'C'and 'D': The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection I5e of this Section): (a)Facade Features: (1)Recess; (2)Overhang; (3)Canopy; (4)Trellis; (5)Portico; (6)Porch; (7)Clerestory. (b)Doorway Features: (1)Transom windows; (2)Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4)Ornamental lighting; (5)Lighted displays. (c)Detail Features: (1)Decorative entry paving; (2)Ornamental building name and address; (3)Planted containers; (4)Street furniture(benches,etc.). ii. Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics,murals,grillwork,sculptures, relief, etc.)should be used to provide ground-level detail. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 54 of 88 iii. Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. c. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B'and `E': Use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood siding is encouraged. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A'an-, 'C', and 'D': Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles(see illustration, subsection 15f of this Section): Extended parapets; ii. Feature elements projecting above parapets; iii. Projected cornices; iv. Pitched or sloped roofs. (a)Locate and screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within one hundred fifty feet(150')of the structure when viewed from ground level. (b)Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4- 095E, Roof-Top Equipment. (c)Match color of roof-mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Ib. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B'and `E': Buildings containing predominantly residential uses should have pitched roofs with a minimum slope of one to four(1:4). Such roofs should have dormers or intersecting roof forms that break up the massiveness of a continuous, uninterrupted sloping roof. ii. Roof colors should be dark. c. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building. 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. a. Minimum Standards for all Districts: Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft- Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 55 of 88 i. All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. ii. Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. iii. Materials shall be durable, high quality,and reasonably maintained. b. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and-,'C' and 'D': Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. c. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: i. Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development.Appropriate examples would include brick,integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass,and cast-in-place concrete. ii. Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing,reveals, snap-tie patterns,coloring with a concrete coating or admixture,or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. iii. Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. iv. Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents.They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet(4')above. d. Guideline Applicable to Districts 'B'and 'E': Use of material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding or patterns, or textural changes is encouraged. 5. Illustrations. a. Building modulation and articulation (see subsection 11c(i)of this Section). b. Single purpose residential building featuring building modulation to reduce the scale of the building and add visual interest(see subsection 11c(iii) of this Section). c. Reducing scale of long buildings(see subsection 11g(iii)of this Section). d. Acceptable blank wall treatments (see subsection 12a(ii) of this Section). Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 56 of 88 '`r+' e. Building facade features(see subsection 12b(i)of this Section). f. Preferred roof forms(see subsection 13a of this Section).(Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124,2-7- 2005) J SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center; and create color and interest. I1. Minimum Standards for Districts 'C'and 'D': a. Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. b. Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. c. Prohibited signs include(see illustration, subsection J3a of this Section): i. Pole signs. ii. Roof signs. iii. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet(can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10)square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back-lit. d. In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. e. Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet(5')above finished grade, including support structure.All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (groundcover and/or shrubs)to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign.Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. f. Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. 12. Guidelines Applicable to Districts-'C'and 'D': a. Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. b. Front-lit, ground-mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. c. Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian-oriented streets. 3. Illustrations. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 57 of 88 'Ilio''' a. Acceptable and unacceptable signs (see subsection J1c of this Section). (Ord.5029, 11-24-03; Ord.5124,2-7-2005) K LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. 1. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A'ate 1'C',and 'D': a. Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site. b. Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off- site. c. Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided,for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian-oriented spaces. 2. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'C'and 'D': a. Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. b. Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7- 2005) L. MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS: 1. The !• -. = = •: !: = .- - - - ---Reviewing Official Division-shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the design regulations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; c. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts A and B: Modifications to the requirements in subsections E2a and E3a of this Section are limited to the following circumstances: Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 58 of 88 Nome Niw a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or c. In complexes with several buildings,when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) M VARIANCE: (Reserved). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) N APPEALS: For appeals of administrative decisions made pursuant to the design regulations, see RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. (Ord. 4821, 12-20-1999;Amd. Ord.4971,6-10-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) 4-3-120 COTTAGE HOUSING REGULATIONS A. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to establish design and development regulations for Cottage Housing projects. Cottage Housing provides ownership opportunities for a wide range of household types, including: small families, singles, and retirees. The intent is to provide flexible site planning requirements to ensure the best use of open space for residents and maximum compatibility with surrounding land uses. B.APPLICABILITY: This Section shall apply to all Cottage Housing in any zone in which it is a permitted use. C. ADMINISTRATION: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to Urban Design Regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. 2. Authority: The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the Official will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of this Section. D. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Unless special development standards are specified below in this subsection, the development standards listed in the underlying zoning are applicable. IDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I GENERAL Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 59 of 88 fir ` Cottages must be oriented toward the common space with covered porches as the. Site Layout main entry. All units must be within a 60 ft. walking distance of the common space. There shall be units abutting the common space on at least two sides. Pedestrian pathways shall connect individual dwelling units to the common space. Clustering All housing shall be clustered. There shall be a minimum of 4 units and a maximum of 12 units per cluster. There may be more than one cluster per development. OPEN SPACE Each unit shall have a minimum of 200 sq.ft. private, ground related, outdoor space, Private Open Space with a minimum dimension of 10 ft. The space should be for the exclusive use of the Requirement occupant and dwelling unit must have direct access to this space. Private open space should be oriented toward the common space whenever possible. The development shall contain a common space owned by the residents in common Common Open Space and protected by covenant. Common spaces may consist of open space, or one or Requirement more structures. A minimum of 200 sq.ft. of common open space is required per dwelling unit, with a minimum dimension of 20 ft. and a maximum slope of 5%. Critical areas shall not be counted as open space, but critical area buffers may be. SETBACKS Front setbacks from 10 ft. unless adjacent to a lower intensity residential zone, then 15 ft. property lines Side setback from 5 ft. If adjacent to a lower intensity residential zone or a public street, then 10 ft. If property lines there is garage or parking access from the side yard, or side street,then 18 ft. If the development has alley access, there is none provided that the garage must be set back a sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft.of back-out room, Rear setback from counting alley surface. If there is occupiable space above an attached garage with property lines alley access, the minimum setback for the occupiable space shall be 10 ft. If there is no alley access, the minimum rear setback is 10 ft. unless adjacent to a lower intensity residential zone, then 15 ft. Interior setbacks 10 ft., but projections (e.g. eaves, putters,and any fixture not exceeding 3 sq. ft) between buildings may extend into the setback a maximum of 12". BUILDING LIMITATIONS Floor Area Maximum floor area 1,200 sq. ft., with a maximum of 800 sq. ft. on the first floor. Building Design Covered porches shall provide the main entry to the unit and shall be a minimum of Standards 60 sq.ft.,with a minimum dimension of 6 ft. HEIGHT Maximum Height Maximum height is 18 ft. but buildings with pitched roofs may extend up to 25 ft. at roof ridge line with a pitched roof. All parts of the roof over 18 ft. must be pitched. PARKING Parking Location For lots abutting an alley, all parking shall be provided in the rear portion of the yard and access taken from the alley. For lots without alley access, parking is prohibited Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 60 of 88 440• in the front yard setback, or side yard setback if adjacent to a public right of way. Parking shall be located in commons areas on the same property as the development and shall be screened from public streets and adjacent residential uses by either landscaping or architecture. There shall be a maximum of 5 adjoining spaces in a parking cluster. Pitched roof design is required for detached parking structures. E. ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COTTAGE HOUSING: In evaluating compliance with special development standards for Cottage Housing, the Reviewing Official shall rely on the recommendations contained within the report on design criteria prepared by the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator or designee. Cottage Housing Projects shall meet all of the following criteria: 1. Project is oriented around an internal courtyard or common space,which provides an amenity to residents and is intended to foster a sense of community. 2. Project orients residential developments to the common space with primary building entries facing the common space. Entries are identified with a prominent feature or detail. 3. Parking garages are designed to ensure minimal visual impact and maintain neighborhood character. Unless determined to be infeasible due to physical constraints, rear access and parking is required. 4. Landscaping shall be required in all setbacks from the exterior property lines. 5. Walkways through parking areas are well-defined and provide access from public sidewalks into the site. Walkway width is a minimum of five feet(5'). Pavers, changes in color, texture or composition of paving are used. 6. Landscaped pedestrian connections are provided to the surrounding neighborhood. 7. Distinctive building design is provided. No single architectural style is required; however, reliance on standardized"corporate"or"franchise"style is discouraged. 8. Exterior materials are attractive even when viewed up close. These materials have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high level of quality and detailing. 10. A consistent visual identity is applied to all sides of the buildings. 11. Cottages adjacent to a public street shall provide a covered entry feature,with a minimum dimension of 6 ft., facing the street. This should be a secondary entrance, as the primary entrance shall face the common space. F. VARIANCE PROCEDURE: Cottage Housing projects must request a variance to deviate from these code provisions, RMC 4-9-250B. (Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) 4-3420130 0 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: (Amd. Ord.4963, 5-13-2002) Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 61 of 88 rww 4.10 , A ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: The Development Services Administrator or his or her designated representative shall be responsible for investigation of violation and citation of the violating parties. B VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: Unless otherwise specified, violations of this Chapter are misdemeanors subject to RMC 1-3-1. (Ord.4856, 8-21-2000; Ord. 5159, 10-17-2005) C TESTS: 1. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, or evidence that any action does not conform to the requirements of RMC 4-3- 050, the Department Director may require tests as proof of compliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction. 2. Test methods shall be as specified by RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, or by other recognized and accepted test standards. If there are no recognized or accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, the Department Director shall determine test procedures. (Ord.4856, 8-21-2000) 4-8-070 AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES I. CITY COUNCIL The City Council shall review and act on the following: 1.Annexations, 2.Appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions (any appeal from a Hearing Examiner's decision,whether an appeal from an administrative determination or an original decision,shall be appealable to the City Council pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E8. 3.Appeals of staff determination of whether or not a proposal is considered a bulk storage facility, 4. Comprehensive Plan map or text amendment, 5. Dedications of property for public purposes, 6. Development and zoning regulations text amendment, 7. Final Plats, 8. Preliminary plats, 9. Planned urban developments, preliminary, 10. Release of easements, 11. Rezones associated with Comprehensive Plan amendment, Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 62 of 88 • Nviie Nape 12. Rezones associated with Comprehensive Plan map or text amendment, 12. Street vacations, 14. Variances from the provisions of subdivision regulations relating to a full subdivision. (Ord 5153, 9-26- 2005) 15. Master Plans associated with participation in the Center Village Flex Bonus District in RMC 4-3-095. (Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002;Amd. Ord.4985, 10-14-2002) 4-8-100 APPLICATION AND DECISION-GENERAL: A. PREAPPLICATION MEETING: 1. Requirements a. Preapplication Required: L A preapplication meeting prior to formal submittal of a development application is required if a waiver of submittal requirements is requested, a proposal is located in the RM-U Zone designation, or a proposed project is within the Airport Influence Area. ii.A preapplication meeting prior to formal submittal of a development application is required for all projects requesting participation in the Center Village Flex Bonus District(RMC 4-3-095)in the CV-R zone. b. Preapplication Recommended:A preapplication meeting is recommended for all other projects. (Amd. Ord.4777, 4-19-1999,Ord 5100, 11-1-2004). 2. Purpose: The meeting is not intended to provide an exhaustive review of all potential issues. Preapplication review does not prevent or limit the City for applying all relevant laws at the time of application submittal. The purposes of a preapplication meeting are: a. To acquaint an applicant with the requirements of the City's development regulations and other applicable laws. b. To provide an opportunity for the City to be acquainted with a proposed application prior to review of a formal application (Amd. Ord. 4794, 9-20-1999). 3. Preapplication Submittal Requirements: Preapplication meeting submittal requirements are available through the City of Renton Development Services Division. 4. Waiver of Formal Application Submittal Requirements: An applicant may submit a written request for a waiver from formal application submittal requirement under RMC 4-8-120, Submittal Requirements,which may be considered during a preapplication meeting. TABLE 4-8-120 C LANDUSE APPLICATIONS PUD, PUD, Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 63 of 88 lieei "w , Preliminary Final 10% Notice of Intent to Annex 60% Petition to Annex Affidavit of Installation of Public Information Sign 2 2 Applicant Agreement Statement(for wireless communication facilities) Applicant's Confirmation of Condition Compliance 5 Application Fee per RMC 4-1-170 X x Assessment Information Authorization for Abatement Binding Site Plan Map Business License Application for Home Occupation Calculations, Survey 3 Colored Display Maps 1 1 Construction Mitigation Description 5 5 Draft Deed for Any Proposed Dedication of Land for Public Purposes 4 Draft Homeowners'Association Documents, if applicable 4 Draft Restrictive Covenants, if any 4 Drainage Control Plan 5 5 Drainage Report 4 Elevations,Architectural 12 12 Elevations, Grading 4 Environmental Checklist 12 Existing Covenants (recorded copy) 5 Existing Easements(recorded copy) 5 Final Plat Plan Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 64 of 88 4400, "tiro Flood Hazard Data, if applicable 12 12 Floor Plans 5 5 Geotechnical Report 5 5 Grading Plan, Conceptual 12 IGrading Plan, Detailed 12 Habitat Data Report 12 12 Hazardous Materials Management Statement Inventory of Existing Sites(for wireless communication facilities) Justification for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and, if applicable, Rezone Justification for the Conditional Approval Permit(nonconforming structure) Justification for the Conditional Approval Permit(nonconforming use) Justification for Conditional Permit Request Justification for the Rebuild Approval Permit(nonconforming structure) Justification for Rezone Justification for Variance Request King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site Landscape Plan, Conceptual 5 Landscape Plan, Detailed 5 Lease Agreement, Draft(for wireless communication facilities) Legal Description 12 12 Letter Describing Proposed Home Occupation Letter from Property Owner Letter to Examiner/Council Stating Reason(s)for Appeal per RMC 4-8-110C3 Letter Explaining Which Comprehensive Plan Text/Policies Should be Changed and Why Letter of Understanding, Geological Risk 5 Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft- Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 65 of 88 erre 'W . List of Affected Property Owners within Annexation Area Boundary List of Surrounding Property Owners 2 2 Lot Line Adjustment Map IMailing Labels for Property Owners 2 2 Map of Existing Site Conditions Map of View Area (for wireless communication facilities only) Master Application Form 12 12 Master Plan Mobile Home Park Plan Monument Cards (one per monument) 1 Neighborhood Detail Map 12 5 Nonconformity Relationship and Compatibility Narrative IParking, Lot Coverage and Landscaping Analysis 5 5 Photo Simulations (for wireless communication facilities only) Plan Reductions(PMTs) 1 1 Postage x X Plat Certificate Preapplication Meeting Summary, if any 5 . Preliminary Plat Plan i I Project Narrative 12 12 Project Sequencing Plan Proposal(nonproject,e.g. draft ordinance, plan, or policy) Proposal Summary(non project) Public Works Approval Letter Report on Design Criteria for Modifications Routine Vegetation Management Application Form Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 66 of 88 .ter. vrr Screening Detail, Refuse/Recycling Service Area Map (for wireless communication facilities only) Short Plat Plan Short Plat Plan, Final Site Plan 12 12 Site Plan, Shoreline Permit Site Plan, Single Family Siting Process Report for Use Permits for SCTF Source Statement, Fill Material, Aquifer Protection Areas Statement Addressing basis for Alternate and/or modification Statement Addressing the Basis for the Shoreline Permit Exemption Request Statement Addressing the PUDs - - ••. _ _ -' - . . -•-• _ - _• 5 Compliance with Planning Requirements Stream/Lake Study 3 3 Survey Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 4 Topography Map (5'contours) Traffic Study 5 Tree CuttingNegetation Clearing Plan Tree CuttingNegetation Plan,Approved IUrban Center-Design Overlay-Distr-istRequlations Review Packet 12' 12' Utilties Plan, Generalized Wetlands Delineation Map Wetland Mitigation Plan-Preliminary 3 Wetland Mitigation Plan-Final 3 Wetlands Assesment 3 Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 67 of 88 D. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING, PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT APPLICATIONS: 19. Definitions S: Statement Addressing the PUDs Compliance with Planning Requirements: The statement shall include a narrative description of how the proposal complies with the following planning requirements: a. The Comprehensive Plan b.Adopted Subarea Plan, if applicable c. The public benefit provision 21. Definitions U: Urban Center Design Overlay-DistrictRegulations Review Packet:A set of submission materials required for projects '• -- - e.• -:• - `: ':• e - - `' '- subject to the Urban Design Regulations in RMC 4-3- 100: a. Site plan, land use review; b. Elevations, architectural; c. Floor plans, general; d. Narrative outlining how the applicant's proposal addresses the City's Urban Center-Design Overlay Regulations. 4-9-150 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS B.APPLICABILITY: Any applicant seeking to permit develop which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision regulations in a comprehensive manner shall be subject to this Section. Any amendment to existing planned urban development shall be subject to this Chapter. 1.Zones: Planned urban developments may be permitted in the following zoning district,when processed and approved as provided in this Section: a.All zones, except R-1, R-4, and COR b. In the CV-R zone, planned urban developments are only allowed for projects that meet the criteria in subsections a and b of RMC 4-3-095 B1 Center Village Flex Bonus District. 2. Code Provisions That May Be Modified: a. In approving a planned urban development,the City may modify any of the standards of chapters 4-2,4-4, and 4-7 RMC and RMC 4-6-060, except as listed in subsection B3 of this Section. Approval for modification other than those specifically described subsection B2a of this Section shall be approved by the City Council prior to the submittal of a preliminary planned urban development plan. 3. Code Provisions Restricted from Modification: Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 68 of 88 • a. Permitted Uses: A planned urban development may not authorize uses that are inconsistent with those uses allowed by the underlying zone, or overlay district, or other location restriction in RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to: RMC 4-2-010 to 4-2-080,4-3-010 to 4-3-040, 4-3-090,4-3-095, and 4-4-010. b. Density/Permitted Number of Dwelling Units: The number of dwelling units shall not exceed the density allowances of the applicable base or overlay zone or bonus criteria in chapter 4-2 or 4-9 RMC; c. Planned Urban Development Regulations: The City may not modify any of the provisions in this Section, Planned Urban Development Regulations; d. Procedures: The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to, fees, submittal requirements, and other similar provisions found in chapter 4-1,4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 RMC; and e Specific Limitations:The City may not modify any provision of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Area Regulations, 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, 4-4-130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing,4-4-060, Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations,chapter 4-5- RMC,or RMC 4-6-010 to 4-6-050 and $-6-070 through 4-6-110 related to utilities and concurrency, except that provisions may be altered for these codes by alternates, modification, conditional use, or variance as specifically allowed in the referenced Chapter or Section. Such alternated, modification, conditional use, or variance application may be merged with the consideration of aplanned urban development per MRC 4-9-150H. (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992;Amd. Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) C ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY: 1. Development Services Division: The Development Services Division shall be responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Section. However, all proposed Code modifications shall be reviewed at the same time by the Hearing Examiner and City Council. 2. Reviewing Agencies: City departments shall review each proposed planned urban development in accordance with procedures in chapters 4-8 and 4-9 RMC as appropriate. 3. Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner is designated as the official agency of the City for the conduct of public hearings and for recommendation to the City Council for all requested Code modifications and the overall proposal itself. 4. City Council: The City Council, upon recommendation by the Hearing Examiner and the other agencies detailed in the paragraph above, shall be the final approving agency under this Section for all requested Code modifications and the overall proposal itself. (Ord. 4039, 1-19-1987; Amd. Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) D DECISION CRITERIA: The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required:Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 69 of 88 *so 4110/ without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances,or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations;or c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planned urban development; or d. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior in one or more of the following ways to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development: i. Open Space/Recreation: (a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and (b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or ii. Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities;or iii. Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed planned urban development; or iv. Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures,or use of solar energy;or v. Alleys: Provides alleys to at least fifty percent(50%)of any proposed single family detached, semi-attached, or townhouse units. e. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The proiect shall demonstrate that it acheives superior compliance with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 70 of 88 . r' NNW. • 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single family, detached,attached, townhouses, etc. b. Circulation: i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development.All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. iv. Provides safe,efficient access for emergency vehicles. c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space:An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate,for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas,and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 71 of 88 g. Parking Area Design: i. Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows.The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking,and shared parking facilities where appropriate. ii. Adequacy: Provides sufficient on-site vehicular parking areas consistent with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Parking management plans shall ensure sufficient resident, employee, or visitor parking standards, and there shall be no reliance on adjacent or abutting properties unless a shared parking arrangement consistent with RMC 4-4-080 is approved. h. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase,together with previous phases, can stand alone. 4. Compliance with Development Standards: Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the development standards contained in subsection E of this Section. (Ord. 5153, 9-26- 2005) 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: A PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of site development plan review shall be to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan the policies outlined in any applicable Subarea Plan, and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review may be used to analyze plans at varying levels of detail to ensure continuity of project concept and consistent implementation. Elements subject to this Section include, but are not limited to, site layout, building orientation and design, pedestrian and vehicular environment, signage, landscaping, natural features of the site, screening and buffering, parking and loading facilities,and illumination. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. 1. Master Plan: The purpose of the Master Plan process is to guide phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site.The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals.An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. Master Plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project,when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. 2. Site Plan Review: The purpose of the Site Plan process is the detailed arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area.An additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. For those developments that do not require Master Plan first, Site Plan Review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project,when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. The intent of the tiered site development plan review process is to provide an opportunity to review projects at broad levels for the Master Plan and with increased specificity as development plans becomes refined to Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 72 of 88 'err N rri` the level of Site Plan. Intent statements below shall guide review of the plans at a specificity appropriate to the level of review. 1.To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on-and off-site; 2. To promote high quality design meeting criteria set forth in the Design Guidelines at RMC 4-3-100 for the City's Urban Center Design-Overhand the Highlands Subarea, where applicable; 3.To protect and enhance the desirable aspects of the natural landscape and environmental features of the City; 4.To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas, and ensure that road and pedestrian circulation systems implement land use objectives for the zone in which the project occurs; 5.To promote coordination of public or quasi-public elements, such as walkways, driveways, paths, and landscaping within segments of larger developments and between individual developments; 6.To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses; 7. To minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of uses within allowed zones; 8. To provide for quality, multiple family or clustered housing while minimizing the impacts of high density, heavy traffic generation, and intense demands on City utilities and recreational facilities; 9. To provide a mechanism to more effectively meet the purposes and intent of the State Environmental Policy Act; 10.To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to avoid violation of the purpose and intent of those codes. (Ord. 3981, 4-7- 1986;Amd. Ord.4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) B APPLICABILITY: 1. Master Plan Review-Applicability: a. UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones: Master Plan review is required for all development within the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones that is not specifically exempted in subsections C1a and b of this Section.All Master Plans within these zones must be consistent with the conceptual plan required by development agreement(s) applicable to the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones for the specific district(s)where they are located.When existing parcels are twenty five(25)acres or smaller, a master plan incorporating all abutting lots in common ownership as of December 1, 2003, is required. No Site Plan Review within an area shall be approved until such a time as a Master Plan is approved for the same area. Master Plan and Site Plan Review for the same area may occur concurrently. b. COR Zones: Master Plan review is required for all development within the COR Zones that is not specifically exempted by subsection C of this Section. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 73 of 88 c. CV Zones: Master Plan review is required for all development that participates in the Center Village Flex Bonus District under RMC 4-3-095. d. All Other Zones: Master Plans are optional. 2. Site Plan Review: No building permit shall be issued for any use requiring Site Plan Review pursuant to this Section until the Reviewing Official has approved,or approved with conditions,the Site Plan application.All building permits issued shall be in compliance with the approved Site Plan. Site Plan Review is required for: a. All development in the IL, CO, CN, CD, CA, CV, -C, CV-R, COR, UC-N1, UC-N2, R-10, RMH, RM, and R-14 Zones. b. K-12 educational institutions. c. Parks. d. Outdoor recreation facilities. e. Rental services with outdoor storage. f. Hazardous Waste Facilities:All hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities. g. Development within the Employment Area Valley:All development within the Employment Area Valley(EAV)land use designation. See EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B. (Ord.4404, 6-7-1993; Ord.4636,9-23-1996; Ord.4773,3-22-1999; Ord.4802, 10-25-1999;Amd. Ord.4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) C EXEMPTIONS: 1. Development Exempt from Master Plan Review: a. UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones Only: i. Airplane Manufacturing and Airplane Manufacturing Accessory Functions: New structures, rehabilitation of existing structures, or lot line adjustments for airplane manufacturing and airplane manufacturing accessory functions within the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones. ii. Other Uses: Subdivision, lot line adjustment or other method of adjusting lot configurations that result in lots larger than twenty five(25)acres in size. iii. Other Exemptions in the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones: Other exemptions are listed in subsection C1b of this Section. b. COR, UC-N1,and UC-N2 Zones: Interior remodels. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 74 of 88 • ii. Facade Modifications: Facade modifications such as the location of entrances/exits,the location of windows, changes in signage, or aesthetic alterations. iii. Exterior remodeling or expansion of an existing detached or semi-attached home and/or primary residence, excluding the addition of a new dwelling unit(s). iv. All development categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act(chapters 43.21C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC)and under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. v. Utilities: Underground utility projects. vi. Additional exemptions for the R-10 Zone are listed in subsections C2c and C2d of this Section. vii. Additional exemptions for the R-14 Zone are listed in subsection C2c of this Section. 2. Development Exempt from Site Plan Review: a. In the RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, RMH, RM, CO, CA, CN, CV, CD, IL, IM, and IH Zones: In all zones,the following types of development shall be exempt from the requirements of site plan review: i. Interior remodel of existing buildings or structures. ii. Facade modifications such as the location of entrances/exits; the location of windows; changes in signage; or aesthetic alterations. iii. Planned unit developments. iv. All development categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act(chapter 43.21C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC)and under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. v. Underground utility projects. b. In the R-10, R-14, COR, and UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones: In the R-10, R-14, COR, UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones, the following types of development shall be exempt from the requirements of site plan review: Interior remodel of existing buildings or structures. ii. Facade modifications such as the location of entrances/exits,the location of windows,changes in signage, or aesthetic alterations. iii. Exterior remodeling or expansion of an existing detached or semi-attached home and/or primary residence, excluding the addition of a new dwelling unit(s). iv. All development categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act(chapter 43.21 C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC)and under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. v. Underground utility projects. c. In the R-10 and R-14 Zones, the following types of development shall be exempt from the requirements of Site Plan Review: Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 75 of 88 NNW ' , i. New or replacement detached or semi-attached homes on a single previously platted lot. ii. Planned unit developments. iii. Development of detached or semi-attached dwelling units on legal lots where part of a subdivision application. d. In the R-10 Zone,the following types of development shall be exempt from the requirements of site plan review:All development categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act(chapter 43.21 C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC)and under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures, excluding shadow platting of two(2)or more units per RMC 4-2-110F. (Ord. 3981,4-7-1986; Ord. 4008, 7-14-1986; Ord.4614, 6-17-1996; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord.4802, 10-25- 1999; Amd. Ord.4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) D CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: In all cases,the public hearing for Master Plan or Site Plan Review should be conducted concurrently with any other required hearing, such as rezone or subdivision, if the details of the development are sufficiently Idefined to permit adequate review. . A public hearing before the City Council shall be required for all Master Plans in the Center Village Flex Bonus District under RMC 4-3-095. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be required in the following cases: 1. Master Plans: a. All Master Plans proposed or required per subsection B of this Section, Master Plan Review, Applicability.Where a Master Plan is approved, subsequent Site Plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing. b. Exception for Planned Actions:A hearing before the Hearing Examiner is not required if both of the following criteria are met: i. One or more public hearings were held where public comment was solicited on the proposed Planned Action Ordinance, and ii. The environmental impact statement for the planned action reviewed preliminary conceptual plans for the site which provided the public and decision-makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of the proposed improvements, the quantity of the various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structure will be put, and the bulk and general form of the improvements. 2. Site Plan Review: a. Significant Environmental Concerns Remain:The Environmental Review Committee determines that based on departmental comments or public input there are significant unresolved concerns that are raised by the proposal;or b. Large Project Scale:The proposed project is more than: i. One hundred (100)semi-attached or attached residential units; or Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 76 of 88 NOW 'gale • ii. One hundred thousand (100,000)square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential)in the IL or CO Zones or other zones in the Employment Area Valley(EAV)land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2- 080B); or iii. Twenty five thousand (25,000)square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential)in the CN, CD, CA, CV, or CO Zones outside the Employment Area Valley(EAV)land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4- 2-080B); or iv. Four(4)stories or sixty feet(60')in height; or v. Three hundred (300)parking stalls; or vi. Ten (10)acres in size of project area. c. Commercial or industrial property lies adjacent to or abutting the RC, R-1, R-4, R-8 and R-10 Zones. (Ord.4551, 9-18-1995; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999;Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999;Amd. Ord.4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) E DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLANS: The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation. Review criteria include the following: 1. General Review Criteria for Both Master Plans and Site Plan Review: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the I specific land use designation or adopted Subarea Plan shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; e. Conservation of areawide property values; f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 77 of 88 ilsV 2. Additional Special Review Criteria for COR, UC-N1, and UC-N2 Zones Only: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable; b. The plan creates a compact,urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial/Office/Residential or Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designations; c. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent, and provides quality development; d. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems; e. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable; f. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; g. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features,or other items; h. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; and The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. 3. Additional Criteria for the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones Only: a. The plan conforms to the approved conceptual plan required by development agreement for the subarea in question, if applicable. b. The plan conforms with the intent and the mandatory elements of the design guidelines located in RMC 4-3-100. The Master Plan clearly identifies the urban design concept for each district enunciated in the Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan policies. c. The proposed interconnected circulation network must demonstrate the function and location of required circulation elements required in RMC 4-3-100. Internal or local roads shall provide adequate edges and buffers to parking lots.A sufficient number of pedestrian-oriented streets are designated to implement the vision for each district in the Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designation. d. Gateways are designated consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and conceptual plans for the gateway demonstrate the design concept for gateway treatment and identify significant gateway features to be provided. e. The Master Plan includes a sequencing element that explains what phases of the Master Plan will be built-out first,and in what order the phases will be built, and an estimated time frame. 4. Additional Criteria for the Airport Influence Area:The plan conforms to RMC 4-3-020:Airport Compatible Land Use Restrictions. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 78 of 88 5. Waiver of Further Consideration of Site Plan Criteria:Approval of a Master Plan that was not combined with a Site Plan application may have satisfied portions of subsection F of this Section. The Reviewing Official or his or her designee has discretion to waive those portions of the requirements that have been satisfied by the Master Plan approval. Whenever the Zoning Administrator or his or her designee has discretion to note those portions of the requirements as having been satisfied by the Master Plan approval, such sections of the Code shall be detailed and that portion of the approved Master Plan wherein the requirements were satisfied shall be cited by the Reviewing Official or his or her designee in the approval of subsequent phases and further consideration of them waived. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) F ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: The interpretation of the following criteria, particularly references to the"intent of the zoning code,"shall consider the purpose and intent of the applicable land use designation of the Land Use Element and the Objectives and Policies of the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Design Element is specifically intended to guide the interpretation of issues concerning the site planning, architectural fit, landscaping, and the context of the project relative to the existing neighborhood.Approval of plans subject to these criteria requires the additional finding that the project complies with the intent and policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 1. Review of Impacts to Surrounding Properties and Uses: a. Mitigation of undesirable impacts of proposed structures and site layouts that could impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the community; b. Mitigation of undesirable impacts when an overscale structure, in terms of size, bulk, height,and intensity, or site layout is permitted that violates Zoning Code standards and the policy direction adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and impairs the use, enjoyment or potential use of surrounding properties; c. Provision of a desirable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility,walkway, and trail systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of landscaping, fencing and/or other buffering techniques, in order to prevent conflicts and to promote coordinated and planned benefit from, and access to, such elements; d. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid overconcentration of structures on a particular portion of a site such that they create a perception of greater height or bulk than intended under the spirit of the Zoning Code; e. Promotion of the efficient function of parking and service areas by effective location,design and screening, to provide integrated facilities between uses when beneficial,to promote urban layouts in appropriate zones, and to prevent unnecessary repetition and conflict between uses and service areas or facilities; f. Mitigation of the unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings and future developable sites, recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features and of promoting urban settings in appropriate zones; Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 79 of 88 *4111, 1411110 g. Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted outdoor storage areas (except auto and truck sales),for surface-mounted utility equipment, for rooftop equipment, and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to promote an urban setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the Zoning Code; and h. Consideration of placement and design of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 2. Review of Impacts of a Proposed Site Plan to the Site: a. Provision for privacy and noise reduction by building placement and spacing; orientation to views and vistas and to site amenities, to sunlight and prevailing winds, and to pedestrian and vehicle needs; b. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the openness and natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid overconcentration or the impression of oversized structures; c. Preservation of the desirable natural landscape through retention of existing vegetation and limited soil removal, insofar as the natural characteristics will enhance the proposed development; d. Use of existing topography to reduce undue cutting,filling and retaining walls in order to prevent erosion and unnecessary stormwater runoff, and to preserve stable natural slopes and desirable natural vegetation; e. Limitation of paved or impervious surfaces,where feasible,to reduce runoff and increase natural infiltration; f. Design and protection of planting areas so that they are not susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements; g. Consideration of building form and placement and landscaping to enhance year-round conditions of sun and shade both on-site and on adjacent properties and to promote energy conservation. 3. Review of Circulation and Access: a. Provision of adequate and safe vehicular access to and from all properties; b. Arrangement of the circulation pattern so that all ingress and egress movements may occur at as few points as possible along the public street, the points being capable of channelization for turning movements; c. Consolidation of access points with adjacent properties,when feasible; d. Coordination of access points on a superblock basis so that vehicle conflicts and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts are minimized; e. Orientation of access points to side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets, when feasible; f. Promotion of the safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location,design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,turnarounds, walkways, • bikeways, and emergency access ways; Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 80 of 88 Now -•.s° • • g. Separation of loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; h. Provisions for transit and carpool facilities and access where appropriate; and i. Provision for safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 4. Review of Signage: a. Employment of signs primarily for the purpose of identification; b. Management of sign elements, such as size, location and arrangement so that signs complement the visual character of the surrounding area and appear in proportion to the building and site to which they pertain; c. Limitation of the number of signs to avoid visual clutter and distraction; d. Moderation of surface brightness or lighting intensity except for that necessary for sign visibility; and e. Provision of an identification system to allow for quick location of buildings and addresses. 5. Additional Criteria for the Highlands Subarea: a. For properties participating in the Center Village Flex Bonus District, the plan shall address an area a minimum of 1 acre in size. b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of residential uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements Center Village and for the Highlands Subarea Plan; c. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent,and provides quality development; d. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems; e. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items; f. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; q. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. h. The plan conforms with the intent and the mandatory elements of the design guidelines for the Highlands Subarea in RMC 4-3-100. i. The Master Plan includes a sequencing element that explains what phases of the Master Plan will be built-out first, and in what order the phases will be built, and an estimated time frame. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 81 of 88 Itioso 'toe r • k. The Master Plan replaces at least 50% of the existing housing located on the site. Provision of affordable units at a minimum of 25%of the minimum density requirement for the zone (2 dwellinq units per net acre). These units may not be counted toward the requirements for bonus density 6. Special Review Criteria for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities: a. Above-ground hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be constructed with containment controls which will prevent the escape of hazardous wastes in the event of an accidental release from the facility. Such controls shall conform with all adopted Federal, State and local design and construction standards; b. Underground hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with RMC 4-5-120, Underground Storage Tank Secondary Containment Regulations; c. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by ordinance by the City of Renton; d. A hazardous waste spill contingency plan for immediate implementation in the event of a release of hazardous wastes at the facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Renton Fire Department prior to issuance of any permits; and e. The location of all on-site and off-site facilities must comply with the State siting criteria as adopted in accordance with RCW 70.105.210. 6. Review of Street Frontage Landscape:A mix of hard surfaces, structured planters,and terraces may be incorporated into street frontage landscape buffers where such features would enhance the desired streetscape character for that particular neighborhood. I 7. Review of Compliance to Design Guidelines for Development in CD, CV-R, CV-C, RM-U, RM-T, UC- N1, and UC-N2 Zones: Development proposed in the zones where design guidelines are in effect must show how they comply with the intent and the mandatory elements of the design guidelines located in RMC 4-3- 100. (Ord. 3981,4-7-1986;Ord. 4186, 11-14-1988;Amd. Ord.4802, 10-25-1999; Ord.4851, 8-7-2000; Ord.4854, 8-14-2000; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) G SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES: 1. General:All site development plan applications shall be reviewed in the manner described below and in accordance with the purposes and criteria of this Section.The Development Services Division may develop additional review procedures to supplement those required in this subsection. 2. Preapplication Conference:Applicants are encouraged to consult early and informally with representatives of the Development Services Division and other affected departments.This consultation Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 82 of 88 • • should include a general explanation of the requirements and criteria of site development review,as well as the types of concerns that might be anticipated for the proposed use at the proposed site. 3. Submittal Requirements and Application Fees: Submittal requirements and application fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications, and 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. Consistent with subsection B of this Section, an applicant may submit: a. A Master Plan; or b. A Site Plan; or c. A combined Master Plan and Site Plan for the entire site; or d. A Master Plan addressing the entire site, and a Site Plan(s)for one or more phases of the site that address(es)less than the entire site. 4. Public Notice and Comment Period Required:Whenever a completed site development plan review application is received, the Development Services Division shall be responsible for providing public notice of the pending site plan application, pursuant to RMC 4-8-090, Public Notice Requirements. 5. Circulation and Review of Application: Upon receipt of a completed application, the Development Services Division shall route the application for review and comment to various City departments and other jurisdictions or agencies with an interest in the application.This routing should be combined with circulation of environmental information under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. Comments from the reviewing departments shall be made in writing within fourteen (14)days. Unless a proposed master plan or site plan is subsequently modified, the recommendations of the reviewing departments shall constitute the final comments of the respective departments with regard to the proposed master plan or site plan. Lack of comment from a department shall be considered a recommendation for approval of the proposed plan. However, all departments reserve the right to make later comments of a code compliance nature during building permit review. This includes such requirements as exact dimensions, specifications or any other requirement specifically detailed in the City Code. 6. City Notification of Applicant:After the departmental comment period, the Development Services Division shall notify the applicant of any negative comments or conditions recommended by the departments. When significant issues are raised, this notification should also normally involve a meeting between the applicant and appropriate City representatives.The applicant shall have the opportunity to respond to the notification either by submitting a revised site plan application, by submitting additional information, or by stating in writing why the recommendations are considered unreasonable or not acceptable. 7. Revisions or Modifications to Site Development Review Application:Whenever a revised site development plan or new information is received from an applicant,the Development Services Division may recirculate the application to concerned departments. Consulted departments shall respond in writing within ten (10)days with any additional comments. In general,the City's environmental determination of significance or nonsignificance pursuant to RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures,will not be issued until after final departmental comments on the site development plan or revised site development plan are received. 8. Special Review for Planned Actions:A consistency review shall be conducted by the Zoning Administrator for proposals submitted under the authority of an adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft- Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 83 of 88 SOY *411110# r If found consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance, including required conditions and mitigation measures, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant of the departmental comments and the consistency analysis consistent with subsection G6 of this Section. Revisions or modifications may be made in accordance with subsection G7 of this Section. If found inconsistent with the Planned Action Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant of the departmental comments and the consistency analysis consistent with subsection G6 of this Section. Revisions or modifications may be made in accordance with subsection G7 of this Section. If the application is still found to be inconsistent once these steps have been completed,the Zoning Administrator shall forward the findings to the Environmental Review Committee to determine if additional environmental review is required. The application shall then follow the process, in subsection D of this Section, to determine if a public hearing is necessary. 9. Environmental Review Committee to Determine Necessity for Public Hearing: Upon receipt of final departmental comments and after the close of the public comment period,the Environmental Review Committee shall determine the necessity for a public hearing pursuant to subsection D2a of this Section. 10. Environmental Review Committee Decision Appealable to Hearing Examiner:The final decision by the Environmental Review Committee on whether a site development review application requires a public hearing may be appealed within fourteen (14)days to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, Appeals. 11. Administrative Approval of Site Development Plan: For projects not requiring a public hearing, the Reviewing Official shall take action on the proposed site development plan.Approval of a site development plan shall be subject to any environmental mitigating measures that may be a part of the City's declaration of significance or nonsignificance. 12. Hearing Examiner Approval of Site Development Plan: For projects requiring a public hearing pursuant to subsection D of this Section, the Hearing Examiner shall take action on the proposed site development plan following the hearing process in subsection G13 of this Section. 13. Hearing Process and Examiner Authority for Modification of Plans: a. Date of Hearing:Whenever a public hearing is required,the Development Services Division shall coordinate with the Hearing Examiner in setting a hearing date for the site development review application. b. Examiner's Decision:After conducting at least one public hearing on the site development plan application, the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision.The time limits for a Type VI review process in RMC 4-8-080H shall apply. The Hearing Examiner shall approve a site development plan if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed site development plan is consistent with the general purposes of this Section and with the review criteria. c. Authority for Conditions and Plan Modifications:The Hearing Examiner shall have the power to place reasonable conditions on or modify a site development plan in order to satisfy the general purposes of this Section and to achieve consistency with the review criteria. However,strict compliance with any one or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. Such conditions or modifications may include, but are not limited to, screening, buffering, building location and orientation, paving, landscaping, vegetation removal, grading and contouring. The Hearing Examiner shall also have the power to fix the location and configuration of driveways,walkways, parking and loading areas, emergency access,curbs, planting areas, and signs.When only a portion of a site is proposed for development, such power to condition,modify or fix Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 84 of 88 *toy Niko shall be exercised only for that area which is directly related to or may be impacted by the actual proposed development. To the extent necessary to meet the site review criteria and to the extent necessary to compensate for the impacts attributable to the proposed development, the Hearing Examiner may impose additional requirements, including: i. Preparation of a landscape plan by a licensed landscape architect; ii. Preparation of a grading, drainage and erosion control plan; iii. Preparation of a vegetation preservation plan; iv. Improvements to identified or planned public rights-of-way, including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting, turn lanes, signalization, bikeways or pedestrian paths; and v. Provision of or improvements to public facilities and utilities. d. Modification of Site Development Plan Subsequent to Public Hearing and Prior to Decision: In all cases, if an applicant can demonstrate that a site development plan can be made consistent with the review criteria and general purposes by alternative modifications to the site development plan, the Hearing Examiner shall accept the alternative modifications as conditions of approval and approve the site development plan. If a public hearing on the site development plan application has already been closed,the modifications proposed by the applicant shall be administered according to subsection J of this Section. e. Denial of Site Development Plan: If the Hearing Examiner finds that the site development plan application cannot be made consistent with the general purposes and review criteria of this Section by requiring reasonable conditions, then the site development plan shall be denied. (Ord. 3981, 4-7-1986; Ord.4008, 7-14-1986;Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995;Amd. Ord.4802, 10-25-1999; Ord.5028, 11-24-2003) H MERGER WITH BINDING SITE PLAN: 1.The applicant may request that the site development plan submitted for site plan review under this Chapter constitute a binding site plan pursuant to chapter 58.17 RCW, subject to the requirements of this subsection. 2. In order to constitute a binding site plan,a site development plan submitted for site development plan review shall comply with all applicable requirements and standards set forth in RMC 4-7-230. 3.All approved site development plans, including those constituting a binding site plan, shall comply with the applicable requirements, procedures, and review criteria for site development plan review set forth in this Section. 4.An approved site development plan that constitutes a binding site plan shall be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections and shall be subject to all other approval conditions included in RMC 4-7-230. Highlands- Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 85 of 88 r 5. Upon the approval and recording of an approved site development plan that constitutes a binding site plan, the applicant may develop the property in conformance with that binding site plan and may sell or lease parcels subject to that binding site plan. (Ord.4954, 2-11-2002;Amd. Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent(10%)increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord.4802, 10-25-1999;Amd. Ord.4954, 2-11- 2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) J MAJOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Major adjustments to an approved site development plan require a new application pursuant to subsection G of this Section. The review and approval shall rest with the approval body which approved the original site development plan. Major adjustments involve a substantial change in the basic site design plan, intensity, density, use and the like generally involving more than a ten percent(10%)change in area or scale. (Ord. 4008, 7-4-1986;Amd. Ord.4802, 10-25-1999; Ord.4954,2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) K TIMING OF BUILDING PERMITS: Building permits shall not be issued until the appeal period for an approved site development plan has expired. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999;Amd. Ord.4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) L EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL: 1. Master Plan: For a nonphased Master Plan or a nonphased Master/Site Plan combined approval the Reviewing Official shall determine an appropriate expiration date for the Master Plan which may exceed two (2)years, but shall not exceed five(5)years, and shall document in writing.An applicant shall submit a complete Site Plan application for the development within the specified time frame if a Site Plan was not combined with the Master Plan application.The Zoning Administrator may grant a one-year extension for good cause; provided,the applicant submits a request forty five(45)days in advance of the original expiration date. 2. Site Plan:The final approval of a Site Plan shall expire within two(2)years of the date of approval.A single two (2)year extension may be granted for good cause by the approval body that approved the original Site Plan.The approval body may, however, determine at its discretion that a public hearing may be required for such extension. (Ord.4008, 7-14-1986; Amd.Ord.4802, 10-25-1999; Ord.4954,2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) M EXCEPTION TO TIME LIMIT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECTS THAT ARE PHASED: 1. Phasing Permitted: For development proposed on only a portion of a particular site, an applicant may choose to submit a site development plan application for either the entire site or the portion of the site. In the latter case, the application shall state clearly the area of the site and the proposed development, including Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 86 of 88 Nisov 1160, a phases,for which site development plan approval is being requested. In every case,the site development plan application and review shall cover at least that portion of the site which is directly related to or may be impacted by the actual proposed development,as determined by the Environmental Review Committee. 2.Authority for Extension of Time:The Reviewing Official may grant site development plan approval for large projects planned to be developed or redeveloped in phases over a period of years exceeding the normal time limits of subsection L of this Section. Such approval shall include clearly defined phases and specific time limits for each phase. 3. Expiration of Phase(s): If the time limits of a particular phase are not satisfied, then site development plan approval for that phase and subsequent phases shall expire.The Hearing Examiner shall also determine if such a phased project will be eligible for any extensions of the time limits. 4.Vested for the Purposes of Zoning:As long as the development of a phased project conforms to the approved phasing plan, the zoning regulations in effect at the time of the original approval shall continue to apply. However, all construction shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations in force at the time of building permit application. (Ord.3981,4-7-1986;Amd. Ord.4802, 10-25- 1999; Ord.4954, 2-11-2002; Ord.5028, 11-24-2003) N APPEALS: Any decision on an administrative site development plan approval shall be appealed as an administrative decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-110,Appeals.Any appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Section, must allege an injury in fact, and that injury must be real and present rather than speculative. (Ord.4551, 9-18-1995;Amd. Ord.4802, 10- 25-1999; Ord.4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) 4-11-010 AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing used as a primary residence for any household whose income is less than eighty percent(80%)of the median annual income adjusted for household size, as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)for the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area, and who pay no more than thirty percent(30%)of household income for housing expenses. Affordable housing used to satisfy zoning requirements, whether for inclusionary or bonus provisions, must be secured to remain affordable in perpetuity, as determined by the City attorney. 4-11-040 DWELLING,SINGLE FAMILY: A. Dwelling, Detached: A building containing one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means except fences, has a permanent foundation, and is surrounded by open space or yards. B. Dwelling,Semi-Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to only one other one-family dwelling at secondary or ancillary building parts such as garages, carports, trellises, porches, covered decks,or other secondary connection approved by the City, and not conncected at building parts containing living areas. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 87 of 88 '0400 1000 I C. Dwelling, Cottage: A one-family dwelling unit which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means except fences, has a permanent foundation, and is limited in size and scale. Cottage dwellings are clustered around a common open space and share common parking facilities. DWELLING UNIT,ACCESSORY: An independent subordinate dwelling unit contained within a single family detached dwelling or its accessory detached garage. • • ••-- .- •• - ••• - -- . . - -- • ... • _ . _ _ _ .. . _ _ __. • _ •_ .An accessory dwelling unit may be used to house family members or employees of the property owner and occupant of the primary residential structure,or it may be leased. Highlands-Dev't Regulations Draft-Zoning Revisions-VI (April 2006) Page 88 of 88 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Ca r 6, :Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/17/2006 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton, x6502 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing... X Street Vacation Petition,portion of walkway between NW 6th Correspondence.. St. &Rainier Ave. S. (Petitioner: Matt Weber, AHBL Ordinance Engineering; File No. VAC-06-001) Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Petition, legal and map Study Sessions Resolution setting public hearing Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Set public hearing date of 5/8/2006, and refer to Legal Dept X Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator for Finance Dept recommendations Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: On February 24, 2006, a petition was submitted by Matt Weber,AHBL Civil & Structural Engineers, 2215 N. 30th St., #300, Tacoma, WA 98403, requesting vacation of a ten-foot wide, platted walkway lying between blocks 5 and 6 of the plat of Woody Glen Addition,between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. S. The Planning/Building/Public Works Department has verified the petition documents and reports that 100%of the abutting property owners have signed the petition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution to set a public hearing on 5/8/2006, and refer the petition to the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator for determination of advisability of the vacation and need for retention of easements. cc Karen McFarland Reference: 35.79 RCW&RMC 9-14 ' PET. ION FOR STREET VACATIC V4e_o6-ODl IN THE CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON To the Honorable Mayor and Date 4)'-//°6° )'-// ('° FEB 2 4 2006 Members of the City Council ���� IIoon� RRECEIVEDp City of Renton Circulated By: /'►�/ ie t�i�-- CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 S. Grady Way 'c F' m ti Renton, WA 98055 Address:69(S �} . Y -z,LLN CPC-AO Dear Mayor and Council Members: Telephone: —J-"5 ,D- 4 We, the undersigned property owners abutting a certain portion of public Right-of-Way, respectfully request the vacation of the street or alleyway as described on the attached "Exhibit A"and /: r-.. -.4_4(Lti L+p#..zudtt i'30::6`1'` freej -to commonly known as: :• - t . i t ._ •4 . 6(eti ,r•• . 7 pi `l t-9 . (Insert closest cross streets and reference the street name,i.e.NE Bog Street fro Bicycle Alley to Slalom Avenue NE.) We request a time and place be fixed when this petition will be heard by the City Council. Of the property owners abutting the area of this petition /2 % l 2/3 or more required'of the F,eal frontage have agreed and indicated their joinin: t 's petition with their signatures •- ow: �4. I. _-Amid . AL. Id. / 1411 - .ignatur: gnature . i `' ill r s• r - 1 -I , IL 't(,,C, dtt- e - 4''/-i00Q print name phone print name phone 5 ►;law' 51:-.2e10r9 9 S,ibbiAa 5f t 9 address 92 03-5- address - -9-4Q921 . Cr 4-` a0 Cl(Cc -oe 9511110-00eZ -Oc- property identification number property identification number Instructions: 1. Insert name of street. (i.e. NE 4th,alleyway east of Sunset Blvd.) 2. Attach complete legal description(i.e. metes and bounds, etc.) 3. Have the applicable property owners provide the following: a) Sign name. (Signatures of owners of 2/3 of lineal frontage must sign. Spouses do not need to sign. Owners in common must sign.) b) Print name and phone number. c) List Property address and King County tax parcel identification number. 4. Attach a map to the petition designating the vacation boundaries. 5. Attach a brief statement of the purpose to be served by the street vacation. 6. Submit$250.00 filing fee with application. SUBMIT PETITION TO THE CITY CLERK, SEVENTH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL. H:Wile Sys\PRM-Property Services Administration\AdministrativeVForms\Street Vacation Petition.doe EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,46001 THAT PORTION OF PLATTED WALKWAY LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 5 AND BLOCK 6, IN WOODY GLEN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS,PAGES 91 AND 92, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. \NN�. -04- , • er fp Aop. uciA . 11 USD ,. 6.1.06 K:\Survey\Yr_2003\203615\615 LEGAL060220.doc MAP EXHIBIT BLOCK 5 /3 LOT 7, BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDITION Z WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL. 47, PAGE 91 & 92 Z VOL. 47, PAGE 91 & 92 10' WALKWAY PER PLAT OF WOODY GLEN ADDITION ?o, 7L TO BE VACATED11.11 / / _ `/ LOT 8, BLOCK 3 WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL 47, PAGE 91 & 92 BLOCK 6 WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL 47, PAGE 91 & 92 GRAPHIC SCALE 50 s_eolo 25 ao mo ( INFEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. Alhadeff Pedestrian Walkway R/W Vacation Request: Statement of Purpose: The applicant requests the City of Renton to vacate a 10 foot strip of land lying between blocks 5 and 6 of the plat of Woody Glen Addition. The purpose of the vacation is to allow future development of the adjacent parcels. The R/W was originally intended for a pedestrian walkway but has remained undeveloped for over 50 years due to steep slopes and lack of connectivity. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING A HEARING DATE TO VACATE A PORTION OF UNIMPROVED ROAD (WALKWAY) BETWEEN NW 6TH STREET AND RAINIER AVENUE N. (MATT WEBER,AHBL,PETITIONER; VAC 06-001) WHEREAS, a Petition has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton on or about February 24, 2006, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.79, petitioning for the vacation of a portion of unimproved road, or walkway, as hereinafter more particularly described, and said petition having been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon said street sought to be vacated, and same being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [The portion of unimproved road/platted walkway connecting NE 6th Street to Rainier Avenue.] Nay NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the 8th day of May, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, Renton, King County, Washington, is hereby fixed as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the aforesaid Petition for vacating the portion of unimproved road/platted walkway connecting NE 6th Street to Rainier Avenue, which said hearing date is not more than sixty nor less than twenty days from the date of passage of this Resolution. SECTION H. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of the time and date of this hearing as provided by RCW 35.79.020 and any and/or all persons interested therein or objecting to this vacation may then appear and be heard thereon, or they 1 RESOLUTION NO. may file their written objections thereto with the City Clerk at or prior to the time of hearing on *4010.9 the vacation. SECTION I L The City Council shall determine, as provided by RCW 35.79.030, as to whether an appraisal shall be secured to determine their fair market value of the property sought to be vacated as provided for in Ordinance No. 4266, and the amount of compensation to be paid by the Petitioner-Owners to the City for such vacation. The City likewise reserves the right to retain an easement for public utility and related purposes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1172:4/10/06:ma ,04010 2 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF PLATTED WALKWAY LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 5 AND BLOCK 6, IN WOODY GLEN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS, PAGES 91 AND 92, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BC 6-1-06 Nome K:\Survey\Yr_20031203615\615LEGAL060220.doc MAP EXHIBIT BLOCK 5 /3 LOT 7, BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDITION 'r... WOODY GLEN ADDI110N VOL 47, PAGE 91 & 92 Z VOL 47, PAGE 91 & 92it 13 10' WALKWAY PER PLAT OF WOODY GLEN ADDITION . 7� TO BE VACATED / w _ 1. _v/ _ LOT 8. BLOCK 3 WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL. 47. PAGE 91 & 92 BLOCK 6 WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL 47. PAGE 91 & 92 GRAPHIC SCALE 501505J .0 25 50 100 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ata: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/17/2006 411.00, Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton, x6502 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. City of Renton Contracts List Correspondence.. First Quarter 2006 Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business List of contracts and addenda signed from January 1, Study Sessions 2006 through March 31, 2006 Information X Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept None; Information only Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The contract list shows all agreements executed between the City and outside parties and/or agencies during the first quarter of 2006. There were 50 contracts and 10 addenda, totaling $3,191,453.83 ( ( t 2006 Contract List CONTRACT ADDENDUM/: CONTRACT APPROVAL. NUMBER.. EXTENSION NAME/TITLEAMOUNT PURPOSE; DATE King County Fire Protection CAG-95-087Adden#1-06 District 25 N/A Extend term through 2007 1 1/20/2006 r WA Department of CAG-99-199 Adden#1-06 Transportation N/A Detour Agreement HRD 1-0239 for IKEA Business District 1/27/2006 CAG-03-016Adden#3-06 i RW Beck,Inc. N/A Extend contract time schedule from June 2004 to 12/31/2007 3/24/2006 CAG-04-013 Adden#5-06 W&H Pacific N/A Extend term through 6/30/2006 2/2/2006 g - Y Department of CAG-04-099 Adden#2-06 Public Health N/A 20.06 Student CPR Training Program-Revenue$2,000 2/16/2006 Roth Hill Engineering IN 26th St/Park PI N Storm System Project-Additional work CAG-05-049 Adden#1-06Partners,LLC 9,200.00 and time extension to 12/31/2006. ! 3/24/2006 CAG-05-066 I Adden#1-06 IJ.A.Brennan Associates 9,000.00 Additional Work for the Design of the Heather Downs Park 1/9/2006 1 CAG-05-066 1 Adden#2-06 J.A.Brennan Associates 2,950.00 Additional Work for the Desizn of the Heather Downs Park 2/6/2006 _ Services/char es deducted for the Phase II ESA in the 30% CAG-05-080 Adden#1-06 'DMJM Harris N/A design contract($20,674) 3/23/2006 1MacLeod Reckord Additional Work for the Design Development of Play Area CAG-05-123 1 Adden#1-06 Landscape Architecture 1,805.00 under Renovation at the Burnett Linear Park 3/28/2006 Sanders General NE Sunset Boulevard(SR 900)/Duvall Avenue NE CAG-05-165 Construction,LLC 1,655,345.54 Intersection Improvements Project 3/10/2006 GM2 Systems(George CAG-06-001 117,012.00 Information Management Services 1/12/2006 - 'McBride) Valley Med.Center dba DOT Mandated Pre-employment,Random and"For Cause" PTesting 1/1/2006 CAG-06-002 Occupational Health 3,400.00 Alcohol and Drug CAG-06-003 Van Ness Feldman 70,000.00 2006 Federal Lobbyist Services 1/20/200.6 Greater Renton Chamber of 2006 Renton Visitors Connection Tourism Marketing CAG-06-004 Commerce 119,500.00 Campaign 1/23/2006 ---------- - --- Design Consultant for Tri-Park Master Plan(Liberty Park, CAG-06-005 1JGM Landscape Architects t 84,190.00 Cedar River Park&NARCO Property) 2/1/20.0.6 'Alexa Milton Interior Procurement&Contract Management for Interior Carpet& 1Financial Consulting P y � CAG-06-006 IDesign 97,789.89 Paint at the Golf Course 2/1/2006 Water,Wastewater,Surface Water Comp.Rate Stud and CAG-06-007 ,Solutions Group,Inc. 97,940.00]System Development Charges Study 2/1/2006 H:/City Clerk/First Quarter 2006.xls Page 1 4/10/2006 2006 Contract List :CQNT'RAT: ::ADDEN.DUM/ CONTRACT .APPROVAL : .NUMBER.. . EXTENSION . NAME/TITLE :.•: A OUNT .• : PURPOSE DATE Blumen Consulting Group, Boeing Renton Plant Sub-District 1B Consistency Analysis CAG-06-009 Inc.IN/A ($23,035 paid for by The Boeing Co._per memo) 2/3/2006 Blumen Consulting Group, 1Boeing Renton Plant Sub-District 1A Consistency Analysis CAG-06-010 'Inc. N/A ($26,575 paid for by Transwestern Harvest Landing) 2/3/200.6_ Arbitrage Compliance Perform calculations and services relating to arbitrage rebate _CAG-06-011 +Specialists,Inc(ACS) N/A and/or_penalty election requirements in IRS Code Sec 148(0 2/2/2006_ Perform Wetland Maintenance Services for Phase 1 Oakesdale CAG-06-012 Teufel Nursery,Inc. 22,215.60 Wetland 2/6/2006 I Hamilton/Saunderson CAG-06-013 Marketing Partnership 132,500.00 2006 Marketing Campaign 2/10/2006 _ CAG-06-014 IR.W.Beck,Inc. 9,164.00 Residential Plat Stormwater Facility Operation 2/6/2006 I Springbrook Wetland&Habitat Mitigation Bank Agreements CAG-06-015 tWA Transportation N/A Letter of Concurrence 2/10/2006 King County,Sound Transit, Flexpass Commute Trip Reduction Program for City CAG-06-016 !Pierce Transit 22,770.00 employees 2/24/2006 Medtronic Physio-Control !Technical service support agreement for Fire Department CAG-06-017 Corporation 12,025.00 02 ,defibrillators,3 years(7/11/2005 to 7/10/2007) 1/30/2006 Valley Communications !defibrillators, ownership of software license for Custom XML CAG-06-018 I Center N/A l Interface from City of Renton to ValleyCom - 2/13/2006 i _ CAG-06-019 Houser Way Bridge repainting project 2/13/2006 t Airport MacLeod Reckord ' Parametrix,Inc. - _ 46,077.00 entrance rehabilitation project-landscape I CAG-06-020 Landscape Architecture- 32,735.00 design/construction manalcment 2/14/2006 � - • WA State Military --- -- - - - $2,000 revenue via Emergency Mgmt Performance Grant CAG-06-021 Department N/A funds 3/6/2006 Roth Hill Engineering CAG-06-022 Partners,LLC 31,100.00!Sewer System Analysis,Heather Down/Maplewood Basins 2/16/2006 g Sed wick Claims 1 CAG-06-024 Management Service,Inc. 33,900.00 3rd Party Administration of Worker's Compensation Claims 2/22/2006 CAG-06-026 Renton Historical Society N/A Museum Management Agreement 2/23/2006 Directions Consulting/John 1 CAG-06-027 IZumsteg 10,000.00 Consultant for Human Services Funding Criteria 2/22/20.0.6 Senior Services of IProvide facilities at Renton Senior Center for the operation of `G-06-028 i Seattle/King County the Congregate Nutrition Program 3/2/2( _ ,r 1-1:/City Clerk/First Quarter 2006.xls Page 2 4/10/2006 1 ( ( ( 2006 Contract List ;CONTRACT :ADDENDUM% : :::. : CONTRACT : .: APPROVAL:, :NUMBER EXTENSION. j NAI /`i ITLt AMOUNT _ PURPOSE H DATE:. Senior Services of j Renton Senior Center will serve as a satellite location for the CAG-06-029 Seattle/King County N/A Meals On Wheels Program 3/2/2006_ License Agreement for web-based Police Incident Reporting; CAG-06-030 IePolice Department Inc. 16,320.00 i maintenance fee(quoted cost for 3 years) 3/1/2006 'Northwest Security Provide City security personnel at the Renton Community CAG-06-031 i Services,Inc.(NWSS) 5,518.80 Center from 3/6/06 to 4/21/06 3/3/2006 Winsper Homeowners' Neighborhood Grant Program: Landscape entrance into CAG-06-034 _ Association 8,000.00 neighborhood 3/10/2006 j Summerwind Homeowners' j Neighborhood Grant Program: Improve neighborhood park CAG-06-035 ' Association f 136.00 with new plants 3/10/2006 Maplewood Gardens CAG-06-036 ,Nei h orhood Association 2,700.00 Neighborhood Grant Pro am: Landscape and addfencing 3/10/2006 'Emerald Garden Neighborhood Grant Program: Add entrance sign and Ho eowners'Association landscaping I CAG-06-037 1 Earlington Neighborhood 3,971.00 Neighborhood Grant Program: Build&add new park kiosk in 3/10/2006 CAG-06-038 Association 2,360.00 Earlington Neighborhood Park 3/10/2006 — - - - - WA State Military — -- - — Hazardous Materials response plans for target hazards in the CAG-06-040 1 'Department N/A City. HMEP Grant#E-06-207($5,520) 3/20/2006 CAG-06-042 1 {Walker&Associates 25,225.00 Aerial Mapping Phase I;Photrapl 3/10/2006 ' Bench Scale&Pilot Plant Study for Well 5A Water Treatment CAG-06-045 I HDR Engineeringjnc. -j 59,540.00 Improvements Project 3/17/2006 Downtown/South Renton Sidewalk/Streetscape Design CAG-06-046 : 1The Berber Partnership 10,000.00 Standards Pr9ject j 3/13/2006 — j Valley Med.Center dba Provide Health Services to Inmates with the Renton Jail for CAG-06-048 Occuational Health 167 790.00 2006 3/17/2006 CAG-06-049 j Geomatrix Consultants,Inc. 16,860.001Air qualityreview for the Landing project3/20/2006 CAG-06-050 (City of Lake Forest Park N/A Jail bookings from other municipalities at a daily rate of$70 3/20/2006 CAG-06-051 Bankers Auto Rebuild N/A Provide towing services to the Renton Police Department 2/27/2006 Ivary&Assoc.Architects CAG-06-053 r Desi n/En ineerin 16,600.00 Driving Range Netting_Prject 2/22/2006 y I - - — The Salvation Arm ,Renton 2006 Renton Emergency Assistance Program(REAP)funds CAG-06-054 1 ,Corp 18,500.001through the 2006 General Fund 3/20/2006 H:/City Clerk/First Quarter 2006.xls Page 3 4/10/2006 2006 Contract List CONTRACT •. A b:1..N1)UM%.:. � •. bN'l�'TtACT: : ;: ;; .; ':APPROVAL.1 :NUMBER SIO EXTENN NAMB.!TiT'Li~. AMOUNT:.. : ''.: PURPOSE 1 ...;DATE:. ?*Office of regional aatis& College of Architecture&Urban UW"Storefront Studio"Façade Improvement project in Trans ortation Engineering 4Downtown Renton 3/22/2006 -'Planntno- - -- 0 _CAG-06-055_ _ __ � 5 000.00 CAG-06-056 ;NW(TenW) 1 24 000.00 Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis(Phase I) 3/28/2006 Phinney Bischoff Design CAG-06-057 House 21,000.00 Create ads&EDNSP website improvements 3/28/2006 I Phinney Bischoff Design CAG-06-058 House 10,000.00 Create EDNSP website 3/21/2006 Final design&permitting services for SW 34th St culvert replacement project 3/28/2006 Greater Renton Chamber of t CAG-06-059 }}RW Beck,Inc. 148 826.00 I� Service rendered on behalf of the City 3/29/2006 CAG-06-060 Commerce 8, .0 50 Contracts I 10 Addenda TOTAL{ 3,191,453.83 (.. (4, (, H:/City Clerk/First Quarter 2006.xls Page 4 4/10/2006 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL t I AI#: 10. d • Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP Department/Strategic April 17, 2006 Planning Staff Contact Don Erickson(x-6581) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Merritt II Annexation—Council consideration of Correspondence.. ordinance amending phasing schedule in the Ordinance X effectuation ordinance adopted May 23, 2005. Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper, Ordinance Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept X Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment kikire Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: After completing all necessary prerequisites, Council adopted Ordinance 5142 on May 23, 2005. This ordinance adopted Phase I of the Merritt II Annexation upon its effective date and specified that Phase II would be automatically implemented twelve months later. This was to allow time for the City to design and award a contract to construct roadway improvements along Duvall Ave. NE between Sunset Blvd. and SE 95th Way in the western half of the annexation area without jeopardizing$2.2 million in King County funding for the project. In order to provide sufficient time for the City to complete the design and acquire right-of-way for the project, it is now necessary to extend the date of implementation in Ordinance 5142 for Phase II of the Merritt II Annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance changing the effectuation date for Phase II of the Merritt Annexation from approximately June 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007. C:\Documents and Settings\mpetersen\Local Settings\Temp\Agenda Bill forOrd Amend.doc (cYCITY OF RENTON Cj1 O� ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, • • AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT NrcO� MEMORANDUM DATE: April 5, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Councilmembers VIA: `` Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator PO-AO STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson(X-6581) SUBJECT: Merritt II Annexation—Phase II Implementation ISSUE: Now, Whether Ordinance 5142 should be amended to change the effectuation date for Phase II of this annexation from approximately June 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopts the attached ordinance changing the effectuation date for Phase II of the Merritt Annexation from approximately June 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: On May 23, 2005, Council approved the 133-acre Merritt II Annexation, adopting both an effectuation ordinance and zoning ordinances for it. The effectuation ordinance referred to two phases for implementing it. Phase I, approximately 74.87 acres and located in the eastern portion of the annexation site, became effective five days after publication of Ordinance 5142, or June 1, 2005. Phase II, approximately 47.93 acres and located in the western portion of the annexation site, included portions of 138th Avenue SE (referred to as Duvall Avenue in Renton), and was to become effective twelve (12) months after the adoption of the ordinance. Phase II, then, would become effective on June 1, 2006. This twelve(12)month delay was to allow sufficient time for the City of Renton to complete the design, acquire needed right-of-way, and award a contract for construction of roadway improvements along 138`t' Avenue SE (Duvall Ave.). The City is unlikely to award the Niue construction contract for this project until fall of this year. King County has agreed to contribute $2.2 million funding for this project. However, by statute, King County can only make this funding available if the road remains in April 11,2006 Page 2 unincorporated King County until the construction bid is awarded. Should the road be transferred to the City by means of the Merritt II Annexation prior to award of the contract,the $2.2 million King County funding would no longer be available for the project. In this event, the City would not have sufficient funding to construct the Duvall Avenue improvements. In consideration of these factors,the Administration is recommending that the attached ordinance extending the effective date of Phase II of the Merritt II Annexation be changed from approximately June 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. CONCLUSION: Because of the time required for the City to complete the design, acquire the right-of-way, and award a construction contract for the Duvall Avenue Improvement project, and the need for this to happen prior to the effective date of annexation of Phase II, Ordinance No. 5142 now needs to be amended. Such an amendment would extend the previously specified twelve-month period after passage, to March 31, 2007. The Administration is therefore recommending that Ordinance 5142, previously adopted by Council on May 23, 2005, be amended so that Phase II would become part of Renton on March 31, 2007. Attachments cc: Jay Covington Larry Warren Bonnie Walton void Alex Pietsch Don Erickson H:\EDNSP\PAA\Annexations\Merritt#2\Issue Paper for Ord Amend.doc Nis CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5142 BY CHANGING THE TIMING FOR EFFECTUATING PHASE II OF THE MERRITT II ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON (MERRITT II ANNEXATION; FILE NO. A-03-003) WHEREAS, in Ordinance 5142, the effective date of the Merritt II annexation to the City of Renton, Phase II of the annexation has to be twelve (12) months after the adoption of that ordinance; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 5142 became effective on June 1, 2005, five days after its publication; and WHEREAS, Phase II would become part of the City of Renton on, or about June 1, %sr 2006, unless Ordinance 5142 is amended; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to extend the effective date of Phase II of the Merritt II annexation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Properties within Phase II (see Exhibit A) shall constitute a part of the City of Renton on March 31, 2007, and shall be subject to all its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force and effect; the property being described as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto, and made a part here of as if fully set forth herein. 1 ORDINANCE NO. [Said property, approximately 47.93 acres, is primarily located in the West '/2 of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, of the 133-acre expanded annexation area. The northern portion of this phase is located in the West 1/2 of Section 34, Township 24 North, Range 5 East.] SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of Washington, and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1255:4/7/06:ma 2 MERRITT II ANNEXATION—PHASE II LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Government Lot 3, Section 3,Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington,lying northeasterly and easterly of the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed by Ordinance No. 4055,and southerly and easterly of the existing City Limits of Newcastle, as incorporated by Resolution No. 45 in September 1994; TOGETHER WITH that portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.,in King County,Washington, lying westerly of the west boundary line of Newcastle Terrace, as recorded in Volume 87 of Plats,Page 30,Records of King County, Washington, northerly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No.3972, and easterly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No.4055; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 34,Township 24 North,Range 5 East,W.B.,in King County, Washington,lying southerly of the northerly right-of-way margin of SE May Valley Road,said northerly right-of-way margin also being the existing City Limits of Newcastle, as incorporated by Nome Resolution No. 45 in September 1994,and easterly of the easterly right-of-way margin of Coal Creek Parkway SE,said easterly right-of-way margin also being the existing City Limits of Newcastle, as incorporated by Resolution No.45 in September 1994. orr t •- - EXHIBIT B.l f r - __ -- S i __ ,.,,_ �, (.,„ > > QW c, , „. , ,..„ , Qy. co_ , � ----- 1E,, MQ Y V _ _ min ;,9 �,y Rd /r. , _ ____ ,. i __.) ..o I---1. _.1.. _,_ - - ! _ _ :,-- 1 _ _ . , . _ ,_ . _ _ __ . _,__ _ . _ ou NN,. IIII � iii\gal _ _ - -_ _ _ _--- _ _ - - - __ = Imo moo • A - - *wain initiskui: -I P : - - - - 71-(I) . -•-- �� t '111 _ll," IIIIPMIII�_ _ = - --. ,� e� uWccs ■ _� hi icICi � � rift ti0011i 41 1 le girRomput qE ali Ea I moo: K� pimai.w i/L 41 • wil 1" 46 diouftdb �: .1Aaptiew ri1.,rAlk0•�r,leila arm 1,0 si am WHIP' i IITAITPIYIP wegiaDV/tora in tits, Abel ______ im S1 ;M nil Yll��Jh�, .1.1114111161114.11111. u���Ilk 11ntail ■'Igen SE 1 II /441 131.■ iilil, : 111 ��= v. # ogres in �� ra�-rn, Yuan Sti"ant: Nog =u mum ■4- aid vs, ��a wAr• aft ll maw • �r��irr ��! � l.�1111►1 4S'4$4mar r toho tit eii • • mo. ■ This e.o.m..b e yyWaaKfb M1b °iw mtW 2 ."*. ....... , ba bbya+sU Merritt II Annexation 0 600 1200 Phasing Map —iii i,'''. i : 7200 1-c • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning —__ Corporate Limits ,•4110' *®, Alex Ptetsch,Administrator G.Del Rosano tt Annexation Area Y AN.iO 6 May 2005 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL i Alm to. Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP April 17, 2006 Staff Contact Alex Pietsch(x6592) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Proposed Amendments to RMC 9-11—Street Grid Correspondence.. System Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning&Development Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated kitiee Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Code amendments are required to change the City's current practice of renaming all streets that annex into the City. The proposed code would allow the existing names of annexed roadways to be retained with a few exceptions. The most notable is the East Renton Plateau, where avenues would continue to be given names of Washington cities and towns alphabetically through"Zillah." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed amendments to RMC Chapter 9 Section 11 "Street Grid System." Rentonnetlagnbill/ bh �Y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, `'�" ti�, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC • • PLANNING DEPARTMENT se'P,•Nr OO MEMORANDUM DATE: April 10, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: k Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator c V ` SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to RMC 9-11—Street Grid System ISSUE: Should the City revise its practice of renaming streets in newly annexed areas? RECOMMENDATION: Council should adopt the proposed amendments to Renton Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 11 "Street Grid System." err..► BACKGROUND SUMMARY: For years, the City has imposed a system for naming streets based in which avenues, which run north/south, are named after cities and towns in Washington and east/west streets are numbered. Additionally, all streets in the City are given directional prefixes or suffixes (NE, SE, etc.)with Downtown Renton as the center point. A number of factors have arisen that warrant amendments to the section of the Renton Municipal Code governing this practice: 1.) The names of avenues established in the adopted code has expired and staff has been naming these roadways based on the naming convention without input from the Mayor and City Council; 2.) Given the large amount of annexation on the East Renton Plateau, the City is quickly nearing the end of a round of alphabetical naming of avenues with names of Washington cities and towns (e.g. the avenue beginning with the letter"v"was recently assigned.); and 3.) The possibility of annexing very large areas of the Potential Annexation Area (PAA)means thousands of residents would be forced to change their addresses to conform with the new City street names. This requirement is frequently cited as reason not to annex. New h:\ednsp\council\issue papers-agenda bills-ctte reports\2006\street naming issue paper.doc Corman Page 2 of 4 April 10,2006 In that past, conformity with the street naming convention was essential to police and fire crews and their ability to quickly locate and respond to emergency calls. Now, with the establishment of geographic information systems (GIS) and data terminals in all emergency vehicles,this requirement is no longer necessary. There will be a transition for all City staff,however. Currently, since no streets in Renton are numbered higher than the 10000-block, staff is quickly able to determine whether or not a citizen giving an address is a resident of the City. This will no longer be the case and response to citizen concerns will require additional time and research. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: If adopted, the proposed code amendments (the underlined text in the attached draft) would have the basic effect of freezing the existing street naming convention where it is and adopting the existing names of annexing county streets and avenues except on the East Renton Plateau. On the Plateau, the City's current convention of street naming would continue until an avenue was annexed and named"Zillah."East of that street,the County roadway names would remain. The following is a section-by-section discussion of the proposed amendments: 9-11-2 DEFINITIONS Provides definitions for"Highways" and "Ways"which are currently designated but undefined. Ntiri 9-11-3B Replaces a reference to the historic name Vancouver Avenue with the current name of the roadway Rainier Avenue. 9-11-4B, C,& D Corrects the erroneous references to Interstate 405 as a"State Route." 9-11-4H The existing directional establishment of prefixes and suffixes to roadway names (NE, S, etc.) are based on Downtown Renton as the center point. Downtown Seattle is the focal point for these directional indicators on County roadways. Most of the directional designations in the PAAs conform to the City's system. However, the West Hill (where roadways are designation"South") and the East Renton Plateau("Southeast") are the exceptions. This section provides for these exceptions and allows the County roadway names to conform to the City's code. See the attached map for an illustration. 9-11-5 ROADWAY NAMES This section documents the existing street names in the City and establishes new names for avenues to the east through the end of the alphabet. These new street names are: Toledo (155th Ave SE and any future extension),Underwood(156th Ave SE in White Fence Ranch and any future extension), Vantage(156th Ave SE south of NE 4th and any h:\ednsp\council\issue papers-agenda bills-ctte reports\2006\street naming issue paper.doc • Corman Page 3 of 4 April 10,2006 future extension to the north. See also the discussion of Vantage/Vesta below), Wapato, 4,4 0, Yakima, and Zillah(these last three would be designated as annexation and redevelopment occurs). A portion of 156th Ave SE recently annexed to the City was designated"Vesta Ave NE" by City staff. The existing code designated the avenue names to be used alphabetically through the letter"o"or"Orcas."Since Orcas Ave NE was established, staff has determined the appropriate names of avenues (Pasco, Quincy,Rosario, and Shadow) without explicit direction from the Mayor or the City Council. Given the arterial nature of 156th Ave SE, its connection to the Jones Bridge and SR 169 to the south, and its future importance as a north/south arterial corridor, a more commonly known name may be more appropriate. Staff is currently consulting with the owners of the six affected property owners to see whether a change to "Vantage Ave NE"would be preferable over "Vesta Ave NE."If the change is acceptable, staff will bring it to the City Council for consideration under a separate action. This section also eliminates names for avenues yet to be annexed on the West Hill previously established in code. These include Medina, Longview, Kelso, Jackson, Indio, Hamilton, Garfield, Fairview, and Edgewood. Naches Ave SW would be the last and western-most avenue to be named under the City's street naming convention. 9-11-5D This section clarifies what should happen to roadways that are constructed in an annexed .,, area that connect a City-named road to one named under the County's convention. The proposal is for the City name to be extended to the first existing intersection. 9-11-6 ANNEXATION This section provides direction regarding roadway naming in the event of an annexation. County roadway names would be adopted with the exceptions listed below. These exceptions allow the current practice of renaming streets to come to a logical close at the end of the alphabet, as well allow the extension of a few roadways that have well- established names. a.) East Renton Plateau, including the Sierra Heights area—the historic City naming would continue through the establishment of"Zillah Ave NE;" b.) Monster Rd SW would continue north to Martin Luther King Way; c.) NE 4th would continue east to the Urban Growth Boundary; d.) SE Petrovitsky Rd would continue west to Carr Rd; and e.) Annexed segments of SR 169 would be renamed Maple Valley Hwy, instead of SE Renton-Maple Valley Hwy. 9-11-7 CHANGE OF ADDRESS Increases the fee for a property owner-proposed street name change from $30 to $100 to more accurately defray the processing costs. ,,. 9-11-8 RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT h:\ednsp\council\issue papers-agenda bills-ctte reports\2006\street naming issue paper.doc Corman Page 4 of 4 April 10,2006 This new section grants the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator the authority to resolve any unforeseen conflicts of this code section. *4014 CONCLUSION: The practical application of the City's existing convention for naming roadways is coming to an end. The proposed code amendments create a logical place to stop the existing convention on the East Renton Plateau and allow the City to adopt the existing names of streets and avenues in annexing areas. The small additional workload staff may face by no longer having the quick four-digit address test for Renton addresses is far outweighed by the unnecessary inconvenience and cost annexing property owners, residents and businesses face through an address change. Attachments: Proposed code amendments Map demonstrating geographic designations cc: Jay Covington Administrators Larry Warren Neil Watts Stan Engler Peter Hahn Rebecca Lind 'virrt� h:\ednsp\council\issue papers-agenda bills-ctte reports\2006\street naming issue paper.doc CHAPTER 11 STREET GRID SYSTEM SECTION: 9-11-1: Purpose 9-11-2: Definitions 9-11-3: System Of Numbering 9-11-4:Area Divisions 9-11-5: Roadway Names 9-11-6:Annexations 9-11-7: Change Of Address 9-11-8: Exceptions 9-11-1 PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is to provide an address standard to facilitate consistent response by emergency services, and to provide a uniform application guideline. This street grid system will, to the extend practicable, consist of roadways running north-south or east-west and running perpendicular to one another. (Ord. 4553, 10-2-95) 9-11-2 DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Section the following abbreviations and definitions are established: A. Miscellaneous: The United States Postal Service standard abbreviations shall be used for all street name parts where abbreviation are commonly Niue used. Name Abbreviation Definition Apartment Apt Avenue Ave Boulevard Blvd • - - = = •=- . .. .-. Building Bkie s = •• I Circle Cir Court Ct = I Drive ►s been-used = = I Flaw Al Road Rd Room R444 A-little-used-alter-native-for-suite ' - Street - -- - - = - •Suite Ste • -.. •. . . - - - __•••:, , = - - Unit Unit building-owner B. Campus Address: One address assigned to the campus. Within the campus each building shall be assigned either a number or letter. Units or individual sections within campus buildings shall be identified by number assigned by the property owner. All campus addressing shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Chief. C. Classes Of Address: There are five (5) classes of address which include situs, structure, unit, campus and mail. D. Mail Address: The mail, or mailing, address is the address used by the U.S. Postmaster. E. Private Roads: A private road with three (3) or more houses is designated according to its place on the grid. If the end of the private road cannot be easily seen from the main road, it will need to be designated, and the range of addresses located on the road indicated by sign at the main road. Planning/Building/Public Works will not install street signs on private property. F. Residential Accessory Building: A structure used for storage located on a residential lot which will not be addressed. G. Situs Address: Every vacant legal parceiplatted lot shall be assigned a situs address most nearly corresponding to the expected address as if the lot contained a single structure. H. Structure Address: One address shall be assigned to each building, except residential accessory buildings. In the event of planned urban development, office park, or industrial complex which incorporates several buildings, or has the potential to add one or more buildings, provision shall be made to allow for buildings to be addressed as separate addresses, one per building. In the event address numbers are not available for more than one building, alphabetical suffixes for each building in the complex shall be applied. Structure addresses shall be expressed in whole numbers, with no fractional appendages. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-05) I. Unit Address: The unit address is the structure address plus the unit, room, or suite number. (Ord. 4553, 10-2-95) 9-11-3 SYSTEM OF NUMBERING: Addresses shall be assigned by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department according to the following criteria: A. Numbering from north to south shall progressively increase from the 100 block bound by Southwest 1st Street and Southwest 1st Place; from south to north shall progressively increase from the 50 block north from Southwest 1st Street. B. Numbering from east to west, and west to east shall progressively increase from the 50 block bound by Hardie and Vancouver Rainier Avenues. C. Along all avenues, or roadways, running northerly and southerly, those lots on the easterly side thereof shall take even numbers, and those lots on the Nome westerly side thereof shall take odd numbers. Along all streets, or roadways, running easterly and westerly, those lots on the northerly side thereof shall take even numbers and those lots on the southerly side thereof shall take odd numbers. D. In the case of a winding or curvilinear roadway, such roadway shall be designated as an avenue, street, drive, lane, road, court, or circle, and, the predominant direction either north-south or east-west determined. In such case the odd-even address convention shall be applied consistently along the entire length of the roadway. A --- - - e - . -•• ---• - E. Each block or equivalent is allotted one hundred (100) numbers in sequence on each street or avenue based upon the City grid system established herein, except between South 6th Street and North 12th Street within which boundaries each block is allotted fifty (50) numbers in sequence. Despite the grid system, the numbering will begin at the actual roadway intersections as constructed. F. Approved numbers or addresses as issued by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the roadway fronting the property, or in a location approved by the Fire Chief. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. G_G—All numbers placed on buildings shall be block style. Numbers placed on single-family residential dwellings shall be a minimum of four inches (4") in height. Numbers for multi-family residential, neighborhood commercial or small business structures with fifty foot (50') or less setback shall be a minimum of six inches (6") in height; and for such structures with more than fifty foot (50') setback, numbers shall be from eight to twelve inches (8" to 12") in height. Numbers for large commercial or industrial structures with one hundred foot (100') or less setback shall be a minimum of eighteen inches (18") in height; and for such structures with more than one hundred foot (100') setback, numbers shall be a minimum of twenty four inches (24") in height. (Ord. 4553, 10-2-95) Whenever a building is situated more than fifty feet from the road, or when the view of the building is blocked the number shall be conspicuously placed on a post, gate, fence, tree, etc. This placement must be somewhere in an arc within 30 feet from where the center of the driveway or access meets the road. It will be posted in such a way so that the address placard is parallel with the main roadway or visible when accessing from either direction. It shall be at a height of between four and six feet from the level of the road. On roads that may be accessed from only one direction, the placard may be posted perpendicular to the main roadway in such way that it is clearly visible when being approached by emergency responders. Addressable entities other than buildings, such as recreational lots or stand alone utility sites, shall display the address at the access or driveway in the same manner as a building located more than fifty feet from a roadway. err' 9-11-4 AREA DIVISIONS: For purposes of establishing a coordinated system in the City, the City shall be divided into six (6) parts: northwest, north, northeast, southeast, south, and southwest. These parts are defined as follows: A. The boundaries of the northwest area shall be the westerly City limits on the west; Renton Avenue on the south; Rainier Avenue on the east; and the northerly City limits on the north. B. The boundaries of the north area shall be Rainier Avenue on the west; the line running along Airport Way from Rainier Avenue to Logan Avenue, thence northerly along Logan Avenue to the center of the Cedar River, then southeasterly along the centerline of the Cedar River to State Routelnterstate 405 on the south; State-Reutelnterstate 405 on the east; and the northerly City limits on the north. C. The boundaries of the northeast area shall be State-Reetelnterstate 405 on the west; the line running southeasterly along the Maple Valley Highway from its intersection with State-Routalnterstate 405 to the southwest corner of Monterey Terrace, thence easterly along the south line of Monterey Terrace and its easterly extension to the east line of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., thence northerly along said line four hundred forty feet (440') more or less to the east-west center line of said section, thence easterly along the easterly extension of said center line to the City limits, on the south; the easterly City limits on the east; and the northerly City limits on the north. D. The boundaries of the southeast area shall be the line running from the intersection of the Maple Valley Highway with State Routolnterstate 405 southerly along State-Routelnterstate 405 to the intersection with the center line of the Cedar River, thence along said center line to the intersection with the northerly extension of Jones Avenue, thence southerly along said extension and along Jones Avenue to the southerly City limits on the west; the southerly City limits on the south; the easterly City limits on the east; and the southern boundary of the northeast area on the north. E. The boundaries of the south area shall be the State Route 167 and Rainier Avenue on the west; the southerly City limits on the south; the westerly margin of the southeast area on the east; and the southerly margin of the north area on the north. F. The boundaries of the southwest area shall be the westerly City limits on the west; the southerly City limits on the south; the State Route 167 and Rainier Avenue on the east; and Renton Avenue on the north. G. G,---Within each of the six (6) areas, streets shall be labeled with the corresponding directional prefix, and avenues shall be labeled with the corresponding directional suffix. Other roadways within each of the six (6) areas shall be labeled with either the area prefix or suffix depending upon whether they run predominantly east-west or north-south respectively. H. There are two exceptions to these divisions: a. The West Hill, an area bounded by Southwest Sunset Boulevard and Martin Luther King Junior Way on the south, the Seattle city limits on losiw the north, Rainier Avenue North on the east and Interstate 5 and the Union Pacific Railroad right of way on the west, where streets were historically designated as "south" based on Seattle as their geographic focus; and b. The East Renton Plateau, an area east of Interstate 405, bounded by May Creek and Southeast May Valley Road on the north and Maple Valley Hwy on the south, where streets were historically designated "southeast." IH. The following abbreviations shall be used as prefixes or suffixes: Northwest NW North N Northeast NE Southeast SE South S Southwest SW (Ord. 4553, 10-2-95) ine 9-11-5 ROADWAY NAMES: A. - -- - - - - - - - _•_ -- • ---- e_ •_: • • •- e •- - - The following convention shall any-be utilized to designate City roadways. It is not intended to name every roadway existing within the current City, the intention of this Section is to clearly establish the grid. B. North-south roadways, beginning at Vancouver Rainier Avenue shall be named consecutively: Easterly Westerly Lake Hardie Davis Taylor Shattuck Maple Whitworth Lind Morris Stevens err.' Smithers Seneca Burnett Earlington Williams Raymond Wells Thomas Main Pacific Mill Powell Cedar Oakesdale Renton Naches Grant High Jones Kennewick Lincoln Monterey Aberdeen ",Id Blaine Camas Dayton Edmonds Ferndale Glenwood Harrington Index Jefferson Kirkland Lynnwood Monroe Newport Olympia Pierce Queen Redmond Shelton Tacoma Union Vashon Whitman Anacortes Bremerton Chelan Duvall Elma Field Graham Hoquiam I Iwaco Jericho Kitsap Lyons Mt. Baker Nile Orcas Pasco Quincy Rosario r Shadow Toledo Nagle Underwood Vantage Wapato Yakima Zillah Lako Hardin Davis Taylor Shattuck Maplo Whitworth Lind Morris Stevens Smithers Seneca Burnett Earlington —Williams-Ref:aGlad Nagle Wells Thoma& Main Pacific Mill Powell. Cedar Oakocdalo Renton Nacho& Grant Medina High Longview Jones Kelso Lincoln Indio Monterey Hamilton Aberdeen Garfield Blaine Fairview Camas Edgewood lore Dayton Edmonds —Fecndale Glennwood Harrington Index —de#erssn Kirkland — nwood Monroo Newport Olympia Piofso Queen 110009 Redmond Shelton Tacoma Union Vachon Whitman Anacorten --,nectar Chelan Duvall Elma Field Graham Hoquia err✓ m I Iwaco Jericho Kitsap Lyono Mt. Baker N+le Orcao C. G.—East-west roadways shall be named northerly and southerly from the main east-west division line as identified in Area Divisions, Section 9-11-4. Northerly from said division line, each grid shall increase from North 1st Street through North 11th Place alternately 1st Street, 1st Place, . . . 11th Street, 11th Place, thereafter the grid shall numerically increase incrementally to the City limits as North 12th Street, North 13th Street, etc. Southerly from said division line, each grid shall increase from South 1st Street through South 5th Place alternately as north of said division, thereafter the grid shall numerically increase incrementally to the City limits. (Ord.4553, 10-2-95) D. Newly constructed streets shall be considered extensions of the existing street to which they connect. If the new street connects a street named under convention outlined above to one established prior to annexation, the new segment of street should be given the Renton name until it connects to an existing street at an existing intersection. For example, a newly constructed segment of Powell Avenue Southwest that connects to 82nd Avenue South shall be named Powell Avenue Southwest. 9-11-6 ANNEXATIONS: B. A.G. In the event of annexation --- - __ _ _ •- _ _ -' _ , the existing name of the street shall remain, with the following exceptions: a. In the East Renton Plateau, an area east of Interstate 405, bounded by May Creek and Southeast May Valley Road on the north and Maple Valley Hwy on the south, avenues shall be renamed according to the street names outlined above. Once all of the street names specifically designated in 9-11-5B have been assigned, the existing street names shall be retained; b. Annexed segments of 68th Avenue South, south of Martin Luther King Way, shall be renamed Monster Road Southwest; c. Annexed segments of Southeast 128th Street shall be renamed Northeast 4th Street; d. Annexed segments of South 179th Street shall be renamed Southeast Petrovitsky Road: and e. Annexed segments of Southeast Renton-Maple Valley Highway shall be renamed Maple Valley Highway. BC.. In the event of a street name change, gstaff assigned by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administratortaff shall immediately notify all property owners, utilities, the U.S. Postmaster, police, fire, and emergency services of the changes. Property owners shall be notified of additional requirements to change structure address numbers to conform with this Code. (Ord.4553, 10-2-95) 9-11-7 CHANGE OF ADDRESS: The owners of an interest in any real estate abutting upon any roadway within the City may petition the City for a change of address. The petition shall include payment of thirty one hundred dollars ($1030.00) to defray the administrative costs of processing. (Ord. 4553, 10-2-95) 9-11-8 RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT In the event of a conflict or an inability to make practical application of any portion of this Section, the issue shall be resolved by a determination by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. 9-11-8-9 EXCEPTIONS: Any deviation from this Code must be approved by resolution of the City Council. (Ord.4553, 10-2-95) Z BELLEVUE 1=1 ,. r----.-- -,-..—.• , (= ID ) 1- _ , - MERCER ' ISLAND j' ' ,-'4 I 1 .. NEWCASTLE 1 L WI BOREN NNW .. '' ,- - cr•O' - , LAKE 11 ASHNGTON LA '.-. ,..., N SEATTLE • i . '.,. I , ( , C3 ._ k , , , .. .. , . NE - A'.,, 't • 2 N ,Th . . ,,,,...., .. :',4,- „-------„, , 0 4.... ......... \ , \ , , , - R• ,,,,a, . _\\___ ___;,__------„:„2:4—, ...„........c.„, ....a., ] ^ 3.) , G'S -,5 II -.- '' i Ti-KWIL >.. DESIRE I KENT . • LAKE ' PANTHER LAKE r.\ j , 1 LAKE YOUNGS f „ ......._ .... / .,.. 7 ---, ,, ,...." - _n- StreetGI'dN 1ng System --- •, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning + .4. Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario ' •AT e 10 April 2006 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: (04# Lei Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 4/17/2006 Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner Staff Contact Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Reedshaw Preliminary Plat Ordinance File No. LUA-05-091, ECF, PP Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation Study Sessions Legal Description and Vicinity Map Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The hearing was first held on January 3, 2006. The Hearing Examiner held the meeting open for proof that legal notice was mailed in a timely manner. The hearing was reopened on February 28, 2006. The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Reedshaw Preliminary Plat was published on March 21, 2006. The appeal period ended on April 4, 2006. The Examiner recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Conditions placed on this project are to be met at later stages of the platting process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Reedshaw Preliminary Plat with conditions as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh March 21,2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: Lou Larsen Pacific Engineering 4180 Lind Avenue SW Renton,WA 98055 OWNER: Breck Scott PO Box 2752 Renton,WA 98056 Reedshaw Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 05-091,ECF, PP LOCATION: 3705 NE Sunset Boulevard SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval for a 13-lot subdivision of a 2.25-acre site intended for the development of single-family detached units. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions liti"' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on December 29,2005. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report,examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February 28, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 28,2006,at approximately 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No. 4: Boundary&Topographic Survey Exhibit No.5: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit No. 6: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Reedshaw Preliminary Plat File No.:LUA-05-091, ECF,PP March 21,2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.7: Street Tree Planting Concept Exhibit No.8:Zoning Map `""d Exhibit No.9: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 10: Illustrative Plat Map Exhibit No. 11: Meeting Summary from prior public Exhibit No. 12: Revised Staff Report hearing Exhibit No. 13:, David Flores—City of Seattle letter As a preliminary matter, the Examiner noted that a public meeting on this application was held on January 3, 2006. Due to improper legal notice,the application had to be reheard. At the public meeting,a number of people testified under oath and that prior record has been included as part of this second review of the application. In the prior public meeting,the issue of adverse possession was raised,the court system seems to believe that those parties do have an interest in the property and do need to be a part of any final signing of the plat. In this case the amount of property at stake would not affect any property line or lot density or area requirements. It still needs to be resolved before this plat is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The hearing opened with a summary of the prior public hearing by Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055. Publication for this hearing today occurred on February 13,2006,posting occurred 2 weeks prior to this meeting and a letter was sent to all parties of record informing them of today's public hearing. This is a 2.25 acre site located just south of NE Sunset Boulevard and east of Queen Place, if it were to be extended,and is to the west of Redmond Avenue NE. This site is bordered by the Woodbrier development to the east and Highpoint Division 2 to the south. A lot line adjustment,LUA-04-005, dated February 4,2004 was part of this parcel. There was some concern that the sliver of land had been counted twice for two different plats. It is not being double counted,it is part of this plat and was deducted from the net density calculation of 9.42 dwelling units per acre. The proposal is to create a 13-lot subdivision and 4 tracts. There has been a shift in how staff reviews short plats and preliminary plats. The State law and the City of Renton's regulations,a lot includes tracts and/or parcels. Therefore,this is going to be a 17-lot plat but only 13 lots will be subject to the density calculations. Restrictive covenants will be asked for in the future to prevent building on any tracts that are large enough. The Examiner inquired if Tract D would not be better as part of Lot 1. Ms. Henning stated that the open tracts are B,C,and D,the homeowners generally maintain those common areas. If Tract D were to become a part of Lot 1, then it should not be part of the common area. The power line does run across this tract and building is not permitted close to that line. There are two major utility corridors located within the site,one is Diablo Seattle Electric Transmission Line located in a 50-foot wide corridor in the road area running south to northwest. Parallel to that abutting to the east is the Olympic Gas Pipeline easement. There were several issues left open from the last meeting on this plat. The tree clearing issue is being worked through with the applicant on a separate code compliance issue, there is not a solution as yet,but they are working on it still. Reedshaw Preliminary Plat File No.:LUA-05-091, ECF, PP March 21,2006 Page 3 The other changes made to the report had to do with the conditions on recommending approval of the plat, all of the building lots within this plat should be developed with detached single-family homes. Regarding orientation of yards for each lot, Exhibit 10 was labeled with an"F"for front yards and"R"for all rear yards. It was asked that the meeting minutes from the January 3,2006 meeting be the conclusion of the staff report. The Examiner commented that Mr.Turnbull was still concerned about the prior tree cutting,which was done without the appropriate permits. Staff will be allowed to deal with that issue outside of this part of the public hearing. Ms. Henning stated that Mr. Turnbull has been corresponding with the code compliance group,stating that he believes this application should not proceed based on the City Code that says if a site is under enforcement no other permits or applications can go forward. An order to correct has not been sent in this matter,it has been handled in a very informal way. The applicant has been told to get the application in, if the permits are issued then the site will not have to be restored,it would be a gross waste of time and inefficient action to cut down trees,replant the trees and then cut them down a second time. Another change in the subdivision plat requirements is that an applicant will have to try and retain 25%of the trees eight inches in diameter and greater. They most likely will be asking that the number of trees equal to 25% of the original trees that are 8 inches in diameter be retained or replanted on this particular site. The Examiner inquired about the encroachment issue,there is a fence line that is inside the property line, it is to the east of the official property line for this site. Ms. Henning highlighted the fence line and the property line. The encroachment appears to affect Lots 8, 7 and possibly 6. The matter does need to be resolved prior to recording of the plat. It is possible that the property owners will have to be signators on the plat or that they will have to create a mutual agreement to swap the property line, or a lot line adjustment or a quit claim. It is not clear as to how the property owners will handle this. Lou Larsen,Pacific Engineering, 15445 53"I Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98188 stated that he had extra copies of the letter from Gary Olson, and the Olympic Gas Pipeline,there were also some copies of letters from Seattle City Light. He clarified the fence markings on the exhibits. Where it states 2.24E, it means that the fence is 2.24 feet on the east side of the property line. It appears most of the encroachments are on the westerly property line. Mr. Scott has been in contact with the property owners and is trying to work out these encroachment issues. Kayren Kittrick,Development Services stated that Lots 4 and 7 front yards need more access to the new public road. It appears that there is a lot of incentive for all the property owners to get together and figure out exactly where the property lines are. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak,and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 9:46 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: Reedshaw Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-091,ECF,PP March 21,2006 Page 4 FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,Lou Larsen,Pacific Engineering,filed a request for a Preliminary Plat approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 3705 NE Sunset Boulevard. The subject site is located on the south side of Sunset just west of Redmond Avenue NE. 6. The subject site is approximately 2.25 acres or 98,082.67 square feet. The subject site is approximately 480 feet deep(north to south)and varies from approximately 180 feet wide to approximately 223 feet wide. The subject site is a trapezoidal parcel that widens at its south end. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of medium density multiple family or land efficient residential uses,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned R-10(Single Family- 10 dwelling units/acre). 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 3879 enacted in January 1985. 10. The site slopes downward to the north,towards Sunset Boulevard. The grades are 15%or less. 11. Approximately 45 trees and other vegetation would be removed to accommodate development. Trees along the western property line and within the open space tracts would be preserved. 12. There are two major utility corridors that run north-south along the eastern edge of the property. These easements are a 200-foot wide Seattle City Light Transmission line and a 50 foot Olympic Pipeline. Part of the access road would be located in the easement. Staff recommended that the applicant provide written permission to develop the roadway. 13. A portion of the subject site,approximately 11,435.4 square feet, was used to calculate the density allotment of an adjacent plat(Woodbrier)and staff required that the acreage of the current property be reduced by the amount used in that calculation. This area is would have been included as part of Tract B(see below). 14. The R-10 District permits detached single-family homes as well as attached multiple family units. The applicant proposes dividing the parcel into 13 single-family lots and 4 tracts. The thirteen lots would be arranged around and along a cul-de-sac road and three easement roadways. The main access will be via a cul-de-sac that enters from the southeast corner of the parcel from Redmond Place NE. The cul-de-sac will swing generally north with Proposed Lots 1,4, 7, 8, 12 and 13 located along its western edge. Three easements would branch off the main road providing access to interior lots. Two easements will run east to west. The first where the cul-de-sac turns north will provide access to Proposed Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6. The second easement branches from the western edge of the cul-de-sac bulb and provides access Reedshaw Preliminary Plat File No.:LUA-05-091,ECF, PP March 21, 2006 Page 5 to Proposed Lots 9, 10 and 11. The third easement branches off the north edge of the cul-de-sac bulb providing access to Proposed Lot 13 and Tract A,the stormwater detention tract. 15. Proposed Tracts B and C are located along the eastern side of the main road and encompass the areas of the power and gas line corridors. Proposed Tract D is located immediately east of Proposed Lot 1. All of these tracts would be open space. 16. Lots in the R-10 Zone are required to be a minimum of 3,000 square feet,30 feet wide or 40 feet wide for corner lots, and 55 feet deep. Lots proposed range from 3,600 to 6,080 square feet in area and from 30 to 76 feet wide and from 70 to 116 feet deep. 17. Two issues raised at the initial hearing had to do with the location of a fence along the western property line and improper tree cutting. The survey shows that a fence dividing the subject site or portions of the subject site from property to the west is located on what appear to be the subject site. The western neighbors claimed adverse possession where the fence deviates from the survey line. No court or quiet title actions have occurred. It does appear from state law and court decisions that all property owners must join in the platting process including those who claim title by adverse possession. In the past,trees were improperly cleared from the subject site. A neighbor claims that no further land use actions can be reviewed until corrective actions have occurred. It appears that the City is attempting to merge the improper tree cutting into the plat development process. This office has no separate jurisdiction barring an administrative appeal of the tree cutting activity or enforcement. It is possible that this office does not have jurisdiction over the plat if the tree cutting bars review but cannot independently determine that issue. There was also a large Maple tree that neighbors wanted preserved. 18. The density for the plat would be 9.42 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roads,easements and correcting the acreage of this parcel. 19. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 6 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 20. The development will generate approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 130 trips. Approximately ten percent of the trips,or approximately 13 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 21. Stormwater will be handled in Tract A. The plat will have to provide both water quality and containment under the Level 2, 1998 King County standards. That tract is located immediately abutting Sunset Boulevard and staff has recommended that sight obscuring landscaping be installed along the roadway frontage. 22. Sewer and water service will be provided by the City. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. There are some issues that should be resolved including the issue of the adverse possession claims and the issue of improper tree removal. Neither of those issues can be resolved by this office but they must be appropriately remedied to provide the necessary finality and in the case of the adverse possession, the appropriate ownerships to sign any plat documents. Reedshaw Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-091,ECF,PP March 21,2006 Page 6 2. The thirteen lots appear to provide reasonable lots, access and access to infrastructure. The development of single-family detached homes on the R-10 property provides additional housing choices for those seeking single-family living on smaller and potentially more affordable parcels. 3. The development of the plat will also increase the tax base of the City and with the payment of mitigation fees,offset the impacts of the development on the City's existing infrastructure. 4. The way the property is being divided and with the density of 9.42 falling just under the maximum permitted density of 10 units per acre,the properties should be limited to detached single-family dwellings on each parcel. 5. The applicant will also have to provide the necessary assurances that it can build roads or provide appropriate landscaping or other improvements within the easement corridors. 6. In conclusion,the City Council should approve the proposed plat subject to the conditions noted below. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the thirteen-lot plat subject to the following conditions: 1 The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The applicant shall resolve the adverse possession question or include the additional ownership entities on any plat documents requiring the approval or signatures of property owners affected by the platting decision. 3. The applicant shall replace the Western Red Cedar on the landscape plan with a shorter mature height variety on the final landscape plan to be submitted prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manger prior to final plat. 4. The applicant shall provide a sight obscuring landscape plan along the north side of Tract A. This is required in order to provide a visual buffer between the detention facility and Sunset Boulevard. This is recommended as a condition of preliminary plat approval and for the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. The applicant shall provide written response from Diablo-Seattle and Olympic regarding project impact on their easements prior to the issuance of construction plans. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 6. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared private improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall establish a maintenance agreement for the shared private access easements. „we Additionally, the applicant shall install a"Private Road" sign indicating addresses served from Reedshaw Preliminary Plat File No.:LUA-05-091,ECF,PP March 21,2006 Page 7 the private street at the intersection of the private street and the proposed 42-foot internal public street. 8. The applicant shall be required to have all utility maintenance agreements and easements in place prior to or in conjunction with final plat approval. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 9. All building lots shall be developed with detached single-family homes. No residential dwellings are to be constructed on tracts or parcels. This condition shall be recorded on the face of the plat. ORDERED THIS 215t day of March 2006. -41-44 FRED J.KAMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 21"day of March 2006 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Kayren Kittrick Lou Larsen 1055 S Grady Way Development Services Division Pacific Engineering Renton, WA 98055 City of Renton 4180 Lind Avenue SW Renton,WA 98055 Kristina L.Akers Peter Turnbull Breck Scott 1324 Queen Avenue NE 1316 Queen Avenue NE PO Box 2752 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Marcel Desranleau Meeghan Engberg Lib Lee 3807 NE 14th Street 3718 NE 131 Place 9400 37th Avenue NW Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98126 Daniel Schlegelmilch 3143 NE 20th Place Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 215t day of March 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler,Fire Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling,Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Larry Warren, City Attorney Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman,PBPW Administrator Utilities Division Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Neil Watts,Development Services **.r Jennifer Henning,Development Services Janet Conklin,Development Services Stacy Tucker,Development Services King County Journal Reedshaw Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-091,ECF,PP March 21,2006 Page 8 Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8,Section 100(G)of the City's Code,request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,April 4,2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,April 4,2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ('-'1 SE 95th P1. C Iffroe n r� CV 1 n t " li .<4 `' ( 'E98tj,j -1 SE 99t t. ,lath, Pl.` . 8 ., ' V A SE 100th t. 3 . 1.3' , < vo, ru ,.! i ! I, i--- RC -.7.7:, ; :� -.co, SE 101st St. R=cam 0 to ,, NE 02nd. , N r -7'71i St. r . l1CILF � �'ta R- � — Ts �. in co i t_..... , 1. ,. t.4 _/?..411)i. . .i- 4-1-)V ___i 1___,, Lii z (4 .: et- \, 's , - . ' 1 is-07_ •,i -_----:-1W' r , , ; .44 • ' li 'R-1 \& ) ; 9L — : .:`7 t-8 i----"! ____t 2vt � ,., • ..,., ta I i _ A I NEH"Ih k.'.I i - • 41V" . 1�1L' r i ! ;j,�-,`}-' i i i+ f Lam- - fv j A- ;` j i) 7 i : issisiso 1 ifr = ; ' 1 inLI --;----T-P---;% 0 " t--10 .. ..4 .4iip _ ' o ` _ ! lir , .4 ` -r,J A -1,:-7: 1 (:).' 411 :- 1. . 11 1 ! i'• - } cam; l . { - -R x-11-6 =- 4h i8 �' : _.era R M --F--. z --NE i th -4,__..--c7-1 . - --a"" 0 • . _ . Iiiiiie E5 9 TZ3N R5E E 1/2 1, ,ar,,,t=gs. D5 ZONING ---- "`v"m"' 1 41500 5304 aP IM4 TZ3N R5E E 1/2 rico, Exhibit 8 €: PORTION OPINE S.E. 1/4, S.E. 1/4, SECTION 4 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. �a+nt �\ • e{ 3. ItAt 4 *In till:�• 1 Crt !"� Ade `tttp,,jjV Is II oI ' a ® 9 :• 'i_, q 1‘ sgtt t:i < \ It‘ \ NZ t711. ligilit _�t ill `r•. J 1 1 \ iiiiiihiliti— �.� _, aa • t, a.14/41 tM "Al 2.1!t '4HM MAL!,f.200' W 1 , , 116 II�l nn rtn HrJra n4e7lw fi Z to �' :r� .� ^- 4 Pi ,14 ii it6 +3 ®it• 1 . i . pv • .TAI. 'e 1 i ti 1 ® it 'Ilt:7 t?i• cfb I n aro ��]R A( I A • ••. I/((jf, r` SAW Or me411NO --------=------N �� 4 �_ 11 �' ` •�`\` r /t/ 1MfOR'NINOIiMrONO�/:M .-ft FA N�r -..Y.SUNSET---- Wit,."df,. PG"�`sIf �S/ /�� } © 1111111Pit)* ` • % ' VIMICAL DAM KNpl MM*on r MOW(••.000 u61�sr'f ;/ t , 1,0,40, It ! �`\R�� V � 1 ` F— ® L \. M fO1RO1 OMR/) A NI/t•Mr/nA1M 11O NM A A1M0'r YAAk.',A Y R A'eMRLR ,��{ejt.^ %I.., , rpt{�pA�r ONN 0.f'N IONOflN M A OR(OOMIROOIfO = !Y`'S�f,� Vy` y:i!',: `s/C 1Cr I1.1/xrm' 1 .w0 Al At. At ii,. . let r� a e.� {' . . 'T-' '.{'wAi y` v =:',...;"'"r t 1' tI,4 ..i r 1141: ,.i r,i��e1° ����► �y i_�!l;"f� \�p�I `� IL�ILOE TION .xnem. .„..,...„...r.....,, ,�j� �„ ff r s. d7. ��• �• / u, ,r�+F.. 1,1 \ TMA,«tneA 10Mww1"s" 'ar " N" w" .wpAs�`N �44 s 3 � N.E 414TH �► T , sop '"" t '"°' ";n ft , w. ,mN %; gr� M^�*f �, x.1.0., _ ¢ III R 1. =p�pp1;not/p1 fes. ng R r.Awls fr Kis k �� MOdaM W001 MCOMM.�ihw�t 11f�Tb1NNa NlortCt M,OWE � i cy (Z Stt - ,+` F ...tr ` r i � . , ~PIT ROOMS IM K WRY wM.RaM•A OM.11 M: .'K .i+.3 A17.7.Im 0 • .�.. 1 1t f ` f '�,. f tM NAM.AW Nl1M/MI MOR OM alaao. w. -Jr t ►IWR N Mf WWII'0.4.1.M1R Ow...mew RESERVOIRIMI fit il,kt of wiii ,.9 Ort. 2. cmaliat- if1JifWia M s 411 tl7� I." I: r �7, rt �� .•Q Nsar.ol►r000 R ENN& 'pi.. p®1 it /� ' .111 •. ; 111 ( txnf.YRAr irig vta 1,.. Ali s. ''' A .1111 1W et •Kric • =................. _+ .. E S,r .— .I2TN-- ."s�"'_.. '�` —'3 PO4 e I \waver . OM O / m ■ x 5 N (c. . (L. ( . ( I \ PORTION OF THE S,E. 1/4, S.E. 1/4, SECTION ; 4. TOWNSHIP 23 NOR?'H, RANGE;5 EAST--r— comm., WASIONamw 1 , hl M 46' r"1 1rm._ _ N e70Y•Q'C 1ee.�3' ,• ' . }+ '- - _..� ' ..4.;•s 1 ----—'--—'.. ° • 1 pri_074,... 1E71� � 1 I. :71 --,:.p . ii amtliiii JO a • % G F • 1. 1 _./.40111 . ::::::-fiNclikt-'",iiiii:1----- roAI Et ~ ♦ Ir - Allkt., r 1 .4 ____ i 11110;e—. -. ' -...1WCIF • ,r tilt•••• . le:- -.., -Virlibillrlit 111117:N. - AC"VI.' ,, •* task , ON.NtOPP ‘ 6*, >.I=. ', 'IgP 0 011ikk�'�vier' fit". e w . I __-- . 1 I ."J'-�• /1 I ' C, ''.4 -.".. .__.,.t..-.•. _...1:.. .,Sul... Alb, north e ILL I • rwMalti: w 0.13L.... Mf I.o.W. .elNl Ufa QMAe +..N••wam.* .111.,...—. r I"''�SIN MON ONO M•r. tem ' f11 ..a/aa.a eayVa Mwf NMM./ID11f1 IM1011 .A.•.wi..,MOIR V. wr."N.x"•NL MMIW l Y.._f/ppyA ...........•',tops'mousy*" X et .PIO ON AN•'Ml.at W O 4..11 OM~.�.MMIw w h'IN.*Om fioNN kr of Onopnoroea,�of 11M"W14'14'(I"1 L.01 w.....O.*.IO..1..H ....wI'.Y rw�y I.M.i a Awa ""bM-w.ly •-' l • g PORTION OF THE S.E. 1/4, S E 1/4, SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. sen,. ,, 1 f i REEDSHA W PRELIMINARY PLAT RENTON, WA. � �� k'? < c. . 44 3 (PROt1ECf No.0403 (PARCEL.N0,0449050064) g ew r. �901(J1: ",... a„,020,JAM ,,,,r r • /AK la / MOM 0.41024,40 LLC lIJR�f1aR: NM KriC QTY MAP 1 �� ■t� ¢ yCt LLLL.• C 144(4024• 1" FAa rihti 011 �Vtort .Ma .a 400—,-----i5� W ir. - i 3 ffi }}b ,,,,,201%23212,./"'' �._ _H__ " `'1 ._ p .:; ,,e•A'` 0 t, 510t iii12 ii 1 �---.�.� "b su ' i. li ROAD A'______N I Z:lA u... ...'Js r s 10.10 Y'. kM1 LVU 1 •.:.r..'"\ 'CYO I'•IC }TI�(»4+W►a4t,�>,. 2,,11 U Zl e - -. ri'E.'' GTcr. 0 a .k,,,-r;A �� �.. t",r SHEET'Wet , :131L: 14 �""i""*a r.+Ca.., ` ' •- •a rnKr14,104 AMt•MMINIT Out wM i ma..: 11i1L+. 10,4' 14 v n I - __.� - '�' r 'i r•J.AOaR•7•r7wn,o2.pROAIe I. Q: t'lr .n.v;'4,- (j N S� 1 s pF - • roJ�iionamorr Ma arowo tARo aaawo IONNO 817E AREA c4 14 v)4 1": :►`^\ `-•-ti.1 w'R !AtM.""R R-,• :,..P1tl 1,�` q t4 6 114 ..`.� { .,\ , _ �\ ,,,, Waft cannon BASE Of 6GtRiv0 \, , i3 4.1 SAM OP OMMAIII IS rut Co mOMONIt Z 'CSS 1 1 R� 7_._.�}\, A»rw orJ A.tA ,°•— crtM11.-Ra i i ♦♦ \ILEOEND JIOr WPM" ,' -':L1.,.� 1 '..1I- t\‘‘1i 1 n n �� AIIi `WOH LOT MG DATUM ^i`. 1 t 1 .•a wfOO AaeiM WW2 f 201710.MMR air a ROM*MMf••) f 4`� •f - 't ' • `IP,..4..t+ 4%,-:., tat Ifft 000f 1.1•110 .�. Al ',. r1 + Ar•I/!'Mf 4411012010 MM A MO101WMr W A4.R 4.COCICR a 'A 5 1 •Ort koMMNf OMI ar M A M•RUIb1t 4K At n[CMVP rCrrO 4 �a � 04 'V -:,,,-1, 't 011 2 NI/1M 4410}MO rwRJR AKM:C RC. h f 1':'!, �� ,,. ;, I ' RMC'ed lu. «1002 n ) 4 ,....\ i-!.:'.—,-,---,--- .., a... _ MraLL AKA a W AKA.«t NOM, S «,k . r' Mad.), I .to1a OM ocesiov or AciMMl OM weft 10 fit I,Ou1s WPM 1:00.1 NA , Y 1� `�+�„ 1.1.,ik,1 .1 • - ror a sm.» OM 1.,,osa'PROM Mau MO n wfMTO MiOVM jA�, f A.--i r Y� ;,��;(' , t 1 ,O rt } _ Of J ..s.' 1204.00 OM ,tt a 111 e1f4MM AO�wAAat f1 OM2010000.1 MOM,inrst 040 f IMIE0 11 g 11 y --'"•C'r � tie '''.:II Of J i•taa, o.fo ((•10...-102101501 2 ,moi 1 ' 1 r ;�,rr ; _.__ `��r' e` w1 t tlul as LEML ;'y. , l___ , t t I' .or> 0114.117 0.011 11010.t WI/ MAa refuon a n,�4 Ka•»2102 a Mr14(rownsra aARRR w nt '�' .,..yam. tOVRrptf NMR(p 110 t 105.1!J RWM MR'a t rAa.n �{ '"'�••�. M k,•' f t Lot•+_"260.1 1000 6(0 CO.."..412202220 tare r(rr ar 221r a t2PP.4 02 10;0, 11 ^ r _ (604/61 M4KO_ffAT111 mmif•Mfbl SIMMU4 AgII or•4( !N3 Illr.Y + • \,� 11 IYN �. for i`...._ 1000.11 _^0.W' darn R KY 414 rOwM•»2102 ARt AtfO datnM MAI —11r-6 (1"Z,-. �.. ` '' Iw}41, 1\ L01 10 10}1041 1000' 26.142\rrp ROR)w a M IAIM Orr Or MMJRY WAR 104110 Ra J rtT� �y}(�6 ��•,tii41.,0*VW ", lir ��'\af„ _ .4.20 11— 140/1•MiKVA MUM AW a ti �Ci 1 [AOVC MAr lWoa CMKKD fp n[arAR a'mlomoOM•I OW • ti � yt l �•.'"`..• a,,x � .eeau 'o,. MIOreCO NrON A[WIknO Iw+rrG 4112201•!1 111118 _ 10110IJ ,M »rm p 1ACr ,eroMKA 1•WO•. "6.4C're.,NW file, ' '� k .0,\,.- FClio,1 ,, ` '.--`_w:•• _ rIVAt;A �trtr.f. t'• MroRoif,Mfor kpM ,w�A a•a PO II AAbrr. a1A+w n� MC 11111� Miern J - 1 ��wS•:+�•y�R -1MC1 r 161.t ae PROVO,MOttlf 024K Swt,MM..106/1 OA `.� • �} IMC,0141105 403 fAx 0224011W R 04110»0. Mut MK: o•-14-os I4421 521: • • r • 77/717:7- . SEE 4e00111.0710N ._-� .... 4 24 MS AKA•NOt7.•V VA M) \ .. ; -. q \ ' amt w i•m nn,.•1010.10 am • .t, t Meflc Mr ro K MOM.rttrr.s,if an�) 3 ... _. .._. 1 �,a., ww 1/�wK AOK!(�A0/� K O�CAIIb.IiOlp!(t!wCOVINFI MAW '. 5677� .p..: a'ALI air.to aYIOSrdl274,14(02(1,aattr (JnU ..•flee p Ifili C•a.A110(O ARe Mr Oa,Moat.M0,Mr ArNCArO/Y 000441 ...�." a . yL_!lu, _ 4_."'10.-�- ;�.... •�.r.,.R. 4.0.4300.1 AKAMfUa•/<(0.t M) IhAT IMP a -- f - �_ ► ,4 a� ! DEWY cA►au,rora A { I A IJ JOM I ._- �• i\ 1.1 , 67+ 1 I °ban•(TOM Mt•00-RM(N-4o45s cam fN•x M(N,•f.w •••1••.,40.1 r._ .. _ _.._.._♦ f bMl1M' M M 061111• PIM : . , :n .: • ad,n 2»00!.0.1)11,.00•OVA•,4245):•2000 P01 CA*1M WWI „I Is et 1t, '� U"'",•41-?— ecu.TDO' Dam•..l A.. / frau f a' e l 21 1 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-091, PP,ECF APPLICANT: Breck Scott PROJECT NAME: Reedshaw Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Mr. Scott, is requesting SEPA-environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 13-lot subdivision of a 2.25-acre site located within the Residential —10 (R-10) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. The lot sizes would range from 3,600 to 6,080 net square feet. The site contains part of a 200-foot wide electric transmission easement and a 50-foot Olympic Gas Pipeline easement along the eastern property line. A stormwater detention tract is proposed in the northwest corner of the site fronting NE Sunset Boulevard. Access to the site is proposed via a public street extending off of Redmond Place NE and three private access easements. The site does not contain any critical areas. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3705 NE Sunset Boulevard LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section MITIGATION MEASURES: ' The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP)designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the Is"' 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report dated June 24, 2005 and prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. 3. This project shall be subject to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Level 2. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$488.00 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall have a note placed on the face of the plat advising potential purchasers of lots and/or homes that a higher than normal risk may be incurred due to the proximity of an underground gas transmission pipeline and overhead electrical transmission lines. The language of the note shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the recording of the plat. *we ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit 9 MEETING SUMMARY REEDSHAW PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA-05-091,PP,ECF The following document is a summary of the January 3, 2006 meeting. The entire proceeding is available on CD. The meeting occurred on Tuesday,January 3,2006,at approximately 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were offered: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Boundary&Topographic Survey Exhibit No.5: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit No.6: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No.7: Street Tree Planting Concept Exhibit No.8: Zoning Map Exhibit No.9: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 10: Illustrative Plat Map w The meeting opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner,Development Services,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055. The Examiner noted that the site is indicated as being 2.25 acres,but in the density calculations there is a reference that some of this property was used/borrowed in calculating the density of the plat. The real acreage of this site needs to be determined. Ms.Henning stated that portions of Tract B and C are included in this plat for the overall size. They were also included in the Woodbrier Plat, located to the east and abutting this property. The property in question has been shifted to this property,however the density has been calculated and is not used in this plat today. The subject site is within the R-10 zone. Woodbrier is to the east(R-10 zone), Highpoint Division 2 is to the south(R-8 zone). There are other R-8 zoning designations to the west and south. The Reedshaw site is located to the south of NE Sunset Boulevard(State Route 900), to the east of Monroe Avenue NE and to the west of Union Avenue NE. Redmond Place NE also accesses Woodbrier and Highpoint Division 2 and would have an entry into this plat. The applicant is requesting approval to build 13 new lots on a 2.25-acre site. There are 3 single-family homes on the existing site with several accessory buildings that will all be removed as part of the proposal. The existing driveway off of Sunset that provides access to the existing homes would be closed unless it is determined to be necessary as a secondary emergency access only. Access to the new 13 lots would be via a new public street(Road A)that would extend off of NE 14th Street on .*1'"' the west side of Redmond Place NE, that will end in a cul-de-sac with 3 easement access easements off the public street. Four tracts are proposed,three would be open space tracts, (B, C and D). Tract B is located to the north of the cul-de-sac,Tract C is to the west of the public street,and Tract D is in the southern portion. The site is constrained by some easements that are classified as large utilities,those include the Olympic Gas Pipeline,which is located within Tracts B and C and the Diablo Seattle High Transmission Line. The site has a north-facing slope at grades of 15%or less. The proposed grading would include about 2800 cubic yards of cut and 2200 cubic yards of fill. The applicant does propose to clear the site and road area for grading and site preparation. Forty-five trees were illegally removed and cleared from the site a little more than one year ago. The City does require that 2 new trees per each new lot be replanted. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated(DNS-M)with 7 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The Examiner questioned if the property boundary line adjustment had been properly recorded so a new road could be installed on this site. Ms. Henning stated that there is nothing in the file stating that the proper permission has been received from the utility users. The property owner does own the land,the utilities have the right to use that with certain limitations on what can happen within the easement. There are certain elements that must be agreed upon and rules that must be followed. The plat does comply with the comprehensive plan designation for residential medium density. The proposal also complies with objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan pertinent to this site. The net density is 9.42 dwelling units per acre which is within the allowed density range of this zone. All lots meet the requirements for lot size,setbacks and height of buildings. The subject site should be developed with detached single-family homes only. All requirements will be verified at the time of building permits. The City does require a 5-foot irrigated or drought resistant landscape strip along all public rights-of- way and also two trees within the front yard of each lot. The applicant has proposed the use of Western Red Cedar, Red Bud and Flowering Pear. Staff recommended that the Western Red Cedar be substituted with something else due to the height that that particular tree can reach. It could interfere with the electrical transmission lines. Each of the tracts will have to be landscaped. All lots are rectangular in shape and are oriented towards the public street or access easement. The applicant did request and received permission to reduce the required right-of-way width from 50-feet to 42-feet for the proposed extension of NE 14th Street and Road A. The radius of the cul-de-sac does meet the required 55-feet. Fire,Transportation and Park Mitigation Fees have been imposed for this plat. The site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 4 additional students. A drainage report shows compliance with the 1998 King County Storm Water Manual, Level 2. Water quality and detention will be required on Tract A. The drainage facility does comply and can accommodate the storm water that would be generated. Lou Larsen,Pacific Engineering,4180 Lind Avenue SW,Renton,WA 98055 stated that the conveyance of the small pieces of property that were approximately 38-feet wide was transferred through a boundary line agreement and a quit claim deed prior to this application coming in,but there had been no record of survey done on that property. This is the strip that was used as part of the density calculations by Woodbrier on the eastern property line. It was previously dedicated as open space as part of the Woodbrier plat and would remain so on this plat. °r.r Regarding Condition 3 in the staff report,he would like to tone down the language on the Olympic Pipeline Portion, the only place where they intrude onto that easement is a small piece of sidewalk and cul-de-sac in order to meet the requirements of the 55-foot radius. The homes are separated from the physical pipelines by approximately 100-feet. The wording could be restated that the applicant shall notify and coordinate with Olympic Pipeline for work in that small area. Tract D was left open because it is over the transmission corridor and nothing can be done in that area. The trees were removed in the fall of 2003,a number of trees blew down during a windstorm,one tree fell and demolished a house on the property, so in order to protect other houses on the property, the remaining trees were removed. This land clearing was done long before any work was ever started on the plat. Trees drawn on the plat today are trees that were left standing. There is a lot of landscape that will be added with the plat. Water will be looped through the site,there is water stub that comes in off of 14th and runs through Road A and will be connected to the water main in Sunset Boulevard. Storm and Sewer utilities will be connected to those utility lines in Sunset Boulevard as well. No utility lines will cross over the pipelines and no work will be done around the gas pipelines. The water stub already crosses it, it is on the west side of the pipelines. Chris Akers, 1324 Queen Avenue NE,Renton,WA 98056 stated that in September of 2005 she submitted a letter to the City to become a party of record because there was a lot line dispute between herself and Mr. Scott. (Ms.Akers resides on Lot 7 at the SW corner of the Reedshaw site) The current fence has been there since 1958. The area in question is about 12 inches in depth and the length of the property is approximately 173 feet long. There is a huge maple tree that straddles the property line and she would like to see the tree saved and not taken down. She further stated that she was home the day the trees were logged from the Reedshaw site,and it was August 2004. Immediately after that she spent approximately$200 having 20-plus fruit trees planted along the west side of her property to provide a cover. It does not seem that there could be 31 trees left on the site,and if there are,they are very thin trees. Peter Turnbull, 1316 Queen Avenue NE,Renton,WA 98056 stated that he property abuts the SW corner of the proposed site. (Mr.Turnbull resides on Lot 6,just south of Ms. Akers) His concern is to why the application is proceeding at all,the property was illegally logged in August 2004. The City did send out an inspector to confirm that it was illegally logged,and if that is the case,the tree-cutting ordinance in the Building Development Standards has penalties that require re-vegetation and a mandatory fine. He stated that he did not get notice of the hearing until Friday(December 30, 2005). The envelope with the notice was dated December 28, 2005. Jennifer Henning stated that this project had a notice posted and a mailing sent in September after the ERC made their determination. It mentioned that the project was being placed on hold following the rendering of the ERC determination and that the public hearing would be set at a later date to consider the preliminary plat and all parties would be notified. There was a mailing sent out last week with a preliminary staff report and the notice. Some people have called and were given the date of the hearing. Now The notice of the public hearing must be published at least 10 days before the date of public hearing in the local newspaper and mailed at least 10 days before the public hearing to all parties of record and the posting of three notices at least 10 days before the public hearing. The Examiner stated that he would hold the hearing open until it is determined if the notice was sent out properly and in a timely manner. Mr.Turnbull stated he believed there was a notice in the local paper stating that it had been rescheduled for January 3,most people don't read those and the public at large might want to make a comment and they wouldn't know that the hearing was on. The fence that runs along the property line has been there for more than 20 years. He had to replace a portion of the fence and used one of the posts that was part of the original fence,he presumes the fence line is the property line as it was defined by the original property owner. The Examiner stated that the tree survey seems to show that the fence,as it moves to the north,jogs in and follows the property line. This issue needs to be decided amongst the parties. Mr.Turnbull continued that at the intersection of Redmond Place and Sunset Boulevard,there is a very sharp bank on the northeast corner. This corner is very unsafe for traffic due to the low sight line. Kayren Kittrick,Development Services stated that Lots 12, 8,7,and 4 if they can,should take their access from the private access road rather than a curb cut directly onto the main road. Lot 8 may have to take access from Road A,but the others should have enough room to access via the private access road. The issue of sight distance on Sunset has been discussed and looked into. Some improvements have been made and more improvements are on the books to go in at the same time as this development. Sunset is a State Road and as such they do not believe, at this point,that a traffic signal at that location is necessary. Ms.Henning stated that in this zone there is a 10-foot side yard and front yard set back. The desired lot configuration should be as follows: Lot 13 the front yard will face the access easement, Lot 7 front will face Road A, Lots 11 and 12 fronts will face the access easement,Lots 8, 9,and 10 fronts will face the access easement,Lot 4 the front yard faces Road A,Lots 5&6,the front is on the south side. Lots 1,2,and 3 fronts will face north to the access easement. This can be specified on the plat if so desired. It appears that Lot 4 may not be able to maintain the setbacks needed if the front yard was oriented towards the private access easement. The Examiner stated that he would hold the hearing open until there is proof that the legal notice was mailed in a timely manner. If not, the parties in attendance today and the parties of record will be re-notified and this public hearing will be held again. The meeting ended at 10:35 am. NIICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPAN PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.: 1155844 Nrimi LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 470 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE RELOCATED DIABLO-SEATTLE TRANSMISSION CENTERLINE RIGHT OF WAY; EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 470 FEET AND ALSO EXCEPTING THAT PORTION LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 2 (RENTON-ISSAQUAH ROAD) ; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7107300165. TOGETHER WITH THE WESTERLY 38 FEET OF TRACT A, WOODBRIER, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 214 OF PLATS, PAGES 6 THROUGH 10, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 411000 41111111, PLATCRTh/RDA/oma APPROVED BY 1 CM/COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Date COMMITTEE REPORT April 17, 2006 Municipal Arts Commission: Appointment of Ms. Kristi Hand (April 10, 2006) The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Mayor Keolker's appointment of Ms. Kristi Hand to the Municipal Arts Commission for an unexpired term expiring December 31, 2006. Toni Nelson, Ch 71V(tf '1 Marcie Palmer, Vice Chair Dan Clawson, Member C: Peter Reimer Adopted V I7 Ao,, CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 38402. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING A HEARING DATE TO VACATE A PORTION OF UNIMPROVED ROAD (WALKWAY) BETWEEN NW 6TH STREET AND RAINIER AVENUE N. (MATT WEBER,AHBL,PETITIONER; VAC 06-001) WHEREAS, a Petition has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton on or about February 24, 2006, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.79, petitioning for the vacation of a portion of unimproved road, or walkway, as hereinafter more particularly described, and said petition having been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon said street sought to be vacated, and same being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. [The portion of unimproved road/platted walkway connecting NE 6th Street to Rainier Avenue.] NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L That the 8th day of May, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, Renton, King County, Washington, is hereby fixed as the time and:place for a public hearing to consider the aforesaid Petition for vacating the portion of unimproved road/platted walkway connecting NE 6th Street to Rainier Avenue, which said hearing date is not more than sixty nor less than twenty days from the date of passage of this Resolution. SECTION II. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of the time and date of this hearing as provided by RCW 35.79.020 and any and/or all persons interested therein or objecting to this vacation may then appear and be heard thereon, or they 1 RESOLUTION NO. may file their written objections thereto with the City Clerk at or prior to the time of hearing on the vacation. SECTION III. The City Council shall determine, as provided by RCW 35.79.030, as to whether an appraisal shall be secured to determine their fair market value of the property sought to be vacated as provided for in Ordinance No. 4266, and the amount of compensation to be paid by the Petitioner-Owners to the City for such vacation. The City likewise reserves the right to retain an easement for public utility and related purposes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1172:4/10/06:ma 2 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF PLATTED WALKWAY LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 5 AND BLOCK 6, IN WOODY GLEN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS, PAGES 91 AND 92, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. OW' SEC Limo6-1-06 K:\Survey\Yr_2003\203615\615LEGAL060220.doc MAP EXHIBIT BLOCK 5 93 LOT 7. BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDITION Z WOODY GLEN ADD111ON VOL 47. PAGE 91 & 92 Z VOL 47, PAGE 91 & 92 fA 71-1 10' WALKWAY PER PLAT OF WOODY GLEN ADDITION 'o. 7L TO BE VACATED O ---- / / -----/ / LOT 8, BLOCK 3 WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL. 47. PAGE 91 & 92 BLOCK 6 WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL 47, PAGE 91 & 92 GRAPHIC SCALE 100 so ss so ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. *taw CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF '1'HI CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRI'T'ORY OF THE CITY OF RENTON (HOQUTAM ANNEXATION; FILE NO.A-05-002) WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, as amended, a petition in writing requesting that certain territory contiguous to the City of Renton, as described below, be annexed to the City of Renton, was presented and filed with the City Clerk on or about February 28, 2005; and WHEREAS, prior to the filing and circulation of said petition for annexation to the City of Renton, the petitioning owners notified the City Council of their intention to commence such proceedings as provided by law, as more particularly specified in RCW 35A.14.120, and upon public hearing thereon, it having been determined and the petitioning owners having agreed to 141.0, assume their fair share of the pre-existing outstanding indebtedness of the City of Renton as it pertains to the territory petitioned to be annexed; and to accept that portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the territory including the applicable Zoning Code relating thereto; and WHEREAS, the King County Department of Assessments has examined and verified the signatures on the petition for annexation on or about August 1, 2005, and determined that the signatures represent at least sixty percent (60%) of the area to be annexed's assessed value (excluding streets), as provided by law; and Narie1 ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department of the City of Renton having considered and recommended the annexing of said property to the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the City Council fixed September 26, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Renton, Washington, as the time and place for public hearing upon the petition and notice thereof having been given as provided by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said notices public hearings have been held at the time and place specified in the notices, and the Council having considered all matters in connection with the petition and further determined that all legal requirements and procedures of the law applicable to the petition method for annexation have been met;and WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board having deemed the "Notice of Intention" approved as of February 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton is concurrently zoning the annexation site R-8, eight units per net acre; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L All requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by petition method, including the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140 and 150, have been met. The petition for annexation to the City of Renton of the property and territory described below is hereby approved and granted; the following described property, being contiguous to the City limits of the City of Renton, is hereby annexed to the City of Renton, and such annexation shall be effective on and after the approval, passage, and publication of this Ordinance; and on and 2 rd ORDINANCE NO. fir' after said date the property shall constitute a part of the City of Renton and shall be subject to all its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force and effect; the property being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein, [Said pr perry, approximately 20.5 acres, is generally located immediately north of NE 61n Street, if extended, and east of 140th Avenue SE, if extended to 144th Avenue SE. It is bordered by SE 120 'Street, if extended, on the north] and the owners of the property within the annexation shall assume their fair share of the outstanding indebtedness of the City of Renton as prescribed in RCW 35A.14.120 as it pertains to the 66 - -'•, .1"i ' i i- • . i - '. 6' - - ' .'• • i "" i :.' i Code. SECTION I.I. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. limpe A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of Washington, and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor 3 8 ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: ter+' Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1253:3/29/06:ma 4 Exhibit "A" HOQUTAM ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the south half(1/2)of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M. in King County, Washington, lying northerly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No.4924; TOGETHER WITH the south 30 feet of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 10,said south 30 feet also being known as SE 122nd Street; and TOGETHER WITH the south 30 feet of the west 30 feet of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 10, said parcel also being known as a portion of SE 142nd Street. Y iit -SE 113th St . w LLI ' 1t ' _ Z `r� l l ♦SMP Hinz =--- -- I o ,E 14th S [111UH,i -4410, i ki I • ' -- - t�: Tll St iiIiuiI 1 - all i]i II - dal � gm I I 1 r a�,t-L 'b 1�t17 L! a IIID illSTIam win MI iy III MA nom MN in �r n no NE 8th St 1 gi .ICD n 11104111M ►i1111111/NIP 10 WM.o Alim1M1IIINII•imieaur 2 IF 71 op 4/00. MIMI =I II-1 -- 11-11111 - w 11011 ___ y ivy \ •• -' i����...�1 _0 1111 nco ,= aI�dillat ►E 6th St 1111191/2N4w Iri: C 11111.41 �� 1 — Eal%ll t:' .. itil IIINIE 1h u atw =Et ri" © = I rin Til !. `. I _—MAU 4"U4 Z — _ --0 Ll a WO — '� wmf N V' - H • Z c�, r, cu► aiu _1 NE • - E 411102 . el. t I a¢._ ,t & II 1 SIE 140 St J ll' . I Tr; z= 4!1 -'E-4th Z 11111121 �4" ■ lair -- I 1111 ��111�� !: 'I1mii' 1111� .� � 1111ri: : r iHy.,;- -- - ,..,"! El ad _�..l I , 4,,,arra d St " 'I 11110 x1111111 ., I • ' ; n n� imi 2101111:114 Rif tiEI i nd t A 312 Ano g rii.... in •,,1_y4►,., i, u �., ,p ... Uri id 111111 L _` t 11- MP low M. a ill . . • El IP 40 t•• A 111.1 ■/aLllliY��al011e. Ex 4.1 1 a(((tEl ��4 m Aa 1111 * jI?' 111 Itt 44 i.L Almtel-nv�rla - -J •lPn!1 ur 14-1- dal. In Proposed Hoquiam Annexation 0 800 1600 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Site Boundary ——— city Limits 1 : 9600 t •f Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.tel Rosario •_.r y I March 2005 0 Nosy CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON AS R-8 (RESIDENTIAL 8 DU/AC; EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) (HOQUTAM ANNEXATION,FILE NO. A-05-002). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton;and WHEREAS, the property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and +41110, concurrent rezoning, which annexation having previously been approved and the property annexed to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on September 26, 2005, and the second hearing being held on April 17, 2006, and the zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned as R-8 as hereinbelow specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the Economic Development, �""`' 1 ORDINANCE NO. Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change Nled the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning,to wit: See Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein [Said property, approximately 20.5 acres, is generally located immediately north of NE on Street, if extended, and east of 140th Avenue SE, if extended to 144th Avenue SE. It is bordered by SE 120th Street, if extended, on the north.] SECTION IL This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1254:3/29/06:ma 2 `I Exhibit "A" HOQUTAM ANNEXATION PREZONE(R-8) LEGAL DESCRIPTION The south half(1!2)of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in King County, Washington, lying northerly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No.4924; LESS roads. Ian . 111.1-- I iiill "1" i ir wpm _.......,p daili Eon in 1 1 . 1 ...., mono , , . --1 arolliplin Eli' Zil Imil ' 1111 111 111//14 Zip w ifi ' Op 111 ll II ii . Q ir!MIN = iv merfro. all NB In eis I bow • i Illin IN guH--• Proposed Hoquiam Annexation 0 300 600 R-8 Z 'ig Map �.. . .: . ... . . . Y l �m Neighborhoods°`""""�" � R-8 Zoning 1 3600 ''a' CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF RENTON (FALK II ANNEXATION; FILE NO. A-04-007) WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, as amended, and SSB 5409, a petition in writing requesting that certain territory contiguous to the City of Renton, as described below, be annexed to the City of Renton, was presented and filed with the City Clerk on or about October 18, 2004; and WHEREAS, prior to the filing and circulation of said petition for annexation to the City of Renton, the petitioning owners notified the City Council of their intention to commence such proceedings as provided by law, as more particularly specified in RCW 35A.14.120 and SSB 5409, and upon public hearing thereon, it having been determined and the petitioning owners having agreed to assume their fair share of the pre-existing outstanding indebtedness of the City of Renton as it pertains to the territory petitioned to be annexed; and to accept that portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the territory including the applicable Zoning Code relating thereto; and WHEREAS, the King County Department of Assessments has examined and verified the signatures on the petition for annexation on or about June 7, 2005, and determined that the signatures represent a majority of the area to be annexed's assessed value (excluding streets), as provided by law; and WHEREAS, the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division has examined and verified the signatures on the petition for annexation on or about June 28, 2005, *"'` 1 ORDINANCE NO. and determined that the signatures represent a majority of the registered voters of the area to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department of the City of Renton having considered and recommended the annexing of the property to the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the City Council fixed August 1, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Renton, Washington, as the time and place for public hearing upon the petition and notice thereof having been given as provided by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said notices public hearings have been held at the time and place specified in the notices, and the Council having considered all matters in connection with the petition and further determined that all legal requirements and procedures of the law applicable to the petition method for annexation have been met; and WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board having deemed the "Notice of Intention" approved as of January 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton is concurrently zoning the annexation site R-8, eight units per net acre; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L All requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by petition method, including the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140, 150, and SSB 5409 have been met. The petition for annexation to the City of Renton of the property and territory described below is hereby approved and granted; the following described property, being contiguous to the 2 "' ' ORDINANCE NO. Now City limits of the City of Renton, is hereby annexed to the City of Renton, and such annexation shall be effective on and after the approval, passage, and publication of this Ordinance; and on and after said date the property shall constitute a part of the City of Renton and shall be subject to all its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force and effect; the property being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein, [Said property, approximately._6.29 acres, is generally located immediately south of the north side of SE 185th Street, if extended, on the north, the east side of 102nd Avenue SE, on the east, a line parallel and some 428 feet south of the northern boundary on the south, and approximately 100th Avenue SE, if extended, on the west] and the owners of the property within the annexation shall assume their fair share of the outstanding indebtedness of the City of Renton as prescribed in RCW 35A.14.120 as it pertains to the property, and the property shall be subject to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Now Code. SECTION IL This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of Washington, and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk N""` 3 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1251:3/29/06:ma 4 -4101 Exhibit "A" FALK II ANNEXATION • LEGAL DESCRIPTION `fir That portion of the south half(1/2)of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 32,Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying southerly of the south line of the north 72 feet thereof; EXCEPT the east 20 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH the north quarter(1/4)of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 32; EXCEPT the east-20 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH that portion of the west 30 feet of the east half(1/2), and that portion of the east 20 feet of the west half(1/2), of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 32, lying northerly of the south line of the north quarter(1/4)of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 32, extended easterly, and southerly of a line described as follows: Beginning said line at a point on the west boundary line of the plat of Windsor Heights, as recorded in Volume 173 of Plat,Pages 28 through 30, inclusive, records of King County, Washington, said point being 102.80 feet southerly of the northwest corner of said plat and also being a point on the easterly right- of-way margin of 102nd Ave SE; Thence westerly along said line, said line being perpendicular to said plat fro boundary line and right-of-way margin, crossing 102nd Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 102nd Ave SE and the termination point of said line. 1 7 isur-Ti r-- WWI MI AIMI ,,, me 0 MP Nliti‘ S 17•th ', MAO' �� r . S 437 StwsAlw _ !Aix 1 /O - co''.41111 o� ° 45tan 1 ■r■ o 1 Pi o (--J 41 _ii Po W4hi : 11■■■ L,i, __ _dm 61111r, 44kr. II Li i lig _=c,), minnu � iii t. ■■ 111111 1L) %us no_ ME H-- ' '41 :� �" �I rill mails Ir A = : ig 1 _ l . � 1091,111.41011.imimimgma NW IP 1 i is H11111111Mi� :%/ii11H1 �n st �� Ali mbedi ,..., jig imal L til ai. Q 11141 Proposed Falk II Annexation o600 1200 Figure 1:Vicinity Map M : r muck Ad-Jab— > ' J - e Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning •""— — City UmitS 1 - 7200 -s.„, 0 to ec«�aot Proposed Annex.Area CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON AS R-8 (RESIDENTIAL 8 DU/AC, EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) (FALK II ANNEXATION,FILE NO. A-04-007). WHEREAS,under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the property owners petitioned the City of Renton for annexation and concurrent rezoning, which annexation having previously been approved and the property annexed to the City of Renton, and the City having held two public hearings to consider this zoning application, the first hearing being held on August 1, 2005, and the second hearing being held on April 17, 2006, and the zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby zoned as R-8 as hereinbelow specified. The annual ordinance adopting the maps of the City's zoning ordinance is hereby amended to evidence said rezoning and the Economic Development, New 1 ORDINANCE NO. Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change a, ,r the maps of the zoning ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit"A"attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein [Said property, approximately 6.29 acres, is generally located immediately south of the north side of SE 185th Street, if extended, on the north, the east side of 102nd Avenue SE, on the east, a line parallel and some 428 feet south of the northern boundary on the south, and approximately 100th Avenue SE, if extended, on the west.] SECTION IL This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1252:3/29/06:ma 2 Exhibit "A" FALK II ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION ikompoi That portion of the south half(1/2)of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 32, Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying southerly of the south line of the north 72 feet thereof; EXCEPT the east 20 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH the north quarter(1/4)of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 32;EXCEPT the east 20 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH that portion of the west 30 feet of the east half(1/2), and that portion of the east 20 feet of the west half(1/2), of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 32, lying northerly of the south line of the north quarter(1/4)of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 32, extended easterly, and southerly of a line described as follows: Beginning said line at a point on the west boundary line of the plat of Windsor Heights, as recorded in Volume 173 of Plat,Pages 28 through 30, inclusive, records of King County, Washington, said point being 102.80 feet southerly of the northwest corner of said plat and also being a point on the easterly right- of-way margin of 102nd Ave SE; Thence westerly along said line, said line being perpendicular to said plat '" boundary line and right-of-way margin, crossing 102nd Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 102nd Ave SE and the termination point of said line. �� -- ) �; � IIS La =ice0 Ne:tri mot Alvd, ir:01 •Gab'MP _ CD t Apr S 43t/Z'St Cv. A °o45tmai� I III aII --Th- --t \ JIdli I , 1 I \* ah. I LL------______i tikeit II -6-' 7 1:: - VIII ■OIL L -1 ,P ?IllNMN da • _ �iii ll. I : ■*rte 091.11.41., r I IB l► \ \ 1 I IIIIII /- H ••••EP. C��r. pi I ii I I I I J ITramhaw 1 _ ;n St �1 Eil ._ -A TV"ig _ _ ________. ..._ i 1 ' pk , I 41, Li _I - Falk II Annexation 0 600 1200 iiiii Proposed Zoning Map : >:;:::;<:>::::::>::;:.; • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning — ------ City Omits 1 - 7200 Alar Piersch,AdmOisaator R$Zoning G.Del Rosario ,,, " 10 December 2004 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5142 BY CHANGING THE TIMING FOR EFFECTUATING PHASE II OF THE MERRITT II ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON (MERRITT II ANNEXATION; FILE NO. A-03-003) WHEREAS, in Ordinance 5142, the effective date of the Merritt II annexation to the City of Renton, Phase II of the annexation has to be twelve (12) months after the adoption of that ordinance; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 5142 became effective on June 1, 2005, five days after its publication; and WHEREAS, Phase II would become part of the City of Renton on, or about June 1, New 2006, unless Ordinance 5142 is amended; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to extend the effective date of Phase H of the Merritt II annexation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Properties within Phase II (see Exhibit A) shall constitute a part of the City of Renton on March 31, 2007, and shall be subject to all its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force and effect; the property being described as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto, and made a part here of as if fully set forth herein. 1 a a ORDINANCE NO. [Said property, approximately 47.93 acres, is primarily located in the West %2 of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, of the 133-acre expanded annexation area. The northern portion of this phase is located in the West %2 of Section 34, Township 24 North, Range 5 East.] SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of Washington, and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1255:4/7/06:ma 2 MERRITT II ANNEXATION—PHASE II LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Government Lot 3,Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington,lying northeasterly and easterly of the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed by Ordinance No.4055, and southerly and easterly of the existing City Limits of Newcastle, as incorporated by Resolution No. 45 in September 1994; TOGETHER WITH that portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 3,Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.,in King County, Washington,lying westerly of the west boundary line of Newcastle Terrace, as recorded in Volume 87 of Plats,Page 30,Records of King County,Washington,northerly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No. 3972,and easterly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No.4055;and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 34,Township 24 North,Range 5 East, W.B.,in King County, Washington,lying southerly of the northerly light-of-way margin of SE May Valley Road, said northerly right-of-way margin also being the existing City Limits of Newcastle, as incorporated by `err Resolution No. 45 in September 1994,and easterly of the easterly right-of-way margin of Coal Creek Parkway SE,said easterly right-of-way margin also being the existing City Limits of Newcastle, as incorporated by Resolution No.45 in September 1994. "err 1 __—.__ T- Ndc„,,,, EXHIBIT B.1 ,-\\(‹N _- ,7 -------- \S I t..--„,. w l Ci) l • I Q w • OY --__;__;;-,-„: :-- - --;:-:::;--:--Allit 4 1 � YVoll� ,09s -�- _�y Rd 1,4 Dilit''IN ,.+VIP t� ; Plil �,, ,r - _. _ _ __ _ _ ____ nriogr:P' min •E 10 IE. ma Ng irri, Torgi �r A� 11//11111 se 4111►�/fi111111ft ♦ 0swi� �II .. qE 11 .11 stIVElt,174 opliaitt:*: a°441 PI' ig: leilfirwl- n 7 .0. ma 171- -1 NilliaNMS fak oduial a 4At• tai_1„,_ev 4. my ram ... Ai. moms anwillitalliiii glinim su SE 1 a�am =o j. • nib 4111 IN"' % 4 db *AA drii•Vta 10110li LP 11r R 1— ail , as �N MFr.OP. ami ���:as ill I ' t 'c:im ' �'i "4A watt 1 ION le NM allii i011111111111111 2 .. ivIll k a•.-otoog ir,- ra . % "Irma -III II 1 boxed on:Vest inllormolk" onis ,.,r4 4* 4 11111 Merritt II Annexation 0 600 1200 Phasing Map 1 : 7200 NA • Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ___ Corporate Limits ' Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del RosariottmA Area 1 ANTO 6 May 2005 ® 151-readr,9 44/d--?06 4dop/ec/ V-/74006 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5a of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS; AND SECTION 4-11-010 OF CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY REVISING '1'LII AIR TRANSPORTATION USES SECTION OF THE MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, AND CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONES, AND THE AIRPORT AND AVIATION OPERATIONS USES; AND BY REVISING DEFINITIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Section 4-2-060.L of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown in Exhibit A, attached. SECTION IL Section 4-2-070.L of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown in Exhibit B, attached. SECTION III. Section 4-2-070.P of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown in Exhibit C, attached. SECTION IV. Section 4-2-070.Q of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of 1 ORDINANCE NO. General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown in Exhibit D, attached. SECTION V. Section 4-11-010 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by revising the existing definition of"Airport, Municipal", to read as follows: AIRPORT, MUNICIPAL: The Renton Municipal Airport, a general aviation facility located in Renton, Washington. SECTION VI. Section 4-11-010, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding the following definitions, to read as follows: AIRPORT-RELATED USES: Uses that require proximity and access to an airport runway. AVIATION-RELATED USES: Uses that offer aeronautical services to the public or provide support services to airport-related uses. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 2 ORDINANCE NO. ' APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Kathy Keolker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1245:2/17/06:ma 3 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT A 4-2-060 ZONING USE TABLE—USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS: ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: m R-1 R-4 R4 RMH R-10 R-14 RM EN IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UC-N1 UC-N2 of 3 7"T'"M-4r: . – s t .a -a.,, , ,r:, t M < a . :_� ,er"-"F?- h--1'�s .c y . ems,v -_—__—__El ruck terminals P ehicle fuelin• stations I. kit' P P _ P P _ P38 ehicle fueling stations, .■--■-.-bil P P A0110 P P - P38 --- existin• I-!al ehicle service and .■--■-.-AD P P -------- re•air, la 8e ehicle service and III ■--■-.-� P P AD2 P P --�-- re•air, small reckin• ard, auto Ell 11111 H59 H • ll._—__—_—MI ACC59 __—_____ P airplane manufacturing, .■--■-.-■accesso functions •ir•lane sales and re•airMI IIIII P .it sort, munici•al El IIIII P ir••rt-related uses MI 11111 AC •viation-related uses MIIIII AC elipads,'rimeaccessory to II ill H38 H38 H2O - H H - H97 rima use Heli•ads, commercial 1.1 IIII H __—_____ H97 MI E��� Hazardous material H24 H24 storage, on-site or off- site, including treatment Indoor stora•e MI G/111 P P AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 __ •utdoor stora.e -____—_—Lai P57 P57 _AD64 P64 _—___ 1 elf-service stora•e MI P8 kill P59 P H26 H26 H26 ehicle stora•e MI____—__-____AD38 arehousin• MI Wil P P ., ? 1,„ __1 .7-,w.c, » .,. ,..� .. ra.,: , � ,.w ,w.-. tex. -s,i Vi . ,..- T,5'.--,'�� - ' c' ©2004 Code Publishing,Inc. Page 1 Industrial,General Assembly and/or P P P P86 P104 packaging operations Commercial laundries, P38 P38 P38 P4 existing _ Commercial laundries, P38 P38 P38 new Construction/contractor's P14 P P office Blank=Not Allowed P#=Permitted AD=Administrative Conditional Use AC=Accessory Use P=Permitted Use provided can be met H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use # Condition(s) Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020,Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement District; RM, 3-050, Critical Areas Regulations; RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations ©2004 Code Publishing,Inc. Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT B OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC 4-2-070L CENTER DOWNTOWN(CD) FACILITIES(Continued) Uses allowed in the CD Zone are as Public Facilities follows: City government offices AD City government facilities H USES: TYPE: Other government offices and H AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES facilities Natural resource H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE extraction/recovery Conference center P ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Medical and dental offices P Kennels, hobby AC#37 Offices, general P Pets, common household, up to AC Veterinary offices/clinics P 3 per dwelling unit or RETAIL business establishment Adult retail use P#43 RESIDENTIAL Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC#28 Detached dwelling (existing P Eating and drinking P legal) establishments Attached dwelling P#16 Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME Retail sales, outdoor P#15 OCCUPATIONS Taverns AD Adult family home P#3 Congregate residence P#3 ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Group homes I H#3 Entertainment Group homes II for 6 or less P#3 Adult entertainment business P#43 Group homes II for 7 or more H#3 Cultural facilities AD Home occupations AC#6 Dance clubs H Retirement residences P#3 Dance halls H Movie theaters P SCHOOLS Sports arenas, auditoriums, P K-12 educational institution H#s exhibition halls, indoor (public or private) Recreation K-12 educational institution P#s Recreation facilities, indoor P (public or private), existing Other higher education P SERVICES institution Services, General Schools/studios, arts and crafts P Bed and breakfast house, P accessory PARKS Bed and breakfast house, P Parks, neighborhood P professional Parks, regionalcommunity, P Hotel P existing SERVICES(Continued) Parks, regional/community, new AD On-site services P Drive-in/drive-through service AC#70 OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC Day Care Services FACILITIES Adult day care I P Community Facilities Adult day care II P Cemetery H Day care centers P Religious institutions H Family day care AC#3 Service and social organizations H Healthcare Services ©2004 Code Publishing,Inc. Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. • EXHIBIT B Convalescent centers P#3 Utilities, medium AD Medical institutions H Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Lattice towers support H#48 Parking garage, structured, P#3 structures commercial or public Macro facility antennas P#44 Parking, surface, commercial or P#3 Micro facility antennas public Mini facility antennas P#44 Park and ride, shared-use P#107 Minor modifications to existing P#49 Park and ride, dedicated P#107 wireless communication Taxi stand AD facilities Transit centers P Monopole I support structures AD#46 Monopole II support structures H#48 STORAGE Indoor storage AC#11 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2- AC INDUSTRIAL 050 and as defined in Industrial, General chapter 4-11 RMC,where not Commercial laundries, existing P#4 otherwise listed in the Use Laboratories: light P#3 Table manufacturing Laboratories: research, AD#3 TEMPORARY USE development and testing Model homes in an approved P#53 Manufacturing and fabrication, H#3 residential development: one light model home on an existing Solid Waste/Recycling lot Recycling collection station P Sales/marketing trailers, on-site P#53 Temporary or manufactured P#10 UTILITIES buildings used for Communications broadcast and H construction relay towers Temporary uses P#53 Electrical power generation and H#66 cogeneration Utilities, small P TYPES: Blank=Not Allowed P=Permitted Use AC=Accessory Use H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use #=Condition(s) P#=Permitted provided conditional can be met AD=Administrative Conditional Use Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020,Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement District; RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations; RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Requirements ©2004 Code Publishing,Inc. Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT C Conference center P#38 4-2-070,P INDUSTRIAL MEDIUM(IM) OFFICE AND CONFERENCE(Continued) Uses allowed in the IM Zone are as Medical and dental offices P#38 follows: Offices,general P#13 Veterinary offices/clinics P#38 USES: TYPE: RETAIL AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Adult resource H#59 retail use P#43 extraction/recovery Big-box retail P#72 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Eating and drinking P Kennels P#37 establishments Kennels, hobby AC#37 Horticultural nurseries H Pets, common household, up to AC Retail sales P#34 3 per dwelling unit or Retail sales, outdoor P#30 business establishment Vehicle sales, large P Vehicle sales, small P OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Caretaker's residence AC Entertainment Adult entertainment business P#43 SCHOOLS Card room P#52 K-12 educational institution H Cultural facilities AD (public or private) Dance clubs P#38 K-12 educational institution P#9 Dance halls P#38 (public or private), existing Gaming/gambling facilities, not- H#29 Other higher education P#38 for-profit institution Movie theaters P#38 Schools/studios, arts and crafts P#38 Sports arenas, auditoriums, P#38 Trade or vocational school P exhibition halls, indoor Sports arenas, auditoriums, P#38 PARKS exhibition halls, outdoor Parks, neighborhood P Recreation Parks, regionalcommunity, P Recreation facilities, indoor P8 existing Recreation facilities, outdoor P#32 Parks, regional/community, new AD SERVICES OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC Services, General FACILITIES Hotel P#38 Community Facilities Motel P#38 Cemetery H Off-site services P#38 Religious institutions H On-site services P#38 Service and social organizations H SERVICES(Continued) Public Facilities Drive-in/drive-through service AC#62 City government offices AD Vehicle rental, small P City government facilities H Vehicle and equipment rental, P#28 Secure community transition H#71 large facilities Day Care Services Other government offices and H Adult day care I P#55 facilities Adult day care II AD Day care centers P#54 OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Family day care AC ©2004 Code Publishing,Inc. Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT C Healthcare Services manufacturing Medical institutions H#56 Laboratories: research, development and testing VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Manufacturing and fabrication, H#59 Body shops P#31 heavy Car washes P Manufacturing and fabrication, P Express transportation services P light Fuel dealers H#59 Manufacturing and fabrication, P#67 Industrial engine or P#31 medium transmission rebuild Solid Waste/Recycling Parking garage, structured, P Recycling collection station and P#38 commercial or public processing center Parking, surface, commercial or P#38 Recycling collection station public Sewage disposal and treatment H#59 Park and ride, shared-use P plants Park and ride, dedicated P#105 Waste recycling and transfer H#59 Tow truck operation/auto H#59 facilities impoundment yard Transit centers H#38 UTILITIES Vehicle fueling stations P Communications broadcast and H#29 Vehicle service and repair, large P relay towers Vehicle service and repair, P Electrical power generation and H#66 small cogeneration Wrecking yard, auto H#59 Utilities, small Air Transportation Uses Utilities, medium AD Airplane manufacturing AC#59 Utilities, large H Airplane manufacturing, AC accessory functions WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Airplane sales and repair P Lattice towers support AD#47 Airport, municipal P structures Airport-related uses AC Macro facility antennas P#44 Aviation-related uses AC Micro facility antennas P Helipads, accessory to primary H#38 Mini facility antennas P#44 use Minor modifications to existing P#49 Helipads, commercial H wireless communication facilities STORAGE Monopole I support structures P#44 Hazardous material,storage, H#24 Monopole II support structures AD#47 on-site or off-site, including treatment GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Indoor storage P Accessory uses per RMC 4-2- AC Outdoor storage P#57 050 and as defined in Self-service storage P#59 chapter 4-11 RMC, where not Warehousing P otherwise listed in the Use INDUSTRIAL Table Industrial, General TEMPORARY USE Assembly and/or packaging P Sales/marketing trailers, on-site P#53 operations Temporary or manufactured P#10 Commercial laundries, existing P#38 buildings used for Commercial laundries, new P#38 construction Construction/contractor's office P Temporary uses P#53 Laboratories: light P#38 ©2004 Code Publishing,Inc. Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT C TYPES: Blank=Not Allowed P=Permitted Use AC=Accessory Use H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use #=Condition(s) P#=Permitted provided conditional can be met AD=Administrative Conditional Use Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020,Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement District; RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations; RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Requirements Cc)7f1f14 C nAP Piihlichinn Inr. Pana 1 ORDINANCE NO. ' EXHIBIT D Conference center P#38 4-2-070Q INDUSTRIAL HEAVY(IH) OFFICE AND CONFERENCE(Continued) Uses allowed in the IH Zone are as Medical and dental offices P#38 follows: Offices, general P#13 Veterinary offices/clinics P#38 USES: TYPE: RETAIL AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource H Adult retail use P#43 extraction/recovery Big-box retail P#72 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Eating and drinking P -Kennels P#37 establishments Kennels, hobby AC#37 Horticultural nurseries H Pets, common household, up to AC Retail sales P#34 3 per dwelling unit or Retail sales, outdoor P#30 business establishment Vehicle sales, large P Vehicle sales, small P OTHER RESIDENTIAL,LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Caretaker's residence AC Entertainment Adult entertainment business P#43 SCHOOLS Card room P#52 K-12 educational institution H Cultural facilities AD (public or private) Dance clubs P#38 K-12 educational institution P#s Dance halls P#38 (public or private), existing Gaming/gambling facilities, not- H#38 Other higher education P#38 for-profit institution Movie theaters P#38 Schools/studios, arts and crafts P#38 Sports arenas, auditoriums, P#38 Trade or vocational school H exhibition halls, indoor Sports arenas, auditoriums, P#38 PARKS exhibition halls, outdoor Parks, neighborhood P Recreation Parks, regional/community, P Recreation facilities, indoor P#38 existing Recreation facilities, outdoor P#32 Parks, regional/community, new AD SERVICES OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC Services, General FACILITIES Hotel P#38 Community Facilities Motel P#38 Cemetery H Off-site services P#38 Religious institutions H On-site services P#38 Service and social organizations H SERVICES (Continued) Public Facilities Drive-in/drive-through service Ac#62 City government offices AD Vehicle rental, small P City government facilities H Vehicle and equipment rental, P#29 Secure community transition H#71 large facilities Day Care Services Other government offices and H Adult day care I P#55 facilities Adult day care II H Day care centers P#54 OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Family day care AC ©2004 Code Publishing, Inc. Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT D Healthcare Services light Medical institutions H#56 Manufacturing and fabrication, P#67 medium VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Solid Waste/Recycling Body shops P#31 Recycling collection station and P#38 Car washes P processing center Fuel dealers P Recycling collection station Industrial engine or P#31 Sewage disposal and treatment H transmission rebuild plants Parking garage, structured, P Waste recycling and transfer P commercial or public facilities Parking, surface, commercial or P#38 public UTILITIES Park and ride, shared-use P Communications broadcast and H#38 Park and ride, dedicated P#105 relay towers Railroad yards P Electrical power generation and H#66 Tow truck operation/auto P cogeneration impoundment yard Utilities, small Transit centers H#38 Utilities, medium AD Truck terminals P Utilities, large H Vehicle fueling stations Vehicle service and repair, large P WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Vehicle service and repair, P Lattice towers support AD#47 small structures Wrecking yard, auto H Macro facility antennas P#44 Air Transportation Uses Micro facility antennas Mini facility antennas P#44 Helipads, accessory to primary H#38 Minor modifications to existing P#49 use wireless communication facilities STORAGE Monopole I support structures P#44 Hazardous material, storage, H#24 Monopole II support structures AD#47 on-site or off-site, including treatment GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Indoor storage P Accessory uses per RMC 4-2- AC Outdoor storage P#57 050 and as defined in Self-service storage P chapter 4-11 RMC, where not Warehousing P otherwise listed in the Use INDUSTRIAL Table Industrial, General TEMPORARY USE Assembly and/or packaging P Sales/marketing trailers, on-site P#53 operations Temporary or manufactured P#10 Commercial laundries, existing P#38 buildings used for Commercial laundries, new P#38 construction Construction/contractor's office P Temporary uses P#53 Laboratories: light P#38 manufacturing Laboratories: research, P development and testing Manufacturing and fabrication, P#67 heavy Manufacturing and fabrication, P ©2004 Code Publishing,Inc. Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT D TYPES: Blank=Not Allowed P=Permitted Use AC=Accessory Use H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use #=Condition(s) P#=Permitted provided conditional can be met AD=Administrative Conditional Use Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020, Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement District; RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations; RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Requirements ©2004 Code Publishing.Inc. Paae 3