Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Shoreline Master Program Residential Dock Provisions (07/03/1989)
Feb?uarv'4, 1991 Renton City Council Minutes Page 38 Council members were amenable to Mayor Clymer's suggestion that the Council meeting agenda include an "information only" category for listing items of this nature. CORRESPONDENCE Councilwoman Mathews entered correspondence from Suburban Cities SCA: Staffing Plan Association (SCA) stating that the SCA Emergent Issues Committee has developed a draft staffing plan which will be discussed at the February 13, 1991, SCA meeting. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW. CARRIED. King County: School Councilwoman Mathews entered correspondence from King County Executive Adequacy Standards Tim Hill regarding King County Council action to adopt school adequacy standards and authorize impact fees. In response to Council inquiry, Mayor Clymer said that he has referred this letter to staff for response. Councilwoman Mathews requested that Planning Commission members also receive a copy of this letter. OLD BUSINESS Planning and Development Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report Plannine & Development stating that the Committee recommended approval of the expenditure of Committee $2,534.79 to pay the City's per capita share of Suburban Cities Association SCA: Governance Summit (SCA) governance summit costs (referred 1/14/91). MOVED BY MATHEWS, Costs SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* In response to Councilwoman Zimmerman inquiry, Ms.;Mathews explained that the 1991 budget included an appropriation for regional governance expenditures. *MOTION CARRIED. Planning: Shoreline Planning and Development Committee Chairman Mathews reported that the Program, Dock Variance Committee recommended the deletion of review of dock variance language Language for the Shoreline Master Program from the Committee referrals since Renton dock variance language has been approved by the State (referred 2/5/90). MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL;CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Personnel: Employee Councilman Stredicke requested a list of Planning/Building/Public Works Awards employees who have been awarded jackets, the dollar amount of the expenditure, and the budget account to which the expenditure was charged. In response to Mr. Stredicke's concern that employees receive equal consideration, Mayor Clymer stated that the personnel director and i the community relations specialist are developing a policy regarding employee awards and benefits. WSDOT: I-405 S-Curve Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler requested a status report from the; Project Administration on the gas line broken during I-405 S-curve project construction activity in the Renton Hill area on February 4, 1991, and asked the Administration to provide a detailed report explaining procedures for protecting Renton Hill residents if similar emergencies should occur in the future. In response to Ms. Keolker-Wheeler's request for information on the, Administration's meeting with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on the I-405 S-curve project, Executive Assistant Covington stated that the City expressed its frustration with the progress of the project, and received apologies from the State for failure to follow through on agreements. Administrator Guttmann submitted an outline of specific areas of concern, and the City received assurances from the WSDOT that commitments would be met. Mr. Covington announced that an open house will be held at the Renton Chamber of Commerce on February 7, 1991, to provide project • information to interested citizens. Council made the following inquiries: 1) Is a Renton City employee on the project site at all times? 2) Has a public hearing been held that permits State control of City right- of-ways in the construction area? 3) Is WSDOT planning to hold public meetings to allow citizen input, resolve easement and jurisdiction issues, and explain project procedures as previously agreed upon? Mr. Covington explained that since the S-curve project is the State's responsibility, the City has never had personnel on the construction site continuously; however, Transportation Planning Supervisor David Martin was recently assigned to the project and communicates daily with the State contact for the project. City Attorney Warren said that the State informed APP1OVEi a-V9/ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT FEBRUARY 4, 1991 GOVERNANCE SUMMIT COSTS (Referred 1/14/91) The Planning and Development Committee recommends Council approve the expenditure of $2,534.79 to pay per capita share of Suburban Cities Association governance summit costs. f DOCK VARIANCE LANGUAGE (Referred 2/5/90) As;the State has now approved the Renton dock variance language, the Planning and Development Committee recommends this item be deleted from the Council referrals. • Nancy Ma ws, Chair Ziaa Bob Edwards, Vice-Chair Kathy K•a lker-Wheeler, Member Attachments Copies : Lynn Guttmann Jim Hanson Don Erickson ., r an AUBURN ENumuLAW W NORTH BEND AUBURN FEDERAL WAY PACIFIC BEAUX ARTS HUNTS POINT REDMOND CitmSub • BELLEVUE ISSAQUAH RENTON ies BLACK DIAMOND KENT SEA-TAC ia BOTHELL KIRKLAND SKYKOMISH ss®c t 1 CARNATION CLYDE HILL LAKE FOREST PARK SNOQUALMIE MEDINA TUKWILA DES MOINES MERCER ISLAND YARROW POINT DUVALL NORMANDY PARK OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON RE January 22 , 1991 , RECEIVED JAN 2 4 1991 To: Mayors and Councilmembers • From: Nancy Mathews, President HEN 1 UIV GI I Y CUUiNCIL Re: Governance Summit Assessment As you •are aware, the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) is currently involved in discussions of regional governance with representatives of King County and The City of Seattle (the Summit) . The discussions are far ranging and may result in proposals for governance change in King County. At the beginning of the the Summit process, it was agreed by all parties that the costs of the process should be shared equally. We have now been able to estimate that the SCA share of the costs of the process will be between $25, 000 and $30, 000 . This includes the costs of consultant services; various printing, mailing, and support services for the SCA representatives to the Summit; and Summit meetings which the SCA will host. To fund the SCA portion of the costs and to establish an equitable sharing of the of the costs among our member cities, we have created a special assessment based upon population' using official 1990 state population figures as a basis . To assure that we will have sufficient funds to cover the SCA proportion of the costs, the per city assessment is based upon a total budget of $30, 000 . At the end of the Summit, we will account for all. costs and either rebate excess funds or reallocate funds to other SCA projects. For your convenience, I have attached an assessment roll so that you may check your population and assessment. You should send you payment to Mayor Fritz Ribary of North Bend who is the SCA Treasurer. I appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. I would also encourage you to actively participate with your SCA colleagues in the Summit process . SUMMIT SUPPORT COSTS (SUBURBAN CITIES ONLY) . CITY POPULATION $30,000 TOTAL (OFM '90 EST.) ,$0.064 PER CAPITA • ALGONA 1,720 $110.82 AUBURN 34,150 $2,200.38 BEAUX ARTS 294 $18.94 BELLEVUE 88,890 $5,727.44 BLACK DIAMOND 1,510 $97.29 BOTHELL 11,500 $740.98 CARNATION 1,255 $80.86 CLYDE HILL 3,090 $199.10 DES MOINES 15,490 $998.06 DUVALL 2,435 $156.89 ENUMCLAW 6,390 $411.73 FEDERAL WAY 63,980 $4,122.41 HUNTS POINT 504 $32.47 ISSAQUAH 7,390 $476.16 KENT 37,440 $2,412.37 - KIRKLAND 37,700 - - $2,429.12 LAKE FOREST PARK 2,800 $180.41 MEDINA 2,960 $190.72 MERCER ISLAND 20,630 $1,329.25 NORMANDY PARK 6,620 $426.55 • ' NORTH BEND 2,420 $155.93 PACIFIC 4,080 $262.89 REDMOND 35,420. $2,282.21 RENTON 39,340 $2,534.79 SEATAC 24,000 $1,546.39 SKYKOMISH 243 $15.66 SNOQUALMIE 1,545 $99.55 TUKWILA 10,820 $697.16 YARROW POINT 985 $63.47 • TOTAL 465,601 $30,000.00 / Y ��/• � • CITY )1' 'RENTON "' Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren.. REC8 ED January 22 , 1991 JAN 2 2 1991 TO: ; Planning and Development Committee ✓ RENTON CITY COUNCIL FROM: : Zanetta L. Fontes , Assistant City Attorney , Don Erickson, Building Official RE : Shoreline Master Program, Dock Variance Language Dear Committee Members : ' This matter was referred to 'the council in February of last year. There were two goals to be accomplished: 1 . , To accomodate Tom Wieblos; and 2 . , To provide guidelines for the hearing examiner for purposes of dock variances . We made numerous changes to our ordinance as it relates to docks ' length and size and submitted several drafts to the state . Eventually, the state approved our proposal . We are of the opinion that the changes we made accomplish both goals . Moreover, we believe that further changes to the ordinance will not, be approved by the state . In our last dealings with them they threatened not to approve the language we proposed at that time. We had to remind them about the number of drafts we had submitted to them and the suggestions they had made to change the drafts . . Only after considerable discussion did they finally agree to approve our final draft . We believe that the item referred to the Planning and Development Committee on February 5 , 1990 concerning the Shoreline Master Program, Dock Variance Language, should be deleted from the City Council Committee Referrals list . Za etta L. Fontes ZLF : as . cc : Mayor Clymer A8 . 64 : 77 . ,Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street -Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 January 14. 1991 Renton City Council Minutes Page 16 MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Suburban Cities Councilwoman Mathews entered correspondence from Assistant City Manager Association: Governance Chuck Mize, Bellevue, stating that the Suburban Cities Association (SCA), the Summit City of Seattle, and King County are participating in discussions regarding regional governance (Governance Summit). These three parties have agreed to share costs which include Summit meetings, materials, and a staff consultant to provide staffing for the project. Mr. Mize enclosed a chart indicating the funds each city would need to contribute to cover the,SCA's portion of these costs (approximately $20,000 - $30,000). MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Vaupel Correspondence was read from Warren and Versie Vaupel, P. O. Box 755, - Commendation, Fire Renton, expressing appreciation to Renton Fire Department personnel for Department their assistance on January 11, 1991, when a broken plumbing connection spewed water into the kitchen and basement of their residence at 1210 North Second Street. Citizen Comment Bryant Councilwoman Zimmerman entered correspondence from Bill Bryant, Bryant - Aquifer'Protection Motors, Inc., 1300 Bronson Way North, Renton, urging that the City define Ordinance its intentions regarding aquifer protection to businesses located in the aquifer area. Mr. Bryant made the following inquiries: 1) If businesses are required to move out of the aquifer area, will the City provide financial assistance with relocation costs? 2) Will the aquifer be able to provide the City's water over a long term? 3) Can a well system be developed further up the Cedar River corridor? 4) If businesses must regulate substances hazardous to the aquifer, shouldn't homeowners also be required to do the same? 5) What types of business will be allowed in the aquifer area? 6) If a business remains in the aquifer area, will installation of a monitoring well be required? 7) What does the City have planned for Bryant Motors? MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Finance: Insurance Claims Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler requested a report from the Finance Report, 1990 Department regarding 1990 insurance claims. Planning: "Making Cities Councilwoman Zimmerman entered a brochure regarding the "Making Cities Liveable" Conference Liveable" conference in San Francisco. She requested that the Administration review the brochure and consider sending a staff member to the conference. Ms. Zimmerman also requested that she be granted permission to attend this conference. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO REVIEW THIS MATTER AND MAKE THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING COUNCILWOMAN ZIMMERMAN'S REQUEST TO ATTEND THIS CONFERENCE* Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler urged caution in considering Council participation in conferences held out of the immediate area due to 1991 budget constraints and the implementation of severe cuts in City department travel budgets. Councilwoman Zimmerman noted that she was requesting this consideration because she has been involved with "Liveable Cities" issues for four years, and would not attend the conference if it put a burden on the Council budget. *MOTION CARRIED. Planning: Shoreline Councilwoman Zimmerman referred to a memorandum from City Attorney Management Program Lawrence Warren regarding the City's jurisdiction over facilities in Lake Mo iication Washington stating that if the City wishes to assert this jurisdiction, modification of the Shoreline Master program would be required. MOVED ! BY ZIMMERMAN, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ,`, cTATT t STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (20Xl) 459-6000 August 22, 1990 • The Honorable Earl Clymer Office of the Mayor City' of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • RE: City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Amendment Dear Mayor Clymer: • I am pleased to advise you that the Department of Ecology has completed its review of the City of Renton's .proposed Shoreline Master Program amendment revising the section relating to docks and piers. Pursuant to the incorporation by the City of the department's recommendations regarding width of :recreational docks we find that. the amendment is in conformance with RCW 90.58.120 and .200. We are pleased to approve the modified amendment and look forward-to future shoreline development reviewed under the amended master program. 'Please forward to the department five copies of the amendment in a form that can be inserted into the existing approved State Shoreline Master Program. This will allow us to complete your SMP amendment file. Sincerely, Fred Olson • Deputy Director FO:JS:del cc: Donald K. Erickson Ites• ends and corrects attachment Resolution No. 2787 Pr CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON Cory Op NVIS/0 , RESOLUTION NO . 2805 'iU/ 01990 ct4A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, 'AD PTI`01z /) AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 7 . 12 OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AS IT RELATES TO PIERS AND DOCKS . WHEREAS, the City of Renton reviewed the Piers and Docks • section of the Shoreline Master Program; and _ WHEREAS, the City Council , the Planning Commission,., and members of the City of Renton staff considered the areas of needed change and recommended new language; and WHEREAS, it was deemed appropriate and in the public interest . to make changes to the existing regulations of that section; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Ecology has approved the language of the proposed changes . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I . The above findings are true and correct in all respects . SECTION II . The City of Renton hereby adopts , as its new regulations governing section 7 . 12 , -Piers and Docks , of the Shoreline Master Program, the language ' of the attached exhibit • incorporated by this reference . - PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 16th day of Ju1y 1990 . 67) Pd-)({,f,t. (4 • Marilyn J U 0 ersen, City Clerk 1 { -RESOLUTION NO . 2805 APPitIOVED BY THE MAYOR this 16th day of July I ' 1990 . I • Earl Clymer, Mayor Approv-.®as to form: O ,.A.tkC �Qr-ns� Lawrence ' J. Wa en, City Attorney Res . 102 : 7-12-90 : as . 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2805 7.12 PIERS AND DOCKS - 7.12.01 Purpose: A. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use of the water surface and shoreline. B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other. types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas, .where scenic values a're high and ,where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. C. The expansion of existing piers and docks is encouraged over the construction of new facilities. D. Establish approval and design criteria. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public recreational access and use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint, use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the proposed pier or dock in his application for a permit. 7.12.03 Criteria for Approval of Docks and Piers The approval of a new dock or pier or a modification or extension of .an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: A. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage; B. The dock or pier does not interfere with the public ' use and enjoyment of the water nor create a hazard to navigation; EXHIBIT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2805 1 I - . IRLSOLU'CION No. 2805 Y C. The dock . or pier will not result in the unreasonable interference i with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers; and D. The dock or pier must comply with the design criteria speci fi Ind in ' the following sections. 7.12.041 Design Criteria - General A. Pier Type 1. All piers and docks shall be built of open vile construction I except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following 'conditions exist: . a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for ' i piling. I c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. 1 ' B. All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in a safe I and sound condition. I C. Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks I or the repair and maintenance of existing docks, shall use materials and methods which prevent toxic materials, petrochemicals and other ' pollutants from entering surface water during and after construction. D. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use, by nonresidents of piers or docks accessory to residences. 7.12.05 Design Criteria for Single-Family Docks and Piers i A. There shall be no more than one pier per developed waterfront lot or ownership. I _ B. Dock Size Specifications - 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: ' a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water line into the water or I until a depth of twelve (12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (5O) feet in length be required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. l -2- RESOLUTION NO. 2805 c. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet.to an adjacent property line. d. One extension of a dock parallel to the shoreline, or one (1) float, ma.y be allowed provided such extension is not located closer than five (5) feet- from a side lot _ line or exceed one hundred (100) square. feet in size. C. Joint Use Piers and Docks • 1. A joint use dock may be constructed• for-two (2). contiguous waterfront properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side property line, common to•, both properties. 2. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared ,with the appropriate signatures of the property • owners in question and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be provided to the City. Such document sh-ould specify ownership rights and maintenance provisions. 3. Dock Size Specifications a. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water mark or to a depth of twelve (12) feet, whichever is reached first. b. Joint use docks and piers may not exceed a maximum width of twelve (12) feet. c. Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one (1) pier extension or float a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size for each owner. D. Requests for greater dock length may only be submitted, as specified below under Section 7.12.09, once an individual has failed to work with an adjacent property owner in establishing •a joint use dock.. 7.12.06 Design Criteria for Multi-Family Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage 1. Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents or owner of the subdivision, apartments,• condominiums, or similar developments for which the dock was built. B. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces 1. The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be a one berth for every two (2) dwelling units. -3- RESOLUTION NO. 2805 it C. Length of Multiple-Family Pier or. Dock I. 1. Multiple-family piers or docks shall not exceed a length ofl' one hundred eighty (180) feet into the water beyond " the ordinary high-water mark, except as may be allowed under Section 7.12.10 of this section of the Master Program. 7.12.07 Design Criteria for Recreational, Commercial and Industrial Docks , . A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: 1. Unless otherwise determined or directed by' any State agency • having jurisdiction thereover, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty (150) feet; if the depth of thirty, (30) feet is not reached, the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet. 2. The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet. B. Docks. shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a ',side property line. C. Docks or piers which are associated or linked with City trails shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended purpose and .will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis. 7.12.08 Use of Buoys and Floats A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage, as permitted below under B of this section, may be allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers'and docks. Such buoys and floats are td be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation, 'including reflectors for nighttime visibility. In no case shall a buoy be located further from the shoreline than the allowable length for docks. B. Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by. small watercraft. 2. Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A float proposed for joint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet per residence. 3. A single-family residence may only have one (1) float. 4. Floats shall not exceed a length of fifty (50) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except public recreation floats. -4- RESOLU'f10N NO. 2805 7.12.09 Variance to Dock and'Pier Dimensions Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may be submitted to the City's Hearing Examiner. Any greater dimension. • than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock dimensions. The Examiner, in approving a variance • request, shall include a finding that a variance request complies with: . • A. The criteria listed above in Section 7.12.03 when approving such requests; and . B. The criteria specified in Section 8.02 of the Master Program. • -5- Amends and corrects attachment *n Resolution No. 2787 CITY OF RENTON', WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2805 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 7 . 12 OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ' AS IT RELATES TO PIERS AND DOCKS. WHEREAS, the City of Renton reviewed the Piers and Docks section of the Shoreline Master Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council, the Planning Commission, and members of the City of Renton staff considered the areas of needed change and recommended new language; and WHEREAS, it was deemed appropriate and in the public interest to make changes to the existing regulations of that section; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Ecology has approved the language of the proposed changes . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHI,NGTON, DO RESOLVE AS. FOLLOWS : SECTION I . The above findings are true and correct in all respects . SECTION II . The City of Renton hereby adopts, as its anew regulations governing section 7 . 12 , Piers and Docks, of the Shoreline Master Program, the language of the attached exhibit incorporated by this reference . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 16th day of July 1990 . / (—Jv e t/c/ Gli�LGI 4 Marilyn J/ r - ersen, City Clerk 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2805 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 16th day of July 1990 . Earl Clymer, Mayor Appr,ov as to form: Lawrence J. Wa en, City Attorney Res . 102 : 7-12-90 : as . 2 r r RESOLUTION NO. 2805 7.12 PIERS. AND DOCKS 7.112.011 Purpose: A. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use of the water surface and shoreline. B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. C. The expansion of existing piers and docks is encouraged over the construction of new facilities. D. Establish approval and design criteria. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public recreational access and use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the proposed pier or dock in his application for a permit. 7.12.03 Criteria for Approval of Docks and Piers The approval of a new dock or pier or a modification or extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: A. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage; B. The dock or pier does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water nor create a hazard to navigation; EXHIBIT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2805 RESOLUTION No. 2805 C. The dock or pier will not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers; and D. The dock or pier must comply with the design criteria specified in the following sections. , 7.12.04 Design Criteria - General A. Pier Type 1. All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. B. All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. C. Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or the repair and maintenance of existing docks, shall use materials and methods which prevent toxic materials, petrochemicals and other pollutants from entering surface water during and after construction. D. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by nonresidents of piers or docks accessory to residences. 7.12.05 Design Criteria for Single-Family Docks and Piers A. There shall be no more than one pier per developed waterfront lot or ownership. B. Dock Size Specifications 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (50) feet in length be required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. -2- RESOLUTION NO. 2805 c. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an adjacent property line. d. One extension of a dock parallel to the shoreline, or one (1) float, may be allowed provided such extension is not located closer than five (5) feet from a side lot line or exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size. C. Joint Use Piers and Docks 1. A joint use dock may be constructed for two (2) contiguous waterfront properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side property line, common to both properties. 2. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared with the appropriate signatures of the property owners in question and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be provided to the City. Such document should 'specify ownership rights and maintenance provisions. 3. Dock Size Specifications a. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water mark or to a depth of twelve (12) feet, which ever is reache d first. b. Joint use docks and piers may not exceed a maximum width of twelve (12) feet. c. Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one (1) pier extension or float a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size for each owner. D. Requests for greater dock length may only be submitted, as specified below under Section 7.12.09, once an individual has failed to work with an adjacent property owner in establishing a joint use dock. 7.12.06 Design Criteria for Multi-Family Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage 1. Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents or owner of the subdivision, apartments, condominiums, or similar developments for which the dock was built. B. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces 1. The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be a one berth for every two (2) dwelling units. -3- RESOLUTION NO. 2805 C. Length of Multiple-Family Pier or Dock 1. Multiple-family piers or docks shall not exceed a length of one hundred eighty (180) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except as may be allowed under Section 7.12.10 of this section of the Master Program. 7.12.07 Design Criteria for Recreational, Commercial and Industrial Docks A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: 1. Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having jurisdiction thereover, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty (150) feet; if the depth of thirty (30) feet is not reached, the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet. 2. The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet. B. Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a side property line. C. Docks or piers which are associated or linked with City trails shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended purpose and will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis. 7.12.08 Use of Buoys and Floats A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage, as permitted below under B of this section, may be allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats are to be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation, including reflectors for nighttime visibility. In no case shall a buoy be located further from the shoreline than the allowable length for docks. B. Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small watercraft. 2. Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A float proposed for joint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet per residence. 3. A single-family residence may only have one (1) float. 4. Floats shall not exceed a length of fifty (50) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except public recreation floats. -4- RESOLUTION NO. 2805 7.12.09 Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may be submitted to the City's Hearing Examiner. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock dimensions. The Examiner, in approving a variance request, shall include a finding that a variance request complies with: approving A. The criteria listed above in Section 7.12.03 when such requests; and B. The criteria specified in Section 8.02 of the Master Program. � d -5- Ju116, 1990 1 tenton City Council Minutes ) Pane 220 CAG: 90-043, West Utilities Committee Chairman Nelson a presented report statingthat the P Kennydale Interceptor - Committee recommended concurrence with the Public Works Department Project recommendation that the low bid submitted by King Construction Company;! Inc. in the amount of $253,924.74 be accepted for the West Kennydale Interceptor project and the contract for this project be awarded to King County Construction Company, Inc. The engineer's estimate for the project] is $402,446.57. The Committee further concurred with staff recommendation that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract documents. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Police: Citizen Complaint Council relayed a citizen complaint that the City had been slow to respond 'to Regarding Water Leak a reported water leak on July 14, 1990. Transnortation Transportation Committee Chairman Stredicke presented a report stating that Committee the Committee recommended concurrence in the direction established in the Streets: North Renton North Renton community involvement process and the funding established,as Street Improvements shown in the 1991-1996 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. ORDINANCES AND 'RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Vice Chairman Edwards presented a report Committee stating that the Committee reviewed the executive office appointment of the Space Needs: City Hall firm of Baylis Brand Wagner Architects, Inc., as a consultant for an architectural assessment of City Hall, because one of the principals, Richard Wagner, is a member of the City's Planning Commission, and found no conflict of interest in the process. Information only. Vacation: VAC-90-002, S Ways and Means Committee Vice Chairman Edwards presented a report 140th Street, Empire Way stating the Committee concurred in the recommendation of the Public Works S, Hawk, Newburn, ,et al. Department to defer action on the South 140th Street, Empire Way South , (Hawk, Newburn, et al.) street vacation (VAC-90-002) petition to the Kirig County Council by consolidation with a proposed plat vacation. Petitioners have proposed vacation of a portion of the plat, junction addition to Seattle, lying within the County north-westerly of SW 140th Street. The portion of the subject plat vacation lying within the City of Renton jurisdictional boundaries consisting of approximately 16,000 square feet of street right-of- way, constitutes only a minor fraction of the plat being considered for vacation. The remainder of the plat lies within the County jurisdictional, boundaries. The fractional portion of the street right-of-way should 'not Jibe vacated independent of action on the plat. The Ways and Means Committee recommended that determination on the subject petition be deferred to the King County Council for their adjudication. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Ways and Means Committee Vice Chairman Edwards presented the following ordinances for first reading: Public Works: An ordinance was read amending Title IV and Title IX of City Code by Construction Code repealing certain sections and transferring certain sections to another title of Duplication the City Code due to a duplication in the City Code book. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS ORDINANCE BACK TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Public Works: An ordinance was read amending Section 9-7-1, of Chapter 7, Road, Bridge, Construction Code and Municipal Construction Standards, Title IX of the City Code adopting construction codes, standard specifications, and standard plans and details by reference. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL REFER THIS ORDINANCE BACK TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. Ways and Means Committee Vice Chairman Edwards presented the following resolution for reading and adoption: Resolution #2805 A resolution was read adopting amendments to Section 7.12 of the Shoreline Planning:k Shoreline Master Program as it relates to piers and docks; resolution corrects Resolution Master Program;-Piers $i #2787 adopted March 12, 1990. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY Docks TANNER, COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION AS READ. ,VAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 16, 1990 CITY HALL SPACE NEEDS (Referred 7/9/90) The Ways and Means Committee reviewed the Executive office appointment of the firm of Baylis Brand Wagner Architects, Inc. as a consultant for an architectural assesment of City Hall because one of the principals (Richard Wagner) is a member of the City's Planning Commission and found no conflict of interest in the process. PETI'TION TO VACATE PORTION OF SOUTH 140TH STREET, SOUTH OF EMPIRE WAY SOUTH (HAWK, NEWBURN, ET AL) VAC-002-90 (Referred 6/18/90) The (Ways and Means Committee recommends concurrence in the recommendation to of the Public Works Department to defer action on the subject street. vacation petition to the King County Council by consolidation with a proposed plat vacation. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following Ordinances for first reading Amending Title IV and Title IX by Repealing Certain Sections and Transferring Certain Sections to Another Title of the Code Book (discovered a duplication in code) Construction Code Revision The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following resolution for reading and adoption Shoreline Master Program Amendments Bob Edwards, Acting Chair Richard Stredicke, Member PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 2 , 1990 • Shoreline Master Plan Amendments (Referred May 15, 1989) II On March 12, 1990, the city council passed Resolution No. 2787 regarding proposed shoreline master plan amendments . Those amendments were sent to the state Department of Ecology, as required. On May 16, 1990, Nora Jewett, of the Department of Ecology, suggested two minor changes . On June 28, 1990, the committee met with staff to review the suggested changes and found them to be minor: another purpose was added to the purpose section, and ' commercial and industrial docks will be limited to 12 . feet in width as are recreational docks, unless a variance is granted by the hearing examiner. The , committee recommends that the council authorize the administration to send a letter to the state Department of Ecology and ',4notify the department that the city concurs in the changes . Anticipating approval by the state Department. of Ecology, the committee also recommends this matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for the preparation of appropriate legislation. Jesse Tanner, Chair Theresa Zimmerman, Vice-Chair Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Member ZLF:as16/29/90 . CI178 :40 . /' I Amends and corrects attachment Resolution No. '2787 I I - Ilk I CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON I RESOLUTION NO. 2805 I . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, 'ADOPTING ENDMENTS TO SECTION 7 . 12 OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM SIIT RELATES TO PIERS AND DOCKS. WHEREAS, the City of Renton reviewed the Piers and Docks sectiionIof -the Shoreline Master Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council, the Planning Commission, and members of the City of Renton staff considered the areas of needed; change f 1 and recommended new language; and , WHEREAS, it was deemed appropriate and in the public interest to make changes to the existing regulations of that section; :and WHREAS, the State Department of Ecology has approved the II, lang�t'ag1'e of the proposed changes . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : SECTION . I . The above findings are true and correct , in ' all I 1 respect . I SECTION II . The City of Renton hereby adopts, as ;its new regu atlions governing section 7 . 12, Piers and Docks, ' of the Shorl�, line Master Program, the language of the attached ' exhibit IV I incorporated by this reference. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 16th day of July , 19901 1 I i I 79--) ),(1AI Marilyn�� e ersen, City Clerk I • 1 1 q I 1 1 I • i RESOLUTION NO. 2805 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 16th day of July 1990 . Earl Clymer, Mayor Apprdv as to form: Lawrence J. Wa en, City Attorney Res . I102 : 7-12-90 :as . 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2805 - 7.12. PIERS AND DOCKS 7.12.01 Purpose: A. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use of the water surface and shoreline. of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be B. The use o g YP encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. C. The expansion of existing piers and docks is encouraged over the construction of new facilities. D. Establish approval and design criteria. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public recreational access and use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the proposed pier or dock in his application for a permit. 7.12.03 Criteria for Approval of Docks and Piers The approval of a new dock or pier or a modification or extension of,an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: A. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage; B. The dock or pier does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water nor create a hazard to navigation; 2805 EXHIBIT TO RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION No. 2805 C. The dock or pier will not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers; and D. The dock or pier must comply with the design criteria specified in the following sections. 7.112.04, Design Criteria - General A. Pier Type 1. All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more, of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. B. All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. C. Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or the repair and maintenance of existing docks, shall use materials and methods which prevent toxic materials, petrochemicals and other pollutants from entering surface water during and after construction. D. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by nonresidents of piers or docks accessory to residences. 7.12.05 Design Criteria for Single-Family-Docks and Piers A. There shall be no more than one pier per developed waterfront lot or ownership. B. Dock Size Specifications 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (50) feet in length be required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. -2- RESOLUTION NO. 2805 c. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole. use of a private, single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an adjacent property line. d. One extension of a dock parallel to the shoreline, or one (1) float, may be allowed provided such extension is not located closer than five (5) feet from a side lot line or exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size. C. Joint Use Piers and Docks 1. A joint use dock may be constructed for two (2) contiguous waterfront properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side property line, common to both properties. 2. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared with the appropriate signatures of the property owners in question and recorded with the King County Office. A copyof the recorded agreement shall be Assessor'sg provided to the City. Such document should specify ownership rights and maintenance provisions. 3. Dock Size Specifications a. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high-water mark or to a depth of twelve (12) feet, whichever is reached first. b. Joint use docks and piers may not exceed a maximum width of twelve (12) feet. c. Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one (1) pier extension or float a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size for each owner. D. Requests for greater dock length may only be submitted, as specified below under Section 7.12.09, once an individual has failed to work with an adjacent property owner in establishing a joint use dock. 7.12.06 Design Criteria for Multi-Family Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage 1. Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents or owner of the subdivision, apartments, condominiums, or similar developments for which the dock was built. B. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces 1. The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be a one berth for every two (2) dwelling units. -3- RESOLUTION NO. 2805 C. Length of Multiple-Family Pier or Dock 1. Multiple-family piers or docks shall not exceed a length of one hundred eighty (180) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except as may be allowed under Section 7.12.10 of this section of the Master Program. 7. 2.07 Design Criteria for Recreational, Commercial and Industrial.Docks A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: 1. Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having jurisdiction thereover, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty (150) feet; if the depth of thirty (30) feet is not reached, the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet. 2. The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet. B. Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a side property line. C. Docks or piers which are associated or linked with City trails shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended purpose and will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis. 7.1.2.08 Use of Buoys and Floats A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage, as permitted below under B of this section, may be allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats are to be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation, including reflectors for nighttime visibility. In no case shall a buoy be located further from the shoreline than the allowable length for docks. B. Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small watercraft. 2. Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A float proposed for joint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet per residence. 3. A single-family residence may only have one (1) float. 4. Floats shall not exceed a length of fifty (50) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except public recreation floats. -4- RESOLUTION NO. 2805 7.12109 Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may be submitted to the City's Hearing Examiner. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock dimensions. The Examiner, in approving a,variance request, shall include a finding that a variance request complies with: A. The criteria listed above in Section 7.12.03 when approving such requests; and B. The criteria specified in Section 8.02 of the Master Program.; -5- • / July 2. 1990 ;nton City Council Minutes _ Page 202 Public Works:'Sanitary Utilities Committee Chairman Nelson presented a report stating that the Sewer Service for Committee met to consider sanitary sewer service for the Northward/Orchards Northward/Orchards property and concurred with the Public Works Property Department's recommendation that Northward be allowed to proceed with the interim sanitary sewer system improvements as proposed in their "Preliminary. Design Report for a Sanitary Sewer Interbasin Transfer from the Upper Heather Downs Basin to the Lower Maplewood Basin" (Dodds Engineers, Inc., May 1990). The recommended improvements include construction of a lift station at the south side of the Bakke property and rerouting the flows from the Orchards and Windsor Place Apartments (the latter being an existing complex) from the Heather Downs Basin to the Maplewood Basin. To accomplish this interbasin transfer, 5250 linear feet of 6" force main, 490 linear feet of 8" PVC sewer pipe, and 360 linear feet of 24" ductile iron sewer pipe would be installed. The Committee further concurred with the Public Works Department's recommendation that if Northward proceeds with the above-mentioned interim improvements, the following occur: 1) The improvements be accomplished, per the report, to provide the capacity to service the Orchards, Forrest Creste, and Bakke developments. 2) Northward sign and execute a Developer Extension Agreement to participate in the construction of the East Renton Interceptor. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilman Stredicke asked for clarification of the effect this report has on the sewer moratorium. Utility Systems Manager Richard Anderson explained that these properties were covered in the original sewer moratorium and were given consideration for exemption; it is consistent with the sewer moratorium and the City's proposals for serving that area; and is an interim measure and not intended to be a permanent solution to the moratorium. *MOTION CARRIED. Upon further inquiry, Mr. Anderson advised that the sewer comprehensive plan and schedule for the East Renton Interceptor project will be presented to Council very shortly. Library: Service to Councilwoman Zimmerman cited a letter to the editor which appeared in the Renton Hill Residents Valley Daily newspaper on July 2, 1990, regarding the Council's action to provide library service to North Soos Creek residents and suggesting that the City consider providing its services to other non-city residents. Further, she mentioned that she has been asked why Renton library services are being considered for North Soos Creek area residents only. Moved by Zimmerman, seconded by Tanner, Council refer this matter to Community Services Committee for review and recommendation.* Councilwoman Keolker- Wheeler suggested that this should be referred to the Library Board prior to going to the Committee. *SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL REFER MATTER OF PROVISION OF CITY LIBRARY SERVICES TO NON-CITY RESIDENTS TO LIBRARY BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION. President Mathews suggested Community Services Committee meet with the Library Board regarding this matter. MOTION CARRIED.* Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chairman Tanner presented a report Committee stating that on March 12, 1990, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2787 Planning: Shoreline regarding proposed Shoreline Master Program amendments. Those Master Program amendments were sent to the State Department of Ecology, as required. On Amendments May 16, 1990, Nora Jewett, of the Department of Ecology, suggested two minor changes. On June 28, 1990, the Committee met with staff to review the suggested changes and found them to be minor, another purpose was added to the purpose section, and commercial and industrial docks will be limited to 12 feet in width as are recreational docks, unless a variance is granted by the hearing examiner. The Committee recommended that the Council authorize the administration to send a letter to notify the State Department of Ecology that the City concurred in the changes, with the exception that "Recreation" needs to be left in the title of Section 7.12.07 to allow recreational docks up to 12 feet in width. Anticipating approval by the State Department of Ecology, the Committee also recommended this matter be referred to the Ways and means Committee for the preparation of appropriate legislation. July 2, 1990 enton City Council Minutes Page 203 MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT AND REFER THIS MATTER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Annexation: North Soos Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler said she has received some draft fact cards Creek (Fairwood) for the North Soos Creek annexation study and asked what method has been established for receiving comment. Public Works Director Lynn Guttmann requested that comments be sent to her for response. Parks: Trees on Sunset Councilman Stredicke expressed his appreciation for the detailed report Boulevard, forwarded to him by Acting Parks Director Sam Chastain in answer to his 1 query at the June 25, 1990, Council meeting regarding the condition of the trees planted by the City on NE Sunset Boulevard . Planning: Noise Level Councilman Stredicke stated that he received a letter requesting direction Ordinance from Council from Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes regarding the noise ordinance he proposed at the July 11, 1990, Council meeting. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 6, 1990, TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE LEGISLATION REGARDING NOISE FROM MOVING VEHICLES IN THE CITY OF RENTON. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN. COUNCIL INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INCLUDE A DEFINITION OF AUDIBLE NOISE AT A DISTANCE OF TO 75 FEET FROM THE SOURCE. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL SET THE LEVEL OF THE FINE FOR VIOLATION AT $200.00. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL AMEND THE MOTION AND SET THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE TO $250.00, THE SAME FINE AS SET FOR UNMUFFLED COMPRESSION BRAKES. CARRIED. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED. CARRIED. Council requested that the ordinance be reasonably consistent with other legislation of this nature in surrounding communities; noted that the draft ordinance will be a basis for discussion at the public hearing; expressed concern regarding enforcement of a noise ordinance; and suggested that staff investigate ways to enforce such an ordinance. It was also noted that the City of San Antonio has a noise measuring device that it uses to enforce such legislation and suggested that staff contact that city for enforcement information. CAG: 90-045, Mosquito Councilman Edwards suggested that Council send a letter to the,State to show Abatement Program support of Mayor Clymer in his efforts in regard to the Mosquito Abatement Program. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY TANNER, A LETTER SIGNED BY THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT BE SENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO EXPEDITE THE MOSQUITO SPRAY PERMIT IN THE RENTON VALLEY AREA. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Committee Chairman Keolker-Wheeler presented the following ordinances for second and final reading: Ordinance l#4276 An ordinance was read vacating a portion of S.W. 31st Street (Glacier Park Vacation: VAC-89-004, Company, VAC-004-89). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED • SW 31st Street, Glacier BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL Park Company CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED Ordinance #4277 An ordinance was read approving a Preliminary Planned Unit Development PUD: Preliminary, located in the vicinity of the 2200 block of Jefferson Avenue NE and Honey Creek, PPUD- generally south and southeast of Devil's Elbow (Honey Creek Associates, 015-84 PPUD-015-84). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: FIVE AYES: MATHEWS, NELSON, TANNER KEOLKER- WHEELER, EDWARDS. TWO NAYS: ZIMMERMAN, STREDICKE. CARRIED. . 1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE i 'I COMMITTEE REPORT JULY 2, 1990 SHORELINE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS (Referred May 15, 1989) f1 1 On *latch 12 , 1990, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2787 ' regarding proposed shoreline master plan amendments. Those amendments were sent to the State Department of Ecology, as required. On May 16, 1990, Nora Jewett, of the Departmentiof Ecology, suggested two minor changes. On June 28, 1990, the Planning and Development Committee met with staff to review. the suggested changes and found them to be minor: another purpose was addedlto the purpose section, and commercial and industrial docks will be limited to twelve (12) feet in width as are recreational docks, unless a variance is granted by the Hearing Examiner. The Committee recommends that the Council authorize the ' Administration to send a letter to the State Department of 'Ecology and notify the Department that the City concurs in the chariges, with the exception that "Recreation" needs to be left in the title of . Section 7. 12 . 07 to allow recreational docks up to twelve (12) feet inOwidth. ii 1 • Anticipating approval by the State Department of Ecology, the Committee also recommends this matter be referred to the Ways and Means; Committee for the preparation of appropriate legislation. 1 1 1 1 ssellTanner, Chair ; A` %, i C . Theresa Zimme an, Vice-Chair ' 6i; 1 1! 1 :; 1 1 Kathy' Keolker-Wheeler, Member 1. AND RO I D • f : { f . March 12, 1990 Renton City Council Minutes Page 79 OLD BUSINESS Transportation Committee Chairman Stredicke questioned whether South Transportation King County Area Transportation Benefit District (SCATBD) meeting had Committee been scheduled. It was noted that a report will be presented on 3/19/90. King County: SCATBD ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Chairwoman Keolker-Wheeler presented the following Committee ordinance for second and final reading: Ordinance #4262 An ordinance was read amending portions of Section 10-1705, 10-1707, and Police: Towing Ordinance 10-1710, of Chapter 17, Impoundment and Redemption of Certain Vehicles, of Title X (Traffic) of City Code making certain technical corrections to various sections, adding a section concerning approved tow rates, establishing a penalty for exceeding tow rates, and clarifying language concerning when appeals may be filed. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ways and Means Chairwoman Keolker-Wheeler presented the following ordinance for first reading: Finance: Alarm Systems An ordinance was read amending Chapter 3, Alarm Systems, of Title VI (Police Regulations) of City Code by deleting certain sections. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL RETURN REPORT TO WAYS AND MEANS FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Ways and Means Chairwoman Keolker-Wheeler presented the following resolution for reading and adoption: Resolution #2787 A resolution was read adopting the language of the "Shoreline Ordinance Planning:Shoreline Amendment, Piers/Docks." MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Master Program ;SECONDED BY EDWARDS. ALL AYES. CARRIED. Vouchers Ways and Means Committee recommended Council approve payment claims checks #68042 through #68364 and two wire transfers, totaling $1,389,348.32; and payroll vouchers #85381 through #85781, and 195 direct deposits, in the amount of $869,743.45. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN PAYMENT OF VOUCHERS. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Stredicke requested a report from the City Attorney regarding Streets: Speed Bumps the City's liability from installing speed bumps on public streets and driveways. Monthly Transportation Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chairman Stredicke announced that Committee Meetings beginning April 5, 1990, the Transportation Committee will meet the 1st Thursday of each month. Staff may bring any topic for discussion. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time 9:15 p.m. c37/-) • 4 •! vim/ MARILYN . P' RSEN, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Sandra Wales 03/05/90 AYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 12, 1990 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following ordinance for second and final reading: Towing Ordinance Amendment The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following ordinance for first reading: Finance Department Request for Alarm Systems Ordinance Revision The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following resolution for reading and adoption: Adopting the Language of the Shoreline Ordinance Amendment, Piers/Docks APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS The Ways and Means Committee recommends approval for payment claims checks #68042 through 68364 and two wire transfers, totaling $1,389,348.32; and payroll vouchers #85381 through 85781, and 195 direct deposits, in the amount of $869,743.45. /, Kathy KeoCer-Wheeler, Chair Bob Edwards, Vice-Chair . Richard Stredicke, Member CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2787 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE LANGUAGE OF THE "SHORELINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, PIERS/DOCKS. " WHEREAS, the City of Renton reviewed the Piers and Docks section of the Shoreline Master Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council, the Planning Commission, and members of the City of Renton staff considered the areas of needed change and recommended new language; and WHEREAS, it was deemed appropriate and in the public interest to make changes to the existing regulations of that section. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I. The above recitals are hereby found to be true and correct in all respects . SECTION II. The City of Renton hereby adopts the language of the "Shoreline Ordinance Amendment, Piers/Docks" (attached hereto as an exhibit) as its new regulations governing docks and piers of the Shoreline Master Program. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of March , 1990 . ii J1 G Marilyn J etersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th day of March , 1990. c1-9-jr\AJ Earl H. Clymer, May 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2787 Approved s to form: �r� Q Lawre ce J. War n City Attorney RES. 83:3/5/90 :as . 2 • RESOLUTION NO. 2787 SHORELINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PIERS/DOCKS 7.12 PIERS AND DOCKS 7.12.01 Purpose: A. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use of the water surface and shoreline. A--pier-or-deck -a-strxet -built--ever ng_ �: -of-fleati the--wa-t-er; used--as--a--landing--er-meerage--plaee-f©r- arine-transi3&Ft-oer-fof residential-purposes: B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. C. The expansion of existing piers and docks is encouraged over the construction of new facilities. D. Establish approval and design criteria. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public recreational access and use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major ! waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant' to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the pi er proposed osed or dock in his application for a permit the-n ed-for-the-pr&posed-pier-er-dock. T -design-of--all-piers--and-doekr-shall--be approved--b -o-lieenscd engineerorlieensed-afehiteet: I ! I � • -Shoreline Ordinance Ainer-lment Piers/Docks 1/31/90 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2787 7.12.03 Criteria for Approval of Docks and Piers The approval .of a new dock or pier or a modification or extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: A. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage; B. The dock or pier propose44-ength does not interfere with. the public use and enjoyment of the water or create a.hazard to navigation; and C. The dock or pier proposer-finer-ease-ix 4ength will not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers. D. The dock or pier must comply with the design criteria specified in the following sections. 7.12.04 Design Criteria-General A. Pier Type All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range: of normal length piling. A soft bottom condition, providing P g little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. B. All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. C. Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or the repair and maintenance of existing docks, shall use materials and methods which prevent toxic materials, petrochemicals and other pollutants from entering surface water during and after construction. D. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by non- residents of piers or docks accessory to residences. $ Covered-moefage,-both--perma-nent--and tempc3r-ary-,-sliell-econsist-of r nror-e-than-a ro&i • Shoreline Ordinance Amendment ' Piers/Docks 1/31/90 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2787 7.12.05 Design Criteria for Single Family Docks and Piers A. There shall be no more than one pier per developed waterfront lot or ownership. II � B. Dock Size Specifications (Modified Section) 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of twelve(12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (50) feet in length be required. I i b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. c. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an adjacent property line. d. One Extension of a dock parallel to the shoreline, or one (1) .float, may be allowed provided such extension is not located closer than five (5) feet from a side lot line or exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size. II � C. Joint Use Piers and Docks (New Section) 1. A joint use dock may be constructed for two (2)1 contiguous waterfront properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side property line, common to both properties. 2. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared with the appropriate signatures of the property owners in question and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be orovided to the City. Such document should s ecify wnership rights and maintenance provisions. p 3. Dock Size Specifications a. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty (80) feet • beyond the ordinary high water mark or to a depth of twelve (12) feet, whichever is reached first. b. Joint use docks and piers may not exceed a maximum width of twelve (12) feet. I � Shoreline Ordinance Amendment • Piers/Docks 1/31/90 Page4 RESOLUTION NO. 2787 c. Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one (1) pier extension or float a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size for each owner. D. Requests for greater dock length may only be submitted, as specified below under Section 7.12.09, once an individual has failed to work with an adjacent property owner in establishing a joint use dock. I3 De-c-k-ration-and-spa eing 1: Two-(aycontignous wa erffent-pFoperties may--locate-a 4oint El ek-facility--on--either--such--par-oper-ty,--pr-ov-ided-- la&Fe--ape approp iate�est-r-ietive-eeveaa -filed-for reeord-Fx-nning-With the-land 7.12.06 Design Criteria for Multi-family Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage 1. Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents or owner of the subdivision, apartments, condominiums, or similar developments for which the dock was built. B. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces 1. The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be a fractio-n-less-than one berth for every two (2) dwelling units. C. Length of Multiple Family Pier or Dock 1. Multiple-family piers or docks shall not exceed a length of one hundred eighty (180) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except as may be allowed under section 7.12.10 of this section of the Master Program. 7.12.07 Design Criteria for Recreational, Commercial and Industrial Docks A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: 1. Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having jurisdiction thereover, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty (150) feet; if the depth of thirty (30) feet is not reached, the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet. 2. The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet except for public recreational purposes. B. Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a side property line. • • Shoreline Ordinance Ame—'ment Piers/Docks 1/31/90 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2787 C. Docks or piers which are associated or linked with City trails shall be shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended purpose and will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis. 7.12.08 Use of Buoys and Floats A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage, as permitted below under B of this section, may be allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats shall be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation, including reflectors for nighttime visibility. In no case shall a buoy be located further from the shoreline than the allowable length for docks. B. Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small watercraft. 2. Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A float proposed for joint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet per residence. 3. A single family residence may only have one (1) float. 4. Floats shall not exceed a length of fifty (50) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except public recreation floats. 7.12.09 Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may submitted to the City's Hearing Examiner Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock dimensions. The Examiner, in approving a variance request, shall include a finding that a variance request complies with: A. The criteria listed above in Section 7.12.03 when approving such requests: and B. The criteria specified in Section 8.02 of the Master Program; I • March 12. 1990 Renton City Council Minutes I Page 79 II II OLD BUSINESS Transportation Committee Chairman Stredicke questioned whether South Transportation King County Area Transportation Benefit District (SCATBD) meeting had Committee been scheduled. It was noted that a report will be presented on 3/19/90. King County: SCATBD ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS it Ways and Means Ways and Means Chairwoman Keolker-Wheeler presented the following Committee ; ordinance for second and final reading:II Ordinance #4262 An ordinance was'read amendin g portions of Section 10-1705, 10-1707, and Police: Towing Ordinance 10-1710, of Chapter'17, Impoundment and Redemption of Certain Vehicles, 11 of Title X (Traffic) of City Code making certain technical corrections to various sections,'adding a'section concerning approved tow rates, establishing a penalty for exceeding tow rates, and clarifying language cone r Y ga ning when appeals 11 Pp may be filed. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ: ROLL I CALL: ALL.-AYES. CARRIED. 11 1 Ways and MeansChairwoman Keolker-Wheeler presented the following ordinance for first reading: II Finance: Alarm Systems An ordinance was read amending Chapter 3, Alarm Systems, of Title VI (Police Regulations) of City Code by deleting certain sections. i'MOVED BY 11 KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL RETURN REPORT TO WAYS AND:MEANS FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. 1 ir II Ways and Means Chairwoman Keolker-Wheeler presented the following resolution for reading and adoption: 1 Resolution #2787 A resolution was read adopting the language of the "Shoreline Ordinance Planning:(Shoreline Amendment, Piers/Docks."' MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Master Program SECONDED.BY EDWARDS. ALL AYES. CARRIED. I 1 Vouchers 11 Ways and Means Committee recommended Council approve payment claims checks #68042 through #68364 and two wire transfers, totaling $1,389,348.32; and payroll vouchers #85381 through #85781, and 195 direct deposits, in the amount of $869 743:45. 'MO VED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,1 SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN PAYMENT OF VOUCHERS. 1 CARRIED. 1 NEW BUSINESS Councilman Stredicke requested a report from the City Attorney regarding Streets: Speed Bumps( the City's liability from installing speed bumps on public streets and 11 driveways. Monthly11 Transportation Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chairman Stredicke announced that Committee Meetings beginning April 5, 1990,•the Transportation Committee will meet the 1st Thursday of each month. Staff may bring any topic for discussion. I I ADJOURNMENT 1 MOVED BY MATHEWS; SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL 11 ADJOURN. CARRIED. 'Time 9:15 p.m. , 11 I 1 ‘ ajr-6 MARILYN . P' • RSEN CMC,, C C, City Clerk , Recorder: Sandra Wales 03/05/90 11 II j 11 1 II I ; I WAYS AND.MEANS COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 12, 1990 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS The Ways and. Means Committee recommends the following ordinance for second and final reading: • Towing Ordinance Amendment The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following ordinance for first reading: Finance Department Request for Alarm Systems Ordinance Revision The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following resolution for reading and adoption: Adopting the Language of the Shoreline Ordinance Amendment, Piers/Docks APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS The Ways and Means Committee recommends approval for payment claims checks #68042 through 68364 and two wire transfers, totaling $1,389,348.32; and payroll vouchers #85381 through 85781, and 195 direct deposits, in the amount of $869,743.45. Kathy Keol#er-Wheeler, Chair i() Bob Edwards, Vice-Chair Richard Stredicke, Member CA4b, E i `{—Ll l( a-Z' February 5. 1990 Renton City Council Minutes Page 38 OLD BUSINESS Planning and Development Committee Acting Chairman Mathews presented a Planning and report regarding the Shoreline Master Program residential dock provisions. Development Committee The Committee met and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation Planning: Shoreline on the residential dock amendments to Section 7.12, Docks and Piers, of the Master Program2 Shoreline Master Program. The Committee recommended approval of Residential Dock language amending the dock provisions which is a combination of the Amendments Planning Commission's recommendation to Council together with modifications by the Committee. The Committee further recommended that the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for proper legislation. Finally, the Committee recommended that the Council refer to the Planning and Development Committee and the City Attorney the task of further reviewing the language on dock variances, Section 7.12.09, for the inclusion of specific variance criteria as part of the section. This will enable the review and establishment of specific criteria for various situations that give rise to variance requests, i.e., greater dock length when neighboring properties may have a dock exceeding the length allowable by code for a property owner. The establishment of such criteria will provide better direction to the Hearing Examiner and staff in reviewing variance requests for docks and piers. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT AND REFER THE MATTER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Planning: Cul-de-Sac Planning and Development Committee Acting Chairman Mathews presented a Length, Code Provisions report recommending that the matter of code requirements for cul-de-sac length be removed from the referral list as no change in the current City Code is necessary. The subject will be considered when the subdivision ordinance is reviewed. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Public Safety Committee Public Safety Committee Chairman Edwards presented a report regarding Peep Shows, Panorams, zoning for peep shows, panorams, and topless soft drink parlors. The and Topless Parlors Committee met on 2/1/90 to review an ordinance regulating the location of peep shows, panorams, and adult entertainment businesses. The ordinance is based upon the same rationale as the adult motion picture ordinance and contains the same distance prohibitions. The Committee recommended the Council approve the concept of regulating the location of these businesses and forward the draft ordinance to the Ways and Means Committee. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT AND REFER THIS MATTER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR LEGISLATION. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chairman Stredicke presented a report Committee regarding approval of subleases to the Lien airport lease, LAG-003-86, Lease: Lien, LAG-003-86 referred 1/15/90. The Committee recommended Council concurrence with the recommendation of the Public Works Department that the Liens (John, Terrence and Julie), current leaseholders of Lease Agreement 003-86, be authorized to enter into subleases with SAS Northwest and Miller Aviation, and that the subleases be approved. SAS Northwest is a holding company which operates the Lien family trust and maintains the Liens' accounting requirements. Miller Aviation performs aircraft maintenance for the Liens operations and the public. The subleases have been approved as to form by the City Attorney. MOVED BY STREDICKE, AND SECONDED THAT COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Appeals: Administrative Councilman Stredicke requested that the City Attorney and members of the Determination Language Ways and Means Committee review the ordinance pertaining to appeals of administrative determination to clarify language and assist appellants in filing complete and timely appeals. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ; I PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT"COMMI f1'EE 1 COMMI'1'l'EE REPORT FEBRUARY 5, 1990 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. RESIDENTIAL DOCK PROVISIONS The Planning and Development Committee met and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation on the residential dock amendments to the Section 7.12, Docks and Piers, of the Shoreline Master Program. The Committee recommends approval of the attached dock amendment language which is a combination of the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council together with modifications by the Committee. The Committee further recommends that the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for proper legislation. Finally, the Committee recommends that the Council refer to the Planning and Development Committee and the City attorney the task of further reviewing the language on dock variances, Section 7.12.09, for the inclusion of specific variance criteria as part of the section. This will enable the review and establishment of specific criteria for various situations that give rise to variance requests, i.e., greater dock length when neighboring properties may have a dock exceeding the length allowable by code for a property owner. The establishment of such criteria will provide better direction to the Hearing Examiner and staff in reviewing II variance requests for docks and piers. Nancy L. P thews, Chair eresa Zimmer an, Vice-Chair Kathy Keo ker-Wheeler,Member • SHORELINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PIERS/DOCKS 7.12 PIERS AND DOCKS 7.12.01 Purpose: A. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use of the water surface and shoreline. A.pief-or strac-tt bnrlt-over--or--floating-open-the--wateF; used-,as--a-lauding--er-meorage--place--for--mapine-tFa s-paFt- -fof residerrtial-puppes as: B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. C. The expansion of existing piers and docks is encouraged over the construction of new facilities. D. Establish approval and design criteria. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public recreational access and use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the proposed pier or dock in his application for a permit the-needfor-the-proposedpief-er--deck. Tl -design.-.of-all-pier&--arid-dock&-shall-be approved--by-a-licensed engincei-or=lieensed-a-r—ehitee-t: ' 'Shoreline Ordinance Am( -, Went Piers/Docks 1/31/90 Page 2 7.12.03 Criteria for Approval of Docks and Piers The approval of a new dock or pier or a modification or extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: A. , The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage; B. The dock or pier proposed---ength does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water or create a hazard to navigation; and C. The dock or pier proposed--finer- ase-ix 4-ength will not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers. D. The dock or pier must comply with the design criteria specified in the following sections. 7.12.04 Design Criteria-General A. Pier Type All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. B. All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. C. Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or the repair and maintenance of existing docks, shall use materials and methods which prevent toxic materials, petrochemicals and other pollutants from entering surface water during and after construction. D. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by non- residents of piers or docks accessory to residences. $ Covered--mao-rage,-both permanent--and temper-ary3�l ll--consist-©€ ne-mer-e-th-al}-a rho-f.) • 'Shoreline Ordinance Am—Iment Piers/Docks 1/31/90 Page 3 7.12.05 Design Criteria for.Single Family Docks and Piers A. There shall be no more than one pier per developed waterfront lot or ownership. B. Dock Size Specifications (Modified Section) 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (50) feet in length be required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. c. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an adjacent,property line. d. One Extension of a dock parallel to the shoreline, or one (1) .float, may be allowed provided such extension is not located closer than five (5) feet from a side lot line or exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size. C. Joint Use Piers and Docks (New Section) 1. A joint use dock may be constructed for two (2) contiguous waterfront properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side property line, common to both properties. 2. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared with the appropriate signatures of the property owners in question and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be provided to the City. Such document should specify ownership rights and maintenance provisions. 3. Dock Size Specifications a. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty (80) feet • beyond the ordinary high water mark or to a depth of twelve (12) feet,whichever is reached first. b. Joint use docks and piers may not exceed a maximum width of twelve (12) feet. , • Shoreline Ordinance Amendment Piers/Docks 1/31/90 Page 4 c. Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one (1) pier extension or float a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size for each owner. D. Requests for greater dock length may only be submitted, as specified below.under Section 7.12.09, once an individual has failed to work with an adjacent property owner in establishing a joint use dock. Dec -I=,oeation-ai Spaci g 4: Two-R_c-entigliotts waterfr-ortt-p rties-may-ldeate-a j-eirrt deck-faeility--en--either--sueh-- roper-ty;--provided-tber-e--are appropriate-restr-ietive-covenants-€filed or reeard-rx iing-with the-land: 7.12.06 Design Criteria for Multi-family Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage 1. Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents or owner of the subdivision, apartments, condominiums, or similar developments for which the dock was built. B. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces 1. The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be a fraetien-less-then one berth for every two (2) dwelling units. C. Length of Multiple Family Pier or Dock 1. Multiple-family piers or docks shall not exceed a length of one hundred eighty (180) feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except as may be allowed under section 7.12.10 of this section of the Master Program. 7.12.07 Design Criteria for Recreational, Commercial and Industrial Docks A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: 1. Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having jurisdiction thereover, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty (150) feet; if the depth of thirty (30) feet is not reached, the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet. 2. The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet except for public recreational purposes. B. Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a side property line. . 'Shoreline Ordinance Amr--'-nent Piers/Docks 1/31/90 Page 5 C. Docks or piers which are associated or linked with City trails shall be shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended purpose and will be determined by the City on a case-by-case.basis. 7.12.08 Use of Buoys and Floats A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage, as permitted below under B of this section, may be allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats shall be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation, including reflectors for nighttime visibility. In no case shall a buoy be located further from the shoreline than the allowable length for docks. B. Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small watercraft. 2. Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A float proposed for joint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet per residence. 3. A single family residence may only have one (1) float. 4. Floats shall not exceed a length of fifty (50). feet into the water beyond the ordinary high-water mark, except public recreation floats. 7.12.09 Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may submitted to the City's Hearing Examiner Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock dimensions. The Examiner, in approving a variance request, shall include a finding that a variance request complies with: A. The criteria listed above in Section 7.12.03 when approving such requests: and B. The criteria specified in Section 8.02 of the Master Program; - i�`^CAS/k� . November 20 1989 - Renton City Council Minutes VVV Page 315 I Good Shepherd Ralph Evans, 3306 NE 11 th Place, Renton, reported.that as of 11/17/89, (continued) HUD had not approved the lease agreement between Good Shepherd and the Lutheran Church for use of the property on Olympia Avenue NE, HUD had not approved the management plan submitted by Good Shepherd, and • concerns related to the separation of church and state had not been resolved to the satisfaction of the ACLU. 1 i Citizen Comment: Webb - Sanford Webb, 430 Mill Avenue South, Renton, indicated concern that Gifts from Sister City generosity extended by residents of Nishiwaki is not being reciprocated by the City. He felt that if the City does not intend.to,respond in kind, gifts from Nishiwaki should be declined. Mayor Clymer pointed out that because ' State law prohibits the use of City funds for this purpose, reciprocal gifts have been provided by Renton officials at their own expense; the gifts from Japan are given to the City, not to individuals, and are on display in public facilities; and Nishiwaki officials have been apprised of the laws regarding use of City funds to purchase gifts, and would be offended if the City refused them. I Citizen Comment: Webb - On a second matter, Mr. Webb urged Council to reinstate the audience Reinstatement of comment portion of the agenda at each Council meeting. MOVED BY Audience .Comment at STREDICKE, SECONDED.BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL REFER THE Council Meetings MATTER OF REINSTATEMENT OF AUDIENCE COMMENT AT ALL 1 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES. CARRIED. j CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which (follows the I listing. I 1 Appointmlent:li Municipal Mayor Clymer appointed Greg Murray, 253 129th Avenue NE,1 Bellevue, Arts Commission 98005, to the Municipal Arts Commission for a three-year term beginning 12/1/89 and expiring 12/31/92. Mr. Murray is active in the Renton community through the Imperials Music and Youth Organization, 2003 Maple Valley Highway, Suite 213, Renton, 98055. Refer to Ways andl Means Committee. Claim: Mark, CL-51-89 Claim for damages in the amount of $479.20 filed by Ione Mark, 21009 4th I' South, Seattle, for back injuries allegedly sustained in a fall at Maplewood Golf Course, claiming negligence in failure to cover 'floor withI non-skid material. Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. i CAG: 89 '077; North City Clerk's Office reported bid opening 11/9/89 for North Highlands Highlands'Recreation Recreation Center Interior Improvements; five bids received; engineer's Center Interior estimate: $110,000. Refer to Community Services Committee. Improvements CAG: 89474, City Clerk's Office reported bid opening 11/9/89 for underground fuel Underground(Fuel storage tank removal; one bid received; engineer's estimate: $75,000. Refer Storage Tank 'IRemoval to Utilities Committee. Finance: Pooled Finance Director requested ordinance delegating authority to apportion Investments and earnings on pooled investments and to oversee interfund loans. I Refer to Interfundi Loans Ways and Means Committee. I Budget: 1990 City of Finance Director requested inclusion of the following items in the 1990 Renton budget ordinance proposed for first reading on 11/27/89: 1) adopt the 1990 City Budget; 2) close and dissolve the Federal Revenue Sharing and Coulon Park Construction Funds; and 3) amend certain fee schedules. 'Refer to Ways and Means Committee. I Board/Commission: Q Coi ecommended amendment of Shoreline Master Program Planning commission, Section 7.12, Docks and Piers. Refer to Planning and Development Shoreline '(Master Committee. Program, Docks & Piers ' MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS The Planning and Development Committee discussed traffic access to the Planning and Honey Creek Preliminary Planned Unit Development site from Development Committee Jefferson/Harrington Avenue NE The Committee recommended that the I PUD: Preliminary, Honey Administration be directed to: Creek, PPFUD 015-84, Site Access I 1) Review the proposed Honey Creek PPUD to ensure that it complies with code, particularly in the area of street ownership and development standards and timing of the development; j For.Us sy City Clerk's Office Only A. I . 1l (� AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING a Community Development SUBMITTING Planning Division Dept./Div./B'd./Comm. For Agenda Of //--o20 - [Donald K. Erickson (Meeting Date) Staff Contact 'Jeanette Samek-McKague ' (Name) Agenda Status: • SUBJECT: Amendment to Consent • Shoreline Master Program Public Hearing Correspondence Section 7.12 Ordinance/Resolution Docks and Piers Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc.)Attach• New Business Study Session A. Proposed ordinance section Other B. �- C. Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No , N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Finance Dept. Yes_ No. N/A Refer to Planning and Development Other Clearance ' • FISCAL IMPACT: . Expenditure Required $ Amount Appropriation- $ $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach ;additional pages if necessary.) The City Council in January 1989 requested the administration to review regulations on residential "docks. Revisions were prepared by: the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council in July. The proposed amendment was submitted to the Department of Ecology who requested the City modify the entire section on docks. The Planning Commission completed their final review of revisions, held a public hearing on October 4, 1989 and prepared a recommendation to the City Council . This recommendation is transmitted herewith. I ' PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: II SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. ' SHORELINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PIERS/DOCKS 7.12 PIERS AND DOCKS 7.12.01 Purpose: A. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use of the water surface and shoreline. A-pier-or-deck-is-a-stfueture-built-ever.-or-floating-upon--the-water-,-used as--a-landing-or-moorage -place-far--rnarine--transpeFt-or-€er-residenti-al pufpeses. B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. C. The expansion of existing piers and docks is encouraged over the construction of new facilities. D. Establish approval and design criteria. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the proposed pier or dock in his application for a permit the--need-€er-the-proposed pie?or-deck. C. The design of all piers and docks shall be approved by a licensed engineer or licensed architect. 7.12.03 Criteria for Approval of Docks and Piers The approval of a new dock or pier or a modification or extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: f Shoreline Ordinance Ames ant Piers/Docks 10/18/89 Page 2 I i A. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage; • I � B. The dock or pier p*epesed-length does not interfere with the', public use and enjoyment of the water or create a hazard to navigation; and C. The dock or pier prepesed-insrease-irt-length will not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers. D. The dock or pier must comply with the design criteria specified in the following sections. 7. 2.04 Design Criteria-General A. Pier Tyne All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of, significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. B. All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in;a safe and sound condition. C. Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or the repair and maintenance of existing docks, shall use materials and methods which prevent toxic materials, petrochemicals !and other pollutants from entering surface water during and after construction. E. No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by non-residents of piers or docks accessory to residences. F. Permanent and temporary covered moorage shall be allowed provided that the following conditions are met: 1. The structure shall be located. as far landward as 'possible to avoid interference with views from the surrounding properties. 2. The structure shall consist only of a roof and shall be of non- reflective material compatible with the surrounding area. f I 3. The structure shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height above the water surface. . I , • Shoreline Ordinance Amei ent Piers/Docks 10/18/89 Paige 4. The structure not shall not exceed a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet in size. B. Covered moorage, both g , ,permanent and temporary, shall consist of no. more than a roof.) 7.12.05 Design Criteria for Single Family Docks and Piers A. There shall be one allowed but no more than one pier per waterfront lot or ownership. B. Joint Use Piers and Docks (New Section) 1. A joint dock may be constructed for two (2) contiguous waterfront properties and may be located on a side property line or straddling a side property line, common to both properties. 2. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be prepared with the appropriate signatures of the joint property and recorded with the King County Assessor's Office. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be provided to the City. Such document should specify ownership rights and maintenance provisions. C. Dock Size Specifications The following dock specifications shall be allowed for single docks and joint use docks: 1. Length: a. Single family docks may extend to a maximum, of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (50) feet in length be required. b. Joint use docks and piers may extend to eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high water mark or to a depth of twelve (12) feet. whichever is reached first. However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (50) feet in length be required. 2. Width: a. Single family docks shall be a maximum width of eight (8) feet. Shoreline Ordinance Ame] ent Piers/Docks 10/18/89 Page 4 b. Joint use docks and piers shall not exceed a maximum width of twelve (12) feet. 3. Setbacks: a. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single-family residence or residences may lie closer than ten (10) five (5) feet to an adjacent property line. 4. Dock or Pier Extensions: • a. Single family docks and piers may be allowed one extension of a dock perpendicular to the shoreline (notation states dock but not reflected in minutes), or one (1) float, provided such the extension is not located closer than ten (10) feet from a side lot line or exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size. b. Joint use docks and piers may be allowed one (1) pier extension or float a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size for each owner, provided the extension is not located closer than ten (10) feet from a side lot line or exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size. D. Doc4c-I c-atiort-and-Spaci g 1. Two-(2)-contiguous-wateFfr-cart-proper-ties-may-leeate--a-joint-leek facility-en-either-sueh-p Fop eIt3,.-provided--the-re-are--appr-arr4ate restrictivve-coveoa rts.-filed-€or-reeerd-runt iog with-the-ianci. 7.12.06 Design Criteria for Multi-family Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage 1. Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents of the. subdivision, apartments, condominiums, or similar developments for which the dock was built. B. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces 1. The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be a fraction less than one berth for every two (2) dwelling units. C.• Length of Multiple Family Pier or Dock 1. Multiple-family piers or docks shall not exceed a length of eighty (80) feet or exceed a depth of twelve (12) feet, whichever comes first. The number of docks or piers shall be limited to one per forty-five (45) feet of shoreline. However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (50) feet in length be required. Shoreline Ordinance Ame: ent Piers/Docks 10/18/89 Page 5 7.12.07 Commercial and Industrial Docks (Remains the same.) 7.12.08 Use of Buoys and Floats A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage, as allowed below under B of this section, may be allowed as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats shall be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation and in no case shall a buoy be located further from the shoreline than the allowable length for docks. B. Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small watercraft. 2. Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A float proposed for joint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet per residence. 3. A single family residence may only have one (1) float. 7.12.09 Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may submitted to the City's Hearing Examiner Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock length and construction. The Examiner, in approving a variance request, shall include a finding that a variance request complies with: A. The criteria listed above in Section 7.12.03 when approving such requests: and B. The criteria specified in Section 8.02 of the Master Program;, /\,,�!�' � ' 5 0 6 4 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION El l e n e L a v i l l e ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the VALLEY DAILY NEWS f tc mrct RENTON; �► Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition i, '%NOTICE oCP'PUBLIC HEARING BY RENTON CI COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers Renton City Council has fixed'the 3rd day are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six of July, 1969, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Build- months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published ing, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,Wash- in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King ington, as the time and place for a public County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal hearing to consider the following: Residential dock amendments to the newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for pity of Renton Shoreline Master Program.. King County. I Any and all interested personaare invit- ed to be present too approvaldisa p The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition proval or oi5iriiions CFA Qa'fb matter. , Renton Edition X , Auburn Edition (and not in Maxine E. Motor CMC, City C y Clerk �} ity Clerk supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers Published in the Valley Daily News June during thebelow stated period. The annexed notice a 10; 1969 R3566 L�# 50640. J Notice of Public Hearing was published on June 16 , 1989 R3566 . The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$ 38 . 40 _ C xxo mQ. I,.0-0\- Subscribed and sworn before me this 20 day of June 19 89 . Na Public for the State of Washington residing at Auburn, King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 July 17.`1989 Renton City Council Minutes Page 206 City Clerk entered letter from Dale Hollister, May Creek Associates, owner of property directly across NE 48th Street from the proposed Shurgard development. Mr. Hollister supported staff alternative no. 3, which requires annexation prior to extension of water service. He felt that warehouses would be incompatible with surrounding office uses and detrimental to property values and appearance of the surrounding area. Mr. Hollister indicated to the Council that he has worked with the City to 'rezone the property for office use as a transition between business and residential use, and he felt that the subject development should be required to provide a similar transition. He indicated that if property owners can provide that assurance, he had no objection to the proposal. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Trimm presented a report regarding Committee the Shoreline Master Program residential dock amendment, referred"on Pln : Shoreline 7/3/89. Due to language of the original ordinance, No. 3758, amendments Master Pro ram, authorized by the City Council shall be considered, accepted, and constitute a Resident-alb-, ock part of such Master Program without the necessity of further adoption of Amendment such amendments. Information. Police: Narcotics Control Ways and Means Committee Chairman Trimm presented a report Program Grant recommending Council concurrence in the request of the Finance Director _ and the Police Department to accept the State of Washington, Department of Community Development, Washington State Narcotics Control Program's grant in conjunction with the cities of Auburn, Tukwila, and Kent. This action would transfer an ongoing grant from Auburn to Renton. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Stredicke questioned City policy requiring property owners Streets: Replacement of to resurface streets after installation of sewer lines. Mayor Clymer indicated Paving (Clarke) that over 7/8 of the roadway in question was torn up during construction, and it is in the interest of the City's taxpayers to require replacement of the paving which was installed less than three years ago. Streets: .I990-1996 Six- MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Year Transportation COUNCIL REFER THE 1990-1996 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION Improvement Program IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON 8/7/89, TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Council referral of 6/19/89 regarding update of City's government access REPORT channel: Malfunctioning computer equipment at TCI headquarters has Utility: TCI,Government resulted in display of outdated messages stored in the system's memory. The Access Channel problem has been reported and will be repaired. The channel is updated twice a week by City Clerk division staff, and a total of 53 messages was either entered or removed during the period of 5/16/89 through 6/15/89. Cable Consultant Mayor Clymer indicated that messages of condolence have been sent to Lon Hurd, the City's cable consultant, on the passing of his father, Jim Hurd. The elder Mr. Hurd was the City's first cable consultant. AUDIENCE COMMENT Theresa Zimmerman, 813 N. 1st Street, Renton, expressed disappointment Citizen Committee: North that the North Renton citizens advisory committee, which has been meeting Renton Citizens Advisory for the past two and one-half years, was not notified of plans to replace Committee Heery Program Management consultants with a facilitator to rediscuss the North Renton projects with residents. She questioned the scope of the work being funded, and requested that a specific list of projected work items be provided. Mayor Clymer indicated that the facilitator is replacing the original consultant, and will be responsible for providing information regarding the projects, and facilitating discussions between residents, business representatives and City staff. City's Capital Council President Stredicke announced that the City's Capital Improvement Improvement Program Program will be presented to the Renton Chamber of Commerce Local Government Committee on Friday, August 10 at 7:30 a.m. at the Chamber offices. Executive Session MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION. CARRIED. Time: 12:01 a.m. i I 4 WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT JULY 17, 1989 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following resolution for reading and adoption: Declaring a Moratorium for Connections to Sanitary Sewers within the South Highlands, Maplewood, and Heather Downs Drainage Basins • SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM RESIDENTIAL DOCK AMENDMENT (Referred 7/3/89) Due to the language of the original ordinance #3758, amendments authorized by the City Council shall be considered and accepted and constitute a part of such Master Program without the necessity of further adoption of such amendments. STATE OF WASHINGTON NARCOTICS GRANT (Referred 7/17/89) The Ways and Means Committee recommends Council concurrence in the request of the Finance Director and Police Department to accept the State of Washington, Department of Community Development, Washington State Narcotics Control Program's grant in conjunction with the cities of Auburn, Tukwila, and Kent. This action would transfer an ongoing grant from Auburn to Renton. i;2:1-1_,,e_e„../ (-2/ Thomas Trimm, Chair _ -6JA1212J2& K thy Keo er-Wheeler, Vice-Chair Richard Stredicke, Acting Member DOn' Ericksen , Mantling TO: Janette Samek' KAnup DATE 'Atil /Rh ; FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SUBJECT: Shoreline Master Prodrem nr,rkg Please furnish tne following to the City Clerk's Office: . Certification of Posting Legal Description Certification of Valid Petition Map , Deed Pro Rata Share of Costs Easement Restrictive Covenants Verify Content Plase submit the Amendment tm the ritv rlerklqflffrmr, ordinance will be Adontpd . THANK YOU! Requested by: 4di ® CITY OF RENTON ®T Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ialL Daniel Kellogg -Mark E. Barber - David M. Dean - Zanetta L. Fontes - Robert L. Sewell, Assistant City Attorneys July 7, 1989 TO: Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Ordinance for the Shoreline Master Program Dear Maxine: Please. review the attached copy of Ordinance No. 3758, in particular Section 4-2502. There does not appear to be any need for legislation at this time. aerence . Warren LJW:as. cc: Mayor Ways and Means Committee A8 .44 :39 . • Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 I :: AMENDS ORD. #3094 :;..... CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO . 3758 AN ORDI NANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF TIT LE IV (BUILDING BUILDING REGULATIONS) ,OF ORDINANCE NO. 1628 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON" RELATING TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I : Existing Section 4-2501 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No . 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the 'City of Renton" is hereby amended as follows : Section 4-2501 , as amended: PROGRAM ADOPTED, COPY KEPT BY CLERK, INSPECTION: The "Shoreline Master Program", as issued and prepared by City of Renton Planning Commission, of which: one 1 ) printed copy in book form has heretofore been filed and is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and made available for examination by the general public , is hereby adopted as the "Shoreline Master Program" by the City of Renton. SECTION II : Existing Section 4-2502 of, Title IVI (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" is hereby amended as foIllows : Section 4-2502 , as amended : AMENDMENTS : Any and all , amendments , additions or modifications to said Master Program, when printed and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton by authorization of the City Council from time to time, shall be �G7 lq I I considered and accepted and constitute. a part of such 'Master Program without the necessity of further adoption of such amendments , modifications or additions by the legislative authority of the City of Renton or by Ordinance. I; . SECTION III : Existing Section 4-2504 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION IV: This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and thirty (30) days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 5th day of 11.e.ceniber, 1983 . Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk A APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 5th day of Deciemiber,G 1983 . w . -,• S oC:9., Bar Y. Shin p och p Mayor Approved as to form: Lance J. Wa en, City Attorney Date of Publication: December 9 , .1983 II i Y i q . 114EMORANDUM To Anne Santos, City Attorney's Office Date 7/5/89 From City Clerk's Office Subject SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - RESIDENTIAL DOCK PROVISIONS Please, prepare an ordinance for the Shoreline Master Program - Residential Dock Provisions. File is attached. Thanks! R711Ug JUL 0 5 1989 -. WAKK►CN as KELLWG By • RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting July 3, 11989 Municipal Building Monday, 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Earl Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. I ROLL CALL OF RICHARD M. STREDICKE, Council President; THOMAS W. TRIMM, COUNCIL MEMBERS NANCY L. MATHEWS, TONI NELSON, KATHY A. KEOLKER- WHEELER. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL EXCUSE COUNCILMAN JOHN REED. CARRIED. Councilman Robert J. Hughes was absent. CITY STAFF IN EARL CLYMER, Mayor; MICHAEL W. PARNESS, Administrative Assistant; ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MAXINE E. MOTOR, City Clerk; JEANETTE SAMEK-McKAGUE, Senior Planner; NANCY LASWELL MORRIS, Principal Planner; LENORA BLAUMAN, Senior Planner; LT. MICHAEL MAGULA, Police Department. PRESS Kathy Hall, Valley Daily News APPROWAL OF MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL MINUTES COUNCIL APPROVE THE COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1989. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published Plannin : Shoreline ; in accordance with local and State law, Mayor Clymer opened the public Master Program, hearing to consider an amendment to the Shoreline Master Program regarding Residential Dock residential docks. Senior Planner Jeanette Samek-McKague described the Amendments purpose of the hearing to increase flexibility in approving•variances for residential docks. Since about 1974, the City's Shoreline Master Program has set dock lengths at 30 feet or a water depth of 8 feet, whichever comes first, to a maximum of 100 feet. In the shallow areas of Lake Washington, docks vary in length from 100 feet to 180 feet, and were either constructed prior to adoption of the Shoreline Master Program or after approval of a variance. Under existing regulations, some docks could not be rebuilt to their original configuration if destroyed or damaged. Ms. Samek-McKague indicated that,prior to 1974, the Shoreline Master Program allowed maximum dock lengths of 150 feet; maximum dock lengths allowed by other communities along the lake vary between 100 and 150 feet; the average boat length is between 17 and 24 feet; and the depth of Lake Washington within the Renton boundaries is very shallow, ranging from two to five feet. • Based upon public testimony at a public hearing held on 4/26/89 by the Planning Commission and subsequent deliberations by the Commission, the following amendments were proposed to the residential dock section of the Shoreline Master Program: Section 7.12.03.C.1.a.: The dock may extend to a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of 12 I ? feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. In no case shall a dock be limited to less than 50 feet in length. Section 7.12.03.C.2: Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the hearing examiner for good reason, which shall include, but not be limited to, conditions requiring greater dock length and construction. The Examiner shall determine that the following criteria have been met in approving such requests: That the dock length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage, does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water or create a hazard to navigation, and will not interfere with use of adjacent docks. • Mrs. Samek-McKague reported that the Planning and Development Committee had presented a report to the City Council on 6/12/89 concurring in the recommendation of the Planning Commission amendment with a modification that all docks be subject to the review criteria as proposed in Section 7.12(C)(3) of the Shoreline Master Program, and recommending that the Council hold a public hearing on the matter this date as required by State July 3. 1989 Renton City Council Minutes Page 185 law. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. I I Responding to Council inquiry, Mrs. Samek-McKague indicated that a recent request for variance for sailboat moorage was denied by the hearing examiner, appealed to the City Council, and subsequently approved by the Council with specific language to preclude the Council's action from setting a precedent for future applications. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CRITERIA OUTLINED ABOVE. CARRIED. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED; BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER,TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. It was confirmed that the amended Shoreline Master Program will be transmitted to the ;State as required by law. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, and published Annexation: Duncan in accordance with City policy, Mayor Clymer opened the public meeting to consider the 10% notice of intent petition for the Duncan Annexation. The proposal consists of six parcels of property totalling approximately 13.17 acres located east of the existing Renton limits in the vicinity of NE 44th Street and 110th Avenue SE. Referring to a vicinity map of the area, Principal Planner Nancy Laswell Morris reported that the Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as suitable for medium and low density multifamily residential use; surrounding properties are zoned B-1, business, and R-1, single family residential; and the subject site is zoned RS-9600 in King County, a single family residential zone requiring 9600 square foot lots, similar to the City's R-11 zone, requiring 7200 square foot lots. Ms. Laswell Morris discussed the availability of public services to the subject site, and reported that with the exception of the Fire Department and Traffic Engineering Division, all City departments found that the proposal represents a logical extension of services and City boundaries. The Fire Department noted that longer than normal response time will be required to the site due to distance; and Traffic Engineering recommended that annexation be conditioned upon participation in a traffic benefit zone to complete necessary road improvements. 1 The recommendation of the Planning Division was outlined: Council should accept the 10% petition and authorize circulation of the 60% petition; require simultaneous imposition of City zoning on the property; and require the property owners to assume their proportional share of the City's bonded indebtedness. Upon Council inquiry, it was clarified that the matter of concurrent zoning of the site will be considered at the public (hearing to review the 60% petition. Audience comment was invited. Frank Coad, 8010 110th SE,'Renton, represented his parents, owners of property located in the northeast portion of the annexation scope. He expressed their opposition to being included in the annexation, and suggested that the sewer trunk line be extended in a different configuration than proposed. Upon Council inquiry, it was noted that a triangular piece of property denoted on the north end of the site map represents road right-of-way. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE 10% NOTICE OF INTENT PETITION, REQUIRE SIMULTANEOUS ADOPTION OF ZONING, AND REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ACCEPT THEIR SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS The proponent was asked whether he concurred in the requirements listed above. Dick Duncan, 10644 NE Valley Road, Bainbridge Island, annexation proponent, concurred in the recommendation of the Council. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Ray LaBlanc, 11621 SE 47th Place, Bellevue, addressed the Council regarding Public Works: Sewer capacity of sewers in East Renton, discussed at the Committee of the Whole Service in NE 4th Street meeting of 6/26/89. As owner of property in that area for the past 13 years, Corridor, he expressed concern with a moratorium on development, noted that the area has experienced problems with sewer capacity for many years', and pointed out critical need for new development to expand the City's tax base and provide housing. Mr. LaBlanc felt that a moratorium would not be fair to property owners who have spent considerable time and money pursuing development applications. He suggested that applications now under review be allowed to proceed in sequence, latecomer agreements be executed to help pay for expanding utilities in the area, and additional projects be allowed as utilities are expanded. 1 I I � . • SHORELINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SINGLE-FAMILY PIERS/DOCKS 2 PIERS AND DOCKS • 7.12.0] Purpose: A. A pier or dock is a structure built over or floating upon the water, used as a landing or moorage place for marine transport or for residential purposes. B. The use of floatingdocks in lieu of other types of docks is to be YP encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be,allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate in his application for a permit the need for the proposed pier or dock. C. The design of all piers and docks shall be approved by a licensed engineer or licensed architect. 7112.03 Design Criteria for Single-family Docks -- A. Pier TvDe All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for pi]ing. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible 'to install piling. B. Covered moorage, both permanent and temporary, shall consist of no more than a roof. .� • - J • C. Dock Size Specifications 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed:1 a. The dock may extend to a maximum or eighty 011 thirty{30) feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) eight--E8) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. Delete ! remainder of sentence-"previded—the-Beek-leigtk-Bees--not-exeee4-ene kand-red-El-0G}-feet:= However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (50) Fe-t-y-(40) feet in length be required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. 2. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock length and construction. The Examiner, shall include a finding that a variance request complies with the criteria listed below in Section 7.12 (C)(3) when approving such renuests. • 3. Approval of a dock shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: ! a. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe mocra2e: b. The proposed length does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water or create a hazard to navigation: and c. The proposed increase in length will not unreasonable interfere with the use of' adjacent docks and%or piers. D. Dock Location and Spacing I. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use' of a private, single-family residence may lie closer than five ;(5) feet to an adjacent property Iine. 2. Two (2) contiguous waterfront properties may locate a joint dock facility on either such property, provided there are appropriate restrictive covenants filed for record running with the land. 7.12.04 Multi-family Residence Docks (Remains the same.) 7.12.05 Use of Buoys and Floats (Remains the same.) 7.12.06 Commercial and Industrial Docks (Remains the same.) CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 29, 1989 TO: Mayor City Council Members FROM: Larry Springer, Planning Manager Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator RE: Shoreline Master Program Amendment/ Residential Docks II The purpose of this memo is to transmit documents for your review of the proposed residential dock amendments to the Shoreline Master Program scheduled for public hearing on July 3, 1989. Attached please find: 1) background document for your review summarizing actions to date taken on the residential dock amendment to the City's Shorelines Master Program; 2) April 26, 1989 Planning Commission minutes;; and 3) the proposed amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission and as modified by the Planning and Development Committee. McK:mjp Shoreline Master P: ram Amendment • Residential Docks - Background Document Page 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT The existing residential dock regulations in the Shoreline Master Program do not allow enough flexibility to handle unique situations on the lake whether it is the result of extremely shallow water depths or deep water depths close to shore. ' The City has processed variance applications involving each of these situations. In one recent case, the applicant requested approval to extend a joint use dock 264 feet into Lake Washington to reach a water depth of 6.5 feet. In another case, an applicant requested approval of a 50 foot dock extending into the lake to a water depth of 26 feet in order to accommodate a desired sail boat. The variance applications in both cases were denied by the Hearing Examiner. These requests were denied based on the language of the Master Program which establishes specific criteria for dock lengths (30 feet or depth of 8 feet, whichever comes first, to a maximum of 100 feet) since the requests did not fit within all the parameters of the code. In the first case, the applicant did not appeal the decision.. However, the applicant in the second case did appeal the decision. The City Council reversed the decision of the Hearing Examiner, granting the request but stipulated that the decision was not precedent setting. In the shallow areas of Lake Washington, docks vary in length from 100 feet to 180 feet. Some of these docks were constructed prior the adoption of shoreline regulations and others were approved through variance applications. These docks could be damaged enough to require the replacement of all or a portion of the dock. Under the existing regulations, applications for such improvements would most likely be denied. The nonconforming use regulations would not apply to the City's Shoreline regulations should an applicant be looking at a substantial replacement of an existing structure. Any development in the shorelines, as stipulated in state law, requires such development to be consistent with the intent of the State law. While some of the future requests for extended length docks may be reasonable, the current design standards for docks would not allow the City to approve such a requests. SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS Staff has been researching the matter by reviewing the existing Shoreline Master Program requirements as well as the code requirements for residential docks in nearby communities., Summarized below are our findings on the following aspects of the issue: . Shoreline Master Pr •am Amendment . Residential Docks - Background Document i . Page 3 Historical Master Program Provisions: In 1974, the Shorelines Master Program allowed maximum dock lengths of one hundred fifty (150) feet. Persons could seek approval from the Planning Commission for longer docks for good reason, including but "not limited to conditions requiring greater dock length and construction" . Between 1974 and 1976, the City revised the residential dock specifications by reducing the maximum dock length to the current code requirements of thirty (30) feet or to a depth of eight (8) . It is not clear in the record precisely why this change occurred. Dock Length Allowed By Other Communities: Dock lengths vary from community to community along Lake Washington. Some of the communities, such as Bellevue, establish a dock length of eighty (80) feet with a maximum length of 150 feet; to Seattle with dock lengths of 100 feet; to Kirkland allowing docks with lengths of one hundred (150) feet. Seattle, in cases where there are docks on either side of a property for a proposed dock, the length may be determined by establishing a line between the existing docks on either side and allowing the proposed dock to extend to the established line. Size of Boats: A' telephone survey of businesses in the area selling boats was conducted. The common range of boat lengths sold in the area is between 17 feet to 24 feet. Lake Depth: The depth of Lake Washington along the Renton Shoreline varies from less than two feet to depths over five feet. In areas such a!s Coleman Point and north of the Barbie Mill the water depths are extremely shallow. Here, docks range in size between 100 feet to 180 feet in order reach a reasonable water depth for moorage. In the area of the Lake, near the north end of Gene Coulon Memorial Park, the depth is quite deep near the shoreline. Within 30 feet of the ordinary high water mark a depth of fourteen feet can be reached. See Attachment A showing depths in Lake Washington along the City of Renton shoreline. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 26, 1989. During the public hearing several issues were discussed: historical Shoreline Master Program regulation of docks; water depth along the shoreline of Lake Washington; the length of boats Shoreline Master P] ram Amendment . Residential Docks - Background Document Page 4 generally being purchased in the Puget Sound area; public need versus private needs; and dock lengths along the lake as well as variances which have been sought in the past. Based upon public testimony and the Commission's deliberations, the Planning Commission proposed the following amendments to the residential dock section of the City's Shoreline Master Program: o Section 7.12. 03.C. 1.a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. In no case shall a dock be limited to less than fifty (50) feet in length. o Section 7. 12 . 03 .C.2 Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock length and construction. The Examiner shall determine that the following criteria have been met in approving such requests: a. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage; , b. The proposed length does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water or create a hazard to navigation; and c. The proposed increase in length will not unreasonable interfere with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The Planning and Development Committee on June 12, 1989, presented a report to the City Council on the Planning Commission's proposed amendment to Section 7. 12 on residential docks of the Shorelines Master Program. The Committee's report recommended that the Council consider approval of the Planning Commission amendment with a modification by the Committee that all docks be subject to the review criteria as proposed in Section 7. 12 (C) (3) and that the Council hold a public hearing on July 3, 1989, in compliance with State regulations for amendments to Shoreline Master Programs. 98/ .3\4( / I I A C I I M E N T A • i I'Leasure Pt y_______1/,,,1 - h%.rod i n f -• 70 // B i Go i 9514 ,.- Tr 64 65 1 119 i \ hrd . i,,'•i.. KI • 36 , i.... . ;` . . 39 67 32 ilk 113 jr `' 681 Haielwood 68� 73 1 _l14 - • , .1, 21 0 60 1 I '!r 101 by .p ` . a u°r„ I 1 r•.,n•ninrd d�q% 1! 6— 79 J A !1 129 131 �. IF 23i 69 89 /; i Cable Area •...i.. ,. , 70 113 L 81 4 3 , - �-T �— 137 ighiji ... : .. . . i i / /71 /Z. .. I • 1• 2 r. ?'• I. Z. . :.) 'r;::r1 , 'I: . /r // //�. ISM . 125 123 ::i': _ ' ::i I 3S 87v/ /28`0d 6 ' 1 / .,cA/' : .. • / 22 i i • .• :. 80ri 30��.• i v 120_ ` i :' 1.':.. �� i 1 r'• •. 33 119 - 28 l`32I—i19_ td 47°3 116 \ I 2 ,( 1 1' ..7 r_ ' May Creek AS ;I 18;; 7 9 1 25 �. ,r! I 1 111 119 41 Submerged forerl: 42 60 42 1 nr' a' 0 l// 112 \ , clear of obstruction„ f,0 hrd / °v I cr7,e- TANK ' 93�\ within 15 feel of lake level r I • 2 113 h 73 / 34>1 -2 rd 131 107 '�ePo6n S8 r 43 1 1 7'' 115 v . 36 27 109 6 SOUTH PT ' 1 I do r .. . "Ga4u;. :L 7 21 85 i I I ?V rr 6 v I ,'�' 68 1391 / -I,. it 1 1 1 112 , 2 ,h 1 h.4'/ -1e • 107 ,` bed\60 69 e� 1 r ��,. 104 106 s`109 .-9T' 86^ 66 rr^o� J �` 65 / v 37 er 112 ,r! 108 I16 - ---IV"',' 40 45 hrd Kennydale . Disposal f——1119 10S ailr'106 .-3 101 100 411.12 1 ' I 20 9 30 • 117 104 )9 Coleman Pt May Creek 99 101 102 7 4941 o \ 3 hrd 1 09 90 �b \ 107 AP",. .. p0; I14 98 106 90 79�dC` �� - ..\2, 89 `;fo 37 29 114 102 90 86 -� a``, �® do 92 115 B3•�Sohn.paw' n• ' \23- rh �� Doi 1 C. Is Tamil .3 .- 96 101 • 89 i 46 •' ' . . '® 34 III 98 84 76 73 \ 91 ,h 9 - 69 103 84 74 43d. \ I • • i 4 96 ° P x • '...P4t 99 , 55 •A l 47 92 85 11 C. • \ . . :. .�` �--I?_ n�4,r 1 31 ,rr ,�`• Su faced Imp J • 410 40 ', a 67 / -� I Oofi 'roar ai cr j Bryn Mawr ' 1 1/4s.; 1 ------t'l.' 5 W MAK 4, _9A ,.... , L __. ''s•"•i. ', i IoF al MID torx; vur a.n ar ,® hiL. ..-..•-: .... '. : . iVAUTICAL CHART 18447 • i „ , ® r • Excerpt showing Renton - '�, - 0 •rr ' �: • . shoreline along Lake '� .:.� ��-surrace� Washington . Yellow line • ° �e�t /i, �ijED indicates 18 foot contour 1 : �� line of water depth ^�` '° %� 1.1' 0 • ;1(1 ' 1! ,ili AIRI'URr I on.or:n yt;— • • I � _ PLANNING COMMISSION • PUBLIC MEETING April 26, 1989 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen Crow, Jeffrey Lukins, Patricia Lavery, Gene ledbury, Barbara Schellert, Patrick Texeira, Richard Wagner, and Joan Walker. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Taylor. i CITY STAFF PRESENT: Nancy Laswell Morris, Chief Long Range Planner; Jeanette Sdmek-McKague, Senior Planner; Willis Roberts, Recording Secretary. 1! CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL was taken by Secretary Wagner. All responded present with the exception of Commissioner Taylor IT WAS ACTION: MOVED BY WAGNER, SECONDED BY SCHELLERT, THAT COMMISSIONER TAYLOR BE EXCUSED. MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Chair called for additions or corrections to the minutes of the April 12, 1989, meeting. Commissioner Walker requested that ,on page 4, relating to the meeting organized by the downtown merchants, the first sentence of the second paragraph be revised to add "and Texeira" following Commissioner Wagner. She also requested that the last sentence of the second paragraph be revised to read, "Ms. Walker reported that it was suggested to take out the planters in the middle of the,block as it would give the perception that they are doing something and that there is more parking." IT WAS ACTION: MOVED BY WAGNER, SECONDED BY LUKINS, THAT THE MINUTES BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 4; AUDIENCE COMMENT: None. I 51. ADMINISTRATIVE: Staff Report Nancy Laswell Morris, Chief Long Range Planner, reported concerning the status of the City's contract with the 'leery Group and identified their scope of work. She advised that City staff hay;,met the team, and she then drew an organizational chart depicting the • new task force s ! i;`cm, its relationship to the City organization, and,noted the five task forces and proj�'; and their assignments. She then responded to questions from.the Commission reg;;r �ng staff support, their assigned task forces, and major assignments. She noted tha' tit --leery contract is for a period of sixty days. The Chief Long Range Planner then discussed the status of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan study. She conveyed Senior Planner Rubin Yu's appreciation:to Comlmissioner Lavery for her work on the citizen questionnaire and advised concerning the planned scientific telephone survey. Ms. Laswell Morris then referred the members to copies of various news articles included in their meeting packets. She advised that they'could expect more of this kind of information as well as technical materials relating to their study of the Comprehensive Plan. She also invited the Commissioners to' bring in any articles that they felt were relevant. Continuing,.Ms. Laswell Morris reported the results of a recent estimate of Renton's population as of April 1, 1989, at approximately 39,000. r 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Shoreline Master Program - Residential Dock Amendment As it was 7:30 p.m., and the public hearing concerning the proposed amendment to the Shoreline Master Program had been advertised for this hour, Vice-chair Walker welcomed the audience and requested a presentation by staff. 'I Planning Commi'I sion Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 2 Janette Samek-McKague, Senior Planner, advised that they are looking at a small proposed change in Renton's Shoreline Master Program regulations concerning residential docks. The City Council has requested that the Commission review specifications for residential docks with regard to length and depth. This request is the result of an appeal hearing for a denied variance application for an extended dock. Ms. Samek-McKague explained further that the request is being made because an applicant has purchased a larger boat and is asking for approval to extend his dock another 12 feet to 45 feet; and the existing dock at 33 feet already exceeds the 30-foot limit of the code. Other docks in the vicinity exceed 45 feet. Because of code and shoreline policies, the applicant's request had to be denied by the Examiner, who found that the owner had reasonable use of the dock. The Council in its review during the appeal process has requested that the Planning Commission look at "...the language of the Shoreline Master Program as it relates to residential docks" and also requested that this review be expedited. The Senior Planner then summarized staff findings and the staff recommendation included in 'their April 20th memorandum to the Commission. Ms. iSamek-McKague then responded to questions from the members concerning Commission purview of variances from the Shoreline Master Program, a history of previous, variances from residential dock requirements, and the varying water depths found along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Ms. Samek-McKague advised that they are trying to get some balance into the program in terms of the residential docks, inasmuch as they feel that the extremes have not been addressed. Also, they are trying to address the private needs of the homeowners, along with a responsibility to the public, for shoreline use, recreation, and wildlife habitat. In addition, they are trying to have Renton's shoreline requirements in balance with other jurisdictions. Ms. Samek-McKague then reviewed in detail the history of the preparation of the Renton Shoreline Master Program. She noted that at its establishment, the proposed residential dock length was set at 150 feet with a variance process through the Planning Com mission. Between 1974 and 1976, the residential dock length was reduced to thirty feet or a depth of eight feet, and this is specified in our present code. The Senior Planner also discussed dock requirements in neighboring communities. 'I Responding to Commissioner Lukins, she indicated that the longest docks in the city li°mils are 180 feet. These are situated at Coleman Point and Ripley Lane because of shallow water. Responding to Commissioner Wagner, she indicated that the eight foot depth requirement had been recommended by the state and that other jurisdictions' requirements range from ten to 13 feet. Commissioner Ledbury raised the question of the amount of water drawn by various sized! boats, noting that eight feet seemed somewhat inadequate for_ some sailboats. Noting the need to not,disturlb the bottom of the lake, the Senior Planner advised that the members should be sure to pick a depth that would allow for that kind of use. I!?iscussion ensued concerning the size of boats in the Renton area and the potential for larger boats. It was also pointed out that pleasure craft includes both sail and power boats. 1 The issue of pulrt':;?need was defined: recreational opportunities on the lake, aethetics, ability to boat c'I et to the shore, protection of fish runs along the shoreline, protection of shoreline vegc• .;:on, and noninterference with navigation. Jr Commissioner Cc'p•:v noted that the request is for a 45-foot dock, and there are docks 1'80 feet in length. Ms. Samek-McKague explained that there are problems with the varying depths of water and that at 180 feet the depth reached was only 6.5 feet: She then referred the Commissioners to a nautical chart showing water depths of the Renton shoreline along Lake Washington. Discussion ensued regarding the inner harborline, and ill was noted that they do not want docks to be extending into that area. Commissioner Lavery, citing the public need versus the private need, pointed out the • presence of the concrete section of bridge floating in the Renton area of' Lake Washington, which has become quite a eyesore and nuisance. Ms. Lavery asked how this was permitted to continue. Ivls. Laswell Morris replied that the City does not have any jurisdiction over that bridge; rather the Coast Guard has jurisdiction. Responding to Commission inquiries further, she advised that it is a state issue, as the City has jurisdiction only to the harborline. Commissioner Lavery suggested that the Planning Commission add a recommendation regarding this situation to their recommendation on residential docks. Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 3 Commissioner Wagner asked if there were issues beyond the length and depth of docks such as the question of setbacks. He noted that those could become a concern in 'pie- shaped lots. Ms. Samek-McKague explained that they treat docks individually on a case-by-case basis. Acknowledging a situation where setbacks could become an issue, such as on Ripley Cove, she indicated that the City works with the property owners on locating their docks. Continuing her presentation, Ms. Samek-McKague noted that another issue concerns the size of the boats. She advised that in talking to businesses in the area between Seattle, Bellevue, and, Tacoma, the average boat sold ranges from 17 and 24 feet, and most are motor boats and small sail boats. ,Based on research, staff is proposing modifications to two sections of the code - dock size specifications for single family docks and giving the Hearing Examiner some specific findings that he needs to make before approving variance applications. 'It is recommended that dock lengths be changed from 30 feet to 80 feet, that the allowable depth to be reached be changed from 8 feet to 10 feet, that a maximum dock length of 40 feet be established for those areas on the lake close to the shoreline which have ,deep water, and that the Hearing Examiner be provided criteria which he must find in order to approve a variance application for docks exceeding the dock lengths specified in the code. This will provide more clarification so that the individual coming in understands the measurements, and it will also provide clarification for staff in the future. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not these specifications were adequate. The Senior Planner explained that in most cases an 8-foot depth has been fine; however, they are looking at ten feet because of the needs of sailboats. These regulations. will accommodate the needs of most applicants rather than having to seek a variance. Commissioner Ledbury asked if the average length of boats sold reflected the average length on the lake and suggested that they may be longer. Commissioner Texeira suggested the possibility of setting some kind of limit regarding the length allowed. Ms. Samek-McKague responded ,that the ten foot depth proposed would take care of Most situations and noted that they had not had any requests for that length. At this point, she said they would recommend retaining the eight foot depth. She advised further that the high water mark will provide two more feet, or ten feet a good part of the year. In the Gene Coulon Park area, however, because of the depth of the water, they recommend that a dock should not be less than 40 feet. There was further discussion concerning dock length, and it was pointed out that eighty feet had been recommended as' the maximum. This ties in with the variance provision that states that anything greater than 80 feet would have to go through the variance process. By establishing the 80 foot maximum length, this will reduce some of the difficulty in trying to administer the ordinance in situations such as when they need to address docks that,are proposed for maintenance, repair, or modification. 0 Referring to the .1,ff recommendations for revision of section 7.12.03.C.1.a., dock size specifications,,C c missioner Wagner asked if it was intended that it should read that the dock may extend ;"7) feet, or no more than 80 feet. Ms. Samek-McKague replied that "maximum" sl`)uiu •)e inserted to read, "to a maximum of 80 feet." She then responded further to questiin•b about the shoreline permit process, the possibility of two docks, and the possibility of a "U" or "L" shaped dock. Mr. Texeira asked about provisions for multiple family docks. Ms. Samek-McKague advised that the only multiple family dock at present is located at Misty Cove. It was pointed out, however, that there is a high potential for that kind of need. Commenting further, Ms. Samek-McKague advised that they are most concerned about getting the Shoreline Master Program looked at. She suggested'that at the time of that review they consider requirements for multiple family docks. The Vice-chair suggested that as they think of issues, they write them down. She then declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:30 p.m. with all members noted above present. Commissioner Lukins, speaking for the public record, stated that he wished to make sure that there was no conflict of interest. He reported that the applicant, Tom Wilgos, who has helped bring on this change in the code, is a friend through work. He added that it was his feeling that Mr. Wilgos' action has helped the City recommend some changes to • the code and pointed out that this is an overall change. He said he would like to have r _ Planning Com mission Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 4 1 some !input into that change, if the Commissioners felt there would not be a conflict of interest. I The Vice-chair asked if anyone on the Commission or in the audience had any feelings about a possible conflict of interest. No response was received from either group!. It was also confirmed that there was no objection from staff. Ms. Walker then opened the public hearing, inviting public comment. J In I urdick, 3711 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, noting that he lives about two blocks south of Pt. Quendall, stated that he found that a real source of noise pollution. He reported. that during the summertime, when the wind blows from the north; all the noise comes down. He advised that they have been operating-day and night for about one and a half years, and at times he has found it difficult to sleep. I Ike advised that he owns property with no dock at present. He said it has a deep drop- off, and at thirty feet from the high water line it is ten to twelve feet deep. Under existing regulations, he will be limited to a thirty-foot dock. He said he feels that is extretnely restrictive, noting that Mercer Island and Bellevue allow one to build to eighty feet regardless of the depth of the water. He added that thirty feet seems conservative. { Mr. Burdick advised further that he is looking for a thirty to forty foot boat.i He referred the members to copies of his letter dated April 19, 1989, addressing the length of residential docks. He noted that in his area it is not the depth that is restrictive but the length that is restrictive. He said his neighbors to the south have a sixty-foot (dock and the neighbor to the north a dock about forty to forty-five feet in length. He stated that he felt that a dock of forty to forty-five feet would not impair public use of that area. ) The Vice-chair'asked him about the adequacy of the wording, "In no case shall a dock less than forty feet in length be required." I I Desponding, Mr. Burdick said he felt it would be adequate in his case. However, due to the increasing cost of waterfront property, more affluent property owners are coming to Rienton, some who own larger boats. He stated that he felt Renton would see owners coming in with thirty to forty foot boats that won't fit on a 30-foot dock. He explained that they would not want to tie up immediately to a bulkhead, and if they had a deep hulled boat, the hull would hit the midpoint of the depth. 1 The Vice-chair asked if a dock had to extend beyond the length of the boat. Mr. Burdick responded that a dock should extend beyond the length of the boat. Discussion tlien Ifollowed concerning tie points of boats to the docks. I There was also discussion. concerning the division between fees for the different types of shoreline permits, which are based on the cost of a dock. It was suggested that the $,2500 value set for a shorelines exemption is out of date. Ms. Samek-McKague noted that is a state regulation, and communities have asked the state to reconsider the $2500 limitlbecause of today's costs. Betsy Crawford,) ''f;,r�7 Ripley Lane, Renton, said that she has a long dock without any water depth. S�'; . indicated that if they had to redo their dock, they would have to extend it to tine . +fer harborline in order to obtain the 8 foot depth. She advised that they experience'I.N-off from a creek that results in a murky bottom and keeps' their area !shallow. Therefore, they are more concerned about the length restrictions.' She pointed out that they are situated north of the Misty Cove condominiums, adjacent to King County; and in King County you can build a dock to one hundred feet.; She suggested considering that figure if they, wished to make the requirements more ;even. She also noted that, when you are talking about ten feet, you are talking about high water. I Ms. Samek-McKague explained that they are recommending eight feet at low water: Ms. Crawford commented that she felt eight to ten feet was low and recommended instead 12 to 13 feet at high water or 10 feet at low�water. She stated that the neighbors have)a sailboat which they cannot move in the winter months because of low water: Robert Marshall, 299 Mountain View Avenue, Renton, advised that while he dild not have a dock, the docks in his area are 150 feet long and at the end of the summer, one can stand in the water at the end of the dock. Therefore, 80 feet is a problem in that area.) He said he would like to see a diving board at the end of the dock, which would r�quire more than the eight feet depth• . Concerning parking, he reported that his neighbor put an anchor on his side of the property line, with a line and a buoy with the prevailing wind coming from the southwest, putting it on his property. He-suggested I i IP Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 5 that a rule be made that people put their anchor on the side of the property where the wind blows from. Concluding, he pointed out that with the price of waterfront property, people may want substantial boats and a dock appreciably longer than their boats for protection. The Vice-chair invited further comments or questions from the public, but there was no response. She then opened the matter up to discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Lukins asked if some jurisdictions allowed dock lengths of 80 to 180 feet with no depth restrictions. Ms. Samek-McKague reported that is not what they have found. She noted that Seattle has an 8-foot depth restriction and King County 13 feet. Mr. Burdick advised that King County has a maximum square foot restriction and allows docks to be built in any configuration. Ms. Samek-McKague explained that they are trying to keep things simple. Ms. Walker asked about any limits on the other side of the lake near the airport, noting it's proximity to King County. The Commissioners then discussed the various depths along the Lake Washington shorelines. Commissioner Texeira asked for an idea of the rights and responsibilities of people who own property along the water, asking specifically how far their property exceeds the water''s edge. Mr. Burdick advised that their property extends beyond the property line about 200 feet into the harborline. The Vice-chair then read the staff recommendation into the record. Discussion ensued concerning dock configurations, multiple family docks, existing docks in the vicinity of a proposed dock, and depth limits in relation to allowable lengths. They considered the depths between the front of the lake's shoreline if there is an immediate drop-off. They discussed the draw of 30 to 40 foot boats. Providing clarification, Ms. Samek-McKague indicated that the City's responsibility is for people to have reasonable moorage, and this could include varying dock lengths. She said if one is going to have a boat that these specifications cannot accommodate, perhaps the boat should be kept some place else. Commissioner Texeira expressed concern about large boats obstructing views of some property owners and suggested approving a 40-foot length limitation. Ms. Crawford said she felt that the depth or length should not make any difference. Mr. Burdick indicated that most of the houses in his area have a fairly narrow channel of vi'sion. He said that he had a boathouse adjacent to him to the south, with a 60-foot dock, and it was not an obstruction. Commissioner Crow advised that when she is visiting people on the lake, she finds that they have a broad expanse, the boats are rocking, and they are not that distracting. The Vice-chair : ested that they come to some kind of conclusion. IT WAS THEl ACTION: MOVED BY LEDBURY, SECONDED BY SCIIELLERT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lukins then presented a motion as follows: • ACTION: MOVED BY LUKINS TO REVISE SECTION 7.12.03.C.1.a. TO READ: THE DOCK MAY EXTEND TO A MAXIMUM OF EIGHTY (80) FEET BEYOND THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE INTO THE WATER OR UNTIL A DEPTH OF TEN (10) FEET BELOW THE MEAN LOW WATER MARK, WHICHEVER IS REACHED FIRST. HOWEVER, IN NO CASE SHALL A DOCK LESS THAN FIFTY (50) FEET IN LENGTH BE REQUIRED. Discussion ensued concerning the depth requirements. They discussed specifically the last sentence in Section 7.12.03.C.1.a., "However, in no case shall a dock less than forty (40) feet in length be required." . ,,. _ , Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 6 Commissioner Wagner provided illustations on the chalkboard relating the various sized bbatsiand varying lake bottoms. They discused what constitutes a hardship, noting'that providing reasonable limits would preclude people having to apply to the Hearing Examiner for a variance. Ms. Lavery suggested striving for language that can apply for every single individual that comes in. Mr. Ledbury pointed out that they don't ,have control over the dock construction. Ms. Laswell Morris advised that dock construction is subject to SEPA review. COMMISSIONER SCI-IELLERT SECONDED THE MOTION. I The Vice-chair read the motion into the record and called for the vote. Ms. Samek- McKague interjected that they had a suggestion for a replacement for the last sentence it Section 7.12.03.C.1.a discussed earlier. She suggested that it be revised to, "In no; case shall a dock be limited to less than fifty (50) feet in length." 1 I The Vice-chair asked if everyone accepted that language. All expressed approval. ' Commissioner Wagner raised for discussion the eighty foot length limitation. Discussion followed regarding the length limitations of neighboring jurisdictions. Commissioner Crow supported the 100-foot limit. Mr. Ledbury noted the availability of the appeal roce pss for people who wanted to go farther than eighty feet. It was also pointed out that these regulations can be changed. Iiir WAS THEN ACTION: MOVED BY WAGNER, SECONDED BY LUKINS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE TEN (10) FEET FROM THE LOW WATER LINE TO TWELVE (12) FEET IN PARAGRAPH 7.12.03.C.1.a. i Ms. Laswell Morris confirmed that the motion now ready for approval reads that the dock may extend 80 feet beyond the high water line to a depth of ten feet below the mean low water line, and in no case shall a dock be less than 50 feet. 1 On the amendment, MOTION CARRIED. II I The Vice-chair then called for a vote on the original motion. , k On the original motion, as amended, MOTION CARRIED. 'I The (Vice-chair then read section 7.12.03.C.2 and invited discussion. Discussion ensued relating to proposed staff additions to the paragraph which concerns criteria Ito be determined by the Hearing Examiner in approving a request for docks to• exceed established size specifications. Ms. Laswell Morris explained that the issue is do you have the length to provide safe moorage. The Commissior,*. ;Jrbated whether the proposed language was subjective. They also considered the r ; ,;;'mum length allowed, the need for the Hearing Examiner to base his decision on find; I, of fact, the necessity for the applicant to prove to the City why a larger dock i needed, and the review and appeal process of the variance request, Ms. Samek-McKagu. noted that state jurisdiction is also involved. 1 IT WAS THEN • ' , I i 1 • ACTION: ' ' I MOVED BY LUKINS, SECONDED BY SCHELLERT, T$AT WE ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH 7.12.03.C.2. MOTION CARRIED. , The I Vice-chair raised the matter of dock configuration. Ms. Samek-McKague advised that L-shaped docks have been allowed, and they, are trying to come up with language concerning the "hook." Concerning the extension, they are considering a length 'of ten feet) with a width of 8 feet. Responding to Ms..Walker concerning the need for that extension, Ms. Samek-McKague indicated it was for protection. j Ms. Samek-McKague added that for this amendment, she would recommend that the Commission not deal with this issue at this time because it has not come up, She suggested that instead they put it on the list of things to consider at the time the whole • Master Program is reviewed. I . y ` L'; .;� Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 7 Ms. Laswell Morris suggested also that no single family home should have more than one dock. The Vice-chair invited further comment. Noting none, IT WAS ACTION: MOVED BY CROW, SECONDED BY LUKINS, THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT WE ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE JUST APPROVED ON THIS ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED. This was followed by further action: ACTION: MOVED BY CROW, SECONDED BY WAGNER, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONCRETE BRIDGE AND THE BOAT, AND THEREFORE WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY INVESTIGATE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO HAVE IT REMOVED. MOTION CARRIED. 7. NEW BUSINESS: Ms. Laswell Morris invited the members to a reception for the new Community Development Director to be held from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at City Hall on April!27th. Vice-chair Walker inquired regarding the agenda for the May 10th meeting. ; Ms. Laswell Morris replied that they would be discussing the role of the Comprehensive Plan ,under state law, the different kinds of Comprehensive Plans, and zoning and implementation of Comprehensive Plans. 8. ADJOURNMENT _• MOVED BY LEDBURY, SECONDED BY SCHELLERT, TO ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. The'',meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. B Tayl r, , !; Richard Wagner, Secretary l ly • • I I SHORELINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SINGLE-FAMILY PIERS/DOCKS 12 PIERS AND DOCKS • 7.12.01 Purpose: A. A pier or dock is a structure built over or floating upon the water, used as a landing or moorage place for marine transport or for residential purposes. B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate in his application for a permit the need for the proposed pier or dock. C. The design of all piers and docks shall be approved by a licensed engineer or licensed architect. 7.12.03 Design Criteria for Single-family Docks A. Pier Type All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. B. Covered moorage, both permanent and temporary, shall consist of no more than a roof. it C. Dock Size Specifications 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: 1 a. • The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) thirty{30-) feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) eig-]rt--(8) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. Delete remainder of sentence-"pfevided the-deep-length-dees--not-exeeed-ane kundred-(100)--feet-?' However, in no caste shall a dock less than fifty (50) €oft (40) feet in length be required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. 2. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock length and construction. The Examiner, shall include a finding that a variance request complies with the criteria listed below in Section 7,12 (C)(3) when approving such requests. 3. Approval of a dock shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: a. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage: b. The proposed length does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water or create a hazard to navigation: and c. The proposed increase in length will not unreasonable interfere with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers. D. Dock Location and Spacing 1. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single-family residence may lie closer than five ,(5) feet to an adjacent property line. 2. Two (2) contiguous waterfront properties may locate a joint dock facility on either such property, provided there are appropriate restrictive covenants filed for record running with the land. 7.12.04 Multi-family Residence Docks (Remains the same.) 7.12.05 Use of Buoys and Floats (Remains the same.) 7.12.06 Commercial and industrial Docks . (Remains the same.) j I , CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City,Council has fixed the 3rd day of July, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington, as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the following: Residential dock amendments to the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval or opinions on this matter. CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor, CMC, City Clerk Date of Publication: Ju ne a 16, 1989 qt z V June , 1989 � 30 June 30, 1989 �I I CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA 98055 206-235-2501 FAX # 235-2513 (DATE /1/7 / PAGES (EXCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET) ATTENTION: eoe/57 � I FROM: 6/i 1 & -L Pcch S G Pu,31d t/ iVO77 0 N' 3i .23 30, ( 87 / fha P /17 0 ill Tv au/v& l6 (TZAA/5-ktirr-e-p ow eo -/3 -(9 Ill 5€17 cw 11-14 eel-- lk) (CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA 98055 206-235-2501 FAX# 235-2513 DATE 6 - / 3 - 9 PAGES (EXCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET) ATTENTION: i4 S / a 1 T FROM: CCT . .r. . NOTICE RENTON CITY COUNCIL puBLic HEARING ON JULY 3, 1989 AT 7:30 P. M. • RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RESIDENTIAL DOCK AMENDMENTS TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM r Complete legal description &further information available in Me City Clerk's Office - 235-2501 The removal, mutilation, destruction Warning II - or concealment of this notice is a mis- t) demeanor punishable by fine and - - i••.®risenment. CERTIFICATION R c } trzlrin9 July 3, l q 8ci Ree iden}ia l Gbc . Amendments i o Shore.t i he. Master Pro 3 am Locati ns Ids+i one Jun 14, IclS 1 t) (21P1e7 Lane rT e C t' En_I) on R.R. Supporfi Post 2) R►pie,/ Lane North , Front o f House * 5117 3) Ripley Lane l�ortia, Front o.f Misty Gave Apt . 4) Lahe Nlortk, Front of ltouse it 5021 5) L.a1ce. Washirn+on Blvd. , Povver lCble * 453G G) Lc e. washing-Ion 5Ivd., Posnr• Pole 4t 4503 7) Lake Wash;r94-on Clilvd., Frranto.lE.asipnrt Shore apt washir 1t,r Blvd., Front ©4 Barbe, Mill Co q) Lake Washir3t,on Blvd., 200- Ft- South o-t- N . 36111 st • 10) Washinston 81\4=1. , 4 N • 38111 k . ii) Luce wa shi veon Blvd .r Front c4 House a# 3705 t Z) Lail e Wash i vkSton 61vd.4 N . 3Ca t!..1 St. 13) Lake Wash ir�inn Blvd. 4 N. 331‘.2 g� tq) Mouhi-ain Vrew Qve . N . , Front of roUSe 212301 10 Moun•Feairt Yiew ave . t\I. , Front of ki-ouse. 31ll 16) MO u ri i-a i r \ taw Ave. N. , Be+w-e+n 3Z 0(71 4 3213 17) t_�ke Washin9ton lalvd . F N. 30T st . le) l..SIGa washirr+or Blvd ., Front of l4o4_se # 28Z0 ►q) Lame Wash;vvt,on Blvd., 4 Burnett Ave. tJ zo) Lzike Waasirli► ton Blvd.J %Co t Ft. So ova Mar; tldi 13 A.p4 • t ntratnc e- at) L1 kle NA a Slot, viteni 1 lvol . >C ntra vtc e_ +o Ldi� Te.rr,3c e Pa►^k, Noun r l rr�e 22) LaKe WashincT*oh f31v601 . .and En+vahc..e. to Gene Goulor� Me-rn©riotl �s�h Parr ZS) Alumni nurn L.9ht fble Soo t F4 -k3uravlt ( Er,d o.. Renton Municipal Airport) , PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT JUNE 12, 1989 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, RESIDENTIAL DOCK PROVISIONS (Referred 5/15/89) The Planning and Development Committee met and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation on the residential dock amendments to the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. The Committee recommends consideration by the Council of the Planning Commissions recommendation together with a Committee modification requiring all docks be approved subject to the criteria of Section 7 . 12 .C. 3 . The Committee further recommends that the Council hold a' public hearing on the recommended amendment, as modified, on July 3 , 1989, in order to comply with the State provisions for amendments to Shoreline Master Programs. Yohn Reed, Chair I la.-- Nancy Mat Viws, Vice-Chair Kathy eolker-Wheeler, Member SHORELINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SINGLE-FAMILY PIERS/DOCKS 12 PIERS AND DOCKS 7.12.01 Purpose: A. A pier or dock is a structure built over or floating upon the water, used as a landing or moorage place for marine transport or for residential purposes. B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. 7,12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate in his application for a permit the need for the proposed pier or dock. C. The design of all piers and docks shall be approved by a licensed engineer or licensed architect. 7.12.03 Design Criteria for Single-family Docks A. Pier Type All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. B. Covered moorage, both permanent and temporary, shall consist of no more than a roof. � I ' C. Dock Size Specifications 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) thirty-30) feet beyond the ordinary high' water line into the water or until a depth of twelve (12) eight-4-0 feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. Delete! remainder of sentence-"provided- the-doek-length-deer-not-exeeed-ane hundred-(l-00-)--feet-." However, in no case shall a dock less than fifty (50) fort.y-(40) feet in length be required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. 2. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall in clude, but is not limited to, conditions r re uiih greater dock requiring length and construction. The Examiner, shall include a finding that a variance request complies with the criteria listed below in Section 7.12 (C)(3) when approving such requests: 3. Approval of a dock shall include a finding that the following criteria have been met: a. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage; b. The proposed length does not interfere with the' public use and enjoyment of the water or create a hazard to navigation; and c. The proposed increase in length will not unreasonable interfere with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers. D. Dock Location and Spacing 1. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) ifeet to an adjacent property line. I 2. Two (2) contiguous waterfront properties may locate a'joint dock facility on either such property, provided there) are appropriate restrictive covenants filed for record running with the I land. I I 7,L 12.04 Multi-family Residence Docks (Remains the same.) 7.12.05 Use of Buoys and Floats (Remains the same.) I I ; 7L12.06 Commercial and Industrial Docks II I I (Remains the same.) I , May 15; 1989 Renton City Council Minutes Page 138 MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY TRIMM, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Upon Council inquiry, Mr. Springer clarified that an R-1 classification will be assigned to the Renton 91 annexation pending the examiner's recommendation. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE RENTON 91 ANNEXATION PETITION AND CONCURRENT ZONING, REQUIRE THE PROPERTY TO ASSUME ITS SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS, AND EXCLUDE THE HUSON/HOOF PROPERTY FROM THE ANNEXATION. CARRIED. It was clarified that the properties recommended for the second phase are deleted from the annexation. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THE REMAINING PART OF THE ANNEXATION BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR RECOMMENDATION. Mr. Springer explained that in accordance with terms of conditions contained in restrictive covenants on the,Shurguard property, the City can initiate annexation of the portion south of SE 76th Street at a later date. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Sanford Webb, 430 Mill Avenue.South, Renton, reported management Citizen Comment: Webb - problems at the Castaway Restaurant at the Renton Airport on Lake Castaway Restaurant Washington. (See later correspondence.) Citizen Comment: Evans Ralph Evans, 3306 NE 11 th Place, Renton, reported that his wife has - Graffiti on Water contacted the City several times over the past month about removal of Tower graffiti on the south side of the water tower on NE 12th Street. He asked that the matter be expedited, noting that immediate removal of graffiti from public structures discourages offenders. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Claim: Wibner, CL-20-89 Claim for damages in the amount of $379.67 filed by Helmut Wibner, 1933 SE 19th Court, Renton, for replacement of automobile windshield allegedly broken by City mower operating on Benson Road South (04/26/89). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Finance: King County Finance Department requested adoption of resolution to allow participation Property Tax Interest by the City in the King County property tax collection system for receiving Collection interest on taxes collected. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Planning: Shoreline Planning Division transmitted Planning Commission recommendation for Master Program, amendment to residential dock provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. Residential Docks Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Annexation: Balko Planning Division requested public meeting be set on 6/5/89 to consider the Balko 10% notice of intent petition for 207 acres located east of the City limits following SE 128th Street (NE 4th Street) to a point aligning with 154th Avenue SE. Council concur. Parks: Maplewood Golf Parks Department requested fund transfer from the Maplewood Golf Course Course Bridge Funding Capital Improvement Program revenue account to the Golf Course Bridge account in the amount of $1900. These funds will go towards additional surveys, geo-technical data and site work needed for new bridge across Cedar River to connect with the expanded golf course area; $20,000 budgeted. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. CAG: 87-074, SW Sunset Public Works Department requested review of correction and' additional Boulevard Roadway, funding in the amount of $92,448 for SW Sunset Boulevard widening project, Intersection and CAG-074-87, due to unforeseen problems with the storm drainage system Watermain Improvements and inadequate roadway width attributed to combination of errors by consultant, contractor, contractor's surveyor, and staff. Refer to Transportation Committee. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from City Clerk requesting Council approval of the Vacation: VAC-88-002, appraisal for the Maple Avenue SW street vacation petitioned by Jack and Priebe Margaret Priebe, VAC-002-88. Fees represent one-half appraised value as set by City Council at public hearing on 8/1/88. (Matter removed from Consent Agenda on 5/8/89.) Appraisal fees are as follows: For.Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING • SUBMITTING Community Development Dept. Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. Planning Division For Agenda Of May 15, 1989 Staff Contact l Jeanette Samek-McKague (Meeting Date) (Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Residential Dock Amendment Consent to Shoreline Master Program Public Hearing Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc.)Attach New Business Study Session A. Staff transmittal memo Other B. Staff report to Planning Commission c. Planning Commission Minutes Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No_ N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Refer to Planning & Development Committee. Other Clearance FISCAL IMPACT: xpenditure Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach additional pages if necessary.) The City Council in January, 1989, requested the Administration to review the regulations governing residential docks in the Shoreline Master Program. This request was, the result of an appeal of a Hearing Examiner decision denying a variance to allow the extension of a dock iiength beyond the length allowed under the Master Program. The Administration directed the Planning Division staff to research the regulations to determine whether the Master ,Program language should be revised. Based upon a review of the Master Program, previous variance requests for dock length, and regulations in surrounding jurisdictions,; staff recommended to the Planning Commission revisions to the Master Program with respect to dock specifications and added review criteria for approval of variances. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 1989, on these proposed amendments and makes its recommendation to the City Council . This recommendation is transmitted herewith. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. June 12. 1989 Renton City Council Minutes Page 164 It was noted to the Committee that present City ordinances do not specifically discuss the concept of charging additional fees for handling of large or complex permit applications. The administration would like to adopt an interim ordinance permitting the City to charge additional fees for such projects with the understanding that a more detailed ordinance will be prepared at a later time. The Committee recommended that the Council approve the concept of such modifications to the permit fees, plan review fees, and other fees charged for plan review, permit issuance, and inspection, and that the topic be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for preparation of the appropriate ordinances. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY\STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Reed presented a report Develonment Committee regarding the residential dock provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. Planning: Shoreline The Committee met and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation MasterI' ram on the residential dock amendments to the City of Renton Shoreline Master Residential Dock Program. The Committee recommended consideration by the Council of the Amendments Commission's recommendation together with a modification by the Committee requiring approval of all docks subject to the criteria of Section 7.12.03.C.3 of the amendment. The Committee further recommended that the Council hold a public hearing on 7/3/89 on the modified amendment to meet State requirements for Shoreline Master Program amendments. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Comprehensive Plan: Planning and Development Committee Chairman Reed presented a report Talbot Road Private regarding the Talbot Road Private Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal. Amendment In January, 1989, a group of private land owners and developers requested that the Council initiate a private comprehensive plan amendment for the Talbot Road area. Council referred the request to the Planning Commission which held hearings on the matter in.February. The Commission made a finding that the proposed amendment had merit, but that it should not be initiated as a separate work item because of the impact such a project would have on the City-Wide Comprehensive Plan work program. The Commission recommended that the Talbot Road proposal be considered as part of the ongoing City-Wide Comprehensive Plan update. Following the Planning Commission hearings, staff developed,four alternative scenarios for processing the proposed private comprehensive pan amendment. The Planning and Development Committee considered these alternatives on 6/8/89. The Committee was generally favorable toward the alternative of developing interim policies which would be heard by the Planning Commission. However, the Committee directed that the Planning Commission be given the opportunity of reviewing these alternatives prior to final action by the Committee. It is specifically the Committee's intent that no staff would be diverted from the Comprehensive Plan effort, but that a "contract planner" would be hired at the developers' expense if this proposal were to be initiated. The Committee recommended that the Talbot Road Private Comprehensive Plan proposal be referred back to the Planning Commission for a report back to the Planning and Development Committee on June 15, 1989. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Comprehensive Plan: Planning and Development Committee Chairman Reed presented a report City-Wide Update Work regarding staffing for the Comprehensive Plan Program. The City-Wide Program Comprehensive Plan Update Program, including the implementing zoning ordinances, property rezones, and the B-1 (business) zone are among the highest priority projects for the City. This is consistent with priorities identified by Council last year at the Semi-Ah-Moo retreat. The Planning and Development Committee unanimously supported administrative efforts to ensure the success of this program. The Committee urged Mayor Clymer to consider this statement of support when prioritizing future resources in order to give emphasis to complete this important program. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY REED, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Executive Session MOVED BY STREDICKE AND SECONDED, COUNCIL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A PERSONNEL MATTER. CARRIED. Time: 7:50 p.m. • s • I PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT JUNE 12, 1989 ' SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, RESIDENTIAL DOCK PROVISIONS (Referred 5/15/89) The Planning and Development Committee met and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation on the residential dock ' amendments to the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. The Committee recommends consideration by the Council of. the ' Planning Commissions recommendation together with a Committee modification requiring all docks be approved subject to the criteria of Section 7 . 12 .C. 3 . I ' , The Committee further recommends that the Council hold a ' public hearing on the recommended amendment, as modified; on , July 3, 1989, in order to comply with the State provisions for am endments to Shoreline Master Programs. Sohn Reed, Chair I - Nancy Mat ws, Vice-Chair tdkf2f2_12, Kathy eolker-Wheeler, Member SHORELINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SINGLE-FAMILY PIERS/DOCKS 12 PIERS AND DOCKS 7.12.01 Purpose: A. A pier or dock is a structure built over or floating upon the water, used as a landing or moorage place for marine transport or for residential purposes. B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public use or marinas. 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate in his application for a permit the need for the proposed pier or dock. C. The design of all piers and docks shall be approved by a licensed engineer or licensed architect. 7.12.03 Design Criteria for Single-family Docks A. Pier Type All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction ,except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling. i . B. Covered moorage, both permanent and temporary, shall consist of no more than a roof. �.. �� ' �� , ®• � CITY F RENTON NAL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISIO `f MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11, 1989 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Shoreline Master Program Amendment Residential Docks I ' The Planning Commission hereby transmits an amendment to the residential docks section of the City's Shorelines Master Program to the Council and recommends its adoption. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter on April 26, 1989. The Planning Commission minutes are attached. BACKGROUND The Planning and Development Committee met in January 1989, to consider an appeal filed by Mr. Tom Wielgoes (File V-084-88) on the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny a variance application to allow an extension of the length of an existing dock on Lake Washington. After hearing a report presented by staff and the arguments by the applicant, the committee decided to table the matter and asked that the administration review "...the language of the Shorelines Master Program as it relates to residential docks. Additionally, the City recommends that the administration expedite that review." The Council at the January 23, 1989, meeting concurred with the Committee's report and the matter was referred to the Current Planning Division staff to evaluate the matter. Staff researched the matter, reviewing various issues affecting dock length as well as background documents for the existing Shoreline Master Program requirements. In addition, the code requirements for residential docks in nearby communities were reviewed. Based upon this research, staff prepared an amendment for review by the Planning Commission. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 26, 1989. During the public hearing several issues were discussed: historical Shoreline Master Program regulation of docks; water depth along the shoreline of Lake Washington; the length of boats generally being purchased in the Puget Sound area; public need versus private needs; and dock lengths along the lake as well as variances which have been sought in Memo to City Council 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 May 11, 1989 Page Two the past. Based upon public testimony and the Commission's deliberations, the Planning Commission proposed revisions to the hearing document. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the following revisions to the Shoreline Master' Program section on residential docks as follows: o Section 7.12.03.C.1.a. The dock may extend to a maximum of eighty (80) feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of twelve!(12) feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first. ,In no, case shall a dock be limited to less than fifty (50) feet in length. o Section 7.12.03.C.2 Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock length and construction. the Examiner, shall determine that following criteria have been met in approving such requests: a. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage; b. The proposed length does not interfere with the public use and enjoyment of the water or create a hazard to navigation; and c. The proposed increase in length will not unreasonable interfere with the use of adjacent docks and/or piers. ' I � I I %h; CITY yr RENTON .JL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clyfiner, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20, 1989 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Donald K. Erickson, Zoning Administrator Jeannette M. Samek-McKague, Senior Planner I ' RE: Shorelines Master Program/ Residential Dock Amendment The City Council in January 1989, directed the administration to review the residential dock section of the City's Shorelines Master Program as a result of an appeal hearing for a denied variance application for an extended dock. During the appeal hearing questions were raised as to whether the existing regulations on residential dock sizes should be m'odified to allow greater flexibility in reviewing applications requesting a deviation from the existing regulations. The remainder of this memo discusses staff's research into the matter and staff's recommendation for modifications to the Shoreline Master Program. COUNCIL ACTION Staff's review of residential docks (Section 7.12) of the Shorelines Master Program was prompted by discussions held at an appeal hearing conducted by the Planning and Development Committee in January 1989. The Committee met to consider an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on a variance application to allow an extension of the length of a dock. The Shorelines Master Program allows docks to extend into the water thirty (30) feet or until a depth of eight (8) feet is reached provided the length does not exceed one hundred (100) feet. •The applicant's dock was thirty-three (33) feet in length, with a water depth of fourteen (14) feet at the end of the dock. Based on these facts, the Examiner denied the variance since the applicant had reasonable use of the shoreline, had sufficient water depth for boat moorage as specified by the Shorelines program without extending the dock. Therefore, the Examiner found that the applicant did not suffer undue hardship and denied the variance. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 i Planning Commission Mei " Shoreline Master Program, Jcec Amendments ' April',20, 1989 Page 2 1 The Planning and Development Committee, after hearing. a report presented by staff land i the arguments by the applicant, decided to table the matter and asked that the administration review "...the language of the Shorelines Master Program as it relates to residential docks. Additionally, the City recommends that the administration expedite that review." The Council at the January 23, 1989 meeting concurred with the Planning C''ommittee's report and directed the administration to review the matter. The Current Planning Division staff was directed to review the matter and prepare a recommendation to' the Planning Commission if a revision to the Shore Master Program was warranted. ; PROBLEM STATEMENT I, The existing residential dock regulations in the Shoreline Master Program do not allow enough flexibility to handle unique situations on the lake whether it is the result of extremely shallow water depths or deep water depths close to shore. The City has processed variance applications involving each of these situations. In one recent case the applicant requested approval to extend a joint use dock 264 feet into lake Washington where a water depth of 6.5 feet could be reached. In another case, an applicant , requested approval of a 50 foot dock extending into the lake to a water depth of-26!feet in order to accommodate a desired sail boat. The variance applications in both cases were denied by the Hearing Examiner. These requests were denied based on the language of the Master Program which establishes specific criteria for dock lengths (30 feet or depth of 8 feet to a maximum of 100 feet) since the requests did not fit within all the parameters of the code. In first case, the applicant did not appeal the decision but in the second case the applicant did appeal the decision. The City Council reversed the decision of the Hearing Examiner, granting the request but stipulated that the decision was not precedent setting. ,I In the shallow areas of Lake Washington, docks vary in length from 100 feet to 180, feet.' Some of these docks were constructed prior the adoption of shoreline regulations and Others were approved through variance applications. These docks could be damaged enough requiring the replacement of all or a portion of the dock. Under the existing regulations, applications for such improvements would most likely be denied. The ' nonconforming use regulations would not apply to the City's Shoreline regulations should an applicant be looking at a substantial replacement of an existing structure. Any development in the shorelines, as stipulated in state law, requires such developments to be. consistent with the intent of the State law. While some of the future requests for extended length docks may be reasonable, the current design standards for docks wiould not allow the City to approve such a requests. SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS Staff has been researching the matter, reviewing the existing Shoreline Master Program iequirements as well as the code requirements for residential docks in nearby ,communities. The following summarizes our findings on the following aspects of the [issue: 1 Planning Commission Mem'me'' Shoreline Master Program s�_.__ Amendments • - April'20, 1989 Page 3 H'storical Master Program Provisions: In 1974, the Shorelines Master Program allowed maximum dock lengths of one hundred fifty (150) feet. Persons could seek approval from the Planning Commission for longer docks for good reason, including but "not limited to conditions requiring greater dock length and construction." Between 1974 and 1976, the City revised the residential dock specifications reducing the dock length to thirty (30) feet or a depth of eight (8) which isl reflected in the present code. It is not clear in the record precisely why this change occurred. Dock Length Allowed By Other Communities: Dock lengths vary from community to community along Lake Washington. Some of the , communities such as Bellevue establish a dock length of eighty (80) feet with a maximum length of 150 feet to Seattle with dock lengths of 100 feet to Kirkland allowing docks with lengths of one hundred (150) feet. Seattle, in cases where there are ' docks on either side of a property for a proposed dock, the length may be determined by establishing a line between the existing docks on either side and allowing the proposed dock to extend to the established line. Size of Boats: Atelephone survey of businesses in the area selling boats was conducted. The common r1ange of boat lengths sold in the area is between 17 feet to 24 feet. The proposed dock ' specifications do accommodate typical boat lengths as well as allows larger boats should an owner so desire. • Lake Depth: The depth of Lake Washington along the Renton Shoreline varies from less than two feet to depths over five feet. In areas such as Coleman Point and north of the Barbie Mill the water depths are extremely shallow. Here docks range in size between 100 feet to 180 feet in order reach a reasonable water depth for moorage. In the area of the Lake near the north end of Gene Coulon Memorial Park, the depth is quite deep near the horeline. Within 30 feet of the ordinary high water mark a depth of fourteen feet can be reached. See Attachment A showing depths in Lake Washington along the City iof Renton shoreline. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon our research and the variance cases that have been approved and denied since the Shoreline Master Program was established, staff recommends modifying the specifications for dock lengths as shown on Attachment B of this document. These recommendations include: expanding the existing dock length from 30 feet to 80 feet; changing the allowable depth to be reached from 8 feet to 10 feet; establishing a maximum dock length of 40 feet for those areas on lake which have deep water depth close to the shoreline; and criteria that the Hearing Examiner must find in order to approve a variance application for docks exceeding the dock lengths specified in the code. ' V ' �t / .' 33 r 1 67 1 Pleasure PI 98 .'c n I I ncllr' ENT A i 23',i 1,- Gab`s n /8 19 95 /� t ( 64 65 7I 14 i hrd n F .;{'. 1 1 J ,lk I lc 6 I...• . q 39 67 i 3 68' 113 ,h T ! ` 68 Hazelwood • 114 - • 67 ; 73 .1. ' 101 .' 21 0 68 b� 31 �' i,1�; old I 129 131 • rd\a �I t 6 79 J `' ,ll 89 1 j 23\ 69 �� ��,• N i Cable Area ;r� 113 43 •181 )0 125V - 9_31- __--— 137 ita i ti ' 3 87 i/ / ;i:y :/ 97 9 :' i.i, !I:i' I !: • j r� // Ida' , EICI 119 2p I, 1 ii. 116 ,`� _1321-1iks r� . I, 47°3 I . 45 2 ,i1 1 1181:- May Creek ;- id , 1 1 25 ,- r 41 Submerged forest: / 42 i 1 -,I 6' 112 119 , clear of ob,lrixlions 60 42 n 4` f \ hrd I I o-I rYP�`�_ TANK within IS feet°I ris level , 1,' 113 h 73 i 34>I �2 ,d i 13I + y O 107 ',Nina(. . J 58 I �J 115 '' 43 136 27 ! 02 109 6 SOUTH PT 7 .. Ycvu: 2G 7 24 85 , I ? III I1211 6 T 2 / 68 139I1 P 107ii, • .♦ hrd 69 '!I '' o I h,d �d0 b I 104 106 `109 .93�i 8^ 66 Pili 112 Of ` 65 �/ 1nnydaIe 108 116 --- 4045106 1-- 119 105 d D ,101 A, ,I I 30 117 1• 00 104 L. 7 20 9) Coleman Pt Li May Creek 3 h d 109 99 101 102 90 �bo‘` 114 107 1111 I®& . • \ 106 98 90 79'�;eT 1��� • Y,\,37 89 /'`-' "`'off. �� 29 114 dro 115 102 90 86' - Tamil "_ t3 96 101 89 i G • 19 �`. �� "a3 1I1 98 84 76 ♦- 4 \1\11 O ���a3 91 ,h 73 1 1 -� 69 103 43 \\I m844 96 74 ?D° Cx,n• 99 79 67 a x1 i' 47 85 ; ' S5 0^♦� 92 1 I `: \ ': :f• 43 2 sub° , 'r7 -'� o'. . ° 1144 40 --�� 1 plus 31 i`�♦ Su faced Ramp �', v.• e. i I• /�m 1 I I; i Bryn Mawr '9 A I,,••�1 I 'r s OP JCKp� + "fp 4. 1 .. „,,,,Cl 1 VI II? •' - N4IiTICAL CHART 18447 r U (.1 �'f .1 /Excerpt showing Renton , ; !:1:i.. •I ‘ f f �!1 shoreline along Lake 1 SurfacedK. : Washington . Yellow line • o Ralnr� indicates 18 foot , ' '~"' Stt. / contour -� 1 line of water depth . '.,;,;. �a4, L // ,, REHIUH <%y'4L �{ -ii - AIRI'ORf an ac•I) \ I I I I ' • I 1 I , ATTACHMENT B SHORELINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SINGLE-FAMILY PIERS/DOCKS 12 f PIERS AND DOCKS 7.12.0 1; Purpose: A. • A pier or dock is a structure built over or floating upon the water, used as a landing or moorage place for marine transport or for residential purposes. , B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not'be created. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction . " ij A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed: 1. Piers and docks which provide for public use or marinas.1, , 2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions. 3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. 4. Private single family residence piers and docks. 5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. • The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate in his application for a permit the need for the proposed pier or dock. C. The design of all piers and docks shall be approved by a; licensed engineer or licensed architect. 7.12.03 Design Criteria for Single-family Docks A. Pier Type All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasiblel to install piling. II B. Covered moorage, both permanent and temporary, shall consist of no more than a roof. { i I C. Dock Size Specifications 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend to a . maximum lof eighty (80) thirty-(30} feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of twelve ,(12) ten(4O)-eight-(8) feet below the mean low water 'mark% whichever is reached first. Delete remainder of sentence-"provided-the-dock-length does not;exceed-one hundred-400}€eek" However, in no case hall a dock less than fifty (50) €efty(4O) feet in length lie required. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. 2. Any greater dimension than those listed above mayl be allowed by the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason,,which shall include, but is not limited to, conditions requiring greater dock length and construction. The Examiner, shall determine that following criteria have been met in approving such requests: a. The dock or pier length does not extend beyond a,length necessary to provide reasonable and safe moorage: b. The proposed length does not interfere with the public use and eniovment of the water or create al hazard to navigation: and c. The proposed increase in length will not unreasonable interfere with the use of adiacent docks and/or piers. D. Dock Location and Spacing 1. No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private, single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an adjacent property line. ' 2. Two (2) contiguous waterfront properties may locate!a joint dock facility on either such property, provided there are' appropriate restrictive covenants filed for record running with the land. 1 7112.04 Multi-family Residence Docks (Remains the same.) 7,.12.05 Use of Buoys and Floats (Remains the same.) 7i.12.06 Commercial and Industrial Docks (Remains the same.) t . 6.4 �4lIt G DIVISION + ar7 y„..re CITY 0'F RENTON WAN 2 4 1989 0 • PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT • TO: Renton City Council FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE: . Tom Wielgos, File No: V-084-88 The Planning and Development Committee met on January 19 , 1989, 'to consider the appeal of Tom Wielgos . The applicant seeks approval of a variance from Section 7 . 12 . 030(c) 1(a) of the Shorelines Master Program to allow a twelve foot extension of an existing dock. The subject property is located at 2811 Mt. View Avenue N. lAfter hearing the report of staff and the arguments of the applicant, the committee has decided to table this matter and hold it in committee. The committee • also recommends that the administration 'review yleit language of• —the - Shorelines Master Program,..,..,as _it relates ,to residential "docks Additionally, the city recommends -' that ' the administration expedite that review. Dated: January 23, 1989 . '—J'ohn Reed, Chairman j 9LLP ' Nancy Mat{.iews / jJ/ 4j Kathy olker-Wheeler ZLF:asl CITY7 : 11 . • I I , PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING April 26, 1989 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen Crow, Jeffrey Lukins, Patricia ;Lavery, Gene Ledbury, Barbara Schellert, Patrick Texeira, Richard Wagner, and Joan Walker. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Taylor. CITY STAFF PRESENT: Nancy Laswell Morris, Chief Long Range Planner; Jeanette Samek-McKague, Senior Planner; Willis Roberts, Recording Secretary. 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. , ROLL CALL was taken by Secretary Wagner. All responded present with the exception of Commissioner Taylor IT WAS ACTION: MOVED BY WAGNER, SECONDED BY SCHELLERT, THAT COMMISSIONER TAYLOR BE EXCUSED. MOTION CARRIED, 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Chair called for additions or corrections to the minutes of the April 12, 1989, meeting. Commissioner Walker requested that on page 4, relating to the 'meeting organized by the downtown merchants, the first sentence of the second paragraph be revised to add "and Texeira" following Commissioner Wagner. She also requested that the last sentence of the second paragraph be revised to read, "Ms. Walker reported that it was suggested to take out the planters in the middle of the block as it would give the perception that they are doing something and that there is more parking." IT WAS ACTION: MOVED BY WAGNER, SECONDED BY LUKINS, THAT THE MINUTES BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT: None. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE: Staff Report Nancy Laswell Morris, Chief Long Range Planner, reported concerning the status of the City's contract with the Heery Group and identified their scope of work. She advised that City staff has met the team, and she then drew an organizational chart depicting the new task force system, its relationship to the City organization, and noted the five task forces and projects and their assignments. She then responded to questions from the Commission regarding staff support, their assigned task forces, and major assignments. She noted that the Heery contract is for a period of sixty days. The Chief Long Range Planner then discussed the status of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan study. She conveyed Senior Planner Rubin Yu's appreciation:to Commissioner Lavery for her work on the citizen questionnaire and advised concerning the planned scientific telephone survey. Ms. Laswell Morris then referred the members to copies of various news articles included in their meeting packets. She advised that they could expect more of this kind of information as well as technical materials,relating to their study of the Comprehensive Plan. She also invited the Commissioners to bring in any articles that they felt were relevant. Continuing, Ms. Laswell Morris reported the results of a recent estimate of Renton's population as of April 1, 1989, at approximately 39,000. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Shoreline Master Program - Residential Dock Amendment As it was 7:30 p.m., and the public hearing concerning the proposed amendment to the Shoreline Master Program had been advertised for this hour, Vice-chair Walker welcomed the audience and requested a presentation by staff. • Planning Commission Meeting April 26,11989 Page 2 Jeanette Samek-McKague, Senior Planner, advised that they are looking at a small proposed change in Renton's Shoreline Master Program regulations concerning residential docks. The City Council has requested that the Commission review specifications for residential docks with regard to length and depth. This request is the result of an appeal hearing for a denied variance application for an extended dock. Ms. Samek-McKague explained further that the request is being made because an applicant has purchased a larger boat and is asking 'for approval to extend his dock another 12 feet to 45 feet, and the existing dock at 33 feet already exceeds the 30-foot limit of the code. Other docks in the vicinity exceed 45 feet. Because of code and shoreline policies, the applicant's request had to be denied by the Examiner, who found that the owner had reasonable use of the dock. The Council in its review during the appeal process has requested that the Planning Commission look at "...the language of the Shoreline Master Program as it relates to residential docks" and also requested that this review be expedited. The Senior Planner then summarized staff findings and the staff recommendation included in their April 20th memorandum to the Commission. Ms. Samek-McKague then responded to questions from the members concerning Commission purview of variances from the Shoreline Master Program, a history of previous variances from residential dock requirements, and the varying water depths found along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Ms. Samek-McKague advised that they are trying to get some balance into the program in terms of the residential docks, inasmuch as they feel that the extremes have not been addressed. Also, they are trying to address the private needs of the homeowners, along with a responsibility to the public, for shoreline use, recreation, and wildlife habitat. In addition, they are trying.to have Renton's shoreline requirements in balance with other jurisdictions. Ms. Samek-McKague then reviewed in detail the history of the preparation of the Renton Shoreline Master Program. She noted that at its establishment, the proposed residential dock length was set at 150 feet with a variance process through the Planning Commission. Between 1974 and 1976, the residential dock length was reduced to thirty feet or a depth of eight feet, and this is specified in our present code. The Senior Planner also discussed dock requirements in neighboring communities. Responding to Commissioner Lukins, she indicated that the longest docks in the city limits are 180 feet. These are situated at Coleman Point and Ripley Lane because of shallow water. Responding to Commissioner Wagner, she indicated that the eight foot depth requirement had been recommended by the state and that other jurisdictions' requirements range from ten to 13 feet. Commissioner Ledbury raised the question of the amount of water drawn by various sized boats, noting that eight feet seemed somewhat inadequate for some sailboats. Noting the need to not disturb the bottom of the lake, the Senior Planner advised that the members should be sure to pick a depth that would allow for that kind of use. Discussion ensued concerning the size of boats in the Renton area and the potential for larger boats. It was also pointed out that pleasure craft includes both sail and power boats. The issue of public need was defined: recreational opportunities on the lake, aethetics, ability to boat close to the shore, protection of fish runs along the shoreline, protection of shoreline vegetation, and noninterference with navigation. Commissioner Crow noted that the request is for a 45-foot dock, and there are docks 180 feet in length. Ms. Samek-McKague 'explained that there are problems with the varying depths of water and that at 180 feet the depth reached was only 6.5 feet. She then referred the Commissioners to a nautical chart showing water depths of the; Renton shoreline along Lake Washington. Discussion ensued regarding the inner harborline, and it was noted that they do not want docks to be extending into that area. Commissioner Lavery, citing the public need versus the private need, pointed out the presence of the concrete section of bridge floating in the Renton area of Lake Washington, which has become quite.a eyesore and nuisance. Ms. Lavery asked how this was permitted to continue. Ms. Laswell Morris replied that the City does not have any jurisdiction over that bridge; rather the' Coast Guard has jurisdiction. Responding to Commission inquiries further, she advised that it is a state issue, as the City has jurisdiction only to the harborline. Commissioner Lavery suggested that the Planning Commission add a recommendation regarding this situation to their recommendation on residential docks. • 1 i • Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 3 Commissioner Wagner asked if there were issues beyond the length and depth of docks such as the question of setbacks. He noted that those could become a concern in pie- shaped lots. Ms. Samek-McKague explained that they treat docks individually on a case-by-case basis. Acknowledging a situation where setbacks could become an issue, such as on Ripley Cove, she indicated that the City works with the property owners on locating their docks. Continuing her presentation, Ms. Samek-McKague noted that another issue concerns the size of the boats. She advised that in talking to businesses in the area between Seattle,. Bellevue, and Tacoma, the average boat sold ranges from 17 and 24 feet, and most are motor boats and small sail boats. Based on research, staff is proposing modifications to two sections of the code '- dock size specifications for single family docks and giving the Hearing Examiner some specific findings that he needs to make before approving variance applications. It is recommended that dock lengths be changed from 30 feet to 80 feet, that the allowable depth to be reached be changed from 8 feet to 10 feet, that a maximum dock length of 40 feet be established for those areas on the lake close to the shoreline which have deep water, and that the Hearing Examiner be provided criteria which he must find in order to approve a variance application for docks exceeding the dock lengths specified in the code. This will provide more clarification so that the individual coming in understands the measurements, and it will also provide clarification for staff in the future. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not these specifications were adequate. The Senior Planner explained that in most cases an 8-foot depth has been fine; however, they are looking at ten feet because of the needs of sailboats. These regulations will accommodate the needs of most applicants rather than having to seek a variance. Commissioner Ledbury asked if the average length of boats sold reflected the average length on the lake and suggested that they may be longer. Commissioner Texeira suggested the possibility of setting some kind of limit regarding the length allowed. Ms. Samek-McKague responded that the ten foot depth proposed would take .care of most situations and noted that they had not had any requests for that length. ,At this point, she •said they would recommend retaining the eight foot depth. She advised further that the high water mark will provide two more feet, or ten feet a good part of the year. In the Gene Coulon Park area, however, because of the depth of the water, they recommend that a dock should not be less than 40 feet. There was further discussion concerning dock length, and it was pointed out that eighty feet had been recommended as' the maximum. This ties in with the variance provision that states that anything greater than 80 feet would have to go through the variance process. By establishing the 80 foot maximum length, this will reduce some, of the difficulty in trying to administer the ordinance in situations such as when they need to address docks that are proposed for maintenance, repair, or modification. Referring to the staff recommendations for revision of section 7.12.03.C.1.a., dock size specifications, Commissioner Wagner asked if it was intended that it should read that the dock may extend 80 feet, or no more than 80 feet. Ms. Samek-McKague replied that "maximum" should be inserted to read, "to a maximum of 80 feet." She then responded further to questions about the shoreline permit process, the possibility of two docks, and the possibility of.a "U" or "L" shaped dock. Mr. Texeira asked about provisions for multiple family docks. Ms. Samek-McKague advised that the only multiple family dock at present is located at Misty Cove. It was pointed out, however, that there is a high potential for that kind of need. Commenting further, Ms. Samek-McKague advised that they are most concerned about getting the Shoreline Master Program looked at. She suggested that at the time of that review they consider requirements for multiple family docks. The Vice-chair suggested that as they think of issues, they write them down. She then declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:30 p.m. with all members noted above present. Commissioner Lukins, speaking for the public record, stated that he wished to make sure that there was no conflict of interest. He reported that the applicant, Tom Wilgos, who has helped bring on this change in the code, is a friend through work. He added that it was his feeling that Mr. Wilgos' action has helped the City recommend some changes to the code and pointed out that this is an overall change. He said he would like to have Planning Commission Meeting April 26, .1989 Page 4 some input into that change, if the Commissioners felt there would not be a conflict of interest. The Vice-chair asked if anyone on the Commission or in the audience had any feelings about a possible conflict of interest. No response was received from either .group. It was also confirmed that there was no objection from staff. Ms. Walker then opened the public hearing, inviting public comment. Jon Burdick, 3711 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, noting that he lives about two blocks south of Pt. Quendall, stated that he found that a real source of noise pollution. He reported that during the summertime,.when the wind blows from the north, all the noise comes down. He advised that they have been operating.day and night for about one and a half years, and at times he has found it difficult to sleep. He advised that he owns .property with no dock at present. He said it has a deep drop- off, and at thirty feet from the high water line it is ten to twelve feet deep. , Under existing regulations, he will be limited to a thirty-foot dock. He said he feels that is extremely restrictive, noting that Mercer Island and Bellevue allow one to build to eighty feet regardless of the depth of the water. He added that thirty feet seems conservative. Mr. Burdick advised further that he is looking for a thirty to forty foot boat. He referred the members to copies of his letter dated April 19, 1989, addressing the length of residential docks. He noted that in his area it is not the depth that is restrictive but the length that is restrictive. He said his neighbors to the south have a sixty-foot dock and the neighbor to the north a dock about forty to forty-five feet in length. He stated that he felt that a dock of forty to forty-five feet would not impair public use'of that area. The. Vice-chair asked him about the adequacy of the wording, "In no case shall a dock less than forty feet in length be required." Responding, Mr. Burdick said he felt it would be adequate in his case. However, due to the increasing cost of waterfront property, more affluent property owners are coming to Renton, some who own larger boats. He stated that he felt Renton would see'owners coming in with thirty to forty foot boats that won't fit on a 30-foot dock. He explained that they would not want to tie up immediately to a bulkhead, and if they had' a deep hulled boat, the hull would hit the midpoint of the depth. The Vice-chair asked if a dock had to extend beyond the length of the boat. Mr. Burdick responded that a dock should extend beyond the length of the boat. Discussion then followed concerning tie points of boats to the docks. There was also discussion concerning the division between fees for the different types of shoreline permits, which are based on the cost of a dock. It was suggested that the $2500 value set for a shorelines exemption is out of date. Ms. Samek-McKague noted that is a state regulation, and communities have asked the state to reconsider the $2500 limit because of today's costs. Betsy Crawford, 5117 Ripley Lane, Renton, said that she has a long dock without any water depth. She indicated that if they had to redo their dock, they would have to extend it to the inner harborline in order to obtain the 8 foot depth. She advised that they experience run-off from a creek that results in a murky bottom and keeps their area.shallow. Therefore, they are more concerned about the length restrictions. She pointed out that they are situated north of the Misty Cove condominiums, adjacent to King County; and in King County you can build a dock to one hundred feet. She suggested considering that figure if they wished to make the requirements more even. She also noted that, when you are talking about ten feet, you are talking about high water. • Ms. Samek-McKague explained that they are recommending eight feet at low water. Ms. Crawford commented that she felt eight to ten feet was low and recommended instead 12 to 13 feet at high water or 10 feet at low water. She stated that the neighbors have a sailboat which they cannot move in the winter months because of low water. Robert Marshall, 299 Mountain View Avenue, Renton, advised that while he did not have a dock, the docks in his area are 150 feet long and at the end of the summer, one can stand in the water at the end of the dock. Therefore, 80 feet is a problem in that area. He said he would like to see a diving board at the end of the dock, which would require more than the eight feet depth. Concerning parking, he reported that his neighbor put an anchor on his side of the property line, with a line and a buoy with the prevailing wind coming from the southwest, putting it on his property. He-suggested • Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 5 that a rule be made that people put their anchor on the side of the property where the wind blows from. Concluding, he pointed out that with the price of waterfront property, people may want substantial boats and a dock_appreciably longer than their boats for protection. The Vice-chair invited further comments or questions from the public, but there was no response. She then opened the matter up to discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Lukins asked if some jurisdictions allowed dock lengths of 80 to 180 feet with no depth restrictions. Ms. Samek-McKague reported that is not what they have found. She noted that Seattle has an 8-foot depth restriction and King County 13 feet. Mr. Burdick advised that King County has a maximum square foot restriction and allows docks to be built in any configuration. Ms. Samek-McKague explained that they are trying to keep things simple. Ms. Walker asked about any limits on the other side of the lake near the airport, noting its proximity to King County. The Commissioners then discussed the various depths along the Lake Washington shorelines. Commissioner Texeira asked for an idea of the rights and responsibilities of people who own property along the water, asking specifically how far their property exceeds the water's edge. Mr. Burdick advised that their property extends beyond the property line about 200 feet into the harborline. The Vice-chair then read the staff recommendation into the record. Discussion ensued concerning dock configurations, multiple family docks, existing docks in the vicinity of a proposed dock, and depth limits in relation to allowable lengths. They considered the depths between the front of the lake's shoreline if there is an immediate drop-off. They discussed the draw of 30 to 40 foot boats. Providing clarification, Ms. Samek-McKague indicated that the City's responsibility is for people to have reasonable moorage, and this could include varying dock lengths. She said if one is going to have a boat that these specifications cannot accommodate, perhaps the boat should be kept some place else. Commissioner Texeira expressed concern about.large boats obstructing views of some property owners and suggested approving a 40-foot length limitation. Ms. Crawford said she felt that the depth or length should not make any difference. Mr. Burdick indicated that most of the houses in his area have a fairly narrow channel of vision. He said that he had a boathouse adjacent to him to the south, with a 60-foot dock, and it was not an obstruction. Commissioner Crow advised that when she is visiting people on the lake, she finds that they have a broad expanse, the boats are rocking, and they are not that distracting. The Vice-chair suggested that they come to some kind of conclusion. IT WAS THEN ACTION: MOVED BY LEDBURY, SECONDED BY SCHELLERT, TO CLOSE THE PUBL'IC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED: Mr. Lukins then presented a motion as follows: ACTION: MOVED BY LUKINS TO REVISE SECTION 7.12.03.C.1.a. TO READ: THE DOCK MAY EXTEND TO A MAXIMUM OF EIGHTY (80) FEET BEYOND THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE INTO THE WATER OR UNTIL A DEPTH OF TEN (10) FEET BELOW THE MEAN LOW WATER MARK, WHICHEVER IS REACHED FIRST. HOWEVER, IN NO CASE SHALL A DOCK LESS THAN FIFTY (50) FEET IN LENGTH BE REQUIRED. Discussion ensued concerning the depth requirements. They discussed specifically the last sentence in Section 7.12.03.C.1.a., "However, in no case shall a dock less than forty (40) feet in length be required." . I Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 6 Commissioner Wagner provided illustations on the chalkboard relating the various sized boats and varying lake bottoms. They discused what constitutes a hardship, noting that providing reasonable limits would preclude people having to apply to the Hearing Examiner for a variance. Ms. Lavery suggested striving for language that can apply for every single individual that comes in. Mr. Ledbury pointed out that they don't have control over the dock construction. Ms. Laswell Morris advised that dock construction is subject to. SEPA review. COMMISSIONER SCHELLERT SECONDED THE MOTION. The Vice-chair read the motion into the record and called for the vote. Ms. Samek- McKague interjected that they had a suggestion for a replacement for the last sentence in Section 7.12.03.C.1.a discussed earlier. She suggested that it be revised to, "In.no case shall a dock be limited to less than fifty (50) feet in length." The Vice-chair asked if everyone accepted that language. All expressed approval. Commissioner Wagner raised for discussion the eighty foot length limitation. Discussion followed regarding the length limitations of neighboring jurisdictions. Commissioner Crow supported the 100-foot limit. Mr. Ledbury noted the availability of the appeal process for people who wanted to go farther than eighty feet. It was also pointed out that these regulations can be changed. IT WAS THEN ACTION: MOVED BY WAGNER, SECONDED BY LUKINS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE TEN (10) FEET FROM THE LOW WATER LINE TO TWELVE (12) FEET IN PARAGRAPH 7.12.03.C.1.a. Ms. Laswell Morris confirmed that the motion now ready for approval reads that the dock may extend 80 feet beyond the high water line to a depth of ten feet below the mean low water line, and in no case shall a dock be less than 50 feet. On the amendment, MOTION CARRIED. The Vice-chair then called for a vote on the original motion. • On the original motion, as amended, MOTION CARRIED. The Vice-chair then read section 7.12.03.C.2 and invited discussion. Discussion ensued relating to proposed staff additions to the paragraph which concerns criteria to be determined by the Hearing Examiner in approving a request for docks to exceed established size specifications. Ms. Laswell Morris explained that the issue is do you have the length to provide safe moorage. The Commission debated whether the proposed language was subjective. They also considered the maximum length allowed, the need for the Hearing Examiner to base his decision on findings of fact, the necessity for the applicant to prove to the City why a larger dock is needed, and the review and appeal process of the variance request. Ms. Samek-McKague noted that state jurisdiction is also involved. IT WAS THEN ACTION: MOVED BY LUKINS, SECONDED BY SCHELLERT, THAT WE ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH 7.12.03.C.2. MOTION CARRIED. The Vice-chair raised the matter of dock configuration. Ms. Samek-McKague advised j that L-shaped docks have been allowed, and they are trying to come up with language concerning the "hook." Concerning the extension, they are considering a length of ten feet with a width of 8 feet. Responding to Ms. Walker concerning the need for that extension, Ms. Samek-McKague indicated it was for protection. Ms. Samek-McKague added that for this amendment, she would recommend that the Commission not deal with this issue at this time because it has not come up. She suggested that instead they put it on the list of things to consider at the time the whole • Master Program is reviewed. • ii Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1989 Page 7 Ms. Laswell Morris suggested also that no single family home should have more than one dock. The Vice-chair invited further comment. Noting none, IT WAS ACTION: • MOVED BY CROW, SECONDED BY LUKINS, THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT WE ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE. JUST APPROVED ON THIS ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED. This was followed by further action: ACTION: MOVED BY CROW, SECONDED BY WAGNER, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONCRETE BRIDGE AND THE BOAT, AND THEREFORE WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY INVESTIGATE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO HAVE IT REMOVED. MOTION CARRIED. 7. NEW BUSINESS: Ms. Laswell Morris invited the members to a reception for the new Community Development Director to be held from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at City Hall on April 27th. j Vice-chair Walker inquired regarding the agenda for the May 10th meeting. Ms. Laswell Morris replied that they would be discussing the role of the Comprehensive Plan under state law, the different kinds of Comprehensive Plans, and zoning and implementation of Comprehensive Plans. . 8. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY LEDBURY, SECONDED BY SCHELLERT, TO ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. I The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. B Tayl r, Richard Wagner, Secretary • •