Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutERC_Report_RMC_Title_IV_Docket16DDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERC Report 2021 Docket #16, Group D ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: January 31, 2022 Project Name: 2021 Docket #16, Group D Project Number: LUA22-000008, ECF Project Manager: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager Owner: City of Renton Applicant: City of Renton Contact: Angie Mathias, 425-430-6576 Project Location: All docket items are citywide. Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review to review for the following non-project items: 1. Trees: The purpose of the proposed code changes is to provide new development incentives to preserve high-value trees, ensure trees are preserved via methods that discourage future tree removal violations, and appropriately mitigate tree removal violations when they do occur. 2. MFTE Eligible Areas Expansion: expansion of the eligible residential targeted areas to two additional areas. Recommended is the extension of the market- rate and affordable Exemptions to the Rainier/Grady Way TOD Subarea and the extension of the affordable Exemptions to South Lake Washington. 3. Code Interpretations: CI 152 Applicability of Short Term Rentals, CI 155 Definitions of Towhomes, CI 156 Enforcement of Violations of Parking Regulations, CI 157 Nonconforming Structures and Sites, CI 160 Fee Section Reference, CI 163 Shared Driveway Standards, CI 165 Improved Access Clarification, CI 168 Reasonable Accomodations, D 170 Definition of Adult Familiy Home. Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A N/A Site Area: N/A Total Building Area GSF: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND Trees: Staff has observed that current regulations related to tree retention and land clearing are insufficient. Although the current regulations encourage and provide incentives for the preservation of trees, staff have found that most projects choose to replace trees rather than preserve the mature trees on site. Staff would like to propose amendments that work to better encourage retention of mature trees, as well as better prioritize the preservation of substantial or high-value trees. All proposals require a conditional Use Permit (CUP) so that the appropriate mitigation measures and conditions can be applied, if needed, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. As adopted in RMC 4-9-030, Conditional Use Permits. The following are specific recommendations. DocuSign Envelope ID: 86FC5B1E-DB9D-4037-B270-3C9A840D6461 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report 2021 DOCKET #16, GROUP D LUA22-000008, ECF Report of Monday, January 31, 2022 Page 2 of 6 ERC Report RMC Title IV Docket16D ALLOWED TREE REMOVAL: Amend allowed tree removal activities. The term “dangerous” is inconsistent with the risk assessment terminology and classifications utilized by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Staff recommends revising the code to exchange the term “dangerous tree” for “high-risk tree”. Furthermore, staff proposes to clarify that a “high-risk tree” meets the following guidelines: • Likelihood of Failure: Probable or Imminent; and • Likelihood of Impact: Medium or High; and • Consequences of Failure: Significant or Severe Clarify that removal of high-risk landmark trees and removal of 4 or more high-risk trees requires an Routine Vegetation Management Plan. With the exception of Landmark trees and removal of 4 or more trees, staff also recommends revising the code to clarify that removal of high-risk trees is exempt from permit requirements provided a full arborist report is prepared and provided to the City for review and concurrence, prior to tree removal. MINOR TREE REMOVAL ACTIVITIES: Currently, the number of significant trees permitted to be remo ved within a 1- year and 5-year period is based on the lot size. Staff proposes to simplify the code by allowing, as a minor tree removal activity, 2 trees to be removed within a calendar year and up to 5 trees to be removed within a 5 -year period, regardless of lot size. The minor tree removal activity must comply with the following restrictions: • A minimum of two significant trees are retained on each lot. If less than two significant trees will be retained, an RVMP will be required. • The tree removal is not located within interior or perimeter parking lot landscaping on commercial properties. • There is not an active land development application for the site. • The trees are not protected or landmark trees and not located within shoreline jurisdiction. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: Currently, an RVMP is required for the use of mechanical equipment with more than twenty-seven horsepower for tree and vegetation removal. To help simplify the process and eliminate unnecessary permit review, staff recommends eliminating this requirement provided the proposal complies with noise and tree removal requirements. LANDMARK TREES: Currently, City code defines a “landmark tree” as “A tree with a caliper of thirty inches (30") or greater.” Staff recommends revising the minimum size of a landmark tree to 24 caliper inches, for all tree species except for Big Leaf Maples, Black Cottonwoods, and Red Alders, which would remain at caliper of thirty inches (30"). Staff proposes the following revisions to the criteria for landmark tree removal: • Update to reflect “high-risk” tree standards discussed above in lieu of “dangerous trees”. • Clarify what constitutes “obvious physical damage to structures and other improvements”. For example, cracked foundations and cracked driveways, which cannot be mitigation by tree root pruning and/or tree root barriers, would constitute as obvious physical damage. • Clarify which structures warrant protection from damage from landmark trees. For example, damaged fences and sheds (200 square feet or less) should not warrant removal of a landmark tree. • Clarify if or when limb fall warrants landmark tree removal, such as a repeated history of limb fall, which no mitigation pruning would adequately address, or tree species that are prone to excessive limb fall. ARBORIST REPORT: An Arborist report is “A report prepared by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect that correlates with the Tree Retention/Land Clearing Plan and identifies size, species, health, and reason for any removal. The report shall identify the limits of disturbance for all retained trees.” Staff proposes to include additional standards for arborist reports to include the following: • Must be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist or ASCA certified consultant. • Must include a project location, description of proposed development and tree removal, a site plan, and tree assessment. DocuSign Envelope ID: 86FC5B1E-DB9D-4037-B270-3C9A840D6461 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report 2021 DOCKET #16, GROUP D LUA22-000008, ECF Report of Monday, January 31, 2022 Page 3 of 6 ERC Report RMC Title IV Docket16D • In cases where “high risk” trees are proposed for removal, the report must be prepared by an arborist with ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ). The report must include an ISA Tree Risk Assessment standard form fully completed. Staff proposes to clarify that an arborist report is required for RVMPs, land use permits, and building permits where the applicant proposed to retain less than 30% trees. In addition, staff proposes to clarify that the City Arborist must concur with the tree risk assessment. If the City Arborist does not concur with the risk assessment, the City may require independent review of an applicant’s arborist report at the applicant’s expense. ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT: Staff proposes to update the RVMP review criteria to be consistent with other code updates, such as revising the requirement for compliance with tree density, and also ensuring that all trees proposed for removal are replaced in compliance with the minimum tree credit requirements discussed below. TREE PRESERVATION: Currently, properties with a Land Development Permit or building permit shall retain significant trees with percentages based on the property’s zone. Single-family residential zones are required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site, multi-family residential zones are required to retain 20% of the significant trees on site, and commercial and industrial zones are required to retain 10% of the significant trees on site. Utility uses and mineral extraction uses are exempt from the protected tree retention requirements. To ensure development is equitable across all zones, staff recommends requiring a consistent percentage of tree retention across all zones at a rate of 30%. In addition, staff recommends revising the code to require that private streets, including private PUD streets, shared driveway tracts, and access easements, not be deducted when calculating tree retention requirements. TREE CREDIT REQUIREMENTS: As an alternative to the current tree density requirements, staff proposes a tree credit system. Properties with a Land Development Permit shall comply with minimum tree credit requirements. Tree credit requirements shall apply at a rate of 30 credits per acre. Land within critical areas and their buffers, public rights-of- way, and public trails would be excluded for calculation of tree credits. Tree retention or a combination of tree retention and supplemental planting would be required to meet or exceed the minimum tree credits required. A fee- in-lieu may be permitted with Administrator approval. Within subdivisions, location of supplemental tree replanting would be prioritized within tree tract(s) versus individual lots. For example: A 0.22-acre (9,5832sf) lot in the PO zone would need eleven (11) tree credits (50 × 0.22 = 11). The tree density for the lot could be met by retaining one existing nineteen-inch deciduous (not red alder or cottonwood) tree (five tree credits) and one existing sixteen-inch native coniferous tree (4 tree credits × 1.5 = six tree credits). TREE REPLACEMENT: Staff proposes to include criteria that the applicant must meet if they are proposing to retain less than the 30 percent required tree retention. The criteria may include the following factors for consideration: • The project is a short plat with 4 or fewer lots. • The specific trees needed for retention would prevent buildable lots and would prevent compliance with minimum density requirements of the zone. • The proposal prioritizes the retention if a landmark tree that would otherwise not be feasibly retained if 30 percent retention was the objective. • The project proposal prioritizes retention of landmark tree(s) versus other significant trees. Staff proposes that if less than 30 percent tree replacement can be retained, the applicant replace each protected tree removed based on the credits of the tree proposed for removal. Current code allows up to fifty percent (50%) of trees required pursuant to RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping, to contribute toward replacement trees. Staff proposes to eliminate this 50% credit toward tree replacement. FLEXIBLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: To encourage the preservation of high-value landmark trees, staff proposes providing flexibility. Staff proposes that the code be revised to allow a reduction of the front and secondary front yard setbacks within the R-6, R-4, and R-1 zones to 20 feet provided the reduction results in the preservation of DocuSign Envelope ID: 86FC5B1E-DB9D-4037-B270-3C9A840D6461 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report 2021 DOCKET #16, GROUP D LUA22-000008, ECF Report of Monday, January 31, 2022 Page 4 of 6 ERC Report RMC Title IV Docket16D a landmark tree that would otherwise not be preserved. An arborist report demonstrating that the setback reduction is necessary to preserve the critical root zone of the tree, as well as Administrator approval, would be required. Staff also proposes that within residential subdivisions, the code allow a reduction of minimum lot size and minimum lot dimensions by up to 10%, if the reduction is necessary to accommodate tree protection tracts. TREE RETENTION WITHIN SUBDIVISIONS: Staff recommends a new section within Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations specifically for tree retention within subdivisions. Staff recommends that all significant trees required to be retained (30%) within a subdivision be preserved in a priority order. Tier 1 is the preferred method of tree retention for all protected trees. An application for any permit or approval would need to demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to preserve trees in the priority order shown below. If retainment of all trees within a dedicated tract is not feasible due to factors such as spacing of trees, number of trees, lot number (short plat with 4 lots or less) or minimum density requirements, the applicant may choose to do a combination of different mitigation options or an alternative option (Tier 2-4), with review and approval by the Administrator. • Tier 1— Dedicated Tract. Protection of trees or groves by placement in a tract within a new subdivision. • Tier 2— Tree Protection Easement or Restrictive Covenant. Protection of trees or groves by recordation of a permanent tree protection easement or restrictive covenant. • Tier 3— Retention and Mitigation. Retention and removal of trees, with subsequent mitigation by replanting. In cases where mitigation planting will occur in combination with a tree protection tract, all replacement trees shall be placed within the tree protection tract to the maximum extent feasible to provide for adequate tree growth and heath. • Tier 4— Fee-in-lieu of planting. PROTECTION MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION: With the exception of invasive species, staff proposes that vegetation removal within the drip line of protected trees be prohibited during construction activities. Native understory trees, shrubs and other vegetation should be protected within the designated tree protection area. VIOLATIONS: To ensure that tree removal violations that occur during construction activities are adequately mitigated on the project site, staff recommends that protected trees that are removed in violation of a land use decision have the driplines retained as non-buildable area. The protected dripline would be replanted per the tree credit replacement requirements. No building footprint, impervious surface, or obstructions would be permitted within the protected dripline. DEFINITIONS: Staff proposes to update the definitions related to tree regulations, including “significant tree” and “protected tree.” Staff proposes that newly planted trees are no longer counted as “significant” trees. Staff proposes to update the definition of “protected tree” to reflect the changes to the definition of “significant tree”. The purpose of this code change is to ensure that replacement trees are not utilized to meet minimum tree number requirements, in lieu of mature trees, for a minor tree removal activity. (Some other proposed definitions include: “Protected Dripline” and “High-Risk Tree.” MFTE New Eligible Areas: Staff are recommending two new residential targeted areas, specifically: Rainier/Grady Junction TOD Subarea The Administration is recommending the creation of a new area for the Rainier/Grady Junction TOD Subarea. The Rainier/Grady Junction TOD Subarea surrounds the future Transit Center and is a priority redevelopment and revitalization area. Staff recommend extending the eight-year, twelve-year, and proposed twenty-year to the geographic area defined in Exhibit B. For size standards, staff recommends projects to consist of a minimum total of one hundred (100) new multi-family dwelling units in order to incentivize the high-density development type envisioned in the Rainier/Grady Junction Subarea Plan. DocuSign Envelope ID: 86FC5B1E-DB9D-4037-B270-3C9A840D6461 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report 2021 DOCKET #16, GROUP D LUA22-000008, ECF Report of Monday, January 31, 2022 Page 5 of 6 ERC Report RMC Title IV Docket16D South Lake Washington The Administration is recommending the expansion of the twelve- and twenty-year affordable Exemption to a slightly modified South Lake Washington Exemption Area. Attachment C depicts the previously established designated targeted area and the proposed area. The rationale behind this recommendation is to encourage the development of affordable housing options in the South Lake Washington area. When more market-rate residential development occurs in South Lake Washington, the twelve-year Exemption will offer an incentive to developers who choose to create mixed-income projects. Code Impetrations: Staff recommends adoption of the code interpretations below into Renton Municipal Code. • CI-152: Applicability of RMC 4-4-055, Short Term Rentals: Corrects the inadvertent application of the Short- Term Rental regulations to all rental properties. Code was amended so that the Short-Term Rental regulations only apply to properties that meet the City’s definition of a short-term rental. • CI-155: Definition of a Townhome: Revised as follows - Townhouse: A ground-related dwelling unit attached to one or more such units by one or more common vertical walls in which each unit occupies the building from the bottom of the foundation to the roof, has at least two its own exterior faces, front and rear ground-level access to the outside, and no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more vertical common walls. Townhouse units may be multi-story. • CI-156: Enforcement of Violations of RMC 4-4-085: Clarifies that violations of RMC 4-4-085, Parking of Residential Vehicles on Residential Property, is enforceable by RMC 1-3, Enforcement of Violations. RMC 4- 4-085 identifies violations of code to be limited to misdemeanors. However, RMC 1-3, which pre-dates the ordinance that codified RMC 4-4-085, states that when Code Compliance staff determines a violation exists, staff has the discretion to determine the most appropriate means of enforcement. • CI-157: Nonconforming Structures v. Nonconforming Sites: This code interpretation clarifies how nonconforming structures and nonconforming sites are defined, specifically whether a site or a structure is nonconforming as it relates to density. • CI-160: Fee Section Reference: Amended as follows, When an application is approved, the Community and Economic Development Administrator or designee shall determine a nonrefundable fee as established by ordinance for the temporary use of the right-of-way or granting of a permanent easement. The fee shall be as stipulated in RMC 4-1-180E the City of Renton Fee Schedule. • CI-163: Shared Driveway Standards: Corrects erroneous omission related to shared driveway allowances and dwelling units. Based on Docket Item 103 (D-103), shared driveways shall allow access for up to four residential lots or four dwelling units. However, the ordinance associated with this docket item did not include reference to number of units. • CI-165: Improved Access Clarification: The Hearing Examiner agreed with an applicant for a lot line adjustment that one of the City’s criteria to approve an application was ambiguous. Staff amended the criteria to eliminate the ambiguity. It is drafted as follows, 2. Improving: Create better lot design, or improve vehicular access to a public street; • CI-168: Reasonable Accommodations and Reasonable Modifications in Rental Housing: Codifies a process for persons with a disability or handicap to seek housing-related reasonable accommodations and modifications from the Administrator where code was previously silent. • CI-170: Definition of Adult Family Home: Corrects a discrepancy created by recent amendments to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) for adult family homes; state legislation amended the definition by increasing the allow capacity from six (6) beds to eight (8). DocuSign Envelope ID: 86FC5B1E-DB9D-4037-B270-3C9A840D6461 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report 2021 DOCKET #16, GROUP D LUA22-000008, ECF Report of Monday, January 31, 2022 Page 6 of 6 ERC Report RMC Title IV Docket16D PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. None C. Exhibits None D. Environmental Impacts There are no environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposal. E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or “Advisory Notes to Applicant.” ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 14, 2022. Due to the ongoing state of emergency enacted by Governor’s Proclamation 20-05, the City Clerk’s Office is working remotely. For that reason, appeals must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or delivered to City Hall 1st floor Lobby Hub only on Tuesdays and/or Wednesdays. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. DocuSign Envelope ID: 86FC5B1E-DB9D-4037-B270-3C9A840D6461