The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 1CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: March 19, 2010 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: 2009 Docket - Group 2 LUA (file) Number: LUA-09-137, ECF 1 Cross -References: AKA's: Project Manager: Kris Sorensen Acceptance Date: October 15, 2009 Applicant: City of Renton Owner: N/A 4 Contact: Chip Vincent, City of Renton PID Number: ERC Decision Date: November 2, 2009 ERC Appeal Date: November 20, 2009 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: docket items: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D- 16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D -25B Land Use Permit I Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. a Location: Various i Comments: 9 E r =�p� � f`l •0 .., r3 '�U'� dC 0.� ^J �� w- .� v � vim.+ �. Q c', .• � av � �+ 'a. Z' 7`r� �'' v e'en+ °� v ..cG a� ,. Jv;�`�`•� y '-' z ami �i,7`�' }o:�Q v ask ,Q �7Qil t'�i"i c °��_ � Gfs.��.� 'y �. p• :a ct7 � °^'7� � _� y W ` s ou >= �.r� cC :�7�y�'�U] C r, °sJ �a•aN �� v �'v�� c'v. .i' � �?`_ � � cv~, ?��CQ �� o :JzzOti xC D N�� y-� C J O-7 c oco.c.Q6E Z�1z�E-+ 5 � �� b'•q'$ � �✓ �� a�ou:uaQC c r,.- c„s-,' � `�4, c� 'U � u �a;4x�� VMrn aQ'r+ z.5 aQ 8 3xc[ L) c, arx' o a 0 N r Q u Q .C� a o •G �� ) ,4476 O 51- ;C>) L" 4-1 x •v �.�aR"vo ��3 � 03 twy H Z *mi a� - y Ca •� as to � D r3 Q.. •rte O R ca ��Uzn CA �soR ,��/ 4 C; O O u l •� 4.7 CC Q..d a.n"cc Qo 0-0 ate¢ a; thc. � �o � a 0 N r Q u Q .C� a OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: 2009 pocket — Group 2 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-131. ECF LOCATION: Citywide DESCRIPTION: 2009 Packet — Group 2, Includes the following items: D-07 Alleys in the RC, RA, and R-4 zones, D-10 Heloads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D- 239Cottage Housinia11 Lot Design, 0-23C Residential Design Standards, 0-259 Land Use Dermic Procedures, D-28 and D.30 Housing Definitions and Definition or a tat, U-34 County Vesting. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE F,NVIRONMEN T Appeals of the environmantal determination most be filed in wriiing on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 20, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4- 8.110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 14251430 -6510 - IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, PLANNING DIVISION AT 0.25.430.6575. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION hereby certify that J copies of the above documgW", "i�� were posted by me ill �_ conspicuous places or nearby the described property � r , DATE: SIGNED:;rt _.- f ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before rte, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in.,, �r rr tIY� � �rrr+fl2tlt�•�5-�� on the LA day of NOTAKY P BL1C S16R 0 0 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNINGDIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 4th day of November, 2009, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: N4Yi10 Re�tiesnt�ng. Agencies See Attached (signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 55 COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 1l15�b� = Notary Public in and fo a Sate ofr\%shington Notary (Print): L IN �A My appointment expires: Q—\q �� }/tl�1`VV' �4�1A.�1\Et hro��e�t�1(lz 2009 Docket - Group 2 FI"lje_, LUA09-137, ECF template - affidavit of service by mailing 0 0 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172"d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Paaooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. 5erv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172 "d Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 U5 Army Corp, of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms, Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdaie Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing City of,,° OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: 2009 Docket — Group 2 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-137, ECF LOCATION: Citywide DESCRIPTION: 2009 Docket — Group 2, Includes the following items: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D - 23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 20, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4- 8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, PLANNING DIVISION AT 425.430.6575. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. 0 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D Cstyof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT woo ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA09-137, ECF City of Renton 2009 Docket - Group 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 2009 Docket - Group 2, includes the following docket items: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development This Determination of Non -Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 20, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: _�&eaa y1_1mwWwwv Gregg Zimmerma, min' trator Public Works Depar me _ - Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department November 6, 2009 November 2, 2009 �1 2 Date avid Daniels, Administrator Date Fire & Emer ency Services Date, JAle Pietsc Ad inistrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY d Citvf '.,` 0o-,�= AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT °``'`' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: November 2, 2009 Project Name: 2009 Docket - Group 2 Owner: N/A Applicant: City of Renton Contact: Chip Vincent, Planning Division Director File Number. LUA09-137, ECF Project Manager: Kris Sorensen, Assistant Planner Project Summary: 2009 Docket - Group 2, includes the following docket items: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title 1V Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. Project Location: Citywide Exist. Bldg, Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 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 1. D-07: Alleys in the RC, R1, and R4 zones- Amend Title IV development standards to clarify alley standards. For a subdivision not to include an alley network, alleys are to have been evaluated by staff and determined that such a network is not feasible. For new residential large lot subdivisions in lower density zoning districts, the inclusion of alleys as part of the street network are not appropriate compared with higher density zones with smaller lot sizes. The code should be clarified, to not require alleys in the Resource Conservation (RC) and Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre (R-1) zones. For the Residential 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone, alleys should not be required, but be allowed or prescribed by staff in certain situations when, for example, a plat is allowed greater density, clustering of lots, skinnier lot widths, or other variables that provide a basis for using an alley system. 2. D-10: Helipads - This docket item recommends a number of changes to increase equity and fairness in rules governing the use of helipads in the City. Summary of proposed changes- Alternative 1: Allow helipads, if they are accessory to the primary use of a property in all industrial zones (IL, IM, IH), the CO zone, the COR zone, and the UC -N2 zone subject to the following conditions: the helipad is architecturally and functionally integrated into the primary use, the helipad is approved by the FAA, flight hours are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except for emergencies, and the property owner keeps documentation of compliance with the above requirements. Disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. Project Location Map ERC Report 09-137.doc City of Renton Department of Comm uni* Economic Development Emmental Review Committee Report 2009 DOCKET - GROUP 2 LUA09-137, ECF Report of November 2, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Summary of proposed changes- Alternative 2, Keep helipad regulations the same, but allow them to be permitted outright if accessory to a medical institution in the CO zone, and disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. Summary of proposed changes- Alternative 3: Change helipad regulations from a Hearing Examiner conditional use to an administrative conditional use in the IL, IM, IH, CO, COR, and UC -N2 zone and disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. 3. D-16: Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process — Proposed changes are to rewrite codes that establish procedures for processing Comprehensive Plan amendments and Title IV development regulations revisions. In the case of Comprehensive Plan amendments, changes are needed to RMC 4-9- 020 to simplify and clarify the procedures that staff use to process amendments. Clarifications include adding sections on public notice and comment period, adding review criteria, and amending the process to eliminate a duplicative public hearing. Since Comprehensive Plan amendments also involve rezones, necessary changes have been proposed to RMC 4-9-180 to ensure consistency with the proposed changes to RMC 4-9-020. Changes to the docketing process in RMC 4-9-025 include major revisions intended to reflect the actual procedure used to process revisions to Title IV. Review criteria and public notice provisions are also included in this process. A section is also added to provide guidance on Title IV code interpretations. 4. D-20: Complete Streets — The proposal is to revise and update the Title IV streets standards section and related code. The proposal includes adopting complete streets policy and development standards to ensure the entire street right of way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities), and provides for high quality development of those elements within street rights of way. Additionally these elements are included in the proposal: I. Amend Title IV with a new format of minimum development standards for each street classification and those elements within the streetscape that should be included. 2. Update Title IV to provide a clearer understanding of requirements and related policies. 3. Provide standards for bicycle travel ways in street rights of way. 4. Reduce residential access street widths that meet emergency services needs. 5. Create designs of streetscapes to be used as visuals based on updated standards. 6. Amend single family and duplex driveways to a width of 9' for single loaded and 16' for double loaded garage. S. D -23B Cottage housing/Small Lot Design - Proposal amending Title IV to provide provisions and standards for cottage housing and/or small lot projects. The proposed changes seek to ensure that when high density single family development in the R-10 and R-14 zones occurs with small lot sizes, the impacts of the high density are mitigated with quality site and building design, as well as, architectural features. 6. D -23C Residential Design Standards - This item proposes amending Title IV to provide guidelines and standards regarding design for single-family residential development. Many of the elements include a menu, so that the manner in which the standards can be met can be selected. The proposed design elements will cover two areas of development: street character/site considerations and architectural character. Specific aspects of street character/site design areas include: lot configuration, garage location, primary entry, fenestration, scale and bulk. Specific aspects of architectural character include: architectural styles, roofs, eaves, architectural detailing, materials and color. 7. D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures - This item proposes to amend the Land Use Permit Procedures Table, RMC 4-8-08OG and associated code sections in order to streamline land use permit procedures. ERC Report 09-137.doc City of Renton Department of Communio Economic Development E*nmental Review Committee Report 2009 DOCKET - GROUP 2 LUA09-137, ECF Report of November 2, 2009 Page 3 of 4 This docket amendment looks at re-evaluating the land use application processes. Specifically, staff review included an evaluation of each permit type and assessing the value that is added to the decision making process by the permits review process. Staff's review also included an evaluation of the permitting process in terms of public involvement and how onerous the process may be for the applicant. This evaluation resulted in two recommended types of changes to Title IV that included the removal of expired or unnecessary permit types and changing the processes associated with short plats, Planned Urban Development (PUD) preliminary and final, some variance and conditional use permit procedures. Based on the above-mentioned changes, staff has also proposed reorganization that would eliminate project flow charts. S. D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot - These revisions are clean up amendments initiated by staff to make the code easier to interpret and administer. D#28 cleans up code language related to attached dwelling units and the various type of attached units (townhouses, flats, carriage units) and eliminates the category semi -attached dwelling units. D#30 eliminates the two current definitions of "lot" with a single, new definition. Also adds definitions of "tract" and "parcel" to distinguish these land units from a "lot." 9. D-34 County Vesting - Amend Title IV to remove code section RMC 4-7-090. Specifically RMC 4-7- 090.13.1 requires an applicant to go through a preliminary plat hearing with the City's Nearing Examiner, for a County approved preliminary plat, if the overall density of the subdivision exceeds the maximum density allowed pursuant to the City's Zoning Code. RMC 4-7-090.8.2 states that the City may add conditions to the preliminary plat in order to ensure adequate provision of drainage, streets, alleys, public ways, water, and sanitary wastes conforming with City standards. Annexed properties with land use applications vested to Icing County standards are required to be considered only under the land use statutes and ordinances in effect at the time of the application's submission to the County. 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 None required for this non -project action. C. Exhibits No exhibits for this non -project action. D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal has no probable impacts. ERC Report 09-137.doc City of Renton Department of Communi*Economic Development 2009 DOCKET - GROUP 2 Report of November 2, 2009 E. Comments of Reviewing Departments Enviroontai Review Committee Report LUA09-137, ECF Page 4 of 4 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. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, November 20, 2009. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ERC Report 09-137. d oc % I City of Mon Department of Community & Economic D opment e zW( / zfi.., ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Firt, COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 30, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-137, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 16, 2009 APPLICANT: City of Renton PLANNER: Kris Sorensen PROJECTTITLE: 2009 Docket Group #2 PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Citywide PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A WORK ORDER NO: 78144 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 2009 Docket - Group 2 includes nine items, specifically: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D-258 Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Yvj5 AA) , B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Elementaf the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet /_10 'IV a, C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is ne ded to properlypssess this proposal. _ Signature of Director or Authorizeu n p esentative Date lyCITY OF RENTON �9 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: October 29, 2009 TO: Kris Sorensen, Planning Intern FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Comments for 2009 Docket Group #2 Code -Related Comments: Attachment A, Minimum Design Standards Table should be modified to clarify required travel lane widths. Travel lane widths should have it's own heading in the left side "Minimum Designs Standards" column and not be grouped together under the "Paved Roadway Width" heading. Attachment A, Minimum Design Standards Table, notes and conditions section should modify Item (8) to clarify the requirement that the 12 -foot roadway sections cannot exceed 150 -feet in length. It should be further modified to eliminate the "maximum length of 20 -feet wide clear roadways to 100 -feet" as it will often be necessary to approve roadways that exceed this length. It should also state that there is to be "No Parking — Anytime" for the 20 -foot wide clear areas. cr:ct QockeQ 0 0 City of Benton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Svcs COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 30, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-137, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 16, 2009 APPLICANT: City of Renton PLANNER; Kris Sorensen PROJECT TITLE: 2009 Docket Group #2 PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A r J LOCATION: Citywide PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A WORK ORDER NO: 78144 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 2009 Docket - Group 2 includes nine items, specifically: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. 7CODELA D COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet W have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and havlid;entidareas of probable impact or reas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 4 G1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 0 10 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION RE'VIE'W SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:&&��COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 30, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-137, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 16, 2009 APPLICANT: City of Renton PLANNER: Kris Sorensen PROJECTTITLE: 2009 Docket Group #2 PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Citywide PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A Animals WORK ORDER NO: 78144 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 2009 Docket - Group 2 includes nine items, specifically: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Environment Minor Impacts Probable More Major Information Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGlore Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 6. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular Attention to those areas in which we have expertise and hove identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informations eeded to properly assess this proposal_ a Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 30, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-137, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 16, 2009 APPLICANT: City of Renton PLANNER: Kris Sorensen PROJECT TITLE: 2009 Docket Group #2 PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Citywide PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A WORK ORDER NO: 78144 PLEASE RETURN T04RIS SORENSEN IN CURRENT PLANNING 6T" FLOOR SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 2009 Docke - Group 2 includes nine iters', specifically: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan Title IV AmendmentPr�ess, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Stan - se Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Noturol Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans ortotion Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this applica 'on with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional nation is needeq to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Date 0 0 City of Menton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 30, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-137, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 16, 2009 APPLICANT: City of Renton PLANNER: Kris Sorensen AF ;4PNTr)b' PROJECTTITLE: 2009 Docket Group #2 PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick R E G E I V E D SITE AREA: N/A EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A OCT 16 Z009 LOCATION: Citywide PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) WORK ORDER NO: 78144 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 2009 Docket - Group 2 includes nine items, specifically: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Heolth Energy/ Natumo Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ff6J&!6 Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information impacts Impacts Necessary Housin Aesthetics ti ht/Glore Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cukuraf Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We hove reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we hove expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas w ere additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. r f T,~; gnature of Dire r or Authoriz Representati a Date 0 0 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 30, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-137, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 1G, 2009 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECTTITLE: 2009 Docket Group #2 PLANNER: Kris Sorensen PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick RECEIVED SITE AREA: N/A EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A OSI If, ?w)q LOCATION: Citywide PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/Agl III DING DIVISION WORK ORDER NO: 78144 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL' 2009 Docket - Group 2 includes nine items, specifically: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Heolth Energy/ Natural Resources 8. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Aj :) C CU km Ul t 'V / I Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Imparts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. N W-�-(�u - Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date /G//' . % J// 0 0 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: P( ` /�i COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 30, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-137, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER (50jWeNT0N APPLICANT: City of Renton PLANNER: Kris Sorensen PROJECT TITLE: 2009 Docket Group #2 PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittri4CT 16 SITE AREA: N/A EXISTING BLDG AREA {groBUfiM1NG ®IViSIQN LOCATION: Citywide PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A WORK ORDER NO: 78144 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 2009 Docket - Group 2 includes nine items, specifically: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D-2SB Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, D-34 County Vesting. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS ,dement of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessory Earth Air Water Ounis Lond/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Heolth Energy/ Natural Resources S. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics D hticlare Recreation Util i ties Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet C, CODE -RELATED COMMENTS we haver viewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas e ad itionol informaPion is needed to properly assess this proposal. A/ 21 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fic onanI ev. COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 30, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-137, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 16, 2009 APPLICANT: City of Renton PLANNER: Kris Sorensen PROJECT TITLE: 2009 Docket Group #2 PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Citywide I PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A WORK ORDER NO: 78144 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 2009 Docket - Group 2 includes nine items, specifically: D-07 Alleys in the RC, R1, and R-4 zones, D-10 Helipads, D-16 Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process, D-20 Complete Streets, D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design, D -23C Residential Design Standards, D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures, D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot, 0-34 County Vesting. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Pionts Land/5horeline Use Animals Environmentai Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans ortotion Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet f� CC I dr- L B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS r h�Are,, ec G CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. v VC Signatures Dir ctor or Authorized Representative Date 0 ■tel, _ City of ry tt NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE; October 15, 2009 LAND USE NUMBER and APPLICATION NAME: LUA09,137, ECF, 2009 Docket. Group N2 PROlECf LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIONS: Location. Citywide. 0 : Allo n the R a 4 tune - Amend Title IV development standards to clarify adev standards. Before approval of a new subdriceion plat without alley aces, art alley Pyoul must have been evaluated and deterrnined that alleys are feasible. For new residential iarge lot subdivisions in lower density zoning districts, the inclusion of alleys as pan of the strenot et network are no[ appropriate compared with higher density zones with smaller lo[ sizes, the code should be clarified, require Any, in the Resource Coery A-4) nsation (RC) and Residential I dwelling unit per acre IR -1) zones. For the Rasidentotralno4t dwelling units per acre ( zone, alleys should not be required, but be allowed or prescribed when the plat is allowed greater density, Clustering of lots, skinnier lot widths, or other variables that provide a basis far using an alley system. D- 6: ell s - This docket item recommends a number of changes to increase equity an Of helipad fairness In rules governing the use ds in the City. Sum"pry of proposed shoes-Afrernof+Ve 1: Allow helipads, if they are accessory 10 the primary use of a property in alt industriai zones fIL IM, Ii the CO rove, the COR zone, and the UC N2 Tone subject to the foPnwmg conditions: the helipad is architecturally and functionally integrated into the. primary use, the helipad is approved by the FAA, Flight hours are limited to 7.0 a.m. to lo,un documentation of coin lance with pme>•rDis for emergencies, and the property owner keeps P the above requirements Disallow thea>e of helipads in the CA zone. Summary of propcsed changes- Alrernaiive 2. Keep helipad regulations the same, but allow them to be permitted .Wright paccessory to a medical institution in the CO zone, and disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. 5pmmory ojprpposed changes Altemotive3: Change helipad regulation; from a Hearin Exarmn I'm administrative conditional use in the R, 10.1, III, CO, COR, and UC- g use of use to CA zone. N2 zone and disallow dre use of helipads in the 4 oro ehens! I& Ti_ tie rV As d otic Process– Proposed changes ere to reunite codes that establish procedures for processing Comprehensive Plan amendments and Tide IV devele Cemprchens4ve Plan amendments, Chan pment regulations revisions- In the case of changes are needed io RMC 4-9-020 to slmplity and clarify the procedures that u Process amendments. Clarifications include adding sertfons on public notice and comment period, adding review crstaffiteria,se antod amending the process to eliminate a duplicative pudlir hearing. Since Comprehensive Plan amendments also involve rezones. necessary changes have been proposed to RMC 4-9.18C to ensure cunsisteucy with the proposed changes to ANIC 4 V-020. Changes to the duckeltng process in RMC 4-9-025 include major revisions intended [o defied the ii procedure used to s procesrevisions to Title IV, Review criteria and public notice provisions are also induded in this process. A section is also added 10 pruvide guidance on Title IV ode interpretations. D -Z0: m fe a [reefs – The proposal is to revise and update the Title IV streets standards section and Ii rode. The Proposal includes adopting complete streets ri and development standard; [o ensure the entire street right of way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users Ipedestrians, bicyclists, "'D ists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities), and provides for high quality development of those elements within street rights of way. Additionally these elements are induded in the proposal: Amend Title lV whin a new formal of minimum deve€oPmr?nt standards far each street dassdiratiin and those efemects within the streetscape that should be induded. Update Tltle IV standards to Pmvld1 a clearer und"llanding of requdpmenn and refaced policies. Provide standards for higcle travel ways in street rights of way. Akpw narrower street widths for residential access streets that meet emergency services needs. Create designs of streetscapes 10 be used as visuals Lased on updated standards. Amend single family residential maximum driveway Icurb cut} width frnm 20 feet to 9 feet. p-230 C4ttaa. Hou1jDgtLM_fl Lot D sign - Propussl amending Title IV to provide provisiuns and standards for collage housing and/or small lot projects- the proposed changes seek to enure that when high densily single family development in the 9-10 and R-14 sones occurs with small lot sizes, the Impacts of the high density are mitigated with quality site and bu ilding design, as well as, architectural features. D-23 R iaf Stan s - This item proposes amending Title 14' to provide guidelines and standards regarding design for rsingle-family residential development, Many of the eleri tndude a menu, so that the manner rn which the standards can be net can be selected. The proposed design elements will rover two areas of develent: opmstreet 0 chara ter/slte considerations and architectural character. Speofic aspects of street character/site design areas include: lit Conflguratlon, garage location, primary entry, fenestration, scale and bulk. 5pecifrc aspects of 3ro4ltertural chanter include: architettural styles, Profs, eaves, architectural detailing, minerals and color. 0-258 land Use Permit P cod ...-- This Item proposes to amend the Land Use Permit Procedures Table, RMC 4. associated code sections rn order to streamline land use permit procedures. This docket an e -080G and The land use application processes. Specifically, staff review included an evaivation of each emit looks at re-evaluating value that is added to the decision making process b the i Permit type and assessing the Of the permitlin Y permits review process Staffs review also included an evaluat•an g process in terms of public involvement and how inereus the process may be for the applicant. This evaluation resuhed in two recommended types of changes to Title R' that inCluded the removal of expired or unnecessary Perri types and changing the processes associated with short plats, Planned Urban Development IPUD) preliminary and final, some variance and conditional use pe, t procedures. Based on the above-mentioned changes, staff has also propmed deorganraation that would eliminate project flow charts. D-2 a D- D usin Ogrindits n Land Defin'tion of Lot - These revisions are d administer: Dt48 cleans u d esti IT amendments initialed by staff to make the code easier to interpret and various type of attached units (townhouses, flats, carr! P code language related to attached dweliing units and the 11M10 ellmina{es the two current tleiinlnons of "lot" with a s units} and eliminates the category semi -attached dwelling units- - In h "Cle. new definition- Also adds del inlhuns of "[race -it "parcel" [, distin gals t ese land units from rl "lit." - 4 antVesting - Amend TIUe IV to remove code section RMC 4-7 09E. applicant to go through a pre€imina -The Specifically RMC 4-7-09D.R. i re the overall density of the subd,ison elaCedsrtlrp mtakimumtderlsrtari I paved mer, for a County approvud prelim, 090.B.2 states that the CI y a pursuant to the City+s Zoning Code. ry may add conditions to the prelminary plat in order to ensure adequate provision of drainage, streets, alleys, public ways, water, and sanitary wastes conforming with City standards. Annexed properties with (antl use appileations vested to King County standards are required to be considered only under the land use statutes and ordinances in effect at the time of the appllcatiun s submission to the County. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE fDNS): As the Lead Agency. the City of Renton has determined that signflicant em•honne,rta1 impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments changes. Therefore, as permitted wider the RCW 43.210,110, the City of Renton is using the Optional nN5 process to notice that a ONS is bkere to he issued- Comment periods for the project and the Proposed DNS are integrated into a sigave ngle Comment peflpd. There will be no egmment period following the itsi llne of the Threshold Determination of Non- significance IDNSj. A 14 -day appeal period will follow the issuance of the ONE. APPLICATION DATE: October 13, 2009 Permits/Review Requested: [nvirorsmental (SEPA R view j e Location where appllcatinn may be reviewed: pepanrneni aF Cummunity &Economic South Development, Punning Division, 1n;5 Grady Way, Renton, WA 43057. Environmental Documents that evaluate the Proposed Project; Environmental Clrerktist dated OctoL•er 13 2009. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: These non -project actions wdI be euhji to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as approprlate- Proposed Mitigation Measures: The anatysls of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing tock provision, be imposed at t},e However, mitigation may be necessary and may time of a 3"1 development p. opotal on the Subject site - Comments on the above application must he subn'tied in writing to Kris Sorensen, Assistant Planner. 0ePArstr t of Community and Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, have qRenton, wA 98057, by 5:00 p. you questions about this m. on October 30, 2009. if proposal, or wish m be made a party, of record and receive additional notificatirer by ..all antact ctrl Project Manager. Anyune who inherits written Comments will autnmaticarly become a party it record and .v HI he notified of any decision On Th., pi,iii CONTACT PERSON: Kris Sorensen (4251430-SS93 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECTNUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROP FILE IDENTIFICATI- If you would like to receive Luther infnrmalion on the environmental review of this proposed pro)ect, complete this form and return to City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division. 1055 Ren ton, vs'A 98057. Yoo muni return so h75 pro/ortthisfnrm is receiveTutweinfarm4ripn re9odin9 rthe envirenmentor derennnotran far t, file No,/Narri LUA09-137, ECF, 2009 Docket, Group UZ NAME: ADDRESS, TELEPHCNF NO.: ` CERTIFICATION f7 i I �(� 5 � O ti s. , hereby certify that > copies of the above do r4tY��fy� � p y 3 conspicuous places or nearby e described prope�;�\`'�° were posted b mein DATE: 0 SIGNED: 1 PIT ATTEST: Subscribed and s��rorn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residingfi 1g �p ="O== ,� on the day of NOTARY PUBLIC SI N E: CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICEBY MAILING On the 16th day of October, 2009, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing NOA and Environmental Checklist documents. This information was sent to: Name _ ........elxrsent�ng Agencies See Attached (Signature of Sender): l STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. `�` \llt�ttIr Dated: 1b lam jig w� A Notary Public in and fOlAhe Sate of W4hingtdh r s Notary (Print): Lai r" .� ♦1 v. yr14o My appointment expires: �iiEy{y'y4 2009 Docket, Group #2 „nPiCssth LUA09-137, ECF template - affidavit of service by mailing 0 0 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 —172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckle -shoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn- Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172ndAvenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv_ City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5 89 5 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing 0 City of;r NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: October 15, 2009 LAND USE NUMBER and APPLICATION NAME: LUA09-137, ECF, 2009 Docket, Group #2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIONS: Location: Citywide. D-07: Alleys in the RC. R1, and R4 zones- Amend Title IV development standards to clarify alley standards. Before approval of a new subdivision plat without alley access, an alley layout must have been evaluated and determined that alleys are not feasible. For new residential large lot subdivisions in lower density zoning districts, the inclusion of alleys as part of the street network are not appropriate compared with higher density zones with smaller lot sizes. The code should be clarified, to not require alleys in the Resource Conservation (RC) and Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre JR -1) zones. For the Residential 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone, alleys should not be required, but be allowed or prescribed when the plat is allowed greater density, clustering of lots, skinnier lot widths, or other variables that provide a basis for using an alley system. D-10: Helipads - This docket item recommends a number of changes to increase equity and fairness in rules governing the use of helipads in the City. Summary of proposed changes- Alternative I: Allow helipads, if they are accessory to the primary use of a property in all industrial zones (IL, IM, IH), the CO zone, the COR zone, and the UC -N2 zone subject to the following conditions: the helipad is architecturally and functionally integrated into the primary use, the helipad is approved by the FAA, flight hours are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except for emergencies, and the property owner keeps documentation of compliance with the above requirements. Disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. Summary of proposed changes- Alternative 2: Keep helipad regulations the same, but allow them to be permitted outright if accessory to a medical institution in the CO zone, and disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. Summary of proposed changes- Alternative 3: Change helipad regulations from a Hearing Examiner conditional use to an administrative conditional use in the IL, IM, IH, CO, COR, and UC -N2 zone and disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. D-16: Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process — Proposed changes are to rewrite codes that establish procedures for processing Comprehensive Plan amendments and Title IV development regulations revisions. In the case of Comprehensive Plan amendments, changes are needed to RMC 4-9-020 to simplify and clarify the procedures that staff use to process amendments. Clarifications include adding sections on public notice and comment period, adding review criteria, and amending the process to eliminate a duplicative public hearing. Since Comprehensive Plan amendments also involve rezones, necessary changes have been proposed to RMC 4-9-180 to ensure consistency with the proposed changes to RMC 4-9-020. Changes to the docketing process in RMC 4-9-025 include major revisions intended to reflect the actual procedure used to process revisions to Title IV. Review criteria and public notice provisions are also included in this process. A section is also added to provide guidance on Title IV code interpretations. D-20: Complete Streets — The proposal is to revise and update the Title IV streets standards section and related code. The proposal includes adopting complete streets policy and development standards to ensure the entire street right of way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities), and provides for high quality development of those elements within street rights of way. Additionally these elements are included in the proposal: Amend Title IV with a new format of minimum development standards for each street classification and those elements within the streetscape that should be included. Update Title IV standards to provide a clearer understanding of requirements and related policies. Provide standards for bicycle travel ways in street rights of way. Allow narrower street widths for residential access streets that meet emergency services needs. Create designs of streetscapes to be used as visuals based on updated standards. Amend single family residential maximum driveway (curb cut) width from 20 feet to 9 feet. D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot_ Design - Proposal amending Title IV to provide provisions and standards for cottage housing and/or small lot projects. The proposed changes seek to ensure that when high density single family development in the R-10 and R-14 zones occurs with small lot sizes, the impacts of the high density are mitigated with quality site and building design, as well as, architectural features. D -23C Residential Design Standards - This item proposes amending Title IV to provide guidelines and standards regarding design for single-family residential development. Many of the elements include a menu, so that the manner in which the standards can be met can be selected. The proposed design elements will cover two areas of development: street character/site considerations architectural character. Specific aspects of street cher/site design areas include: lot configuration, garage location, primary entry, fenestration, scale and bulk. Specific aspects of architectural character include: architectural styles, roofs, eaves, architectural detailing, materials and color. D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures - This item proposes to amend the Land Use Permit Procedures Table, RMC 4-8-08OG and associated code sections in order to streamline land use permit procedures. This docket amendment looks at re-evaluating the land use application processes. Specifically, staff review included an evaluation of each permit type and assessing the value that is added to the decision making process by the permits review process. Staff's review also included an evaluation of the permitting process in terms of public involvement and how onerous the process may be for the applicant. This evaluation resulted in two recommended types of changes to Title IV that included the removal of expired or unnecessary permit types and changing the processes associated with short plats, Planned Urban Development (PUD) preliminary and final, some variance and conditional use permit procedures. Based on the above-mentioned changes, staff has also proposed reorganization that would eliminate project flow charts. D-28 and D-30 Housinx Definitions and Definition of a Lot - These revisions are clean up amendments initiated by staff to make the code easier to interpret and administer. D#28 cleans up code language related to attached dwelling units and the various type of attached units (townhouses, flats, carriage units) and eliminates the category semi -attached dwelling units. DN30 eliminates the two current definitions of "lot" with a single, new definition. Also adds definitions of "tract" and "parcel" to distinguish these land units from a "lot." D-34 County Vesting - Amend Title IV to remove code section RMC 4-7-090. Specifically RMC 4-7-090.B.1 requires an applicant to go through a preliminary plat hearing with the City's Hearing Examiner, for a County approved preliminary plat, if the overall density of the subdivision exceeds the maximum density allowed pursuant to the City's Zoning Code. RMC 4-7- 090.6.2 states that the City may add conditions to the preliminary plat in order to ensure adequate provision of drainage, streets, alleys, public ways, water, and sanitary wastes conforming with City standards. Annexed properties with land use applications vested to King County standards are required to be considered only under the land use statutes and ordinances in effect at the time of the application's submission to the County. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning changes. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.130, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- significance (DNS). A 14 -day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. APPLICATION DATE: October 13, 2009 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Environmental Documents that evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated October 13, 2009. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: These non -project actions will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed at the time of a site-specific development proposal on the subject site. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Kris Sorensen, Assistant Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 p.m. on October 30, 2009. If you have questions about this propasalr or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Kris Sorensen (425) 430 - 6593 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to receive further information on the environmental review of this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. You must return this form to receive future information regarding the environmental determination for this project. File No./Name: LUA09-137, ECF, 2009 Docket, Group #2 NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: a 0 City of Renton ° ,'; Of ellto, LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATIONev PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Chip Vincent COMPANY (if applicable): CED Department ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98057 TELEPHONE NUMBER 425.430.6588 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Chip Vincent COMPANY (if applicable): City of Renton ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98057 TELE.PIIONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 425.430.6588 (cvincentLcr entij PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: 2000 Docket, Group 2 PROJECT'/A1)DRI-SS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: Citywide KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): n/a EXISTING LAND USE(S): n/a PROPOSED LAND USE(S): n/a EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: n'a PROPOSED CO[VIPREI IENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if -applicable): n/a EXISTING ZONING: n/a PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): n/a SITE AREA (in square feet): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BF; DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): n/a PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): n/a NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): n/a P&JECT INFORMATION (conAed NUMBER OF NE11' DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): nia NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): n a SQUARI: 1'001 AGI: Ol- PROPOSED RESH)FNI" lAI. BUILDINGS (il'applicable): nra SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): it,'a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if -applicable): nla SQUARF. FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDLNTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): ova NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDL.NTIAL BUILDINGS if applicable): n'a NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): n;'a PROJECT VALUE: ri,,a IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): • AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE • AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. J FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq, ft J SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 5,000 ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. Docket item D-08 involves approximately 5,000 feet of stream waterway. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach leqai description on separate sheet with the followina information included) SITUATE IN THE —QUARTER OF SECTION _, TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE portions of 4 and 5 , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Citywide changes TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Environmental Checklist 2. Staff will calculate applicable fees and Dostaae: 3. 151 I AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I I, (Print Name/s) _ C.E. "Chip" Vincent _ , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or X the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that i , 01 n signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislher/i��iAK%VaqgO, voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instruc t "` "' it f77 J4 s My appointment expires: 0 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL1& '�� rrf nton p - + rsior+ City of Renton Development Services Division 0Cf 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: ) The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non -project actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. HACEDTlanning%Title MDocket\Docket Group 21SEPA%SEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2_Final.doc 10/13/09 A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2009 Docket, Group 2 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Department of Community & Economic Development Renton City Hall, 6`h Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Contact: Chip Vincent Phone: 425. 430.6588 4. Date checklist prepared: September 28, 2009 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): N/A, non -project action 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. N/A, non -project action 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental information has been prepared for the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element through the following documents: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS January 9992) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS February 9993). Additionally, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements have been completed in 1994 and 1995 to support these documents. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City Council must approve the proposals and proposed changes to the Renton Municipal Code for each of the docket proposals to become effective. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This non -project action includes the following Trine docket items: H:ICEMPIanning%Title IV\DockeMocket Group 21SEPAISEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2_Final.doc 2 0 0 D-07: Alleys in the RC, R1, and R4 zones- Amend Title IV development standards to clarify alley standards. Before approval of a new subdivision plat without alley access, an alley layout must have been evaluated and determined that alleys are not feasible. For new residential large lot subdivisions in lower density zoning districts, the inclusion of alleys as part of the street network are not appropriate compared with higher density zones with smaller lot sizes. The code should be clarified, to not require alleys in the Resource Conservation (RC) and Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre (R-1) zones. For the Residential 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone, alleys should not be required, but be allowed or prescribed when the plat is allowed greater density, clustering of lots, skinnier lot widths, or other variables that provide a basis for using an ailey system. 2. D-10: Helipads - This docket item recommends a number of changes to increase equity and fairness in rules governing the use of helipads in the City. Summary of proposed changes- Alternative 1: Allow helipads, if they are accessory to the primary use of a property in all industrial zones (IL, IM, IH), the CO zone, the COR zone, and the UC -N2 zone subject to the following conditions: the helipad is architecturally and functionally integrated into the primary use, the helipad is approved by the FAA, flight hours are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except for emergencies; and the property owner keeps documentation of compliance with the above requirements. Disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. Summary of proposed changes- Alternative 2: Keep helipad regulations the same, but allow them to be permitted outright if accessory to a medical institution in the CO zone, and disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. Summary of proposed changes- Alternative 3: Change helipad regulations from a Hearing Examiner conditional use to an administrative conditional use in the IL, IM, IH. CO, COR, and UC -N2 zone and disallow the use of helipads in the CA zone. D-16: Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process — Proposed changes are to rewrite codes that establish procedures for processing Comprehensive Plan amendments and Title IV development regulations revisions. In the case of Comprehensive Pian amendments, changes are needed to RMC 4-9-020 to simplify and clarify the procedures that staff use to process amendments. Clarifications include adding sections on public notice and comment period, adding review criteria, and amending the process to eliminate a duplicative public hearing. Since Comprehensive Plan amendments also involve rezones, necessary changes have been proposed to RMC 4-9-180 to ensure consistency with the proposed changes to RMC 4-9-020. Changes to the docketing process in RMC 4-9-025 include major revisions intended to reflect the actual procedure used to process revisions to Title IV. Review criteria and public notice provisions are also included in this process. A section is Wso added to provide guidance on Title IV code interpretations. 4. D-20: Complete Streets — The proposal is to revise and update the Title IV streets standards section and related code. The proposal includes adopting complete streets policy and development standards to ensure the entire street right of way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities), and provides for high quality development of those elements within street rights of way. Additionally these elements are included in the proposal: 1. Amend Title IV with a new format of minimum development standards for each street classification and those elements within the streetscape that should be included. 2. Update Title IV standards to provide a clearer understanding of requirements and related policies. 3. Provide standards for bicycle travel ways in street rights of way. 4. Allow narrower street widths for residential access streets that meet emergency services needs. 5. Create designs of streetscapes to be used as visuals based on updated standards. 6. Amend single family residential maximum driveway (curb cut) width from 20 feet to 9 feet. 5. D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design - Proposal amending Title IV to provide provisions and standards for cottage housing and/or small lot projects. The proposed changes seek to H:ICEMPlanning\Title MDocket\Docket Group 21SEPAISEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2_Final.doc ensure that when high density single family development in the R-10 and R-14 zones occurs with small lot sizes; the impacts of the high density are mitigated with quality site and building design, as well as, architectural features. 6. D -23C Residential Desitin Standards - This item proposes amending Title IV to provide guidelines and standards regarding design for single-family residential development. Many of the elements include a menu, so that the manner in which the standards can be met can be selected. The proposed design elements will cover two areas of development: street characterlsite considerations and architectural character. Specific aspects of street character/site design areas include: lot configuration, garage location, primary entry, fenestration, scale and bulk. Specific aspects of architectural character include: architectural styles, roofs, eaves, architectural detailing, materials and color. 7. D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures - This item proposes to amend the Land Use Permit Procedures Table, RMC 4-8-08OG and associated code sections in order to streamline land use permit procedures. This docket amendment looks at re-evaluating the land use application processes. Specifically, staff review included an evaluation of each permit type and assessing the value that is added to the decision making process by the permits review process. Staff's review also included an evaluation of the permitting process in terms of public involvement and how onerous the process may be for the applicant. This evaluation resulted in two recommended types of changes to Title IV that included the removal of expired or unnecessary permit types and changing the processes associated with short plats, Planned Urban Development (PUD) preliminary and final, some variance and conditional use permit procedures. Based on the above-mentioned changes, staff has also proposed reorganization that would eliminate project flow charts. 8. D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot - These revisions are clean up amendments initiated by staff to make the code easier to interpret and administer. D#28 cleans up code language related to attached dwelling units and the various type of attached units (townhouses, flats, carriage units) and eliminates the category semi -attached dwelling units. D#30 eliminates the two current definitions of "lot" with a single, new definition. Also adds definitions of "tract" and "parcel" to distinguish these land units from a "lot." 9. D-34 County Vesting - Amend Title IV to remove code section RMC 4-7-090. Specifically RMC 4-7-090.B.1 requires an applicant to go through a preliminary plat hearing with the City's Hearing Examiner, for a County approved preliminary plat, if the overall density of the subdivision exceeds the maximum density allowed pursuant to the City's Zoning Code. RMC 4-7-090.B.2 states that the City may add conditions to the preliminary plat in order to ensure adequate provision of drainage, streets, alleys, public ways, water, and sanitary wastes conforming with City standards. Annexed properties with land use applications vested to King County standards are required to be considered only under the land use statutes and ordinances in effect at the time of the application's submission to the County. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 1. D-07: Alloys in the RC, R1, and R4 zones- Citywide in the Resource Conservation (RC), Residential One Dwelling Unit per Acre (R-1), and Residential Four Dwelling Unit per Acre (R- 4) zones. 2. D-10: Helipads — Citywide in all three industrial zones (Industrial Light [IL], Industrial Medium [IM], Industrial Heavy [IH]), the Commercial Office (CO) zone, the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zone, the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, and the Urban Center North 2 (UC -N2) zone. H:ICEDTlanningMtle IVIDocket%Docket Group 215EPA15EPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2_Final.doc 4 0 0 3. D-16: Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process — N/A procedural. 4. D-20: Complete Streets — Citywide. 5. D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design — Citywide in the Residential Ten Dwelling Units per Acre (R-10) and Residential Fourteen Dwelling Units per Acre (R-14) zones. 6. D -23C Residential Design Standards — Citywide in the Residential Four Dwelling Units per Acre (R-4) and the Residential Eight Dwelling Units per Acre (R-8) zones. 7. D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures —NIA procedural. 8. D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot — NIA procedural. 9. D-34 County Vesting — NIA procedural. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other N/A, non -project action b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) N/A, non -project action C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. N/A, non -project action d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N/A, non -project action. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A, non -project action f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction; or use? If so, generally describe. N/A, non -project action 9. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A, non -project action. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: HnCEDIPlanninq\Title IV\Docket\Docket Group 21SEPXSEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2_Final.doc 5 9 0 N/A, non -project action. City of Renton's regulations for surface water are in compliance with NPDES and DOE and any project will be required to comply with City regulations at the time of development. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A, non -project action b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A, non -project action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any; N/A, non -project action 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. N/A, non -project action. This proposal includes many zoning classifications citywide and there are a variety of surface water bodies within the geographic boundaries of the City. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A, non -project action 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A, non -project action 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A, non -project action 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. NIA, non -project action 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NIA, non -project action. Additionally, City of Renton Critical Areas regulations require that any development, fill, or activity or any expansion of an existing activity which is proposed to occur within regulated critical areas or their buffer must comply City critical areas regulations. H:10EDTIan ninglTitle IVIDocketlDocket Group ZSEPAISEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2 Final.doc 6 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A, non -project action 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A, non -project action C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1 } Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, if so, describe. N/A, non -project action 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A, non -project action. Additionally, City of Renton Critical Areas regulations require that any development, fill, or activity or any expansion of an existing activity which is proposed to occur within regulated critical areas or their .buffer must comply City critical areas regulations. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: NIA, non -project action 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NIA, non -project action C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A, non -project action HACEDIPlanningMtie MDocketlDocket Group 21SEPAISEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2_ Final.doc 7 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A, non -project action 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A, non -project action C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain N/A, non -project action. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A, non -project action 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A, non -project action b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? if so, generally describe. NIA, non -project action C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A, non -project action 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NIA, non -project action 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required_ N/A, non -project action 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A, non -project action HACEMPlanningMtle MDocket0ocket Group 21SEPXSEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2 Final.doc 8 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A, non -project action 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic; construction, operation; other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A, non -project action 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A, non -project action B. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? N/A, non -project action b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. N/A, non -project action c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A, non -project action d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A, non -project action e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N/A, non -project action f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? NIA, non -project action g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NIA, non -project action h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. NIA, non -project action. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? NIA, non -project action j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NIA, non -project action HACEDIPlanning%Title MDocket0ocket Group TSEPAISEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2_Final.doc 9 9 0 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts; if any: N/A, non -project action Proposed measures to ensure the proposal are compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 1. D-07: Alle s in the RC R1 and R4 zones —The proposal for no required alleys in new developments in these zones is consistent with much of the current development pattern within these zones which will be compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. 2. D-10: Helipads —Alternative one and two would impose restrictions and limitations on the use of helipads such as architectural integration, limitations on hours of operation, and FAA approval, to ensure compatibility with existing and future land uses and plans. Alternative three allows for project specific review by an administrator that would allow for a review of compatibility with existing land uses and plans. 3. D-16: Comprehensive Plan & Title IV Amendment Process — This proposal ensures that staff procedures for Comprehensive Plan and Title IV amendments are easy to administer and understand- creating more clarity and predictability for the administration of existing plans and policies. 4. D-20: Complete Streets — The proposal updates public realm design standards for public street improvements to enhance compatibility with existing and projected land uses, existing land use development standards, as well as existing and projected plans (examples being the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, the Urban and Community Forestry Plan, street improvements such as Rainier Avenue South, Logan Avenue North, and Northeast 3rd l4t" Corridor, etc.) 5. D -23B Cottage Housing/Small Lot Design — This proposal creates design standards for development of single family homes to mitigate potential negative impacts with new and surrounding developments. This proposal would better allow cottage and small lot development to be compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. 6. D -23C Residential Design Standards — Proposed measures of design standards and guidelines ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans with proposed standards to consider the character of the abutting homes. 7. D -25B Land Use Permit Procedures — This proposal ensures that staff procedures for processing permits are easy to administer and understand- creating more clarity and predictability for the administration of existing plans and policies. 8. D-28 and D-30 Housing Definitions and Definition of a Lot — This proposal ensures that that existing standards are easy to administer and understand- creating more clarity and predictability for the administration of existing plans and policies. 9. D-34 County Vestin — The proposal allows for the review of county vested projects that have a higher density than surrounding City neighborhoods to ensure there is a City process that reviews projects to evaluate how they are compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. H:ICEDFlanning\Title MDockelADocket Group 215EPA1SEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2 Final.doc 10 This is a non -project action. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A, non -project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A, non -project action 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. NIA, non -project action b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NIA, non -project action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NIA, non -project action. Items D -23B and D -23C include provisions that seek to ensure potential negative aesthetic impacts to the neighborhood would be limited. Item D-10 has a condition that projects are architecturally and functionally integrated into the primary use to reduce aesthetic impacts. As well, Item D-20 requires planting strips for vegetation and street trees within the public right of way which can reduce or control aesthetic impacts by providing natural amenities between roadway travel ways and pedestrian and building locations. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NIA, non -project action. For D-10 Hellpads, tight or glare from helicopters using the helipad could be produced including but not limited to lights and glare that are part of a helicopter used for flying, landing, etc. Each project specific proposal would most likely require safety lights integrated into the helipad per FAA requirements and these light and glare project elements would be reviewed at time of individual project review, b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NIA, non -project action C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NIA, non -project action d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NIA, non -project action. The D-10 Helipads proposal has a condition to limit flight times between hours of 7am and 10pm to mitigate potential light and glare impacts. 12. RECREATION H:ICEDIPlanninglTTe MDocketlDocket Group 2%SEPA%SEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2_Final.doc 11 0 a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A, non -project action b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NIA, non -project action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: NIA, non -project action. Future residential development would be required to pay Renton's Parks Mitigation Fee. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. N/A, non -project action b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A, non -project action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any.- NIA, ny: NIA, non -project action 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. NIA, non -project action. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? NIA, non -project action C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A, non -project action. The specific number of parking spaces that would occur will be determined at the time of a project application. Item D -23B would require three parking spaces for dwellings 1,600 square feet or greater and require two parking spaces for dwellings less than 9,600 square feet. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? NIA, non -project action. Future development must comply with Renton's Development Regulations. Item D-20 establishes updated design and development standards for streets that would not impact existing roads to be upgraded to new standards. No new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets would be required. Such improvements would occur at time of improvement to a property or right of way. H ACEDIPlanningMtle IV\DockeMocket Group 21SEPAISEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2 Final.doc 12 3 9 0 Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. NIA. non -project action How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. NIA; non -project action Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: NIA, non -project action. Item D-20 includes measures to reduce or control transportation impacts by including measures to increase safety for many of the users of transportation facilities including pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists of varied ages and abilities. Additionally, D-20 provides for increased capacity for non -motorized users within the transportation system, increasing the alternatives to vehicular travel. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NIA, non -project action Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NIA, non -project action 16. UTILITIES Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system. other. NIA, non -project action Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. NIA, non -project action 1, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. i Proponent: , Name Printed: C.E. "Chip," Vincent for City of Renton Date: f ( f 0 K\CEMPlanning%Title MDocket\Docket Group 21SEPAISEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2_Final.doc 13 9 0 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the eiements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is unlikely that the proposal would have any affect on the above environmental issues Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: New development would be required to comply with the City's development regulations. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed text changes to Title IV had no affect on plants, animals, fish, or marine life as a direct consequence of this non -project proposal- All development would be required to comply with all building and development regulations with negative impacts to plants, animals, fish, and marine life being addressed and mitigated at the time of proposal. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: None at this non -project level. Development must comply with City of Renton regulations and with Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance. Any measures needed in this regard will be implemented at the project level review. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed non -project action will not deplete energy or natural resources. Future project level development may impact energy or natural resources slightly but will not deplete them. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None are proposed at this non -project action stage. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? The proposed changes would likely not use or affect environmentally sensitive areas. At such time that development is proposed, applicants will be subject to City of Renton critical area regulations and development standards that are designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: NIA. HACEDTlanninglTitle MDocketTocket Group 21SEPAISEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2 Final.doc 14 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed changes would likely not affect land and shoreline use. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are; None. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Additional demands of transportation that may be created by development will be evaluated at the time of a project proposal. The City is currently served by public transportation. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal will not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, Proponent: � ; Name Printed: Q. E. "Chip" Vincent for City of Renton Date: 10113 it 67 H:ICEDIPlanningJitle IV\Docket\Docket Group 21SEPAISEPA Checklist 2009 Docket 2 Final.doc 15