HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1_.\ ->
-·--· ··-------~__;...:---________ _
NOTICE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS}
POSTED TO NOT\FY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVlRONMENTALACTION
PROJECT NAME: 1.015 Comprehensive Plan AmandmtnU
PROIECTNUMBER: LU.1.15-000343, ECf
LOCATIONi Citywide
OESCRlPTION: Applicant Is requesting Environm1111tal (SEPA) Rey!-for Amendments to the
City of Renton Comprehnslve Pliln, The City Is =p!1ting Its pilrlodl~ COmpr1hanslye Plan update to comply
with the Washlnl'(On StaUI Growth Mana1ament Act. This work lndudu t1xt rav'lslomi to Comprehenstw Plan
Elaments, Map Ame11drnents, and revisions to De~elopme11t Re1ulatlo111. These amendments and regulatlorn1
would be applicable eltywld1.
THE C\TY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERCI HAS DETEIIMINED THAT THE PROPOSED
ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
Appeals of lhe environmental determination must be filed In writln1 on or before S:00 p.m. on June S, 2015,
together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 10SS South Grad'!' way, Renton, WA
98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and 1nformatton regarding the .ippeal
proceS!I m,1'11 be obtained fn:lm the Rlilnton City Cterk's Office, {425) 430-6S10.
IF T'HE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND All PARTIES
NOTIFIED.
FOR FURTHER lNFORMAT!ON, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT \425) 4~0-7200.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
PLEASE INUUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE iDENTlFICATION.
CERTIFICATION
hereby certify that 3~--copies of the above document
uous places or nearby th scribed property on
Date: ~~ l2J 1 80/S:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF KING )
I _certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 'S .... :,.,r-, 04-\\.\., ra-;.,_te
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;._,'' r1 P
~ ;· ~-;;.--~ ,,, ·.
-F~ ot.o. •.. ,, I.fl , :: z ... ...,.t'.I!,: ~ -lt.1 J.. ~ ., ;: t -·-i ' ~ ~ \ .. " ~ J f Notary (Print): I-hilt -:p 1, ?,,.._' 8.z~~ '11 / g j . ---'.......,.Jt-' -.1....1.<o.,w"-'e""u;;a..,_ ______ _ '1,,~0 ~ ..... '"'""._,c,A.: __ -My appointment expires: ,4, , ..-,q --,0 1 =
,,, 'fl, ,.,AS'-'\\--------'~'4f<1&6"""-:t ...a.cl-...e.,.---.:a::e<~.LL ___ _
,,,, .. ¥" T' ,........ u /
\\'"'''-'''
blic in and for the State of Washington
Agencies See Attached
City of Renton Owner
Chip Vincent Contact
(Signature of Sender):
STATE OF WASHINGTON
\ "\_
(~s~
COUNTY OF KING ) ,,,"'"
..:----'-< f'O':;V€'Jr.
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante ;;.=_o"F ~,IS'
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for ttJ¥ ~e ~
mentioned in the instrument. :' • • •
: .,,.,..~ !\
-'t,, 111.,.1, B-~' Dated:
Notary (Print): ____ ~---'-'~"'-'-'/ '4---'?,-'QJ;JJ"''/c.,{6:~-----------
My appointment expires: ,/-!) q a£!/ l
{
2015 Comprehensive Plan Ame?ldments
LUAlS-000343, ECF
template. affidavit of service by mailing
Dept. of Ecology**
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
WSDOT Northwest Region •
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240
PO Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers *
Seattle District Office
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
PO Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124
Boyd Powers ***
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Serv.
Attn: SEPA Section
35030 SE Douglas St. #210
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
Metro Transit
Senior Environmental Planner
Gary Kriedt
201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Seattle Public Utilities
Timothy c. Croll,
Attn: SEPA Responsible Official
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
PO Box 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERC DETERMINATIONS)
Dept. of Ecology '' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.**
Attn: Misty Blair Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
PO Box47703 39015 -172114 Avenue SE
Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092
Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program*"'
4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Laura Murphy
Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program**
Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Erin Slaten
Ms. Shirley Marroquin 39015 172"' Avenue SE
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
WDFW -Larry Fisher' Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation*
1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Gretchen Kaehler
Issaquah, WA 98027 PO Box48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
City of Newcastle City of Kent
Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Acting Community Dev. Director
Director of Community Development 220 Fourth Avenue South
12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 Kent, WA 98032-5895
Newcastle, WA 98056
Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila
Wendy Weiker Jack Pace, Responsible Official
355 110'" Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Mailstop EST 11 W Tukwila, WA 98188
Bellevue, WA 98004
Puget Sound Energy
Doug Corbin, Municipal Liaison Mgr.
6905 South 2281
h St
Kent, WA 98032
*Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an 110ptional DNS", the marked agencies and cities
will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of
Application.
**Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to
the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov
** Karen Walter, Laura Murphy and Erin Slaten with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. are
emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email
addresses: KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us / Laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us L
erin.slaten@muckleshoot.nsn.us
**"'Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT,
& Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov
0
template -affidavit of service by mailing
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of
general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months
prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in
the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King
County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.
The annexed notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on May 22, 2015.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is
the sum of $98.00.
,;;·-~ /{ti,i
'· ind a Mills
Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
Subscribed and sworn to me this 22nd day of May, 2015.
~{?8fLU~
K.C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing
in Buckley, Washington
, ... , ... ,,\\\h,, .. ~,, ... -("\.JI ,1,1,
""' , i:.., •.. Ee.'•,,
_:::, '('"..l,~.,'1,\\\',',\11, }.; ·ft,
-.::,; ,,1..;, 111 "c:· ,, ::: _.;::--
0
0;,!t-:,·3"-r,-Ii .. / = ..::_, ::;1.,-..,!1. . ,.,, := <,o,.= NO c,, .. i r1;, ~ ::-1= )'-"vt,,'-'-~
:::: ):,. :: '-,., \"f\~ :t. :,:; ::::-~~ -u • 1=1y::;rr1i ~ ni { ~-c. '" "'( ."E![ ;~ E ~ C ~-> ,t;1 ··~ _-?" -·
1 ~111 \9 <..(C /ti~ E 1 1•'; '-i ":'_: ~;;:, =
'11,;;:,·;,,,,,,,Sw.,·.,·',,-f "':~~
11 iii f/f;\ic1C~ .. -::-~ · 111· , .........
I\\\\\\\\"."-"''-''
NOTICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW CO'\IMITTEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review
Committee has issued a Determi-
nation of Non-Significance
(DNS) for the following project
under the authority of the Renton
municipa] code
20I5 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
LUAl5-000343
Location: City Wide. Applicant
1s requesting Environmental
{SEPA) Review for Amend-
ments to the City of Renton
Comprehensive Plan. The City
1s completing its periodic
Comprehensive Plan update to
comply with the Washington
State Growth Management Act.
This work includes text revi-
sions to Comprehensive Plan
Elements, Map Amendments,
and revisions to Development
Regulations. These amend-
ments and regulations would be
applicable citywide.
Appeals of the DNS must be
filed in writing on or before
5:00 p.m. on June 05, 2015.
Appeals must be filed in writing
together with the required fee
with: Hearing Examiner e/o City
Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S
Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
Appeals to the Hearing Examiner
are governed by RMC 4-8-110
and more infonnation may be ob-
tained from the Renton City
Clerk's Office, 425-430-6510.
Published in the Renton Report-
er on May 22, 2015. #1326239.
' Les1ie Betlach
•
Plan Review Routing Slip
0
Plan Number: LUAlS-000343 Name: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Site Address: City Wide
Description: Applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for Amendments to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. The
City is completing its periodic Comprehensive Plan update to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act . This work
includes text revisions to Comprehensive Plan Elements, Map Amendments, and revisions to Development Regulations. These
amendments and regulations would be applicable citywide.
Review Type:
Date Assigned:
Community Services Review-Version 1
05/19/2015
Date Due: 06/05/2015
Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins
Environmental Impact
Earth Animals
Air Environmental Health
Water Ener""/Natural Resources
Pia nts Housing
Land/Shoreline Use Aesthetics
Where to enter your comments: Manage My Reviews
Which types of comments should be entered:
Light/Glare Historic/Cultural Preservation
Recreation Airport Environmental
Utilities 10,000 Feet
Tra r,s portati on 14,000 Feet
Public Service
Recommendation -Comments that impact the project including any of the Enivornmental Impacts above.
Correction -Corrections to the project that need to be made before the review can be completed and /or requesting submittal of
additional documentation and/or resubmittal of existing documentation.
What statuses should be used:
Reviewed -I have reviewed the project and have no comments.
Reviewed with Comments -I have reviewed the project and and I have comments entered in Recommendations.
Correction/Resubmit -I have reviewed the project and the applicant needs to submit and/or resubmit documentation and I have added
corrections in Corrections.
Please Rau'
Leslie Betlach
Kelly Seymer
Terry Higashiyama
Peter Renner
Kris Stimpson
Please return to i'v', .-~ -'-•:, I •
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
CITY OF RENTO~-
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 15, 2015
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Sabrina Mirante
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office.
Project Name: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
LUA (file) Number: LUA-15-000343, ECF
Cross-References:
AKA's:
Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins
Acceptance Date: May 15, 2015
Applicant: City of Renton
Owner:
Contact: Angie Mathais
PID Number: Citywide
ERC Determination: DNS Date: May 21, 2015
Anneal Period Ends: June 5. 2015
Administrative Decision: Date:
Aru,eal Period Ends:
Public Hearing Date:
Date Appealed to HEX:
By Whom:
HEX Decision: Date:
Anneal Period Ends:
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
Council Decision: Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: Applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for Amendments to
the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. The City is completing its periodic Comprehensive Plan
update to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act. This work includes text
revisions to Comprehensive Plan Elements, Map Amendments, and revisions to Development
Regulations. These amendments and reoulations would be annlicable citvwide.
Location: Citywide
Comments:
ERC Determination Types: DNS -Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M -Determination of
Non-Significance-Mitigated; DS -Determination of Significance.
Denis Law c·
---~M=ay:or ______ ,. r 1ty O l .Jgt rru· r l
May 21, 2015 Community & Economic Development Department
C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following
project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 18, 2015:
SEPA DETERMINATION:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
LUA15-000343, ECF
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
p.m. on June 5, 2015, 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 RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be
obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete
details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6581.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Elizabeth Higgins
Senior Planner
Enclosure
"
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division
Boyd Powers1 Department of Natural Resources
Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program
Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region
Larry Fisher, WDFW
Ouwamish Tribal Office
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov
DEPARTMENT OF COMMu, .. ,,,
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
PROJECT NUMBER:
APPLICANT: City of Renton
PROJECT NAME: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for Amendments
to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. The City is completing its periodic Comprehensive Plan update to
comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act. This work includes text revisions to
Comprehensive Plan Elements, Map Amendments, and revisions to Development Regulations. These
amendments and regulations would be applicable citywide.
PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide
LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). 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 June 5, 2015. 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 RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained
from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services Department
May 22, 2015
May 18, 2015
n, Administrator
Fire & Emergency Services
J
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
<-/, r//.-~
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
LUAlS-000343, ECF
LOCATION: Citywide
DESCRIPTION: Applicant is requesting Environmental {SEPAi Review for Amendments to the
City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. The City is completing its periodic Comprehensive Plan update to comply
with the Washington State Growth Management Act. This work includes text revisions to Comprehensive Plan
Elements, Map Amendments, and revisions to Development Regulations. These amendments and regulations
would be applicable citywide.
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 June 5, 2015,
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 RMC 4-8-110 and 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, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
PLEASE INCLUDE Tt{E f>RQJ~9'NlJMBERWHEN CALLING. FOR PROP~{{rFlt§ffgif11);1flCATION.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMU"'"TY ~r-Cityof, ___ -,.,1<_sr1 rtJJJ AND ECONOMIC DEVELO r
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DA TE:
Project Nome:
Owner:
Applicant:
Contact:
File Number:
Project Manager:
Project Summary:
Project Location:
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
Site Area:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
May 18, 2015
2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
City of Renton
City of Renton
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, x6588
LUA 15 -ooo~~ 3
Angie Mathias, x6576
Applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA} Review for Amendments to the
City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. The City is completing its periodic
Comprehensive Plan update to comply with the Washington State Growth
Management Act. This work includes text revisions to Comprehensive Plan
Elements, Map Amendments, and revisions to Development Regulations. These
amendments and regulations would be applicable citywide.
The Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations apply to land within the
City of Renton city limits.
N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint):
Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross):
N/A Total Building Area GSF:
N/A
N/A
N/A
Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a
Determination of Non-Significance (CNS}.
Citywide
Project Location
Comprehensive Plan Update ERC Report.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, • MENDMENTS, REVISED DEVELOPMENT T_l.;..O_NS.;._ _______ _
Report of May 18, 2015 Page 2 of 3
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND
The City of Renton is required to update its Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the Washington
State Growth Management Act (GMA). Comprehensive Plan Maps and Development Regulations must be
correspondingly revised for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
II 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
B.
C.
D.
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible
Officials:
Issue a DNS with a 14-day Appeal Period.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Exhibits
1. Environmental Checklist
2. Appendix 'A'
3. Appendix 'B'
4. Appendix 'C'
5. Appendix 'D'
Environmental Impacts
There are no adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in conjunction with the
proposal. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments, Map Amendments, and Revised
Development Regulations include increases to buffers adjacent to streams and wetlands as well as
building setbacks from buffers and reduced potential development density due to rezones.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed Amendments would provide greater environmental
protection to critical areas than is currently provided under the existing policies and development
regulations.
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal will be circulated to City Department Division Reviewers and appropriate agencies. All
substantive comments will be provided to the Responsible Officials for their consideration and possible
recommendation that the comments be incorporated as "Advisory Notes to Applicant."
Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be
filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, June 5, 2015.
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
Comprehensive Plan Update ERC Report.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDME 'AMENDMENTS, REVISED DEVELOPME
Report of May 18, 2015
Environmental Review Committee Report
ILATIONS
Page 3 of 3
appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady
Way, Renton WA 98057.
Comprehensive Plan Update ERC Report.docx
DEPARTMENT OF COM ITV
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
.) .. Cityof
----~ 1\ __ sIJ t(_jfJ
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental
impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if
available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the
probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to
further analyze the proposal.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: 1hfill2]
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may
need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may
use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and
not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional
studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the
SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process.
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.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR LEAD AGENCIES:
Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated
aspects ofthe proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first
but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold
determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the
completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents.
1
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev: 02/2015
•
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: 1tlli!ill
For non project proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the
applicable parts of sections A and B even though questions may be answered "does not apply".
In addition the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project",
"applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proponent", and "affected
geographic area" respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part
B -Environmental Elements -that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the
proposal. For help go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html
A. BACKGROUND 1tlli!ill
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 1tlli!ill
City of Renton 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update and Revised Development Regulations
2. Name of applicant: 1tlli!ill
City of Renton, Department of Community and Economic Development
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1tlli!ill
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community and Economic Development
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
(425-430-6588)
4. Date checklist prepared: 1tlli!ill
March 2015
5. Agency requesting checklist: 1tlli!ill
City of Renton
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 1tlli!ill
2
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
Proposed adoption, June 2015
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.~
Not applicable
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.~
Not applicable
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.~
Not applicable
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
~
The Draft Comprehensive Plan Update was submitted on February 19, 2015, to the Puget
Sound Region Council and was received by the Washington State Department of Commerce
for review on February 23, 2015. When adopted, the Plan will be resubmitted to both
agencies.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of
the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on
project description.)~
The project is the state mandated, periodic (every eight years) review of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations. Cities in King County subject to this
requirement must submit draft updated comprehensive plans and development regulations
to the State of Washington for adoption by the end of June 2105.
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 ofthe 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
3
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev: 02/2015
are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist. [hgjQ}
City of Renton and its adopted Urban Growth Area.
8. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS [hgjQ}
1. EARTH
a. General description ofthe site [hgjQ}
(check or circle one):
Flat,
rolling,
hilly,
steep slopes,
mountainous,
other ------
Not applicable
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? [hgjQ}
Not applicable
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
agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in
removing any of these soils. [hgjQ}
Not applicable
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe. [hgjQ}
Not applicable
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area
of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. [hgjQ}
Not applicable
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
[hgjQ}
Not applicable
4
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? l.b.@!ll1
Not applicable
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
l.b.@!ll1
Not applicable
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during constructionL
operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and
give approximate quantities if known. l.b.@!ll1
Not applicable
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe. l.b.@!ll1
Not applicable
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: l.b.@!ll1
Not applicable
3. WATER
a. Surface Water: l.b.@!ll1
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, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. l.b.@!ll1
Not applicable
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. l.b.@!ll1
Not applicable
5
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
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. ~
Not applicable
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.~
Not applicable
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.~
Not applicable
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. ~
Not applicable
b. Ground Water:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If
so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities
withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.~
Not applicable
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 ofthe 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.~
Not applicable
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
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.~
6
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update S.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
Not applicable
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.~
Not applicable
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of
the site? If so, describe.
Not applicable
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage
pattern impacts, if any:
Not applicable
4. PLANTS~
a. Check the 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
__ orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops.
__ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
__ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
__ other types of vegetation
Not applicable
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?~
Not applicable
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.~
Not applicable
7
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update S.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:~
Not applicable
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
Not applicable
5. ANIMALS
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site. Examples include:~
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:------------
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:------------
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other----------
Not applicable
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. ~
Not applicable
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.~
Not applicable
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:.Ibfill;tl
Not applicable
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
Not applicable
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. ~
Not applicable
8
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe. ~
Not applicable
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: ~
Not applicable
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. ~
Not applicable
1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
Not applicable
2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project
development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas
transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.
Not applicable
3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced
during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the
operating life of the project.
Not applicable
4) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Not applicable
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Not applicable
9
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?~
Not applicable
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.~
Not applicable
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:~
Not applicable
8. LANO ANO SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect
current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.~
Not applicable
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so,
describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will
be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not
been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted
to nonfarm or non-forest use?~
Not applicable
1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land
normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of
pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:
Not applicable
c. Describe any structures on the site.~
Not applicable
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?~
10
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
Not applicable
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?~
Not applicable
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?~
Not applicable
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?~
Not applicable
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so,
specify.~
Not applicable
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?~
Not applicable
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?~
Not applicable
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:~
Not applicable
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any: ~
Not applicable
m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and
forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any:
Not applicable
9. HOUSING
11
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.~
Not applicable
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.~
Not applicable
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:~
Not applicable
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?~
Not applicable
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?~
Not applicable
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:~
Not applicable
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?~
Not applicable
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
~
Not applicable
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?~
12
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
Not applicable
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 1bfilQ}
Not applicable
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
1bfilQ}
Not applicable
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. il:lfilQ}
Not applicable
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 1bfilQ}
Not applicable
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45
years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers
located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. il:lfilQ}
Not applicable
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or
occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Is there any material
evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any
professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. il:lfilQ}
Not applicable
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic
resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the
department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic
maps, GIS data, etc. il:lfilQ}
13
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
Not applicable
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and
disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be
required.
Not applicable
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.~
Not applicable
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally
describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?~
Not applicable
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project
proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?~
Not applicable
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian,
bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).~
Not applicable
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.~
Not applicable
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or
proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the
volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What data or
transportation models were used to make these estimates?~
Not applicable
14
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and
forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:~
Not applicable
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.~
Not applicable
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any . .ll:!filQl
Not applicable
16. UTILITIES
a. Check or circle utilities currently available at the site:.ll:!filQl
electricity,
natural gas,
water,
refuse service,
telephone,
sanitary sewer,
septic system,
other~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not applicable
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might
be needed.~
Not applicable
C. SIGNATURE~
15
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update S.13.lS.docx Rev:02/2015
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Proponent Signature:-----------------------
Name of Signee {printed): C.E. "Chip" Vincent
Position and Agency/Organization: Senior Planner, Department of Community and Economic
Development
Date Submitted: -----------
16
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS 1till!2l
(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 elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of
the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would
affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not
implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release oftoxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
The proposed revisions to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations will not result in an increase in discharge to water, emissions to air, production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, or production of noise.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Individual projects developed in accordance with goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
and adhering to the Renton Municipal Code (Development Regulations) would require
environmental review in compliance with the requirements of the King County Surface Water
Design Manual and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
It is not anticipated that the proposal will affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Individual projects would be subject to conformance with the regulations of the City of
Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). The CAO is being updated as a part of this action,
including revisions to wetland and stream categorization methodology and increased Critical
Area buffers. These revised regulations would be applicable citywide and result in increased
measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, and/or marine life. [See the Critical Areas
Ordinance Update Environmental Review Committee Report, LUA lS-000197, included
herewith as Appendix A]
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
It is unlikely that the proposal will deplete energy or natural resources.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
17
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev: 02/2015
Washington State regulations address energy use and conservation; City of Renton's Critical
Areas Ordinance includes measures to conserve natural resources. [See Section 2, above and
Appendix A]
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, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The proposed policies and development regulations will not be likely to use or negatively affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection. In fact, this
action will result in the rezone of some areas of the City having environmental constraints to
zones that reduce the intensity of development available. [See the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Element -Rezone and Land Use Designation Amendments included herewith as Appendix
BJ
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
In addition to the rezone of land having environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection, these areas will continue to be protected primarily by means of the
Critical Areas Ordinance. [See Section 2, above and Appendix A)
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 policies and development regulations will not be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, nor would it allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
The City of Renton Shoreline Management Program will continue to provide protection of
shorelines and reduce impacts of land use in proximity to shoreline environments. The
Buildable Land Analysis estimates the impacts to buildable lands of proposed rezones that will
result from the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments associated with this update. [See the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element -Buildable Land Analysis included herewith as
Appendix CJ
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
18
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
It is not anticipated that the proposed policies and development regulations will result in
increased demands on transportation or public services and utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
The proposed action would result in the rezone of properties outside of the City Center and
Sunset Revitalization Area so that the City can better accommodate impacts on infrastructure,
particularly transportation impacts. [See the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element -Rezone
and Land Use Designation Amendments included herewith as Appendix BJ In addition, the
Commercial/Office zone will be amended to allow Transportation Oriented Development (TOD)
type use, which typically includes high-density residential, where infrastructure improvements
are in place, specifically proximity to the Sounder and F Line. [See Residential Mixed-Use
Development in the Commercial Office (CO) Zone, included herewith as Appendix DJ
Regarding transportation demand, transportation modeling to test growth assumptions and
resultant impacts on roads will be used when evaluating projects. Potential mitigation includes
revision of Level of Service (LOS) standards and concurrency requirements to improve the City's
approach in anticipating demand.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed policies and development regulations would complement, rather than conflict
with, existing local, state, and federal laws or requirements intended to protect the
environment.
19
H:\CED\Planning\Comp Plan\Update\SEPA\Environmental Checklist for Comp Plan Update 5.13.15.docx Rev:02/2015
DEPARTMENT OF COMMU ..... ITY d , , ~rt Cityof
Appen ix A --..J~ S fl. [ C) JJ AND ECONOMIC DEVELO r
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE:
Project Name:
Owner:
Applicant:
Contact:
File Number:
Project Manager:
Project Summary:
Project location:
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
Site Area:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
March 30, 2015
Critical Areas Ordinance Update
City of Renton
City of Renton
Jill Ding, x6598
LUA 15-000197, ECF
Jill Ding, x6598
Applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the update to the
Critical Areas Ordinance. In compliance with the Growth Management Act, the
City is updating its Critical Areas Regulations to comply with Best Available
Science. This work includes revisions to the wetland and stream categorization,
as well as increased buffers from Critical Areas. These regulations would be
citywide.
The Critical Areas Regulations apply to all Critical Areas located within the City
of Renton city limits.
N/A
N/A
Proposed New Bldg. Area {footprint):
Proposed New Bldg. Area (grass):
Total Building Area GSF:
N/A
N/A
N/A
Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
Citywide
Project Location
ERC Report 15-000197.docx
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE
Report of March 30, 2015
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND
Environmental Review Committee Report
WA 15-000197, £CF
Page 2 of 2
In compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City of Renton is required to update its
Critical Areas Regulations to be consistent with Best Available Science (BAS). The Critical Area Regulations
would regulate activities within and adjacent to: Flood Hazard Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas,
Habitat Conservation Areas, Streams and Lakes (outside shoreline jurisdiction), Wetlands, and Wellhead
Protection Areas. The proposed Critical Areas Ordinance includes revisions to the City existing Critical
Areas Regulations that would be consistent with BAS. The proposed ordinance includes changes to the
wetland and stream classifications as well as increased buffer requirements from wetlands and streams
and building setbacks.
II 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:
B. Mitigation Measures
None.
c_ Exhibits
None.
D. Environmental Impacts
Issue a DNS with a 14-day Appeal Period.
There are no adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in conjunction with the
proposal. The proposed Critical Areas Ordinance includes increases to buffers adjacent to streams
and wetlands as well as building setbacks from buffers. Therefore, it is anticipated that the
proposed regulations would provide greater environmental protection to critical areas than is
currently provided under the existing Critical Areas Regulations.
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal will be circulated to City Department Division Reviewers and appropriate agencies. All
substantive comments will be provided to the Responsible Officials for their consideration and possible
recommendation that the comments be incorporated as "Advisory Notes to Applicant."
Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be
filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, April 17, 2015.
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 15-000197.docx
Appendix 'B'
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
April 29, 2015
Kevin Poole, Planning Commission Chair
Members of the Renton Planning Commission
Angie Mathias, Senior Planner
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element -Rezone and Land Use
Designation Amendments Recommendations by Community Planning
Area
There are four types of rezones and/or Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations being recommended
as part of the update to the Comprehensive Plan.
1. Property owner requested rezones and/or amendments. Identified with pink outlines on maps.
2. Corrections to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation or the zoning because there is a
conflict with the zoning not being a zone that implements the existing Comp Plan designation.
Or corrections where the development that is built out does not match the existing zoning.
Identified with blue outlines on maps.
3. Instances where a parcel or use is split zones, so the recommended rezone and/or amendment
provides consistency. Identified with black outlines on maps.
4. Rezones based on analysis by Berk and Associates that was completed in September 2014. Berk
issued a land use suitability analysis that evaluated Renton zoning and identified many areas
where the existing built out density is not aligned with the density allowed under the existing
zoning. As indicated in the white paper, there are some areas where this "mismatch" is in
places where the City intends to target growth. In other areas, it is not the intent of the City to
see high density and therefore, at this time the City seeks to "right size" that zoning to more
closely align it with the existing built out density. Identified with red outlines on maps.
5. Rezones based on Berk and Associates analysis that identified areas where critical areas are
significant and existing zoning places unreasonable expectations of development potential and
which would not be appropriate given the extent of the critical areas. Identified with green
outlines on maps.
6. Rezones resulting from analysis to resolve the moratorium on new development in the CA and
RMF zones or the interim zoning ordinance. Identified with purple outlines on maps.
h:\ced\planning\comp plan\update\sepa\issue paper #9-land use (feb 2015) -rezones by community planning area.doc
Kevin Poole
Page 2 of 15
April 2015
Staff reviewed RMF and CA zoned parcels and identified parcels that were vacant for consideration to be
rezoned. Parcels that are located in the City Center and the Sunset area, where the City has planned for
infrastructure commensurate with high density development, were not considered. The City has
increasingly experienced significant challenges with accommodating vehicle trips associated with high
density development in areas without existing or planned infrastructure improvements that would
accommodate such development. Parcels that are located at the edges of areas that are zoned either
RMF or CA and are vacant largely comprise parcels recommended for rezoning.
This issue paper identifies staff recommended rezones and/or Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation amendments by Community Planning Area.
A 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RHD and
rezone from CA to R-14
B 3 -split zoned Amend Land Use from RMF to Residential Single Family
and rezone from RMF to R-8
C 2 -correction Amend Land Use from CC to RMF and
rezone from CA to RMF
D 3 -split zoned Amend Land Use from RSF to RLD and
rezone from R-8 to R-4
E 2 -correction Rezone from R-4 to RC
Benson F 2 -correction Rezone from R-4 to R-6
G 4 -density Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use for a portion of the area from CC to
H 6 -moratorium RMF and rezone from CA to RMF, also rezone from CA
to CN
4 -density Rezone from R-8 to R-6
J 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RHO and rezone from CA
to R-10 for 2 parcels and R-8 for 2 parcels
K 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RMF
and rezone from CA to RMF
A 2 • correction Amend Land Use from RSF and RMD to RLD
Cedar River
and rezone from R-10 to R-4
B 2 -correction Amend Land Use from RMD to RSF
and rezone from R-10 to R-8
A 2 • correction Rezone from CO to CA
B 3 -split zoned Amend Land Use from RSF to CC
and rezone from R-8 to CA
City Center C 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RSF
and rezone from CA to R-8
D 6 • moratorium Amend Land Use from RMF to RSF
and rezone from RMF to R-8
E 2 • correction Rezone from IL to UCN
Kevin Poole
Page 3 of 15
April 2015
East Plateau
Highlands
Kennydale
Talbot
F
G
H
I
J
K
A
B
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
A
B
C
D
A
B
1 -request
1 -request
1 -request
2 -correction
2 -correction
6 -moratorium
4 -density
mismatch
1-request
6 -moratorium
2 -correction
2 -correction
2 -correction
4 -density
mismatch
6 -moratorium
6 -moratorium
2 -correction
6 -moratorium
6 -moratorium
6 -moratorium
4 -density
mismatch
6 -moratorium
6 -moratorium
3 -split zone
4 -density
mismatch
4 -density
mismatch
4 -density
mismatch
1 -request
4 -density
mismatch
S -critical
areas
Rezone from RM U to CD
Rezone from RMT to R-14
Rezone from RMU to R-14
Rezone from CO to CA
Rezone from IH to UCN
Rezone from CD to R-14
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Rezone from R-1 to R-4
Amend Land Use from RMF to RSF
and rezone from RMF to R-8
Rezone from R-10 to R-8
Rezone from R-10 to R-8
Rezone from R-8 to R-10
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use from cc to RMF
and rezone from CA to RMF
Amend Land Use from CC to RHO
and rezone from CA to R-10
Rezone from IL to CA
Amend Land Use from CC to RHO
and rezone from CA to R-10
Amend Land Use from CC to RHO
and rezone from CA to R-10
Amend Land Use from CC to RHD
and rezone from CA to R-10
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use from RMF to RHO
and rezone from RMF to R-10
Amend Land Use from RMF to RHO
and rezone from RM F to R-8
Rezone from R-10 to RMH
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use from CC to RLD
and rezone from CA to RC
Amend Land Use from RMO to RSF
and rezone from R-10 to R-8
Amend Land Use from RLD to RSF
and rezone from R-4 to R-8
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use from RMO to RLD
and rezone from R-14 to R-1
Kevin Poole
Page 4 of 15
April 2015
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
5 -critical
areas
5 -critical
areas
5 -critical
areas
3 -split zone
5 -critical
areas
4 -density
mismatch
2 -correction
Benson Hill Community Planning Area
A 6 -moratorium
B 3 -split zoned
C 2 -correction
D 3 -split zoned
E 2 -correction
Benson F 2 -correction
G 4 -density
H 6 -moratorium
4 -density
J 6 -moratorium
K 6 -moratorium
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD
and rezone from R-14 to R-4
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD
and rezone from R-10 to R-4
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD
and rezone from R-10 to R-4
Rezone from R-10 to RMH
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD
and rezone from R-14 to R-4
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Rezone from R-1 to R-4
Amend Land Use from CC to RHO and
rezone from CA to R-14
Amend Land Use from RMF to Residential Single Family
and rezone from RMF to R-8
Amend Land Use from CC to RMF and
rezone from CA to RM F
Amend Land Use from RSF to RLD and
rezone from R-8 to R-4
Rezone from R-4 to RC
Rezone from R-4 to R-6
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use for a portion of the area from CC to
RMF and rezone from CA to RMF, also rezone from CA
to CN
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use from CC to RHO and rezone from CA
to R-10 for 2 parcels and R-8 for 2 parcels
Amend Land Use from CC to RMF
and rezone from CA to RMF
Area A (7 parcels of land bounded by Benson Rd S to the east and S Puget Dr to the west) is an area of
CA zoned vacant parcels that are encumbered with steep slopes. There is a significant area,
approximately 185 acres, to the east and south that is zoned RMF and is almost completely built out
with multi-family dwellings. Recent development and development proposals have been challenged by
the requirement of the CA zone to have a commercial component in order to develop with multi-family
units. It has been stated that it is challenging to find commercial tenants for the area, but that it is
Kevin Poole
Page 5 of 15
April 2015
suitable for multi-family development as indicated by the substantial multi-family development in the
area. Although Benson Road South is an arterial with heavy traffic counts, the topography of the area
slopes steeply down from Benson Road South to the parcels. Because of the grade, direct access to the
parcels from Benson is extremely challenging. Access from South Puget Drive, which parallels Benson
Road on the other side of these parcels, is more feasible. Other CA zoned parcels along this strip that
have developed have utilized access from Benson. Given concerns about high density development and
impacts to existing infrastructure, staff recommends rezoning the area to R-14.
Area B (Parcel #2023059012 and #2023059013) is two vacant parcels owned by Puget Sound Energy.
The properties would only develop if Puget Sound Energy sold them and although such a sale is unlikely,
the City would prefer that the parcels develop with single family housing rather than multi-family.
Access to the parcels is from Grant Avenue South. As part of the review of RMF and CA zoned parcels
staff considered the traffic impacts multi-family development would have on roadways that would serve
the new development. Grant Avenue South is not an arterial roadway; it is not intended to
accommodate a high volume of traffic. Parcels to the east and southeast are zoned R-8. Staff
recommends amending the Land Use designation of the parcels from Residential Multi Family to
Residential Single Family and rezoning them from RMF to R-8 to match the zoning of the area to the
east.
Area C (1250 and 1300 South Puget Drive) is two parcels, one of which is part of an existing large multi-
family development and the other is being developed with multi-family. Staff recommends rezoning the
parcels in line with their current use of multi-family with no mixed use component.
Area D (Parcel #2123059042) is a parcel owned by the Federal Government as part of a Bonneville
Power substation that is split zoned RC and R-8. Staff recommends rezoning the R-8 portion with RC
zoning so that the parcel has only one zoning designation.
Area E (Parcel #2460701120 and 2460701090) are two vacant parcels owned by King County. The Soos
Creek Park Trail runs through both parcels. The northern portion of the area has steep slopes.
Properties that are owned by a public entity and that have environmental constraints are zoned RC in
most areas of the City. Staff recommends rezoning the parcels from R-4 to RC.
Area F (Approximately 65 acres, abutting parcel lines of Area Eat the north, parcel lines near 131" Pl. SE
to the east, parcel lines near SE 164'" St. the south, and parcel lines near 128th Ave SE to the west) is an
area that annexed to the City in 2011. Although the area is functionally connected by roadways to the
eastern portion of Cascade neighborhood, the area was part of the Fairwood annexation area. As part
of the 2008 Comp Plan amendments, the City amended the Land Use of much of Fairwood to Residential
Low Density. When the area annexed, the R-4 zone was the most appropriate zone given the
designation as Residential Low Density. Typical parcels in the area are approximately 7,000 square feet
or larger. Now that the City has the R-6 zone, this area is more appropriately zone R-6. The minimum lot
size in the R-6 zone is 7,000 square feet. Staff recommends amending the Land Use designation from
from Residential Low Density to Residential Single Family and rezoning them from R-4 to R-6.
Area G (Approximately 540 acres, commonly identified as the Cascade neighborhood) is an area that
was zoned R-6 in King County before it annexed to the City in 2008. At the time the City did not have an
R-6 zone and the City determined that R-8 was the most appropriate zone. The typical parcel size in the
area is approximately 7,000 square feet in size, which matches the minimum lot size in the R-6 zone the
City recently adopted. There are several parcels in the eastern portion of this area that are larger than
7,000 square feet. However, given their proximity to the existing pattern of 7,000 square foot lots, it
would help retain the character of the area if these lots subdivided with a similar pattern to the existing
development. Therefore, it is appropriate to include these larger parcels with the platted Cascade
Kevin Poole
Page 6 of 15
April 2015
neighborhood. Additionally, these parcels to the east were zoned R-6 in King County. Staff
recommends rezoning the area from R-8 to R-6.
Area H (approximately 25 acres, most of which is Cascade Shopping Center) is currently zoned CA. The
area is located away from the arterial roadways which carry high traffic volumes, such as SE Petrovitsky
Rd. While the shopping center once thrived, it has been challenged for many years. The CA zone allows
for 60 dwelling units per acre in mixed use structures. Redevelopment of the Cascade Shopping Center
with such high density would place a tremendous burden on the road network in the area. SE 1681h St
and 1161h Ave SE are both three lane roads, one lane of travel in each direction with a center turn lane.
The CA zone also allows intensive commercial activities that would create significant traffic volumes that
would also be challenging to accommodate on the existing roadways, such as fast food restaurants,
dance clubs, and sports arenas. The RMF zone allows 20 dwelling units per acre and up to 25 dwelling
units per acre for units that are affordable housing or built green. The CN zone allows for commercial
uses, but at a smaller scale than the CA zone. Offices, eating and drinking establishments, indoor
recreational facilities, are examples of uses allowed in the CN. The retail allowed in the CN is limited to
retail such as mini-marts, gift shops, and specialty shops and "other similar small scale, low-intensity
commercial uses that serve nearby residents". These two zones are more appropriate for this area than
the CA zone. Staff recommends rezoning the 9 parcels with existing businesses (7-11, post office, 3
offices, parking for the offices, ball field, two buildings of the Cascade Shopping Center, and a daycare)
with the CN zone. It is recommended that the parcel with the Cascade Shopping Center be zoned CN for
the portion fronting 1161h Ave SE and RMF on the portion that abuts an existing multi-family
development and a single family neighborhood.
Area I (approximately 83 acres bounded by SE 1801h St -if extended -to the north, 1161h Ave SE to the
east, SE 1881h St -if extended -to the south, and 112'h Ave SE to the west) is an area that was identified
in the Berk Analysis as an area to be considered to be rezoned to R-6. The area recommended by staff
to be rezoned to R-6 is where the majority of the parcels identified as being below density range and
includes Benson Hill elementary school.
Area J (17622, 17628, 17655, and 17661110th Ave SE) are four parcels with existing residential
development that are zoned CA. Two of the parcels have 4-plexes on them and two parcels have single
family homes. The area is in close proximity to properties developed with CA type uses, such as fast
food restaurants, mini-lube, and retail stores. It appears that these properties were mistakenly zoned
with the CA zone because of their close proximity to CA zoned properties. Staff recommends rezoning
the parcels with 4-plexes on them to R-10 and the parcels with single family house to R-8.
Area K (10717 and 17249 Benson Rd 5, as well as parcel #293059009 and #2923059174) is a group of
four CA zoned parcels. Three are vacant and one has a daycare center. As part of the review of the CA
and RMF zones, staff considered vacant parcels for potential rezones. Consistent with the review, these
vacant parcels that are along the edge of the commercial area are recommended to be rezoned to a
zone that allows less density with multi-family development. Staff recommends rezoning the parcels
from CA to RMF.
Cedar River Community Planning Area
Cedar River A 2 -correction Amend Land Use from RSF and RMD to RLD
and rezone from R-10 to R-4
Kevin Poole
Page 7 of 15
April 2015
B 2 -correction I
Amend land Use from RMD to RSF
and rezone from R-10 to R-8
Area A (524,529,530,535,541,542 Olympia Ave SE and 3506 SE 61h St.) is an area that is zoned R-10,
but has two Comprehensive Plan land Use designations: Residential Single Family and Residential
Medium Density. The R-10 zone is not a zone that implements the Residential Single Family land use
designation. This is an error that should be corrected. These 7 parcels are a small portion of the
Maplewood Division #2 subdivision; the rest of the subdivision is zoned R-4. The R-10 parcels that range
from approximately 4,500 square feet to 6,000 square feet. This parcel size is in line with lot sizes in the
R-8 zone. Therefore, staff recommends that the area be zoned R-8.
Area B (2904 Maple Valley Highway) is the only parcel zoned R-10 in a large area that is either zoned RC
or R-4. A very large parcel that is zoned RC abuts the property to the north and west. The Maplewood
Division #1 subdivision that is zoned R-4 abuts the property to the east. The parcel is developed with a
single family dwelling on a 9,002 square foot lot. Rezoning the property R-4 would match the zoning of
other properties developed with single family homes in the area. Parcels in the abutting single family
area are of comparable lot size, ranging from approximately 7,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
Staff recommends amending the land use designation of the parcel from Residential Medium Density
with R-10 zoning to Residential low Density with R-4 zoning.B
City Center Community Planning Area
: · 11:!~t~f f: ·~tf • ,·-~Jif ]~J ;:
1
_,.;·:;;(,·::,<if l;H}[{G[[l:itJn .····?··.·.·.?•.-· .· ..
A 2 -correction
B 3 -split zoned
C 6 -moratorium
D 6 -moratorium
City Center E 2 -correction
F 1 -request
G 1 -request
H 1 -request
2 -correction
2 -correction
K 6 -moratorium
Rezone from CO to CA
Amend Land Use from RSF to CC
and rezone from R-8 to CA
Amend Land Use from CC to RSF
and rezone from CA to R-8
Amend land Use from RMF to RSF
and rezone from RMF to R-8
Rezone from IL to UCN
Rezone from RM U to CD
Rezone from RMT to R-14
Rezone from RMU to R-14
Rezone from CO to CA
Rezone from IH to UCN
Rezone from CD to R-14
,·:--··
Area A (parcel #1180002940) is a single parcel of CO zoned property on Rainier Ave S near the airport.
The existing use is office. The abutting property is zoned CA. In order to provide consistent zoning in
the area the CA zone is more appropriate. Offices are allowed uses in the CA zone. Staff recommends
rezoning the property from CO to CA.
Kevin Poole
Page 8 of 15
April 2015
Area B (801 Rainier Ave S) is a single parcel with split zoning of CA and R-8 on the parcel. The parcel is
built out with the Bokara by the Lake condominium, a 106 unit condominium complex. In order to have
just one zone on the parcel, staff recommends rezoning the R-8 portions of the parcel with CA zoning.
Area C and Area D (parcel #9564800110, as well as 501 and 503 NW s'h St) are three parcels that do not
abut Rainier Ave S, but take access off of Rainier Ave S. The parcel zoned CA is vacant and has steep
slopes and a wetland that encumbers the most of the parcel; it is owned by King County. One of the two
parcels with RMF zoning is vacant and the other has an existing single family home. There is no other
RMF zoning in the area, it is only on these two parcels. Abutting zoning is CA and R-8. Access to these
two parcels is via a private easement that measures only 20 feet across off of Rainier Ave S. This is not
an adequate width to provide access to a multi-family development. Additionally, the parcels are
encumbered by steep slopes and the access easement has steep slopes. Given the access concerns of all
of these parcels and the limitations of the critical areas, they are more appropriately zoned R-8; which
abuts the parcels to the north and west. Staff recommends rezoning these three parcels from CA and
RMF to R-8.
Area E (405 Logan Ave N and Parcel #0723059085) is two parcels of land with Renton Memorial
Stadium, the stadium for the Renton School District. The parcels are zoned IL. Abutting zoning to the
north and east is UCN. Zoning across the Cedar River to the west is IM, consistent with its use of Renton
Municipal Airport. As part of the Comprehensive Plan land use designation consolidation, the IL zone is
being removed as an implementing zone in the Urban Center designation. The UCN zone allows
stadiums. Staff recommends rezoning the parcels from IL to UCN.
Area F (approximately 10 acres that is bounded by the Cedar River to the north, Main Ave S to the east,
parcel lines to the south, and parcel lines to the east) is a group of properties zoned RMU. These
properties and approximately 18 acres in the South Renton neighborhood are the only locations in the
City with this zoning designation. If the South Renton neighborhood is rezoned, then these 10 acres
would be the only location of this zone. The CD zone has comparable density and maximum height and
abuts this area to the east, south, and west. Properties to the north across the Cedar River are zoned R-
10 and R-8. The properties that abut the river are built out with existing multi-family. There are two
parcels that abut the river that have existing offices. If Area H (in South Renton) is rezoned, then staff
recommends this area be rezoned from RMU to CD.
Area G. Area H. and Area K (South Renton Neighborhood) is part of the South Renton neighborhood.
The consideration of a rezone of this community was adopted as an implementation strategy of the City
Center Community Plan. The City Center Community Plan Advisory Board recommended that staff
undertake the work of the consideration as one of their six priorities in 2013. City Council concurred
with the recommendation and staff began meetings with the South Renton neighborhood group. At
those meetings staff confirmed with the group their desire to see the area rezoned to a zone that would
make their single family homes conforming and would allow new single family homes to be constructed
in the area. The existing multi-family zones do not allow detached dwellings. The zones also do not
allow Accessory Dwelling Units. The neighborhood residents would like to continue to incentivize
redevelopment with zoning that allows density that is higher than typical single family neighborhoods,
just at a scale that is more compatible with single family homes. Staff recommends rezoning the area
from CD, RMT, and RMU to R-14. See Attachment A for analysis of this area.
Area I (541 Park Ave N) is single parcel of CO zoned property that has an existing automotive repair
shop. Abutting properties are zoned R-10 and CA. Staff recommends rezoning the property to CA,
which is consistent with the zoning in this block of Park Ave N.
Kevin Poole
Page 9 of 15
April 2015
Area J (Parcel# 0823059218, #0823059205, and #0823059219) are three vacant parcels that are used as
parking for multiple industrial buildings. The parcels are in the Urban Center land use designation, but
IH is not an implementing zone in the Urban Center. To correct this error, staff recommends rezoning
the parcels with UCN zoning.
East Plateau Community Planning Area
A 4 -density
mismatch
East Plateau
B 2 -correction
C 1-request
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use to Residential Low Density
and rezone from R-8 to R-4
Rezone from R-1 to R-4
Area A (4 parcels: 204, 216, 222, and 228 Duvall Ave SE) is a small area located in the East Plateau area
that is part of a large area in the Highlands that is being recommended to be rezoned to R-6. In order to
create a logical boundary it extends into the East Plateau area. Additionally, the R-4 zone abuts the four
parcels to the east making R-6 a more reasonable transition of density. Staff recommends rezoning the
area from R-8 to R-6.
Area B (approximately 38 acres bounded by NE 2"' St. to the north, 152"' Ave. SE to the east, a parcel
line at SE 2"' Pl. -if extended, and Nile Ave NE to the west) was developed as phase two of the
Maplewood Estates plat. The area is built out with single family houses. Vacant parcels are set aside as
dedicated tracts that will never be developed because of the critical areas present. Wetlands encumber
most of the vacant tracts. The Land Use designation of the area is Residential Single Family, but the
surrounding area is all Residential Low Density. In fact, the 40 acre area is the only area designated with
Residential Single Family in an area that is over three square miles in size. Given the critical areas and
the surrounding zoning, the area is more appropriately zoned R-4. Staff recommends amending the
Land Use designation to Residential Low Density and rezoning from R-8 to R-4.
Area C (20 parcels: 6201 and 6207 NE 4th St and approximately 4 acres in the Amberwood subdivision) is
a small group of properties zoned R-1 in an area that is predominately zoned R-4. The owners of 6201
and 6207 NE 4th requested the rezone and staff recommends extending the rezone to the other 18
parcels which are part of the Amberwood subdivision. The other properties that are part of the
Amberwood subdivision are zoned R-4. The R-4 zone surrounds all of these R-1 parcels on the north,
east, south, and west. As documented in a City memo, the owners of 6201 and 6207 NE 4th are
members of the Leifer family. Their property was part of an annexation in 2003 in which family
members voted in support of annexation, but mistakenly voted against proposed R-5 zoning. Because
the matter of zoning had been considered, it was determined that the only option was to adopt either
Resource Conservation (RC) zoning or Residential One Dwelling Unit per Acre (R-1) zoning. Council
adopted the R-1 zoning and encouraged the Leifers to apply for a rezone. Staff recommends rezoning
the area from R-1 to R-4.
Highlands Community Planning Area
I • ciimmuriftv•''tf"il>~ctz,.;0•::J'yp~'o'f·'·,:·01.f,1':~;~.;: •.· ···•·,.,:F,··•·:"'.'R~mnimi!il'diitfil~~"Pi'5,J:•.h~i~;1 .. • ... · 1
Kevin Poole
Page 10 of 15
April 2015
i f!~rining Are~.·· · Map /~ezone/ .• .. • .. ;;.;i' ./i ·;1;· ·. .... . .
. . . •. . .• . i ' .... ······· ..• '".' <.) .
-· ,,\,:, Amendment . ·,.:_._ '."--.-.. ; ... -_._-.. . . . •.· ..
A 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from RMF to RSF
and rezone from RMF to R-8
B 2 -correction Rezone from R-10 to R-8
C 2 -correction Rezone from R-10 to R-8
D 2 -correction Rezone from R-8 to R-10
E 4 -density Rezone from R-8 to R-6 mismatch
F 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RMF
and rezone from CA to RMF
G 6 -moratorium Amend land Use from CC to RHD
and rezone from CA to R-10
H 2 -correction Rezone from IL to CA
Highlands I 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RHD
and rezone from CA to R-10
J 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RHD
and rezone from CA to R-10
K 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RHD
and rezone from CA to R-10
L 4 -density Rezone from R-8 to R-6 mismatch
M 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from RMF to RHD
and rezone from RMF to R-10
N 6 -moratorium Amend land Use from RMF to RHD
and rezone from RMF to R-10
0 3 -split zone Rezone from R-10 to RMH
Area A (approximately 13 acres bounded by parcel lines in proximity of Sunset Blvd. NE to the north,
Edmonds Ave NE to the east, parcel lines in proximity of NE 10'h St to the south, and parcel lines in
proximity to Sunset Blvd. NE to the east) is an area of single family homes that are zoned RMF. There
are a number of existing multi-family developments in the surrounding area, but this area is single
family homes. As part of the review of RMF zoned parcels, staff recommends rezoning the area to R-8,
commensurate with the existing development and the zoning of parcels to the south of the area.
;
Area B (a group of 11 parcels bounded by NE 12'h St to the north, Edmonds Pl NE to the east, NE Sunset
Blvd to the south, and Camas Ave NE to the east) is an area of single family homes that is zoned R-10,
but is in the Residential Single Family (RSF) land use designation. The area also has a parcel owned by
Puget Sound Energy and used as a transfer station, as well as one vacant parcel. R-10 is not an
implementing zone in the RSF designation. To correct this, staff recommends rezoning the parcels to R-
8.
Area C (a group of 25 parcels that are accessed by Kirkland Pl NE) is a group of R-10 parcels that are in
the Center Village (CV) land use designation. R-10 is not a zone that implements the CV designation. To
correct this staff recommends amending the land use designation to Residential Single Family and
rezoning to R-8. The area is built out with single family homes with lots that are at least 5,000 square
feet. There are no attached dwellings in the area. Given the existing development, R-8 zoning is most
appropriate.
Kevin Poole
Page 11 of 15
April 2015
Area D (parcel #3547700000) is a portion of a single 13 acre parcel that is developed with the Hyde Park
condominiums. The northern portion of the parcel is zoned R-8 and the southern portion is zoned R-10.
To provide consistent zoning on the parcel, staff recommends rezoning the R-8 portion with R-10 zoning.
Area E (Approximately 400 acres of land that is generally north of Sunset Blvd and south of May Valley
Rd) is an area of R-8 zoned properties that was identified in the Berk analysis to be considered for
rezoning to R-6. The area is largely developed with parcels that are 7,000 square feet; comparable with
the standards for the R-6 zone. There are some areas of parcels that are not fully built out and have
capacity to be subdivided. They are generally located in the northern portion of the area and the
eastern portion. The area recommended by staff to be rezoned to R-6 encompasses an area where the
majority of the parcels are already developed with lots that are approximately 7,000 square feet in size.
Area F (16 parcels which generally take access from Sunset Blvd. NE or Union Ave NE) was reviewed as
part of the staff review of CA and RM F zoned parcels. The portion of the area that is north of Sunset
Boulevard is comprised of a six acre parcel is developed as Creekside on Sunset condominiums, one
vacant parcel, and 11 parcels with single family houses. There are no commercial uses on any of these
parcels. The portion that is south of Sunset Boulevard is three parcels that are vacant. Staff
recommends rezoning the area with RMF zoning.
Area G (approximately 4 acres that take access from Elma Pl NE or Sunset Blvd) is an area that has been
developed as the Cottages at Honey Creek. The area is abutted by the R-8 zone to the east and the
south. There are three vacant parcels in the area and one that is developed with a tri-plex. One of the
vacant parcels contains the detention ponds associated with the housing, this parcel abuts Sunset Blvd.
The two remaining vacant parcels are significantly encumbered with wetlands and Honey Creek runs
through the approximate center of both parcels. The typical lot size in the Cottages at Honey Creek is
approximately 3,000 square feet. Given the lots sizes of this subdivision staff recommends rezoning the
area R-10.
Area H (Renton Technical College) is currently zoned Industrial light (IL). As part of the Comp Plan
consolidation of land use designations, it is recommended that the IL zone be removed as a zone that
implements the Commercial Corridor (CC) land use designation. Staff recommends rezoning the
property to CA. Trade or vocational schools are allowed in both the IL zone and the CA zone.
Area I, Area J. and Area K (three areas in proximity to the NE 4th St commercial area) is group of areas
zoned CA that have been developed with housing and no commercial uses. To reflect the existing use,
staff recommends rezoning them to R-10. There are two parcels that are not developed with either
townhomes or small lot single family. One is owned by Puget Sound Energy and the other has a mobile
home. The parcel with the mobile home abuts properties zoned R-8 and, if rezoned, parcels that would
be zoned R-10. To provide consistent zoning, staff recommends rezoning all the parcels from CA to R-10
zoning.
Area L (approximately 115 acres bounded by NE 2°• Pl to the north, Field Ave NE to the east, parcel lines
to the south, and approximately Union Ave SE to the east) was identified in the Berk analysis as an area
that should be considered to be rezoned from R-8 to R-6. Staff identified the area where the majority of
the parcels are developed with lot sizes comparable to the 7,000 square foot lots required in the R-6
zone. Staff recommends rezoning the area R-6.
Area M (parcel #1623059046) is an approximately 10 acre parcel owned by Washington State
Department ofTransportation. It has a small approximately 2,000 square foot prefab steel structure
that is used as a warehouse. As part of the review of CA and RMF zoned properties, staff identified this
parcel as one that should be rezoned from RMF to R-10. Higher density development at this site would
Kevin Poole
Page 12 of 15
April 2015
significantly increase the burden on the existing infrastructure. Zoning across the street is R-10 and
developed with the Liberty Ridge subdivision.
Area N (parcel #1723059180, #1723059001, and #1723059057) is three RMF zoned parcels that have
steep slopes. Three of the parcels are vacant, except that one is utilized to store vehicles by a
demolition company, one is owned by Puget Sound Energy, and the other is approximately 35 feet in
width. This parcel would be challenging to develop given its width and slopes. The R-8 zone abuts the
area to the south. Staff recommends rezoning the area to R-8.
Area O (parcel #1723059153) is an RMF parcel that has an existing office building. The office building
lies across two parcels; the other parcel is zoned Commercial Office (CO). Staff recommends rezoning
the RMF parcel to CO so that the structure has one zoning designation.
Kennydale Community Planning Area
A 4 -density
mismatch
B 4 -density
Kennydale mismatch
C 4 -density
mismatch
D 1 -request
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use from CC to RLD and rezone from CA to RC
Amend Land Use from RMD to RSF and rezone from R-10 to
R-8
Amend Land Use from RLD to RSF and rezone from R-4 to R-8
Area A (parcel #3224059010) is an area with environmental constraints of streams, wetlands, and
slopes. The parcel recommended for land use amendment and rezone has a portion of May Creek that
runs through the southern portion of the parcel. May Creek is considered a shoreline of statewide
significance and therefore the regulations of the City's Shoreline Management Program apply.
Additionally, the parcel is largely encumbered by wetlands; approximately 3.9 acres of the 5.7 acre
parcel. The pervasiveness and extent of the critical areas on this parcel merit zoning that is consistent
with such constraints and sensitivity. The parcels located immediately south of this parcel are zoned RC.
Staff recommends amending the land use from Commercial Corridor with Commercial Arterial (CA)
zoning to Residential Low Density with Resource Conservation (RC) zoning.
Area B (14 parcels bounded by NE 43'' Street to the north, Lincoln Ave NE to the east, NE 40'" St -if
extended -to the south, and Jones Ave NE to the west) is also an area with environmental constraints.
A class 2 stream runs along the northern boundary and extends through approximately half the area
running towards the eastern boundary. Wetlands that appear to be associated with the stream are
present. The wetlands encumber much of the area to the northeast. The southern portion of the area
has steep slopes (greater than 40%) that are protected by critical areas regulations. The area is not a
single parcel and has been subdivided with separate ownership. The area is appropriate for single family
development, but not multifamily development that would be possible under RlO zoning. Staff
recommends amending the land use from Residential Medium Density with RlO zoning to Residential
Single Family with RS zoning.
Area C (Approximately 166 acres in proximity to N 41" Pl -if extended -at the north, 1-405 to the east,
NE 21"-if extended -to the south, and Park Ave N and Lk Washington Blvd to the west) is identified in
Kevin Poole
Page 13 of 15
April 2015
the Berk analysis as an area where a rezone to R6 should be considered. The white paper states that
"High property values have prompted a trend of constructing larger homes on relatively small lots and
subdividing larger lots to build as many homes as possible. This gradual transition has slowly altered the
character of the neighborhood." Staff recommends rezoning the areas where the majority of the
parcels are identified as being below the density range for the R-8 zone with R-6 zoning, but retaining
the R-8 zoning on areas where the majority of the parcels match the density of the R-8 zone. This
rezone recommendation is anticipated to work to diminish the impact new development may have on
altering the character of the neighborhood.
Area D (1836 NE 20'") is a single parcel. The property owner requested a land use amendment and
rezone, from Residential Low Density with R-4 zoning to Residential Single Family with R-8 zoning. The
property is abutted on the north and east by the R-8 zone and the west by the R-4 zone. To the south,
there is both the R-4 and R-8 zone. The R-4 zoned properties to the west are separated by an access
easement and the R-4 and R-8 zoned properties to the south are separated by a roadway. The
properties to the north and east that are zoned R-8 are immediately abutting the applicants property.
Given that the R-8 zone is what immediately abuts the property, staff supports the applicants request to
rezone to R-8. Staff recommends amending the land use from Residential Low Density with R-4 zoning
to Residential Single Family with R-8 zoning.
Talbot Community Planning Area
A 4 -density
mismatch
B 5 -critical
areas
C 5 -critical
areas
D 5 -critical
Talbot areas
E 5 -critical
areas
F 3 -split zone
G 5 -critical
areas
H 4 -density
mismatch
2 -correction
.
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-14 to
R-1
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-14 to
R-4
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-10 to
R-4
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-10 to
R-4
Rezone from R-10 to RMH
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-14 to
R-4
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Rezone from R-1 to R-4
Area A (approximately 105 acres bounded generally by 1-405 to the north, Shattuck Ave. S. and Talbot
Rd. S. to the east, S 37'" St to the south, and parcel lines in proximity of SR 167 to the west) is a large
area identified in the Berk analysis as an area where the R-6 zone should be considered. As stated in the
white paper, the area is mostly platted at a density of 4 -6 units per acre and has environmental
constraints to the west. Panther Creek, wetlands, and steep slopes all lie to the west. Although the
.
Kevin Poole
Page 14 of 15
April 2015
majority of the land with extensive critical areas are zoned R-1, some of the steep slopes extend into
areas currently zoned R-8. Staff recommends rezoning the area from R-8 to R-6.
Areas B. C. and D are all designated as Residential High Density and are zoned R-14. The area has
significant critical areas, with wetlands, Panther Creek (a class 2 stream), an unnamed class 3 stream,
and steep slopes. For discussion and analysis the areas are grouped into three different areas.
Area B (four parcels measuring approximately 17 acres abutting SE Carr Rd) is four parcels of
land owned by the City of Renton. The area is an extension of an area identified in the Berk
analysis as having critical area constraints that are significant enough to merit consideration of
downzoning. The area has wetlands, a class 3 stream that is a tributary to Panther Creek, and
regulated slopes. The critical areas are extensive and merit resignation to the Residential Low
Density land use designation. Since all the parcels are owned by the City, R-1 zoning is
appropriate. Staff recommends amending the Land Use designation from Residential High
Density to Residential Low Density and rezoning from R-14 to R-1.
Area C (3 parcels measuring approximately 3.5 acres: 17648 103'' Ave SE, #3223059316, and
#3223059020) is immediately across the street from the City owned parcel discussed as Area B.
These parcels are also zoned R-14 and have critical area constraints. There are no identified
wetlands, however the class 3 stream that is a tributary to Panther Creek extends from Area B
into Area C. Additionally, these parcels have significant slopes that limit development potential.
Given that the larger area of R-14 zoned properties are being recommended to be rezoned and
that the area has critical areas, it is appropriate that the Land Use designation be amended
consistent with the larger area. to rezone the area to R-4.
Area D (approximately 13.7 acres near Smithers Ave Sand S Carr Rd) was included in the interim
zoning ordinance with the zoning amended from RlO to R4 as part ofthe ordinance. The area is
part of 4 parcels owned by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The
zoning of other portions of these parcels is R-1 and R-4. Rezoning Area D to R-4 would provide
consistency and is commensurate with the steep slopes and proximity to Panther Creek. Staff
recommends amending the Land Use designation from Residential High Density to Residential
Low Density and rezoning from R-10 to R-4.
Area E and F (parcel #3223059079 and a portion of 18100 107'h Pl SE) comprise a small portion of land
zoned R-10 within the larger area that includes Area B, C, and D. This approximately 3 acres of R-10
zoned area is one parcel of vacant land and a portion of another parcel. Area E is a vacant property that
has steep slopes. Area F is a portion of a large, approximately 22 acres, parcel that is a mobile home
park owned by King County Housing Authority called Vantage Glen. Accordingly, the parcel is zoned
RMH except for this small R-10 zoned portion. It is appropriate for the entire parcel to have consistent
zoning. To leave Area E with R-10 zoning would effectively create a spot zone. Additionally, the parcel is
significantly constrained by steep slopes. Therefore the zoning of this parcel should be consistent with
the rezoning of Area B, C, and D. Staff recommends amending the Land Use designation from
Residential High Density to Residential Low Density for both Area E and Area F. Staff recommends
rezoning Area E from R-10 to R-4 and Area F from R-10 to RMH.
Area G (parcel #3123059115, 5414 and 5420 Talbot Rd S, 498 and 520 S 55th St, and a portion of parcels
#3123059119 and #7931000140) is part of a larger area of significant critical areas. There are large
wetlands, Springbrook Creek, a class 2 and 3 stream, and steep slopes. The larger area also includes the
Talbot Urban Separator. Urban Separators are "permanent low density lands that protect resources and
environmentally sensitive areas" (RMC 4-3-llOA). Development that occurs on land that is designated
as Urban Separator is required to dedicate 50% of the land area as open space. The Talbot Urban
Kevin Poole
Page 15 of 15
April 2015
Separator is not a contiguous area, it is comprised of three separate areas. A map of the Talbot Urban
Separator is provided as Attachment B. Staff recommends amending the Land Use designation from
Residential Medium Density with R-14 zoning to Residential Low Density with R-4 zoning for this area.
Parcel #3123059115 is an approximately 34 acre parcel of vacant land. The parcel has split zoning of R-1
on approximately 9 acres and R-14 on the remaining approximately 25 acres. The entire portion that is
zoned R-1 is part of a wetland and is one of the three parts of the Talbot Urban Separator. That wetland
extends onto a significant portion of the R-14 zoned area; approximately 5.6 acres. Additionally
Springbrook Creek, a class 2 stream runs along the southern portion of the parcel. Parcels across S. 55th
St. from this parcel are zoned R-1.
5414 and 5420 Talbot Rd S, 498 and 520 S 55th St, and a portion of parcels #3123059119 and
#7931000140 are either vacant or have single family homes. The easternmost parcel abuts the Talbot
Urban Separator; which is zoned R-1 in accord with its designation as urban separator. The parcels
across the S. 55th St from these parcels are zoned R-4. Given the proximity of much lower density zones
and critical areas, staff recommends rezoning the area R-4.
Area H (approximately 38 acres bounded by parcel lines at SE 188'h St. -if extended -to north, 106'h
Ave SE to the east, SE 196'h to the south, and parcel lines at 104'h Ave. SE. -if extended -to the west)
was identified in the Berk analysis as an area of density mismatch. Staff recommends rezoning a portion
of the area identified by Berk to R-6, but retaining the R-8 zoning for parcels that are in closer proximity
to 108'h Ave SE, an arterial roadway. The parcels to the west of the area recommended to be rezoned
are zone R-4. Rezoning these 38 acres provides a transition between the two zones. Staff recommends
rezoning the area from R-8 to R-6.
Area I (approximately 41 acres bounded by SE 196'h St. to the north, 108'h Ave SE to the east, SE 200'h St.
to the south, and parcel lines to the east) is an area that is currently zoned R-1. Most of the parcels are
approximately 9,000 square feet which is more comparable with the R-4 zone. Staff has had many
encounters with area residents who wish to improve their property, but have been unable to because of
the setbacks and standards of the R-1 zone. Most of the homes were built in the 1960's, so were not
built with R-1 standards. Although there are critical areas in the surrounding area, there are none
identified within this area. R-4 zoning is a zone that implements the Residential Low Density
designation, which is the designation that is typically applied to area with critical areas constraints. R-1
zoning is also a zone that implements the Residential Low Density designation, but is most appropriately
applied to areas that have significant constraints by critical areas. Since there are not critical areas in
this immediate area, R-4 zoning is appropriate. Staff recommends rezoning the area from R-1 to R-4.
Appendix 'C'
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE
MEMORANDUM
May 6, 2015
Kevin Poole, Planning Commission Chair
Members of the Renton Planning Commission
Angie Mathias, Senior Planner
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element -Buildable Land Analysis for
Proposed Rezones and Allowing Residential in the Commercial Office
(CO) Zone
The City has accepted growth targets for both housing and employment. After deductions for new
housing and employment since the base year of the targets in 2006, Renton's targets are to
accommodate 14,050 new households and 28,755 new jobs by the year 2035. When the City makes
changes in zoning, either to a zone that allows fewer or to a zone that allows greater number of either
households or jobs, it is important to estimate the potential impacts to the capacity of the City to
accommodate new households and jobs. The City completes such an analysis for the whole City every
seven years; the cumulative information for the county is adopted as the King County Buildable Lands
Report. This report requires that the City evaluate all vacant and redevelopable land by zone and
estimate the capacity of that land to accommodate new households and/or jobs.
This staff report presents an analysis that utilizes the same methodology and assumptions to estimate
the impacts to Buildable Lands the proposed rezones and proposed allowance of residential in the
Commercial Office (CO) zone.
ANALYSIS
Benson Hill Community Planning Area
A 6 -moratorium
Benson
B 3 -split zoned
Amend Land Use from CC to RHD and
rezone from CA to R-14
Amend Land Use from RMF to Residential Single Family
and rezone from RMF to R-8
h:\ced\planning\comp plan\update\sepa\issue paper #10-land use (may 2015 buildable lands).doc
Kevin Poole
Page 2 of 13
April 2015
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
2 -correction
3 -split zoned
2 -correction
2 -correction
4 -density
6 -moratorium
4 -density
6 -moratorium
6 -moratorium
Amend Land Use from CC to RMF and
rezone from CA to RMF
Amend Land Use from RSF to RLD and
rezone from R-8 to R-4
Rezone from R-4 to RC
Rezone from R-4 to R-6
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use for a portion of the area from CC to
RMF and rezone from CA to RMF, also rezone from CA
to CN
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use from CC to RHD and rezone from CA
to R-10 for 2 parcels and R-8 for 2 parcels
Amend Land Use from CC to RMF
and rezone from CA to RMF
Area A (7 parcels of land bounded by Benson Rd S to the east and S Puget Dr to the west) is an area of
CA zoned vacant parcels that are encumbered with steep slopes; staff recommends rezoning the area to
R-14.
Buildable lands calculatians indicate that this area would have capacity to develop 107
households and 91 jobs with CA zoning. With R14 zoning the area would be anticipated to
develop with 33 households and no jobs. This results in a net loss af 74 households and 91 jabs.
Area B (Parcel #2023059012 and #2023059013) is two vacant parcels owned by Puget Sound Energy.
Staff recommends amending the Land Use designation of the parcels from Residential Multi Family to
Residential Single Family and rezoning them from RMF to R-8 to match the zoning of the area to the
east.
These parcels are owned by o quasi-public entity, so they were not considered as land that would
likely develop in the next 20 years. There would be no effect on households or jobs with this
rezone.
Area C (1250 and 1300 South Puget Drive) is two parcels, one of which is part of an existing large multi-
family development and the other is being developed with multi-family. Staff recommends rezoning the
parcels to RMF, in line with their current use of multi-family with no mixed use component.
This rezone is not of vacant or redevelopable land, it is land that has existing structures. The
proposed rezone is responsive to the existing development, so there is no effect on households or
jobs with this rezone.
Area D (Parcel #2123059042) is a parcel owned by the Federal Government as part of a Bonneville
Power substation that is split zoned RC and R-8. Staff recommends rezoning the R-8 portion with RC
zoning so that the parcel has only one zoning designation.
This parcel is owned by o public entity so it wos not considered os fond thot would likely develop
in the next 20 years. There would be no effect on households or jobs with this rezone.
Area E (Parcel #2460701120 and 2460701090) are two vacant parcels owned by King County. The Soos
Creek Park Trail runs through both parcels. The northern portion of the area has steep slopes.
Kevin Poole
Page 3 of 13
April 2015
Properties that are owned by a public entity and that have environmental constraints are rnned RC in
most areas of the City. Staff recommends rezoning the parcels from R-4 to RC.
These parcels are owned by a quasi-public entity, so they were not considered as land that would
likely develop in the next 20 years. There would be no effect on households or jobs with this
rezone.
Area F (Approximately 65 acres, abutting parcel lines of Area Eat the north, parcel lines near 131" Pl. SE
to the east, parcel lines near SE 164'h St. the south, and parcel lines near 128th Ave SE to the west) is an
area that annexed to the City in 2011. Staff recommends amending the Land Use designation from from
Residential Low Density to Residential Single Family and rezoning them from R-4 to R-6.
These parcels are built out and are not considered redevelopable. This rezone has no effect on
households or jobs.
Area G (Approximately 540 acres, commonly identified as the Cascade neighborhood) is an area that
was zoned R-6 in King County before it annexed to the City in 2008. Staff recommends rezoning the area
from R-8 to R-6.
The Cascade orea is predominately built out with lots that are between 7,000 and 8,000 square
feet. The area recommended for rezoning has few parcels that would have potential to be
redeveloped. It is estimated that if the area were to redevelop with R-8 zoning, there would be
an additional 97 households. If the area were to redevelop with R-6 zoning, there would be an
additional 46 households. This rezone is estimated to potentially result in 51 fewer households.
Area H (approximately 25 acres, most of which is Cascade Shopping Center) is currently zoned CA. Staff
initially recommended that the parcel with the Cascade Shopping Center be zoned CN for the portion
fronting 116'h Ave SE and RMF on the portion that abuts an existing multi-family development and a
single family neighborhood. Staff's revised recommendation is to retain the existing CA zoning, but not
allow attached dwellings.
The Cascade Village shopping center is the parcel considered to be redevlopable. If it were to
redevelop with the entire parcel zoned CA it would be anticipated to develop with 413
households and 98 jobs. If the code is amended to not allow multi-family development, it would
be anticipated to develop with 255 new jobs, but no households. This potential code amendment
is estimated to potentially result in a gain of 157 jobs and 413 less households.
Area I (approximately 83 acres bounded by SE 180'h St -if extended -to the north, 116'h Ave SE to the
east, SE 188'h St -if extended -to the south, and 112'h Ave SE to the west) is an area that was identified
in the Berk Analysis as an area to be considered to be rezoned to R-6. The area recommended by staff
to be rezoned to R-6 is where the majority of the parcels identified as being below density range and
includes Benson Hill elementary school.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have copacity to develop 85
households with R-8 zoning. With R-6 zoning the areo would be anticipated to develop with 57
households. This results in a net loss of 28 households.
Area J (17622, 17628, 17655, and 17661 llO'h Ave SE) are four parcels with existing residential
development that are zoned CA. Staff recommends rezoning the parcels with 4-plexes on them to R-10
and the parcels with single family house to R-8.
These parcels are built out and are not considered redevelopable. This rezone has no effect on
households or jobs.
Kevin Poole
Page 4 of 13
April 2015
Area K (10717 and 17249 Benson Rd S, as well as parcel #293059009 and #2923059174) is a group of
four CA zoned parcels. Three are vacant and one has a daycare center. Staff recommends rezoning the
parcels from CA to RMF.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity to develop 141
households ond 121 jobs with CA zoning. With RMF zoning the areo would be anticipated to
develop with 78 households and no jobs. This results in a net Joss of 63 households ond 121 jobs.
Cedar River Community Planning Area
A 2 -correction
Cedar River
B 2 -correction
Amend Land Use from RSF and RMD to RLD
and rezone from R-10 to R-4
Amend Land Use from RMD to RSF
and rezone from R-10 to R-8
Area A (524,529,530,535,541,542 Olympia Ave SE and 3506 SE 61
h St.) is an area that is zoned R-10,
but has two Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations: Residential Single Family and Residential
Medium Density. Staff recommends that the area be zoned R-8.
These parcels are built out ond are not considered redevelapable. This rezone has no effect on
households or jobs.
Area B (2904 Maple Valley Highway) is the only parcel zoned R-10 in a large area that is either zoned RC
or R-4. Staff recommends amending the land use designation of the parcel from Residential Medium
Density with R-10 zoning to Residential Low Density with R-4 zoning.
This parcel is built out and is not considered redevelopable. This rezone has no effect on
households or jobs.
City Center Community Planning Area
A 2 -correction
B 3 -split zoned
C 6 -moratorium
City Center
D 6 -moratorium
E 2 -correction
F 1 -request
G 1 -request
H 1 -request
2 -correction
J 2 -correction
Rezone from CO to CA
Amend Land Use from RSF to CC
and rezone from R-8 to CA
Amend Land Use from CC to RSF
and rezone from CA to R-8
Amend Land Use from RMF to RSF
and rezone from RMF to R-8
Rezone from IL to UCN
Rezone from RMU to CD
Rezone from RMT to R-14
Rezone from RM u to R-14
Rezone from CO to CA
Rezone from IH to UCN
Kevin Poole
Page 5 of 13
April 2015
K 6 -moratorium Rezone from CD to R-14
Area A (parcel #1180002940) is a single parcel of CO zoned property on Rainier Ave S near the airport.
The existing use is office. Staff recommends rezoning the property from CO to CA.
These parcels are built out ond are nat considered redevelopable. This rezone has no effect an
households or jobs.
Area B (801 Rainier Ave S) is a single parcel with split zoning of CA and R-8 on the parcel. The parcel is
built out with the Bokara by the Lake condominium, a 106 unit condominium complex. Staff
recommends rezoning the R-8 portions of the parcel with CA zoning.
These parcels are built out and are nat considered redevelopable. This rezone has no effect an
households or jobs.
Area C and Area D (parcel #9564800110, as well as 501 and 503 NW 5th St) are three parcels that do not
abut Rainier Ave S, but take access off of Rainier Ave S. The parcel zoned CA is vacant and has steep
slopes and a wetland that encumbers the most of the parcel; it is owned by King County. One of the two
parcels with RMF zoning is vacant and the other has an existing single family home. There is no other
RMF zoning in the area, it is only on these two parcels. Staff recommends rezoning these three parcels
from CA and RMF to R-8.
The CA zoned parcel is owned by a public entity so it was not considered as land that would likely
develop in the next 20 years. There would be no effect on households or jobs with this rezone for
that parcel. After deductions for steep slopes, the RMF parcels have an estimated capacity to
redevelop with 8 new households. If the parcels were rezoned to R-8, they would be anticipated
to develop with 1 new household. This proposed rezone is estimated to result in a net loss of 7
households.
Area E (405 Logan Ave N and Parcel #0723059085) is two parcels of land with Renton Memorial
Stadium, the stadium for the Renton School District. Staff recommends rezoning the parcels from IL to
UCN.
These parcels are built out and are not considered redevelopab/e. This rezone has no effect on
households or jobs.
Area F (approximately 10 acres that is bounded by the Cedar River to the north, Main Ave S to the east,
parcel lines to the south, and parcel lines to the east) is a group of properties zoned RMU. These
properties and approximately 18 acres in the South Renton neighborhood are the only locations in the
City with this zoning designation. Staff recommends this area be rezoned from RMU to CD.
Buildoble lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity to develop 51
households with RMU zoning. With CD zoning the area would be anticipated to develop with 98
households and 70 jobs. This results in a gain of 47 households and 70 jobs.
Area G. Area H. and Area K (South Renton Neighborhood) is part of the South Renton neighborhood.
The consideration of a rezone of this community was adopted as an implementation strategy of the City
Center Community Plan. Staff recommends rezoning the area from CD, RMT, and RMU to R-14.
The portion of the area that is currently zoned RMTwould have the capacity to develop with 242
households. The portion that is zoned RMU would have capacity to develop with 766
households. The area that is zoned CD would hove capacity for 91 households and 58 jobs. If all
Kevin Poole
Page 6 of 13
April 2015
three areas were rezoned to R-14, there is an estimated capacity for 23 new households. This
proposed rezone would have a net loss of 1,076 households and 58 jobs.
Area I (541 Park Ave N) is single parcel of CO zoned property that has an existing automotive repair
shop. Staff recommends rezoning the property to CA, which is consistent with the zoning in this block of
Park Ave N.
This parcel is built out and not considered redevelopable. This rezone hos no effect on
households or jobs.
Area J (Parcel# 0823059218, #0823059205, and #0823059219) are three vacant parcels that are used as
parking for multiple industrial buildings. The parcels are in the Urban Center land use designation, but
IH is not an implementing zone in the Urban Center. To correct this error, staff recommends rezoning
the parcels with UCN zoning.
These parcels are utilized as required parking for associated industrial buildings. It is not
anticipated that these buildings redevelop to include structured parking in the next 20 years.
This rezane has no effect on households or jobs.
East Plateau Community Planning Area
A 4 -density
Rezone from R-8 to R-6 mismatch
East Plateau Amend Land Use to Residential Low Density B 2 -correction
and rezone from R-8 to R-4
C 1 -request Rezone from R-1 to R-4
Area A (4 parcels: 204, 216, 222, and 228 Duvall Ave SE) is a small area located in the East Plateau area
that is part of a large area in the Highlands that is being recommended to be rezoned to R-6. Staff
recommends rezoning the area from R-8 to R-6.
These parcels ore built out and ore not considered redevelopable. This rezone hos no effect on
households or jobs.
Area B (approximately 38 acres bounded by NE 2°• St. to the north, 152°• Ave. SE to the east, a parcel
line at SE 2°• Pl. -if extended, and Nile Ave NE to the west) was developed as phase two of the
Maplewood Estates plat. Staff recommends amending the Land Use designation to Residential Low
Density and rezoning from R-8 to R-4.
These parcels ore built out and ore not considered redevelopable. This rezone has na effect on
households or jobs.
Area C (20 parcels: 6201 and 6207 NE 4th St and approximately 4 acres in the Amberwood subdivision) is
a small group of properties zoned R-1 in an area that is predominately zoned R-4. Staff recommends
rezoning the area from R-1 to R-4.
Kevin Poole
Page 7 of 13
April 2015
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity ta develop 3 households
with R-1 zoning. With R-4 zoning the area would be anticipated ta develop with 15 households.
This results in a gain af 12 households.
Highlands Community Planning Area
-_ ..... · ·.:··.·; ·· .. ,·· ... '.· ... ·•.···.·;········· ··•·.·•·.·.·.· ... ·.···.····.\ i.•.•.• .. · .. '·.·.·.·.·T····.·.·.y···.p···.e··.c.·.·.··.f.•.· .. ·· ... :'_· ·\r;):·}}/'.·· .. ···•_) .;t,• .· .. _•.•··._·.·.· ·.·.· d_.u __ ·.·):o._\ .·· ·• ·.: .• ·. ·· .. _.· .. tommunit,j i {ii{~n . .>Rezbi!li ' I . . . . ; .. ·· . . . ; . .
Planning Area l\llaj> Arneiidimint J . . . ·. •.. · .. · . Recommenclatlon .
.., ... '' ·.·. '·'
·,·.
A 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from RMF to RSF
and rezone from RMF to R-8
B 2 -correction Rezone from R-10 to R-8
C 2 -correction Rezone from R-10 to R-8
D 2 -correction Rezone from R-8 to R-10
E 4 -density Rezone from R-8 to R-6 mismatch
F 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RMF
and rezone from CA to RMF
G 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RHD
and rezone from CA to R-10
H 2 -correction Rezone from IL to CA
Highlands
I 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RHD
and rezone from CA to R-10
J 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RHD
and rezone from CA to R-10
K 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from CC to RHD
and rezone from CA to R-10
L 4 -density Rezone from R-8 to R-6 mismatch
M 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from RMF to RHD
and rezone from RMF to R-10
N 6 -moratorium Amend Land Use from RMF to RHD
and rezone from RMF to R-10
0 3 -split zone Rezone from R-10 to RMH
Area A (approximately 13 acres bounded by parcel lines in proximity of Sunset Blvd. NE to the north,
Edmonds Ave NE to the east, parcel lines in proximity of NE lO'h St to the south, and parcel lines in
proximity to Sunset Blvd. NE to the east) is an area of single family homes that are zoned RMF. Staff
recommends rezoning the area to R-8, commensurate with the existing development and the zoning of
parcels to the south of the area.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity ta develop 32
households with RMF zoning. With R-8 zoning the area would be anticipated ta develop with 2
additional households. This results in a loss of 30 households.
Area B (a group of 11 parcels bounded by NE 12'h St to the north, Edmonds Pl NE to the east, NE Sunset
Blvd to the south, and Camas Ave NE to the east) is an area of single family homes that is zoned R-10,
Kevin Poole
Page 8 of 13
April 2015
but is in the Residential Single Family (RSF) land use designation. To correct this, staff recommends
rezoning the parcels to R-8.
Buildoble lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity to develop 7 households
with R-10 zoning. With R-8 zoning the oreo would be onticipoted to develop with 5 households.
This results in o loss of 2 households.
Area C (a group of 25 parcels that are accessed by Kirkland Pl NE) is a group of R-10 parcels that are in
the Center Village (CV) land use designation. Given the existing development, R-8 zoning is most
appropriate.
These parcels are built out and are not considered redevelopable. This rezone has na effect on
households or jobs.
Area D (parcel #3547700000) is a portion of a single 13 acre parcel that is developed with the Hyde Park
condominiums. Staff recommends rezoning the R-8 portion with R-10 zoning.
These parcels are built out and are not considered redevelopable. This rezone has no effect on
hausehalds ar jabs.
Area E (Approximately 400 acres of land that is generally north of Sunset Blvd and south of May Valley
Rd) is an area of R-8 zoned properties that was identified in the Berk analysis to be considered for
rezoning to R-6. The area recommended by staff to be rezoned to R-6 encompasses an area where the
majority of the parcels are already developed with lots that are approximately 7,000 square feet in size.
Most of these parcels are built out and are not considered redevelopable. There is some area
with capacity. For those parcels, buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have
capacity to develop 58 households with R-8 zoning. With R-6 zoning the area would be
anticipated to develop with 37 households. This results in a loss of 21 households.
Area F (16 parcels which generally take access from Sunset Blvd. NE or Union Ave NE) was reviewed as
part of the staff review of CA and RMF zoned parcels. The portion of the area that is north of Sunset
Boulevard is comprised of a six acre parcel is developed as Creekside on Sunset condominiums, one
vacant parcel, and 11 parcels with single family houses. There are no commercial uses on any of these
parcels. The portion that is south of Sunset Boulevard is three parcels that are vacant. Staff
recommends rezoning the area with RMF zoning.
Buildable fonds calculations indicate that this area would have capacity to develop 181
households and 159 jobs with CA zoning. With RMF zoning the area would be anticipated to
develop with 84 households and no jobs. This results in a loss of 97 households and 159 jobs.
Area G (approximately 4 acres that take access from Elma Pl NE or Sunset Blvd) is an area that has been
developed as the Cottages at Honey Creek. Given the lots sizes of this subdivision staff recommends
rezoning the area R-10.
These parcels are built out and are not considered redevelopable. This rezone has no effect on
households or jobs.
Area H (Renton Technical College) is currently zoned Industrial Light (IL). As part of the Comp Plan
consolidation of land _use designations, it is recommended that the IL zone be removed as a zone that
implements the Commercial Corridor (CC) land use designation. Staff recommends rezoning the
property to CA. Trade or vocational schools are allowed in both the IL zone and the CA zone.
These parcels are built out and are not considered redevelopable. This rezone has no effect on
households or jobs.
Kevin Poole
Page 9 of 13
April 2015
Area I, Area J, and Area K (three areas in proximity to the NE 41
" St commercial area) is group of areas
zoned CA that have been developed with housing and no commercial uses. To reflect the predominate
pattern of existing use, staff recommends rezoning them to R-10.
Most of these parcels are built out and are not considered redevelopable. There is one parcel
with capacity. For that parcel, buildable lands calculations indicate that it would have capacity
to develop 11 households and 11 jobs with CA zoning. With RMF zoning the orea would be
anticipated ta develop with 6 households and no jabs. This results in a loss of 5 households and
11 jobs.
Area L (approximately 115 acres bounded by NE 2°' Pl to the north, Field Ave NE to the east, parcel lines
to the south, and approximately Union Ave SE to the east) was identified in the Berk analysis as an area
that should be considered to be rezoned from R-8 to R-6. Staff identified the area where the majority of
the parcels are developed with lot sizes comparable to the 7,000 square foot lots required in the R-6
zone. Staff recommends rezoning the area R-6.
Mast of these parcels are built out and are nat considered redevelapable. There is a small area
with same parcels that have capacity. Far those parcel, buildable lands calculations indicate that
it would have capacity ta develop 10 hausehalds with R-8 zoning. With R-6 zoning the area
would be anticipated ta develop with 5 households. This results in a lass of 5 households.
Area M (parcel #1623059046) is an approximately 10 acre parcel owned by Washington State
Department of Transportation that is zoned RMF. Staff recommends rezoning the parcel to R-10.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity ta develop 91
households with RMF zoning. With R-10 zoning the area would be anticipated to develop with
41 households. This results in a lass of 50 households.
Area N (parcel #1723059180, #1723059001, and #1723059057) is three RMF zoned parcels that have
steep slopes. Staff recommends rezoning the area to R-8.
These parcels are significantly constrained with steep slopes and a wetland and there is very
little area that could be built an. Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have
capacity ta develop 3 households with RMF zoning. With R-10 zoning the area would be
anticipated ta develop with 2 households. This results in a loss of 1 household.
Area O (parcel #1723059153) is an RMF parcel that has an existing office building. The office building
lies across two parcels; the other parcel is zoned Commercial Office (CO). Staff recommends rezoning
the RMF parcel to CO so that the structure has one zoning designation.
This parcel is built out and is not considered redevelapable. This rezone has no effect an
households or jobs.
Kennydale Community Planning Area
Kennydale
A 4 -density
mismatch Rezone from R-8 to R-6
B 4 -density
mismatch
Amend Land Use from CC to RLD and rezone from CA to RC
Kevin Poole
Page 10 of 13
April 2015
C
D
4 -density
mismatch
1 -request
Amend Land Use from RMD to RSF and rezone from R-10 to
R-8
Amend Land Use from RLD to RSF and rezone from R-4 to R-8
Area A (parcel #3224059010) is an area with environmental constraints of streams, wetlands, and
slopes. Staff recommends amending the land use from Commercial Corridor with Commercial Arterial
(CA) zoning to Residential Low Density with Resource Conservation (RC) zoning.
This parcel is significantly constrained with wetlands, very little of it would be developable. It is
estimated that with CA zoning, the parcel could develop with 10 households and 9 jobs. With RC
zoning it is estimated that the parcel could have 1 household. This proposed rezone is estimated
to result in 9 fewer households and 9 fewer jobs.
Area B (14 parcels bounded by NE 43'' Street to the north, Lincoln Ave NE to the east, NE 40'h St -if
extended -to the south, and Jones Ave NE to the west) is also an area with environmental constraints.
Staff recommends amending the land use from Residential Medium Density with RlO zoning to
Residential Single Family with RS zoning.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would hove capacity to develop 37
households with R-10 zoning. With R-8 zoning the area would be anticipated to develop with 23
households. This results in a Joss of 14 households.
Area C (Approximately 166 acres in proximity to N 41" Pl -if extended -at the north, 1-405 to the east,
NE 21" -if extended -to the south, and Park Ave N and Lk Washington Blvd to the west) is identified in
the Berk analysis as an area where a rezone to R6 should be considered. Staff recommends rezoning the
areas where the majority of the parcels are identified as being below the density range for the R-8 zone
with R-6 zoning, but retaining the R-8 zoning on areas where the majority of the parcels match the
density of the R-8 zone.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity to develop 76
households with RMF zoning. With R-10 zoning the area would be anticipated to develop with
22 households. This results in a loss of 54 households.
Area D (1836 NE 20'h) is a single parcel. The property owner requested a land use amendment and
rezone, from Residential Low Density with R-4 zoning to Residential Single Family with R-8 zoning. Staff
concurs with his request.
This parcel is built out and is not considered redevelopoble. This rezone has no effect on
households or jobs.
Ta/bat Community Planning Area
A
Talbot
B
C
4 -density
mismatch
5 -critical
areas
5 -critical
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-14 to
R-1
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-14 to
Kevin Poole
Page 11 of 13
April 2015
D
E
F
G
H
I
areas
5 -critical
areas
5 -critical
areas
3 -split zone
5 -critical
areas
4 -density
mismatch
2 -correction
R-4
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-10 to
R-4
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-10 to
R-4
Rezone from R-10 to RM H
Amend Land Use from RMD to RLD and rezone from R-14 to
R-4
Rezone from R-8 to R-6
Rezone from R-1 to R-4
Area A (approximately 105 acres bounded generally by 1-405 to the north, Shattuck Ave. S. and Talbot
Rd. S. to the east, S 37th St to the south, and parcel lines in proximity of SR 167 to the west) is a large
area identified in the Berk analysis as an area where the R-6 zone should be considered. As stated in the
white paper, the area is mostly platted at a density of 4 -6 units per acre and has environmental
constraints to the west. Staff recommends rezoning the area from R-8 to R-6.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity to develop 37
households with R-8 zoning. With R-6 zoning the area would be anticipated to develop with 19
households. This results in a loss of 18 households.
Areas B. C. and Dare all designated as Residential High Density and are zoned R-14. The area has
significant critical areas, with wetlands, Panther Creek (a class 2 stream), an unnamed class 3 stream,
and steep slopes.
Area B (four parcels measuring approximately 17 acres abutting SE Carr Rd) is four parcels of
land owned by the City of Renton. Staff recommends amending the Land Use designation from
Residential High Density to Residential Low Density and rezoning from R-14 to R-1.
These parcels are owned by the City of Renton, so there is no development anticipated.
Area C (3 parcels measuring approximately 3.5 acres: 17648 103'' Ave SE, #3223059316, and
#3223059020) is immediately across the street from the City owned parcel discussed as Area B.
Staff recommends rezoning the area to R-4.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity to developll
households with R-14 zoning. With R-4 zoning the area would be anticipated to develop
with 4 households. This results in a lass of 7 households.
Area D (approximately 13.7 acres near Smithers Ave Sand S Carr Rd) was included in the interim
zoning ordinance with the zoning amended from RlO to R4 as part of the ordinance. The area is
part of 4 parcels owned by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Staff
recommends amending the Land Use designation from Residential High Density to Residential
Low Density and rezoning from R-10 to R-4.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity to develop 54
households with R-10 zoning. With R-4 zoning the area would be anticipated to develop
with 33 households. This results in a loss of 21 households.
Area E and F (parcel #3223059079 and a portion of 18100 107'h Pl SE) comprise a small portion of land
zoned R-10 within the larger area that includes Area B, C, and D. Staff recommends amending the Land
Kevin Poole
Page 12 of 13
April 2015
Use designation from Residential High Density to Residential Low Density for both Area E and Area F.
Staff recommends rezoning Area E from R-10 to R-4 and Area F from R-10 to RMH.
The R-10 parcel is significantly canstrained with steep slopes. It is estimated that with R-10
zoning the site has the capacity for 3 households. With R-4 zoning it is estimated to have
capacity for 2 households. The other portion of this area has na redevelopment potential. The
total potential impact to capacity is 1 fewer household.
Area G (parcel #3123059115, 5414 and 5420 Talbot Rd S, 498 and 520 S 55th St, and a portion of parcels
#3123059119 and #7931000140) is part of a larger area of significant critical areas. Staff recommends
amending the Land Use designation from Residential Medium Density with R-14 zoning to Residential
Low Density with R-4 zoning for this area.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area wauld have capacity to develop 112
households with R-14 zoning. With R-4 zoning the area would be anticipated to develop with 40
househalds. This results in a loss of 72 households.
Area H (approximately 38 acres bounded by parcel lines at SE 188'" St. -if extended -to north, 106'"
Ave SE to the east, SE 196'" to the south, and parcel lines at 1041h Ave. SE. -if extended -to the west)
was identified in the Berk analysis as an area of density mismatch. Staff recommends rezoning a portion
of the area identified by Berk to R-6, but retaining the R-8 zoning for parcels that are in closer proximity
to 108'" Ave SE, an arterial roadway.
Buildoble lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity ta develop 24
households with R-8 zoning. With R-6 zoning the area would be anticipated ta develop with 14
households. This results in a loss of 10 households.
Area I (approximately 41 acres bounded by SE 1961h St. to the north, 108th Ave SE to the east, SE 200th St.
to the south, and parcel lines to the east) is an area that is currently zoned R-1. Most of the parcels are
approximately 9,000 square feet which is more comparable with the R-4 zone. Staff recommends
rezoning the area from R-1 to R-4.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that this area would have capacity to develop 3 hauseholds
with R-1 zoning. With R-4 zoning the area would be anticipated to develop with 24 households.
This results in a gain of 19 households.
Summary of Proposed Rezones
Buildable lands calculatians indicate that in total all propased rezones result in a net loss of capacity to
accommodate 2,037 new households and 222 new jobs.
Attached Dwellings in Portions of the CO Zone
Staff has proposed allowing attached dwellings in the Commercial Office (CO) zone when located within
X mile of the Rapid Ride, the Sounder Rail Station, and/or Park and Ride transit facilities. Review of the
parcels that meet this criteria indicates that there are approximately 104 acres of vacant or
redevelopable land that could potentially develop with high density mixed use residential. In previous
Buildable Lands analysis the City anticipated that the Longacres site (which some portions of are
included in the 104 acres cited above) could accommodate approximately 10,000 jobs. Some of the
area considered in that analysis has since developed with projects, such as the Federal Reserve facility.
So, a smaller portion of Longacres was considered in this analysis. Additionally, the assumption for this
Kevin Poole
Page 13 of 13
April 2015
analysis is that future mixed use development in the qualifying areas of the CO zone would be with
buildings that are much taller than the structures such as the Federal Reserve bank, allowing them to
accommodate many more jobs and/or households than some of the development that has been
developed in the CO zone.
Buildable lands calculations indicate that in allowing high density attached dwellings in portions
of the CO zone, would be anticipated to accommodate 3,322 new households and 12,010 new
jabs.
Appendix 'D'
Residential Mixed-Use Development in the Commercial Office (CO) Zone
Summary of proposed changes:
The Commercial Office (CO) Zone is intended for large properties situated along major transportation or
transit routes, and to implement the Commercial and Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan land use
designation. Currently, the CO Zone does not allow residential development. Considering the intent of
the Commercial and Mixed Use land use designation to, in part, allow residential uses as part of a mixed
use development, the concentrated locations of CO properties in heavily urbanized areas, and the
proximity of CO zoned land to mass transit facilities, staff proposes to allow residential mixed use
buildings under limited conditions in order to make the highest and best use of applicable properties.
In order for a CO zoned property to be eligible for a residential mixed use development, the following
criteria are proposed:
Attached dwelling units may be allowed through a Planned Urban Development pursuant to RMC 4-9-
150, Planned Urban Development Regulations, and in conformance with the following:
a. Mass Transit Facilities: At least fifty percent (50%) of the lot shall be located within one-quarter
(Y.) mile (as the crow flies) of at least one of the following (refer to enclosed map):
i. Bus Stop: Rapid Ride stops only
ii. Dedicated Park and Ride: A Park and Ride
111. Commuter Rail: A passenger rail station
b. Mixed use building with at least two commercial uses: (retail, restaurants, on-site services, or
similar) with dimensional requirements
c. Structured parking for residential component
d. Minimum six stories in height
e. Minimum 75 dwelling units per acre/ Maximum 150 dwelling units per acre (density bonuses
or an Administrative CUP could allow up to 250 per acre)
f. Pedestrian-oriented design of public realm
g. Building subject to Design District D
h. Prohibited within 1.000 feet of an adult entertainment business
In response to difficulties and issues recently cited by customers related to balconies on high-rise
buildings, staff proposes to provide some potential relief for required private open space cited in Title
/V's Planned Urban Development Regulations (RMC 4-9-150.E.2}, as follows:
For dwelling units located above the sixth (6'h) story, private open space may be provided by a shallow
balcony accessed by a door with at least fifty percent (50%) glazing; any required private open space not
provided by the balcony shall be added to the required common open space, pursuant to subsection 4-
9-150.E.l of this Section.
Background:
This docket request was initiated by the Planning Division.
Appeal Available:
Text amendments of the Development Regulations that are referred to the Planning Commission are a
Type VI process. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board.