The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-1 Mandatory Clustering Provision/Community Separators (12/13/2004) Fdt Amends ORD: 4056 , 4269 4835 , 4851 '~ wr 4963, 5100 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5132 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 4-4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-6, STREET AND UTILITY STANDARDS, AND CHAPTER 4-11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE IN ORDER TO REGULATE CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT AND CREATE AN URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY DESIGNATION. WHEREAS,the King County Countywide Planning Policies designate certain properties in the County as"Urban Separators"; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 calls for the preservation of urban separators as permanent low density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, Urban Separators are intended to create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 establishes that maintenance of urban separators is a regional as well as local concern and further provides that modifications to development regulations should have King County review and concurrence; and WHEREAS,the City of Renton has coordinated review of the proposed Urban Separator regulations with King County staff and elected officials; and I Sr ORDINANCE NO. 5132 WHEREAS, applicable Metropolitan King County Code, Title 21A.12.030.17, establishes standards within R-1 zoning, including a fifty percent contiguous open space requirement and mandatory clustered development outside these corridors;and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Community Design Element policies that designate certain low-density residential and resource areas as Urban Separators, to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, and to define Renton's boundaries;and WHEREAS, the City Council created a Residential Low Density Designation to map Urban Separators; and WHEREAS, the Renton City Council determined that Renton development standards should address the same or better level of protection for Urban Separators as is provided by King County regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-2-110.A, Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations,of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards,of Title IV(Development Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended to read as shown on Exhibit A. SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-110.D.3 of Section 4-2-110.D, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Table for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations,of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended,to read as follows: 2 ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 3. Clustering is allowed to meet objectives such as preserving significant natural features,providing neighborhood open space,or facilitating the provision of sewer service. Within designated urban separators, clustering is required, consistent with the provision of Section 4-3-110,Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. a. The maximum net density requirement shall not be exceeded except that within Urban Separators a density bonus may be granted allowing the total density to achieve one dwelling unit per gross contiguous acre for projects that meet the following criteria. (1) Provision of native vegetation cover on 65% of the gross area of all parcels in the land use action, including both the area within and outside the open space corridor, with either existing or new vegetative cover, and at least one of the following additional criteria. (i) Enhancement of wetlands is provided at a ratio of one-half acre enhanced for one acre delineated within the Urban Separator pursuant to Section 4-3-050M 12b. Evaluation Criteria, and Section 4-3-050M 12.c. Wetlands Chosen for Enhancement. Enhancement proposed for a density bonus may not also be used for a mitigation for other wetland alterations. (ii) Legal non-conforming uses are removed from the site and/or brought into conformance with Renton standards. (iii) Natural surface pedestrian trails,with public access,are provided as part of an adopted trail system or, where there is no planned trail system, in a configuration approved by the Reviewing Official. (iv) In the absence of either wetlands or legal non-conforming uses on the site,public access and trails shall be required to the satisfaction of the Reviewing Official. 3 lie ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 (2) Parcels within the Urban Separator may be combined into larger contiguous holdings to allow platting to achieve bonus density,however existing legal lots shall not be reduced in land area for the purpose of transferring density unless such lots are included in a proposed plat. b. The area of individual lots shall not be less than 10,000 sq. ft. SECTION III. A new Section,4-3-110,of Chapter 4-3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts,of Title N(Development Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby added, to read as follows: 4-3-110 URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS: A. PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to implement the Urban Separators policies in the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The intent is to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities,define Renton's boundaries and create contiguous open space corridors within and between urban communities,which provide environmental,visual,recreational and wildlife benefits. Urban Separators shall be permanent low-density lands that protect resources and environmentally sensitive areas. B. APPLICABILITY: This section shall apply to subdivisions and building permits on lands within designated Urban Separators as shown in the Urban Separators Maps. C. URBAN SEPARATORS MAPS: 4 *air' ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 r7 C . S ` .._ il E M0Y Voile I09 o Y Rd sf, � 0 as 1 r i aval .s ,, . 4 �i <I) oil w...:164.§... 111111 0**Lc2, lb 4' i .••th tiSt Mire: lOtir gl,I; *1 P,lifirilln gigurin moist; 11f1 upopmal 1timmaimik-O0 klialtil ra 11�115C1411� t11111.1i 1�llemil//l at j May Valley Urban Separator Overlay Contiguous Open Space v :: a. w - Urban Separator Boundary 5 19/111111M11111111111111111. *IIII# litoe ORDINANCE NO. 5132 2. Talbot Urban Separator • f 1 SW 41st sirl . aiiii 81.11Ill 1. , ai ft' All MP. — I r , --11- itit.00 s I th -. .WI- i a Ito imam, r- - / UMW all 7° S 4:t Silrailife7 r- I — _ Ar c, al \ _ 1. 4+1 i 40 mt , iso 'en \ J bE .,„ 41 4, 4 •,,, k r- ‘4,.,- VhAm LI et 1 i , —III \ - rj, 0 iiiN =I 4 I IIIIIIM4k ""` Gin: ra ..• 4. ci umorL 11.11144 O. 111.1 ij A tril ilt_ mu. nio If ii ve.., iiiii,dit,:' 0 11---IVI MA . n -..' IME .,:-. Etrind1=1../..-. •. I. ... fir i IOC .fr. 4 Ka'‘, 1 ... . ii lib. 12 OOP .......m- ..... all tom iiiim. ' I. gilmiollin I MIMI; win we:EN kw= S 55th St 111P 111111fIlifiE rah," II: ! ..,-- . .4 . srimi.b,gm...am= nu 4 5 024:in ihnition NIE .... pia: ;----i-m- N cLi -Int.. EN Elio „tim _ 1 ,-, q L__ r-- Aim 1. 1 1.4 mv.4.7.2e,g imillimai-r" az i. \t \ 1 .4.,,pii, •• • worm moo ini, ,-, „:„ iw•Ati II x 1111111mar#51 Er"---., I L min 01.4 1111P.2 MINER ,F Ilk 4. am li ,4 Q., il - ilAbrain ...zoo ( , 1 ,,: --,, A I la feV:ir mai z-, ) iff •di" OLT: - p Weir swits.._ II If MI I "71:51 Fir7:_';74 MM.Mg ' '14 = Smiliwil -.4111e '474 P1111111•11;r4511 . 4 d m -', •ff-74 mucen.Frh-1.4'411 tilliV Air IA. 111111111M\,:,2 a rid =MB \I IN-:• lallellr111111 11 7 i ovall111.1 LIFIFir.E.ii_ or ass 27.4-1-`ZnIr - - c 12 limn nil 11= „,. _ I I lir k1.51.‘ - zuriP#'4 0,. VIP III NE Vs • - IR 1r-- —6 -- - .._.. I••••1 M.,-".'N.IL I MEW,: "i-il 1')FL1.RH. Trp. I.. . ie. -3 i Dr f---1 Talbot Urban Separator ,* L oonumscile,-eloposms.NeThborhou J.5&SU ageto,:.II annm!j , . Ai,Pw.n,Adff11311"11., '''„so 29 Doxatl.,2,.t1 141 POr4On City itmits timo Urban Separator Boundary 6 ,.. ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 D. ADMINISTRATION: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to Urban Separator Regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. 2. Authority: The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve with conditions,or deny proposals based on the provisions of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. E. URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS: 1. Contiguous Open Space Corridor Established. A designated contiguous open space corridor is established as shown on the Urban Separators Overlay Map in Section 4-3-110.J. 2. Dedication of Open Space Required. a. Approval of a plat,and/or building permit on an undeveloped legal lot in the Urban Separator Overlay shall require dedication of 50%of the gross land area of the parcel or parcels as a non-revocable open space tract retained by property owner,or dedicated to a homeowners association or other suitable organization as determined by the Reviewing Official. Acreage in tracts may include critical areas and/or critical area buffers. At a minimum, open space shall be connected to another contiguous open space parcel by a fifty foot(50')corridor. b. Existing residences,existing accessory uses and structures,existing above ground utilities located in the tract at the time of designation and new small and medium utilities shall not count toward the 50% gross land area calculation for open space except for storm water ponds designed with less than 3:1 engineered slopes and enhanced per techniques and landscape requirements set forth in the publication the"Integrated Pond"King County Land and Water Resources Division. 7 %ir/ ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 c. Approval of a building permit for an addition of 300 square feet for a primary use structure or 500 square feet for an accessory structure shall require recordation of a conservation easement,protective easement or tract and deed restriction on critical areas and critical area buffers located within the Contiguous Open Space Corridor pursuant to Section 4-3- 050.G,Native Growth Protection Areas. d. Land dedicated as open space shall be located within the mapped Contiguous Open Space Corridor unless a modification is approved pursuant to Section 4-3- 110.B.6. 3. Uses Allowed In Contiguous Open Space. a. Passive Recreation with no development of active recreation facilities except within a municipal park. b. Natural surface pedestrian trails. c. Animal husbandry(small,medium and large)provided that fencing is subject to the conditions in 4-3-110.E.3.g,below. d. Existing residences and accessory uses and structures. e. Small and medium utilities and large underground utilities. f. Access Easements. (1) Utilities easements and emergency service access roads may be located within Contiguous Open Space Corridors for the limited purpose of providing service to parcels platted after March 2005,for which there is no practical alternative way to provide service. Utilities and emergency service easements shall be developed with permeable surface treatment. 8 ORDINANCE NO. 5132 (2) Private access easements for ingress and egress may be located within Contiguous Open Space in the limited instance where there is no alternative access to a pre- existing legal lot,but shall not serve lots platted after March 2005. g. Fencing or similar structures and/or hedges or similar landscape features on the property or easement boundary of properties abutting and within the Contiguous Open Space Corridor shall not create a solid barrier. Where required to protect wetlands pursuant to Section 4-3-050.M.7.c,fencing shall be the minimum necessary. 4. Uses in Portions of the Urban Separator Outside the Established Contiguous Open Space Corridor. a. Uses shall be consistent with Section 4-2-060 and 4-2-070.B. Residential-1 Zone,one dwelling unit per net acre. b. Development shall be clustered outside the Contiguous Open Space Corridor mapped in 2-3-110.J. 5. Standards Within Entire Urban Separator. a. Forest/vegetation clearing shall be limited to a maximum of 35%of the gross acreage of the site except: (1) The percentage of forest/vegetation coverage may be increased to qualify for the density bonus allowed in Section 4-2-110.D. (2) The Reviewing Official may modify the percentage of forest/vegetation retention if determined necessary to meet the surface water retention/detention standards of Section 4-3-110.E.7. (3) The Reviewing Official may approve forest/vegetation clearing greater than 35%of individual building sites to allow grading for a home site provided that: 9 4111/ 1410 ORDINANCE NO. S 1 3 2 (i) A landscape plan is provided for each building site showing compensating re-planting of species with the same or better water retention and erosion control functions. (ii) 5%additional replacement landscaping per site is provided (iii) Plant caliper is determined by the Reviewing Official to be sufficient to achieve needed water retention and erosion control functions, and (iv) Individual trees or stands of trees are retained when feasible. Feasibility is defined as locations and tree health sufficient to ensure continued viability of the tree and safety of structures within the developed portion of the lot and (v) The landscape plan provides massing of plant material to create either a connection to required open space or is of sufficient size to create functional wildlife habitat. b. If the existing cleared area of a site,as of March 21, 2005 is greater than 35%,approval of a plat shall require re-planting of forest/vegetative cover. c. Forest/vegetation cover may include a combination of Northwest native vegetation including conifer,deciduous trees and shrubs sufficient to provide water retention and erosion control,as determined appropriate by the Reviewing Official. The Reviewing Official shall determine whether existing vegetation provides functions to meet forest/vegetation coverage standards, and shall require additional plantings if existing vegetation is found to be insufficient. d. Stormwater management shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 flow control standards. 10 ... ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 e. Private access easements and improvements shall be established at the minimum standard needed to meet public safety requirements. f. Landscape plans required in Section 4-4-070 shall include retention/re-planting plans as applicable,consistent with standards and plant lists in King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Publication "Going Native." 6. Modification of Mapped Contiguous Open Space. The Reviewing Official may modify the open space configuration where: a. Site specific data confirms that the adopted Contiguous Open Space Corridor map includes more than the required gross area for any parcel,or b. The applicant can demonstrate a configuration of contiguous open space that provides better or equal provision of the open space requirement. Modifications to the Contiguous Open Space Corridor shall be re-mapped during the City's annual Title IV review process. SECTION IV. Section 4-4-040.B of Chapter 4,City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,Washington"is hereby amended to read as follows: B. APPLICABILITY. The provisions and conditions of this Section regulating height are not applicable to fences or barriers required by state law or by the zoning provisions of the Code to surround and enclose public safety installations, school grounds,public playgrounds, private or public swimming pools and similar installations and improvements. Fences,and hedges within the Urban Separator Overlay are also subject to requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations(see Section 4-3-110). 11 41104 ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 SECTION V. Section 4-4-130.0 of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards,of Title IV(Development Regulations)of Ordinance No.4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended to read as follows. C. ALLOWABLE TREE CUTTING ACTIVITIES. Tree cutting and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows,except as provided in subsection D.2 of this Section,restrictions for Critical Areas,and in Section 4-3- 110.E.5.b, Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. 1. Emergency Situations: Removal of trees and/or ground cover by the City and/or public or private utility in emergency situations involving immediate danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards,or interruption of services provided by a utility. 2. Dead, Dangerous,or Diseased Trees: Removal of dead,terminally diseased, damaged,or dangerous ground cover or trees which have been certified prior to removal as such by a forester,registered landscape architect,or certified arborist, selection of whom to be approved by the City based on the type of information required,or the removal of which is approved by the City. 3. Maintenance Activities/Essential Tree Removal—Public or Private Utilities,Roads and Public Parks: Maintenance activities including routine vegetation management and essential tree removal for public and private utilities, road rights-of-way and easements,and parks. 4. Installation of SEPA Exempt Public or Private Utilities: Installation of distribution lines by public and private utilities provided that such activities are categorically exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act and RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. 12 "'"' ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 5. Existing and Ongoing Agricultural Activities: Clearing associated with existing and ongoing agricultural activities as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, Definitions. 6. Commercial Nurseries or Tree Farms: Clearing or cutting of only those trees which are planted and growing on the premises of a licensed retailer or wholesaler. 7. Public Road Expansion: Expansion of public roads. 8. Site Investigative Work: Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs,percolation tests, and other related activities including the use of mechanical equipment to perform site investigative work provided the work is conducted in accordance with the following requirements. a. Investigative work should not disturb any more than five percent(5%)of any protected sensitive area described in subsection D.2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas,on the subject property. In every case impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas restored. b. In every location where site investigative work is conducted,disturbed areas shall be minimized,and immediately restored. c. A notice shall be posted on the site by the property owner or owner's agent indicating that site investigative work is being conducted,and that the work must minimize disturbance to the critical areas identified in subsection D.2 of this Section,Restrictions for Critical Areas. d. No site investigative work shall commence without first notifying the Director or his or her designee in advance. 13 ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 9. Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities: Tree cutting and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows,except as provided in subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas: a. On a developed lot or on a partially developed lot less than one-half(1/2) of an acre any number of trees may be removed; b. On a partially developed lot greater than one-half(1/2)of an acre or on an undeveloped lot provided that: i. No more than three(3)trees are removed in any twelve(12)month period from a property under thirty five thousand(35,000)square feet in size; and ii. No more than six(6)trees are removed in any twelve(12)month period from a property over thirty five thousand(35,000)square feet in size. LOT TYPES RTYAL i L UN*\ELQPE( _ EII 1i r i ; co LPEV�ELO E .L.•4111111111MUNIPOI If iii. Rights-of-Way Unobstructed: In conducting minor tree cutting activities,rights-of-way shall not be obstructed. 10. Landscaping or Gardening Permitted: Land clearing in conformance with the provisions of subsection C.9 of this Section,Allowable Tree Cutting Activities, and subsection D.2, Restrictions for Critical Areas, is permitted on a developed lot for purposes of landscaping or gardening. Land clearing in conformance with the provisions of subsection C.9, Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities, and subsection D.2, Restrictions for Critical Areas, is permitted 14 **6"1 ORDINANCE NO. 513 2 4 on a partially developed or undeveloped lot for purposes of landscaping or gardening provided that no mechanical equipment is used. 11. Operational Mining/Quarrying: Land clearing and tree cutting associated with previously approved,operational mining and quarrying activities. 12. Modification of Existing Utilities and Streets(not otherwise exempted by RMC 4- 3-050.C.7)by Ten Percent(10%)or Less: Overbuilding(enlargement beyond existing project needs)or replacement and/or rehabilitation of existing streets,provided the work does not increase the footprint of the structure, line or street by more than ten percent(10%)within the critical area and/or buffer areas. SECTION VI. Section 4-6-030.F of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards,of Title IV(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended to read as follows: F. DRAINAGE PLAN DESIGN CRITERIA, DRAFTING STANDARDS AND CON TENTS: The drainage plan shall be prepared in conformance with the Department's construction plan drafting standards and contents,the City's Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction and Standard Detail documents,and the design criteria, construction materials, practices and standard details contained in chapters 3,4, and 5 of the current King County Surface water design manual;provided that the Department's standards and design criteria will take precedence and prevail in any interpretation of conflicting or contradictory standards and design criteria, and provided, further,that within designated Urban Separators regulated in Section 4-4-110,the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 flow control standards are required. 15 ORDINANCE NO. 5132 'ri` SECTION VI. Section 4-11-150.0 of Chapter 11, Definitions,of Title IV (Development Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended by adding the following definition of Open Space,Contiguous, Urban Separator,to read as follows: Open Space, Contiguous, Urban Separator: Land permanently set aside as open space located in recorded tracts. Contiguous open space lands may include critical areas,such as wetlands and steep slopes,and wetland buffers, as well as stormwater ponds enhanced per the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Resources Division. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval,and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 4th day of April ,2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 4th day of April , 2005. Kathy K olker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: C;ZIPLA.0-"atA..6,P' Lawrence J. Warren, Attorney Date of Publication: 4/8/2005 (summary) ORD.1175:3/24/05:ma 16 • ORDINANCE NO. 5132 Exhibit A 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) RC R-1 R-4 R-8 DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Minimum None None None 4 dwelling units Housing Density per net acre1,2 for proposed short plats or subdivisions Maximum 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit per 4 dwelling units 8 dwelling units Housing Density2 per 10 net 1 net acre except per 1 net acre13 per 1 net acre acres that in designated Urban Separators, density of up to 1 unit per gross acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC 4-3-110 Urban Separator Overlay . NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER LOT Maximum 1 dwelling with 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit Number per legal 1 accessory lot' unit LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot 10 acres 1 acre 8,000 sq. ft."' " 4,500 sq. ft. for Size for lots 10,000 sq. ft. for except where parcels greater created after small lot than 1 acre. cNovember 10, development ment3 clusters10 are 2004 allowed, R-8 5,000 sq. ft. for standards shall parcels 1 acre or apply. less. Minimum Lot 150 ft. for 75 ft. for interior 70 ft. for interior 50 ft. for interior Width for lots interior lots. lots. lots. 80 ft. for lots. created after corner lots."'13 November 10, 175 ft. for 85 ft. for corner except where 60 ft. for corner 2004 corner lots. lots. small lot lots Except for clusters10 are clustered allowed, R-8 development standards shall within designated apply. Urban Separators R-4 standards shall apply for both interior and corner lots. Minimum Lot 200 ft. 85 ft. 80 ft."'"except 65 ft. Depth for lots where small lot created after clusters10 are November 10, allowed, R-8 2004 standards shall apply. Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. 52 Exhibit A RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SETBACKS Minimum Front 30 ft.b 30 ft.b 30 ft.i2'"except 15 ft. for primary Yard where small lot structure. clusters10 are allowed, R-8 20 ft. for attached standards shall garages accessed apply. from front or side Unit with Alley yard street. Access Unit with Alley Garage: The Access Garage: front yard set- The front yard back of the set-back of the primary primary structure structure may may be reduced be reduced to to 10 ft. if all 20 ft. if all parking is parking is provided in the provided in the rear yard of the lot rear yard of the with access from lot with access a public right-of- from a public way or alley.6 right-of-way or alley.6 Minimum Side 30 ft.' 20 ft.' 20 ft.72'"except 15 ft.'for the Yard Along a where small lot primary structure Street clusters10 are and 20 ft. for the allowed, 15 ft. is attached garages allowed. which access from the front and side yard along a street. Minimum Side 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined 5 ft. Yard ft.12 13 are allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard, except where small lot clusters 10 are allowed, 5 ft. Page 2 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. 51- Nape rr Exhibit A RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SETBACKS4 (Continued) Minimum Rear 35 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. Yard Where small lot clusters10 are allowed, 20 ft. Clear Vision Area In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall a a structure over a structure over a structure over structure over 42 42 in. in height 42 in. in height 42 in. in height in. in height intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear vision vision area vision area vision area area defined in defined in RMC defined in RMC defined in RMC RMC 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. Minimum 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. landscaped Freeway landscaped landscaped landscaped setback from the Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the street property street property street property street property line. line. line. line. BUILDING STANDARDS Maximum 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 Building Height ft. ft. ft. for standard ft. and Number of roof. Stories, except for uses having a 2 stories and 35 "Public Suffix" (P) ft. for roofs designations having a pitch greater than 3/12. Maximum Height See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- for Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities Page 3 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. 542 Exhibit A RC R-1 R-4 R-8 BUILDING STANDARDS (Continued) Maximum Lots 5 acres or 35%. Lots greater Lots 5,000 sq.ft. Building more: 2%. An than 5,000 sq. or greater: 35% Coverage additional 5% of ft.: 35%or or 2,500 sq. ft., (Including primary the total area 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is and accessory may be used for whichever is greater. buildings) agricultural greater. buildings. Lots less than Lots 10,000 sq. Lots 5,000 sq. 5,000 sq.ft.: ft. or less: 50 ft. to 5 acres: % 50%. 15%. On lots greater than 1 acre, an additional 5% of the total area may be used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq. ft. or less: 35%. Vertical Façade All dwelling units Modulation shall provide vertical facade modulation at least every twenty horizontal feet (20'), including front, side and rear facades when visible from a street. Page 4 of 5 :r„- ORDINANCE NO. 51 Exhibit A RC R-1 R-4 R-8 LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE Minimum Off- 5 ft. wide irrigated 5 ft. wide irrigated Site or drought or drought Landscaping resistant resistant Abutting Non- landscape strip landscape strip Arterial Public provided that if provided that if Streets for Plats there is additional there is additional and Short Plants undeveloped right undeveloped right Submitted on or of way in excess of way in excess after November of 5 ft, this shall of 5 ft,this shall 10, 2004 also be also be landscaped. landscaped. Minimum Off- 10 ft. wide 10 ft. wide Site irrigated or irrigated or Landscaping drought resistant drought resistant Abutting landscape strip landscape strip Principal, provided that if provided that if Minor and there is additional there is additional Collector undeveloped right undeveloped right Arterial Streets of way in excess of way in excess for Plats and of 10 ft., this shall of 10 ft., this shall Short Plants also be also be Submitted on or landscaped, landscaped, after November unless otherwise unless otherwise 10, 2004 determined by the determined by reviewing official the reviewing during the official during the subdivision subdivision process. process. Minimum On or At least two (2) At least two (2) Off-Site Street trees of a City- trees of a City- Tree approved species approved species Requirements with a minimum with a minimum for Plats and caliper of 1 'h" per caliper of 1 'h" Short Plants tree shall be per tree shall be Submitted on or planted in the planted in the after November front yard or front yard or 10, 2004 planting strip of planting strip of every lot prior to every lot prior to occupancy. occupancy. Page 5 of 5 April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 115 *MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL POSTPONE ITS DECISION ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING(4/11/2005). CARRIED. Responding to Council President Briere's inquiry regarding additional information,Ms. Fontes stated that Council is working from the record. Councilman Clawson and the Mayor also inquired as to the scope of the record and Council's options if it decides to reconsider the motion. Ms. Fontes stated that she will review the issues and report back to Council. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval Finance Committee of Claim Vouchers 235731 -236174 and four wire transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $3,168,991.28; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 56349 -56581, one wire transfer, and 571 direct deposits totaling$1,843,096.57. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Municipal Court: Collection Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Services,AllianceOne concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk Receivables Management to sign the agreement for collection services with AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. EDNSP: Hotel/Motel Tax Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding the 2005 Renton Revenue Allocation to Renton Visitors Connection tourism marketing campaign funding. The Committee Visitors Connection, Chamber recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the contract of Commerce Contract with the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce for a sixth year of the Renton Visitors Connection for its tourism marketing campaign, and allocate$116,000 of lodging tax collections toward that effort. The Renton Visitors Connection will provide oversight of the work program through regular meetings. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the contract. At the end of the year,the Chamber will submit to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee a detailed financial report and include copies of all printed advertising material. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and ORDINANCES adoption: Ordinance#5130 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5-1,Fee Schedule, of Title V Community Services: Henry (Finance and Business Regulations) of City Code by setting Henry Moses Moses Aquatic Center Fees Aquatic Center pass card rates and canopy rental fees. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5131 An ordinance was read amending Section 9-10-11 of Chapter 10, Street Development Services: Trench Excavations, of Title IX,Public Ways and Property,of City Code by revising Restoration&Street Overlay trench restoration and street overlay requirements. MOVED BY PERSSON, Requirements SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5132 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Planning: R-1 Zone Standards, Chapter 4-3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, Community Separators Chapter 4-4, Citywide Property Development Standards, Chapter 4-6, Street Tand Utility Standards, and Chapter 4-11,Definitions, of Title IV (Development Nwre April 4,2005 *orRenton City Council Minutes Page 116 Regulations)of City Code to amend the R-1 residential low density zone in order to regulate clustered development and create an urban separator overlay designation. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Briere announced that Council will tour the Broodstock Council: Broodstock Collection Facility area on April 19th, at 9:00 a.m. She noted that this is a tour Collection Facility Tour, for observation purposes only, and no public comment will be taken. 4/19/2005 AUDIENCE COMMENT Andrew Duffus, 9605 143rd Ave. SE,Renton, 98059, thanked Council for Citizen Comment: Duffus - adopting the ordinance regarding the R-1 zone community separators, and R-1 Zone Community pointed out that there will now be a permanent urban greenbelt in May Valley Separators that will be a legacy for the City. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:54 p.m. Bonnie I.Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann April 4, 2005 March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes `✓ Page 100 Resolution#3745 A resolution was read authorizing the temporary closure of the northbound Streets: Sunset Blvd N,NE lanes of Sunset Blvd. N. (N. 3rd St. to I-405), the Houser Way Tunnel, and the Sunset Blvd &Houser Way eastbound lanes of NE Sunset Blvd. (Sunset Blvd. NE to Harrington Ave. NE.); Tunnel Temporary Closures and temporary total closure of portions of Sunset Blvd. NE. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3746 A resolution was read supporting legislative funding from the 2005 Washington Transportation: SR-169 State Legislature for certain road improvement projects on SR-169 to Corridor Improvements, significantly increase the level of service. MOVED BY PALMER, Supporting Legislative SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS Funding READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/4/2005 for second and final reading: Community Services: Henry An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5-1, Fee Schedule, of Title V Moses Aquatic Center Fees (Finance and Business Regulations)of City Code by setting Henry Moses Aquatic Center pass card rates and canopy rental fees. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/4/2005. CARRIED. Development Services: Trench An ordinance was read amending Section 9-10-11 of Chapter 10, Street Restoration&Street Overlay Excavations, of Title IX, Public Ways and Property, of City Code by revising Requirements trench restoration and street overlay requirements. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/4/2005. CARRIED. Planning: R-1 Zone An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2,Zoning Districts -Uses and Community Separators Standards, Chapter 4-3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, Chapter 4-4,Citywide Property Development Standards, Chapter 4-6, Street and Utility Standards,and Chapter 4-11,Definitions, of Title IV(Development Regulations)of City Code to amend the R-1 residential low density zone in order to regulate clustered development and create an urban separator overlay designation.* Councilman Clawson acknowledged the requests to advance this ordinance for second and final reading; however, he noted that ordinances are not advanced unless there is a critical reason for doing so. *MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/4/2005. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS • Responding to Councilman Persson's inquiry regarding the necessity of Police: Criminal Trespass reviewing the City's criminal trespass ordinance since the Municipal Court Ordinance Judge found a portion unconstitutional, City Attorney Warren pointed out that City Code contains a reference in its criminal code to the State trespass ordinance. Therefore, Renton does have a current, valid and enforceable trespass ordinance. He relayed that the ordinance the Judge found to be illegal is contained in another part of City Code. School District: Activities Councilwoman Nelson reviewed the various announcement, events, and activities of the Renton School District, including: the qualification of three Renton High School speech and debate team members to compete at the March 21,2005 ,""' Renton City Council Minutes "*".1 Page 96 This will also introduce trees back into the mix, which are necessary for adequate buffering. Trees in the mix should also help stabilize the steep. regraded slope. The plantings should be monitored for a minimum of five to ten years to ensure that they are established. Plants that do not survive should be replanted. The plant mix should contain a mix of both deciduous trees(for heron nest materials)and coniferous (for screening)." MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: * The public is invited to learn about Renton's publicly-funded entities during a State of the Community event beginning at 6:00 p.m. on March 29th, at the Renton IKEA Performing Arts Center. This free event will showcase the City of Renton, Renton Technical College, Renton School District, and Valley Medical Center. One representative from each entity will present plans for 2005 and beyond, explain their funding sources, detail a few challenges, and recount some accomplishments. * The Renton Community Resource Telephone Directory is now available in Cambodian, Chinese, English, Korean, Laotian, Punjabi, Russian, Somali, Spanish,Tagalog, and Vietnamese. AUDIENCE COMMENT Shirley Andrews, 9606 143rd Ave. SE,Renton, 98055; Thomas Foster, 6450 Citizen Comment: Various- Southcenter Blvd.,#106, Seattle, 98188;Jean Rollins,9605 143rd Ave. SE, R-1 Zone Community Renton, 98059;Andrew Duffus,9605 143rd Ave. SE,Renton,98059; and Separators F H Debra Rogers, 5326 NE 22nd Ct.,Renton,98059; expressed appreciation for the City's work on the R-1 zone community separators, and urged Council to advance the subject ordinance to second and final reading this evening. Citizen Comment: Baker- 'Lenny Baker, 20224 81st Ave.W.,Edmonds, 98026, submitted a letter to the Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane Council and said he represents Seattle Drag&Ski Sprint Boat Association, a Race not-for profit organization, which will hold a limited hydroplane race at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park on April 30th and May 1st. Mr. Baker indicated that there is lot of public interest in this event, and he described how Renton will economically benefit from the race. Mr. Baker also reviewed how the association organizes the event, and the measures that are taken to protect the racers and spectators, both in the water and on land. Citizen Comment: Krom- Suzanne Krom, President of Herons Forever, PO Box 16155, Seattle. 981 16, Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat thanked Council for its decision on the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat appeal. Appeal, SR 900 LLC& Herons Forever,PP-04-002 RECESS MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:14 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:21 p.m.;roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Corman, previously excused, and Clawson. Councilman Clawson arrived at 9:23 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. } February 28,2005 '""' Renton City Council Minutes `i'' Page 63 Planning &Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee regarding the R-1 zone community separators. The Committee recommended Planning: R-1 Zone concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the City Code Title IV Community Separators (Development Regulations) amendment creating Urban Separator Overlay Regulations and amending the R-1 zone to require mandatory clustering of development outside of the contiguous open space mapped within the Urban Separator. The Committee also recommended that the minimum lot size for clustered development in the R-1 zone be changed to 10,000 square feet. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of February 14, 2005. Council concur. February 14, 2005 Vacation: 140th Ave SE, City Clerk reported receipt of$16,500 compensation paid by petitioner, as set Conner Homes,VAC-04-001 by Council on 10/25/2004, and recommended adoption of an ordinance to finalize the Conner Homes vacation of a portion of 140th Ave. SE, located between SE 132nd St. and SE 136th St.;VAC-04-001. Council concur. (See page 65 for ordinance.) CAG: 05-008,Lake City Clerk reported bid opening on 2/22/2005 for CAG-05-008,Lake Washington Blvd Slip Plane, Washington Blvd. Slip Plane; seven bids;engineer's estimate$436,860; and Northwest Cascade submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Northwest Cascade,Inc., in the amount of$440,000. Council concur. Court Case: Boeing Court Case filed on behalf of Boeing Employees Flying Association, Inc., by Employees Flying Association, Philip T. Mattern, Demco Law Firm,P.S., 5224 Wilson Ave. S., Suite 200, CRT-05-001 Seattle, 98118,regarding the removal of underground fuel tanks from leased property at the Renton Airport. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Community Services: 200 Mill Community Services Department recommended approval of the emergency Bldg,Emergency Repair of repair of two elevators located at the 200 Mill Building in the amount of Elevators $38,156.16. Council concur. Annexation: Wedgewood Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Lane, 144th Ave SE& 148th submitted 60%notice of intent to annex petition for the proposed Wedgewood Ave SE Lane Annexation, and recommended a public hearing be set on 3/14/2005 to consider the petition and future zoning; 35.68 acres located between 144th Ave. SE and 148th Ave. SE. Council concur. EDNSP: Renton Lodging Tax Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Advisory Committee recommended the appointment of Kim Hart,general manager of the Appointment TownePlaceSuites and SpringHill Suites by Marriott,to the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee to fill the vacancy left by Terry Godat. Council concur. Development Services: Legal Division recommended adoption of an ordinance that amends City Code Abandoned&Junk Vehicles, Chapter 6-1,Abandoned Vehicles,by adding definitions,expanding the scope City Code Amend of junk vehicles to include parts thereof, adding explanatory language, and criminalizing violations. Refer to Public Safety Committee. Municipal Court: Probation Municipal Court requested authorization to hire a Probation Officer at Step D Officer Hire at Step D of the salary range. Refer to Finance Committee. I -7 f7VED BY C iTi COUNCIL Date 02-a r- aDdS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT February 28, 2005 R-1 Zone Community Separators Referred December 6, 2004 The Planning & Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a Renton Municipal Code, Title IV amendment creating Urban Separator Overlay Regulations and amending the R 1 zone to require mandatory clustering of development outside of the Contiguous Open Space mapped within the Urban Separator. The Committee recommends that the minimum lot size for clustered development in the R-1 zone be changed to 10,000 square feet. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. • Da Clawson,Chair pai400 (A) Denis W. Law, Vice Chair *wit Marcie Palmer, Member cc: 'Jay 6ovingtnn Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Ytvei l Wa '.e R1ZoneCommSepVersion3.dod Rev 01/04 bh February 28,2005 Nine Renton City Council Minutes ""' Page 62 ADMINISTRATIVE Derek Todd, Assistant to the CAO,reviewed a written administrative report REPORT summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: * Carco Theatre will receive a$5,000 grant from 4Culture(formerly King County Arts Commission), which will be allocated toward this year's Summer Teen Musical Grease. * As part of Boeing's Move to the Lake effort, the sky bridge across Park Ave. N. was demolished on February 26th. Finance: Interim Administrator Mayor Keolker-Wheeler introduced Mike Wilson,the interim Finance and Introduction (Mike Wilson) Information Services Administrator,who indicated that during his 26-year tenure in city management,he has worked for a number of cities and counties including the cities of Bremerton, Sumner, and Gig Harbor. Mr.Wilson stated that he is looking forward to working at the City of Renton over the next several months. AUDIENCE COMMENT Andrew Duffus, 9605 143rd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, stated that Urban Citizen Comment: Duffus - Separator regulations have been the subject of an extensive public process. The R-1 Community Separators Planning Commission,City staff, and the Planning and Development Committee received public input on various aspects of the matter, and a solution has now been found. He indicated that support for the Urban Separator regulations is widespread, including those who want to develop their property and those who want to maintain the Urban Separator greenbelt. Mr. Duffus urged Council to approve the proposed regulations. Citizen Comment: Rollins - Jean Rollins, 9605 143rd Ave. SE,Renton, 98059,explained that the need for R-1 Community Separators the City Code amendment for Urban Separators arose because of the proposed Merritt II Annexation in May Valley. The King County Executive requested the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction on the annexation proposal due to a number of issues, including protection of the designated May Valley Urban Separator. Commending City staff and the Planning Commission for their hard work on the amendment,Ms. Rollins emphasized that the proposed regulations respect the development rights of property owners as well as the intent and environment of Urban Separators. She concluded by asking that the dilution of development incentives for the enhancement of the greenbelt to earn more lots be prohibited, and that the proposed regulations be approved. Citizen Comment: Rogers - Debra Rogers, 5326 NE 22nd Ct.,Renton, 98058,expressed her support for the R-1 Community Separators previous speakers'comments and her appreciation for the City's effort on the matter of the Urban Separators. She urged Council to approve the regulations. Citizen Comment: Noland- Dennis Noland, 14326 SE 100th P1.,Renton, 98059,reported that he lives R-1 Community Separators adjacent to the May Valley Urban Separator, and commended the Planning Commission for developing guidelines for the Urban Separators. He said the guidelines are respectful of the development rights of the property owners, are respectful of the intent of the Urban Separators, and address environmental concerns. Mr. Noland concluded by voicing his support for the proposed regulations. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO THE PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE R-1 ZONE COMMUNITY SEPARATORS. CARRIED. • © 0 POSi30, 200 MON 16:00 FAX 2062060370 ti[:C District Four 2001 0 King County • Ron Sims King County Executive RECEIVE AUG ' 0 2004 DISTF,ICT FO1J t KING COUNTY COUNCIL August 27, 2004 Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary Washington State Boundary Review Board of King County Yesler Building, Room 220 400 Yesler Way Seattle, WA, 98104 Dear Ms. Blauman: On July 13, 2004 the Office of Management and Budget received from your office the city of Renton's notice of intention to annex property located within the citv's East Renton Plateau potential annexation area. Based on a careful and deliberative review various county departments and agencies, the county believes that there are a number of - inherent concerns and issues with the proposal that if left unaddressed would likely rest„t in an annexation which does not further the interests of King County residents, does not meet the spirit of state and county growth management policy, and does not further the objectives of the Boundary Review Board. The 20.6 acre Merritt II annexation proposal is located in an area of urban unincorporatr :i King County that lies between the cities of Renton and Newcastle. The proposed annexation raises a number of significant concerns which include, but are not limited to 1. The cournty's continued ability to provide efficient local sei ic;;s in an urban unincorporated area fraught with in2egularmunicipal boandaries and relatively isolated between the cities of Renton and Newcastle: 2. Environmental and surface water management issues associkte.d with the May Valley corridor; 3. The application of appropriate zoning to protect the regionally designated May Valley urban separator; 4. Consistency with adopted plans and policies including the iiirc County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the King County Cotunt 'wide Planning Policies; and 5. Consistency with Boundary Review Board objectives. a A "d (f co ies with :he Antericatts with Dsabil iai:Act ttED'''°" *OW 4100 18730i 2004 I1ON 16:01 FAX 2062960370 ic( :.i Uihtrict'. Four ZI002 Len ,ra B]aurnan Aus ist 27, 2004 Pag 2 For hese reasons, I respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its juri: fiction and review the proposed action. I further request that a public hearing date be r. :Id in. this matter at the board's eat-Lies; convenience. A public hearin'2 will prnovidf the i ;Minty, aff ctCd citizens arid the city an oppoiii nit ` to review mid discuss, within t part i?et.:s of the Board's decision making process, the proposal in greater detail. Plea :e direct further communications regarding this matter to Mike Thomas, Senior Poli y Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, at 206-205-0720. Thank you for your: assistance in this matter. Sinc :rely, • CJA r{(Wt-- tqin; 0I1 �,County Exxe cutive cc: The Honorable Larry Phillips, Chair, .King County Council •r K, ti Triplett, Chief of Staff, King Counter Executive Office Steve Call, Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Mike Thomas, Senior Policy analyst, OMB Kevin Wright, Sr. Prosecuting Attorney, King County Prosecuting Attorneys 0Tce King County Interdepartmental Ar.ne,iation Group ACex Pietsch, Director, Neighborhoods, Strategic Planning and Economic Development. City of Renton King County Annexation Team ct _ g-- 6,14444-Attif, Nose Wore 01-17-0 From: Julia Medzegian To: Larry& Kathy Ice Date: Thu, Feb 17, 2005 7:38 AM Subject: Re: Urban Separators Dear Mr. & Mrs Ice; Thank you for your input. I will pass your comments along to all Councilmembers since this will be a vote that will come before the entire Council after the Planning & Development Committee makes its final recommendation. If I can assist you further, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Julia Medzegian Renton City Council Liaison 425-430-6555 jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us >>> Larry& Kathy Ice <icefamily@mac.com> 2/16/05 10:56:58 PM >>> Julia, Please forward copies of this letter to the following council members: Dan Clawson, Denis Law and Marcie Palmer. Thank you Kathy Ice • Esteemed Council Members, We strongly support the R-1 Zone Community Separators. The proposed guidelines are clearly stated, and fairly balanced between all who are affected: Clustering Tree clearing limits Dedicated contiguous open space Reforestation of that open space Public trails Please pass this legislation on to the full City Council for a vote, due process has more than been served and it is what the majority of the community wants. Thank you, Larry& Kathy Ice 5307 NE 23rd Court Renton, Wa 98059 CC: Citizens to Council Via Clerk From: Julia Medzegian To: Susan Slaton Date: Thu, Feb 17, 2005 7:35 AM Subject: Re: Urban Separators Dear Ms. Slaton, Thank you for your input. I will pass your comments along to all Councilmembers since this will be a vote that will come before the entire Council after the Planning & Development Committee makes its final recommendation. If I can assist you further, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Julia Medzegian Renton City Council Liaison 425-430-6555 jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us >>> "Susan Slaton" <sbslaton@comcast.net>2/16/05 8:29:14 PM >>> Dear Ms. Medzegian, As a resident of the Stonegate neighborhood in Renton, I am very interested in and concerned about Urban Separators. Unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting on Thursday, but would like to request that my citizen feedback be given to Councilmember Dan Clawson, Councilmember Denis Law and Councilmember Marcie Palmer. Thank you, Susan Slaton ******************** Dear Councilmember Dan Clawson, Councilmember Denis Law and Councilmember Marcie Palmer: My husband and I are residents in the Stonegate neighborhood in Renton and have been following the issue of Urban Separators with interest. From everything we understand on this issue, the proposed guidelines will create an environment that we all can enjoy and pass along to our children—open space for our citizens to enjoy while respecting the rights of property owners. We have been fortunate to experience fast growth in Renton, it is my husband's and my hope that we manage that growth wisely so that we can all enjoy what is around us, especially for our children. It seems as though after 11 public meetings, careful thought and deliberations have been made on this issue. It is our hope that the time has come for the recommendations to be passed through the Planning & Development Committee and on to the full Renton City Council. Respectfully Yours, Susan & Dan Slaton5511 NE 21 st CtRenton CC: Citizens to Council Via Clerk 00 7-65 From: Julia Medzegian To: jstribble@comcast.net Date: Thu, Feb 17, 2005 3:05 PM Subject: Re: urban seperators Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stribble; Thank you for your input. I will pass your comments along to all Councilmembers since this will be a vote that will come before the entire Council after the Planning & Development Committee makes its final recommendation. If I can assist you further, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Julia Medzegian Renton City Council Liaison 425-430-6555 jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us >>> <jstribble@comcast.net> 2/17/05 1:39:20 PM >>> Dear Ms. Medzegian,l am writing in support of the urban seperator proposal. I live in the Stonegate neighborhood of Renton and plan to keep my family there while our kids grow up. It is very important to my family to maintain our area's open spaces and natural habitats. We would like to support clustering of development, contiguous open spaces, public trails, and reforestation. We hope you do too.Thanks for your time,Stacy and John Tribble2106 Lyons Ave NERenton WA 98059425-227-7645Can you please forward a copy of my email to Councilmember Dan Clawson, Councilmember Denis Law and Councilmember Marcie Palmer. CC: Citizens to Council Via Clerk 9"q ��c9ytvrY,�: 07-17 05' From: Julia Medzegian To: Tamie Boydston Date: Thu, Feb 17, 2005 10:33 AM Subject: Re: Urban Seperator Issue Dear Ms. Boydston; Thank you for your input. I will pass your comments along to all Councilmembers since this will be a vote that will come before the entire Council after the Planning & Development Committee makes its final recommendation. If I can assist you further, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Julia Medzegian Renton City Council Liaison 425-430-6555 jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us >>> "Tamie Boydston" <tamieb@exchange.microsoft.com>2/17/05 10:22:02 AM >>> I am sending this email to you in regards to the Urban Separator issue. My family lives in the Stonegate development off of May Valley.As you well know the May Valley area is a spectacular natural wilderness filled with abundant wildlife. As development begins to grow I hope you consider the Urban Separator issue with much importance. I am very fortunate to live with a greenbelt located in my backyard.Just last year,this greenbelt area has allowed two motherless young deer to find shelter and grow up unharmed, vegetation for numerous bird nests and wild rabbits to have homes. We must preserve our natural resources as we develop the land. Private developers will want to move forward building and making the ever important dollar by clear cutting every inch possible. However I am hopeful we can have development as well as limiting tree clearing, have clustering, public trails, reforestations of open space and dedicated contiguous open space.The Urban Separator proposes guidelines that are respectful for the development of the land and environment. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely Tamie Boydston2508 Lyons Avenue N.E.Newcastle, WA 98059(425)277-6697 Can you please hand off a copy of my email to Councilmember Dan Clawson, Councilmember Denis Law and Councilmember Marcie Palmer. CC: Citizens to Council Via Clerk; Debra Rogers v `` C OY%WeL From: Julia Medzegian To: Susan Oki Date: Thu, Feb 17, 2005 10:32 AM Subject: Re: FW: Urban Separator Recommendations Dear Ms. Oki; Thank you for your input. I will pass your comments along to all Councilmembers since this will be a vote that will come before the entire Council after the Planning & Development Committee makes its final recommendation. If I can assist you further, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Julia Medzegian Renton City Council Liaison 425-430-6555 jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us >>> "Susan Oki"<susan@innovativecookies.com>2/17/05 9:07:47 AM >>> Original Message From: Susan Oki [mailto:susan@innovativecookies.com] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:03 AM To: 'jmedzegian@ci.ernton.wa.us' Cc: 'rlind@ci.renton.wa.us' Subject: Urban Separator Recommendations • Please pass the following messsage to: Councilmembers Dan Clawson, Denis Law and Marice Palmer February 17, 2005 Dear Councilmembers: We are residents of the Stonegate Development in Renton.We have been kept apprised of the Planning and Development Committee's recommendations regarding Urban Separators through our development's representative in this matter, Debra Rogers. A number of public hearings on this matter have already been held (11 to date, I believe). These hearings have indicated that there is strong resident support for approval of the Urban Separation recommendations in particular, to set aside a minimum of 50%of the area encompassing our community for contiguous open space. In addition, these recommendations include specific provisions for clustering of development, tree clearing limits, reforestation of open space and public trails. These recommendations will have a long-term impact on the quality of life of this region. Your leadership in this matter will affect the environmental quality of our community for years to come. In addition, these recommendations will reduce the amount of surface water runoff and pollutants which in turn,will reduce the long-term cost of road, ditch, culvert and retention/detention facility maintenance. This cost reduction will be of direct benefit to taxpayers. We became very concerned when we heard that there is a possibility that *NW '411109 certain private developer interests were going to"weigh in"with Council Members and staff at the last minute, in spite of their lack of visibility at previous public hearings. I hope that you will seriously consider that the concerned citizens in this matter have spoken very clearly in support of the Urban Separator recommendations. Please do not give in to special interests who are concerned about their own monetary gain. We are unable to attend the Council Meeting today due to work commitments. Nonetheless,we strongly urge you to vote in favor of the Urban Separator recommendations approved by the Planning and Development Committee. Sincerely, Robert and Susan Oki 2406 Lyons Ave. N.E. Renton,WA 98059 425-531-1138 CC: Citizens to Council Via Clerk P 01 -- RECEIVED C.CT1''�� -' 2/ 7/ Jean Rollins 4 � � 9605 143rd Ave SE FEB 1 Renton, Wa 98059 Renton City Council February 13, 2005 Planning& Development Committee: Councilmember Dan Clawson Councilmember Dennis Law Councilmember Marcie Palmer City of Renton 1055 Grady Way South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Urban Separator Regulations Dear Committee Members: The February 10, 2005 Planning & Development meeting was the 5th time the R-1 Zone Community Separator was on your agenda. The first meeting was February 19, 2004. There have been 5 Planning Commission meetings over last 4 months. There has also been a public hearing before full Council. The City has heard from a lot of folks via letters, testimony and emails. 1 ask you to review that correspondence. As many people work during the daytime they can not attend a PDC meeting. The overwhelming majority want a better greenbelt. Alex Pietsch related to me more input has been received on these urban separator regulations than for the Boeing properties. A lot of support has been received from the community at large, those who live in urban separators and developers. The planners have made accommodations for all ideas received. Throughout this whole open through process details have been worked out. Net density has been part of the City of Renton's code since 1993. Net density reflects the wishes of Renton's council and its citizens on real estate development . Whether or not property owners realized, Renton uses net density. It is a reality. Several property owners initiated the annexation to the City of Renton. Soon they will be governed by the City. They chose to annex, and to abide by Renton development regulations which are net density. These urban separator regulations we have worked on in l 1 meetings, are a compromise. The bonus criteria is a trade off for more lots; P 02 err✓ °...r something beyond net density. To get more lots, developers have to give something i.e. the incentives to enhance the greenbelt. These regulations are a win-win situation. 'Those who wish to subdivide get more lots, and the greenbelt gets some improvements. Do not dilute the incentives to earn more lots. I urge the Planning & Development Committee to move forward with the compromise and recommend these win-win regulations. Sincerely, J/& /(IAA e T1 Rollins :\pes mo/wurdiwiuwi 1021405 1 Sent By: LeSourd & Patten; 206-223-1099; Feb-17-05 11 :27AM; Page 1 /1 L e 1z.,/, m,1-,5' RECEIVED FEB 17 2005 Renton City Council February 17, 2005 Planning & Development Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Re: R-1 Zone Community Separators Thank you for your notice of today's Planning & Development Committee meeting. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend. I would like to take the opportunity, however, to again express my support of Rebecca Lind and staff's recommendations regarding the R-1 Zone Community Separators. Thank you for your consideration. J. Bonwell 9616 146th Avenue SE Renton, Washington 98059 P 01 RECEIVED A to 7/.7 6t;5 Jean Rollins 9605 143rd Ave SE FEB 14 2005 Renton, Wa 98059 Renton City Council February 13, 2005 Planning&Development Committee: Councilmember Dan Clawson Councilmember Dennis Law Councilmember Marcie Palmer City of Renton 1055 Grady Way South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Urban Separator Regulations Dear Committee Members: The February 10, 2005 Planning & Development meeting was the 5th time the R-1 Zone Community Separator was on your agenda. The first meeting was February 19, 2004. There have been 5 Planning Commission meetings over last 4 months. There has also been a public hearing before full Council. The City has heard from a lot of folks via letters, testimony and emails. I ask you to review that correspondence. As many people work during the daytime they can not attend a PDC meeting. The overwhelming majority want a better greenbelt. Alex Pietsch related to me more input has been received on these urban separator regulations than for the Boeing properties. A lot of support has been received from the community at large, those who live in urban separators and developers. The planners have made accommodations for all ideas received. Throughout this whole open through process details have been worked out. Net density has been part of the City of Renton's code since 1993. Net density reflects the wishes of Renton's council and its citizens on real estate development . Whether or not property owners realized, Renton uses net density. It is a reality. Several property owners initiated the annexation to the City of Renton. Soon they will be governed by the City. They chose to annex, and to abide by Renton development regulations which are net density. These urban separator regulations we have worked on in 11 meetings, are a compromise. The bonus criteria is a trade off for more lots; P 02 yr„ ,�" something beyond net density. To get more lots, developers have to give something i.e. the incentives to enhance the greenbelt. These regulations are a win-win situation. Those who wish to subdivide get more lots, and the greenbelt gets some improvements. Do not dilute the incentives to earn more lots. I urge the Planning & Development Committee to move forward with the compromise and recommend these win-win regulations. Sincerely, T1 Rollins _\rn yuno/wunUwinwii 021405 Pitiivy,012 .127 L fTu2,A_,t- �.. •EC ED FEB 16 2005 Renton City Council February 15, 2005 Dan Clawson Renton City Council City of Renton Planning Committee Re: Urban Separators Dear Mr. Clawson: Thank you for allowing public attendance at the City of Renton Planning Committee meetings. I attended the meeting this past Thursday. It is my understanding that these meetings are not public hearings. Because of this understanding, I feel there were several of us attending the meeting who, as members of the public and interested parties, would have liked the opportunity to speak but did not. Speaking for myself, I did not jump into the conversation,as some members of the public did,in order to honor the advertised format of the meeting. If the public is going to be allowed input at these meetings, I feel all should be offered the opportunity to speak. I also feel that the length of comments should be limited to allow this to occur in the time allotted for the meeting and that everyone should be offered the opportunity to speak before being given a second opportunity to speak. These are my personal feelings and just a suggestion that I hope you do not feel is out of line. Unfortunately, due to work commitments, I will not be able to attend this Thursday's meeting. I have lived adjacent to the May Valley Urban Separator for twenty-five years and feel that it is an area that deserves the special consideration being accorded it by the Planning Commission.Attached are my comments,that if able to speak at the Planning Committee meeting, I would have liked to share. Thank you. Sincerely, Dennis E.Noland 14326 S.E. 100th Place Renton, WA 98059 425-226-7946 CC; Pe./),ecca, to n a- NOW' .11110' February 15, 2005 Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee: Re: 4-3-110 Urban Separator Overlay Regulations I would like to express my support for the work of the City of Renton Planning Commission in developing guidelines for Urban Separators that are respectful of the development rights of property owners and that are sensitive and respectful of the intent of Urban Separators as well as the environmental concerns such as surface water runoff, open space preservation, fish and wildlife,and the visual and aesthetic value of the Urban Separator. Specifically, I commend the Planning Commission's work to define mandatory clustering, limits on clearing, replanting of vegetation, and dedicated contiguous open space in a manner that is workable for those wishing to develop their properties and addressing as well as the concerns for the preservation of the unique character of the area defined as the Urban Separator. The work of the Planning Commission has.been thorough and thoughtful. Therefore, I support a motion by the Planning and Development Committee to move these Urban Separator Overlay Regulations to the City Council with a recommendation for the City Council to approve and enact the proposed new City of Renton code creating an overlay district for Urban Separators. Sincerely, ennis Noland 14326 S.E. 100th Place Renton, WA 98059 425-226-7946 ' AOnin Vetopal-ems . . T tc3c- ...... N.....,,e. kte e. L110)/o00 Proposed New City of Renton Code Creating an Overlay District Amendments Responding to: 1) Planning and Development Committee,2)Public Comment,3)In House Staff Comments,and 4)Planning Commission recommendations (shown in bold) February 10, 2005 4-3-110 Urban Separator Overlay Regulations A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to implement the Urban Separators policies in the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The intent is to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities,define Renton's boundaries and create contiguous open space corridors within and between urban communities, which provide environmental, visual,recreational and wildlife benefits. Urban Separators shall be permanent low-density lands, that protect resources and environmentally sensitive areas. B. Applicability: This section shall apply to subdivisions and building permits on lands within designated Urban Separators as shown in the Urban Separators Maps. C. Urban Separators Maps 1. May Valley Urban Separator memo in, CY _c 100.10. Por Itilit Aiheaft d iiire_ _ -- .."vl1ey Rd III 1111ig.416's - - _ _ IiiiireiitliftisiZC iMI `'th CtNEE L a Ichill .tiffari 111611111 iIi; r111e111il lkL'1L'nORIPIEST lam' i°lit m■ May Valley Urban Separator Overlay ® Contiguous Open Space g u.=r �m.e,.....,., — Urban Separator Boundary -1- H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\Urban Separator Overlay9 Feb-10.doc 2. Talbot Urban Separator SW41stS{� I eII• IIVEf` �0-® rA 1111A.RIR ill. 'Ala II . � �w1111111ff . flak at W111.10 , a. I i tol /411. 7r _ 16 % ,4314 n o m ist,All .......virlimill 1/1111/7,4r ''... Wg41,730; in ii tiiil�li:111i1� ■idt'ili,.ti11 ■snl��m "7 r ia3 $ram.ill amrwR ��'� a VIA sA��, ,.1 Illllr _ '1 i a will `e i! =eti �' _ii 'rillfilL� f B"� r�®� .1 ...NIBI `� E e�f8 i � mil♦ ,- A t�11 aaaas,i...... Whi isi "rm.. ''''''''. 'c' l' S MI St \ NM 6% 'MUM,— .. it-liirvitilii• flit.11-.---iiim !NE Ilan Plly eti tiv ► r1Ma.1 lim=1 mi 1111 Mem 0121 Milli_ ) !TA .)6, 11 3 , imp ii Euard9lin� .= �c , Moira �ti Ii11hi _ai sif! la Aid �� me LiWAI i.. MU 0. so IMME �r ��'i. vp� � ".t a:w:-. ie®fl��® :g-i'ritsrN:1a6•.■.... wl g''a�v�sru' mu11� 'I� w l�a�.al� 111ra� Il■ iia eel! -.I is: ix, \ Mgrim _ rilgi®ei i talri 1111 ae�� IQR�� L 1�.■ 1 III a6® ■ ��i,i2: Ri sow .eirir 0AWi. M a ®lid 1 ttb� EAI I q6 I . � 119 A .s. �il1 rep 111l iei yea 'ems s (. \®11s irP44, f-1 t tli-NF-f i Talbot Urban Separator • Eoaoodic Detelopi it,Neishbodwa k&Strowie clan Rental City.Ul s F * al.t e`o Urban separat Boundary w. 'f a:tm 'jpga 290 mber2004 D. Administration: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to Urban Separator Regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. -2- H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\Urban Separator Overlay9 Feb-10.doc 2. Authority: The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve with conditions, or deny proposals based on the provisions of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. E. Urban Separator Overlay Regulations 1. Contiguous Open Space Corridor Established. A designated contiguous open space corridor is established as shown on the Urban Separators Overlay Map in Section 4-3-110J. 2. Dedication of Open Space Required. a. Approval of a plat, and/or building permit on an undeveloped legal lot in the Urban Separator Overlay shall require dedication of 50% of the gross land area of the parcel or parcels included in the land use action as a non-revocable open space tract retained by property owner, or dedicated to a homeowners association or other suitable organization as determined by the Reviewing Official. Acreage in tracts may include critical areas and/or critical area buffers. b. Existing residences,existing accessory uses and structures, and existing above ground utilities located in the tract at the time of designation shall not count toward the 50% gross land area calculation except for un-fenced stormwater ponds enhanced per techniques and landscape requirements set forth in the publication the"Integrated Pond"King County Land and Water Resources Division. c. Approval of a building permit for an addition of 300 square feet for primary use structure or 500 square feet for an accessory structure,shall require dedication of a conservation easement,protective easement or tract and deed restriction pursuant to Section 4-3-050G. Native Growth Protection Areas,on critical areas and critical area buffers located within the Contiguous Open Space Corridor. d. Land dedicated, as open space, shall be located within the mapped Contiguous I Open Space Corridor unless a modification is approved pursuant to Section 4- 3-110B6. 3. Uses Allowed In Contiguous Open Space a. Passive Recreation with no development of active recreation facilities b. Natural surface pedestrian and-equestfian trails c. Animal husbandry (small-,medium and large)provided that fencing is subject to the conditions in 4-3-110 3.g. d. Existing residences and accessory uses and structures e. Undefgfeund Small, and medium utilities and large underground utilities) f. Access Easements. -3- H:\EDNSP\Tit1e IV\R-1 Clustering\Urban Separator Overlay9 Feb-10.doc 44110 (1) Utilities easements and emergency service access roads may be located within Contiguous Open Space Corridors for the limited purpose of providing service to parcels platted after March 2005, for which there is no practical alternative way to provide service. Utilities and emergency service easements shall be developed with permeable surface treatment. (2) Private access easements for ingress and egress may be located within Contiguous Open Space in the limited instance where there is no alternative access to a pre-existing legal lot, but shall not serve lots platted after March 2005. g. Fencing or similar structures and/or hedges or similar landscape features on portions of properties abutting and within the Contiguous Open Space Corridor shall not create a solid barrier. Where required to protect wetlands pursuant to Section 4-3-050M.7.c.,fencing shall be the minimum necessary. 4. Uses in Portions of the Urban Separator Outside the Established Contiguous Open Space Corridor a. Uses shall be consistent with Section 4-2-060 and 4-2-070B. Residential-1 Zone, one dwelling unit per net acre. b. Development shall be clustered outside the Contiguous Open Space Corridor mapped in 2-3-110J. 5. Standards Within Entire Urban Separator a. Forest/vegetation clearing shall be limited to a maximum of 35% of the gross acreage of the site except: (1) The percentage of forest/vegetation coverage may be increased to qualify for the density bonus allowed in Section 4-2-110D. (2) The Reviewing Official may modify the percentage of forest/vegetation retention if determined necessary to meet the surface water retention/detention standards of Section 4-3-110E.7. b. If the existing cleared area of a site,as of March X,2005 is greater than 35%,approval of a plat shall require re-planting of forest/vegetative cover. c. Forest/vegetation cover may include a combination of Northwest native vegetation including conifer, deciduous trees and shrubs sufficient to provide water retention and erosion control functions, as determined appropriate by the Reviewing Official. The Reviewing Official shall determine whether existing vegetation provides functions to meet forest/vegetation coverage standards, and shall require additional plantings,if existing vegetation is found to be insufficient. d Stormwater management shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 flow control standards. -4- H:\EDNSP\Title MR-1 Clustering\Urban Separator Overlay9 Feb-10.doc e Private access easements and improvements shall be established at the minimum standard needed to meet public safety requirements. f Landscape plans required in Section 4-4-070 shall include retention/re- planting plans as applicable,consistent with standards and plant lists in King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Publication"Going Native." 6. Modification of Mapped Contiguous Open Space: The Reviewing Official may modify the open space configuration where: a. Site specific data confirms that the adopted Contiguous Open Space Corridor map includes more than the required gross area for any parcel, or b. The applicant can demonstrate a configuration of contiguous open space that provides better or equal provision of the open space requirement. At a minimum, open space shall be connected to another contiguous open space parcel by a fifty (50')foot corridor. Modifications to the Contiguous Open Space Corridor shall be re-mapped during the City's annual Title IV review process. Proposed Definition Open space, contiguous, Urban Separator:Land permanently set aside as open space located in recorded tracts. Contiguous open space lands may include critical areas, such as wetlands and steep slopes, and wetland buffers, as well as stormwater ponds enhanced per the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Resources Division. Cross references to Other Sections of City Code Section 4-4-040 B. Fences and Hedges,Applicability Fences, and hedges within the Urban Separator Overlay are also subject to requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations(see Section 4-3-110). Section 4-4-130 C. Allowable Tree Cutting Activities Tree cutting and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows,except as provided in subsection D2 of this Section,restrictions for Critical Areas, and in Section 4-3-110E. 5.b. Urban Separator Overlay Regulations (section text continues) Section 4-6-030F.Drainage Plan Design Criteria Drafting Standards and Contents The drainage plan shall be prepared in conformance with the Department's construction plan drafting standards and contents,the City's Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction and Standard Detail documents, and the design criteria, construction materials,practices and standard details contained in chapters 3,4, and 5 of the current King County Surface water design manual;provided that the Department's standards and design criteria will take precedent and prevail in any interpretation of conflicting contradictory standards and design criteria, and provided that within designated Urban Separators regulated in Section 4-4-110 the 2005 King -5- H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\Urban Separator Overlay9 Feb-10.doc County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 flow control standards are required. -6- H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\Urban Separator Overlay9 Feb-10.doc 4-2-110D To be amended by the following changes Amended February 410. 2005 in Response to Planning and Development Committee public comments and In house Staff Review 4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 1. a. Phasing, shadow platting,or land required„—�jeuoe,consistent with reserves may be used to satisfy the the provision of Section 4-3-110,Urban minimum density requirements if Separator Overlay the applicant can demonstrate that Regulations.feliewing-stanclafdsi. the current development would not preclude the provision of adequate a. Clustef-elevelepments-shall access and infrastructure to future development and would allow for 6 lots in one cluster. the eventual satisfaction of minimum density requirements a. The maximum net density through future development. requirement shall not be exceeded except within Urban Separators a b. In the event the applicant can show density bonus may be granted that the minimum density cannot be allowing the total density to achieve achieved due to lot configuration, one dwelling unit per gross acre for lack of access,environmental or projects that meet the following physical constraints,minimum criteria. density requirements may be waived i. Provision of native vegetation by the Reviewing Official. cover on 65%of the gross land 2_2—Use-related provisions are not area including both the area variable. Use-related provisions that are within and outside the open not eligible for a variance include: space corridor with either building size,units per structure/lot,or existing or new vegetative densities. Unless bonus size or density cover,and at least one of the following additional criteria. provisions are specifically authorized, the modification of building size,units a) Enhancement of wetlands is per structure,or densities requires a legislative change in the code provisions provided at a ratio of one- and/or a Comprehensive Plan half acre enhanced for one amendment/rezone. acre delineated within the Urban Separator pursuant to Section 4-3-050M 12b. 3. Clustering n beis allowed to meet Evaluation Criteria,and objectives such as preserving significant Section s Chos 4-3-050M 12.c. natural features,providing Wetlands Chosen for Enhancement.Enhancement neighborhood open space,or facilitating proposed for a density the provision of sewer service. Within bonus may not also be used designated urban separators clustering is H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 DRevised2-10.docH:\EDNSP\Title IV\R I Clustering\1 2 110 DRevised3 -1- N for a mitigation for other the finished grade may project to any wetland alterations. property line. Uncovered steps and b) Legal non-conforming uses decks having no roof covering and are removed from the site not exceeding 42"high may be built and/or brought into within the front yard setback. conformance with Renton standards. d. Eaves: Eaves and cornices may c) Natural surface pedestrian project up to 24"into any required and/or eques -trails,with setback. public access, areprovided 5. In order to be considered detached,a as part of an adopted trail structure must be sited a minimum of 6' system or, where there is no from any residential structure. planned trail system,in a 6. A front yard setback of less than 20' is configuration approved by allowed if equal to or greater than the the Reviewing Official. average of the front yard setback of the d) In the absence of either existing, abutting primary structures; wetlands or legal non- however, in no case shall a minimum conforming uses on the site, setback of less than 20' be allowed for public access and trails shall garages which access from the front be required to the yard street(s). satisfaction of. the 7. For pre-existing legal lots having less Reviewing Official. 1 3 than the minimum lot width required by -1-10 this Section,the following chart shall b. The area of individual lots shall not apply for determining the required minimum side yard width along a street: be less than 1,50010,000 sq. ft. d.Except for density, the remaining WIDTH OF MINIMUM EXISTING SIDE YARD LEGAL LOT WIDTH Zone--)-shall-apply ALONG A STREET c RC ZONE 150 feet or less 25 ft. 4. Allowed Projections into Setbacks: R-1 ZONE Less than or equal 10 ft. a. Fireplace Structures,Windows: to 50 ft. Fireplace structures,bay or garden 50.1 to 51 ft. 11 ft. windows,enclosed stair landings, 51.1 to 52 ft. 12 ft. and similar structures as Zoning 52.1 to 53 ft. 13 ft. Administrator may project 24"into 53.1 to 54 ft. 14 ft. any setback;provided, such 54.1 to 55 ft. 15 ft. projections are: 55.1 to 56 ft. 16 ft. (i.) Limited to 2 per façade. 56.1 to 57 ft. 17 ft. (ii.) Not wider than 10'. 57.1 to 58 ft. 18 ft. 58.1 to 59 ft. 19 ft. b. Fences: See RMC 4-4-040. 59.1ft. and greater 19 ft. R-4 or R-8 ZONE c. Steps and Decks: Uncovered steps Less than or equal 10 ft. and decks not exceeding 18"above to 50 ft. 50.1 to 52 ft. 11 ft. H:\EDNSP\Titie 1V\R-.l Clusterine\4-2-110 DRevised2-10.docHAEDNSP\Title 1V1R 1 Clustering\•t 2 110 DRcvised2 I ?Ales -2- 52.1 to 54 ft. 12 ft. 8 zone when at least 30%of the site is 54.1 to 56 ft. 13 ft. permanently set aside as "significant 56.1 to 58 ft. 14 ft. open space." Such open space shall be 58.1 ft. or greater 15 ft. situated to act as a visual buffer between small lot clusters and other development However,in no case shall a structure in the zone. The percentage of open over 42"in height intrude into the 20' space required may be reduced by the clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- reviewing official to 20%of the site 030. when: 8. In no case shall building height exceed a) Public access is provided to open the maximum allowed by the Airport space= Related Height and Use Restrictions,for uses located within the Federal Aviation b) Soft surface trails are provided Administration Airport Zones within wetland buffers,and designated under RMC 4-3-020. 9. "Public Suffix"(P)properties are c) Store water ponds are designed allowed the following height bonus: to eliminate engineered slopes Publicly owned structures shall be requiring fencing and enhanced to permitted an additional 15' in height allow passive and/or active above that otherwise permitted in the recreation. zone if "pitched roofs,"as defined herein,are used for at least 60% or more of the roof surface of both primary and 11. a) Lot size width and depth may be accessory structures. In addition,the reduced by the reviewing official when, height of a publicly owned structure due to lot configuration or access,4- may be increased as follows,up to a dwelling units per net acre cannot be maximum height of 75' to the highest achieved. The reduction shall be the point of the building: minimum needed to allow 4-dwelling units per net acre and shall be limited to a. When abutting a public street, 1 the following minimum dimensions: additional foot of height for each additional 1-1/2' of perimeter Lot size -7,200 sq.ft building setback beyond the Lot depth—70 feet minimum street setback required; Lot width -60 feet and/or 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose b. When abutting a common property of achieving maximum density,setbacks line, 1 additional foot of height for may also be reduced. Setback reductions each additional 2' of shall be limited to the following: perimeter building setback beyond the minimum required along a Front—20 feet. common property line. Side yard along a street—15 feet primary structure,20 feet attached 10. In order to serve as a transition between garage with access from the side yard. the lower density R-4 zone and the Minimum side yard combined setback— higher density R-8 zone"small lot 15 feet. clusters"of up to a maximum of 50 lots Minimum for one yard—5 feet. shall be allowed within 600 feet of an R- H:\EDNSP1Title IV\R-1 Clustering\1-2-110 DRevised2-10.docH:1EDNSP\Titic IV\R 1 Clustoringl4-3 1-10 DRevis d2 I 7:dee -3- 13. For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to Nov. 10,2004, and for the Mosier II,Maplewood East and Anthone,the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within 5 years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum Density-5 dwelling units per net acre Minimum Lot Size-7,200 sq. ft Minimum Lot Width-60 feet for interior lots,70 feet for corner lots Minimum Lot Depth-70 feet Minimum Front Yard- 15 feet for the primary structure,20 feet for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage,the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right of way or alley. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street- 15 feet Minimum Side Yard-5 feet (Amd.Ord.4963,5-13-2002) H:\EDNSP\Title 1V\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 DRevised2-10.docH:\EDNSP\Titic 1V\R 1 Clustering\1 2 110 DRcvised2 I 7.doc -4- 'r✓ R-1 Cluster bookie Amendment Draft November 3,2004 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) RC R-1 R-4 R-8 Minimum None None None 4 dwelling units Housing Density per net acre1,2 for proposed short plats or subdivisions Maximum 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit per 4 dwelling units 8 dwelling units Housing Density2 per 10 net 1 net acre except per 1 net acre per 1 net acre acres that in designated Urban Separators, density of up to 1 unit per gross acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC 4-3-110 Urban Separator Overla . Maximum 1 dwelling with 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit Number per legal 1 accessory lot' unit V3.3-.$ . � Aa t :� .�x! �,... s .. .«: .Er X ritz 93 .t" vim* _ wr.:4�4.=r " '`' • Minimum Lot 10 acres 1 acre 8,000 sq.ft. .s 4,500 sq. ft.for Size for lots 4 5gg10,000 sq. except where parcels greater created after ft.for cluster small lot 10 than 1 acre. November 10, 3 clusters are 2004 development allowed, R-8 5,000 sq. ft.for standards shall parcels 1 acre or apply. less. Minimum Lot 150 ft.for 75 ft.for interior 70 ft.for interior 50 ft.for interior Width for lots interior lots. lots. lots. 80 ft.for lots. created after corner lots.11•t3 November 10, 175 ft.for 85 ft.for corner except where 60 ft.for corner 2004 corner lots. lots. small lot lots clusters10 are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply. Minimum Lot 200 ft. 85 ft. 80 ft.11'13except 65 ft. Depth for lots where small lot created after clusters10 are November 10, allowed, R-8 2004 standards shall apply. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E.4-2-110 A.revised2-10doc.doc 1 Clustering\E.4 2 110 A.docLast printed 2/10/2005 11:56 AM4-14-3/2004-3:`5-PMPage 1 of 5 /411.0 R-1 Clusterle Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 E B Minimum Front 30 ft.b 30 ft.b 30 ft.' '"except - 15 ft.for primary Yard where small lot structure. clusters10 are allowed, R-8 20 ft.for attached standards shall garages accessed apply. from front or side Unit with Alley yard street. Access Unit with Alley Garage: The Access Garage: front yard set- The front yard back of the set-back of the primary primary structure structure may may be reduced be reduced to to 10 ft. if all 20 ft. if all parking is parking is provided in the provided in the rear yard of the lot rear yard of the with access from lot with access a public right-of- from a public way or alley.6 right-of-way or alley.6 Minimum Side 30 ft.' 20 ft.' 20 ft:`'13 except 15 ft.'for the Yard Along a where small lot primary structure Street clusters10 are and 20 ft.for the allowed, 15 ft. is attached garages allowed. which access from the front and side yard along a street. Minimum Side 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined 5 ft. Yard ft.12,13 are allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard, except where small lot clusters 10 are allowed,5 ft. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E.4-2-110 A.revised2-lodoc.docH:\EDNSP\Titic IV\R 1 Clustering-W. 4 2 110 I A.docLast printed 2/10/2005 11:56 AiM11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 2 of 5 Nor" R-1 Cluster Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SET =,/ 4 (Continued) Minimum Rear 35 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. Yard Where small lot clusters10 are allowed, 20 ft. Clear Vision Area In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall a a structure over a structure over a structure over structure over 42 42 in. in height 42 in. in height 42 in. in height in. in height intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the 20 ft.clear 20 ft.clear 20 ft.clear 20 ft.clear vision vision area vision area vision area area defined in defined in RMC defined in RMC defined in RMC RMC 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. Minimum 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. landscaped Freeway landscaped landscaped landscaped setback from the Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the street property street property street property street property line. line. line. line. aaNa Maximum 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 Building Height ft. ft. ft. for standard ft. and Number of roof. Stories,except for uses having a 2 stories and 35 "Public Suffix"(P) ft.for roofs designation9 having a pitch greater than 3/12. Maximum Height See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- for Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities H:\EDNSP\Title IV1R-1 Clustering\E.4-2-110 A.revised2-10doc.docH:\EDNSP\Title IV1R 1 Clu tering`E. •' 2 1 10 I A.decLast printed 2/10/2005 11:56 AM1 t/31200 �:25 PMPage 3 of 5 1110 R-1 Clusterrle Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 .'YR-4 R-8 �i Y'b <y Di;',.7; W (C s ? /Y1'` t A ;` .$5 c 5 4 k �t 11 # q! kC '=,'1; ' :anFxC Maximum Lots 5 acres or 35%. Lots greater Lots 5,000 sq.ft. Building more: 2%. An than 5,000 sq. or greater: 35% Coverage additional 5%of ft.: 35%or or 2,500 sq.ft., (Including primary the total area 2,500 sq.IL, whichever is and accessory may be used for whichever is greater. buildings) agricultural greater. buildings. Lots less than Lots 10,000 sq. Lots 5,000 sq. 5,000 sq.ft.: ft.to 5 acres: ft. or less:50% 50%. 15%. On lots greater than 1 acre, an additional 5%of the total area may be used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq. ft. or less: 35%. Vertical Façade All dwelling units Modulation shall provide vertical façade modulation at least every twenty horizontal feet (20'), including front, side and rear façades when visible from a street. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 C.lustering\E.4-2-110 A.revised2-10doc.docH:\EDNSP\Titic IV\R 1 C.iustering\\E..,. "—T 2 110 I A.docLast printed 2/10/2005 11:56 AM11/3/2001 3:25 PMPage 4 of 5 • %so. R-1 Cluster ode Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 tDSCAPI.NE AND O` er_.. C. Minimum Off- 5 ft.wide irrigated 5 ft.wide irrigated Site or drought or drought Landscaping resistant resistant Abutting Non- landscape strip landscape strip Arterial Public provided that if provided that if Streets for Plats there is additional there is additional and Short Plants undeveloped right undeveloped right Submitted on or of way in excess of way in excess after November of 5 ft,this shall of 5 ft,this shall 10,2004 also be also be landscaped. landscaped. Minimum Off- 10 ft. wide 10 ft. wide Site irrigated or irrigated or Landscaping drought resistant drought resistant Abutting landscape strip landscape strip Principal, provided that if provided that if Minor and there is additional there is additional Collector undeveloped right undeveloped right Arterial Streets of way in excess of way in excess for Plats and of 10 ft.,this shall of 10 ft., this shall Short Plants also be also be Submitted on or landscaped, landscaped, after November unless otherwise unless otherwise 10,2004 determined by the determined by reviewing official the reviewing during the official during the subdivision subdivision process. process. Minimum On or At least two(2) At least two(2) Off-Site Street trees of a City- trees of a City- Tree approved species approved species Requirements with a minimum with a minimum for Plats and caliper of 1 Y2"per caliper of 1 %" Short Plants tree shall be per tree shall be Submitted on or planted in the planted in the after November front yard or front yard or 10,2004 planting strip of planting strip of every lot prior to every lot prior to occupancy. occupancy. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E.4-2-110 A.revised2-10doc.docH:\EDNSP\Tide IV\R 1 Clustering\E. 4 2 110 AdocLast printed 2/10/2005 11:56 AM age 5 of 5 Poky From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: Gwendolyn High Date: Tue, Feb 8, 2005 2:19 PM Subject: Re: FW: urban separators Dear Ms. High: Thank you for your email to the Renton City Council. Copy is being forwarded to all Councilmembers for review. The R-1 Zone Community Separators issue is currently under review by the Planning and Development Committee of Council. The Committee will be meeting on this subject this Thursday, February 10, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room of City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way. This will be a working meeting of the Committee and not a public hearing. The meeting, however, is open for the public to attend if so desired. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "Gwendolyn High" <ghigh@hotmail.com> 2/8/2005 9:02:07 AM >>> I am writing to support the recent recommendations of the Renton Planning Commission for the May Valley Urban Separator including: • 50%contiguous open space • Provisions for reforestation and trails. I.E. a greenbelt. • development to be clustered outside the contiguous open space corridor. The Urban Separator is important to our quality of life. It will be a legacy that we can be proud of for the rest of our lives. Adoption of an ordinance to preserve this vital and precious area sends a clear and much appreciated signal to the residents of the East Renton Plateau PAA as we consider the choice of local governance that is pressing us due to King County's Annexation Initiative. I have been an active representative of this community for over 3 years as a former member of the Four Creeks UAC and as the President of Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell. The foresight that Renton has demonstrated with last year's Comprehensive Plan Update and the density/development design provisions therein have had an enormous impact on the local attitude toward Renton. I most strongly encourage the continuation of Renton's efforts to plan wisely. Thank you for your time and consideration, Gwendolyn High CARE president PIS Nor "mow From: Daniel Clawson To: larryphillips@metrokc.gov Date: Sun, Feb 6, 2005 8:39 PM Subject: Zoning in Urban Separator Annexation Areas Larry, I just reviewed your December 3 letter recommending 50%open space for Renton's urban separators. We are still working on details. The Planning and Development Committee, of which I am chair, has decided to recommend to the full Council that we maintain the 50% limit while trying to tie the open spaces together to be more usable for wildlife. We have been working closely with property owners to come up with a solution that is perceived as fair while achieving the goal of preserving open space. Thanks you for your comments. Dan Clawson Renton City Council Chair, Planning & Development Committee CC: council@ci.renton.wa.us,rlind@ci.renton.wa.us February 7,2005 N.✓ Renton City Council Minutes r..r Page 43 Lease: Bruce J Leven Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an addendum to the Addendum#7,Airport, LAG- airport lease with Bruce J. Leven to reflect the reduction of the leased area, 88-001 crediting the lessee approximately$2,173.17 for the difference from 1999 to present(LAG-88-001). Refer to Transportation(Aviation)Committee. Transportation: FlexPass Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with Program, King County& King County, Sound Transit, and Pierce Transit to continue the FlexPass Sound Transit & Pierce Transit Commute Trip Reduction Program for City employees in the amount of $21,450 for 2005-2006. Council concur. (See page 44 for resolution.) MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from John &Stacy Tribble, 2106 Lyons Ave.NE, Citizen Comment: Various- Renton, 98059; Robert &Susan Oki, 2406 Lyons Ave. NE, Renton,98059; R-1 Zone Community_ Dennis Noland, 14326 SE 100th Pl., Renton, 98059; Wayde Watters, 11608 SE Se arators 286th St., Kent, 98030; and Julie Bonwell, 9616 146th Ave. SE,Renton, { 98059; concerning the R-1 zone community separators, and expressing support for 50%contiguous mapped open space,reforestation of that open space, 35% limits on site clearing, and clustered development. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Walser- Correspondence was read from Paul Walser, 817 Monroe Ave. NE,Renton, Variance Denial for Deck at 98056, regarding the denial of a variance to build a deck on the back of his Residence,Monroe Ave NE house. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. Councilman Clawson commented that Council has no authority to overrule the decision, and Mr. Walser can pursue the matter via the appeal process. The Mayor noted the potential of the matter coming before Council on appeal, depending on what happens during the process. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Finance Committee concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the contract with EDNSP: Hotel/Motel Tax Hamilton/Saunderson Marketing Partnership, marketing consultants,for a Revenue Allocation to seventh year of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign, and partner with Community Stakeholders, other key community stakeholders by allocating$50,000 of hotel/motel tax Hamilton/Saunderson Contract collections towards that effort. The allocation will be leveraged with additional financial contributions from the Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department's "business recruitment" budget and other community agencies, organizations, and businesses to total $120,000. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the contract.* Councilman Persson noted that the hotel/motel tax is collected from the rental of hotel and motel rooms, and per State law, can only be used for purposes such as this. *MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Lease: Iron Mountain Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Information Management,City concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the five-year lease Hall 4th Floor,LAG-00-003 amendment with Iron Mountain Information Systems, Inc., with options for two five-year extensions, for continued tenancy of the fourth floor of Renton City a- 7 liettreditZe2 905 iet/LA o4f Etia44/1111 From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: John and Stacy Tribble Date: Wed, Feb 2, 2005 10:49 AM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone Community Separators Dear Mr. & Mrs.Tribble: Thank you for your email to the Renton City Council. This subject is currently being considered by the Planning and Development Committee of Council. Copy will be distributed to all Councilmembers for review and consideration. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>>"John and Stacy Tribble" <jstribble@comcast.net> 1/30/2005 4:55:49 PM >>> To whom it may concern, We live in the Stonegate community and are concerned about our area's growth. We would like to voice our support for R-1 Zone Community Separators including: . 50% contiguous mapped open space. . Reforestation of that open space. . Trails. . 35% of the site cleared for development,which will reduce effects of surface water. . Clustering development away from the open space. We would appreciate your support on this matter. Thank you, John and Stacy Tribble 2106 Lyons AVE NE Renton WA 98059 John and Stacy Tribble jstribblecomcast.net . - 6-n< ii>/ci /7/; We From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: Susan Oki Date: Wed, Feb 2,2005 11:05 AM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone Community Separators Dear Mr. & Mrs. Oki: Thank you for your email to the Renton City Council. This subject is currently being considered by the Planning and Development Committee of Council. Copy will be distributed to all Councilmembers for review and consideration. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>>"Susan Oki" <susan@innovativecookies.com>2/1/2005 9:50:30 AM >>> Dear City Council & Planning Commission Members: As a property owner and resident, I am fully in support of staffs recommendation for urban separation of 50% or greater in our community which includes: 1)50% continguous mapped open space, 2)reforestation of that open space, and 3)an allowance for trails. I support the reduction of impervious surface in development of existing property as such reduction will minimize the impact of surface water runoff. My understanding is that development of particular sites will be limited to a maximum of 35%. If we are serious about preservation of our environment, quality of life, and recreational amenities in our region, we must adhere to this threshold/standard. Please vote in favor of the staff recommendation regarding this matter. Sincerely, Robert and Susan Oki 2406 Lyons Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98059 Phone: 425-235-2880 Fax:425-235-6328 i ��• �f itA c�._ From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk J To: Dennis Noland Date: Wed, Feb 2, 2005 11:06 AM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone Community Separators Dear Mr. Noland: Thank you for your email to the Renton City Council. This subject is currently being considered by the Planning and Development Committee of Council. Copy will be distributed to all Councilmembers for review and consideration. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>>"Dennis Noland" <dennis@shiftpoint.biz> 2/1/2005 1:30:00 PM >>> Renton City Council I want to express my support for the work of the Renton Planning Commission in its efforts to refine a workable description and plan for R-1 Zone Community Separators. I support mandatory clustering, 50% contiguous open space provided by a mapped overlay, reforesting the open space, and 35% limits on site clearing for development. Dennis Noland 14326 S.E. 100th Place Renton,WA 98059 425-226-7946 From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: w.watters Date: Wed, Feb 2, 2005 11:07 AM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone Separators Dear Mr. Watters: Thank you for your email to the Renton City Council. This subject is currently being considered by the Planning and Development Committee of Council. Copy will be distributed to all Councilmembers for review and consideration. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "w.watters" <w.watters@comcast.net>2/2/2005 8:40:08 AM >>> Hello, I support the proposed code regarding R-1 Zone Community Separators that includes the following: 50%open space with some means to encourage reforestation of that open space. Clustering of development to minimize impact. Development limited to 35% clearing of the site. The original purpose of the Community Separator concept was to minimize development in critical areas. This will provide habitat for wildlife and minimize erosion and the deterioration of water quality in streams. Maintaining these"green belts"will also enhance the quality of life for the rest of us as population density increases. It would be a step backwards if we allow increased development in these areas. Wayde Watters 11608 SE 286th St. Kent, WA 98030 a-7 coos From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk • To: Julie P. Bonwell Date: Wed, Feb 2, 2005 7:26 PM Subject: Re: FW: R-1 Zone Community Separators Dear Ms. Bonwell: Thank you for your email to the Renton City Council. This subject is currently being considered by the Planning and Development Committee of Council. Copy will be distributed to all Councilmembers for review and consideration. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>>"Julie P. Bonwell"<jbonwell©Iesourd.com> 2/2/2005 3:28:31 PM >>> February 2, 2005 Renton Planning Commission do Rebecca Lind Neighborhoods &Strategic Planning Renton Council City of Renton Re: R-1 Zone Community Separators I continue to support the mandatory clustering of homes in ALL developments, particularly those in Urban Separators, 50%open space, PARTICULARLY CONTIGUOUS open space, and 35% site clearing will undoubtedly make a HUGE difference on the impacts of surface water and subsequent erosion. If you have any doubts on moving forward with these guidelines, please look at the attached January 19, 2005, Seattle PI report on the State of Puget Sound. "Sprawling development has translated into more streets, ... driveways and rooftops. Scientists worry that the problem of polluted runoff will get worse . . . unless stormwater is controlled." "In some urban streams, the fish are dying before they can spawn- likely victims of stormwater pollution." And that doesn't mean build more retention ponds. Forests, no matter how small, catch and hold rainwater, recharging underground water supplies and slowing the flow of runoff into rivers and ultimately the sea. In forests, "1 percent of runoff flow off the land,while AT LEAST 30 percent of the rainfall cascades off roadways and sidewalks, . . . eroding hillsides when the trees are chopped down." Emphasis added. It is worth repeating that any development/tree removal occurring both sides of May Valley from Renton through Newcastle and on out to Issaquah affects May Creek. Living near the creek, I see first hand the increase in water levels that occur within hours of a moderate to heavy rain, and the color of that water due to silt and impurities. Renton ahead of the curve? I hope so! J. Bonwell 9616 146th Avenue SE Renton,Washington 98059 State of Puget Sound troubling * Read the full article at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/208476 pugetsound19.html Jan 20 05 01 : 05p Jana 422bUbb p. 1 , 12v/ w ) RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2005 Hanson Consulting Renton City Council Fax Transmittal Form To: Dital G LI4WS©AJ From: J m H4Nsew Fax number: 4 -&S .3 Phone number: 360 -4LZ- 50S6 Phone number: Pages including cover: 3 Re: c,t.RBRN S PAl zti•'tai2 Date: /- ZO-OS- Comments: If you do not receive all pages of this Fax transmission please call me at 360-422-5056. Thank you: Jim Hanson, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane, Mt. Vernon,Wa. 98274. Jan 20 05 01 : 06p Jana 4225056 p. 2 *11110 'VS HANSON CONSULTING Jim Hanson 360-422-5056 January 20, 2005 Dan Clawson,Chair Planning and Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Subject: Urban Separator,Open Space, Density Dear Mr. Clawson: I am writing on behalf of four property owners within the Merritt II annexation and within the Urban Separator area in the May Creek basin. These four property owners own over 33 acres within the area. The City's Strategic Planning Division has sent a draft of the proposed code language for the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations to me for review. The following are my comments: 1. Section 4-3-110-E-2-a,This language does not allow the owner to continue to own the open space tract. The code section 4-2-110-D-6-d-vi allows the owner to keep ownership of the open space tract. The two sections are conflicting. The owner should be able to retain ownership if they desire. 2. Section 4-3-110-E-4-B-ii-a,The criteria for enhancement is not clear. What does the ratio do?How does this work?Please clarify. 3. Section 4-3-110-E-4-b-iii, Parcels that have been left in their natural state are being penalized by requiring 65%forestation outside the open space corridor in order to qualify for the bonus density. The owner is giving up 50%of their property to open space plus 65%of the balance of the developable land. This means that the City is taking away 82%of the land from development. 82%is a huge taking. The gross density standard should be applied because the 50%open space is being given up without these additional standards which take land.As written the City may be requiring that all development in this area be on very small lots rather than R-4 sized lots which would enable high end homes to be constructed. 4. Section 4-3-110-E-6-b,This section also requires the owner to give up an additional 32%of the site from development. Jan 20 05 01 : 06p Jana 4225056 p. 3 5. Section 4-3-110-E-8-a, Some provision should be made to access new lots crossing the open space if there is no other way to access the parcel to be subdivided. 6. Section 4-3-110-E-8-b,The requirement of a permeable surface for the emergency access road may not meet the Fire Code. We look forward to continue working with the City so that reasonable regulations for the Urban Separator Overlay area can be established to ensure quality development within this sensitive and beautiful part of the City. Thank you for your understanding of our concerns and your consideration of these comments. Thank You: /dav'fe9294A--j Jim Hanson Cc. Rebecca Lind,Tom Foster ,ire n, 04c( COum C,U-( PIu^; AvAlz) ..WSJ+ qRECEIVED CITY OF RENTON JAN 2 0 2005 Renton City Council MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18,2005 TO: Members of Renton City Council Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor FROM: RENTON PLANNNG COMMISSION SUBJECT: Revised R-1 Zone Community Separators Revision Recommendation The Renton Planning Commission met Wednesday, December 1, 2004 to consider the R-1 Zone Community Separators. Audience comment was received. The Commission reviewed the issue, and while a fmal recommendation was not made, suggested staff take the following recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee for its meeting Thursday,December 2nd• RECOMMENDED ACTION: MIS (NO/EL) to accept Staff's Recommendation in the R-1 Zone Community Separator issue paper dated 11/10/04,substituting 50%for the 30%required open space. Motion carried. A friendly amendment to the previous motion was made. M/S (NO/GJ) to consider the concept of a bonus for contiguous open space. Motion carried. For: Hadley,Jackson,Ledbury,Osborn,Quesenberry Against: None Absent: None(One vacancy) Signed A1 , Ray/iometti,Chair Renton Planning Commission RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2005 Proposed City of Renton Code 4-3-110 Urban Separator Overlay Regulations Renton City Council Amendments Responding to Planning Commission and Public Comment January 19, 2005 A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide implementation of the Urban Separators policies in the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. The intent is to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, define Renton's boundaries and create contiguous open space corridors within and between urban communities, which provide environmental,visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Urban Separators shall be permanent low-density lands,which protect resource lands, and environmentally sensitive areas. B. Applicability: This section shall apply to subdivisions,lot line adjustments and building permits for new construction on lands within designated Urban Separators as shown in the Urban Separators Map in Section 4-3-110 J. C. Administration: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to Urban Separator Regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. 2. Authority: The eviewing Official shall have the authority to approve with conditions, or deny proposals based on the provisions of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations D. Modification: The eviewing Official may modify the open space configuration where: 1) site specific data confirms that the adopted Contiguous Open Space Corridor map includes more than the required gross area for any parcel, or 2)where the applicant can demonstrate a configuration of contiguous open space that provides better or equal provision of the open space requirement—. At a minimum, open space shall be connected to another contiguous open space parcel by a fifty foot corridor. MModifications to the Contiguous Open Space Corridor shall be re- mapped during the City's annual Title IV review process. E. Urban Separator Overlay Regulations 1. Contiguous Open Space Corridor Established. A designated contiguous open space corridor is established as shown on the Urban Separators Overlay Map in Section 4-3-110J. 2. Dedication of Open Space Required. -1- t 0i00 *if 1 a. Approval of short plat, lot line adjustment changing the size or dimension of an existing lot, and/or building permit on a pre-existing legal lot in the Urban Separator Overlay shall require dedication of 50% of the gross land area of the parcel or parcels included in the land use action as a non- revocable open space tract dedicated to a homeowners association or other suitable organization as determined by the DirecterReviewing Official. Such tracts may include critical areas and/or critical area buffers. b. Approval of a building permit for a re-model or improvement representing exceeding 50%of the value of an existing structure within a 3 year period shall require dedication of a conservation easement,protective easement or tract and deed restriction pursuant to Section 4-3-050G. Native Growth Protection Areas,on critical areas and critical area buffers located within the Contiguous Open Space Corridor. c. Land dedicated, as open space shall be located within the mapped Contiguous Open Space Corridor unless a modification is approved pursuant to Section 4-3-110B3. 3. Allowed Uses In Contiguous Open Space a. Passive Recreation with no development of recreation facilities b. Natural surface pedestrian and equestrian trails c. Existing residences and accessory structures 4. Uses and Standards in Portions of Urban Separator Outside Established Contiguous Open Space Corridor a. Uses shall be consistent with Section 4-2-060 and 4-2-070B.Residential 1 Zone, One Dwelling unit per net acre. b. For residential uses, a bonus may be granted allowing the total density to achieve 1 dwelling unit per gross acre for projects that meet the following criteria. i. won-Forest/vegetation cover of 65%of the gross land area within the dedicated Open Space tract. Forest/vegetation cover may include a combination of conifer, decidiuous trees and shrubs sufficient to provide water retention and erosion control functions, as determined appropriate by the Reviewing Official,ef-65%-of the gross and ii. At least one of the following additional criteria. a) Enhancement of wetlands is provided at a ratio of one acre enhanced for one acre preserved within the Urban Separator to the satisfaction of the Reviewing Official consistent with standards in Section 4-3-050M 12b. Evaluation Criteria, or b) Legal Non-conforming uses are removed from the site and/or brought into conformance with Renton standards for home occupations and/or accessory uses and structures (see Sections 4- 2-060,4-9-090 and Section 4-2-110G)or. -2- c) Natural surface pedestrian and/or equestrian trails,with public access, are provided as part of a trail system or where there is no planned trail system, in a configuration approved by the Reviewing Official. iii. Projects that meet the vegetative cover standard prior to the proposed land use action, shall provide two of the optional bonus criteria. In the absence of either wetlands or legal non-conforming uses on the site, forest/vegetative cover of at least 65%outside the Contiguous Open Space corridor, and public access and trails shall be required to the satisfaction of the Reviewing Official. c. Development standards shall be consistent with Section 4-2-110A, Development Standards for Single Family Residential Designations and development shall be clustered outside the Contiguous Open Space Corridor mapped in 2-3-1101 or the Open Space Corridor as modified by the DirectorReviewing Official. 5. Fencing or similar structures and/or hedges or similar landscape features on portions of properties abutting and within the Contiguous Open Space Corridor are prohibited except where required to comply with Section 4-3- 050M.c. Wetland,Native Growth Protection Areas,Fencing. Where fencing is required for domestic grazing animals, such fencing shall be the minimum necessary to protect wetlands and shall not create a solid barrier. 6. 6—Forest/Vegetation Retention and Surf ce Water D etention'Detentie Standards a. Outside of the Contiguous Open Space Corridor, forest/vegetation coverage shall be either 65%, or the percentage of coverage existing prior to approval of a development proposal,:which ever is less. If re- vegetation outside the Contiguous Open Space Corridor is proposed to qualify for a density bonus,the 65%standard shall apply. b. The Reviewing Official may approve vegetation removal, including trees,within a proposed building pad provided that re-planting is provided to retain the pre-development standard, or the 65% standard, whichever is determined to be applicable. 7. Surface Water Retention/Detention Retention/—detention—standards shall be consistent with King County Surface Water Design Manuel Level 2 Retention./Detention .a Clearing limits shall be 65% forest retention without retention/detention or 40% Water Design Manuel T e ,el 2 Dete„tion Dete„tio, 8. Utilities Utility Facilitiess and Emergency Service Access Easements. -3- Nov a. Utilities facilities and easements and emergency service access roads may be located within Ceontiguous Open Space Corridors for the limited purpose of providing service to parcels platted after March 2005, for which there is no alternative way to provide service-. Private access easements for ingress and egress may be located within contiguous open space in the limited instance where there is no alternative access to a pre- existing legal lot,but shall not serve lots platted after March 2005. b. Utilities and emergency service(Facilities shall be developed with permeable surface treatment. c. Private access easements and improvements shall be established an the minimum standard needed to meet public safety requirements. 8. Landscape Standards Landscape plans and requirements, shall be consistent with Section 4-4-070 and in addition, shall be consistent with standards and plant lists in King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Publication"Going Native". The Reviewing Official shall determine whether existing vegetation provides sufficient water retention and erosion protection functions to meet forest/vegetation coverage standards, and shall require additional plantings if existing vegetation is found to be insufficient. -4- FNERIOnafga NW) 1, . .. _1__0--r--D,... z IL .'\ K imini..gn i 1 fir{ -7!, . , - (, 2,4{ , '>> _,, i ,' )1v1(1 , 111117 i'' )fr/,-, ' ii t( ..,0/ _j, I -...."•*N: rut /jj7///22 �(' '� / �� y� /--..--(/ t r ) \ ' ..7 ,/ ,'//'0 7/ ' ( ' \ \ ,.=%, -„,,e, i; k_j, Vi C Ilk ,,,ifgat ir, ii i�� r�I I miffI�/ slim; E t' abk.21 /77/7/;)'/7/ /' '''; , , , . , J; , -- Ro cp 1 ,, , , __, , , . 1 , I iJ!E ' :/?/ . ik � / ,..,, ��%�8 • it-:.drd 1 ;�., , (,) 1 \ w" ;, ..,,,,, ,, . , ) / „, ; ,/, , , ,- ---- �� , : % ` as p _.1 \� r ri l �- I / �, to o •-p. 1 Illinif 4 i ,, , i) , ,/,./ 2, ,,,,,,,, ,;„,,,,TArir c2. -93 I Liiin I // .11! 1 I �'" l ✓ MIMI -�- (� / '' ' ,i, l Ia rr. J �JIJ �iJ / l/,l .. r '` � �� _. ,_�." t ,.,,.r ! .., i,, '` Ali, I °� . _ t,,,- ".C'.'. / ,,,,,,/,(( ,,;:: , „we- Cp -CI) - _. i-- ----,, i r 1 i 1 d/ I _ r !r ^41 it---'-`,, -.- y J�i _1 - / ( ( l It lid ! • '''','',' %It I t,,''' . 7,),-1' 'r / / ) ,,/' /rI y �r �/r / 7 I r �r// d I ✓ I/ C 1 ), ,/ H/, , I1 ;07 if f 11 7' , - A / -/ ' � ! I r/ � i; 1 1 1 1 0\\\ \\1 ' , ,,' ,,,,, /- '' ,"? - ' ,j, ,' / i ; l'••• ,\\i\I I\' , I \ �._._ r/ / / ,- ° d j k-/ /,, ') -it, '1, ( n r ;/ j/" I r /''/,/ � I /;° /\ \ \\ /'� , J �_J114 .l r, ,r l f 1 _. ('�,' 1 ' 'I�I I �II i�f '�' / 1 a y _ ,,,,-jr-') ___,..... \., ',,, ; 1 Illitai'll. / „,;:, ::,,,;:,,::`:////,';'://::' ,\\-;: '());, .."-:'7.. :-::, ::: i /: ' /„ iii 'CI 02 -13 w Mai' r co O -- / / i 1 O � (D �� { if ,1I//7i �� f�! ! ' / `� I I ! r;� ,-1,--." rEPA- — —- --,:/�7 ,', A Ir r ,� j'r� ' I I '1 \ �' �'roo c , -J • - ++ I I tik 1, , , I /, / / t. 1 I r jjr I\ ] 1 ' Ll' -. '-‘ ' \ \ 4.- ---1,,---' ' , j I ') ' -/' -----‘, , • I L, ,-, r / ( Poor 1 , / / //l ,a+ ; , - r, ; ' : , art ,, Aei, t C ° \ ( \' r , %%� /• f i' �`� 7 C Wit. �� r `:` , , kii,i(.:427._1=._._ 1, '` // ',•c--., c., .,/:,_2- / �I i,.• ,.„, , °°' c,, �C. _ 2 ' /' ,,‘2C_:V=,7I,1/4,1\0 421),_,11,, \ -',--\I\, ' , , .'j ,,,,,,„,,•',/,,'‘:,\,,,,_ Q ��1 �i3- ' ,° I '� woe , , r „ ; j/ 1 , � ,, / iI 1 , _ f ) ," ,K / ,5 / ,, ,//// .., ..-„, , , ,, ,,,,,, , cr, - , , / e , ,i 1 ,, ,,, ,,, , ,,,, , .‘,„,-,-„_ ,„ , „,, , , , . .„ _ „ ,,, , , „, „ 7 _„.,, ,,,,, ,,,„„ , , . Imo! 4 /- ,„,,,,,,,,,,/ , „,,,,,,, ./ 7,,,, .4.7v,,,,,, ,, ,,, .„,,, ,,,/,,, „.: . / ,/,,,,, , , , - __..„ . ,, ,,,,,, ../.„ " /// , ,/, a 711 1 1' // ire 1 /� r Aitifilik Sent Sy: leSourd & Patten; 206-223-1099; Jan-19-u5 4:4brM; rage I/e •.. RECEIVED January 19, 2004 JAN 2 0 2005 Renton Commission Renton City Council c/o Rebecca Lind Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Fax: 425-430-7300 The City of Renton has supported the community's wishes for May Valley. It is hoped that the planning commission will do the same tonight by passing Rebecca and her planners' final recommendations to the development committee and in turn the City Council. In 1989, in recognition of the environmental issues known at the time and the outpouring of citizen testimony, the city council nixed a proposal for 198 homes on the slopes and shores of May Creek. The council adopted a motion; "to work with King County on further developing May Valley as a scenic and recreational corridor." The City of Renton was ahead of the curve on this one as a few years later Washington State's own Growth Management Act required "open space corridors within and between urban areas." In 1997, the Renton Planning Commission, and later the full Council and city staff, pulled on their boots and visited May Valley's wetlands and eroding ravines. As a result of these field trips and citizen testimony, council adopted Ordinance 4732 allowing one dwelling unit per acre pre-zoning. During the development of the May Creek Basin Plan, Renton surface water staff recommended level II stream protection standards be applied to any future development in this sub-basin of May Creek. City Council ratified these development regulations when it adopted the Basin Plan. With regard to the environmental issues confronting the valley the City supported the urban separator concept from its very beginning. In 1992 City and County staff jointly identified the May Valley Urban Separator during technical review of the King County Comprehensive Plan. In 1993 Mayor Clymer signed Resolution 2960, declaring May Creek Valley "be classified ... as an urban separator." JI u a rdtLeii, LW.) LGJ IV77, 410 In 2000 King County proposed an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan designating the area as a Greenbelt/Urban Separator. Once again this was supported by the administration. In a letter to King County Council, Mayor Tanner wrote: "The proposed Greenbelt/Urban separator represents an extension of open space that extends west along May Creek to 1-405. The May Creek greenbelt provides 'environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits' It also serves as a visual break between the cities of Renton and Newcastle. In 2001 at the Growth Management Planning Council, Renton's suburban cities' representative Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, supported a motion that added a map of existing urban separators to the Countywide Planning Policies. Further, this motion recognized that urban separators are part of"a regional strategy, serving multiple functions and benefits to the citizens and communities of King County." Finally,just recently, on December 1, 2004, this Planning Commission recommended "that clustered development be required and that a mandatory 50% open space tract be established to meet Urban Separator policies," The Council Planning & Development Committee "concurred with this recommendation and further recommended that staff develop an ordinance that provides equivalent or better implementation of the Urban Separator than currently set forth in King County code." And if you have any doubts on moving forward with these simple guidelines, please look at tonight's Seattle PI and their report on the State of Puget Sound. I quote, "Development throughout the region is booming and that can be bad news. Record volumes of unfiltered stormwater are rushing down gutters — scouring streambeds and dumping dirt, oil, pesticides and animal waste into creeks and rivers and ultimately the Sound." "It's not a habitat problem — it's a people problem" and Renton and May Valley residents are trying to step up to the plate and protect a very viable flood plain and salmon stream bed. Please pass the final recommendations to the Development Committee. Thank you. Julie Bonwell 9616 146th Avenue SE Renton WA 98059 RECT To: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager JAN 1 1 2005 ECONOM?C DEVELOPMENT. NE GHBORHOODS, From: Andrew Duffus - AND STR• ANYNG Date: January 10th, 2005 Subject: Sinkle Family Residential Zoning Desiiinations 4-2-110D amendments Rebecca, I really appreciate the effort that you have put in the urban separator code text amendment. When we started this, I had no idea that what seemed such a relatively easy adjustment could turn out to be so complicated and time consuming. I shared your frustration last Wednesday, but I keep telling myself that in the end it will be worth it and a legacy will truly have been established. Imagine trying to create Central Park today! I have several brief suggestions on the proposed development standards within the urban separator. 2. d. (ii) insert an "at"between words "lots"and "least". i.e. ...undeveloped lots at least fifty... Also consider elaborating somewhere on the phrase "such tracts". 2. d. (iii) The word "places"probably should read "placed" Also in 2. d. (iii) you might want to include language that a remodeling building permit improvement value would have to exceed 50% of the structure's value to trigger the open space tract requirement. This would make it consistent with the your other documentation, power point presentation, issues papers, etc. By the way, that requirement of 50% a structure's assessed value is a good standard. It would still allow people to repair and/or upgrade bathrooms and/or kitchens which is often really considered more or less routine maintenance. 2. d. (iv) The period between the words "tracts" and "or"probably should be a comma. Again I suggest moving the "StoneGate"wetland (western tip of wetland#5) to its more likely location on the map. The narrow constricted area in the middle of this wetland lines up with the pointed contour lines on 148th Ave. south of the bridge over May Creek. Also move the part of the wetland#28b that is within the City of Newcastle. Again, the south-west edge lines up with the nearest contour line below it. I realize wetland#5 is not technically within the urban separator/PAA. Much of its western portion is already within Renton city limits. However it is inaccurate to show that the wetland is elevated at the intersection of 148th and May Valley Road. This correction will give greater clarity and creditability to the text code amendment when it goes before full city council. Thank you, Andrew lmacode011005mswrresarior • 4-2-110D To be amended by the following changes 4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 1. a. Phasing,shadow platting,or land a. Cluster developments shall be l mit el to reserves may be used to satisfy the a maximum of 6 lots in one cluster. minimum density requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the current bra.The maximum net density requirement development would not preclude the shall not be exceeded except within Urban provision of adequate access and Separators for density bonuses meeting infrastructure to future development and criteria established in 4-3-1194-3-110 Urban would allow for the eventual satisfaction of Separator Overlay Regulations minimum density requirements through future development. e:b.The area of individual lots shall not be less than 4,500 sq.ft. b. In the event the applicant can show - that the minimum density cannot be d-c.Except for density,the remaining achieved due to lot configuration,lack of development standards of the access,environmental or physical Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre constraints,minimum density requirements Zone)shall apply may be waived by the Reviewing Official. d Within designated-Urban Separators 2_2—Use-related provisions are not designated in Section 4-3-110,Urban variable. Use-related provisions that are Separator Overlay Regulations: not eligible for a variance include: building size,units per structure/lot,or (i)All subdivision and short subdivisions densities. Unless bonus size or density shall be clustered outside the boundary of provisions are specifically authorized, the designated Contiguous Open Space the modification of building size,units Corridor shown in Section 4-3-1.10.. per structure,or densities requires a legislative change in the code provisions (ii)For parcels created by l�L and/or a Comprehensive PIan ad'ustment or s .n and .re-existin_ amendment/rezone. undevelo.ed I. . fift .ercent of the G''I a oss c�reawe o t e site shall be placed in such tracts. , Clustering may bail allowed to meet objectives such as preserving significant (iii)For pre-existing developed legal lots. natural features,providing lands within cri ' areas and critical areas neighborhood open space,or facilitating buffers shall .: nn space tracts the provision of sewer service. Within upon issuance o. . . tiding permit. designated urban separators clustering is required-.Cluster development is subject to the following standards_= (iv)Lands in Contiguous Open Space Corridors shall be placed i . ..rate permanent open space tracts.or tive H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering'4-2-110 DRevised12-29.doc H: erwev r:, .,lino , r1.,�. ;., �.� ,,n„2 d .. I -1- *4000 HANSON CONSULTING Jim ECHanson _ 360-422-5056 k ° January 10,2005 JAN 1 1 2005 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. NEIGHBORHOODS, Rebecca Lind ^ � '� '~� t_ANIA'c EDNSP Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Subject: Proposed code changes for Clustering,Urban Separator Dear Rabecca: Thank you for E-mailing the proposed revisions to the clustering requirements within the urban separator areas. The following are comments concerning the proposed changes: Section 4-2-110D 2 d(vi)only allows passive recreation and natural-surface trails within the open space tracts. Utility facilities and fire access roads should be allowed within and across such corridors. The e-mail I received did not include code language for the bonus density discussed in your memo to the Planning Commission;however the memo outlines Mandated Bonus Criteria and Optional Criteria. The Mandated Bonus Criteria appears to require that 65% of the open space area be forested or re-forested. Is that the intent or is 65%of the entire site to be forested? The Optional Criteria requires that two of the three criteria be met in order to qualify for the Bonus Density. Some parcels will not be able to qualify for the bonus since they do not have any wetlands to enhance and have no Non Conforming uses to remove. Parcels without such issues should be allowed to qualify for the bonus density also since they are also giving up the use of 50%of their property. Please consider including these suggestions in a revised proposal or pass them along to the appropriate decision maker. (Planning Commission or City Council) Please let me know when the next meeting is scheduled for consideration of this change. A number of property owners within the Urban Separator area have expressed and interest to attend. • . You im Hanson Rebecca Lind- Urban Se arator Pa a 1' Nur From: "Susan Slaton'<sbslaton@comcast.net> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1/13/200511:37:58 AM Subject: Urban Separator Dear Planning Commission, I live in the Stonegate development in Renton. I am writing this email to express my husband's and my strong support for the 50%contiguous open space corridor. We feel strongly this is important to maintain the quality of life in Renton,especially as we enjoy our community's growth. Therefore, we support the city's proposal and do what we can to ensure it is implemented. Sincerely, Susan&Dan Slaton 5511 NE 21 st Ct Renton 425.271.3231 • (Rebecca Lind:urban urban separator Pa a 1,! From: "Bruce Christopherson"<bchristo©bcc.ctc.edu> To: <rlind @ ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1/12/200512:57:30 PM Subject: urban separator We are unable to attend the January 19 Planning Commission meeting, but would like to state our support for the contiguous open space corridor in the May Valley area. Bruce Christopherson Robin Nordberg 5502 NE 24th Court Renton,WA 98059 425-254-0216 Rebecca Lind-omen s•ace corridor Page 1 From: <s.winn@comcast.net> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1/12/2005 10:34:05 AM Subject: open space corridor I would like to throw my support for the open space contiguous corridor in the ring. I live in Stonegate and know how important this decision is to our community. If you could forward this e-mail to the planning commission I would appreciate it.See you at the meeting on the 19th. 206-910-6950 C 425-572-0752 H Rebecca Lind-Su ort of the 50%Con '' us O n S ace Corridor Page 1- From: "TAD KEVIN WILLOUGHBY"<TadWilloughby@msn.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1/15/200510:30:33 AM Subject: Support of the 50%Contiguous Open Space Corridor I would like to encourage the Planning Commission to support the 50%contiguous open space corridor. Respectfully, Melissa&Tad Willoughby Stonegate Subdivision 5512 NE 26th St Renton,WA 98059 9425)226-4298 j Rebecca Lind- Urban Se arator Page 1� From: "John Todderud"<jtodderud yahoo.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1/15/2005 7:30:39 AM Subject: Urban Separator Ms. Lind, I live in the Stonegate neighborhood,am on the Homeowner's board,and have been following the Urban Separator issue that the City of Renton Planning Commission is considering. I am very interested in the City's proposal for a 50%contiguous open space corridor between Renton and Newcastle and would like to strongly communicate my support for it.Although I have attended a number of other previous Planning Commission and City Council meetings, I will not be able to attend the upcoming January 19 meeting. I appreciate the work you and your organization does in support of this urban separator proposal. Thank you very much. John Todderud 5316 NE 24th Court '01/05/2005 11:33 FAX 206 448 3494 MCCULLOUGH HILL 001/008 �• j .•. • .0 Cu u 2025 First Ave-,Suite 1130 Seattle WA 98 12I-2I 00 206-448-19I8 206-448-3444 Fox mhfk:.com FAX COVER SHEET January 5, 2005 TO: COMPANY: FAX NO.: Ray Giometti, Chair City of Renton 425-430-7300 Renton City Council 425-430-6523 Alex Pietsch City of Renton 425-430-7300 FROM: Courtney E. Flora CLIENT NO.: - 686-004 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 5 RE: Comments to Planning Commission in support of Proposed Text Amendment to Renton's Binding Site Plan Regulations PLEASE CALL IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE AND MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. UNAUTHORIZED, USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU RECIIYED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY U5 AT Z06-T48-1616. 01/05/2005 11:34 FAX 206 448 '44 MCCULLOUGH HILL IJ002/008 41114 A Prefettion.t �.,ricr Co.paia,ion Courtney E.Flora 2025 Fiat Ave.,Suite 1 130 Scottie WA 98121-2100 206-448-1818 206.448.3444 Fox cFlore@mhFks.com January 5, 2005 Ray Giometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 99055 Re: Proposed Text Amendment to Renton's Binding Site Plan Regulations Dear Mr. Giometti: We are writing on behalf of Transpacific Investments, owner of the Washington Technical Center(WTC) site located near Powell Avenue and SW 7th Street, and Bedford Property Investors, owner of the Times Square site near 39th Street and Lind Avenue SW.1 Transpacific and Bedford ask the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Renton's binding site plan ("BSP') regulations. Attached as Exhibit A. This simple amendment would allow Transpacific, Bedford, and other owners of multi-building complexes to sell individual buildings to appropriate buyers. This, in turn, would decrease high office vacancy rates, revitalize and diversify Renton's commercial and industrial areas, and increase tax revenues, all while allowing Renton to maintain ultimate control over the development and future use of these sites. Renton is currently at a significant competitive disadvantage when compared to other jurisdictions that have adopted the amendment we are proposing. The cities of Tukwila, Bellevue, Bothell, and Redmond, and King and Snohomish counties, have adopted BSP regulations that consider the BSP site as a whole when applying bulk and development standards in the underlying zone. We are simply asking the City to level the playing field by adopting similar regulations. 1 Unico Properties,Inc. originally proposed this BSP amendment in January 2004 in conjunction with redevelopment of the Washington Technical Center site. Transpacific Investments has since purchased this site from Unico(at a considerable discount based on the lack of market for multi-building office complexes), and is now, along with Bedford Property Investors, advocating for the amendment's adoption. C Wniicol686AD9\mrr1Plannw9COmmini ckC 01/05/2005 11:34 FAX 206 448 3444 MCCULLOUGH HILL 0 003/008 City of Renton Planning Commission Attn.: Ray Giometti, Chair January 5, 2005 Page 2 • This amendment is consistent with state law, furthers goals and policies outlined in Renton's Comprehensive Plan and Business Plan 2004-2009, and is necessary to ensure that Renton retains its reputation as an innovative jurisdiction that is serious about attracting and retaining small, growing businesses. I. The amendment complies with state subdivision law, Chapter 58.17 RCW We understdnd from planning staff that the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed BSP amendment, and has advised that the state subdivision statute, Chapter 58.17 RCW, does not require the City to adopt it. We agree. State law authorizes, but does not require, cities and counties to adopt BSP regulations. To our knowledge, the City Attorney has not advised that the proposed amendment would violate Chapter 58..17 RCW. Indeed, not only does the amendment comply with state law, it furthers its purpose by providing a responsible alternative to traditional subdivision— the intended purpose behind the Legislature's authorization of BSPs. Every subdivision in the state of Washington must comply with Chapter 58.17 RCW, the state subdivision code. In 1987, the Legislature added a new provision to the subdivision code entitled"Alternative method of land division—Binding site plans." RCW 58.17.035. This provision allows local jurisdictions to adopt"procedures for the divisions of land by use of a binding site plan as an alternative to the procedures required by this chapter." RCW 58.17.035. These"alternative"procedures apply only to commercially or industrially zoned property, and are intended to allow more flexibility in lease, sale and development in these zones by exempting individual lots in BSP developments from strict subdivision requirements. Renton's current BSP regulations frustrate this purpose. State law dictates that"lots, parcels or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record,"and that the"number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed by the local zoning ordinances." RCW 58.17.035. State law does not, however, direct that the size and configuration of lots within a binding site plan must be identical to that in a traditional subdivision. But that is exactly what Renton's BSP regulations require. Renton's current BSP regulations provide no substantive advantage over a traditional subdivision. In fact, the only difference between a BSP and a subdivision in Renton is that BSPs are approved administratively. As a result, there is no substantive incentive to use the BSP process in Renton. The proposed amendment would add a substantive advantage to the BSP process, consistent with legislative intent. Other jurisdictions, such as the cities of Tukwila, Bellevue, Bothell, and Redmond, and King and Snohomish counties, have adopted BSP regulations that consider the BSP site as a whole when applying bulk and development standards. These • GAUnkol686.DW1mwAPlannVgCemm tsicn.rloe 01/05/2005 11:34 FAX 206 448 3444 MCCULLOUGH HILL J 004/008 City of Renton Planning Commission Attn.: Ray Giometti, Chair January 5, 2005 Page 3 jurisdictions have recognized that the Legislature intended the BSP provision as an alternative to traditional subdivisions, and that they could retain ample authority to regulate the site through the BSP approval process. In sum, Renton has no obligation to adopt BSP regulations, but having done so, it should ensure that these regulations provide a responsible alternative to traditional subdivision regulations by providing some substantive flexibility as proposed in the attached amendment and as adopted by other jurisdictions. II. The amendment is necessary to implement City goals and policies Renton's Business Plan for 2004-2009 seeks to"promote citywide economic development"by"transitioning surplus industrial properties to their highest and best use." Similarly, the Comprehensive Plan states that Renton will"support existing business and provide an energetic business environment for new commercial activity" by implementing the following policies: Policy LU-335: Increased demand for commercial uses should be accommodated primarily through redevelopment and intensification of existing business area designations rather than expansion of those areas. Policy LU-349: Support development plans incorporating the following features: 1) Shared access points and fewer curb cuts 2) Internal circulation among adjacent parcels 3) Shared parking facilities 4) Allowance for future transition to structured parking facilities 5) Centralized signage 6) Unified development concepts 7) Landscaping and streetscape that softens visual impacts Policy LU-433: Encourage flexibility in use and reuse of existing, conforming structures to allow business to evolve in response to market and production requirements. These goals of redevelopment, intensification, and unified development concepts can be achieved through adoption of this amendment, which would allow owners of GAunt,066.004korrlaarmMpconvegon.aoc 01/05/2005 11:35 FAX 206 448 3444 MCCULLOUGH HILL 0 005/008 Neve City of Renton Planning Commission Attn.: Ray Giometti, Chair January 5, 2005 Page 4 existing multi-office complexes to market individual buildings to appropriate users through BSPs. The effect of the current regulations is"no effect"because few existing buildings in multi-office sites can comply with traditional subdivision requirements, and there is no real difference between Renton's subdivision regulations and its BSP regulations. The ability to own rather than rent office space provides a strong incentive to relocate. By adopting this amendment, Renton can create a larger building inventory, thereby attracting more business and investors. Renton has the opportunity to use its BSP regulations to diversify and revitalize its community and to further the goals in its Business Plan and Comprehensive Plan. III. The amendment is necessary to offset Renton's current 38% office vacancy rate and level the economic playing field with other jurisdictions The WTC site illustrates the problem with Renton's current BSP regulations. The site is divided into four large lots, each of which contain three to four commercial buildings and associated parking areas. The WTC site is currently at 60% occupancy. Unico started this code amendment process in January 2004 in an attempt to maximize the value of this site. Unico had determined that it was not possible to subdivide the property and sell each of the buildings individually because, due to the existing configuration of the buildings and parking areas, minimum lot size standards in the underlying zone could not be met. If the BSP process in Renton worked as it did in other jurisdictions, Unico could have divided the buildings for sale through a BSP, which would have allowed it to market individual buildings to individual buyers and maximize its value. But Renton's BSP regulations do not permit this result. Ultimately, Unico elected to sell the WTC site to Transpacific in bulk at a significant discount. Transpacific's decision to buy the WTC site was based in part on the fact that this code amendment process had been initiated, and it seemed likely that Renton, like many other large King County jurisdictions, would seize this opportunity to amend its BSP regulations to provide the necessary flexibility. IV. The condominium option proposed by the planning department is not feasible We understand that the planning staff is not recommending adoption of this proposed BSP amendment. We were surprised to hear of the staffs position, especially in light of the fact that every jurisdiction researched by the planning staff has adopted the type of BSP regulations we are proposing. Staff Report at 3-5. G:\Un co\666.OD4kon1PbnnnaCommisslon.doc 01/05/2005 11:35 FAX 206 448 "444 MCCULLOUGH HILL lj006/008 City of Renton Planning Commission Attn.: Ray Giometti, Chair January 5, 2005 Page 5 Staff's position appears to be based on the fact that"individual lots would not need to have the required number of parking stalls, landscaping, and direct access to a street provided that the site as a whole met the parking, landscaping, access and signage standards." Staff Report at 7. The Staff Report does not acknowledge that this is exactly what the Comprehensive Plan envisions-- "shared access points and fewer curb cuts,""shared parking facilities,"and"unified development concepts." Policy LU-349. BSP sites are intended to function as a unified whole. Accordingly, the planning department retains ultimate control over development and use of the site. The proposed amendment would not lead to"nonconforming structures"in commercial and industrial zones; it would simply change the way internal property lines are drawn within large commercial and industrial parcels. Staff is recommending an alternative BSP amendment that would"include allowances for condominiums as an option." Staff Report at 6. We appreciate the staffs attempt to craft a workable solution to the problem under existing code, but we do not see any advantage to allowing condominium development within a BSP. First, the implied warranties associated with condominium developments are a significant disincentive to their use. Our clients would not be interested in creating condominium developments, and we suspect that there would be little interest from the development community as a whole. Second, condominium developments are already authorized under state law, so this proposal provides no advantage whatsoever. If this proposal were adopted, investors would be left with the same option they have now—selling in bulk at a large discount. The proposed BSP amendment is simple, it complies with state law, it has already been adopted by at least six large jurisdictions in the area, and it presents an opportunity for Renton create a "win-win"for its citizens and business owners by making it economically feasible for existing, vacant office centers to redevelop and to attract dynamic new business to the City. We ask that you support its adoption. • Very truly yours, Crala6 -fi"------ y E. Flora cc. Renton City Coundl Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Director Transpacific Investments Bedford Property Investors GAunkcA686.064korof amhocommluwn.doc 01/05/2005 11:35 FAX 206 448 3444 MCCULLOUGH HILL l7007/008 EXHIBIT A 01/05/2005 11:35 FAX 206 448 3444 MCCULLOUGH HILL tJ 008/008 NOV 1110/ BSP Amendment(proposed in January 28, 2004 text amendment application) Amend RMC 4-7-230E.1. as follows: 1. Legal Lots: Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record; provided that the entire land area subject to the binding_site plan shall be treated as a single lot when applying minimum lot width, setbacks, maximum lot coverage, off streetparking. sign, landscaping, and other development regulations. The number of lots, tracts, parcels,sites, or divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district. To: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager RECFW ED DEC 2 0 2004 From: Andrew Duffus ECONONEiMfC BO DEVERHOOD�OPMS,ENT, CH AND STRATEGIC PL.�NMNG Date: December 17, 2004 Subiect: Revised urban separator contiguous open space corridor The revised map looks pretty good. A couple of suggestions for greater clarity and credibility. 1. Move "StoneGate"wetland(western tip of wetland#5) to its more likely location. See my red marks. The narrow constricted area in the middle of this wetland lines up with the pointed contour lines on 148th Ave. south of the bridge over May Creek. Also move the part of the wetland#28b that is within the City of Newcastle. Again, the south-west edge lines up with the nearest contour line below it. 2. Avoid controversy about the actual location of the flood hazard area by simply re- labeling it "the minimum 100 foot creek setback." Flood hazards can be field studied when and if development is proposed. 3. Adjust Blayden's 50% open space to go around his house and compensate by adding an equal amount on the eastern edge of the property. (see red lines) 4. Regarding John Andrews' property: a. There is a recently build 4,000 square foot house approximately where I show it and there is a large new barn in the north-east corner of his property, also extensive (expensive) landscaping, large patios, brick walls etc. I do not think he intends to place any new homes on the northern third of his property. b. Further, the access to the north of the property is across a small 10 foot wide community bridge (no agreement of any kind between property owners for use or maintenance.) The access lane traverses several adjoining properties and is by prescriptive, non-recorded easement only. (open and notorious use ??) This would probably preclude access to any subsequently created lots. c. Andrews wants to cluster his development to the south end where there is more probable access opportunities. This is more appropriate in the practical sense for gravity sanitary sewer lines and it clusters development away from the axis of the urban separator. *********** A final brief comment which we will elaborate on later when we have done some research. The urban separator was identified and ultimately created because it was sensitive and there are physical and environmental constrictive features. As well as a relatively light development pattern. We do not believe that constrained parcels that are non-contiguous should be used for any internal density transfer. The goal is to maintain urban separators as green belt and open space, through minimal development not maximum. One basis for this argument can be found in the May Creek Basin Plan. In the area upstream from the Coal Creek Parkway bridge density bonuses or other possible incentive programs that may be developed are not allowed. More later liodoogp121704mswPresarioP Dec 16 04 10: 55a Jana 4225056 P, 2 94,00,0 HANSON CONSULTING Jim Hanson 360-422-5056 December 16, 2004 Terri Briere, Chair Planning and Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Subject: Urban Separator, Open Space,Density Dear Mrs. Briere: Because of an earlier commitment I am unable to attend the Committee meeting today therefore I am writing on behalf of three property owners within the Merritt II annexation and within the Urban Separator area in the May Creek basin. These three property owners own over 31 acres within the area.We generally agree with the Urban Separator Clustering proposal as presented to the City Council at the public hearing on December 13th 2004 with a few clarifications. 1. In addition to trails and utility connections being allowed within the open space a provision for emergency access and other utilities such as storm water facilities are also needed. 2. The density bonus is needed in order to make the dedication of the 50%open space more equitable. 3_ We should be careful about how the 50%requirement is worded along with the contiguous requirement. Some way of modifying this requirement for specific properties is needed if such dedication would not meet the goals of the contiguous open space corridor. 4. We understand that an overlay map will be presented to the committee outlining the open space area. This type of display may be needed however care should be taken before the map is finalized. Individual parcels may be severely impacted if we do not take a very careful look at the logical boundaries of such an open space corridor. In other words such a map at this time should be conceptual only. We look foreword to working with the City staff and City Council to finalize the development standards for the urban separator. Th7 You: /,,,,,,, kid‘c) im Hanson saw R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS fC (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) ,4. _ RC R-1 R 4 R 8 o Minimum None None None 4 dwelling units o Housing Density per net acre1'2 ry for proposed short g o 0 plats or subdivisions Maximum 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit per 4 dwelling units 8 dwelling units Housing Density2 per 105 net 1 net acre except per 1 net acre per 1 net acre acre that in designated Urban Separators, density of up to 1 unit per gross acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC 4-3-110 Urban Separator Overlay. Maximum 1 dwelling with 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit Number per legal 1 accessory lot2 unit , 0 4 Minimum Lot 10 acres 1 acre 8,000 sq.ft. 4,500 sq.ft. for Size for lots 4,500 sq.ft.for except where parcels greater created after small lot than 1 acre. cluster November 10, developments clusters10 are 2004 allowed, R-8 5,000 sq.ft. for standards shall parcels 1 acre or apply. less. Minimum Lot 150 ft. for 75 ft.for interior 70 ft.for interior 50 ft.for interior Width for lots interior lots. lots. lots.80 ft.for lots. created after corner lots.1t'13 November 10, 175 ft. for 85 ft.for corner except where 60 ft.for corner 2004 corner lots. lots. small lot lots clusters10 are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply. Minimum Lot 200 ft. 85 ft. 80 ft.17'13except 65 ft. Depth for lots where small lot created after clusters10 are November 10, allowed, R-8 2004 standards shall apply. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E.4-2-110 A.reviseddoc.docH:\EDNSP\Title IV\R 1 Clustering\E. 4 2 110 A.docLast printed .1/19/2005 1:20 PM 1.11312001 3:25 PMPage 1 of 5 • 1.1 R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 Minimum Front 30 ft.b 30 ft.° 30 ft.12'"except 15 ft.for primary Yard where small lot structure. clusterst0 are allowed, R-8 20 ft.for attached standards shall garages accessed apply. from front or side Unit with Alley yard street. Access Unit with Alley Garage: The Access Garage: front yard set- The front yard back of the set-back of the primary primary structure structure may may be reduced be reduced to to 10 ft. if all 20 ft. if all parking is parking is provided in the provided in the rear yard of the lot rear yard of the with access from lot with access a public right-of- from a public way or alley.6 right-of-way or alley.6 Minimum Side 30 ft.' 20 ft.' 20 ft.'1,13 except 15 ft.'for the Yard Along a where small lot primary structure Street clusters10 are and 20 ft. for the allowed, 15 ft. is attached garages allowed. which access from the front and side yard along a street. Minimum Side 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined 5 ft. Yard ft.12,13 are allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard, except where small lot clusters 10 are allowed,5 ft. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-:l Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.reviseddoc.docH:'EDNSATitle IV\ , C1u3teriag\E. 4 2 110 A.docLast printed 1/19/2005 1:20 PM 11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 2 of 5 • R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SETBAC S4.(continued) Minimum Rear 35 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. Yard Where small lot clusters10 are allowed,20 ft. Clear Vision Area In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall a a structure over a structure over a structure over structure over 42 42 in. in height 42 in. in height 42 in. in height in. in height intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the 20 ft. clear 20 ft.clear 20 ft.clear 20 ft.clear vision vision area vision area vision area area defined in defined in RMC defined in RMC defined in RMC RMC 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. Minimum 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. landscaped Freeway landscaped landscaped landscaped setback from the Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the street property street property street property street property line. line. line. line. Maximum 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 Building Height ft. ft. ft.for standard ft. and Number of roof. Stories,except for uses having a 2 stories and 35 "Public Suffix"(P) ft.for roofs designations having a pitch greater than 3/12. Maximum Height See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- for Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E.4-2-110 A.reviseddoc.docH:\EDNSP\Titic IV\R 1 Clustcring\E. 4 2 110 A.docLast printed 1/19/2005 1:20 PM11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 3 of 5 R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC J R-1 R-4 R-8 Maximum Lots 5 acres or 35%. Lots greater Lots 5,000 sq.ft. Building more: 2%. An than 5,000 sq. or greater: 35% Coverage additional 5%of ft.:35%or or 2,500 sq.ft., (Including primary the total area 2,500 sq.ft., whichever is and accessory may be used for whichever is greater. buildings) agricultural greater. buildings. Lots less than Lots 10,000 sq. Lots 5,000 sq. 5,000 sq.ft.: ft.to 5 acres: ft. or less: 50% 50%. 15%. On lots greater than 1 acre, an additional 5%of the total area may be used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq. ft. or less: 35%. Vertical Facade All dwelling units Modulation shall provide vertical façade modulation at least every twenty horizontal feet (20'), including front,side and rear façades when visible from a street. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E. 4-2-.110 A.reviseddoc.docH:\BDNSP\Titic I-V\R 1 Clustering\E. 4 2 110 I A.docLast printed 1/19/2005 1:20 PM 11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 4 of 5 R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 LANDSCAPING,AND OPE SPACE Minimum Off- 5 ft. wide irrigated 5 ft.wide irrigated Site or drought or drought Landscaping resistant resistant Abutting Non- landscape strip landscape strip Arterial Public provided that if provided that if Streets for Plats there is additional there is additional and Short Plants undeveloped right undeveloped right Submitted on or of way in excess of way in excess after November of 5 ft, this shall of 5 ft,this shall 10,2004 also be also be landscaped. landscaped. Minimum Off- 10 ft. wide 10 ft.wide Site irrigated or irrigated or Landscaping drought resistant drought resistant Abutting landscape strip landscape strip Principal, provided that if provided that if Minor and there is additional there is additional Collector undeveloped right undeveloped right Arterial Streets of way in excess of way in excess for Plats and of 10 ft.,this shall of 10 ft.,this shall Short Plants also be also be Submitted on or landscaped, landscaped, after November unless otherwise unless otherwise 10,2004 determined by the determined by reviewing official the reviewing during the official during the subdivision subdivision process. process. Minimum On or At least two(2) At least two (2) Off-Site Street trees of a City- trees of a City- Tree approved species approved species Requirements with a minimum with a minimum for Plats and caliper of 1 %2"per caliper of 1 %" Short Plants tree shall be per tree shall be Submitted on or planted in the planted in the after November front yard or front yard or 10,2004 planting strip of planting strip of every lot prior to every lot prior to occupancy. occupancy. H:\E.DNSP\Tit.le IV\R-1 Clustering\E. 4-2-11{)A.reviseddoc.docH:\EDNSP\Titic IV\R 1 Cluste g\E.-I 2 110 .do<Last printed 1/19/2005 1:20 PM"nt200 3:25 PMPage 5 of 5 RECEIVED Noire JAN 2 0 2005 Renton City Council 4-2-110D To be amended by the following changes Amended January 19,2004 in Response to Planning Commission and public comments 4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 1. a. Phasing,shadow platting,or land a. Cluster developments shall be limited to reserves may be used to satisfy the minimum density requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the current bra.The maximum net density requirement development would not preclude the shall not be exceeded except within Urban provision of adequate access and Separators for density bonuses meeting infrastructure to future development and criteria established in 41 3 1104-3-110 Urban would allow for the eventual satisfaction of Separator Overlay Regulations minimum density requirements through future development. e b.The area of individual lots shall not be less than 4,500 sq.ft. b. In the event the applicant can show that the minimum density cannot be d:c.Except for density,the remaining achieved due to lot configuration,lack of development standards of the access,environmental or physical Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre constraints,minimum density requirements Zone)shall apply may be waived by the Reviewing Official. d Within designated-Urban Separators 2. —Use-related provisions are not designated in Section 4-3-110,Urban variable. Use-related provisions that are Separator Overlay Regulations: not eligible for a variance include: building size,units per structure/lot,or (i)All subdivision and short subdivisions densities. Unless bonus size or density shall he clustered outside the boundary of provisions are specifically authorized, the designated Contiguous Open Space the modification of building size,units Corridor shown in Section 4-3-110. per structure,or densities requires a legislative change in the code provisions (ii)For parcels created by lot line and/or a Comprehensive Plan adjustment or subdivision and for pre- amendment/rezone. existing undeveloped lots,at least fifty percent of the gross acreage of the site shall be placed in contiguous open space tracts. 3. Clustering beis allowed to meet objectives such as preserving significant (iii)For pre-existing developed legal lots, natural features,providing lands within critical areas and critical areas neighborhood open space,or facilitating buffers shall be placed in contiguous open the provision of sewer service. Within space tracts upon issuance of a building designated urban separators clustering is permit for a re-model or improvement required;.-Cluster development is exceeding 50%of the value of an existing subject to the following standards_: structure within a 3 year period. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-1 1 0 DRevisedl-19.docH:\EDNSP-Tit a I\'\ 1 Cluctcnng\4 2 110 DI?evised 12 29 deeH:\EDNSP`Tri le Ian. n_,� r� u to i g'1 2 110 D2.do -1- not exceeding 42"high may be built (iv)Lands in Contiguous Open Space within the front yard setback. Corridors shall be placed in separate permanent open space tracts or native d. Eaves: Eaves and cornices may growth protection easements tracts that may project up to 24"into any required include critical areas and critical area buffers setback. pursuant to Section 4-3-050G. 5. In order to be considered detached,a (v)Open space tracts shall be configured to structure must be sited a minimum of 6' provide contiguous connection within the from any residential structure. identified Contiguous Open Space Corridor 6. A front yard setback of less than 20' is (Corridor).Native Growth Protection allowed if equal to or greater than the easements established within the Corridor average of the front yard setback of the may also be used to establish contiguous existing,abutting primary structures; connection. however,in no case shall a minimum setback of less than 20' be allowed for (vi)Open space tracts shall not be altered or garages which access from the front yard disturbed. Passive recreation with no street(s). development of recreational facilities and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian 7. For pre-existing legal lots having less trails are acceptable uses within open space than the minimum lot width required by this tracts. Section,the following chart shall apply for (vii)The tracts may be: determining the required minimum side yard (a)retained by the subdivider or width along a street: (b)conveyed to the residents of the development WIDTH OF MINIMUM EXISTING SIDE YARD LEGAL LOT WIDTH ALONG A STREET 4. Allowed Projections into Setbacks: RC ZONE 150 feet or less 25 ft. a. Fireplace Structures,Windows: R-1 ZONE Fireplace structures,bay or garden Less than or equal 10 ft. windows,enclosed stair landings, to 50 ft. and similar structures as Zoning 50.1 to 51 ft. 11 ft. Administrator may project 24"into 51.1 to 52 ft. 12 ft. any setback;provided,such 52.1 to 53 ft. 13 ft. projections are: 53.1 to 54 ft. 14 ft. 54.1 to 55 ft. 15 ft. (i) Limited to 2 per façade. 55.1 to 56 ft. 16 ft. (ii) Not wider than 10'. 56.1 to 57 ft. 17 ft. b. Fences: See RMC 4-4-040. 57.1 to 58 ft. 18 ft. 58.1 to 59 ft. 19 ft. c. Steps and Decks: Uncovered steps 59.1ft. and greater 19 ft. and decks not exceeding 18"above R-4 or R-8 ZONE the finished grade may project to any Less than or equal 10 ft. property line. Uncovered steps and to 50 ft. decks having no roof covering and 50.1 to 52 ft. 11 ft. 52.1 to 54 ft. 12 ft. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-1.10 DRevised12-29.docH:\EDNSP\Title IV\R 1 Cl stc iRg\=1_2-110 D2.doo -2- 54.1 to 56 ft. 13 ft. open space." Such open space shall be 56.1 to 58 ft. 14 ft. situated to act as a visual buffer between 58.1 ft. or greater 15 ft. small lot clusters and other development in the zone. The percentage of open However,in no case shall a structure space required may be reduced by the over 42"in height intrude into the 20' reviewing official to 20% of the site clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- when: 030. a) Public access is provided to open 8. In no case shall building height exceed space1 the maximum allowed by the Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions,for b) Soft surface trails are provided uses located within the Federal Aviation within wetland buffers, and Administration Airport Zones designated under RMC 4-3-020. 9. "Public Suffix" properties are c) Store water ponds are designed (P)P pe to eliminate engineered slopes allowed the following height bonus: requiring fencing and enhanced to Publicly owned structures shall be allow passive and/or active permitted an additional 15' in height recreation. above that otherwise permitted in the zone if "pitched roofs,"as defmed herein,are used for at least 60%or more 11. a) Lot size width and depth may be of the roof surface of both primary and reduced by the reviewing official when, accessory structures. In addition,the due to lot configuration or access,4- -height of a publicly owned structure dwelling units per net acre cannot be may be increased as follows,up to a achieved. The reduction shall be the maximum height of 75' to the highest minimum needed to allow 4-dwelling point of the building: units per net acre and shall be limited to the following minimum dimensions: a. When abutting a public street, 1 additional foot of height for each Lot size -7,200 sq.ft additional 1-1/2' of perimeter Lot depth—70 feet building setback beyond the Lot width -60 feet minimum street setback required; and/or 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose of achieving maximum density, setbacks b. When abutting a common property may also be reduced. Setback reductions line, 1 additional foot of height for shall be limited to the following: each additional 2' of perimeter building setback beyond Front—20 feet. the minimum required along a Side yard along a street— 15 feet common property line. primary structure,20 feet attached garage with access from the side yard. 10. In order to serve as a transition between Minimum side yard combined setback— the lower density R-4 zone and the 15 feet. higher density R-8 zone"small lot Minimum for one yard—5 feet. clusters"of up to a maximum of 50 lots shall be allowed within 600 feet of an R- 8 zone when at least 30%of the site is 13. For properties vested with a complete plat permanently set aside as "significant application prior to Nov. 10,2004, and for H:\EDNSP\Title iV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 DRevised12-29.docH:\EDNSP\Titlo IV\R I Clustering\1 2 110 D2.doc -3- 11100 *10 the Mosier II,Maplewood East and Anthone,the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within 5 years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum Density-5 dwelling units per net acre Minimum Lot Size-7,200 sq.ft Minimum Lot Width-60 feet for interior lots,70 feet for corner lots Minimum Lot Depth-70 feet Minimum Front Yard- 15 feet for the primary structure,20 feet for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage,the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right of way or alley. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street- 15 feet Minimum Side Yard-5 feet (Amd.Ord.4963, 5-13-2002) H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 DRevised12-29.docH•\EDNSP\lit,,,EV\R I CI .t ,. I -4- • 4-2-110D To be amended by the following changes Amended January 19, 2004 in Response to Planning Commission and public comments 4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 1. a. Phasing,shadow platting,or land a. p reserves may be used to satisfy the of 6 lots cluster. minimum density requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the current bra. The maximum net density requirement development would not preclude the shall not be exceeded except within Urban provision of adequate access and Separators for density bonuses meeting infrastructure to future development and criteria established in 4 3 110'1-3-110 Urban would allow for the eventual satisfaction of Separator Overlay Regulations minimum density requirements through future development. e713.The area of individual lots shall not be less than 4,500 sq. ft. b. In the event the applicant can show that the minimum density cannot be d:c.Except for density,the remaining achieved due to lot configuration,lack of development standards of the access,environmental or physical Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre constraints,minimum density requirements Zone)shall apply may be waived by the Reviewing Official. d Within deserted-Urban Separators 2. 2-Use-related provisions are not designated in Section 4-3-110, Urban variable. Use-related provisions that are Separator Overlay Regulations: not eligible for a variance include: building size,units per structure/lot,or (i)All subdivision and short subdivisions densities. Unless bonus size or density shall be clustered outside the boundary of provisions are specifically authorized, the designated Contiguous Open Space the modification of building size,units Corridor shown in Section 4-3-110.. per structure,or densities requires a legislative change in the code provisions (ii)For parcels created by lot line and/or a Comprehensive Plan adjustment or subdivision and for pre- amendment/rezone. existing undeveloped lots.at least fifty percent of the gross acreage of the site shall be placed in contiguous open space tracts. Clustering may beis allowed to meet objectives such as preserving significant (iii)Forpre-existing developed legal lots, natural features,providing lands within critical areas and critical areas neighborhood open space,or facilitating buffers shall be placed in contiguous open the provision of sewer service. Within space tracts upon issuance of a building designated urban separators clustering is permit for a re-model or improvement required;.-Cluster development is exceeding 50%of the value of an existing subject to the following standards__ structure within a 3 year period. II:IEDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 DRevised12-29.doc}1:\EDNSPPT 1e 1-Vkli 1 Clustor-ing14 2 110 D2.doc -1- not exceeding 42"high may be built (iv)Lands in Contiguous Open Space within the front yard setback. Corridors shall be placed in separate permanent open space tracts or native d. Eaves: Eaves and cornices may growth protection easements tracts that may project up to 24"into any required include critical areas and critical area buffers setback. pursuant to Section 4-3-050G. 5. In order to be considered detached,a (v)Open space tracts shall be configured to structure must be sited a minimum of 6' provide contiguous connection within the from any residential structure. identified Contiguous Open Space Corridor 6. A front yard setback of less than 20' is (Corridor).Native Growth Protection allowed if equal to or greater than the easements established within the Corridor average of the front yard setback of the may also be used to establish contiguous existing,abutting primary structures; connection. however, in no case shall a minimum setback of less than 20' be allowed for (vi)Open space tracts shall not be altered or garages which access from the front yard disturbed. Passive recreation with no street(s). development of recreational facilities and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian 7. For pre-existing legal lots having less trails are acceptable uses within open space than the minimum lot width required by this tracts. Section,the following chart shall apply for (vii)The tracts may be: determining the required minimum side yard (a)retained by the subdivider or width along a street: (b)conveyed to the residents of the development WIDTH OF MINIMUM EXISTING SIDE YARD LEGAL LOT WIDTH ALONG A STREET 4. Allowed Projections into Setbacks: RC ZONE 150 feet or less 25 ft. a. Fireplace Structures,Windows: R-1 ZONE Fireplace structures,bay or garden Less than or equal 10 ft. windows,enclosed stair landings, to 50 ft. and similar structures as Zoning 50.1 to 51 ft. 11 ft. Administrator may project 24"into 51.1 to 52 ft. 12 ft. any setback;provided,such 52.1 to 53 ft. 13 ft. projections are: 53.1 to 54 ft. 14 ft. (i) Limited to 2 per façade. 54.1 to 55 ft. 15 ft. (ii) Not wider than 10'. 55.1 to 56 ft. 16 ft. 56.1 to 57 ft. 17 ft. b. Fences: See RMC 4-4-040. 57.1 to 58 ft. 18 ft. 58.1 to 59 ft. 19 ft. c. Steps and Decks: Uncovered steps 59.1ft. and greater 19 ft. and decks not exceeding 18"above R-4 or R-8 ZONE the finished grade may project to any Less than or equal 10 ft. property line. Uncovered steps and to 50 ft. decks having no roof covering and 50.1 to 52 ft. 11 ft. 52.1 to 54 ft. 12 ft. H:IEDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering14-2-110 DRevised12-29.doc?44EDNSP,Titt ,lee I -2- 54.1 to 56 ft. 13 ft. open space." Such open space shall be 56.1 to 58 ft. 14 ft. situated to act as a visual buffer between 58.1 ft.or greater 15 ft. small lot clusters and other development in the zone. The percentage of open However,in no case shall a structure space required may be reduced by the over 42"in height intrude into the 20' reviewing official to 20% of the site clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- when: 030. a) Public access is provided to open 8. In no case shall building height exceed space, the maximum allowed by the Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions,for b) Soft surface trails are provided uses located within the Federal Aviation within wetland buffers,and Administration Airport Zones designated under RMC 4-3-020. c) Store water ponds are designed 9. "Public Suffix"(P)properties are to eliminate engineered slopes allowed the following height bonus: requiring fencing and enhanced to Publicly owned structures shall be allow passive and/or active permitted an additional 15' in height recreation. above that otherwise permitted in the zone if "pitched roofs,"as defined herein,are used for at least 60%or more 11. a) Lot size width and depth may be of the roof surface of both primary and reduced by the reviewing official when, accessory structures. In addition,the due to lot configuration or access,4- height of a publicly owned structure dwelling units per net acre cannot be may be increased as follows,up to a achieved. The reduction shall be the maximum height of 75' to the highest minimum needed to allow 4-dwelling point of the building: units per net acre and shall be limited to the following minimum dimensions: a. When abutting a public street, 1 additional foot of height for each Lot size -7,200 sq. ft additional 1-1/2' of perimeter Lot depth—70 feet building setback beyond the Lot width -60 feet minimum street setback required; and/or 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose of achieving maximum density, setbacks b. When abutting a common property may also be reduced. Setback reductions line, 1 additional foot of height for shall be limited to the following: each additional 2' of perimeter building setback beyond Front—20 feet. the minimum required along a Side yard along a street— 15 feet common property line. primary structure,20 feet attached garage with access from the side yard. 10. In order to serve as a transition between Minimum side yard combined setback— the lower density R-4 zone and the 15 feet. higher density R-8 zone "small lot Minimum for one yard—5 feet. clusters"of up to a maximum of 50 lots shall be allowed within 600 feet of an R- 8 zone when at least 30%of the site is 13. For properties vested with a complete plat permanently set aside as "significant application prior to Nov. 10,2004, and for H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 DRevised12-29.docH:\EDNSP\Title 1V\R 1 Clustering42 110 D2.doc -3- the Mosier II,Maplewood East and Anthone,the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within 5 years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum Density-5 dwelling units per net acre Minimum Lot Size-7,200 sq.ft Minimum Lot Width-60 feet for interior lots,70 feet for corner lots Minimum Lot Depth-70 feet Minimum Front Yard- 15 feet for the primary structure,20 feet for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage,the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right of way or alley. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street- 15 feet Minimum Side Yard-5 feet (Amd. Ord.4963,5-13-2002) 1-1:\EDNSP\Title MR-1 Clustering4-2-110 DRevised12-29.doc :EDNen,T•, IV\R , C D2-de I -4- January 3,2005 'Nor Renton City Council Minutes `"''' Page 5 Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of December 20, 2004. Council concur December 20, 2004 as corrected.* Vacation: Logan & Park Ayes City Clerk reported City of Renton request for street vacation for portions of N, City of Renton,VAC-04- Logan and Park Avenues N. for the proposed Lakeshore Landing site 005 development, and requested a public hearing be set of 1/24/2005 to consider the request(VAC-04-005). Council concur. (See page 6 for resolution.) Plat: Emmas,Lyons Ave NE, Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions,of the FP-04-138 Emma's Final Plat;ten single-family lots on 4.3 acres located at the 100 block of Lyons Ave. NE(FP-04-138). Council concur. (See page 6 for resolution.) CAG: 04-052, Sunset Sewer Utility Systems Division recommended approval of Addendum No. 1 to CAG- Interceptor Phase III Design, 04-052,contract with Roth Hill Engineering Partners,LLC, in the amount of Roth Hill Engineering Partners $90,550 for final design services for the Sunset Sewer Interceptor Phase III Project. Council concur. *MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO CORRECT THE 12/20/2004 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AS FOLLOWS: PAGE 459,UTILITIES COMMITTEE REPORT,LINE 1,REPLACE "CHAIR CLAWSON" WITH "VICE CHAIR BRIERE," AND LINE 13,REPLACE "CLAWSON" WITH "BRIERE." CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE A letter was read from Jean Rollins, 9605 143rd Ave. SE, Renton,98059, Citizen Comment: Rollins - requesting that the City prohibit the transfer of development density credits Development Density Credits, between real estate parcels within the Urban Separators. MOVED BY Urban Separators P Tu\ CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Temple- A letter was read from Eric Temple,President, Spirit of Washington Dinner Pavilion Building Lease, Spirit Train,PO Box 835,Renton,98057,expressing interest in leasing the Pavilion of Washington Dinner Train Building for use as a venue for meetings and events. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Highlands Responding to Council inquiry regarding information received from Highlands Community Association- Community Association Directors Robert McDaniel and Terry Persson,PO Vacant House at NE 10th Pl, Box 2041,Renton,98059,concerning the neglected vacant house located at Code Compliance 4307 NE 10th Pl., Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that the City declared the house an attractive nuisance today. She described the timeline by which the property owner has to secure the structure and submit a certified structural engineer's assessment that states the house is safe. If the assessment is not submitted,the property owner is required to apply for a permit to demolish the house. Councilman Clawson assured that the City's code compliance officers are active in enforcing code compliance issues,and he pointed out that the hiring of another code enforcement officer has been authorized. Citizen Comment: McDaniel - Councilman Persson reported receipt of correspondence from Robert Nuisance Abatement, City of McDaniel,4308 NE 10th Pl.,Renton, 98059, containing information about the Bellevue City of Bellevue's nuisance abatement program. RECEIVED Date: December 23, 2004 /-3-020a( Lit t; 2 7 2004 To: Planning & Development Committee, Dan Clawson, Chair FIENTOWC VC L From: Jean Rollins ° P CITY OF RENTON 1fon4cc. Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager 40 DEC 2004 RECEIVED Can'CLERK' OFFICE RE: Transfer of Density Credits within Urban Separators Recently a citizen suggested the City of Renton consider transfer of development density credits within the May Valley Urban Separator. It is not appropriate to consider any kind of transfer of development credits between non-contiguous real estate parcels within urban separators. Lot line adjustments, common ownership and coordinated development of contiguous parcels will give ample opportunity for a fair financial return on the original property purchase cost, if any. The goal is to maintain the spirit, intent and integrity of the urban separator, - not maximize development! It is important to keep in focus that King County development regulations require at least 50% open space, not a maximum of 50% ! Why allow opportunists to buy severely constrained properties (within the creek buffer, for example) at low prices and then transfer that density on to the upper slopes of the urban separator, thereby exacerbating the environmental problems especially storm surface water, erosion, sedimentation, flooding, loss of habitat, etc. Briefly, the following supports the position of no transfer of development credits (rights) between real estate parcels within the May Valley Urban Separator: A. The initial Urban Separator identification & designation, i.e. its very purpose. B. City of Renton Development Code. C. May Creek Basin Action Plan. i. Stormwater volumes ii. Locally Significant Resource Area (LSRA) iii. Effect of uplands development on the lowlands. D. City of Kent Development Regulations in Urban Separators E. King County Transfer of Density Credits Program In more detail the argume is against density transfers within urban separators, especially the May Valley Separator are as follows: A. Urban Separator Identification & Designation: Urban separators were initially identified because of environmentally sensitive issues, access restrictions and a relatively light development pattern. There was also the additional goal of creating a sense of community definition and boundaries between cities within the Urban Growth Area. The May Creek Urban Separator is in the heart of the bustling real estate market on the east side and south King County. Yet through all the past waves of development booms the area has remained undeveloped. One primary reason is that professional real estate developers recognized the issues of access and physical constraints, e.g. steep slopes, wetlands, erosion hazards, and the very fact that May Creek bisects it. The physical constraint of the creek bisecting properties or limiting access to properties is well known by local property owners. This is not flat, dry buildable land and it should not be retrofitted with density transfers. It is not appropriate to create an opportunity where physically and environmentally constrained parcels (particularly within the minimum 100 foot creek buffer) are purchased at cheap prices with the idea that development transfers could be used to build more houses in the immediate uplands. This would create more impervious surfaces, light and noise pollution. Such a scenario would ultimately result in a net loss of open space within the urban separator. An example is our own property which was purchased in 1983. During purchase negotiations the seller readily disclosed that the north-west corner of the property was inaccessible due to its land locked location and the nearby creek. That area, about 3/4 of an acre was duly recognized in the asking price. It was not then nor is it now our expectation to sell the possible density credit of that piece. It was open space then, it is open space now and so it should remain. Several other constrained parcels along the creek have been short platted many years ago by the original property owners in an effort to reduce taxes or in the hopes to sell to contiguous property owners that had easier access. Some constrained low value parcels have been passed on through inheritance or purchased very cheaply by speculators. In the latter cases these folks have invested a small amount of money in hopes of a long shot windfall even while acknowledging the inherent access and flood hazard issues. These properties can still be included in future redevelopment of contiguous parcels. There is no need to create an opportunity to transfer density elsewhere. Nothing has been lost nor taken away. B. City of Renton Development Code: The city's own development code is one of the strongest arguments against any non- contiguous parcel density transfers. Firstly, the code excludes sensitive areas from the net developable area. That is, Renton does not permit any form of density transfers related to the constraints of critical areas. Technically a density bonus is already being considered within the urban separator in return for certain platting configurations and development conditions, namely clustering away from the contiguous open space corridor, reforestation agreements and no fences. If a developer does not want to abide by these conditions then critical areas and roads will be deducted from developable area to calculate maximum number of dwelling units permitted as is the case elsewhere in Renton. C. May Creek Basin Action Plan (MCBAP): The MCBAP argues against development bonuses and density transfers. The basin plan supports this position through its recognition of the effect of uplands development on the lowlands, particularly within the Locally Significant Resource Areas (LSRA) of the basin. Recommendation #17 of the plan specifies no density bonuses. "Density bonuses provided under development incentive programs should not be approved ...in areas of the basin draining to May Creek or any of its tributaries upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge." (MCBAP Page 3-27) i. Stormwater Volumes: "The basin plan recommends solving problems at their source when feasible and suggests some land use prescriptions and development restrictions toward this end." (MCBAP Page 1-2) Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works wrote to Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, then Council President, in a memorandum dated April 8, 1997. "A primary issue that has been raised with regard to zoning for this area is the hydrologic affect of increased development in May Creek and adjacent areas. The May Creek Current&Future Conditions Report notes "even if R/D (retention/detention) ponds were required for all future development, their effectiveness in reducing May Valley floods would be limited because the May Valley problem is primarily controlled by volume, the R/D ponds could delay but not greatly reduce the total volume of storm water delivered into May Valley." (Page 1-3)" On April 14, 1997, Clint Loper,May Creek Basin Action Plan project manager, testified at a City of Renton hearing regarding the May Valley pre-zone. He stated, "the lower basin area experiences extreme flooding and erosion problems, and that one concern is preservation of salmon runs in May Creek." Further, he explained that; "the only solution is to limit development in this environmentally sensitive area, since the type of soil prevalent in May Valley precludes even storm water retention/detention ponds from completely preventing damage attributable to storm water runoff." Since May Creek is a volume driven stream, the May Creek Basin problem is primarily effected by surface water volume. Surface water is not controllable in the May Creek basin. The May Creek Conditions Report states: "Mitigation will be ineffective at reducing flood peaks and volumes in May Valley." (Page 5-42) The Basin plan offers NO capital improvement/engineering solutions to reduce future storm water flows and the subsequent flooding, erosion, sedimentation and habitat loss. County engineers at the May Creek Basin workshops stated there are no capital improvements to fix the surface water problems, not regional R/D ponds, not tight- lining the storm water in pipes, nothing! Also, the engineers have made it clear that the standard site specific engineering solutions will not control the volume of surface water. Even if developers meet surface water controls and requirements, the basin's conditions will worsen. This is why the basin plan had little choice but to look to land use recommendations. The "Summary of Findings for Main Plan Issues" dated 4-1-97 states; "Based on ...staff recognition that zoning, rather than drainage requirements, has the greatest effect on total runoff volumes (the primary upstream contributor to increased May Valley flooding) the revised plan will explicitly recommend against increases in zoning in all areas draining to the valley." This type of recommendation is highly warranted because present surface water management technology does not provide feasible solutions for this basin. Transferring of development from one parcel to another effectively increases zoning density on the receiving parcel. If that parcel is up-stream or up-slope the increased amount of the impervious surfaces and hence run-off exacerbates down-stream down-slope problems. ii. Locally Significant Resource Area Designation (LSRA): River Mile .2 to 3.9 on May Creek is designated a LSRA. " As defined by King County, LSRAs have significant aquatic habitat value and provide important areas for plants and wildlife. LSRAs could be affected by further erosion resulting from continuing destabilization of these sites." (MCBAP Page 3-23) River mile 3.9 is included in the May Valley Urban Separator and as such needs greater care when crafting development code. iii. Effect of uplands development on lowlands: "The density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the flooding that occurs in May Valley." (MCBAP Page 1-5) "While constructed infiltration facilities are ineffective due to poorly percolating soil types in most areas of the basin, analysis has shown that maintaining portions of the developed site in existing vegetation is also an effective means of controlling stormwater volumes. The forest lands that are retained store rainfall with the forest canopy and the forest duff layer, allowing significant evaporation and natural infiltration in to the groundwater system" (MCBAP Page 3-6) Renton Planning Commission clearly recognized the impact of upland development during the pre-zone process. A Planning Commission's memorandum dated February 19, 1997 from then Chair, Eugene Ledbury, to City Council states; "Development on the uplands is anticipated to have at least as great an impact on the hydrology of the basin as development on the valley floor and in the vicinity of May Creek." Severe problems already exist in this area which is presently only lightly developed. The constriction of the valley greatly exacerbates the current and future problems. The unique physical features make it imperative that the uplands development within the urban separator be treated the same as the lowlands. Certainly no density transfers from other parcels within the urban separator, - or from anywhere else for that matter. The development of uplands by simple gravity, adds volumes of water, and is exacerbated due to the soil types and proximity of the uplands to the lowlands. The uplands soils do not facilitate infiltration. As the water moves over the uplands the force of gravity causes the water to pick up more soil, generating more silt than would be the case in the relatively flat lowlands. The only way to reduce future stormwater volumes is to limit development both on the valley floor and the immediate uplands, which dump water onto the valley floor, otherwise the valley floor will be lost to flooding and severe erosion. For all of the properties in the May Valley Urban Separator land use must be across the board, so that all property rights are equally recognized. In a perfect world, the property rights of the lowlands would be held above that of the uplands as the lowlands are forced to bear the brunt of the basin's surface water problems. Therefore there should be no preferential development regulations that add to the density of upland properties. To maintain equality the surface water burden should be equally distributed with no density transfers. D. City of Kent Development Regulation within Urban Separators: An example of how a neighboring city regulates development within urban separators is enlightening. The City of Kent development code in urban separators requires that the 50% open space tracts be unconstrained. Thus acting as a further buffer to the critical areas. First they subtract the environmentally critical areas, then they require 50% of the remaining property to be set aside as permanent open space tracts. That is, Kent does not include the critical areas as part of the 50% open space tracts E. King County Transfer of Density Credits Program: (a.) Finally, the King County Transfer of Density Credits Program, excludes certain areas as well. This program, "requires a discount in credits for the portion of the parcel that is unbuildable because of certain kinds of sensitive areas or other encumbrances in the urban area. All rural and urban sending sites are allocated development credits predicated on base-zoned density, minus any portion of the site already used to calculate residential development thereon, in a conservation easement, or other similar encumbrance or containing submerged lands." In addition the base density is reduced by 75% for any Class I and 2 wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and their buffers, and is reduced 100% for regional utility corridors or other areas required by the County to remain undeveloped. Further King County is so deeply concerned regarding densities in urban separators that they made them sending sites. Properties in urban separators can not be receiving sites of any density transfer. This coming from a county philosophy that believes housing density should be very compact within the urban growth boundary. (Some would even argue too dense, too compact. Example, some of the unincorporated areas on the eastern edge of cities such as Renton and Kent.) Summary The position of no transfer of development credits within the May Valley Urban Separator is strongly supported by: • A. Urban Separator Identification & Designation • B. City of Renton Development Code. • C. May Creek Basin Action Plan. • D. City of Kent Development Regulations in Urban Separators • E. King County Transfer of Density Credits Program Permitting a transfer of development credits would allow developers to pick and choose already constrained properties within the creek buffer, on steep slopes or erosion hazard areas thus permitting more density. These buffers, other constraints, and the inaccessibility of some of the parcels are adding to the overall value and function of the urban separator. These facts were taken in to consideration when the urban separator was designated. The extreme environmental sensitivity of the May Creek basin, demands that highly stringent requirements be employed which reflect the most recent knowledge and technology in the storm water management. However, it would seem from the May Creek Basin Current and Future Conditions Report and the May Creek Basin Action Plan that technology can't come to the rescue. The problem is simply a matter of storm water volume. Further development no matter how high-tech the R/D system used, will still exacerbate the flooding. erosion, sedimentation and habitat loss in the basin. Present construction practices such as retention ponds and bio-filtration swales are not enough to prevent further degradation of this valuable resource. Allowing the regionally designated urban separator to be more than minimally developed will only add to the already difficult problems. Please do not allow transfer of development from one parcel to another within the urban separators. '7 Thank you, Sincerely, n J,e Rollins Rim , 9roc9 (a.) King County Code Chapter 21A.36 (since suspended) All source documents and source quotes available,just ask. I; Na t*lei «at ,w? 0 , „ ....._ W ,....0 C .... Ni v to 1 Fa„ (..4 m WI o z a l III O n'A a oi a 0 On l+. U z , — kW": Lc: el o :-. 10: d C J z W is) u► tv Gs F`n 1.1 u! °LI,L!z ci jia d I- N .V13 1Stltd --' -- 140S3ad w z E oocn a- Qo .a. U zZd o 0� 0 ,a 141 W CD 0cn0 ;-, CI cat V� oQo (r) vt }0 C_I W J d 4 to C) ca z: 10) v () El /4tn I 0 Q�c U Uex) ! _ Q , i \f, ) i 1 Y F s c , rQ a E .emu - T. ;,�.ci v 0 - ? al .Y7 .IIV o '-‘1:. © _ -t .� o S C4 , 2 Noel December 20,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 458 CAG: 04-143, 2004 Lift City Clerk reported bid opening on 12/14/2004 for CAG-04-143, 2004 Lift Station Rehabilitation,RL Alia Station Rehabilitation Project(Lake Washington Flush Station and Misty Cove Company Lift Station); nine bids; engineer's estimate$119,897.60; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to low bidder,R.L. Alia Company, in the amount of$118,809.60. Council concur. Plat: Maureen Highlands Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions,of the Division II, NE 4th St,FP-04- Maureen Highlands Division II Final Plat; 31 single-family lots on 14.2 acres 128 located at 6118 NE 4th St. (FP-04-128). Council concur. (See page 460 for resolution.) Planning: 2004 Annual Update Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department of Zoning Book&Wall Map recommended approval of the 2004 annual update of the City's Zoning Book and Wall Map. Council concur. (See page 460 for ordinance.) MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Madonna Messina, 2218 Lyons Ave. NE, Citizen Comment: Messina - Renton, 98059,expressing support for a 50% or greater permanent open space R-1 Zone Community requirement in the City's Urban Separators. MOVED BY NELSON, Separators -0.1- SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 'Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Planning &Development regarding the pre-application for the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Committee review cycle for property located at 4915 NE Sunset Blvd. The Committee Comp Plan: 2005 Amendment recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to deny the pre- Pre-Application,4915 NE application request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Single Sunset Blvd Family Residential to Corridor Commercial at 4915 NE Sunset Blvd. based on the finding that the application is not timely, and that development of the property for commercial uses does not meet the intent of the Corridor Commercial designation. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Airport: Noise Mitigation Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report (Compatible Land Use recommending adoption, by resolution, of the Renton Airport Compatible Land Program) Use Program. The program will serve as a means to inform the citizens of Renton about Airport noise, safety, and other aviation-generated issues. It can be provided to Renton Airport-based pilots and businesses so that they are informed of citizens concerns in relation to aviation issues. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 460 for resolution.) Planning: Planning & Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a clean-up report Development Committee for the following five items listed on the Committee's referral list and Agenda Item Clean Up Report recommended that the referrals be closed: 1. Referral 920 -Periodic Review of Residential Land Use Policies and Implementation. This recurring referral is no longer necessary since agenda bills are now being created for all new referrals. 2. Referral 1176-Historic Preservation Society, Historic Preservation Regulations. There is no current work being done on this issue. Otalk tc� -cam 1r' /2I 20/Z-oo From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: Madonna Messina Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2004 3:28 PM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone community Separators Dear Ms. Messina: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Copy is being forwarded to all Councilmembers for review and consideration. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Michele Neumann Deputy City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6504 »> "Madonna Messina" <3dolls@comcast.net> 12/14/2004 12:47:22 PM »> As a member of the Stonegate housing development and neighbor to the community, I would like to formally state my support for 50%OR GREATER permanent open space in the area of R-1 Zone Community Separators. Feel free to contact me for more information if necessary. Regards, Madonna Messina 2218 Lyons Ave. NE Renton, WA 98059 Tel: 425 228-2221 Email: 3dolls@comcast.net From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: Madonna Messina Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2004 10:00 PM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone community Separators Dear Ms. Messina: At the regular Council meeting of 12/21/2004, the Renton City Council referred your e-mail message to the Planning and Development Committee for consideration. You will be notified when the Committee is scheduled to meet on this matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "Madonna Messina" <3dolls@comcast.net> 12/14/2004 12:47:22 PM >>> As a member of the Stonegate housing development and neighbor to the community, I would like to formally state my support for 50% OR GREATER permanent open space in the area of R-1 Zone Community Separators. Feel free to contact me for more information if necessary. Regards, Madonna Messina 2218 Lyons Ave. NE Renton, WA 98059 Tel: 425 228-2221 Email: 3dolls@comcast.net CC: Rebecca Lind RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting December 13, 2004 Council Chambers Monday, 7:35 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF DON PERSSON, Council President; MARCIE PALMER;TERRI BRIERE; COUNCILMEMBERS DENIS LAW; DAN CLAWSON;TONI NELSON. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMAN RANDY CORMAN. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer; ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator;ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator; REBECCA LIND,Planner Manager;VICTORIA RUNKLE,Finance&Information Services Department; SYLVIA DOERSCHEL, Finance Analyst Supervisor;JILL MASUNAGA,Finance Analyst III; DEREK TODD,Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE,Police Department. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Victoria Runkle,Finance and Information Services Administrator, announced Finance: Distinguished Budget that Renton has once again won the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Presentation Award,Employee from the Government Finance Officers Association for the City's 2004 Budget. Recognition Explaining that Renton is noted for the amount of detail in its budget, she introduced budget team members Sylvia Doerschel,Finance Analyst Supervisor, and Jill Masunaga,Finance Analyst III, who ensure the integrity of the document. Ms. Runkle gave special thanks to Ms. Doerschel who plans to soon retire from the City. Ms. Doerschel recognized the many staff members, Citywide, who assist in producing the budget,giving special thanks to Beth Haglund,Forms/Graphic Technician, and Debbie Willard,Print&Mail Coordinator. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: R-1 Zone accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Community Separators public hearing to consider City Code amendments to enact a mandatory clustering provision within the designated Urban Separators within R-1 zoning and to require a mandatory open space tract. Rebecca Lind,Planner Manager,pointed out that Renton has three designated Urban Separator areas: May Valley, Cedar River, and the Talbot area by Springbrook Creek. She noted that attention has been focused on the May Valley area, as there is a pending annexation in the area known as the Merritt II Annexation. Ms. Lind explained that Urban Separators provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities and define Renton's boundaries. The types of land use included in Urban Separators are highly constrained lands that contain critical areas and open space values,and the purpose of the separators are to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. Lind stated that Urban Separator policies are currently implemented through the low density residential section of Renton's Comprehensive Plan, as well as through the R-1 zoning where one dwelling unit per net acre is allowed. December 13,2004 v.. Renton City Council Minutes ..re Page 439 She noted that development credit is not given for designated critical areas, or for public and private roads. In King County, Ms. Lind reported that Urban Separators are currently implemented through a mandatory clustering standard requiring clustering away from sensitive areas or "the axis of the Community Separators." In King County's R-1,P zone, clustering and 50% open space retention is required. Renton currently allows and encourages clustering but does not mandate it. She pointed out that Renton's overall density regulations are approximately 20% lower than King County's regulations due to the difference in the density calculations. King County calculates density based upon gross acreage, which includes critical areas and public and private roads. Continuing,Ms. Lind stated the staff recommends enacting regulations that are more explicit than King County code. The proposed regulations include the following: an Urban Separator overlay provision, a mandatory clustering provision, a 50% open space requirement to include critical areas and buffers, the prohibition of fencing that restricts access within the open space, and the allowance of trails and utility connections. She explained that the trigger for the open space requirement includes subdivision, lot line adjustment,building permit, and major remodel. Additionally, a density bonus is proposed to adjust for the difference between the net and gross densities. The density bonus would allow up to one dwelling unit per gross acre, and the bonus provisions include contiguous open space and enhancement of buffers. Concluding,Ms. Lind stated that this issue will remain in Planning and Development Committee, and staff will continue to review public testimony, specific City Code language,and the map of critical areas and proposed open space configuration. Public comment was invited. Jim Hanson, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane,Mt. Vernon, 98274, stated that he is working with property owners in the original Merritt Annexation and May Valley Urban Separator areas. He voiced his agreement with a majority the proposed regulations, and made the following comments: allow modification of the 50% open space requirement on some parcels; allow the crossing of open space by emergency vehicles; the six-unit maximum clustering allowance along with the 50% open space requirement may prohibit clustering the way the City is proposing; the 50% open space requirement restricts the ability to develop parcels due to the City's net density; and re-vegetation is important in the critical areas but may not be appropriate in all parts of the open space separator. Dan Gallagher, 19225 Talbot Rd. S.,Renton, 98031,indicated that although he supports clustering,he does not support it for his property which contains the Springbrook Trout Farm. He emphasized that no one can care for his property better than his family. Additionally, he expressed his support for clustering on the neighboring Cleveland Park property if half is reserved for a wildlife area and the other half for the park. Jerri Wood, 12408 SE 98th St., Renton, 98056, stated that she is also speaking on behalf of her mother,Mary Lou Zimmerman, who lives at 13703 SE May Valley Rd.,Renton, 98055. Thanking the City for the proposed 50% open space requirement,Ms. Wood noted the importance of the Urban Separator. She said continued development along NE Sunset Blvd. has affected the quality of life of people who live along May Creek. She explained that over- December 13,2004 '409, Renton City Council Minutes ,..me Page 440 development leads to flooding and erosion, which affects not only the Urban Separator but also the areas surrounding May Creek, including the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington. Ms. Wood added that neighbors are divided over what can and cannot be done with their property, and stressed that any action taken should not harm the affected property owners. Randy LaVigne, 14833 SE Jones Pl. Renton, 98058, voiced his opposition to the taking of private property for purposes such as this,but indicated that he does support the purchasing of open space. Dennis Noland, 14326 SE 100th Pl.,Renton, 98059, stating that he has lived adjacent to the May Creek Urban Separator for 25 years,expressed his support for the clustering and 50% open space requirements. Pointing out that many landowners are pushing for annexation to Renton for access to the City's sewer service, Mr. Noland stressed that Renton has a responsibility to determine the type and appropriateness of the development that takes place. Julie Bonwell, 9616 146th Ave. SE,Renton, 98055,explained how the May Valley Urban Separator fits in the Puget Sound's larger regional open space system. Emphasizing that open space corridors must be established and preserved, she stated that requiring clustering and 50% open space is a step towards that goal. She provided Councilmembers with a map showing the greenbelt, open space, State and local parks,rural lands, and Urban Separators from Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park to Lake Washington. Ms. Bonwell recommended that the 50%permanent open space requirement also exclude critical areas. Jim Bonwell, 9616 146th Ave. SE,Renton, 98055, expressed his concern about the way property is developed, saying that land is often leveled out prior to building, with not even a tree left standing. He noted that this destroys buffers, and negatively affects surrounding property. Mr. Bonwell stated that he favors a 50% or greater open space requirement,clustering,and a better way to develop property. Andrew Duffus, 9605 143rd Ave. SE,Renton, 98059, described the positive actions of the City of Renton over the past 15 years pertaining to the May Valley Urban Separator, which included supporting the addition of a map of existing Urban Separators to the Countywide Planning Policies. Mr.Duffus urged Council to follow past visionary decision making and amend City Code to require mandatory clustering and 50% permanent open space tracts within the Urban Separators. Jean Rollins,9605 143rd Ave. SE,Renton,98059,pointed out that clustering and 50% open space retention has been required in the May Valley area since 1983. She also pointed out the important role Urban Separators play in the regional open space system,noting that Countywide Planning Policies call for technical development regulations that maintain and steward Urban Separators. Ms. Rollins asked that Council reaffirm its long-standing commitment to Urban Separators by requiring clustering away from sensitive areas and 50% permanent open space. Bob Blayden, 9933 143rd Ave. SE,Renton, 98059, stated that he owns six acres within the Merritt II Annexation area. He expressed his support for the 50% open space requirement if the maximum density is allowed. He explained that without the maximum density he would only be allowed five lots, and the loss of one lot affects the overall cost of development. Saying that he was December 13,2004 *lase Renton City Council Minutes "two' Page 441 • careful to protect May Creek by installing a retention pond when he built in the past, Mr. Blayden noted the need to be able to cross the Urban Separator for sewer and stormwater retention and secondary access for emergency vehicles in order to develop the property. Debra Rogers, 5326 NE 22nd Ct.,Renton, 98058, representing the Stonegate Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of the 50%open space retention requirement, as well as developing away from critical areas. She pointed out that the Stonegate neighborhood contains Greens Creek and a portion of the Urban Separator,emphasizing that residents want the May Creek area protected. Correspondence was read from Larry Phillips, Metropolitan King County Council Chair, 516 3rd Ave.Room 1200, Seattle, 98104,recommending that Renton use the 50% open space requirement within Urban Separators as allowed in King County's R-1 zone. The following e-mail was read into the record in support of the 50% open space requirement in the Urban Separators: Connie Marsh, 1175 NW Gilman Blvd., #B11, Issaquah, 98027;Jodi &John Mackey, 5301 NE 23rd Ct.,Renton, 98059; Jan Fohrell,2400 Lyons Ave. NE,Renton, 98059; Wayde Watters, 11608 SE 286th St.,Kent, 98030;David Kappler, 255 SE Andrews St., Issaquah, 98027; Betsy Reamy, 2502 Lyons Ave. NE, Renton,98059; Kevin F. Schulz, 2202 Lyons Ave. NE,Renton, 98059;Bruce Christopherson, 5502 NE 24th Ct.,Renton, 98059;Paul&Tracy Ficca, 5306 NE 23rd Ct.,Renton, 98059; Lon&Leda Stewart,2217 Lyons Ave. NE,Renton, 98059;Li-Meng& Sandy Yu, 5405 NE 24th Ct.,Renton, 98059; Susan Old,2406 Lyons Ave. NE, Renton, 98059; and Melissa&Tad Willoughby, 5512 NE 26th St.,Renton, 98059. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2004 and beyond. Items noted included: * Over 360 children and parents enjoyed Breakfast with Santa on December l lth at the Renton Senior Activity Center, where volunteers assisted with the breakfast and program. * Winter weather conditions may impact curbside collection services of Renton residents. If weather or road conditions prevent regular pick up, collection will be one week late. Residents are asked to store their materials until the following week when the Waste Management Rainier truck driver can safely collect two weeks worth of materials. In such cases, residents will not be billed for an extra garbage collection. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mike O'Halloran,4420 SE 4th St.,Renton, 98059, stated that he is a Heather Citizen Comment: O'Halloran- Downs neighborhood resident, and asked Council not to delay the development Heather Downs Park of Heather Downs Park, which has been slated as a proposed park for Development approximately 20 years. Citizen Comment: Grassi - Rosemary Grassi,422 Cedar Ave. S.,Renton, 98055,deferred her time to Cedar Ave S Speeding Traffic Becky Lemke to speak on the subject of speeding traffic on Cedar Ave. S. Ntimsor . �Y .,. ti O� R-1 CLUSTERING PROVISIONS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF NEW CLUSTERING PROVISIONS FOR THE R-1 ZONE WITHIN URBAN SEPARATORS December 13, 2004 The Administration is recommending the adoption of clustering provisions in the R-1 Zone. Such provisions would make Renton's R-1 zoning more consistent with how the County's R-1 Zone implements relevant Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) relating to Urban Separators. Urban Separators are permanent low-density areas that cannot be redesignated within the CPP 20-year planning cycle. Also, any modifications to development regulations governing these areas must be reviewed by King County. Renton has three designated Urban Separators: May Valley, Cedar River, and the Talbot area by Springbrook Creek in the south end of the City(see map on reverse side). Urban Separators are currently implemented in King County through a mandatory clustering standard requiring clustering away from sensitive areas or"the axis of the Community Separators." In the County's R-1, P zone, clustering and 50%open space retention is required. Renton's Comprehensive Plan addresses Urban Separators in the Community Design Element and in the Land Use Element. These areas are also designated Residential Low Density on the City's Land Use Map. The major difference between Renton and the County regarding R-1 development patterns occurs in the application of clustering provisions and density calculation. Renton currently allows and encourages clustering but does not mandate it. Also, Renton calculates density based upon net acreage,which excludes all critical areas and all private and public road easements. King County calculates density based upon gross acreage, which includes critical areas and public and private roads. Recommendation: • Enact a mandatory clustering provision. • Use the 50% open space requirement in King County Code rather than 30% as originally recommended. • Enact the following regulations that are more explicit than King County Code. o Allow the 50% open space requirement to include critical areas and critical area buffers. o Prohibit fencing that restricts access within open space. Council Hearing Handout 12-6-04.doc\ o Allow traand utility connections, including maiinance access for utilities. , t o Require the open space requirement within designated critical areas and critical area buffers upon building permit, major re-model or construction of accessory structures for developed properties within the urban separator. • Allow a density bonus up to one-dwelling unit per gross acre. Establish the following bonus provisions: o contiguous open space, and o re-vegetation within the open space network. 1 ter. ,�"V Ma ..Valley ' t, > , Urban Separators Designated R-1 : • R ' ", or Shown in Renton Comprehensive Plan as ,i't $ Ma vane~S• :. 46.gs a z Low Density Residential r �� i'� -,:4'' 1. May Valley 2. Jones road a - L 3. Talbot/Springbrook , aqa NE 16th.t t�C , m m Pe�� 0` ` '. r- �..sM NE-12th St m ` ,(t` f I ' Z jLst � I f a` : .41 _a Z • �. z , _. _ NE 4th St .. m y-,t '[�$ .S-3t LSt se 136i ^ - to m' n-s<- '1 4V .SE 142dd St S jj c: ti31 t 6 ,q @a• v0 - Cedar River m -m r- F � 1 E C 2 '\ t o . f A� 1�J • l `�Yi ® J SE r�41�st.f,-w \ 1 ep� a Slit_ St_ m { 5z, Benson m '4 \ : t T lbot: d L + sr, J 11 J y ? � c ' I. 1..+ >. +. 'm i'' o♦ % '•®- -1 j sE i '` P � i %� .- f'etLake '1 ' Council Hearing Handout 12-6-04.doc\ New( Nese sr 2004 Zoning Code Amendments R-1 Cluster in the Urban Separator Proposed changes to address mandatory clustering for Renton adopted Urban Separators policies in 1993 and updated development in the Urban Separator in 2004 Part of New Community Design Element • ecr e CD-B and Pericles 6:C-7 and co •Pror.de Any scar and aruat u t cc,ons oeheen Renton and adacent mmuniries •De' e Reruon s baunda-es Separate hgh-density urban land uses from tow-density uses and resource lands Protect environmentally sensitive areas 17 siIc f'a 3•, l;n; ,tx Individual and interconnecting Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan •Natural Features R-f zoning •Caticat areas •One dwelling unit per net acre •Public and pnvaie open space Net density definition •Parks •No development credit for •Agriruitora,areas -des,gnatedcriticetaraas. Identifiable physical separation between urban - pudlbandprivat°Tads communities Critical Areas Ordinance 1 Pending Annexation of Urban Other Locations for Urban Separator Separators Merritt II Annexation ',Cedar River Corridor ',Boundary Review Board Consider Boundary a Talbot Road Area Expansion )No Annexation Proposal in these areas Issue of Consistency between Renton and o Proposed Zoning would be applied at time of County Regulations annexation Proppsert UtInn Separator er ak i 1 .,; 43i 1 Dwelling Unit per gross acre Implementation through R-1 zoning standards Require Cluster •Away from critical areas Overlay Regulations for properties within the •A•Aay from axis' Separator Require 50°0 open space tract Map the proposed open space corridor and Restrict uses within open space to critical areas 'rra'is •Passive Recreation Contiguous Open Space •Not defined ":'„ ,.., g,a ii.Y. ;z 7 , �'x' 1 dwelling unit per net acre Optional clustering Open Space created through net density •Critical areas excluded from developed area Density overall 20°0 lower than County regulations 2 Tr;L2Ala Novarill 'I a, ,,,- Bpi wf '��i �' 0. oy 1 .,. at' Moji I I,�111u.' ti D 9rr„,�$ y:W1eY�rp, b!!!!Ra ■ =I I ii g "I I I awl kg . . 13 C,. Intili. 111,/iftl '‘ )411 Ar • ,, „::::„..r.":::, s,„ ,,,,„:,,,,,... ..„,,„„ __, r ___ 4,, I._•t .. �, N +L_e' • 7 r �.' �fi 17 Ply w7ilC� Jll 41�, to it, 'It'4�� -\if �gig '! /�■ �1N�// • lt, f,' t y U 'ram '� i'G fsl i411 3�DO[� II.5-l_.\� N1 1_7 w`I in ,MI Iv ix 1 4 &t�1111��_- _ ym C_y.l,,�J-��. c��`�yyA 'l'1®; iegn PM i ;tea b �. ;Urban Separator Overlay Provision# Mandatory clustering provision ;,.e ', M.` R-1 zoning Require 50%open space •Include critical areas and buffers ..., 14 r f ,Prohibit fencing •x•.. ,-.x .- ., ,.a I — . MP., - .. Allow Trails,utility connections ` X � I y L. _1... _ .0 _ Trigger toF Oil Subdivision Allow a density bonus up to 1 dwelling unit per Lot Line adjustment acre Building Permit Same density County currently would allow Major re model Bonus Provisions •Contiguous Open space •Enhancement of buffers -Re-vegetation 3 Next steps Issue in Planning and Development Committee Review public testimony t' Review specific code language Review map of critical areas and proposed open space configuration 4 111111111� 1 � 1� 1 ' i ' i' I ' I • i- IIIIllllt , tt ' I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I' 1' 1' I' I� I11;I11111111 1 .1 .1 . 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 . 111II I I I II I Iil I ' 1it, ' I ' I ' I ' II II1 1 I11 i ' ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 111ItI1I1It11It ' tilt ' it 'ttlilt11, 11111I ' IIII11t11111i111111 'ttltliitliltl :l .1 . 1I ,I ,1 1 1 1 , , , 1 1111111111� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I- I '0 I11tIi1t111t1titl '' tilt 'iltltltltit1t11111t1tltltitlt ' 11i ' 111 'i' i' itiiltltl by• I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i l l l l l ( l l l l i l l l i IIIIIi1tItltltllltltlt' t' I111 '111 '111 '1 1 1t111 111111111 ' 11tIII1 ' itl ' i '1111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Itltltll s 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �► I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1• 1 1 1 I I I I 00 tltltltltitltltltill ' llltltlt111t1t111t1t1 I i•I• It 1 I111t1111I1I11t11' 1 r� 1111111111111111illII , 11111it ' liii I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 , I�� ' 1' 1' Iil' liilt ' III r1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •I I I t11111 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I i I 1 N1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l l l l l l i l 1'' 1111��`Il jt� I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 t ► I It1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I l i I Iili ' i (� ' i' I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 wisr Aum 11 `` t11\ 1 1 1 111t11111111t1111t1111111t1t11111t1 i 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 t I t i rt l.tll1 I I I I r1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I ICI 1 I Ill t11111t11111t111t11I.111111111I. 1. i. 1. illI I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I If' I ,111111111111111I I I , t/or- � " Ili i �1h11 i ' i ' i ' 1 ' I 'I11111111tlilll 'Illllll 'i 'iltl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 co I l l l i l l l l l l l l l l l i l l l I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/ I I l l l l l l i l t l l l l I /� �' Prll(�,_ �1� � I Ititltltltttlt111tItItltliltttltllii'•I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I / ,!u-,i..,aUrI I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p; i ,._ aI �1 I ( I 1 I I I I I I ( I I I ( I I 1 72 N. = - Qc I I 1 1 1 I i I I I I I I 1 1- I I' i l l l l t l l l l l l l l l r x.9 a• 1 11 1111 U1fidk t1ll l l l l 1 1 t l lHUH! I II I I1ll11 ;f7 �-O Nti I 111(4 I I Ir.. _ • I io 11 > n t . ' Il a F."y 1 ' O I 1'�l NV 11( , . Ili 0 I 1 I rip dio ,, . 0cl `° cN -ac373 ��, . Ural III 1'.,u,, A _ t~ f� /4 ID N a ti .I. / :. 3if tt a• 111 qp '1 _ •. 00_ ' -.� r .• C7 �\ 4 .r A 3 C. 0. A '-_/ I ,1= M rod Are ir'r 0 '\ ' ( C .1>�, = a a o L I L auf* i 1 i i I 1 1 ""-�- - ___. rn 1/♦af�' �;`\ c- o .z'(5 , 2 to 2 •aa ( IlI I{� _ _ c `° < y 1 F • ��h 11-1--$f I I i.I 73 4`r.' : f i •l : - CA .' a a F _ _ - 1 �' . ___- 71:1 C• I < a . I ,n0 19 113 AI a A .. xi - ii r 1)1 ` ' - - - .- iiiiirld r — -, ' e.y -, .a. »t - W..._ _ dtit r. 1 :0 Et - 61 Yi co ILliiiiii:11111 V . gm r' !ial O NNm2a a_Fr I I- _ I rF ihii1iI1AL I) „ co llllhI'I• :iE • I N. < C. (_ S. A 1 �e nx y .]f-_ ('� it. � a ) co n— r ) :: 1 I as a a °' a a I R . . r i r '= cos '�I^j__ ._i_ \` 17 (. C N 11111 I II IA ill • - W ! 117th Ave.t,C t c wAv_e1+ �7 , ..' v, LU a• 11Hth Ave SE I10tU' Ave. S£. \�% gi - ) lltlt! l 0 19 6 R 8 —C7_ �e�! \(7 I''f �S�L CO ./3 cti "''y tti �j )! 1J ` r 1 r, ....f..1 �. ,7 i I...,r'?' '11,Y/ \ IL#ILI1:1Ki riii,I �IIr 'N 1 FJA '•• "' T N� D !' 1, ,,Itlir =I 11;6 ..-2 Luca ,,,:41 3 q ,. I I',I?,11 d_PI_ SE __\;17 -',.••,____ L__ 1j:; ...c,' 1 ,;r ai 1 - 'o (" tw® Ave F •� i A 1\AG.\\,...___5 ,j 1111101t ',P,„ V. 1 l-------------_---....._-Mill- ...r-',,\\ 1.1 IlI N ""-t Annrne 4q ° • . 1 J Ct It �' - to \' -, f f<".b" t2Gih_Ave. SE S . 1 t/ {t T7 a IT —) 1 0 /l (� ►+.. !7�'L11 Y�1�'�I`LJ'.�_ IT, CtJ- ~ O17 `` 'l� ' �l (C‘I'''\\:il.._ // \a �•-�.!'`�1 , '' / R-10 -NI' 'Al, lii, ;r \. -� , / _J �/ . r „�. 'b o J �r+ „I7y- , , Ave. SF._�C,(00%);:t,:n >` ` y _1'1,friti tk _' ;y '- ` ') ,N .� r„ ',,s, , ,L7th yam ,'\ �, �a�� L. _ _ Ii 3ti" IG71h PI / IT: \. tL1thPl SF J / I'; Po :_W 4t,1t t ! 1 1�' Queen 1, i ` /n� 1 LIi 0th Ave SE BIr► G '_ II _J ft o. �\ 11 Lk,.... .,„_,�,•� '•! Rrdnun"! ,_ Mi T1s, / b ) �271hAvrg)1 / °�` 1.� ,��1rti O — �,v{.j•l,l F. 11 y C.\��s1h pf ,v----'nth PI SIV ' ... %� �---rill ...L_ z She lGiiftldl}TIa :fi 1! A ;� III i_k . _- Fi...? z �11 N ', f 1 m 1 1 l}tt>Ir n me Nfri ! 'nd A ,, \ \ i III 1 I t I 1L yr l h ` .n zip, ;\ Cam_ :I 109 1 F, ,I I,,, dl!t1 PI SE -I�, : n°al ° . (h _ _ 1 l •�{{ I I I evith, ---k 1 — _ jii illt, () _______\ '' \--tilwal --- - ----E--\73 l /-17" .- ,' *1-"L. („•,-,,,,,•,-'s,,,,,: 4, y a: �^ co 1 _ • I ii1 i" " t _" ,,,0.h. _ ,. A,0 n •e! 1... , n t d aft „rh^f _(c, ■. t 'Till ! F r. ,';tl 101, Av, �,� /� e' J ' rA i qi . i .5 I . N -----:ij i (1; r.,f,?\= ,, L /SE sl \\\\ 7, \N �' AID - Igli\I,\ ' �\ . .,\ n • 1,,, Z,.. i),, ,II Ave NE \ `�'`' ,+x 7.:y ,t: .r J-i, imb Il- \ 1 \ -, `_ Cr^.� `,'] pt Ale VEI j142nd Ave SF, / S. II A" `Q s \\\ SF ni i - Cr ft tit \ \ \\\ \, • :L 1 - i Jew \ 1 ly \ \ . rt U" (:P e-1) ___, _ \\ \4 Ec—,m---J6, 1' . 1. .'9 Xi, [ i\ ,-.1 1 y ... fir m \ i / /' 1 O O � _F-tiCD 41. G - —• z I Ave SF i�_ x .F.. /1aalie ce eomm&?t December 13, 2004 /off Mayor& Council &/J//G Neali/19 City of Renton City Hall l.€cc )11-tert64- 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055-9808 RE: Visionary clustering&50%permanent open space tracts in urban separators Madam Mayor& Council: For the past 15 years the City of Renton decision makers have always done right for May Valley. Now council gets to consider development regulations within the community greenbelt known as the May Valley Urban Separator. Way back on December 18th, 1989 Renton City Council turned down an annexation and development proposal that would have resulted in 198 homes on the slopes and shores of May Creek. At that same meeting Council unanimously adopted a motion; "to work with King County on further developing May Valley as a scenic and recreational corridor." This dedication proved visionary. Indeed, a few years later the state Growth Management Act required"open space corridors within and between urban areas." In 1992 City and County staff jointly identified the May Valley Urban Separator during a technical review of the King County Comprehensive Plan. On April 5th, 1993 the Mayor signed Resolution No. 2960 which stated in part, that May Creek Valley"should be classified ... as an urban separator." In 1997 the Renton Planning Commission, and later full Council and city staff, pulled on high rubber boots slogged through wetlands and peered over eroding ravines of Western May Valley. As a result of these field trips and citizen testimony council adopted Ordinance No. 4732 which required one dwelling unit per acre pre-zoning. The City of Renton has always done the right thing in May valley. During the development of the May Creek Basin Plan, Renton surface water staff recommended level II stream protection standards be applied to any future development in the Coal Creek Parkway sub-basin of the May Creek Basin. The Coal Creek Parkway sub-basin is the area between Coal Creek Parkway and 148th Avenue SE straddling May Creek. I.E. The May Valley Urban Separator. The City Council ratified this when it adopted the Basin Plan. In the year 2000 King County proposed map amendments to its Comprehensive Plan which included designating the area as a Greenbelt/Urban Separator. Once again this was supported by Renton. In a letter dated June 2nd, 2000 to King County Council, Mayor Tanner wrote: "The proposed Greenbelt/Urban separator represents an extension of the open space that extends west along May Creek to I-405. The May Creek greenbelt provides `environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits' It also serves as a visual break between the cities of Renton and Newcastle." On December 11, 2001 at the Growth Management Planning Council, which is a sub-council of the Puget Sound Regional Council, Renton's suburban cities representative, now the Honorable Kathy Keolker-Wheeler supported a motion that added a map of existing urban separators to the Countywide Planning Policies. Further, this motion recognized that urban separators are part of "a regional strategy serving multiple functions and benefits to the citizens and communities of King County." Finally on December 1st, two weeks ago, after two public meetings Renton's Planning Commission recommended"that clustered development be required and that a mandatory 50% open space tract be established to meet Urban Separator policies." City Council is now considering development code that will require mandatory clustering and 50% permanent open space tracts in Renton's Urban Separators when annexed to the City. Please recognize all the thoughtful decision making that has led up to this moment and codify mandatory clustering and 50%permanent open space tracts within the Urban Separators. Sincerely,, y� Andr Duffus enclosures:.5/X corurbse 121304mswPresarioC %oy /L/3rd 1f ve. Se- 4tirn Wk q o 7 • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL Co.tyide Planning Policies 1 Urban Growth Areas; Renton Technical Study Area - R-2 June 16, 1993 tits Reo : Renton Technical Review Area R•2 Pp a 1e 1 atio_ : Urban g3 Staff Recowertdatireee Retain Urban designation. The C directed City'end County staff to work together to address four Technical Review Areas concerning R- , and Urban TGrowth hnicaal Boundary everie Area R Z st showmen on the att four acheeas d e known as NC-3, R-2, R-3 ar map, King County and the City of Renton held two public workshops to discuss land use designations in the technical review areas near Kenton. sece ond meeting was held on ti September 11, 1992 and attended by approximately 70 people, ry April 28, 1493 and�was attended by 1lsPfx from the pubQi people.nt Both cbni al King County ateasdantd of Renton staff fielded numerous . also met with interested parties throughout the review process. e— Baca o 182 acres encompassing 62 parcels C. Designated Urban by 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan eNeWeaseleCO"ni=reity'Planeirkft do . Fmert a . o Not necessary to meet area capaci re uirereents for next 20 l • Existing development pattern is rural. The area is surrounded by urban development but remzias at low densities with large undeveloped tracts. o Outside of Local Service Area Boundary (not red by sewer) O Sediree elation and erosion are occuri.ng within May Creek drainage basin • Amount of conversion from vegetation to impermiable surface is an important consideration. Stonegate subdivision proposed for this area and neighboring land is to include 53 lots on 38.4 acres. Six of the lots are to be located within Technical Review Area R- 2 • • • • • of th environmental sensitivity and open spice benefits of Technical Review Area recommends that King County and the Ciry of Renton co, • rb • "Ir i n. ' g. the joint plarminprocess. The Urban Separator classification as described in UrbanPlanningseparn Polis cy -UFt s • ...� intended to provide a framework for further defined in Countywide Planning Policyl as follows; Urban separators are low density areas or areas of little development end must be ----�'� within the Urban Growth Area, Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low densi land which protect resource lands and environmentally se,itive a e a ' and create open space corridors within and between urban, areas nds shall not be environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits, redesignated in the future to other urban uses or higher densities, King County and the City of Renton will undertake coordinated planning for this area thr ough h the Potential ArnexatiOn Area process. The Potential Annexation Area will be established by interloca agreement'subsequent Jinterlocal to be 1994, with completed dby early 1995, ment conditions to be addressed King County and the City of Renton are currently preparing ed�0 loser of 9 Plan for 4 with The Executive anti ipa ed Proposed Junn Pe of 1995.scheduledlan is adoption is area (1 dwelling unit per 10 acres). Specific zoning (densities)will likely result from a asin Plan p • . Process. . Ke corn orients of the 'oint tannin a cement will s t e a Zoning tnc u ng ran eparator re netnents ' ueae ea mitigation aon ve aPlacing standards, impact • Area 1Z-2 within the urban boundary does not automatically signify development approval. Adequacy, concunency and environmental tests would still be required and have to be met. tk,c:r2x 1 ' � 1 }' � � Ihri 1 or ��— a „` — + , 7.- -........)&' c..4.1..-71 1 rill.111111.1111111111tatinill 1,41' '--44E.1 Rio MO „dr:1...v- An..,...._ ord,‘,. iv"- -#41 0.:4 III III -Ar sail. I ‘11'11111111611W =6"P .. - IMME.M1417.11.6. ilvr. , 2101•111111POP UMW --►� at ' " -= ! hialrlill., O ." / 11 *Mer-t ". 7-....1---' "11.11- iirorgi 1 ( I/ 0, I , =MI .row-''- i.nni-1.1111.1.''....*.""- :to .,.'N'.:.eistrj is 7�,t , ,,, X ( X illiniffq.trOlF110 =MINOMI="1"' am. Ziltlit I • 7., • • 4 )1 1111Z*1"4 .111 .111411:1: ''' '..%.=:/A --rill ,r y V y r.rw/-•ie - _ A ' � ._ 2=0 —his ,.+ f- ,if Nis ✓ 1t, $ ;TAM-:--.--- L 7 Md. lig.'...1arW.M.4 5:111_ 7•' : a.: ...: ^• . .: 4 1111 '-• �� Hi_M, ...r � t�!-�7"�7 1 OOS ;� 1r �`.- 4 _tit • •zee:. ' ram �7 - r l'UPIN' MU sii; , ...m. :iffir al ........ r3A an neelm SPIV 1 = — mor : �aE:r. �-- _ems. PA-1.a.4M.-....-.7,.-1d.--A.. km./.,1-,...-4-...----l.-i-B.c_-1 0 p.._ar-,i-,,,-,._TI-,,macg-rtAo.ie4kanm-,d.A._i_s,,.I'lw-i-w'e.i,,s: .. •.. ...--r />7 , �D Ana�� 4 y _ g , .•, illw4 „ti tom ' N "r✓ r 0 N a CI o C i 4 »i co 1 Cr,40 g Mr. 2 :. g e=t ca Gs • s .-: G$ 4 4 ` }.- = `"� GP Pam' A-W: a9i eJ .. •'s... Z 2 ( •9. � -� 9 � ca E .. • LT5 .9 114 = .=i J C o e G 1t c7 e� u e w a. AIL d• e Ng goi Z C.,.) d = tr ' - •N G f., W , , ' }R O. --'� �c e. ! ; r ,.., ,,W .. _:TV OF RENTON , W .Sr•_NC:rN _ .4--.—..0,-,— . X 1 'a _ . � � 1 _ ULi.; .l _..1 a[1 . . A RESOLUTION O: CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A RECOM?M ENDATION FOR URBAN GROWTH TECHNICA4 'REViR AREAS ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF RENTON DES_7-NATED IN THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLIC_ES . WHEREAS , :he `G : _ . 1Ce Planning nni_ng Policies eStai-.ish co'un - �•1 wide framework for C- .•eiooment of City and County comprehensive Plans as re ui=eb _ _ e Growth Nanacemeno Act , ROW 36 7G. and WHEREAS , the Kng . oun _ rounc enacted Ortinance No . 10350 adopting ant ratifying the _ountvw:de ;Lanni. Policies and setting up eC ^I c 1 o^ addition r1: to refineamend a process � i ^i �- � � __ _1.,.� G, acc._ __�:.a _ :�Jo_ .� _ �__n., ant the Countywide _ Lanni_ _ t cies inciudinc _`.rent% to the Urban u Growth Areas ; and EA e anc Co.inty Lava ' e COq. l erativeJ and have conducted a oublic meetingfor citizensin the area; i NOW, THEREFORE , THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE Al FOLLOWS . SECTION I . The above r_'—'I' - are found to be true and correct in all resoec is . SECTION II . 7he C ' y Council intends to adopt the Urban Growth Area boundaries , indicated on the attached Exhibit A, aS part of the Interim Land Use Element or the City s Comprehensive Plan . SECTION ITT . The Ci v Council finds that the facts presented in Exhibit A are consistent with and suotart the designated Urban Growth Areas for the C_tv of Renton . 1 if /t V! PASSED BY ^HE CITY CC CTL this \ . tn day of Apr_- , 1993 . � • , „:,-- ..s, \ i „ i _ / 7-2,,,,,„,,...„_„,...„ ti?rily ?e =.-qer, City Clerk APPROVED BY ;:-: '- Ca his - - daf Of , _9a.'� . C` . r V Earl_+•C l vme., . .'o Approves t3 =^rm: O Lawrence J . War City Attorney RES . 271 : 3/18/93 : as . r- RESOLUTION N 0. EX.:�iLr IT A CITY OF RENTON URBAN GROWTH .UREA RECON=ND ATIONS FOR TEC:r-LAICAL :�v 1'EW AREAS i I. Technical Review Area NC-3 ;Newcastle) Description: This area is within a partially urbanized portion of the May Creek Lrainage Basin and contains a large undeveloped tract known as '' hitegate" which is proposed for develooment as a residential subdivision at densities of one dwelling unit per acre. An Environmental Impact Saternent is being prepared for the proposed prciect. The area is not presently served by sewers, but sewer and later service are accessible. The area is heavily forested, providing •,v'i1dii:e habitat linkages with the King County Park, and urban development will increase sedimentation and erosion in the drainage basin, Recommendation: The City of Renton recommends that this area be designated as Urban, and included within the City's urban Growth Area. It should be classified v4w'ithin the City's Comprehensive Plan as an urban separator, 'Lcw Density Single Family Residential. (LDS-). This csassiilcation allows two zoning categories: Low Density Single :amil (SFL) at one dwelling unit per acre, and Resource Conservation at 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. The recommended future zoning classification is Resource Conservation. i 1 E. Technical Review Area R-2 , ay Creel.) Description: The May Creek valley is a sensitivevironrnentai area containing critical and resource areas 'den the Critical/Resource. Area led in i inventories completed by the City of Renton and King County. The area is surrounded by urban development but remains at low ' densities with lame undeveloped tracts. Erosion and sedimentation are. occurring in the May Creek sy stern which is under review in a basin-wide study. . URecommendation: The City of Renton recommends that this area be designated as urban and included within the City's Urban Area Growth Area. it should be classified within the City's Comprehensive Plan as an ,bit A 9e2 'rban separator, "Loy-, Density Single Family' Residential" (LDsr). :assircation allows two zoning categories: ty -� � h.,ly C `t‘it--"Rtretritt;iva AU . recc.,.,,.ea zreerrin«=is..:R$So-ta_e..a Consea-vai,,,on. M. Techn_icai Review Area R-3 (East Renton) Description: This area begins at le 8th Ave. SE. 156thAve. SE. and extends to ne area is semi-rural, with some smaller lots and subdivisions but here are many large tracts of vacant land. Opoonuriities remain for small scale agricultural uses and maintenance of resource lands. :he area is not served by sewers, but has fire and water services, It is also located within the May Creek Drainage Basin which would be severely impacted by new urban development within the area. Expulsion of services to urban levels would not be feasible within the 20 year planning no_-izon. Recommendation: The City of Renton recommends tna: this Tedhnical Review Area be designated as Rural, and remain outside the City's Urban Growth • Area, although it would remain within the 'City's Sphere of infuence. T ecr:ic ai Review Area R (3riar vocd} Description: The Er_a-n'ccd neighborhood is a suburban residential district which has beer. developed with inadequate urban services. Much of the area has been subdivided into urban size parcels of 15,000 square fee: or less. The area has been cievelor.,ed with septic systems only, of which many are in poor condition, and sewer services are not presently available. It is within the Cedar River drainage system, and is located over the Cedar River aquifer, which is the City's sole source municipal water supply. The area presents a high risk for cont.a� ,hna�on of the aquif �msewer needs to be extended. er, a,-id Recommendation: The C:t; of Renton recommends that the 3rarwood district be included within the Urban area as defined on the map. This area generally included properties that have already been subdivided at urban densities. The area should be designated on the City's Comprehensive Elan as Single Fa'ni1; (SF), but with a ten-year phasing overlay sirni1 to the boos Creek Plan that prohibit, su c:v:s:cn or development 'until sewers and other urban services are available. • • . - �,. . �\ ` r ' --- 7"7 Resolution No . 'r-, ► / ' '1 1 I ! !I ;�, ,� URBAN GROWTH ARE) 1_--' 1�iaJ 1 1 I 'n��. • ' ' I �__y_ -ate \ v I �=. �'' .n ...� I1......_1_ H , , 4 �- I yam, -, I \ l `"� .._. '4 1 it l \:'�/a _ '.-.._-� _ ^y 1'1 j= ._.I'iil I I I I V i - �._.. 41n 1,1• I. J O �^ III 1, u� N—_7-,. 1 a� 1 ^¢ •! IE �_�;�oa Y.+a�. I I � , , I 1�YI I :ink---- _ -a;_•_._ -- 1 , 4.) , I , , , ,_,, • -,.--- --- L'I.W < /<. 'i:—.7._.. .._ - I 1 '1 I� - >; , � . � Imo,=—' 1 j � ' ---_- :...-_,...1 _ 1 / A e/ Hi Ls ( i �_ Y y ^. ._ rr -I jm a :eC' / \ . �— L'' l __,w„ .s,. = — .: tt;ram n — J. -,.- /-"r.1 , - II EIj : , 1 '�.. roc , I'_'� C'.-I'a,.i I,,� ,. -,_ •—� —� �^— -+ J �i 4 — �� / 1 I _ / _'r—�lo- 1 i J 111•�I I_Imo. _ j II} ---- / ! I"•/��_ " .o a.J-.,'._� 6. - ._.. .--.. I 7,,,,,,,,,,,,,_ft Cy1 77 1 j c PC ! C......) .- E E _- - a ; - - > - < - - �J p -, J a y - L U y CITY OF RENTON Mayor Jesse Tanner N d O June 2,2000 7.7 n -�.J-, The Honorable Members z r' -`! r(- Met*opoiitan ring Couna:,' Coar.c i -.-� m King Count;' Cou :i:cuse 5.16Third Avenue, Room .200 +v m_ Seattle. WA 98104 _ `� SUBJECT: Executive Recommended King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 - Land Use Map Amendment 2 - May Valley Urban Separator Dear Council Members: The Renton City Council. and Administration have reviewed the proposed Map Amendment 2 to Potent ,Annexation Area from Urban Residential, Low- to redesignate a portion of Renten's p Greenbeltf roan Separator. - Recognizing its en iror_meentaily sensitive attributes, the City Council adopted R-1 as a proposed zoning regulation, or prezone, for the subject area in 1997. 'The susceptibility of the area to erosion and flooding, Cree k a other potential issues r r:; , .. . .tom the presence of Maye anhd ro proposed for the Greerbeu Urban separator represents an extension of the public open space The area ram;osed designation as corridor that extends v.'est along May Creek..to I-405. Thearea proposed for Greenbelt/Urban Separator, together with the areas under public ownership, implements the intent of , Policy Lti-27, the May Creek greenbelt provides Countywide P1ar^:n^ Policy LL-27. As stated ;^; .cu` --a - -- tie. Finally, included in the d._+t?May Creek Basin Action Plan, coopeYar.vely produced by King County and the City of Renton, is a recommendation that areas draining to May Valley be maintained at existing zoned densities. The parcels propose^ for Greenbelt/Urban Separator designation fall within the area subject to this recommendation. Although the Basin Action Plan is not yet adopted, the Comprehensive Plan amendment implements the recommendation. g As the King C'our; Cour:.,l considers the alnerdr;en s to the i;i;,, Count' Comprehensive Plan, the City ofR ' • cc-rely, c7;.,...,,,,r-l-r\-----7 7 / ii . . 4 otiL,..,„ j..,......________ • . • 1 \.._/\ Jesse Tanner FL- dy Co:;:;au,President MayorRenton. City,' Council . 00-077I0o.7 CC: Ron Sites.Kir.E Cc_- . c..t:_.,:e ..F.n c t,Ci ' .^..o:';l:ii"^=^ltic;s . Joy Covington S e C371/20.1 Owen✓rnniso- 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6500 / FA_X(425)430-6523 0 Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Staff Report Agenda Item No.: 10 Name: Lauren Smith Proposed Ordinance: 2002-0133 Date: March 19, 2002 Attending: Paul Reitenbach, Office of Regional Policy and Planning Kevin Wright, Prosecuting Attorney's Office SUBJECT: An Ordinance adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies, adding maps of existing urban separators. BACKGROUND: On December 11, 2001 t g motion licies (CPPs): GMPC Substitute Motion 99-3:Am 'Policies b addin ma istmg u. oiicies .., Y 5'a k GMPC Recommendation ✓ parators oc nt ✓ These;maps also identify certain potential,Urban Separator areas within Auburn and y., Potential Annexation Areas'that are in need of further ar alysisand refinement The Interiurisdictional Staff Team (IJT)shall convene'a subcommittee comprised of all affected jurisdictions, and shall report back to thehabk1O ihe'OME,?a,rioTlater than S eptember 30,2002 with a•recommendation to resolve these potential Urban Separators.::If no consensus is reached,a majority-and minority or alternative recommendation will be made to the GMPC by September 30-=2002: a rr ti, ✓ .'On-an vongbing basis,the IJT shall also.review proposed`additional Urban Separator designations' 3, y identified by cities ar. he County, and present them for GMPC,conideration: AS part of this`review>' prooess,the IJT may;also consider'refinements to adopted Urban.Separator policy to facilitate, a r designations, provided the new policies ate substantively consistent•with CPP:(U-27and County!„,.,, Cotiipr,'e�iensivePlari'poltciesj-P 1:1,Ohr'ough,P-120 . SUMMARY: L.) Proposed Ordinance 2002-0128 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by: 0 Adopting a map of existing urban separators, as shown on Attachment 1 to this ordinance. The ordinance would also ratify the changes to the Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by CPP FW-1, Step 9. (Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King County according to the Interlocal,agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County, the\city by legislative action disapproves the countywide planning policy.) Q:\COMMITTEE GM 2002\staff reports\2002-0133(CPP Amendment-Urban Separators).doc 03/17/02 6:34 PM • r.r • / /;J: Ch sir Metropcliten Kino County Council November 1 , 2004 James Benton, Chair • Washington State Boundo7 Review Board ofKing County 400 Yesier Way, Room 1C 2 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: City of Renton's Merritt li Proposed Anr exertion Dear Mr. Benton: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Renton's proposed Merritt II annexation currently under review by the Washington Stale Boundary Review Board (BRB). I am pleased by the City of Renton's interest in the East Renton Plateau annexation area and their':Willingness to expand their original proposed annexation i, �t e ,,w 1 it ng County Executive area. However, i re�'.iG r ;;�itCefr'C'e. a r_ 4 i �` Ron Sims in invoking ihizi This appropriate zoning to proteci the he rec,ian:ely _1 51anatacl The Urban Separator desination exists for several purposes. One purpose is to create and preserve open space corridors t'r.orl define the boundaries between communities within the urban areas. ;=,.nother is to create a seamless connection between open space lands that are par of the larger regional open space sysjem. The May Valley Urban Separator was cO6, r rrt in Cite r. y-ic ^riz ' "ttttrr, d°c i;rl'n ` arulo , s a , L;t_ erri. The Merril Annexation includes 20.59 acres of the May Valley Urban Separator. King County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code implement the Urban Separator designation through the -1 zone category. Etna) County's R-1 zone creates and maintains open space corridors by requiring development to be clustered to retain at least 50%a of the site in permanent open space tract,. n Third Ave, Room 1200, Sr.ttle, VV/4 9 8104-32r 2 2f-;_, c1,-1nC14 I!1';TDD 1'?i>'. Uri-2C:fY'3-0370 James Benton November 1 , 2004 Page 2 Though the City of Renton proposes to continue the intent of the urban separator by maintaining low resideentio density R1 zoning, the City does not currently have zoning provisions such as clustering and open space retention. Without such provisions, development could occur on the entire lot, thereby losing any chance of preserving an oven space corridor. At best, the open space corridor would be contained within a naiiive grow.v.,:h protection easement on a lot. Experience shows that encroachment will eventually occur, diminishing the value of the Urban Separator designation. Clearly, the City of Renton should mc.•.cl'=,/ development regulations relating to Urban Separators in order to ensure the creation and preservation at open space corridors. Countywide Planning Panay (CPP) LU-27 provide that: "The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional aswet as a local "�;.oecern•, Therefore, no modification ,��'�✓v should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King CPP CC-1 G states: "All jurisclictions shall use the full County review and concurrence." CPP i ry�i range of regulatory and land preserlcitiofl tools available ,I ` create, maintain and steward the regional open space system which has been cooperatively identified." I respectfully request that the BRB bring the P,Aerritt 11 annexation into compliance with the CPP by making the annexation contingent on the City of Renton's modification of Their development regulations for urban separators. Thank you in advance tO( your consideration. R 1 Sing ere ) •% -.- 7/2 ;,,, , rry PhillipfJCha'r Metropolitan King Ccunt,f Council LP:lz Enclosure cc: The Honorable Roe Sims, King County E xecu iiVe The Honorable Kn{y Keoiker-WW heeler, Mayor of Renton ' elz, Metropolitan King County' `Council The Honorable Dwight .The Honorable <ob McKenna, Metropolitan King County Council Lenora Blaumon, ` ecutive Secretary, Wos`hing'ioin State Boundary Review Board of Kira County eStaff, King Count',/ Executive OfficeKKurt Triplett, CI^�i �` of - King Bautista, Leg siatiive, Anal'ysi, Metropolitan C o my Cods and Strategic ouncil Alex Pietsc, Economic Development, Renton Neigh Planning Department lorew 'rue • PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT December 6, 2004 R-1 Zone Community Separators (Referred January 26, 2004) The Planning and Development Committee reviewed the staff analysis and Planning Commission recommendation on R-1 cluster and open space requirements in the City's designated Urban Separators, Mt. q' o � -yr raron" ' "o n space tract be estabIisTie • ' `-`= r Ut+e parato ivies. T s e ,.'^`•+F3, I ;;i this recommendation and further recommends that staff develop an ordinance that provides equivalent or better implementation of the Urban Separator than currently set forth in the King County code. The Committee further recommends that the implementation of urban separators include a mechanism to grant a density bonus up to the maximum density presently allowed by the King County code, provision of utilities, including sewer connections to parcels, and/or consideration of a means to achieve a connected and contiguous open space corridor within the Urban Separator. Further review should consider issues such as fencing requirements, the location of the open space corridor within a parcel, and the threshold for establishing the open space tract on individual parcels. This item will remain in Committee for further review and recommendation on these implementation issues. Terri Brier , Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Denis W. Law, Member cc: Jay Covington Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind AC"lelle C nnrnenf Jean Rollins 1;2-l3-, 0Uy 9605 143rd Ave SE Public Neon/tj Renton, WA 98059 December 13, 2004 Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler City of Renton Councilmembers City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055-9808 RE: City of Renton's Urban Separator Development Regulations Dear Madam Mayor: The City of Renton fully understands the crucial provisions in implementation of urban separators. The City recognized the need for care in May Valley and its role in providing open space long before the Growth Management Act (GMA) mandated it. I know the City will ensure their development regulations provide better implementation of Urban Separators than the County. First are my comments for the May Valley area which is where I live: The requirement for clustering and at least 50% open space retention is nothing new for the May Valley area. This has been required since 1983, the year King County adopted the "Newcastle Community Plan"which designated the area SC-P. The designation SC-P was one dwelling unit per acre with the requirement for clustering and 50%permanent open space tracts. In 1994, during the development of the King County Comprehensive Plan in response to GMA, the county changed the area's zoning to R-1-P. This R-1 designation still meant one dwelling unit per acre and the"P" "provision" required clustering and 50%permanent open space as it had been for the previous 11 years. After considerable study beginning back in 1992 the May Valley urban separator was cooperatively identified by the City of Renton and King County in the late 1990's. The May Valley Urban Separator was an Executive Recommended King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 -Land Use Amendment which was adopted in 2001. Cooperatively identified and fully supported by the City of Renton, in 2001 King County amended its Comprehensive Plan and adopted the permanent Greenbelt/Urban Separator designation for 107 acres in the west end of May Valley, all within Renton's PAA. The City of Renton ratified this. The May Valley urban separator lies directly between the borders of the City of Renton and the City of Newcastle, i.e. between urban areas. Since 1983 the May Valley area has been one dwelling unit per acre with the requirement for clustered development and 50% permanent open space. Nothing has changed in that regard for 21 years. Now my comments for all urban separators: King County Countywide Planning Policies(CPP) implement the State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires designation of urban growth areas and each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. (RCW 36.70A.110 (1)& (2). Further GMA states, "each county and city shall identify open space corridors within and between urban areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connection of critical areas." (RCW 36.70A.160) The concept of Urban Separators was developed within the Countywide Planning Policies in response to the requirement of RCW36.70A.110. The CPP call for preservation of open space and corridors through interconnected systems regionally and within jurisdictions locally. Specifically CPP CC-12 states, " All jurisdictions shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation tools available to create, maintain and steward the regional open space system which has been cooperatively identified." Urban separators play an important role in the regional open space system. I know the City of Renton, "shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation tools available to create, maintain and steward {this} regional open space system". Fulfilling their role in the regional open space system, urban separators exist within and between urban areas to create greenbelts between cities. Urban Separators, in addition to protecting environmentally sensitive areas, are a visual break that helps define a city's boundaries and create a sense of community. However, there have to be several technical aspects to urban separators if they are to be retained for future generations. First, they must be low density such as R-1. Also, there must be development regulations that maintain the sense of greenbelt definition. I.e., lot clustering and permanent open space. King County development regulations maintain urban separators by requiring clustering and retention of 50% of the site in an open space tract. Further, "The development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors such as urban separators.. `.(King County Code Title 21A.12.030; 17a(7) &17b., and Title 21A.14.040 A. & C.) Countywide Planning Policy reinforces the need for technical development regulations to "maintain and steward" urban separators as part of the regional open space system. CPP LU-27 states in part, "The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence." Urban Separators are a regional issue. The Puget Sound Regional Council, Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)which is the largest governing body within King County recognized the regional significance of urban separators. A motion by the GMPC on December 11, 2001 reaffirmed the regional significance of all three of Renton's designated urban separators and mapped them as part of the of the CPP. This was then ratified by King County. Summary: In summary, May Valley has been zoned one dwelling unit per acre with provisions for clustering and 50% open space since 1983. It has been that way for 21 years. This area's provision of open space has stood the test of time and needs to be fully maintained. Urban separators are a regional provision for open space corridors within and between urban areas and are part of the County's planning to meet the GMA requirements. The CPP call for technical development regulations that maintain and steward urban separators. Those regulations guide that development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated urban separators. I know the City of Renton strongly supports fully maintaining the valuable resource of urban separators. I respectfully ask the City of Renton Council reaffirm their long-standing commitment to urban separators by amending their development regulations to require clustering away from sensitive areas or the axis, and 50% permanent open space in urban separators. Your grand children one day will thank you. Sincerely, 4-e J Rollins enclosures: King County Code Title 21A.12.030 17a(7)&17b. King County Code Title 21A.14.040 A. King County Code Title 21A.14.040 C Excepts from Newcastle Community Plan Zoning History C:\word\rcursprg 12/13/2004 21A,12,030 ZO`YNG 14. The base height to be used only for projeots as follows: a. in R-6 and R-8 zones, a building with a footprint built on slopes exceeding a fifteen percent finished grade; and b. .:R-:88, R-24 Led a-48 zones:;s. ,J residential density incentives and transfer of density credits in accoedance with: .is duet crdy to dwelling units and not to sleeping units. 5. Density applies _ �;�1 be set back Vehicle access:oirits fee-in garages, carports or fenced parkin g a,-eas s, from • • the t line c:which a joint use driveway is located to provide a straight line length of at least twenty-six feet as measured from the center line of the garage, carport or fenced parking area, from the access point to the opposite side of the jointese driveway. Zia all subdivisions • and snort subdivisions in the R-1 zone slzail be required to be clustered if the property is located Within or ce stains: (1) a ffioodplain. (2) a critical actu tr :eehr_rgo area, (3) a Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Area, (4) existing cr p'l_nrod public parks or trails. or while:lions to such facilities, (5) a Class . wetland, or (5) a steep slope, cr led by the (7) a "aeenbeiteirbL. separator" or "wildlife corridor" area desisra Coraprehensive Pia:i or a commons: ,pan. b. The deg•, o shall beclustered away from sensitive areas or the :xis of designated =i prncnt corridors such as urban separators or the wildlife habitat network to the extent possible and the open space shall be placed in a separate that includes at least fifty percent of the site, Open space tracts shall be • permanent and shall be dedic_.od to a homeowner's association or other suitable organization, as meetthe P en 21A.14.040. On-site sensitive area and • • determined'c��the director, and re:}uir..:n_..ts in.K.C.C. buffers wildlife habitat ::e wor'.hs, .recurred habitat and buffers for protected species and designated urban „_,Li: • ^.en space tract to the extent possible. Passive recreation (with no separators shall be p:a:eo ...�-..theo: . development of recreational acilities)and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within the open space aa::. 18. See K•C.C. 21A.12.055. • 19. All subdivisions and short subdivisions in R-1 and RA zones within tine North Fork and • bbasirthe •ssaquah Creek Basin(the North Fc:b Led Upper Issaquah Creek Upper Issaquah Creek s• .s of _ � � V of the 'd in.the '`: q :.. Cree:�Basin and Nonpoint Action ?lain) and the portion subbasins are ic'.en'_::':� -- • '' • Grand Ridge subarea of the East S.ainrmaraisil Community Planning Area that drains to Paterson Creek shall have a maximum imperious surface area of eight percent of the gross acreage of the plat. Distribution of the allowable 1e •'io't s area among the plaited lots shaai be recorded on the face of theplat. Impervious surface of roads toed not be counted towards the allowable impervious area. \\mere both lot- and plat-specific impee .___ ..-ruts apply, the more restrictive shall be required. 2.5 and RA 5 zoned parcels receiving density 20. '':.a density-:a; reedy be achieved on RA from rural forest food; areas ti-ro_� y gh the transfer of den_ credit pilot program outlined in K.C.C. chapter 21A.ne. urban 21, Si t.5 nay e Base •,_ e '�ed ,=the property is located in a designated;waj city growth area and each proposed lot contains an occupied legal residence that predates 1959. 22. The max:^�::,i dens is four dwelling units per acre for properties zoned R-4 when located in the Rural Townof Fall Cie:. "h u density requirement does not apul}• to prcpe-ties located within the Rural ° 23. The minimum • � 2001: Ord. 3 , ° 2001: Ord. 14045° I81 Town of Fall Cie!. (Ord. 1•:4ii ` 2, 2302: Ord. i�l i9L 33,_µ° iccg, Ord. 13086° , 1998: Ord. 2000: Ord. 13571 ° 1, 1999: Ord. 13 527° 1, 1999: Ord. 13274 10, • 13022° 16, 1998: Ord. 12822 : 5. ':957' Ord. 12549° 1, 1996: Ord. 12523 ` 3, 1996: Ord. 12320°2, 1996: Ord. 119"8 ° 4, 1995 Ord. 11886° 1995: Ord. 11821 °2, 1995: Ord 11802°3, 1995: Ord. 11798 1, :995: Ord. .:6 Crd. 11555 i994'. Ord. . .57 , 1393: Ord. 10870°340, 2... -i. - Y 1994:. • 1993). (King County 112-2001) 21A 14.010- 21A.14.04C ZONING 21A.14.010 purpose, The pLrpcse of this chapter is to improve the quality of development by providing building and site resign standards that: of large .ticings from ad: streetsand c A. Reduce the visual impact residential �... _ from w;ace"i. properties; 3. Enhance tne aes:".e:,c character of large residential buildings; C. Contain sufficient flexibility of standards to encourage creative and innovative. site and building design; 0, Meet the en-site recrea`on needs of project residents; E. Enhance aesmet and environmental protection through site design; ant F. Allow for con; uad cr _dactive reuse of historic resources \vI—I e preserving their historic and architectural inlay"city. (Crd. 1.1621 § 139=f, 10870 §361, 1993 . 21A.14.020 Genera! layout standards, For residential developments' in the UR and R zones: A. The maximum length of blocks shall be 1,320 feet; and B. Except for corner lots, lots for s''ngie detacned dwellings shell not have street frontage along two sides unless cn_ o'said streets is a neighborhood collector street or an arterial street. (Ord. 10870 § 362, 1993). 21A.14.030 Lot segregations •Zero lot line development. in any UR or R zone or in the NB zone en property designated commercial outside of center in the urban area, interior setbacks may be modified ,;` .v as follows: during subdivision or Short:U.-� .�5`.Or` 1e`�'I? -_ A. If a bui'idin proposed roposed to be iodated within a normally required interior setback: 1. An easement shall be provided on the abutting lot of the subdivision that is wide enough to ensure a 1C-foot separation between, the walls of structures on adjoining lots, except as provided for common wall construct''ion. 2. The @eesement area shall be free Of permanent structures and other obstructions that would prevent normal repair and maintenance of the structure's exterior; ? Buildings utilizing reduced setbacks shall not have door_ that open directly onto the private yard areas of abutting property. Wiric..'oviis in such bindings shall not be oriented toward such private yard areas unless they consist . materials such as glass block, textured class Cr other opaque materials, and shall not be cCOaci`', of being opened, except for clerestory-style windows or skylights; and G, The final plat or short plat snail show the approximate !boats", of buildings proposed to be .placed in a standard setback area. B. In the JR or R zones, setbacks on existing individual lots may be modified provided that the standards set forth in subsection A.1 of this section are met. 'C'rc. 12'522 § 5, 1996: Ord. 11978 § 6, 1995: Orb. 10870§ 363, ..93). 21A.14.040 dot segregations - clustered development. if residential lot clustering is proposed, the following provisions shall be met. A. In the R zones, any ces:yn2ted open space tract rwuit;nc ..c-. lot cius.ering shall not be altered or disturbed except 2s specified on recorded documents creating the open space. Open spaces may be retained under ownersnio by Ire subdivider, conveyed to resitentS of the development, or conveyed to a third party. if access to the open space is provided, the access shall be located in a separate tract; E. in the RA zone: 1. No more than e:gr,t lots of less than two and one-half acres snail be allowed in a cluster; 2. No more than elgint lots of less than two and one-half areas Sh,2ii be sensed by a single cul- de-sac street; 3. Clusters containing n,vo cr more lots of less then two and acres, whether in the same or adjacent n c eveicbmentts be separaVied from similar clusters by at least one hundred twenty feet; 21 A---115 21A.14.040-21A.14.070 ZONING C. In the R-1 zone, open space tracts created by clustering required by K.C.C. 21A,12.030 shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts as required by the Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans o- open soace functional plans, to connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas as seined in K.C,C. 21A.06.1065, to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors designated by the Comprehensive Plan and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. King County may require open, space tracts created under this subsection to be dedicated to an appropriate managing public agency or qualifying private entity such as a nature conservancy. In the absence of such a requirement, open space tracts shall be retained in undivided interest by the residents of the subdivision or short subdivision. A homeowners association shall be established for maintenance of the open space tract, (Ord. 14199 § 234, 2001: Ord. 14259 § 8, 2001: Ord. 14045 § 25, 2001: Ord. 13022 § 19, 1998: Ord. 12822 § 8, 19971 Ord. 11621 § 47, 1994: 10870 § 364, 1993). 21A.14.050 Lot segregations - UR zone reserve tract. Subdivision of UR zoned property of 10 or more acres shall be required to be clustered and a reserve tract shall be created for future development pursuant to the following provisions: A. The reserve tract shall be no less than 7E percent of the net developable area of the property to be subdivided. B. The reserve tract snail be configured to contain lands with topography and natural features that allow future conversion of the reserve tract to residential development at urban densities. C. The reserve tract may contain a single dwelling unit, provided: 1. The unit was included in the overall density calculations for the original subdivision creating the reserve tract, and 2. The unit was noted on the face of the original subdivision (plat or short plat). C. The reserve tract shall not be altered or disturbed except as specified on the face of the original subdivision (plat or short plat). E. The reserve tract eeay be retained under the ownership of the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the subdivisions, or conveyed to a third party. Regardless of ownership of the reserve tract, all restrictions relative to the reserve tract shall apply. F. The reserve tract she'!.' not be used to satisfy the recreation space requirement of the original subdivision. G. The layout of the lots and roadways created in the original subdivision shall facilitate future development of the reserve tract. H. The lots created in: the original subdivision shall be of a sufficient area to comply with on-site sewage disposal requirements, if public sewers are not available. I. The reserve tract shall not be eligible for further subdivision until such time that reclassification of the reserve tract occurs pursuant to the community pier area zonleg process outlined in K.C.C. 20.08.030. J. Any proposed subsequent development on the reserve tract shall be governed by the development standards in effect at the time of such development. (Ord. 10870 § 365, 1993). 21A.14.060 Townhouse development. In the R-1 through R-8 zones and in the NB zone on property designated commercial outside of center in the urban area, a building that contains a grouping of attached townhouse units shall not exceed a 200-foot maximum length without a separation of at least 10 feet from other groupings or rows of townhouses. (Ord. 12522 § 6, 1996: Ord, 11978 § 7, 1995: Ord. 10870 § 366, 1993). 21A.14.070Attached dwellings and group residences - Applicability. The standards of K.C.C. 21A.14.080 through 21A 14.090 shall apply to all new apartment developments exceeding four dwelling units, new townhouse development and new group residences except Class 1 Community Residential Facilities ("CRF-I"). Expansions of existing development that involve four or more dwelling units shall be subject to compliance with K.C.C. 21A.14.080 to 21A.14.090. (Ord. 13086 § 3, 1998: Ord. 10870 § 367, 1993). 21A-121 .f t ',a�A*4r'7rr bFI At' * r ji d _ Ir{ , , 'rmtrtt t ' y • T �J1 ' ly‘J.�.i Y;. a i t s+: r AaC1 r. ',t ti ilt t t -, -F.s t_. I ' �. ': .0 ��ti' - !' ,i'1 ' Y 1 ;t,:! :! ',} t ;'' '()- o :,t. r, ,, rn IiS, t i,,, •. r { 4 ' '. , I: is t t4 i r l 1- / f.I� .1W Il ffi1154lf L' F A k .� I ft C fi'-YIj J .' It - t1 .t : i 1•_ t • � • • �" -f �tn � I H yt t � .I ft r _�fp•1iP ?4� r,�y1�5atlil ,.• • .,1 t JI�. � .I- t • tt - -� � � dI . • .te - - I AL.•i • • le ,- ,�= :� iiii,j0kitiliii. lib. -*.lr-- k . . • .., . • • •... 1 -- •- , Community Plan • Area Zoning 0 King County Planning_ Division W 3-23-5 800 W S-R to S-R (15 000) The addition of the density suffix establishes a minimum lot con- sistent with the character of the single family level o services available in this area. size the neighborhood and the Family Development at See the discussion of Single Subarea on p. g Two to Three Homes per Acre under Northwest S-R to S-E This zoning change establishes a minimum 4401 consistent with adjacent areas also within May lot Creeksize ark one acre and is S-R to SC-p This zoning change establishes a policies N-7 and it implements Newcast and N-10. Also see the discussion of Siinglee o Family Community vlan opment at One Unit per Acre, pp. 20-21 Clustered under May Valleyy �eel- Subarea on The P-suffix condition requires that when lot clusterin SC zone, : r ; ,. } ,a.' g occurs in the ` ather than set aside for future ire-subdivision. For further information on this P-suffix condition g see P. 57 S-R to RS-9600 This zoning change establishes a Theet, is with the density minimum lot size of 9600 square with Newcastle Community Pland ohc N-11cter of this single famii aea,f and policy N-11 (see p. 9 ). S-R to RS-7200 This zoning change establishes a minimum lot size of 7200 square consistent with the level of services available and the adjacent uses in this area. 4 re feet, policy It is also consistent with Newcastle Community Aland Y N-1i (see p. yp ). 184 NO1N3d ism/ 5- Z-£ 3 L81• oi t00051i a-s 006-W8 - moos u d s SSA (0oosil H-s m 0 po m a • J C+y s I! r. 'I !R! I . ri F 1 L J (OC:09t/d-S mi rni i s.2o13 Arr31038 Ind 0096•S?1 j 0096-S21c o Hio ;s cicz 0096-S21 SN >yl ' d•S t) S CFI — — -''�— — -- — — — — .F 3 008 Nero Name y. r r --0,1 r^- i� O rr C; l� N :n O p O �. Vf n 11 �` Is 1. s ,� II C .. r ti �..J 1 J a...( Cr ,._.. ..4• _ • rj.) O o. O C." i C `-G M r, /4 L1 r Ir; r=- �J :!: i- 'ttibl t c, pearl n 0 " CITY OF RENTON DEC 0 7 2004 LARRY PHILLIPS RECEIVED CITE CLERK'S OFFICE Chair Metropolitan King County Council December 3, 2004 The Honorable Don Persson President, Renton City Council 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Ray Giometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Zoning in Proposed Urban Separator Annexation Areas Dear Councilmember Persson and Mr. Giometti: I understand that during the next few weeks both the Renton Planning Commission and Renton City Council will consider zoning in designated urban separator annexation areas. As you know, the Urban Separator designation exists for several purposes. One purpose is to create and preserve open space corridors that define the boundaries between communities within the urban areas. Another is to create a seamless connection between open space lands that are part of the larger regional open space system. The May Valley Urban Separator was cooperatively identified by King County and the City of Renton as a regionally recognized and designated urban separator, as well as a part of the regional open space system. King County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code implement the Urban Separator designation through the R-1 zone category. King County's R-1 zone allows development to occur at an overall density of 1 unit per acre and requires that development be clustered to retain at least 50%of the site in permanent open space tracts with the aim of creating and maintaining open space corridors. 516 Third Ave, Room 1200,Seattle,WA 98104-3272 206-296-1004 TTY/TDD 206-296-1024 Fax 206-296-0370 larry.phillips@metrokc.gov ®,mow Persson/Giometti December 1, 2004 Page 2 I have reviewed the Renton City planning staff memorandum of November 10, 2004 recommending that the permanent open space tract requirement be 30%rather than 50%. This recommendation seems to be driven by the potential loss of units because of the city's own policy relative to net developable area and because of the city's 4,500 square feet minimum lot size requirement. As I understand it, there is a reluctance to allow smaller lot sizes because of the impact to the city's desired residential character. However, I am not persuaded that this would happen, given that the underlying density of the R-1 zone is only 1 unit per acre. The overall character will still be low density. I suspect that the only real, quantifiable effect of the city staff recommendation is a net reduction in the amount of open space. These open spaces are the primary element of our region's precious Urban Separator network. Please consider modifying City of Renton zoning regulations to require 50% open space within Urban Separators. This tried and true zoning policy has allowed the county to ensure the creation and preservation of open space corridors over the past twenty years. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sin ere L rry Phil!' , Chair Metropoli n King County Council LP:ebk cc: The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive The Honorable Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of Renton Renton City Councilmembers Renton Planning Commissioners Alex Pietsch, Administrator, City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Rebecca Lind, Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department AgA From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk �a-/3- a004I To: auntgrumpy Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone, Community Separators Dear Ms. Marsh: Thank you for your email to the Renton City Council. Copy will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "auntgrumpy" <auntgrumpy@att.net> 12/8/2004 8:50:28 PM >>> Dear City Council, I am delighted to hear that the staff recommendation for the R-1 Zone Community Separators includes 50% permanent open space and clustering to maximize the benefit of the greenbelts created by a community separator! What a pleasure to hear that an Urban Separator will carry through the annexation process! As the WRIA 8 basin struggles with the demands of ESA and growth management it is encouraging to hear that Renton is willing to protect the areas that help to attenuate water runoff and provide excellent habitat to help balance in increased density that is required by the Urban Growth Boundary. This willingness is a bonus for all of us that live in the WRIA 8 basin with you. I look forward to hearing that the Renton City Council upheld these recommendations! In addition I look forward to hearing more about the City of Renton's commitment to protecting the basin. Sincerely, Connie Marsh 1175 NW Gilman Blvd #B11 Issaquah, WA 98027 (425)392-4908 added Paige) Aieetiebtl, ia-/3 ao0 From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: Jodi Mackey Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 8:39 AM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone Community Separators Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mackey: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "Jodi Mackey" <mackeyfamilyl @comcast.net> 12/12/2004 12:59:34 PM >>> Dear Council Members, We support keeping the Urban Separator protected at the current King County 50% permanent open space ratio. Thank you for your consideration. Jodi and John Mackey 5301 NE 23rd Court Renton WA 98059 425 204 9127 P /may . 71.G inui 113 �°`t From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk v/ To: Will Fohrell Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 8:40 AM Subject: Re: Dec. 13th, City Hall meeting input Dear Ms. Fohrell: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "Will Fohrell" <wfohrell@comcast.net> 12/12/2004 1:07:07 PM >>> City Council I am writing concerning the R-1 Zone community separators for the property between May Valley, Coal Creek and 148th. It is my understanding the city council supports fifty percent permanent open space. I would like to voice my support for the continuation of the 50% permanent open space ratio. As a native of the Northwest, it is the privilege of experiencing nature up close that has kept me here. Wildlife habitat and stewardship is important to the quality of life for all of us. Habitat is a wild animal's "support system."Within it, an animal meets all its life requirement: food, water, shelter and space. Quoting Wildlife Habitat and Its Stewardship, "No matter how many ways you provide food, water and shelter, space will always be a limiting factor for wildlife." Please help protect that precious combination. I believe growth can happen with the balance between humans and the needs of nature. The area under discussion is an area that is the habitat of herons, eagles, hawks, coyotes, deer, squirrels, raccoons and many birds. Not to mention all the animals we don't see. In our yard, we use organic products on our lawn and shrubs to reduce impact on Green Creek. We do our small part to help reduce the impact of all the building going on by planting plants that provide food and shelter for wildlife. We have bird feeders designed to support different species of birds. We see Bluebirds, Bushtits, Mallards, Steller's jays, Robins, Quail, House wrens, Crows, Chickadees, Dark-eyed juncos, Hummingbirds, Red-winged Blackbirds, Northern Flicker, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Varied Thrush, Black-headed Grosbek, Spotted Towhee and American Goldfinch in our back yard.These animals can not be sustained by backyard sanctuary's only. It is the support of the larger wildlife area that is helping to make this diversity possible. The book "Landscaping for Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest" has many passages that could be used in support of protecting wild areas. It talks about the delicate balance that can be upset by human intervention. "one example is when predatory species such as foxes, owls or hawks disappear because there is no longer adequate habitat for them." Other passages include: "As a wildlife steward, your goal is to meet the requirements of wildlife in a way that doesn't create problems for or for the animals." 3 ' "The space requirements for some wildlife species may be larger than you imagine, A Pileated woodpecker covers about 300 acres in search of tree cavities for nesting and its main food source." "Despite ups and downs, wildlife populations tend to stay re►atively stable in the long term if human intervention and natural catastrophes don't significantly change land use of vegetation where they live." "Although you need to consider several things when managing for birds around your property, the most important is to protest undisturbed wild areas. Examples include any size wetland, areas of tangled vegetation, unmoved grassy areas, and any place that contains snags. " Please vote to continue the 50% permanent open space ratio. Jan Fohrell 2400 Lyons Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 425-235-4968 • e44,1,1,47aat From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk /4131 UGal To: w.watters Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 8:41 AM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone Separators Dear Mr. Watters: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "w.watters" <w.watters@comcast.net> 1 2/1 2/2004 4:03:01 PM >>> I support the 50% permanent open space requirement for R-1 Zone Community Separators. Reducing the open space goes against the original concept of preserving sensitive and natural areas and providing a buffer between developed areas. Urban separators and green belts often follow natural geographic features such as streams and other sensitive areas that provide habitat and corridors for wildlife. A reduction in open space would affect wildlife like putting up roadblocks on a highway would affect us. Maintaining at least 50% permanent open space in these areas will help wildlife, and enhance the quality of life for the rest of us by providing environmental diversity. This will be valued even more as time goes on and the population grows. However, in fairness to the property owners that are affected by the 50%open space requirement, they should be encouraged to maintian good stewardship of their land, not inadvertantly penalized for providing a public benefit. Allowing increased development in these areas is the wrong approach and sets a bad example. Wayde Watters 11608 SE 286th St. Kent, WA 98030 opivAte-n 13Jwa From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk 1 To: david kappler Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: Re: May Valley Urban Separator Dear Mr. Kappler: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "david kappler" <davidkappler@hotmail.com> 1 2/1 2/2004 4:50:48 PM >>> Dear Council Members: You may have received my earlier and longer letter to the Boundary Review Board regarding the Merritt II Annexation. I would very much like to see this area annexed to Renton as I believe the city will be able to even better manage this area as long as they have the land use code elements needed to insure this area is a separator of two urban areas as well as the more complicated and perhaps more important job of being a CONNECTOR between May Creek Park and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park as well as a CONNECTOR of the creek and creekside habitats of May Creek. To summarize: the county has successfully managed this area over the last 20 years. This area is so important and has so many special features it requires some special land use code provisions for it to be protected. The City of Renton must have good clustering language, good language to protect dedicated open space for the long term and provide for the significant dedication of open space such as the county's requirement for a minimum of 50% of gross area being dedicated as permanent protected open space. Thank you for your consideration. David Kappler 255 SE Andrews Street Issaquah, WA 98027 425-392-3571 Mit/tiAl j.. MO' etaUtdien C11/i1Ze From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk !2 M/1 / To: Betsy Reamy Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 9:54 AM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone Community Separators Dear Ms. Reamy: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> Betsy Reamy<betsyreamy@yahoo.com> 1 2/1 3/2004 9:52:06 AM >>> Dear City Council Members, My name is: Betsy Reamy. My address is: 2502 Lyons Ave NE, Renton, 98059. I live in the Stonegate development. I understand you will be addressing the R-1 Zone Community Separators at this evening's council meeting. I am unable to attend the meeting, but I would like to lend my support in the request for 50% permanant open space. Thank you for considering my input. Best Regards, Betsy Reamy 2 601 Lyons :Qvt N� IZt vt JA 'N0591 Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebritv.mail.vahoo.com )U&1"19 From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk I7/i3 JzOo'1 To: Spike ` Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Urban Separator rules for Renton Dear Mr. Schulz: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> Spike<spikeme63@yahoo.com> 12/13/2004 9:55:58 AM >>> Dear Renton City Council: If I did not have a prior commitment to a non-profit board meeting this evening, I would be at the City Counsel meeting in person tonight. There is way too little open space on the East Side as it is. Please help keep Renton an attractive place to live and bring up our children by requiring at LEAST 50% PERMANENT open space in the Urban Separators and mandtory clustering of new developments. If Renton holds itself out as "ahead of the curve", you need to continue to enact rules that are proof of this claim vs. the appearance of it being an empty marketing campaign. Kevin F. Schulz, MBA, CFP 2202 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 425.452.0313 Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! -What will yours do? http://mv.vahoo.com ?t %' c �l� esAALtiiii 12r/131 2-0Pf From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: Bruce Christopherson Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 1:03 PM Subject: Re: urban sparator Dear Mr. Christopherson: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "Bruce Christopherson" <bchristo@bcc.ctc.edu> 12/13/2004 10:13:33 AM >>> I am unable to make the Renton city meeting tonight (12/13/04), but wanted to voice my support for maintaining the rural open space of the urban separator between Renton and Newcastle in the May Valley area. Bruce Christopherson 5502 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 425-254-0216 Pult-6,t ) e wy, e4,41),410.076biu.i. From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk /�i�1�/i/Oo`1 To: Tracy Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 1:04 PM Subject: Re: Letter to the Renton Planning Staff Dear Mr. & Mrs. Ficca: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "Tracy" <ptficca@comcast.net> 12/13/2004 10:13:40 AM >>> We live in the Renton Community of Stonegate. Our name is Paul and Tracy Ficca, we live at 5306 NE 23rd Court, Renton, WA 98059. We urge you to keep our R-1 zone cummunity urban separators. This is what makes our community BEAUTIFUL AND VALUABLE. Also, urban separators provide many benefits, including the following: 1. Define a community's borders with a greenbelt, 2. Greenbelts help create a sense of community, 3. Greenbelts enhance our quality of life (breathing space) 4. Urban Separators can help mitigate surface water problems. 5. Urban separators contain environmentally sensitive features; a.flood plains b. steep slopes & landslide hazards c. rivers, creeks and wetlands d. fish &wildlife habitat These critical areas are protected by urban separators and the 50% open space requirement. Thank you for your support, The Ficca's h'3010 NC 732ra Ci- OAA WA °I`60011 7kt HMt (1),tivAtfaitiv From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk iqt3liooLf To: Llkkstewart@aol.com Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 1:05 PM Subject: Re: R-1 Community Seperator Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stewart: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> <Llkkstewart@aol.com> 12/13/2004 11:17:36 AM >>> We want to show our support of the request for the R-1 community separator request of 50% permanent open space. Thank you, Lon and Leda Stewart 2217 Lyons Ave NE Renton WA 98059 ItU., iktINAly • •rr NAAft416/6-1(1,101 • From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk 1 72'1,49 To: Sandy Yu Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 1:05 PM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone Community Separators Dear Mr. & Mrs. Yu: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>>Sandy Yu <sandyyu@comcast.net> 12/13/2004 11:18:20 AM >>> To whom it may concern, We, Li-Ming and Sandy Yu are residents of 5405 NE 24th Ct. Renton, WA 98059. We support the R-1 Zone community Separators to request 50% permanent open space! Li-Ming & Sandy Yu pt,d)-",a. ye#A1-4, yaw 'goof aim," From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk 1&1'3/ZtO 1 To: Susan Oki Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 4:07 PM Subject: Re: R-1 Zone Community Separation Dear Ms. Oki: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "Susan Oki" <susan@innovativecookies.com> 1 2/1 3/2004 3:54:01 PM >>> Dear Council Members: I am a property owner at 2406 Lyons Ave. N.E., Renton, WA 98059. (Stonegate Development). My husband and I are STRONGLY in favor of PERMANENT OPEN SPACE separation in our neighborhood and adjacent developments. We are strongly in favor of this for a number of reasons-- 1)Wetland, wildlife and habitat protection; 2) Mitigation of surface water runoff (to protect our roads and reduce water pollution); 3) creation of natural recreational opportunities for a range of age groups. We urge you to vote in favor of designated permanent open space equivalent to 50% or more of the property in our community. Please feel free to call us at 425-235-2880 if you have any questions about our position. Susan Oki Susan Oki Innovative Cookies, Inc. Phone: 253.887.8902 X14 Fax: 253.887.8903 V404, Lycn N6 I-c\ Wk M05`1 Noisy 'ere 1/ From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk Tit ]{eet n n c, To: TAD KEVIN WILLOUGHBY Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2004 6:06 PM C6f-Ye 5p2rk Subject: Re: R1-Zone Community Separator Dear Mr. & Mrs. Willoughby: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Your message will be forwarded to all Councilmembers for review, and also will be made a part of the public hearing record at tonight's Council meeting. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "TAD KEVIN WILLOUGHBY" <TadWilloughby@msn.com> 1 2/1 3/2004 5:18:03 PM >>> I support fifty percent (50%) open space in the Urban Separators. RE: R-1 Zone Community Separators. Melissa&Tad Willoughby 5512 NE 26th St Renton, WA 98059 4cc�u�b �. � Dec 16 04 10: 53a Janaylk. xl HANSON CONSULTING �'`�" t� 121"ol 01 Jim Hanson 360-422-5056 December 16, 2004 Terri Briere, Chair Planning and Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Subject: Urban Separator, Open Space, Density Dear Mrs. Briere: Because of an earlier commitment I am unable to attend the Committee meeting today therefore I am writing on behalf of three property owners within the Merritt II annexation and within the Urban Separator area in the May Creek basin. These three property owners own over 31 acres within the area. We generally agree with the Urban Separator Clustering proposal as presented to the City Council at the public hearing on December 13th 2004 with a few clarifications. 1. In addition to trails and utility connections being allowed within the open space a provision for emergency access and other utilities such as storm water facilities are also needed. 2. The density bonus is needed in order to make the dedication of the 50%open space more equitable. 3. We should be careful about how the 50%requirement is worded along with the contiguous requirement. Some way of modifying this requirement for specific properties is needed if such dedication would not meet the goals of the contiguous open space corridor. 4. We understand that an overlay map will be presented to the committee outlining the open space area. This type of display may be needed however care should be taken before the map is finalized. Individual parcels may be severely impacted if we do not take a very careful look at the logical boundaries of such an open space corridor. In other words such a map at this time should be conceptual only. We look foreword to working with the City staff and City Council to finalize the development standards for the urban separator. Th You: /r`477 h/4'041--) im Hanson -PI ►n)Yl1)-5) l \e.1rot - IZ! ►) --toot CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: December 9, 2004 TO: Terri Briere, Chair Planning and Development Committee FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator t\-1 V Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind (x6588) SUBJECT: R-1 Zone Community Separators ISSUE: Based on citizen and property owner input, staff has developed a revised recommendation regarding enacting a mandatory cluster standard in the R-1 Zone Community Separators. RECOMMENDATION: REVISED • Enact a mandatory clustering provision. • Use the 50%open space requirement in King County Code rather than 30%as originally recommended. • Enact the following regulations that are more explicit than King County Code, o Allow the 50%open space requirement to include critical areas and critical area buffers, o Prohibit fencing that restricts access within open space, o Allow trails, and utility connections including maintenance assess for utilities, and o Require the open space requirement upon building permit,major re-model or construction of accessory structures for developed properties within the urban separator. December 9, 2004 Page 3 modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. Renton has three Urban Separators: May Valley, Cedar River, and the Talbot area by Springbrook Creek. These areas are designated and mapped in the Countywide Planning Policies as shown in Attachment 1. Urban Separators are currently implemented in King County regulations through a mandatory clustering standard that requires clustering away from sensitive areas or the axis of the Community Separators. Permanent retention of open space tracts that include at least 50%of the site is also sought. King County has had these requirements since 1983. King County required clustering and 50% open space retention in its "SC-P"zone. "SC"denoted Suburban Cluster and "P"denoted open space requirements. In the County's "R-1-P"zoning code, enacted in 1994, clustering and 50% open space retention was required. Renton's Comprehensive Plan addresses Urban Separators in the Community Design Element Policies and in the Land Use Element Policies and map within the Residential Low Density Designation. Community Design Element Objective CD-B: Designate low-density residential and resource areas as Urban Separators to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, and to define Renton's boundaries. Policy CD-7. The function of Urban Separators should be to: a. reinforce the character of the City, b. establish clear boundaries between the City and other communities, c. Separate high-density urban land uses from low-density uses and resource lands, and d. Protect environmentally sensitive or critical areas. Policy CD-8. Locational criteria should consider the following types of lands for designation as Urban Separators: a. Individual and interconnecting natural features, critical areas,public and private open space and water features. b. Existing and proposed individual and interconnecting parks, and agricultural areas. c. Areas that provide a logical and easily identifiable physical separation between urban communities. Land Use Element RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Policies in this section are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory. Issue paper revised.doc December 9,2004 _ ' Page 5 „r„ ..r • will always be less based on the net density calculation.) The net developable areas available to use that density will vary. For example: • If a site is at least 50% constrained by critical areas, and requires any new road development, the Renton net developable area will be less than the County developable area. • If a site is marginally constrained by sensitive areas, the allowed density will still be less in the City due to the roads. Adoption of a mandatory cluster using the County standard would result in a developable area discounted by the 50% open space provision minus the road areas. Without required clustering and open space retention the development within these areas could lead to "horse-acre"type platting. "Horse- acre"platting is characterized by low density, semi-rural development. Although a desirable development type for upper-income families, it is considered inefficient because the infrastructure serves fewer people and public transit may not be feasible. Modifying Renton's zoning code to be more similar to the County's would change the way the development would be laid out for parcels with less than 50%critical areas constraints. In the May Valley Urban Separator, there are 12 parcels out of 36 that are both large enough to subdivide and also have less than 50%critical areas. The properties shown on Attachment 2 would be affected by the proposed change in standards. Properties along the Cedar River in the Urban Separator designation would likely be zoned Resource Conservation rather than R-1 as this larger lot zone is applied within this corridor. Within the Talbot Road Urban Separator there are significant sensitive areas on most parcels as shown on Attachment 3. CONCLUSION: REVISED As a result of the difference in City and County density systems and the way critical areas are considered in the net developable area, staff concurs with the Planning Commission and recommends that the 50%open space requirement be required,but that a bonus be granted to allow property owners to transfer density on to the developable portions of the site. This adjustment addresses the difference in net developable area between the two density systems. The location of critical areas within these corridors, combined with the extensive impact of critical areas on some properties creates a varying impact on different owners. While the net development density system creates this difference citywide,the consequence is larger in the R- 1 zone because the lot size required is so large. In the R-4 and R-8 zones, the density allowed on the remaining area is sufficient to allow reasonable urban development to occur. In the R-1 zone, the difference between one dwelling unit and two requires an additional acre of land. The further imposition of a 50%open space requirement to protect the public purpose further restricts developable area in some cases. Using the County system of gross density as the basis for the bonus restores these property owners to the development potential they would have prior to annexation and gives the City a tool to improve the quality of the open space created. The County regulations do not address how the creation of contiguous open space will occur. While the code sets contiguity as a goal, there is no development standard implementing this requirement. Similarly the County code does not address fencing, forestation, and access for Issue paper revised.doc December 9, 2004 Page 7 %m Applicable Metropolitan King County Code: 0 Title 21A.12.03017a. "All subdivisions and short subdivisions in the R-1 zone shall be required to be clustered if the property is located within or contains: (1) a floodplain, (2) a critical aquifer recharge area, (3) a Regionally of Locally Significant Resource Area, (4) existing or planned pubic parks or trails, or connection to such facilities, (5) a Class I or II stream or wetland, or (6) a steep slope, or (7) a "greenbelt/urban separator"or "wildlife corridor"area designated by the Comprehensive Plan or Community Plan. 0 17b. The development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors such as urban separators or the wildlife habitat network to the extent possible and the open space shall be placed in a separate tract that includes at least fifty percent of the site. Open space tracts shall be permanent and shall be dedicated to a homeowner's association or other suitable organization, as determined by the director, and meet the requirements of K.C.C. 21A.14.040. On site sensitive area and buffers, wildlife habitat networks, required habitat and buffers for protected species and designated urban separators shall be placed within the open space tract to the extent possible. Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within the open space tract. " 0 Title 21A.14.040 C. In the R-1 zone, open space tracts created by clustering required by K.C.C. 21A 12.030 shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts required by the Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans or open space functional plans to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors designated by the Comprehensive Plan and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. King County may require open space tracts created under this subsection to be dedicated to an appropriate managing public agency or qualfing private entity such as a nature conservancy. In the absence of such a requirement, open space tracts shall be retained in undivided interest by the residents of the subdivision or short subdivision. A homeowner's association shall be established for maintenance of the open space tract. " cc: Renton City Council Members Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Issue paper revised doe r '""'' "' ATTACHMENT 2 001 a CO e ri o �� o a O a : .4 I o . -� �li^t co u I > 0 Cr Q LLI O a 1 e y �, gs ay Valley d o 1(> r� ,- R fir--'f-?;.":", .7-,.,1 l'eif ''.-' f7;'',j.1"6,474"'''-7-:1''.-b.-:fili-,z'i 1 k.121-- -H-=' ^-1-1 -f --C-;: _, C7 T,'- '(4 id/fit/0 "e'-'e is 4,,,',44'449,4' ;.,-,:,'_: :' .e.---?, ‘::---. -,,-.--, - 4 T'SC" _mil.'a*. re • 3' *- ,fir /. -'� /;f Tiim w • 4• 4, t P✓ ,e l f - `"`y r` .- - Q) � -� �. ie � � „ i � f• _ sy s a *M�11 y� y �' t y� {sE '.e� ?• r am • r � kr.- �� pia'Vilimisa Zallimiff.a:aallgOkre'5ISfi,:..-!',-;_,L'--,:tr-',Iata,--;- ='- '-'7.:,.:2-1:,-----,7-''''L'-‘11r1.13-0. Pr ligriralNIF � . � E 1 lids �•' ► * ; .? i = �� Milli t 0. N lifla 06, „ i.A.-Iro vintf,,z, 4*.4 es••es I.v up liZiritt 6112 ilrirrigRot 4 eirl. II ruti wil 0. B 1 �imp � �raionsislow��, 1 41 tr17,.r�eiMtarj�� r 1.0� J< ``0.P. 0. 4s, AA ►�7 -.�. `�1�+■ + t�t7{ if7 +7i#�r •�� t�r��tl t`�� p� A q o 1 r�� `�7 • r tr ! ..� wV `♦;� Aft, 4 (� till ,' t►. ty' ��r,01 re iret s 4' ij pstn mom. C.. n� MI ,� e do imi 'At r �l]� CE1 gkw1[7✓ ► 1 .. �,t� am,. � `i'�� 1 -D . SE 1 mg arj nus ,��tieftpe„� zIAtk - �J [ .,.ten IV),... . • ��+1 t� IIIV p LW rlVII rrr PNt ♦G�: /i 447 -j i'Zimaz nut, tb-Latis*,,e) ill - '''.. .I.al Mk ilk A 101 . rusts/ iLts [0 El'IT � V all) tikesgarA t ", - C Nov�v` if ro •. o tit- Q .� �r iii .V-- ,► iliiiresnir v r ♦ 1 C. 't-r- •1\74� C.� Cr) tri I�j/ .t� ` t I�[L,C��' *�j `il lhb IocvnecMwt be,ec y.q+K. •�'+• wM 9•^r estessi ��, �"r _% r�7'� %1 i"/ s•/ `1 �boned aw W hri idmmorsw aY es 4Mee dde mow". J •'1 A i ' pi O v l Mil This mop's for 4+DbY W.y °say. 11 Proposed Merritt II Annexation o 600 10° I Figure 3: Existing Structures Map Existing Structure 1 • 72�� 1SY O Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Adipe Corporate limits f Alex r'ietsch,Administrate :� Original Annexation Area G-Del Rosario PNTo$ 1 September 2004 I I Expanded Annexation Area December 6,2004 "o'" Renton City Council Minutes ./ Page 431 CAG: 03-033, Strander Blvd Transportation (Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Extension Design,Perteet recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation that $197,437 be Engineering transferred to the Strander Blvd. and SW 27th St. Connection Project to complete the full design for a portion of this roadway by transferring$138,000 from the Benson Rd. and S. 31st St. Traffic Signal Project and$59,437 from the Transit Priority Signal Project. The Committee further recommended that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to CAG-03-033 with Perteet Engineering, Inc.,for additional preliminary engineering services in the amount of$197,437. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Committee on Committees Council President-elect Briere presented a Committee on Committees report Council: 2005 Committee recommending the following Council committee chairmanships and committee Assignments assignments for 2005: Community Services Committee: Toni Nelson, Chair; Dan Clawson,Vice Chair; Don Persson,Member. Finance Committee: Don Persson, Chair;Toni Nelson, Vice Chair;Denis Law, Member. Planning and Development Committee: Dan Clawson, Chair;Denis Law,Vice Chair; Marcie Palmer,Member. Public Safety Committee: Denis Law, Chair; Randy Corman, Vice Chair;Toni Nelson,Member. Transportation(Aviation)Committee: Marcie Palmer, Chair;Don Persson, Vice Chair;Randy Corman, Member. Utilities Committee: Randy Corman, Chair; Marcie Palmer,Vice Chair;Dan Clawson,Member. MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning&Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Committee regarding the R-1 zone community separators. The Committee reviewed staff Planning: R-1 Zone analysis and the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the R-1 zone Community Separators cluster and open space requirements in the City's designated Urban Separators. The Planning Commission recommended that clustered development be required and that a mandatory 50% open space tract be established to meet Urban Separator policies. The Committee concurred with this recommendation and further recommended that staff develop an ordinance that provides equivalent or better implementation of the Urban Separator than currently set forth in the King County code. The Committee further recommended that the implementation of Urban Separators include a mechanism to grant a density bonus up to the maximum density presently allowed by the King County code,provision of utilities, including sewer connections to parcels, and/or consideration of a means to achieve a connected and contiguous open space corridor within the Urban Separator. Further review should consider issues such as fencing requirements, the location of the open space corridor within a parcel, and the threshold for establishing the open space tract on individual parcels. This item will remain in Noe December 6,2004 "%we Renton City Council Minutes Page 432 Committee for further review and recommendation on these implementation issues. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND ' The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3723 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Finance: Sales Tax Sourcing interlocal agreement with the City of Kent for payment and supervision of sales Lobbyist Services (Sales Tax tax sourcing lobbyist services. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY Streamlining),City of Kent CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3724 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an CAG: 02-099,Yakima County interlocal agreement amending certain terms of prior interlocal agreements Jail Services, King County between the City of Renton and Yakima County regarding the housing of Cities inmates in Yakima County jail facilities. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3725 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Transportation: Maple Valley interlocal agreement between the City and the Washington State Department of Hwy Phase I Improvements, Transportation for funding of construction of the Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169) WSDOT Grant HOV Lanes and Queue Jump Improvements. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3726 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into Police: Jail Booking Services interlocal agreements with government agencies for the City of Renton to Interlocal Agreements provide jail booking services on a space-available basis. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 12/13/2004 for second and final reading: Vacation: Alley between An ordinance was read vacating a portion of the alley running north to south, Williams &Wells Ayes S, south of S. 2nd St. between Williams Avenue S. to the west and Wells Ave. S. Savren Service Corp,VAC-03- to the east(Savren Service Corporation; VAC-03-002). MOVED BY BRIERE, 002 SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/13/2004. CARRIED. Vacation: Alley,NE 30th St& An ordinance was read vacating a portion of the unimproved alley located south Kennewick PINE, Renton of NE 30th St., west of Kennewick Pl. NE, and north of the abandoned Pacific School District,VAC-04-003 Coast Railroad right-of-way(Kennydale Elementary School -Renton School District; VAC-04-003). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/13/2004. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Discussion ensued regarding budget priorities related to the Heather Downs Budget: Priorities(Heather park development,the Parks Maintenance Facility replacement, and the Downs Park,Park RENSTAT and REACT programs. Maintenance Facility, Issues and concerns raised included the assumption that Heather Downs was RENSTAT &REACT) Council's first priority; the lack of property for the Parks Maintenance Facility; Heather Downs area residents'expectation for a park; the suggestion to set money aside but postpone decision until March 2005 on whether to use money for Heather Downs or Parks Maintenance Facility; lack of information about the Parks Maintenance Facility; the delay of Heather Downs park development tar • PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date /a-(-aoa9 COMMITTEE REPORT December 6, 2004 R-1 Zone Community Separators (Referred January 26, 2004) The Planning and Development Committee reviewed the staff analysis and Planning Commission recommendation on R-1 cluster and open space requirements in the City's designated Urban Separators. The Planning Commission recommended that clustered development be required and that a mandatory 50% open space tract be established to meet Urban Separator policies. The Planning and Development Committee concurs with this recommendation and further recommends that staff develop an ordinance that provides equivalent or better implementation of the Urban Separator than currently set forth in the King County code. The Committee further recommends that the implementation of urban separators include a mechanism to grant a density bonus up to the maximum density presently allowed by the King County code, provision of utilities, including sewer connections to parcels, and/or consideration of a means to achieve a connected and contiguous open space corridor within the Urban Separator. Further review should consider issues such as fencing requirements, the location of the open space corridor within a parcel, and the threshold for establishing the open space tract on individual parcels. This item will remain in Committee for further review and recommendation on these implementation issues. \"6/0,L, Terri Brier , Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair 42,4frt Denis W. Law, Member cc: Jay Covington Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind 12/06/2004 MON 11:49 FAX 2062960370 I{CC District Four 421002 *re 'gime CITY OF REr TO DEC 0 6 2004 LARRY PHILLIPS RECEIED CITY CLERKS OFFICE Chair Metropolitan King County Council Cd: Caliy1 maylq- R,46u-4- December 3, 2004 The Honorable Don Persson President, Renton City Council 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Ray Giometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Zoning in Proposed Urban Separator Annexation Areas Dear Councilmember Persson and Mr. Giometti: I understand that during the next few weeks both the Renton Planning Commissic,n and Renton City Council will consider zoning in designated urban separator annexatic n areas. As you know, the Urban Separator designation exists for several purposes. One p irpose is to create and preserve open space corridors that define the boundaries betwf en communities within the urban areas. Another is to create a seamless connection between open space lands that are part of the larger regional open space system. The May valley Urban Separator was cooperatively identified by King County am I the City of Renton as a regionally recognized and designated urban separator, as wr II as a part of the regional open space system. King County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code implement the Urban Separator designation through the R-1 zone category. King County's R-1 zone allows development to occur at an overall density of 1 unit per acre and requires that development be clustered to retain at least 50% of the site in permanent open sF ace tracts with the aim of creating and maintaining open space corridors. 516 Third Ave, Room 1200, Seattle,WA 98104-3272 206-296-100a TTY/TDD 206-296-1024 Fax 206-296-0370 larry,phillipsa,metrokc.gov 12/06/2004 MON 11:49 FAX 2062960370 KCC District Four lJ003 Now, Nor Persson/Giometti December 1, 2004 Page 2 I have reviewed the Renton City planning staff memorandum of November 10, 2C,)4 recommending that the permanent open space tract requirement be 30% rather than 50%. This recommendation seems to be driven by the potential loss of units becal ,se of the city's own policy relative to net developable area and because of the city's .1,500 square feet minimum lot size requirement. As I understand it, there is a reluctance to allow smaller lot sizes because of the impact to the city's desired residential chart rcter. However, I am not persuaded that this would happen, given that the underlying r ensity of the R-1 zone is only 1 unit per acre. The overall character will still be low density , I suspect that the only real, quantifiable effect of the city staff recommendation is a net reduction in the amount of open space. These open spaces are the primary eler rent of our region's precious Urban Separator network. Please consider modifying City of Renton zoning regulations to require 50% open pace within Urban Separators. This tried and true zoning policy has allowed the county ro ensure the creation and preservation of open space corridors over the past twenty years. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sin ere L Phi ll , Chair Metropoli n King County Council LP:ebk cc: The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive The Honorable Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of Renton Renton City Councilmembers Renton Planning Commissioners Alex Pietsch, Administrator, City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Rebecca Lind, Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department 12/06/2004 MON 11:49 FAX 2062960370 KCC District Four 001 Date December 3, 2004 Number of pages including cover she ?t 3 Aur N: '31) FAX TO: Renton City FROM: Erika Kinno Councilmembers Legislative Aide to Phone Councilmembet Phillips Fax Phone (425) 430-6523 District Four CC: King County Cc Pell 516-3rd Ave, R, n. 1200 Seattle, WA 9t 104-3272 Phone (206) 296-1004 Fax Phone (206) 296-037C REMARKS: ® Urgent ® For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please. Comment Thank you for distributing to all councilmernbers! fr)( •• � rr __ it,,„Abtf .forotk-esdti 0 73 c) ...... (P er` A. _.____JC c.N. ? y c,, ../ C. f- 5. = 0 po tc l'.. . 3,. 1. c 0 m et = c 4 T 0-04 - PS n o ez zy I -'(_-_,!<' VA' ';. epz n CZ_ 7 Witn � � 0 ' G3 i- y H td 2 i1 Cr7 o r G 70 m 'z 0 m H PRESOH Y FIRST CIA` - W rn • p • O in b in -1 W C nj - tJ zmn AD — 0 DI-I -0 a iir ... h) uruc 0 .. ti, , in r-433 .. I. _• in in to Z +► -- a , 4 L3 0 010 cm5 rn -- i ZIZII Cj iv -z.... 0 E i.: ,..: 4:::)„, a ... to z to 6 p a - 0 t. m 9N w Q � O I It 'Se S;, . ' , ---.T1 i ,. y v —4(c.... S ....7---\77„ m � O Of c «1135 O r. O`'' o .4- , '-i: tY op 2 ;ow rri 0. lo ; 0 v, .. ' nn ,=, !'RESak s x -a- FIRST CLA` 0 m w b 3., �� Qi C-4A3 ` t i- hi ZzCt1 o c to in mmz ., '- p ^ A -3al F,: p A olf , 1mm nc� rn as sZat :t bz �- 0 0C� _ 1 6 111 Of z ss o ' a 1� 0 10 m DN Ill 1 ` 0 t. 0 0 r) d T m C I ' O /r+ m El'T P oft g eD.is FEt, rD"- n a `C Fir O I..1 k OCo n � LA , t ! � _110 :U� p C- = co = �. c-F N = P� O Cl ,. O /' m Z ��• n. O 71 Oo = W m=-0 p R o. n H ° „- PREM.( x �._ `' FIRST CIA' m wr a - us- ' ma In Pi! c z1 zr ! t- J Z Z W k11cci cz 0 0 Z n , i,.� , \ 1l = St 4 el z O. rf•L LI i:NN 4. ID M PI .-k � To a fara4E + 5 _- I 4 4 • 0CD • 0 CIa O 40 IN 111 rua no Irvj R o 0 C 'tile cc 0 U ,...) ...., .... N - rn Cog. tll P � 4 m tol y C • Lt Cam' oo y0. nI y E b y ' F p 0o oo4, CC/ 8 P. e ��1 N a y ~] ' _ g rojull OS 4'0 o n Q r is- to N., w Ti ��W * Vl n ggyo i .(, o ,§ J in zS�o - 0.11 - In yxmo .. `� 8 0-3 �x�om- b �p O oy0 p 1C1171 a:..7�Y. a H C/1 y c ow DifET CLA z. (ii:aT CL Z Cr1 �D F. yGY _ ,' v,J! O rXi _ rn 1, = (. rp t-43 i N O 0111ctl 8 NNW u, .. 0. 8 .....c 8 --'c,..) J \ �r`T O u •1 �� f� c iirftc • kit tei .40 ph r g el rt, go 0o J c„ 0 0 ...i 0 � � Ap ;, - .- it. f a F • OTC e - 0 \O N n Li a p ►-3 r 0. or °z a 1 1�, w cal 1 CO u) pyADo Q).. x y ti Ses lfl Y1pv 0-3 M b rp O 0 P6ESoi, >J la,44 fnsr cl n Ova Z � b _ `� 'f r( O� i` -C , . -et,... :_ nr_ ^l tf O ; a�`p ,L �� z 0 m rY _ m _ , ,,; cil E. _ �n c a i =. -,Itiv, `< m t.== �a i ra: ,C� n o o 7 - Q C _ �� u,-till b *11 6 s' z I- rw i - moo 1'7 11 (0 Q 0 - o a y L. i Z. O ., b Z. E 1 i 0111 _o A J K. t.n 00 O A 8 ...c O W U VI F41 NI —_, ,.., ., t":-.4 (---- ) F hc' x �00b 000 ci7C � � � � `� "' oil t. � � -- � z p C _ H ci 4. 0 re W it C"- ; m O g o_. of . --t Fe to Q z A Yg 0 ..i.-- .,4„.. ,V v , ._ 00 , �9._ ,. a vi, ..,, — 5 . o°O ''I bo ?�' ' i o en e A p q y 0 o m Ii c... rn .4.0 r c=l• i Pi/ rile Zm e Cd t N O y, N N-'-,-� '. _a 6p O m O3Y N C.' C'.b` VJ-0 i..i'�-, 0 Cd.._. 344 • q —N N y ✓ t, V•� o O p y 3 bA'.v N"d • 0 V �.0 y 5-0-o g.5.. a'S a.oa a1' a,°1, 6 Z ZP p,0p, o 0 p•p 03C7 0 0 f0..o•5 0.. cn c`a,�<G agco�D a PaU ca ca o C� c y :; Q v1 � a a°pro acD f� ' o 0 f�� y��A� U�'o' q G ° mod mx ° ° q'C� Un =PO CAU o c a'�0,n ti�3'm$, a on0Uy aca aLn a soit pc ma CD I-. UWU� a°' oU bb0-., -4, C Ng .°^,w^d•o.; y d aa) 'U•''•"''5_' O'�� 0 0.5Ub q ca. mNa" o m d ai'So ca.°:U. _a OOa dc�.Sy a a o.'�' m.�..' p•°.' ^_ g o 0.4.-. °'o o,3,-4 c3 zz•�..'ea a aaCiP4g.2U 3 m o��criZ p aA 8_a 5 a,A \\\�\\\111{11i1/l/1;, — 2 •s c,> n 'ram, ,\`\�� a) a) oA C) a) >'-0 5 a`"i o0 co Ll = r,•,,,� 5 a0.0 oi . boA O O C ¢ .0 Z o ,ti 0 O 73 oh G O W o �. o V ° .-4 0 Q 3 Y N a � a��i � 5 ,_ c, OD Z °' x � a 0 aZ N a .0 '..a °U a D a) � o � � .1 " ' UQ ap o U on na' c� . ^o wo 60 '. 0 5 co 0 cCd ~ = c •Cl o 0 z5 0 ,_ o Yx 0 3 aa' z U >, o ° A, 0 C as a� - m. w .5 5 -0 aNi y y y '. y N 0 'D v 0 O p cC a O b�q 0n• 5 0 rn co 0 U z 3 U a ,. ¢, ,. 3 ob M es " .-, 0 3 5 x r� >' .4 .o = ° E b i c' vi ` a� o Z v �, a� a, +., y `.' '.0 >; c`" w I. o0 � O c 0 G=v E•+ 5 w n ,� o co w a 0 �, L. to O O ° o. 8 ° .4' ' - o 0 I a e NS. c�0N. C 0 b U co - o -'-'' v' ••... r 7 ti 75 Ubo 0 o cn oU a o -o c., Iti73 � ate, a � V? E- a� o .5 �'.� ❑ a �o w E� o Q �' 0 0 � '': a "0o0) toaa) o'O — EA a) � `: - oA� S :tsZ � aaix co o -o 0UvnHaC -8 a 3 H o .5 1.°� . cn F°- ZQU i • • O �Y +C.* + �•NrvO COURTESY NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING R-1 ZONE COMMUNITY SEPARATOR December 13, 2004 The R-1 Zone Community Separator public hearing will be held Monday, December 13, 2004 before the Renton City Council, Council Chambers, Renton City Hall, seventh floor, rather than December 6th as originally published on the Notice of Application. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. The hearing will consider: City Code amendment to enact a mandatory clustering provision within the designated urban separators with R-1 zoning and to require a mandatory open space tract. If you have any questions, please contact Strategic Planning at 425- 430-6575. Courtesy Notice of PH.doc\ 232305914102 r.. 312305902404 062205905102 ADAMS PEGGY J AHLUWALIA RAVINDER SINGH+JA ALLDREDGE DOUGLAS L 15115 SE JONES RD 730E 55TH ST 9403 S 192ND ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 032305907308 232305913708 232305917709 ANDREWS MARL S BARDEN ERIC R+SIRI N BERGERON DONNA 9606 143RD AV SE 26521 SE 37TH ST PO BOX 6265 RENTON WA 98059 ISSAQUAH WA 98029 KENT WA 98064 222305913907 312305910001 032305924709 BERGSMA MARK BILSKI B LEE+ROXANNE H BLAYDEN ROBERT E&SHIRLEY 14810 SE JONES RD 700 SOUTH 50TH ST PO BOX 3029 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 032305903802 032305911607 232305903204 BONWELL JAMES L+JULIE P BRANT DARRELL BRENDEN MARSHALL M+ 9616 146TH AV SE 9620 COAL CREEK PW LOONEY WILLIAM A RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 18225 SE 128TH RENTON WA 98059 032305924808 032305900204 312305904905 BROUSSARD CLIFFORD H JR BROUSSARD CLIFFORD H+JOHANN BUTTON EILEEN J 14111 SE MAY VALLEY RD 14032 SE 100TH PL 715 S 50TH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 232305912304 342405910601 232305907809 CAWLEY BRENT CHAFFEY CORPORATION CHOI DONG KYOO 15247 150TH LN SE 205 LAKE S#101 14820 SE JONES PL RENTON WA 98058 KIRKLAND WA 98003 RENTON WA 98058 793100000504 342405905106 032305911201 CLEVELAND EDWIN H&VIRGINIA COLE GARY COOK RICHARD S+LOUANNA R 19415 SPRINGBROOK RD 9517 146TH AV SE 9624 138TH AV SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98056 062205909807 232305913500 032305906904 DENNIS DONNA MAE DONNELLY PATRICK J DUFFUS A 9211 S 192ND ST 19315 SE WAX RD 9605 143RD AV SE RENTON WA 98055 COVINGTON WA 98042 RENTON WA 98059 855920012009 232305913302 342405910908 EDWARD WOLFE R EMERSON WILLIE FABRE PAMELA J 700 S 47TH ST 724 OLD HY 9 13711 SE MAY VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98055 CLINTON AR 72031 NEWCASTLE WA 98059 312305915000 232305918004 032305911102 FINK LAWRENCE E+SALLY J FIRTH LEE&STEPHANIE FISHER ROBERT A&VIRGINIA 709 S 50TH 14816 SE JONES PL 14610 SE 99TH CT RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98056 342405909900 232305903006 062205906100 FOGLEMAN PAUL A FRENCH DOUGLAS F GALLAGHER DAVID GEORGE 13815 SE MAY VALLEY RD 15258 150TH LN SE PO BOX 1122 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98057 793100012004 342405905809 232305901307 GALLAGHER DONALD GAMBINI HAROLD JR GILSTRAP DANNY R 19225 TALBOT RD S 13927 SE MAY VALLEY RD 15241 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98058 232305912106 312305907395 312305907502 GRIM ELIZABETH L GURU NANAK SIKH SOCIETY GURUDWARA SINGH SABHA OF WA PO BOX 566 5200 TALBOT RD S 5200 TALBOT RD S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 342405907607 855920008007 342405904802 HANDELAND EINER I+MARILYN J HANSEN RONALD LAYTON HOFSCHULTE BEVERLY K 9530 143RD AV SE 4717 SMITHERS AV S 14127 SE MAPLE VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 032305910203 232305907007 222305915506 HOLMES ROBERT HYNES ELSIE M HYNES RONNIE&CHERYL 14610 SE 99TH CT 15214 149TH AV SE 15109 149TH AV SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 222305910507 232305912502 062205914302 KING COUNTY KING COUNTY KOZHENEVSKY ALEKSANDER VIKT ATTN:NANCY FAEGENBERG 500 4TH AV#500A P 0 BOX 88233 201 S JACKSON#600 SEATTLE WA 98104 SEATTLE WA 98138 SEATTLE WA 98104 062205904980 232305910605 232305901000 KROHN GLADYS M LAVIGNE PAUL R&SUSAN M LEHMANN TYLER L 9235 S 192ND ST 14833 SE JONES PL 15202 149TH AV SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 232305914201 232305917808 342405901907 LYMAN PAUL S MADDEN FRANCES C MADFAI MARK 15005 SE JONES RD 15209 150TH LN SE 9524 143RD AV SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98059 342405907706 342405901600 808335026007 MAKOWSKI F G MALIN JAMES B+SUSAN G MARTZ JACK W+SALLY A PO BOX 2215 13807 SE MAY VALLEY RD 18831 102ND AV SE BELFAIR WA 98528 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 272850015004 342405902608 032305910807 MENDONCA EDUARDO&ANA MERRELL RENEE E MERRITT MICHAEL M+CYNTHIA L 622 S 53RD PL 13719 SE MAY VALLEY RD 14408 SE 100TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98056 232305906306 `r'" 062205900103 342405908605 MILES DALE A MUNDAY ELSIE OEHRLING MONTE V 15023 SW JONES RD 19221 TALBOT RD 232 FARBER LN RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 CUSICK WA 99119 793100001007 342405907201 793100002104 ORTIZ EDUARDO PARHANIEMI FREDERICK R PATTEN TIMOTHY J&KIMBERLY 19425 TALBOT RD S 13905 SE MAY VALLEY RD 19608 92ND AV S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 232305901208 032305900501 232305909805 PENNER DELLA PRISSINOTTI NELLO E&ROSE ROSENBAUM L L 331 VALLEY MALL PKWY#273 4713 125TH AV SE 15059 SE JONES RD E WENATCHEE WA 98802 BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 232305900705 312305908708 232305904301 SAWIN THOMAS J+DAE IRIS SCHNEIDER HOMES I LLC SCRIBNER PATRICK F 15002 SE JONES PL 6510 SOUTHCENTER BL STE 1 15035 SOUTHEAST JONES RD RENTON WA 98059 TUKWILA WA 98188 RENTON WA 98055 232305912205 312305911900 232305920505 SHIREY RILEY L+DONNA M SINGH KARNAIL SOULES STUART P 1042 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY 5218 TALBOT RD S 15013 SE JONES RD BELLEVUE WA 98008 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 342405906302 232305901406 793100002401 STABBERT DAN W+CHERYL A STEEN ROBERT J STUART RALPH V JR+KIMBERLY 9400 HILLTOP RD 15224 150TH LN SE 9221 S 197TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98004 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 342405905007 312305909508 232305903709 TABACEK AUGUST R+CAROL TALBOT 5000 ASSOCIATES LLC TASCA JAMES G 14431 SE MAY VALLEY RD 240 STADIUM WY S 14805 SE JONES PL RENTON WA 98059 TACOMA WA 98402 RENTON WA 98058 232305913203 312305915406 232305916909 TATLEY JEFFREY THOMAS ROBERT M+ VANDORSSEN ROBERT J+PAULA Y 15120 149TH AV SE CULVER,MARY 14804 SE JONES PL RENTON WA 98058 18833 102ND AV SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 793100014000 793100002302 342405910809 VELICI DANIEL WALTMANN LEONARD+ WARNER JEFFREY WEST+ 6015 CHESTNUT AV KATHY LOUI ANDERSON,THEODORE H ORANGEVALE CA 95662 9207 S 197TH ST 13727 SE MAY VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 232305909201 032305901905 312305912502 WHITAKER MATILDA M WILLIAMSON ALAN LEN WILSON ROBERT D 413 WELLS AV N 1422 JEFFERSON AV NE 720 S 55TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 793100002203 *4' 272850013009 °".' 342405911005 WINEGRAD JON+ERIN WITT PAUL+FREIDA ZIMMERMAN MARY L 9224 S 197TH ST 617 S 53RD PL 13703 SE MAY VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 Jim Hanson Dennis Noland Jerri Wood Hanson Consulting 14326 NE 100th Place 12408 SE 98th 17446 Mallard Cove Lane Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98056 Mt. Vernon,WA 98274 Debra Rogers Bob Nelson Rene' Fabre 5326 NE 22nd Ct. 24048 156th Ave. SE 1305 S. Puget Dr. #B12 Renton,WA 98059 Kent, WA 98042 Renton,WA 98055 Connie Marsh Elizabeth Miles Mary L. Robicheaux 1175 NW Gilman Blvd. #B6 24639 156th Avenue SE 15144 SE 107th Street Issaquah,WA 98027 Kent, WA 98042 Renton,WA 98059 Melinda McConnell Greg Heacock Robert E.Tidball 14816 SE Jones Place 19027 SE 320th Street T&M Berry Farm Renton,WA 98055 Auburn,WA 98092 28810 57th Place S. Auburn,WA 98001 David Kappler 255 SE Andrews Street Issaquah,WA 98027 Page 1 of 1 flahlo� ��eve1oprnf Debra Rogers -p\,vrt t t 12'z-) a if From: "Debra Rogers" <herogers@comcast.net> To: "Debra Rogers" <herogers@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:15 PM Subject: file# LUA-04-141,A,PZ,ECF R1-zone text ammendment, Mandatory Clustering Provisions within Urban Separators Original Message From: Debra Rogers To: rlind@ci.renton.wa.us Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:04 AM Subject: file# LUA-04-141,A,PZ,ECF R1-zone text ammendment, Mandatory Clustering Provisions within Urban Separators Dear Ms Lind, Would you please accept my comments regarding the discussion of the Renton City Code and Urban Separators and also forward them to the Planning Commission meeting being held Wednesday Nov 17th? My name is Debra Rogers and I live in the neighborhood of Stonegate at 5326 NE 22nd Ct, Renton 98059. Our neighborhood contains 53 homes just off May Valley and 148th. I am a Stonegate Homeowners Association board member and have been authorized by the residents of our neighborhood to represent our neighborhood in saying the following: We respectfully request that the City of Renton support the proposal to have the code in Renton be very similar to the codes that King County uses under the Growth Management Act regarding Urban Separators in favor of recommending development be in mandatory#clusters as in county file# LUA-04-141,A,PZ,ECF. We ask that the areas in question remain an Urban Separator and that the current county rules of development regulations remain which require that afleast 50% permanet open space be maintained in development and that the homes being developed are inklusters. The development of our neighborhood took this into consideration as did the development of the Highlands of Newcastle off of Coal Creek and May Valley Road. We have within our neighborhood boundries, very significant pieces of open space that include Green Creek and the May Creek Basin which is part of an area designated as an Urban Separator. We think it is important that what ever development being planned have to take into consideration the current regulations for open space and that the urban separator is maintained. It is our responsibility as citizens to remind the City of Renton of the obligation to work with the codes currently in place in King County that do preserve the Urban Separator and Open Space areas amid development. Very Sincerely, Debra Rogers 425-254-3333 12/1/2004 • CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 13th day of December, 2004, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time of a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, to consider the following: City Code amendment to enact a mandatory clustering provision within the designated urban separators and to require 30% open space. (R-1 Zone Community Separators) All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6502. 8647t42GGV WO-16)'`- Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published King County Journal December 3, 2004 Account No. 50640 11/24/2004 Notice sent to 96 Parties of Record, per attached labels. D. Evans cc: Rebecca Lind Smooth Feed SheetsTM R-1 CLUSTER PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Use template for 5160® 232305914102 ``"' 312305902404 062205905102 ADAMS PEGGY J AHLUWALIA RAVINDER SINGH+JA ALLDREDGE DOUGLAS L 15115 SE JONES RD 730 E 55TH ST 9403 S 192ND ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 032305907308 232305913708 232305917709 ANDREWS MARL S BARDEN ERIC R+SIRI N BERGERON DONNA 9606 143RD AV SE 26521 SE 37TH ST PO BOX 6265 RENTON WA 98059 ISSAQUAH WA 98029 KENT WA 98064 222305913907 312305910001 032305924709 BERGSMA MARK BILSKI B LEE+ROXANNE H BLAYDEN ROBERT E&SHIRLEY 14810 SE JONES RD 700 SOUTH 50TH ST PO BOX 3029 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 032305903802 032305911607 232305903204 BONWELL JAMES L+JULIE P BRANT DARRELL BRENDEN MARSHALL M+ 9616 146TH AV SE 9620 COAL CREEK PW LOONEY WILLIAM A RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 18225 SE 128TH RENTON WA 98059 032305924808 032305900204 312305904905 BROUSSARD CLIFFORD H JR BROUSSARD CLIFFORD H+JOHANN BUTTON EILEEN J 14111 SE MAY VALLEY RD 14032 SE 100TH PL 715 S 50TH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 232305912304 342405910601 232305907809 CAWLEY BRENT CHAFFEY CORPORATION CHOI DONG KYOO 15247 150TH LN SE 205 LAKE S#101 14820 SE JONES PL RENTON WA 98058 KIRKLAND WA 98003 RENTON WA 98058 793100000504 342405905106 032305911201 CLEVELAND EDWIN H&VIRGINIA COLE GARY COOK RICHARD S+LOUANNA R 19415 SPRINGBROOK RD 9517 146TH AV SE 9624 138TH AV SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98056 062205909807 232305913500 032305906904 DENNIS DONNA MAE DONNELLY PATRICK J DUFFUS A 9211 S 192ND ST 19315 SE WAX RD 9605 143RD AV SE RENTON WA 98055 COVINGTON WA 98042 RENTON WA 98059 855920012009 232305913302 342405910908 EDWARD WOLFE R EMERSON WILLIE FABRE PAMELA J 700 S 47TH ST 724 OLD HY 9 13711 SE MAY VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98055 CLINTON AR 72031 NEWCASTLE WA 98059 312305915000 232305918004 032305911102 FINK LAWRENCE E+SALLY J FIRTH LEE&STEPHANIE FISHER ROBERT A&VIRGINIA 709 S 50TH 14816 SE JONES PL 14610 SE 99TH CT RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98056 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 342405909900 %100232305903006 '40062205906100 . FOGLEMAN PAUL A FRENCH DOUGLAS F GALLAGHER DAVID GEORGE 13815 SE MAY VALLEY RD 15258 150TH LN SE PO BOX 1122 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98057 793100012004 342405905809 232305901307 GALLAGHER DONALD GAMBINI HAROLD JR GILSTRAP DANNY R 19225 TALBOT RD S 13927 SE MAY VALLEY RD 15241 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98058 232305912106 312305907395 312305907502 GRIM ELIZABETH L GURU NANAK SIKH SOCIETY GURUDWARA SINGH SABHA OF WA PO BOX 566 5200 TALBOT RD S 5200 TALBOT RD S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 342405907607 855920008007 342405904802 HANDELAND E1NER I+MARILYN J HANSEN RONALD LAYTON HOFSCHULTE BEVERLY K 9530 143RD AV SE 4717 SMITHERS AV S 14127 SE MAPLE VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 032305910203 232305907007 222305915506 HOLMES ROBERT HYNES ELSIE M HYNES RONNIE&CHERYL 14610 SE 99TH CT 15214 149TH AV SE 15109 149TH AV SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 222305910507 232305912502 062205914302 KING COUNTY KING COUNTY KOZHENEVSKY ALEKSANDER VIKT ATTN:NANCY FAEGENBERG 500 4TH AV#500A P 0 BOX 88233 201 S JACKSON#600 SEATTLE WA 98104 SEATTLE WA 98138 SEATTLE WA 98104 062205904980 232305910605 232305901000 KROHN GLADYS M LAVIGNE PAUL R&SUSAN M LEHMANN TYLER L 9235 S 192ND ST 14833 SE JONES PL 15202 149TH AV SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 232305914201 232305917808 342405901907 LYMAN PAUL S MADDEN FRANCES C MADFAI MARK 15005 SE JONES RD 15209 150TH LN SE 9524 143RD AV SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98059 342405907706 342405901600 808335026007 MAKOWSKI F G MALIN JAMES B+SUSAN G MARTZ JACK W+SALLY A PO BOX 2215 13807 SE MAY VALLEY RD 18831 102ND AV SE BELFAIR WA 98528 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 272850015004 342405902608 032305910807 MENDONCA EDUARDO&ANA MERRELL RENEE E MERRITT MICHAEL M+CYNTHIA L 622 S 53RD PL 13719 SE MAY VALLEY RD 14408 SE 100TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98056 , AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® 232305906306 062205900103 ...... 342405908605 MILES DALE A MUNDAY ELSIE OEHRLING MONTE V 15023 SW JONES RD 19221 TALBOT RD 232 FARBER LN RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 CUSICK WA 99119 793100001007 342405907201 793100002104 ORTIZ EDUARDO PARHANIEMI FREDERICK R PATTEN TIMOTHY J&KIMBERLY 19425 TALBOT RD S 13905 SE MAY VALLEY RD 19608 92ND AV S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 232305901208 032305900501 232305909805 PENNER DELLA PRISSINOTTI NELLO E&ROSE ROSENBAUM L L 331 VALLEY MALL PKWY#273 4713 125TH AV SE 15059 SE JONES RD E WENATCHEE WA 98802 BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 232305900705 312305908708 232305904301 SAW1N THOMAS J+DAE IRIS SCHNEIDER HOMES I LLC SCRIBNER PATRICK F 15002 SE JONES PL 6510 SOUTHCENTER BL STE 1 15035 SOUTHEAST JONES RD RENTON WA 98059 TUKWILA WA 98188 RENTON WA 98055 232305912205 312305911900 232305920505 SHIREY RILEY L+DONNA M SINGH KARNAIL SOULES STUART P 1042 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY 5218 TALBOT RD S 15013 SE JONES RD BELLEVUE WA 98008 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 342405906302 232305901406 793100002401 STABBERT DAN W+CHERYL A STEEN ROBERT J STUART RALPH V JR+KIMBERLY 9400 HILLTOP RD 15224 150TH LN SE 9221 S 197TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98004 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 342405905007 312305909508 232305903709 TABACEK AUGUST R+CAROL TALBOT 5000 ASSOCIATES LLC TASCA JAMES G 14431 SE MAY VALLEY RD 240 STADIUM WY S 14805 SE JONES PL RENTON WA 98059 TACOMA WA 98402 RENTON WA 98058 232305913203 312305915406 232305916909 TATLEY JEFFREY THOMAS ROBERT M+ VANDORSSEN ROBERT J+PAULA Y 15120 149TH AV SE CULVER,MARY 14804 SE JONES PL RENTON WA 98058 18833 102ND AV SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 793100014000 793100002302 342405910809 VELICI DANIEL WALTMANN LEONARD+ WARNER JEFFREY WEST+ 6015 CHESTNUT AV KATHY LOUI ANDERSON,THEODORE H ORANGEVALE CA 95662 9207 S 197TH ST 13727 SE MAY VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 232305909201 032305901905 312305912502 WHITAKER MATILDA M WILLIAMSON ALAN LEN WILSON ROBERT D 413 WELLS AV N 1422 JEFFERSON AV NE 720 S 55TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 4 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® 793100002203 272850013009 342405911005 WINEGRAD JON+ERIN WITT PAUL+FREIDA ZIMMERMAN MARY L 9224 S 197TH ST 617 S 53RD PL 13703 SE MAY VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 JIM HANSON Dennis Noland Jean Rollins Hanson Consulting 14326 NE 10th Place 9605 143rd Place SE 17446 Mallard Cove Lane Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Mt. Vernon, WA 98274 • 6, AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 13th day of December, 2004, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time of a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, to consider the following: City Code amendment to enact a mandatory clustering provision within the designated urban separators and to require 30% open space. (R-1 Zone Community Separators) All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6502. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published King County Journal December 3, 2004 Account No. 50640 Now ,4001 November 22,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 419 Annexation: Falk II, 102nd Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Ave SE&S 50th St submitted 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Falk II Annexation, and recommended that a public meeting be set on 12/6/2004 to consider the petition; 6.29 acres located in the vicinity of 102nd Ave. SE and S. 50th St. Council concur. Annexation: Wedgewood Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Lane,Jericho Ave NE submitted revised 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Wedgewood Lane Annexation, and recommended that a public meeting be set on 12/6/2004 to consider the petition; 25.63 acres located in the vicinity of Jericho Ave. SE, SE 115th St., and 148th Ave. SE. Council concur. Human Resources: Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended Reclassification of 18 reclassification of 18 positions, including Building Inspector/Combination, Positions Building Inspector/Electrical,Finance Analyst III,Judicial Specialist, Golf Course Manager, Facilities Manager,Recreation Manager,Park Maintenance Manager, Secretary I(2), Assistant Human Resources Analyst (2),Executive Secretary, Librarian,Library Supervisor,Library Assistant I,Facilities Supervisor, and Human Resources Technician. Refer to Finance Committee. CAG: 03-033, Strander Blvd Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Supplemental Extension Design,Perteet Agreement No. 1 to CAG-03-033,contract with Perteet Engineering, Inc. for Engineering the Strander Blvd. and SW 27th St. Connection Project, for additional design work in the amount of$197,437. Approval was also sought to transfer $138,000 from the Benson Rd. &S. 31st St. Traffic Signal Project and$59,437 from the Transit Priority Signal Project to this project. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation: Maple Valley Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement Hwy Phase 1 Improvements, accepting$392,947 in grant funds from Washington State Department of WSDOT Grant Transportation for the Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169)Phase 1 Improvements. Refer to Transportation(Aviation)Committee. CAG: 04-096,Maplewood Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-04-096, Maplewood Creek Sediment Creek Sediment Basin Basin 2004 Maintenance; and requested approval of the project, authorization Maintenance, Santana for final pay estimate in the amount of$435.20, commencement of 60-day lien Trucking&Excavating period, and release of retained amount of$2,087.79 to Santana Trucking& Excavating, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 7.f. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Item 7.f. recommended a public hearing be set on 12/6/2001 12/13/2004 to consider the Planning: R-1 Zone R-1 Zone community separators. Council concur. Community Separators MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE }.� CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 7.f. AS AMENDED TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO 12/13/2004. CARRIED. pa aa' r°f/ Cl" 'Y OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA'r1LL de/ . AI#: 7 . r• Sabmitting Data: For Agenda of: Nov. 22, 2004 Dept/Div/Board.. Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Staff Contact Rebecca Lind Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. R-1 Zone Community Separators Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue paper Study Sessions Draft Code language Information Background Paper presented by J. Rollins Recommended Action: ,Q /3, a 00 V/ Approvals: Set a public hearing for Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: This item was referred to the Planning and Development Committee on January 26, 2004 in response to a citizen request for an amendment to the Renton Municipal Code. The request is for regulations consistent with King County clustering requirements within the designated Urban Separators. Current County code requires clustering and set aside of 50% of the site area in a dedicated open space tract. The Planning and Development Committee prioritized the item ahead of the annual docket amendments due to concurrent annexation activity within the Urban Separator and requested staff to prepare a work program and analysis of the clustering issues. A draft code amendment is ready for Planning Commission review and public hearing. The item will be held in the Planning and Development Committee for recommendation pending completion of the public review process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Enact a mandatory cluster provision within the designated urban separators. Require 30% open space rather than the proposed mandatory 50% open space requirement. V CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Don Persson, President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: ,JC`' Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Idcv- FROM: Si( Alex Pietsch, Administrator C tik/ Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind(x6588) SUBJECT: R-1 Zone Community Separators ISSUE: Should the City enact a mandatory cluster standard identical to the current King County code requiring a 50% open space tract? RECOMMENDATION: • Enact a mandatory clustering provision. • Use the cluster standard recently adopted in the R-4 Zone for clustered lot development rather than the 50% open space requirement in King County Code. This standard requires dedication of 30% of the site as contiguous open space. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Potential Annexation Area and Urban Separator resident, Jean Rollins,requested a Code amendment-addressing clustering and open space requirements in the R-1 zone. The Planning and Development Committee approved this work program as an exception to the Title IV amendment process pursuant to Section 4-9-025C and agreed to review the request outside the annual code amendment docket due to current annexation activity. The work program intent is to evaluate opportunities to increase consistency between King County policies and zoning and Renton's requirements. November 12, 2004 Page 2 The Countywide Planning Polices (CPP) call for designation and preservation of urban separators that protect environmentally sensitive areas and creation of open space corridors between communities. Specifically CPP LU-27 states: Urban Separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands, which protect adjacent resource, lands, rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be re-designated in the future (in the 20-year planning cycle) to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. Renton has three Urban Separators: May Valley, Cedar River, and the Talbot area by Springbrook Creek. These areas are designated and mapped in the Countywide Planning Policies as shown in Attachment 1. Urban Separators are currently implemented in King County regulations through a mandatory clustering standard requiring clustering away from sensitive areas or the axis of the Community Separators. Permanent retention of open space tracts that include at least 50% of the site is also sought. King County has had these requirements since 1983. King County required clustering and 50% open space retention in its "SC-P"zone. "SC"denoted Suburban Cluster and "P" denoted open space requirements. In the County's "R-1-P"zoning code, enacted in 1994, clustering and 50% open space retention was required. Renton's Comprehensive Plan addresses Urban Separators in the Community Design Element Policies and in the Land Use Element Policies and map within the Residential Low Density Designation. Community Design Element Objective CD-B: Designate low-density residential and resource areas as Urban Separators to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, and to define Renton's boundaries. Policy CD-7. The function of Urban Separators should be to: a. reinforce the character of the City, b. establish clear boundaries between the City and other communities, c. Separate high-density urban land uses from low-density uses and resource lands, and d. Protect environmentally sensitive or critical areas. Policy CD-8. Locational criteria should consider the following types of lands for designation as Urban Separators: Issue paper.doc November 12, 2004 Page 3 a. Individual and interconnecting natural features, critical areas,public and private open space and water features. b. Existing and proposed individual and interconnecting parks, and agricultural areas. c. Areas that provide a logical and easily identifiable physical separation between urban communities. Land Use Element RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Policies in this section are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory. Lands that are not appropriate for urban levels of development are designated either Resource Conservation or Residential Low Density Zoning. Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected by the critical areas ordinance, are zoned Residential 4. Objective LU-DD: Provide for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area constrained by extensive natural features,providing urban separators and/or providing a transition to Rural Designations within King County. Policy LU-134. Base development densities should range from one home per 10 acres (Resource Conservation) to one home per acre (Residential I) on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard,floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre (Residential 4) on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate. Comparison of Renton and County Zoning Implementation The major difference between Renton and the County regarding R-1 development patterns occurs in the application of clustering provisions and in density calculation. Renton allows and encourages clustering but does not mandate it. However, the City calculates density based on net developable area and excludes all critical areas and all private and public road easements. Critical areas are defined as "Areas of the City that may not be suitable for development and which are subject to the City's critical areas regulations including very high landslide hazard areas,protected slopes, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas,fish and wildlife habitat, shorelines or floodways." Density credit is only granted for required critical areas buffers. Issue paper.doc November 12, 2004 Page 4 Typically there is about a 20%reduction in the density allowed on a site under Renton's net density regulations compared with County regulations. There is an incentive for clustering to reduce the land area used by roads. Whenever extensive critical areas are present on a site there is de-facto clustering of development away from these undevelopable areas. Clustering is allowed down to a 4,500 sq. ft lot size in the R-1 zone in a development pattern allowing up to 6 lots. A 50-ft. lot width, 65-ft. lot depth, 5-ft, side yard, and 20-ft. rear yard setback are required. The City typically uses conservation easements, protective easements, or tract and deed restrictions to protect a critical area from development with non-exempt activities. The County grants density credit for the entire site gross area and transfers the development potential to 50% of the site with the remaining 50% in a permanent open space tract. Development could be clustered on small lot areas, as there is a 2,500-sq. ft. minimum lot size, 30-ft. lot width, and 5-ft. setbacks on all sides required. This form of development could result in clusters of higher net density than allowed under the Renton code. However, the effective difference between City and County zoning varies considerably depending upon the extent of critical areas and roads on a site. (The density allowed in the City will always be less based on the net density calculation.) The net developable areas available to use that density will vary. For example: • If a site is at least 50% constrained by critical areas, and requires any new road development, the Renton net developable area will be less than the County developable area even with the mandatory clustering in County code. The critical areas set aside will be the equivalent of the County's mandatory cluster requirement. • If a site is marginally constrained by sensitive areas, the allowed density will still be less in the City due to the roads. Adoption of a mandatory cluster using the County standard would result in a developable area discounted by the 50% open space provision minus the road areas. Without required clustering and open space retention the development within these areas could lead to "horse-acre"type platting. "Horse- acre"platting is characterized by low density, semi-rural development. Although a desirable development type for upper-income families, it is considered inefficient because the infrastructure serves fewer people and public transit may not be feasible. Modifying Renton's zoning code to be more similar to the County's would change the way the development would be laid out for parcels with less than 50% critical areas constraints. In the May Valley Urban Separator, there are 12 parcels out of 36 that are both large enough to subdivide and also have less than 50% critical areas. The properties shown on attachment 2 would be affected by the proposed change in standards. Properties along the Cedar River in the Urban Separator designation would likely be zoned Resource Conservation rather than R-1 as this larger lot zone is applied within this corridor. Within the Talbot Road Urban Separator there are significant sensitive areas on most parcels as shown on Attachment 3. A more detailed analysis of this area will be completed prior to the Planning Commission and Planning and Development Committee discussions of this proposed amendment. Issue paper.doc November 12, 2004 Page 5 CONCLUSION: As a result of the difference in City and County density systems and the way critical areas are considered in the net developable area, staff recommends that the 50% open space requirement be reduced to 30%. This adjustment addresses the difference in net developable area between the two density systems. For some developable parcels in urban separators, imposition of the County standard would further reduce the net developable area. The majority of properties in the Urban Separators have significant enough critical areas constraints to trigger clusters. For the remaining parcels,the reduction in net developable area required for road improvements will further reduce density below County allowances. To require the full additional 50% open space set aside combined with the City's larger lot size and setback requirements would further constrain capacity on these sites. The adoption of a new 30%open space standard will provide comparable levels of protection for the Urban Separators given the density differences in the two zoning codes. The purpose of the R-1 zone and of the Urban Separators policies in the Countywide Planning Policies is to protect these lands by limiting development potential and recognizing separators of significant value. The Renton net density and critical areas ordinance requirements already accomplish this purpose to a large degree. Adding the additional requirement for a minimum 30% open space dedication will further these goals. cc: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Issue paper.doc New Now` November 12, 2004 Page 6 Applicable Metropolitan King County Code: 0 Title 21A.12.030 17a. "All subdivisions and short subdivisions in the R-1 zone shall be required to be clustered if the property is located within or contains: (1) a floodplain, (2) a critical aquifer recharge area, (3) a Regionally of Locally Significant Resource Area, (4) existing or planned pubic parks or trails, or connection to such facilities, (5) a Class I or II stream or wetland, or (6) a steep slope, or (7) a `greenbelt/urban separator"or "wildlife corridor"area designated by the Comprehensive Plan or Community Plan. 0 17b. The development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors such as urban separators or the wildlife habitat network to the extent possible and the open space shall be placed in a separate tract that includes at least fifty percent of the site. Open space tracts shall be permanent and shall be dedicated to a homeowner's association or other suitable organization, as determined by the director, and meet the requirements of K.C.C. 21A.14.040. On site sensitive area and buffers, wildlife habitat networks, required habitat and buffers for protected species and designated urban separators shall be placed within the open space tract to the extent possible. Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within the open space tract. " 0 Title 21A.14.040 C. In the R-1 zone, open space tracts created by clustering required by K.C.C. 21A 12.030 shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts required by the Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans or open space functional plans to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors designated by the Comprehensive Plan and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. King County may require open space tracts created under this subsection to be dedicated to an appropriate managing public agency or qualifying private entity such as a nature conservancy. In the absence of such a requirement, open space tracts shall be retained in undivided interest by the residents of the subdivision or short subdivision. A homeowner's association shall be established for maintenance of the open space tract. " Issue paper.doc ,ems6/hp/ Attachment 1 Urban Separators Designated R-1 May Valley or Shown in Renton Comprehensive Plan as I•-"eSE Ma �� ' Low Density Residential k y Rd 1. May Valley m Nm 2. Jones road 3 I '`� 3. Talbot/Springbrook 1,1 o dyo/0y ! NE 16th tt z > 9a m m g Peek Issaquah Ro ,0;'6+ :ate - NE 12th St Z - S z a� m m i m 3o SE May VE ' m 3 o a m n > ' a m DNE70-• z m D Z z m m Z m m Q ' �c Z NE 4th St 1g" Q r SE 128th S 3 g D S 3rd St , _ m m m m - SE 136th St Map 8 SE 142nd St co v a' h st a//ej, D D ROi SE 144th St m GCady v�y /• cedar River m m 2 t � . ac`` �.. Cedar s Pu9e` Renton Map, 0 D m m COc� u, SE 164th St SE Fy�nvood g�` a c w J a SE 168th St 1' m 6 • m G O 7 • D N 6• 'VsIII ca Benson Hal IIIIII m 6th St � N`�`, r--- .. s albot RoQad o cake De.si, m ►; • t4i& '• • i 3 ill SE 192nd St ••. .vtPanther Lake Lake(Mu '4111\ • •„,:,.....t 4 11P164.-'' gy, Panther I4611"J"...4" Attachment 2 ,f,Y0 A ,......, ,....0 n a D ---------,,, : •0 cc' cn a Lci Cc __= 1.,D lil Or !ral *--1111 MQY /a// o :14 "II 'pi ii • ., ._, _ eY R d 1 T 2 3 c 3-0 --0 hisf 0 0 0 L.95, , orie' ,,,,,,,,:::,'' . - v 4,/. iy,74097 _ ....... Ng ligig k , . . . .,:' " '7 -- ' — -- '-' 7-.. ' ,- d ,,..-4 a) • ',i .::t4. .7? / i . '. , r ivii > • a PaYk. • -f ' -. / -- m— um m w„....141 -,--.-.4eiedorjedirAstrfAry ..7.- - ' , ' . ' * '• 'lin 111 ..... 001 '-''rifirier4r1100/ - re/04 / Ell / 0,7 IIII ° 1,20 rig iiiikilith ct 4r-fdia,WA/J-- -2_ . : :i... e_ "/ : / ,,,,,, p4. --iv, • - - i -4,, -- , / r cit:ift a , i ' 0 / ci illi ENE ski =El , A0 _ _111 4 ' __ w. '••■•••■"........... rel tizepiii p rrh1;1111VILIP I r 1 catitioitirr3n 1irtiltil-9 ( ' min 0 ,...mk t ..% A_ 51.‘"11141111% giliSE-EliC-Eri & CM 111211670167:11i Qap #474 % 141 11' Immovirr-Pigwer•■• aptLiwamv.wia varrothiNtair 0 imazzall itnieutzenr k grA d % 0 • a la e ' somm_ te _ 16640-4111- 4.1:•V-4 .4E7 .............+46.".-21 ItaTiq jaw if Ter,,arailifigivi_iiiltri2 11,11,,,0 a* iTimAir.11,up, rills) fok.. ;ftlill'Essomodliii Ilhilgi 4T&ST4,74risemw•Imags.*CN. G. kr 41W-)1 4;1 r'' el Q or , v4,.,‘P,_' ,Hoptiggagid Eire ikvtworesSorriFfPkvkics to*. s•a •itAN ekli, ..di rzi ' LE,c) tva, P v‘ Ah '‘ZiLeJLe.mur-Nr4rir nil. ma 1142.0./ kerfavieib 0144,1/44(A 0--,W4Wv-r-pris 1-01Irvi is i a CP 4•4#7 *". in"i aild ....m, 141‘,J firli 10 -wojtar 11 -46i'llt;., LI- efts iris . , glige3ada 131,,v ‘40.68 400 ,d0Wirdrt0 LI ` lee - un 8 0 i■ /z,,,, NEN0,-e-ri Kira ism inn 041 cal ilIMINEfite _QM, 1:pi .3 1 rill"Oil um III u ..41f**17t) -ivkt itilail ri-:-1---ril If temittill.1$731° Math., .,, 4 attildrAWAWATNIN 0 0 itt.41/1 inimicul ;A ijui u J 0 Rim 0_1,,M1 --LO...i..• "•0 I Iligillaillin Akt...-6 TWAZeiteArii DI 1 w4/3 . ken rkirri r....r.-4P•mq6,,-dm -ia-Am 0,n iink 4,appipixia:-. LI Ito ., vez atm dahlsitagrig 4,,, 4 immatqa........_,Ito wu.s.5.2,20.is . au SE 1i MN tert7 t_firin Liallitntrjd 19111111.1WAV eirtirri t---0 a lin mu r tio -- -,.. 1 • • vim vs- 10, 4112 dg% hi rol .. mil 0 6 o MellitS19 341131111° ria n1111 St WQ N 44;12-.5-01"1 e 4" r riaftiza. magi rig* 4,„„V Ira Le mi "I rk 4 * vt / 1k1- 12211723 r-._ .1111[41 mibligr*"°...." -NE221 1.1Pk I' (*lite *•-44.1. tiv_ire ;4' -----------0---ji c13--h--1 013' - -`--- d,--ao 14_153) "w_____ . -W.Jr -cil 4r4 ..• 1 a v feldli firs (J--) bi 7.1,r4 cir4 tiglig....,, ...014A111 ,15,11,1 .,es r iNt•ori\-itrik ...- ,ffoitv edveikimiirovii;-*: 6E7E111, In it\ tri tl, 41,..obs t!".., emn , 0. 40,„ AlirwrolL__ 1.....„. NIIiire , ji This document is o grophic neerostritoticf,Int gonirrVdeed iti 1 ilti Ph 1 cjil3 Li g fll nil 1 to ..c.rmt.nte"d'd tc'c'gbfrgrg the'dote ehoen. /Itt # igii, rie"\9044#10441Lina it e i ‘1.14110271.1Q III 0 I, -iirl 4% &to Vii,:._Tilasitimpli riel (11.... V:14,i.fc,,display purP....onlY•— 0 600 Proposed Merritt II Annexation 1200 Figure 3: Existing Structures Map c? Existing Structure 1 : 7200 N,'CY 0 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Limits Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario —r77///i— Originalal Annexation Area 1 September 2004-4>NTO I I Expanded Annexation Area May Creek Greenbelt/Urban Separator PID Size Sensitive Current Develop. Assessed Public (ac.) Areas (%) KC Potential* Value Ownership Zonin 342405 9106 1.13 90% R-1 Low 34,000 9113 0.04 90% R-1 Low 65,000 9110 0.55 90% R-1 Low 190,000 9109 0.56 90% R-1 Low 154,000 9026 0.58 90% R-1 Low 180,000 9108 0.56 90% R-1 Low 153,000 9016 0.83 90% R-1 Low 148,000 9072 0.75 70% R-1 Low 212,000 9099 3.90 50% R-1 Medium 203,000 9117 1.41 50% R-1 Medium 62,000 9116 1.03 50% R-1 Medium 21,000 9058 0.98 70% R-1 Low 321,000 032305 9116 0.74 0% R-1 Low 236,000 9112 1.72 0% R-1 Medium 259,000 9164 1.66 0% R-1 Medium 304,000 342405 9047 6.11 50% R-1 Medium 387,000 9048 1.82 80% R-1 Low 382,000 9063 1.23 100% R-1 Low 80,000 9019 0.45 5% R-1 Low 217,000 9076 0.65 0% R-1 Low 176,000 9077 0.75 70% R-1 Low 42,000 9050 1.26 90% R-1 Low 263,000 9051 3.97 100% R-1 Low 180,000 032305 9069 5.82 15% R-1 Medium 368,000 9038 2.70 50% R-1 Medium 273,000 9111 1.62 0% R-1 Low 110,000 9102 1.0 0% R-1 Low 372,000 TOTALS -�1- _Development Potential LOW MEDIUM HIGH Sensitive Areas Equal to or less than 75% 25%to 74% Less than 25% Assessed Value Ratio Greater than 2.0 1.0 to 1.99 Less than 1.0 Parcel Size Less than 1.5 acres More than 1.5 but less 3.0 acres or larger than 3.0 acres crJ 52, +40 K-� ( 4-;7 oc i f 1 Cedar River Greenbelt/Urban Separator PID Size Sensitive Current Develop. Current Public (ac.) Areas(%) KC Potential* Assessed Ownership Zoning Value 222305 9134 0.89 100% UR Low 45,000 9105 0.47 100% UR Low 34,000 9104 0.47 100% UR Low 69,000 9155 1.65 100% UR Low 283,000 9139 1.32 100% UR Low 179,000 232305 9037 2.61 30% UR Low 308,000 9169 1.92* 0% UR Low 12,000 9135 0.78 0% UR Low 132,000 9180 1.24* 10% UR Low 134,000 9078 1.25* 0% UR Low 57,000 9007 2.83* 0% UR Low 109,000 9015 3.23* 0% UR Low 80,400 9088 0.63 100% UR Low 218,000 9097 0.72 100% UR Low 55,000 9133 0.67 100% UR Low 209,000 9032 1.61 100% UR Low 44,000 9132 1.12 100% UR Low 152,000 9010 1.41 100% UR Low 242,000 9070 1.48 100% UR Low 145,000 9123 1.71 100% UR Low 263,000 9086 0.34 100% UR Low 84,000 _ 9012** 1.31 100% UR Low 145,000 9127** 0.50 100% UR Low 137,000 9158** 0.22 100% UR Low 18,000 9108** 0.25 100% UR Low 33,000 9013 1.38 100% UR Low 292,000 9121 1.62 95% UR Low 179,000 9030 1.53 90% UR Low 172,000 9199** 1.17 100% UR Low 302,000 KC 9125** 0.92 100% UR Low 197,000 KC 9137 0.15 100% UR Low 152,000 9122 0.23 100% UR Low 144,000 9177 0.23 100% UR Low 138,000 9178 0.21 100% UR Low 177,000 9014 1.96 5% UR Low 235,000 TOTALS * Indicates only portions of indicated parcels. ** Indicates parcels under common ownership Development Potential LOW MEDIUM HIGH Sensitive Areas Equal to or less than 75% 25%to 74% Less than 25% Assessed Value Ratio Greater than 2.0 1.0 to 1.99 Less than 1.0 Parcel Size Less than 5.0 acres More than 5.0 acres but 10.0 acres or less than 10.0 acres larger South 179th Greenbelt/Urban Separator PID Size Sensitive Current Develop. Current Public (ac.) Areas(ac.) KC Potential* Assessed Ownership Zonin' Value 9078** 1.85 60% R-1 Medium 234,000 _ -_ TOTALS * Indicates only portions of indicated parcels. ** Indicates parcels under common ownership Sprin2brook West Greenbelt/Urban Separator PID Size Sensitive Current Develop. Current Public (ac.) Areas(ac.) KC Potential* Assessed Ownership Zoning Value 062205 9098 0.92 0% R-1 Low 240,000 9061 4.94 60% R-1 Medium 407,000 9051 1.73 40% R-1 Medium 290,000 9143 1.82 0% R-1 Medium 238,000 9001 0.64 0% R-1 Low 134,000 0005 2.00 0% R-1 Medium 355,000 _ ___ 0010 2.06 0% R-1 Medium 293,000 0025 0.38 0% R-1 Low 1,000 0021 0.51 0% R-1 Low 479,000 0022 0.51 0% R-1 Low 436,000 0023 0.68 0% R-1 Low 473,000 0024 0.68 0% R-1 Low 498,000 TOTALS Development Potential LOW MEDIUM HIGH Sensitive Areas Equal to or less than 75% 25%to 74% Less than 25% Assessed Value Ratio Greater than 2.0 1.0 to 1.99 Less than 1.0 Parcel Size Less than 1.5 acres More than 1.5 but less 3.0 acres or larger than 3.0 acres Springbrook East Greenbelt/Urban Separator PID Size Sensitive Current Develop. Current Public (ac.) Areas (ac.) KC Potential* Assessed Ownership Zoning Value 338832 0220 0.33 0% R-1 Low 234,000 0230 0.27 0% R-1 Low 230,000 0240 0.28 0% R-1 Low 211,000 9077 5.06 0% R-1 Medium 1,519,000 9046 3.56 0% R-1 Medium 251,900 9305 0.38 0% R-1 Low 192,000 9323 0.38 0% R-1 Low 270,000 9332 0.25 0% R-1 Low 198,000 9043 0.39 0% R-1 Low 378,000 9339 0.47 0% R-1 Low 274,000 9136 1.41 0% R-1 Medium 114,000 9137 0.93 0% R-1 Low 236,000 9240 2.03 0% R-1 Low 557,000 9331 1.23 0% R-1 Low 192,000 9243 0.47 0% R-1 Low 224,000 9234 0.34 0% R-1 Low 217,000 9269 3.46 0% R-1 Medium 226,300 9042 1.51 0% R-1 Low 276,000 9007 1.51 10% R-1 Low 278,000 TOTALS _Development Potential LOW MEDIUM HIGH Sensitive Areas Equal to or less than 75% 25%to 74% Less than 25% Assessed Value Ratio Greater than 2.0 1.0 to 1.99 Less than 1.0 Parcel Size Less than 1.5 acres More than 1.5 but less 3.0 acres or larger than 3.0 acres try�g �,\ > .I .;.„4 ate: v, k. A- \ __ -' v .�, M �lkok. & �4 , - � fix? - _ �. ,f : � \A I � _ `, A _ __� r I I , y ,}}i / T. ` 3 \ ii ;�'i7 '? F `a1�-", ` c roc,- ▪ 1'I 7`,\._� _ . � ,lu/„ ` _I ` = "/ cv_, - . ,;� H .. � x ,- � �v",'� a ; . . , �� 02ftio...,44_,...21._ ,, -----7::::::-."--__ ,-.:2:-.----..-,---,,-',. ‘: ‘, r -, - ,,,,,.. ,.. _ Fi a 0020 ,,,iiirkiiir..s....„....$11 .40..,1,N,....„,.....„4„......„,,.____________________„,„•,,,\.;,, .. ..... , y...,,,,•;),,,,,,..„ ,., • , -11/ •- OrgilW -.5-111*F-:('N':fr:. illtiii"----401111W---AliP".17-1.1.:,....:7--)K-:*;, tU:'-_7----,:s.:e-f-f- VikkIlltdliii..n4LINtglft --.--1:_f_-_.z._-r,; ',-':' .- .2.:1-z-z"-', --.1.-.1. DI .-0 7- , - ----------- I.,_ lity: ,, - ........: (1. . 441 ,,`\\?J` -'\\` -\ • �\` , -` -, ▪ _ `•" ;r,,/ / '"Q.. ill 'th i ft'S mix? ITP,01, ‘41.1�M _ #s ue— r -\'ig,.4;.r.,„,� i l �i ram.. „,,,,,,__._ , 40,00,,w4,,,,y4;41,..rmalit,w„ • alit ..,, \\ ak . .4, •, ‘‘ \ M .415;?I All i.-411/ ' r W4.474" t‘ '12 ,• l,raiii'L,...,','"' \ \`'‘'L‘:.\:,'----•-:-/ OPAkfig, ,,\‘,', A k 41ANIP 41041frig*- pi Alat-e.,:-.. i'r*-04,7,4til biliketifiw_ . ......: stsaem:\ty,‘-jsz, „--.).„-_,1-v4ffazi ,,‘, ,4 A1040 ittamilawlsommis �Q�� .. aau fit\ ��,l� ligiN liiii trtt'l r\; priA. _ E,.rr�., ,«.��Q�� illir - bitivAAVISSII silk -*lowIt��211111Nciisr.I ialitel 11VL�irl�"1�1\„iE YVV44 i {i Id!JJ►r'✓s��"r6O , 1 1.fii iiht. ,,,J„ , ..,Pi. ., nmAil, Atiavipp...r -1,',-.A.,,.a.,v4pr. 4#1/4%, — ,‘;, \ , r \u ,,,‘ , :IR :i -,e lir- ,mLuii.0,441•A.Nallirove iniakrat4,11441.1111,44. ......*Ata,-. ,‘,r,', , 1 . ', , ‘,,,g*i i w -rid wv4k tit. mit,4 ...--clin _um tai k. s rim AN � laieig n. • �r; 1 �l y �gio ��\YIP' WI14, PIPIIIVillni glaa04trallittrg VIIII7N‘ICIC‘‘''' ''''lit " ' 'Im "51Vill ram Imo \, ;\., ` , \ ki, I III 1 r►� M� �E� ��.ii��tl ��■�i_►�.,��A�tho�'�, < ��•��`r, �1 � ,\\ , ,1 ,l`\> ,'ate �� (�`�, , !� /.r�r� r'!�17�* �iim-�f Nringlikalskattp4inwp.Atiti'lorkliwitiiiit -6 -41�11�.1►t Ito:": it�1� �/� , y 7 . I�tv 1 hif�,`��'J��►•' sa g teLvv� l lit, (� cn�tt•,,reo „�ii�� .r , . ,+t� „,.S►1 1T�� w1 1111107----iplfillilmfill riviiia �►� gill,914.a nom t 1��9D I150 1 1 .4 -...a. w Oteaffitil ',____1 -4-1 virtoljoittiertra u`himeanvya_m_,I \Ittifr--..r.. ,/,__ 11.4 ii, , ,, , • �� 71� ' �,,��1 �' '.- G7 t� Thu document is a yroPhic represenlaLon.not guaranteed 1'4 a owl .ftreirrept,,,,Aw.:pceill _ . 2. ip.44 VI ihera&ssoirevor, „_....,7‘,. ,s',,,`,',‘;:‘,,',',,,‘,‘,‘,‘,,,,,,,‘,‘,is`;-,-_-_-,',/,;iii idi ilifiam 7 �� _ 46: 1311, \` 11 . o su yy ,tended/or city purposoes only and�, �'.�-7�:I,.e �, M...- I �tr� �, .�, �],�� based the best information awilable as f the dote shown. ik�alIlkI IINare ell >M ` ��Irl�� \ �l_' Geasi • g �m��i Th,s map is for display purpwes only. Proposed Merritt II Annexation 0 600 1200 . . .. _.. Figure 2: Topography Map 1 : 7200 ----- -im Interval CountourS' os: •Y Q,t, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ___ Corporate Limits . . Alex Piietsch,Administrator ��/,l Original Annexation Area P- �$ .Del Rosario .NTH I September 2004 I I Expanded Annexation Area VeiY R-8 R_e R-8 R-: J IH j, — ATTACHMENT I'3 7: ��V YL i Ho �z ,:=7, ,„-:.-: Q 7 iM Iir-7: Allialikt,,,_ j U R-8R-10 x CA � r, .. :\\\--j--\ 1 CO(P) T. n. 1 I RM —8 R-10 4 j J , 4 IA to 217 bj♦� ti�41 hi ,Q,f . r. _ ,,,,,,,..„.„..,,..,,„„_ . e tilv,46 re,. )1 tk-ProV.44,11,..'''..ti.:;4,...,‘,0417ile Ai it-;•, , d ( ________, _ , ., t..414:',14):4:11':1:..(!it',--4''S'444-1,-;:%,,-;:,'„_=!:;!...,.'''''''',''';;!:i;:::-.;:**."..--44',.41,s1 41 i _ , „... " car'I co C❑(P)• .-7 �v ,to.„,' ��IAtw > ,�y� a —? ii. .> / ► tire? :� ��aa ►,fu 7 RM-I 0 �- - r Pr' j R-14 3 f*,N q R-14 - - ,_ _ , .-: 1. e mom-: —_� _ ' � ►� 4 � iI �/ "-it rhs x' rep ..:I ,�,-_. !'I I - \\\ I //� J 8 -,17,.,),--- / I—s CO .y1p I a �" - — —J I i J Z/ etl-T 4 r ,..4 R-14 R-14 / . ,x, , .tisto..-44;,4 0 ti.. ... , 1,-,,,,, 1''',<.:,-x .44:: '::: ..s:ib,w_v 0 441..1046 ,, _ ,i , fL ',..-',4e.4ii... 1 , (,-;'" -/...x, ,, - = .0 0.,0 I,0,4 04,41I 0,11 1-.. ,k/a to,1, \ I .--,,,,---,4 ., I q ''''''' 1W.Stift.,69W 4" *. '1.4.4*1 41 t.e'.0.'''4**'1';' ' — I 5 '' ♦ it��ry Y �Yy �' • -.i(,2 j� "a 3 "'�t ♦i d's A4� ♦�44t.,t9'-�- .t♦ 1 , yr „ ,� — � • I I ♦*,.4,4 Yax x} 1 I ! j , I _ % 4 4 x2 w I <Y X l . -K __ _ ''.._'---;,1",,i,0144:::::::::'!,...T-1:i.::: —I ti f 1 R-1 Cluster Coe Amendment Draft November 3,2004 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) RC R-1 R-4 R-8 DENSITY(Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Minimum None None None 4 dwelling units Housing Density per net acre1,2 for proposed short plats or subdivisions Maximum 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit per 4 dwelling units 13 8 dwelling units Housing Density2 per 10 net 1 net acre per 1 net acre per 1 net acre acre NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER LOT Maximum 1 dwelling with 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit Number per legal 1 accessory 1012 unit LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot 10 acres 1 acre 8,000 sq.ft.11,13 4,500 sq. ft. for Size for lots 4,500 sq. ft.for except where parcels greater created after small lot than 1 acre. clustr November 10, deveeopment3 clusterst0 are 2004 allowed, R-8 5,000 sq. ft.for standards shall parcels 1 acre or apply. less. Minimum Lot 150 ft. for 75 ft.for interior 70 ft.for interior 50 ft.for interior Width for lots interior lots. lots. lots. 80 ft.for lots. created after corner lots."'13 November 10, 175 ft. for 85 ft. for corner except where 60 ft. for corner 2004 corner lots. lots. small lot lots clusters10 are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply. Minimum Lot 200 ft. 85 ft. 80 ft.71'1"except 65 ft. Depth for lots where small lot created after clusters10 are November 10, allowed, R-8 2004 standards shall apply. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E.4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 1 of 5 R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 • RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SETBACKS4 Minimum Front 30 ft.b 30 ft.b 30 ft.12'13 except 15 ft. for primary Yard where small lot structure. clusters10 are allowed, R-8 20 ft.for attached standards shall garages accessed apply. from front or side Unit with Alley yard street. Access Unit with Alley Garage: The Access Garage: front yard set- The front yard back of the set-back of the primary primary structure structure may may be reduced be reduced to to 10 ft. if all 20 ft. if all parking is parking is provided in the provided in the rear yard of the lot rear yard of the with access from lot with access a public right-of- from a public way or alley.6 right-of-way or alley.6 Minimum Side 30 ft.' 20 ft.' 20 ft.12'73 except 15 ft.'for the Yard Along a where small lot primary structure Street clusters10 are and 20 ft.for the allowed, 15 ft. is attached garages allowed. which access from the front and side yard along a street. Minimum Side 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined 5 ft. Yard ft.12,13 are allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard, except where small lot clusters 10 are allowed, 5 ft. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 2 of 5 R-1 Cluster Co$e Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SETBACKS.' (Continued) Minimum Rear 35 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. Yard Where small lot clusters10 are allowed, 20 ft. Clear Vision Area In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall a a structure over a structure over a structure over structure over 42 42 in. in height 42 in. in height 42 in. in height in. in height intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear vision vision area vision area vision area area defined in defined in RMC defined in RMC defined in RMC RMC 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. Minimum 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. landscaped Freeway landscaped landscaped landscaped setback from the Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the street property street property street property street property line. line. line. line. BUILDING STANDARDS Maximum 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 Building Height ft. ft. ft.for standard ft. and Number of roof. Stories,except for uses having a 2 stories and 35 "Public Suffix"(P) ft. for roofs designations having a pitch greater than 3/12. Maximum Height See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- for Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 3 of 5 Now R-1 Cluster Coi' Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 BUILDING STANDARDS (Continued) Maximum Lots 5 acres or 35%. Lots greater Lots 5,000 sq.ft. Building more: 2%. An than 5,000 sq. or greater: 35% Coverage additional 5% of ft.: 35%or or 2,500 sq. ft., (Including primary the total area 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is and accessory may be used for whichever is greater. buildings) agricultural greater. buildings. Lots less than Lots 10,000 sq. Lots 5,000 sq. 5,000 sq. ft.: ft.to 5 acres: ft. or less: 50% 50%. 15%. On lots greater than 1 acre, an additional 5% of the total area may be used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq. ft. or less: 35%. Vertical Façade All dwelling units Modulation shall provide vertical façade modulation at least every twenty horizontal feet (20'), including front, side and rear façades when visible from a street. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 4 of 5 R-1 Cluster CO`ae Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE Minimum Off- 5 ft.wide irrigated 5 ft. wide irrigated Site or drought or drought Landscaping resistant resistant Abutting Non- landscape strip landscape strip Arterial Public provided that if provided that if Streets for Plats there is additional there is additional and Short Plants undeveloped right undeveloped right Submitted on or of way in excess of way in excess after November of 5 ft,this shall of 5 ft, this shall 10, 2004 also be also be landscaped. landscaped. Minimum Off- 10 ft. wide 10 ft. wide Site irrigated or irrigated or Landscaping drought resistant drought resistant Abutting landscape strip landscape strip Principal, provided that if provided that if Minor and there is additional there is additional Collector undeveloped right undeveloped right Arterial Streets of way in excess of way in excess for Plats and of 10 ft., this shall of 10 ft.,this shall Short Plants also be also be Submitted on or landscaped, landscaped, after November unless otherwise unless otherwise 10,2004 determined by the determined by reviewing official the reviewing during the official during the subdivision subdivision process. process. Minimum On or At least two(2) At least two(2) Off-Site Street trees of a City- trees of a City- Tree approved species approved species Requirements with a minimum with a minimum for Plats and caliper of 1 1"per caliper of 1 1/2" Short Plants tree shall be per tree shall be Submitted on or planted in the planted in the after November front yard or front yard or 10, 2004 planting strip of planting strip of every lot prior to every lot prior to occupancy. occupancy. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\E.4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/3/2004 3:25 PMPage 5 of 5 4-2-110D To be amended by the following changes 4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 1. a. Phasing, shadow platting, or land 3,Cluster development is subject to the reserves may be used to satisfy the following standards_: minimum density requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the current a. development would not preclude the of 6 lot cl to provision of adequate access and infrastructure to future development and b. The maximum net density requirement would allow for the eventual satisfaction of shall not be exceeded. minimum density requirements through future development. c. The area of individual lots shall not be less than 4,500 sq. ft. b. In the event the applicant can show that the minimum density cannot be d. Except for density,the remaining achieved due to lot configuration, lack of development standards of the access,environmental or physical Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre constraints, minimum density requirements Zone) shall apply may be waived by the Reviewing Official. e. Within designated Urban Separators: 2. 2. Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions (i)All subdivision and short subdivisions that are not eligible for a variance shall be clustered. include: building size,units per (ii)Development shall be clustered away structure/lot,or densities. Unless from sensitive areas or the axis of bonus size or density provisions are designated corridors or community specifically authorized,the separators to the extent possible. modification of building size,units (iii)The open space created by clustering per structure,or densities requires a shall be placed in separate permanent tracts legislative change in the code that may include critical areas and shall provisions and/or a Comprehensive total as least fifty percent of the site. Plan amendment/rezone. (iv)Open space tracts shall be configured to connect greenbelt or wildlife corridors where possible. 3. Clustering mad-leis allowed to meet (v)Open space tracts shall not be altered or objectives such as preserving disturbed. Passive recreation(with no significant natural features, development of recreational facilities)and providing neighborhood open space, natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian or facilitating the provision of sewer trails are acceptable uses within open space service. Within urban separators tracts. designated in the Countywide (vi)The tracts may be: Planning Policies clustering is (a)retained by the subdivider required,,—_ H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 D.doc -1- (b)conveyed to the residents of the EXISTING SIDE YARD development LEGAL LOT WIDTH (c) or conveyed to a third party. ALONG A STREET RC ZONE 4. Allowed Projections into Setbacks: 150 feet or less 25 ft. R-1 ZONE a. Fireplace Structures,Windows: Less than or equal 10 ft. Fireplace structures,bay or garden to 50 ft. windows,enclosed stair landings, 50.1 to 51 ft. 11 ft. and similar structures as Zoning 51.1 to 52 ft. 12 ft. Administrator may project 24"into 52.1 to 53 ft. 13 ft. any setback;provided, such 53.1 to 54 ft. 14 ft. projections are: 54.1 to 55 ft. 15 ft. (i) Limited to 2 per façade. 55.1 to 56 ft. 16 ft. (ii) Not wider than 10'. 56.1 to 57 ft. 17 ft. 57.1 to 58 ft. 18 ft. b. Fences: See RMC 4-4-040. 58.1 to 59 ft. 19 ft. 59.1ft. and greater 19 ft. c. Steps and Decks: Uncovered steps R-4 or R-8 ZONE and decks not exceeding 18"above Less than or equal 10 ft. the finished grade may project to any to 50 ft. property line. Uncovered steps and 50.1 to 52 ft. 11 ft. decks having no roof covering and 52.1 to 54 ft. 12 ft. not exceeding 42"high may be built 54.1 to 56 ft. 13 ft. within the front yard setback. 56.1 to 58 ft. 14 ft. 58.1 ft. or greater 15 ft. d. Eaves: Eaves and cornices may project up to 24"into any required However,in no case shall a structure setback. over 42"in height intrude into the 20' clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- 5. In order to be considered detached,a 030. structure must be sited a minimum of 6' from any residential structure. 8. In no case shall building height exceed 6. A front yard setback of less than 20' is the maximum allowed by the Airport allowed if equal to or greater than the Related Height and Use Restrictions,for average of the front yard setback of the uses located within the Federal Aviation existing, abutting primary structures; Administration Airport Zones however, in no case shall a minimum designated under RMC 4-3-020. setback of less than 20' be allowed for garages which access from the front yard 9. "Public Suffix"(P)properties are street(s). allowed the following height bonus: Publicly owned structures shall be 7. For pre-existing legal lots having less permitted an additional 15' in height than the minimum lot width required by this above that otherwise permitted in the Section,the following chart shall apply for zone if "pitched roofs," as defined determining the required minimum side yard herein,are used for at least 60% or more width along a street: of the roof surface of both primary and accessory structures. In addition,the WIDTH OF MINIMUM height of a publicly owned structure H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 D.doc -2- may be increased as follows, up to a achieved. The reduction shall be the maximum height of 75' to the highest minimum needed to allow 4-dwelling point of the building: units per net acre and shall be limited to the following minimum dimensions: a. When abutting a public street, 1 additional foot of height for each Lot size -7,200 sq. ft additional 1-1/2' of perimeter Lot depth—70 feet building setback beyond the Lot width -60 feet minimum street setback required; and/or 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose of achieving maximum density, setbacks b. When abutting a common property may also be reduced. Setback reductions line, 1 additional foot of height for shall be limited to the following: each additional 2' of perimeter building setback beyond Front—20 feet. the minimum required along a Side yard along a street— 15 feet common property line. primary structure, 20 feet attached garage with access from the side yard. 10. In order to serve as a transition between Minimum side yard combined setback— the lower density R-4 zone and the 15 feet. higher density R-8 zone"small lot Minimum for one yard—5 feet. clusters"of up to a maximum of 50 lots shall be allowed within 600 feet of an R- 8 zone when at least 30%of the site is 13. For properties vested with a complete plat permanently set aside as "significant application prior to Nov. 10, 2004, and for open space." Such open space shall be the Mosier II,Maplewood East and situated to act as a visual buffer between Anthone,the following standards apply. small lot clusters and other development Vested plats must be developed within 5 in the zone. The percentage of open years of preliminary plat approval and/or space required may be reduced by the annexation. reviewing official to 20%of the site when: Maximum Density -5 dwelling a) Public access is provided to open units per net acre space, Minimum Lot Size-7,200 sq. ft b) Soft surface trails are provided within wetland buffers,and Minimum Lot Width-60 feet for interior lots, 70 feet for corner lots c) Store water ponds are designed to eliminate engineered slopes requiring fencing and enhanced to Minimum Lot Depth-70 feet allow passive and/or active recreation. Minimum Front Yard- 15 feet for the primary structure, 20 feet for an attached 11. a) Lot size width and depth may be or detached garage. For a unit with reduced by the reviewing official when, alley access garage, the front yard due to lot configuration or access,4- setback for the primary structure may be dwelling units per net acre cannot be H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 D.doc -3- • reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right of way or alley. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street- 15 feet Minimum Side Yard- 5 feet (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) H:\EDNSP\Title IV\R-1 Clustering\4-2-110 D.doc -4- Submitted by J. Rollins NIMPOY CLUSTERING & OPEN SPACE Question: "What is open space in King County?" The short answer: open space are areas of natural, unaltered, undisturbed permanent dedicated tracts as codified in King County Code, Title 21A. In Greenbelt/Urban/Community Separators, King County code requires clustering, and designated open space tracts of at least 50% of the site. The open space tracts "...shall not be altered or disturbed..." "Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within an open space tract." METROPOLITAN KING COUNTY CODE Specific Metropolitan King County Code (K.C.C.) pertinent to Greenbelt/Urban/Community Separators follows: 0 Title 21A.12.030 17a. "all subdivisions and short subdivisions in the R-1 zone shall be required to be clustered if the property is located within or contains: (1) a floodplain, (2) a critical aquifer recharge area, (3) a Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Area, (4) existing or planned pubic parks or trails, or connection to such facilities, (5) a Class I or II stream or wetland, or (6) a steep slope, or (7) a "greenbelt/urban separator" or "wildlife corridor" area designated by the Comprehensive Plan or Community Plan. 0 17b. "The development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors such as urban separators or the wildlife habitat network to the extent possible and the open space shall be placed in a separate tract that includes at least fifty percent of the site. Open space tracts shall be permanent and shall be dedicated to a homeowner's association or other suitable organization, as determined by the director, and meet the requirements of K.C.C. 21A.14.040. On-site sensitive area and buffers, wildlife habitat networks, required habitat and buffers for protected species and designated urban separators shall be placed within the open space tract to the extent possible. Passive recreation (with no development of recreational facilities) and natural- surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable uses within the open space tract. " 0 Title 21A.14.040 A.: " In the R zones, any designated open space tract resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed except as specified on recorded documents creating the open space. Open spaces may be retained under ownership by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, or conveyed to a third party. If access to the open space is provided, the access shall be located in a separate tract:" 0 Title 21A.14.040 C. "In the R-1 zone, open space tracts created by clustering required by K.C.C. 21A 12.030 shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts required by the Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans or open space functional plans to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors designated by the Comprehensive Plan and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. King County may require open space tracts created under this subsection to be dedicated to an appropriate managing public agency or qualifying private entity such as a nature conservancy. In the absence of such a requirement, open space tracts shall be retained in undivided interest by the residents of the subdivision or short subdivision. A homeowner's association shall be established for maintenance of the open space tract." DEFINITION: 0 Title 21A.06.819: "Open space: areas left predominately in a natural state to create urban separators and greenbelts, sustain native ecosystems, connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, provide a visual contrast to continuous development, reinforce community identity and aesthetics, or provide links between important environmental or recreational resources." PROPOSED CITY OF RENTON CODE Therefore to make Renton code consistent with K.C.C. the essential elements of open space tracts in Community Separators must be permanent designated tracts which are natural, unaltered, undisturbed and are configured to connect greenbelt or wildlife corridors. r ni ._ ✓ • te fir` RECEIVED urt; 0'1 2004 • RENTONCITYCOUNCIL • • • Poste Fax Note 7671 Dale). / pa9es� To bird� yaw ::mv IA tw �(fin Jean llins Ro Co.,Dept , 9605 143rd Ave SE °""'`' Phone N Phone Renton, WA 98059 rAx n sa N December 1, 2004 RE: Designated Urban Separator Code For Planning&Development Committee Meeting December 2, 2004 City of Renton Planning and Development Committee Members: In a letter to the Boundary Review Board , King County Executive Sims voiced significant concerns regzu ding regionally designated Urban Separators. Renton's proposal to reduce the open space requirement from 50 to 30% does not protect urban separators. The standard in King County has been 50% open space since 1983. In 1983, the SC-P zone established a maximum density of one huuse per acre with lot clustering... the P- suffix condition required the reserve tract should be dedicated or reserved as permanent open space,... Do not reduce the standard. The ERC report states, a 30 % standard would result in "grading of a larger area... , in more tree CONTINUE FROM PREUIOUS PAGE 001 The ERC report states , a 30 ittotandard would result in " grading of aver area... , in more tree and vegetation removal . ...driveway, parking area and patio areas could be more extensive." Urban separators' functions are seriously compromised with more grading, tree and vegetation removal, more driveway, parking and patio areas . King County Comprehensive Plan for regional parks and open space system P-103 states , " The primary purpose of open space lands is to conserve the natural ecosytem." The creation of more impervious surfaces,via grading, tree and vegetation removal , driveways etc does not conserve the natural ecosystem. The 30 % proposed code seems to be based on project level specifics (such as lot size, number of lots, percentage constrained ) This is clouding the issue. Lot sizes should not be at issue here, but rather maintaining the integrity of urban separators. I would strongly encourage you not to get caught up in parcel specific analysis losing sight of the imperative concept of open space. The open space in urban separators should be mandated at the non-project level. The ERC report states, "(King County's} approach offers the advantage of setting the standard for the entire designated urban separator prior to review of a specific development proposal and thus putting in place a more coherent, less piece-meal strategy." I believe the 30% approach is based on potential project level analysis and is a piece-meal strategy. The open space standard should be a completely consistent non-project approach that does not reduce the standard for the entire designated urban xeparnlnrs Reducing the open space requirement coupled with Renton' net density methodology does not make it comparable to the King County standard. The language has always been at least 50%. At least is the operative phrase here. Some parcels will have only 30% open space because they need no roads, or are adjacent to critical areas. If you reduce the standard, not all the urban separator will be maintained at a minimum of 50% open space. In summary, urban separators are very special, they have survived the test of time and need to be fully maintained. The County Executive has significant concerns about protecting urban separators. A 30% standard would increase impervious surfaces which has a negative effect on the natural r t54 • NNW tee: ecosytem. The code needs to be written from a non-project level without being clouded by project specific issues. Maintaining the open space of urban separators, not lot sizes should be the driving force. If you reduce the standard, not all the urban separator will be maintained at 50%open space. Please require 50%permanent open space tracts to maintain the valuable resource of urban separators. Your grandchildren will thank you. Sincerely, �� r2�.L1� 14- J c Rollins e losure: Executive Sims laver dated August 27,2004 C:1 RPDCletr12101104 P 03 0 • King County • Ron Sims RECEIVED King County Executive AUG 3 01004 DISTRICT FOUR KING COUNTY COUNCIL August 27, 2004 Lenora Blauman,Executive Secretary Washington State Boundary Review Board of King County Yesler Building,Room 220 400 Yesler Way Seattle,WA. 98104 Dear Ms. Blauman: • On July 13, 2004 the Office of Management and Budget received from your office the city,o Re ;o s nci rt e`of mteE��o �" i f b a fj!.`ltS d[ d wrthiY't`►he'e s<J �s Zen on Plateau potential aivteXatiei ate ` Based on a careful and deliberative review by various county departments and agencies,the county believes that there are a number of inherent concerns and issues with the proposal that if left unaddressed would likely result in an annexation which does not further the interests of King County residents, does not meet the spirit of state and county growth management policy, and does not further the objectives of the Boundary Review Board. The 20.6 acre Merritt II annexation proposal is located in an area of urban unincorporated King County that lies between the cities of Renton and Newcastle. The proposed annexation raises a number of significant concerns which include, but are not limited to: 1. The county's continued ability to provide efficient local services in an urban unincorporated area fraught with irregular municipal boundaries and relatively isolated between the cities of Renton and Newcastle; 2. Environmental and surface water management issues associated with the May Valley corridor; 3. The application of appropriate zoning to protect the regionally designated May Valley urban separator; 4. Consistency with adopted plans and policies including the KingCounty Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the King County Countywide Planning Policies; and S. Consistency with Boundary Review Board objectives. ��e King Count) Is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer -421104,0. and complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act - b4 Lenora Blauman August 27, 2004 Page 2 For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its Jurisdiction and review the proposed action. I further request that a public hearing date be held in this matter at the board's earliest convenience. A public hearing will provide the county, affected citizens, and the city an opportunity to review and discuss,within the parameters of the Board's decision making process,the proposal in greater detail. Please direct further communications regarding this matter to Mike Thomas, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget,at 206-205-0720. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, tr\Ron Sims King County Executive cc: `The Honorable Larry Phillips, Chair,King County Council Kurt Triplett, Chief of Staff,King County Executive Office Steve Call, Director, Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Mike Thomas, Senior Policy Analyst,OMB Kevin Wright, Sr. Prosecuting Attorney,King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office King County interdepartmental Annexation Group Alex Pietsch, Director,Neighborhoods, Strategic Planning and Economic Dcvclupmcnt, City of Renton King County Annexation Team Julia Medzegian - May Valley Urban Separator Page 1 From: "david kappler" <davidkappler@hotmail.com> To: <jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 1:22:46 PM Subject: May Valley Urban Separator Just wanted to make sure my letter below gets to the proper city council committee- I'm busy tomorrow with an Eastside Fire and Rescue committee meeting. Thanks, David Kappler November 26, 2004 Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary Washington State Boundary Review Board of King County Yesler Building, Room 220 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Urban Separator Development Code/Merritt II Annexation I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the City of Renton's proposed Merritt II annexation currently being reviewed by the BRB. I lived in May Valley on a creek side property for thirteen years and was a member of the Newcastle Community Plan Citizens Committee. I have since moved to the City of Issaquah and I am in my fourth term on their city council. My interest in land use continues and I have very positive memories about May Creek, the Newcastle Community Plan and the important connection between Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park and May Creek Park. The Newcastle Plan was a very progressive document that led to the establishment of the Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park and the refinement of the urban village concept that we have successfully used in Issaquah both on East Cougar Mountain and Grand Ridge. The Newcastle Planning Area had many challenges. The numerous critical areas forced us to really look at clustering concepts and many policies having to do with wetlands, creeks, wildlife corridors, landslide, • erosion and coal mine hazards. Protection of May Valley properties in the upper valley from flooding was a priority. Lower valley properties were subject to some flooding, but more often the concern was for mass wasting erosion events and resulting deposit of material throughout the creek channel and Lake Washington. Julia Medzegian - May Valley Urban Separator Page 2 *44.11111 The basin plan done at the time of the Newcastle Plan has since been updated, but in both plans it is clear that there is no easy solution and wise land use practices provide the best hope,just as poor practices led to the problems. In the case of the area now known as the May Valley Urban Separator we spent much time in creatively addressing a number of issues. We had all the environmental issues and we had a real mix of land uses and densities. We supported the SC-P, Suburban Cluster with provisions, zoning as the best way to deal with the area. This would result in the best opportunity to have development occur in an efficient, least impactive manner with permanent protected open space, This area was not seen just as a border area between rural and urban, but rather separator between urban to the northwest and south and perhaps more importantly a very environmentally constrained connector between Lake Washington and lower May Creek with upper May Creek and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. Nearly every place rural meets urban or one urban area meets another there are issues to deal with, but there are few, if any areas in the county where the issues are more complex and the interface more important. The county has successfully managed this area over the last 20 years. This area is so important and has so many special features it requires some special land use code provisions for it to be protected. The City of Renton must have good clustering language, good language to protect dedicated open space for the long term and provide for the significant dedication of open space such as the county's requirement for a minimum of 50% of gross area being dedicated as permanent protected open space. I fully support this area's annexation to Renton as long as the land use code provisions mentioned above are adopted by Renton. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, David Kappler 255 SE Andrews St. Issaquah, WA 98027 425-392-3571 cc: The Honorable Ron Sims The Honorable Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Julia Medzegian - May Valley Urban Separator Page 3 The Honorable Larry Phillips The Honorable Rob McKenna The Honorable Dwight Pelz Kurt Triplett, King County Mike Thomas, King County Alex Pietsch, City of Renton Rebecca Lind, City of Renton Dec 02 04 11 : 09a Jana 4225056 p. 2 New ,ftge HANSON CONSULTING Jim Hanson 360-422-5056 December 2, 2004 Terri Briere, Chair Planning and Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Subject: Urban Separator, Open Space, Density Dear Mrs. Briere: I am writing on behalf of three property owners within the Merritt II annexation and within the Urban Separator area in the May Creek basin. These three property owners own over 31 acres within the area. The City's Strategic Planning Division is proposing code changes to bring the City's requirements for open space and clustering of development closer to that of King County. The property owners within this area have concerns regarding three major issues, open space dedication, density allowed and ability to provide utilities and access to the parcels. Strategic Planning has prepared a comparison between King County open space requirements and density allowed and options considered by the City of Renton. King County requires 50%open space to be dedicated and the development being clustered in the balance of the area. Properties in this area are zoned R-1 in King County. King County bases the density on gross acreage allowing a maximum of 94 units according to the calculations provided. The properties have been pre-zoned R-1 in the City of Renton. Renton bases the density calculations on net density rather than gross, according to the numbers provided the 94 units allowed in King County would be decreased to 72 in the City of Renton. The calculations are not accurate in that they do not take into consideration streets and driveways which also are deducted for net density. According to my calculations the number of units allowed in Renton would be further reduced to a number closer to 54 units.About 40 units(nearly'/2 of the units)are lost. The property owners are being required to dedicate 50%of their land to open space and are loosing nearly half of the development potential. On many of the parcels the 50% dedication and clustering may work well but on others because of size, shape and access location the 50%open space may be onerous. An overall goal of 50%open space within the Urban Separator may be reasonable. A requirement to dedicate between 30%and 50%on individual parcels may be more realistic. The City owns some of the parcels within the Urban Separator and those are 100%open space so the overall goal may be achieved without requiring every parcel to dedicate 50%. Dec 02 04 11 : 10a Jana 4225056 p. 3 Utilities,emergency accesses often must to cross open space areas. A provision needs to be added to provide for such needs. We ask the Committee to consider recommending the following: l. A goal of 50%open space be provided within the Urban Separator area as a whole with a minimum of 30%on individual parcels or developments_ 2. A bonus density be allowed up to the maximum of I unit per gross acre if 50%open space is dedicated. 3. Utilities and emergency access be allowed to cross such open space areas. Thank you for your understanding of our concerns and your consideration of these proposals. Thank You: le.0"004(} Jim Hanson Dec 02 04 11 : 09a Jana 4225056 p. 1 , fl Comm/ feEeI to REC V UC t; 01 2004 Hanson Consulting 'oNeny ►NCtt Fax Transmittal Form To: Tern Briere From:Jim Hanson Fax number: 425-430-6523 Phone number: 360-422-5056 Phone number: Pages including cover,3 Re: Urban Separator Date: 12-2-04 Comments: If you do not receive all pages of this Fax transmission please call me at 360-422-5056. Thank you: Jim Hanson, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane,Mt. Vernon, WA. 98274. Dec 02 04 11 : 09a Jana 4225056 p. 2 HANSON CONSULTING Jim Hanson 360-422-5056 December 2, 2004 Terri Briere, Chair Planning and Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Subject: Urban Separator, Open Space, Density Dear Mrs. Briere: I am writing on behalf of three property owners within the Merritt II annexation and within the Urban Separator area in the May Creek basin. These three property owners own over 31 acres within the area. The City's Strategic Planning Division is proposing code changes to bring the City's requirements for open space and clustering of development closer to that of King County. The property owners within this area have concerns regarding three major issues, open space dedication, density allowed and ability to provide utilities and access to the parcels. Strategic Planning has prepared a comparison between King County open space requirements and density allowed and options considered by the City of Renton. King County requires 50%open space to be dedicated and the development being clustered in the balance of the area. Properties in this area are zoned R-1 in King County. King County bases the density on gross acreage allowing a maximum of 94 units according to the calculations provided. The properties have been prc-zoned R-1 in the City of Renton. Renton bases the density calculations on net density rather than gross, according to the numbers provided the 94 units allowed in King County would be decreased to 72 in the City of Renton. The calculations are not accurate in that they do not take into consideration streets and driveways which also are deducted for net density. According to my calculations the number of units allowed in Renton would be further reduced to a number closer to 54 units. About 40 units(nearly Y2 of the units)are lost. The property owners are being required to dedicate 50%of their land to open space and are loosing nearly half of the development potential. On many of the parcels the 50% dedication and clustering may work well but on others because of size, shape and access location the 50% open space may be onerous. An overall goal of 50%open space within the Urban Separator may be reasonable. A requirement to dedicate between 30%and 50%on individual parcels may be more realistic. The City owns some of the parcels within the Urban Separator and those are 100%open space so the overall goal may be achieved without requiring every parcel to dedicate 50%. Dec 02 04 11 : 10a Jana 4225056 p. 3 Utilities,emergency accesses often must to cross open space areas. A provision needs to be added to provide for such needs. We ask the Committee to consider recommending the following: 1. A goal of 50%open space be provided within the Urban Separator area as a whole with a minimum of 30%on individual parcels or developments. 2. A bonus density be allowed up to the maximum of 1 unit per gross acre if 50%open space is dedicated. 3. Utilities and emergency access be allowed to cross such open space areas. Thank you for your understanding of our concerns and your consideration of these proposals. Thank You: iee,s40194"<") Jim Hanson Dec 02 04 11 : 09a Jana 4225056 p. 1 C'ommd'feC fa-a-o y RECEIV uc 0 12004 Hanson Consulting RE cm`coutgCtL Fax Transmittal Form To: Tern Briere From:Jim Hanson Fax number: 425-430-6523 Phone number: 360-422-5056 Phone number: Pages including cover, 3 Re: Urban Separator Date: 12-2-04 Comments: If you do not receive all pages of this Fax transmission please call me at 360-422-5056. Thank you: Jim Hanson, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane,Mt. Vernon, WA. 98274. Rebecca Lind- Urban Separator rules Pa e 1 From: "Bob Nelson" <bnelson001 @sprintmail.com> To: <rlind @ ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/30/2004 10:08:35 AM Subject: Urban Separator rules Dear Ms. Lind. I recently heard that Renton is considering modification of their Urban Separator rules. I am the Director of Land Use for The Covington Neighbors Council and a member of the Covington Planning Commission. One of the foundation blocks of our land use planning has been the Urban Separator concept and the inviolability of this concept. The Growth Management Act and the subsequent county and municipal regulations have:been under attack since the day they were passed. We have participated in the Urban Separator battles in various locations and to my knowledge they have stood the test of time and the attacks of the short-sighted. The King County Urban Separator policies are sound. We also participated in the Kent discussion and of course Covington. I urge you to retain the current Urban Separator policies. Densities in the Urban Separator should be maintained at one dwelling unit or less per acre. The 50%permanent open space requirement is probably the most important condition applied to the Urban Separator. If the open space requirement is reduced,the whole concept loses purpose and it is just a matter of time until we are arguing about whether to allow six houses per acre or commercial development in the remaining 30%of the former Urban Separator. I would like to be included as a Party of Record concerning this issue and would appreciate these comments being forwarded to your Planning Commission and City Council members. I would also like to be notified of any public hearing on this issue. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, Bob Nelson 24048 156th Ave SE Kent, WA 98042 CC: "Joe Miles" <joe.miles@att.net> Rebecca Lind RE R 1 Zone Clustering MeetingNotifications 12/2/04 6-2:00 pm Page 1 From: "Julie P. Bonwell" <jbonwell@lesourd.com> To: "Judith Wright" <Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Rebecca Lind" <RHlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1 1/30/2004 10:12:41 AM Subject: RE: R-1 Zone Clustering Meeting Notifications 12/2/04 @ 2:00 pm As I am unable to attend your 2:00 December 2nd Planning& Development meeting, I would like the Planning& Development Committee Members to know that I live in one of the urban separators and I strongly support the City's original goal of no less than 50 percent of a development site being set aside as permanent open space. This is consistent with King County's original plan for Urban Separators. rban.Separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the-Urban,Growth Area. Urban Separators are defined as permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental,visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated Urban Separators are not to be re-designated in the future(in the 20-year planning cycle)to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these Urban Separators is a regional as well as a local concern, and I ask Renton's Planning & Development Committee to ensure Urban Separators are held out as intended and protected as much as possible by adopting the appropriate amendments that at least 50 percent of a development site be left as permanent open space. Thank you. • Julie Bonwell 9616 146th Avenue Southeast Renton,Washington 98059 425 271-0680 Original Message From:Julia Medzegian[mailto:Jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent:Tuesday, November 30,2004 9:29 AM To:TabTabacek@aol.com; herogers@comcast.net;vanmar@gte.net; blueheron6987@hotmail.com; davidkappler@hotmail.com;Julie P. Bonwell; GregH @ lightsci.com; dennis @shiftpoint.biz; retidball@worldnet.att.net; gizmodave351 @yahoo.com;jtodderud@yahoo.com Subject: R-1 Zone Clustering Meeting Notifications 12/2/04 @ 2:00 pm As an interested party,this is to notify you that the Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to discuss the above-referenced issue. Please call and let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Julia Medzegian Renton City Council Liaison 425-430-6555 jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us This message has been scanned by the City of Renton's filtering gateway. Rebecca Lind- Merritt II Annexation Page 1 lay Noe From: "auntgrumpy" <auntgrumpy@att.net> To: <derickson@ci.renton.wa.us>, <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us>, <citycouncil@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/29/2004 7:17:29 PM Subject: Merritt II Annexation Good Evening All, It has come to my attention that the City of Renton has proposed reducing the protection of open space within the Urban Separator. It is clear in both County Code and GMA that Urban Separators are intended to be permanently protected corridors. It is inappropriate to reduce the amount of protected open space in an Urban Separator simply because it is being annexed into Renton. As a'region those of us within the Urban Growth Boundary have agreed-to increased density, but part of that agreement was the protection of Urban Separators, created to preserve green corridors, protect critical areas and provide low density cushions between Urban Areas. It is important for the City of Renton to carry the protection of these areas forward. Please codify a 50%open space protection for Urban Separators. Thank you, Connie Marsh 1175 NW Gilman Blvd#B6 Issaquah, WA 98027 Rebecca Lind- re Talbot Urban Separator Pa e 1 From: "Fabre, Rene" <Rene.Fabre@TicorTitle.com> To: <rlind @ ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/29/2004 5:23:15 PM Subject: re:Talbot Urban Separator City of Renton...Whom It May Concern: My name is Rene' Fabre... I am a citizen of Renton and I work just down the street from City Hall on Grady Way at Ticor Title Company. I also live at the Sunset Terrace Condominiums at Benson Rd S and S Puget Dr... not far off from the Talbot Urban Separator. I understand the issues concerning a few of the urban separators, including the Talbot one are the possibility that they may have ordinance or zoning changes and might be made smaller. I would like to register my opinion: I think these urban separators should remain as large as we can possibly keep them. I have lived in Renton and surrounding area all my life... I have seen a lot of change and growth. As Renton is certain to grow and become denser, these vital separators are and will be ever more important. I understand there is a meeting Wednesday evening... I will try to make it. If you have any questions and/or concerns please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Alfred (Rene') Fabre 1305 S Puget Dr#B12 Renton WA 98055 Home: 424.793.5967 Ticor Title Company 15 S Grady Way#120 Renton WA 98055 Direct: 425.873.7579 Email: rene.fabre@ticortitle.com <mailto:rene.fabre@ticortitle.com> www.ticortitlenw.com <http://www.ticortitlenw.com> Rebecca Lind- urban se arator �� "� "��"�� gel • � �,.4�.�. . Page 1 111110. From: "MaryLou Robicheaux" <wander_woods@hotmail.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1 1/29/2004 2:53:29 PM Subject: urban separator I am writing you to let you know I strongly support a 50%urban separator. I live in King County near Renton city limits and I believe that a 30% separator would be inadequate. Please support the 50%separator. Thank you. Mary L. Robicheaux 15144 SE 107th St Renton,WA 98059 _ - ._ Rebecca Lind - Renton Urban Se arator From: "Joe Miles" <joe.miles@att.net> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/29/2004 11:08:03 PM Subject: Renton Urban Separator November 29th, 2004 Rebecca Lind Planning Manager Neighborhood and Strategic Planning City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Ms. Lind, I am a member of the Friends of Soos Creek Park. Our organization worked closely with the City of Kent in 2000 and 2001 during the development of Kent's Urban Separator Policy and Code.The Soos Creek Urban Separator not only buffers Soos Creek Park from urban impacts, it also protects the numerous steep slopes,wetlands, streams,and wildlife habitat which surround the Park. In addition,the Urban Separator provides an attractive greenbelt between the cities of Kent and Covington. We have learned the city of Renton is currently developing Urban Separator Policies and Codes. I strongly encourage the City of Renton to adopt Urban Separator Policies and Codes similar to those utilized by the cities of Kent, Covington, and King County. In my view the three most important components which provide for a successful Urban Separator include; * The density should not exceed 1 dwelling unit per acre * At a minimum, 50%of the property should be protected as permanent open space. * The homes should be clustered away from the open space. I am hopeful you and other officials at the city of Renton will find these suggestions useful. Please include me as a party of record, and forward my comments to the Renton Planning Commission and City Council. Thank you, Elizabeth Miles 24639 156th Avenue SE Kent, WA 98042 Rebecca Lind -Green belt open space Pa e 1 m r w✓ From: "VanMar Arabian/Pintos" <vanmar@gte.net> To: <rlind @ ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/26/2004 9:37:40 PM Subject: Green belt open space I've heard that you are considering reducing the 50%condition for open space in the city's green belts. Since the objective is preservation of open space I fail to appreciate the logic behind the initiative to reduce to 35%as I understand was proposed. I am opposed, and would urge you reconsider the percentage requirement. Dale G Smith CC: <derickson@ci.renton.wa.us> Rebecca Lind- UrbanSe Separators. P _. Page From: "Bob Tidball" <retidball@worldnet.att.net> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/26/2004 12:05:31 PM Subject: Urban Separators Rebecca Lind Planning Manager Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning I am writing to urge the City of Renton to adopt an Urban Separator regulation consistent with that of King County and compliant with the intent of the Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies. A regulation requiring clustering of home sites within an Urban Separator, with dedication of at least 50%to permanent open space, helps to maintain the unique character of our region and adds to the livability of our communities. Additionally, open space corridors created by setting aside areas dominated by natural features such as streams, wetlands, steep slopes, and wooded tracts can be an aid in stormwater management, help maintain water quality and provide a benefit to wildlife. Increasingly, as we understand the plight of our native salmon, it seems prudent to apply buffers to the waterways they use, and appropriately designated Urban Separators can serve this function as well. Since coming to this region more than forty years ago, I have seen steady obliteration of the natural beauty of our Puget Sound landscapes. The cause seems to be unwillingness by governmental jurisdictions to plan for compact, livable communities as population has grown. The result has been sprawling, automobile-dependent growth with its huge cost impact for infrastructure and corresponding environmental degradation. It is my hope, that in the future, as they move into their annexation areas, cities will choose to adopt a more compact, environmentally sensitive approach to growth,which will be a benefit to everyone in the entire region. Please submit these comments for the record, and make them available to the Planning Commissioners. Respectfully, Robert E. Tidball T & M Berry Farm 28810 57th PI. S. Auburn WA, 98001 Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.782/Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/04 CC: "John Mauro" <john@livablecoalition.org>, ""Livable Communities Coalition"" <John @ livablecoalition.org> Rebecca Lind - Urban separators message from Greg Heacock Page 1 Imipe From: "Greg Heacock" <GregH@lightsci.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/29/2004 8:33:11 AM Subject: Urban separators message from Greg Heacock Greg Heacock 19027 SE 320th St. Auburn WA 98092 11/29/04 RE: Development regulations for Urban Separators Dear Planning Commission and Council Members: In the late 1990's I spent a considerable amount of time in the United Kingdom pursuing a second degree. One of the memories that stays with me to this day is the difference in green space between communities here and there. In the UK, the urban areas are well defined, with development confined to notable boundaries. The result is open space for the enjoyment of all and an efficient transit system. This is in contrast to what I see in King County, where one city runs into the next without a surrounding of open space. While it seems we no longer have the luxury of space to surround each city, we do have the concept of Urban Separators which provide open space and separation. I urge you to maintain the integrity of Urban Separators by continuing to require at least half open space in your development regulations. With regards, Dr. Greg Heacock .r.. l�8/& �� Jb jti� �� a '- 1 E v;DEVELOP,E11 iet/LL-T / !N &C)C 9ORHOODS -+_-. �GCPLAA R:1O f _ .-- j�6L A_( %o/ .. P„A (�n2fr^l S�3/_ cam L-c` _ t_- G<L 1 -t G L11I- r - Rebecca Lind- May Valley Urban Separator/Merritt II Annexation y_ Page 1 t From: "david kappler" <davidkappler@hotmail.com> To: <kwheeler@ci.renton.wa.us>, <apietsch@ci.renton.wa.us>, <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/26/2004 8:33:30 PM Subject: May Valley Urban Separator/Merritt II Annexation November 26, 2004 Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary Washington State Boundary Review Board of King County Yesler Building, Room 220 Seattle,WA 98104 Re: Urban Separator Development Code/Merritt II Annexation I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the City of Renton's proposed Merritt II annexation currently being reviewed by the BRB. I lived in May Valley on a creek side property for thirteen years and was a member of the Newcastle Community Plan Citizens Committee. I have since moved to the City of Issaquah and I am in my fourth term on their city council. My interest in land use continues and I have very positive memories about May Creek, the Newcastle Community Plan and the important connection between Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park and May Creek Park. The Newcastle Plan was a very progressive document that led to the establishment of the Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park and the refinement of the urban village concept that we have successfully used in Issaquah both on East Cougar Mountain and Grand Ridge. The Newcastle Planning Area had many challenges. The numerous critical areas forced us to really look at clustering concepts and many policies having to do with wetlands, creeks, wildlife corridors, landslide, erosion and coal mine hazards. Protection of May Valley properties in the upper valley from flooding was a priority. Lower valley properties were subject to some flooding, but more often the concern was for mass wasting erosion events and resulting deposit of material throughout the creek channel and Lake Washington. The basin plan done at the time of the Newcastle Plan has since been updated, but in both plans it is clear that there is no easy solution and wise land use practices provide the best hope,just as poor practices led to the problems. In the case of the area now known as the May Valley Urban Separator we spent much time in creatively addressing a number of issues. We had all the environmental issues and we had a real mix of land uses and densities. We supported the SC-P, Suburban Cluster with provisions, zoning as the best way to deal with the area. This would result in the best opportunity to have development occur in an efficient, least impactive manner with permanent protected open space, This area was not seen just as a border area between rural and urban, but rather separator between urban to the northwest and south and perhaps more importantly a very environmentally constrained connector between Lake Washington and lower May Creek with upper May Creek and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. Nearly every place rural meets urban or one urban area meets another there are issues to deal with, but there are few, if any Rebecca Lind May Valley Urban Separ Merntt II Annexation a Page 2 areas in the county where the issues are more complex and the interface more important. The county has successfully managed this area over the last 20 years. This area is so important and has so many special features it requires some special land use code provisions for it to be protected. The City of Renton must have good clustering language, good language to protect dedicated open space for the long term and provide for the significant dedication of open space such as the county's requirement for a minimum of 50%of gross area being dedicated as permanent protected open space. I fully support this area's annexation to Renton as long as the land use code provisions mentioned above are adopted by Renton. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, David Kappler 255 SE Andrews St. Issaquah,WA 98027 425-392-3571 cc: The Honorable Ron Sims The Honorable Kathy Keolker-Wheeler The Honorable Larry Phillips The Honorable Rob McKenna The Honorable Dwight Pelz Kurt Triplett, King County Mike Thomas, King County Alex Pietsch, City of Renton Rebecca Lind, City of Renton Rebecca Lind-file# LUA-04-141,A,PZ,Err R1-zone text ammendment, Mandatory C' tering Provisions within Urban Serf; *ore Nmise From: "Debra Rogers" <herogers@comcast.net> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/16/2004 10:08:59 AM Subject: file# LUA-04-141,A,PZ,ECF R1-zone text ammendment, Mandatory Clustering Provisions within Urban Separators Dear Ms Lind, Would you please accept my comments regarding the discussion of the Renton City Code and Urban Separators and also forward them to the Planning Commission meeting being held Wednesday Nov 17th? My name is Debra Rogers and I live in the neighborhood of Stonegate at 5326 NE 22nd Ct, Renton 98059. Our neighborhood contains 53 homes just off May Valley and 148th. I am a Stonegate Homeowners Association board member and have been authorized by the residents of our neighborhood to represent our neighborhood in saying the following: We respectfully request that the City of Renton support the proposal to have the code in Renton be very similar to the codes that King County uses under the Growth Management Act regarding Urban Separators in favor of recommending development be in mandatory clusters as in county file# LUA-04-141,A,PZ,ECF. We ask that the areas in question remain an Urban Separator and that the current county rules of development regulations remain which require that at least 50% permanet open space be maintained in development and that the homes being developed are in clusters. The development of our neighborhood took this into consideration as did the development of the Highlands of Newcastle off of Coal Creek and May Valley Road. We have within our neighborhood boundries, very significant pieces of open space that include Green Creek and the May Creek Basin which is part of an area designated as an Urban Separator. We think it is important that what ever development being planned have to take into consideration the current regulations for open space and that the urban separator is maintained. It is our responsibility as citizens to remind the City of Renton of the obligation to work with the codes currently in place in King County that do preserve the Urban Separator and Open Space areas amid development. Very Sincerely, Debra Rogers 425-254-3333 Rebecca Lind- Urban separator, Renton Newcastle Page 1 Now -4,01 From: "John Todderud"<jtodderud@yahoo.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1 1/1 7/2004 5:59:25 AM Subject: Urban separator, Renton-Newcastle Ms. Lind, Regarding the proposed Merritt II annexation, I would like to voice strong support for maintaining the same urban separation between Renton and Newcastle as the County requires. I live on the northern edge of Stonegate bordering the Merritt property, 5316 NE 24th Court, am on the Stonegate Homeowners Association board, and have very much appreciated the wooded areas south of May Valley Road in the proposed annexation area. Can you please forward this email to the Planning Commission for their hearing this evening? Thank you very much. John Todderud 425-228-3307 Rebecca Lind- Clustering proposal Page 1 New ,e0,1 From: "Dennis Noland" <dennis@shiftpoint.biz> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/17/2004 2:25:47 PM Subject: Clustering proposal Rebecca Lind cc Planning Commission I want express my support for the R-1 Zone amendments for mandatory clustering and a requirement for 50%open space. I have lived in my present residence for twenty-five years and support the rights of property owners to develop their properties, but strongly feel that the development must be done in manner that is appropriate for the specifics of the area. We are adjacent to an area designated as an urban separator that has specific slope and surface water concerns that have a potential to adversely impact May Creek(a salmon spawning creek) and the May Creek Valley. The proposed cluster style of development will minimize the adverse effects of surface water drainage and loss of ground cover and vegetation.The requirement for retention of 50%open space should specifically prohibit any further development of the properties once developed under the clustering provision. Thank you for receiving my input on this matter. Dennis Noland 14326 S.E. 100th Place Renton, WA 98059 425-226-7946 Rebecca Lind- LUA-04-141,A, PZ, ECF R-1 Zone Text Amendments Page 1 From: "Julie P. Bonwell" <jbonwell@lesourd.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1 1/1 7/2004 3:12:53 PM Subject: LUA-04-141,A, PZ, ECF R-1 Zone Text Amendments Dear Ms. Lind: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the R-1 Zone Text Amendments proposal regarding Mandatory Clustering Provisions with Urban Separators. I live within the May Valley Urban Separator and support the City's application to amend the R-1 Zone Text and cluster homes on new development in properties identified as Urban Separators. A goal of at least 50%of a development site being set aside as permanent open space is not unrealistic and is encouraged. Please cc the planning commission with this, my statement of support. Thank you. J. Bonwell (Mrs.) 9616 146th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Rebecca Lind-code amendment Pa e 1 From: "sal Coronado" <blueheron6987@hotmail.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/19/2004 10:06:44 AM Subject: code amendment Rebecca, There may have been a calculation error on the colored map comparison between King County and Renton. The acreage in the Renton example adds up to only adds 5 acres. (Lot#1, 1.3 ac. + lot#2, 1.4 ac. +open space 1.8 ac. + open space 0.3 +0.2 {.0.02} equals five acres.)The missing acre may result in a 3rd lot. Independent of zoning, anywhere in Renton, 3 acres of flood hazard on a six acre site would reduce the developable area by 3 acres. Even if the site was not an urban separator. It would not matter if the zoning was R-1, R-4, R-8 or R48. If 50% of the total site is critical the 50%critical areas would be deducted. The remainder would be available for dwelling unit lots. A"50% permanent open space" requirement does not effect the net dwelling unit numbers, - in Renton only critical areas and roads do that. The City of Renton deducts roads and critical areas for all sites whether they are urban separators or not. Perhaps a solution? If the roads where allowed to be included in the 50% open space, along with critical areas, the result would be almost the same as the county. (Albeit, the county does not permit roads in open space.) Thanks, Andrew 425-255-9405 p.s. Ignore the E-mail name . It is my sailing club pseudonym. 3linder111904mswPresarioC Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ Rebecca Lind- Urban seperators Page 1 From: David Mitchell <gizmodave351 @yahoo.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/22/2004 5:08:52 PM Subject: Urban seperators Rebecca Lind. We are fishermen, we know the needs for urban seperators. Without the Urban seperators, the streams and rivers become unhealthy, and will not allow mother nature to continue to supply us with fish. We practice catch and release fishing, and have not kept any stream fish for 20 years. We have noticed over the years with the encroachment of development, a decrease in the fish population. This forces us as responsible anglers to go further and further away from populated areas to fish. I believe this is a disservice to the younger generation. They will not know the pleasure and responsibility of fishing if there are no healthy rivers or streams in which to fish. Thank you for your time Dave Mitchell Rebecca Lind-50% open space in urban separator Page 1 From: "Dennis Noland" <dennis@shiftpoint.biz> To: <rlind @ ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/23/2004 8:33:20 PM Subject: 50% open space in urban separator Rebecca Lind Please cc Planning Commission After thinking about the discussion at the land use planning meeting last week, I have not changed my support for a 50%open space requirement for the pending/proposed development of the urban separator adjacent to and including May Creek.The environmental sensitivity of this land, slopes, and the negative impacts of increasing surface water flowing into May Creek and the flood plain really demands a minimalist approach to development. This land can not be developed currently and can only be developed when annexed into Renton. I believe it is Renton's prerogative and responsibility to protect this environmentally sensitive area to the maximum level possible while allowing landowners some limited and responsible development. The clustering provision may allow some landowners, but most likely not all, to gain a building site or two. Some parcels are just too constrained by the environment to have much in the way of development potential. These parcels are the ones to least likely be appropriate candidates for a reduction in their open space requirement. In my opinion, a further reduction in open space requirements from the 50% to allow more development beyond what will be granted by clustering is inappropriate. Thank you for receiving my input on this matter. Dennis Noland 14326 S.E. 100th Place Renton, WA 98059 425-226-7946 Rebecca Lind- Re:Urban Separator Page 1 Ms From: <TabTabacek@aol.com> To: <rlind@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1 1/24/2004 1 1:14:22 AM Subject: Re:Urban Separator Good morning Rebecca, I just wanted to add my comment that I favor the 50% Open Space rather than the 30%. I live in a Urban Separator in May Valley. Please forward my comments to the Planning Commission. Thank you. A.R. Tabacek 14431 SE May Valley Rd Renton, WA. 98059-3724 425 271-1195 PS I also favor the annexation of our area to the City of Renton. CITY OFRENTON 9605 143rd SE RECEIVED Renton, WA 98059-3753 1 3 2QQ4 November 15, 2004 �U�CDING DIVISION Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Strategic Planning Division Planning/Building/Public Works Department Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: R 1 Zone Text Amendments -Mandatory Clustering Provisions within Urban Separators Dear Ms. Lind: I write in support of the proposed mandatory clustering and open spaces provisions within Renton's urban separators. Urban separators were identified through cooperative efforts by citizens, land use planning experts and elected officials of both the cities within King County, and the county itself Citizen support, and in particular specific property owners support,made urban separators possible. If land owners had not embraced the concept it would never have been possible. For example, attached is a copy of a letter received by the City of Renton on February 3rd, 1997. This letter was supportive of the R-1 pre-zone Renton was considering in May Valley. The letter was from five elderly residents who together owned more than 25 acres- about a quarter the size of the May Valley Urban Separator. Most of these holdings were large, the real estate market was hot, so any one of these property owners could have sold to real estate developers and lived in relative luxury for the rest of their lives. These same folks, and others, embraced the urban separator concept which was first floated as an idea in 1992. At that time both King County and the City of Renton were developing their respective comprehensive plans in response to the recently enacted state Growth Management Act. Renton,like other cites within King County,was working together with the county on the "countywide planning policies. " Urban separators ultimately developed from these efforts. Urban Separators exist within and between urban areas to create greenbelts between cities. Urban Separators, in addition to protecting environmentally sensitive areas, are a visual break that helps define a city's boundaries and create a sense of community. However,there have to be several technical aspects to urban separators if they are to be retained for future generations. First, they must be low density such as R-1. Also, there must be development regulations that maintain the sense of that greenbelt definition. I.e., lot clustering and permanent open space. Current King County regulations require clustering and permanent open space in R-1 zoning. In fact, these requirements have been in place in Western May Valley for the past 21 years when the King County"Newcastle Community Plan"was enacted December 1983. It is most important that the City of Renton require clustering and at least 50'%o permanent open space if the designated urban separators are going to continue to serve their purpose. Under GMA Renton began planning for these urban separators as part of a join city/county technical review in 1992. Later the city ratified the Countywide Planning Policies. We urge the city to keep the spirit and intent of the urban separators by enacting these proposed development regulations. Again, I repeat,if the urban separators are going to continue to serve their purpose,the City of Renton must require clustering and at least 50%permanent open space. We urge the planning commission recommend unanimously to full city council that the proposed development regulations be codified so the legacy of urban separators can be preserved forever. Thank you. Sinc ly, Andr Enclosures: 1. Letter From: Five May Valley property owners, January 30, 1997, "our retirement" 2. Resolution: City of Renton, No. 2960, Exhibit A,part II,April 5, 1993 3. Technical Review: Growth Management Planning Council, Renton Technical Study Area-R 2, June 16, 1993 4. Letter From: Jesse Tanner, Mayor, City of Renton,June 2, 2000 Subject Executive Recommended King County Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Map Amendment 2-May Valley Urban Separator 5. Letter From: Larry Phillips, Chair, Metropolitan King County Council,November 1, 2004 RE: City of Renton's Merritt II Proposed Annexation legaltrl l 1604mswPresarionC • PLANNING DIVISION C11-1r Or RFNTON �-. January 30th, 1997 FEB 3 1997 • City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South RECEIVED Renton, WA. 98055 Dear Planning Commission: At your meeting on Wednesday night you heard from one person who said he bought his property 10 years ago. He said he planned to live on it for the next ten years or so. He even mentioned how nice it was now and that there is wildlife. But when he is ready to retire he will build twenty houses. Well we have lived on our property for a lot longer than ten years. In fact there are nine of us property owners who have lived here for 30 to 40 years or more. Helen and Marl Andrews have lived here since the end of World War II. We bought our property to live on and raise our families. We are retired now. This is our retirement. It does not seem right that some one can live on their property for 10 or 20 years and then just because it suits them demand that Renton let them build 20 houses. Especially with all the flooding and erosion problems. This does not seem fair to us. We bought our property for retirement too and we would like the property to stay the way it is so that we can enjoy our retirement. We could probably put a bunch of houses on our property. But we have chosen not to because it is not the right thing to do, we care about our neighbors. It is not right to effect other peoples property. In other words we are not asking to have our cake and eat it too. To enjoy a nice quite rural life and then expect to turn it into a city. We long time residents are not asking for retirement funding or a windfall, we are simply asking that we not get washed away. -Please keep the zoning for the whole area either resource conservation or R-1. Yours truly, c -- ,t1 oy . 6/11 li(47/‘( Afrarny 05-6 9t6 • 427 94,4 je"..g..e,W4 9j"/7--/1.1 / F �v some .m = �. too ' - CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON - _ •• RESOLUTION NO. 29OU , =� • • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A RECOMMENDATION FOR URBAN GROWTH TECHNICAL REVIEW AREAS ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF RENTON DESIGNATED IN THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES. WHEREAS, the Countywide Planning Policies establish a - county- wide framework for the development of City and County Comprehensive Plans as required by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36 .70A; and WHEREAS, the King County Council enacted Ordinance No. 10350 adopting and ratifying the Countywide Planning Policies and setting up a. process for completion of additional work to refine and amend the Countywide Planning Policies including adjustments to the Urban Growth Areas; and r -- ; WHEREAS, the City and County have worked cooperatively together to analyze growth issues in the Technical Review Areas, -and have conducted a public meeting for citizens in the area; NOW, THEREFORE, _ THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: • SECTION I . The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II . The City Council intends to adopt the Urban Growth Area boundaries, indicated on the attached Exhibit A, as part of. the Interim Land Use Element of the City' s Comprehensive Plan . SECTION III . The City Council finds' that the facts presented in Exhibit A are consistent with and support the designated Urban Growth Areas for the City of Renton. 1 �. U.1.JULU"liVN NU. ...,.. �.r' _P- • =yPASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL tnisN 5th day of April 1993 . -a=fir l lKarzl yr0 etersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ;_h day of Anr; i , 1993 • l c' I‘' _ Earl C1_yme; favor ' Approve s to rm: Lawrence J. War " , City Attorney RES . 271 : 3/18/93:as . • • • • - -- ----- RESOLUTION NO. ===--== - EXHIBIT A CITY OF RENTON URBAN GROWTH AREA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TECBN1CAL REVIEW AREAS • I. Technical Review Area NC-3 (Newcastle) • Description: This area is within a partially urbanized portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin and contains a large undeveloped tract known as "Whitegate" which is proposed for development as a residential subdivision at densities of one dwelling unit per acre: An • Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared for the proposed project. The area is not presently served by sewers, but sewer and water service are accessible. The area is heavily forested, providing wildlife habitat linkages with the King County Park, and urban development will increase sedimentation and erosion in the drainage basin. l Recommendation: The City of Renton recommends that this area be designated as Urban, and included within the City's Urban Growth Area. It should be classified within the City's Comprehensive Plan as an urban separator, "Low Density Single Family Residential (LDSF). This classification allows two zoning categories: Low Density Single Family (SFL) at one dwelling unit per acre, and Resource Conservation at 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. The recommended future zoning classification is Resource Conservation. II. Technical Review Area R-2 (May Creek) Description: The May Creek valley is a sensitive environmental area containing 1 critical and resource areas identified in the Critical/Resource Area 1 inventories completed by the City of Renton and King County. The area is surrounded by urban development but remains at low + densities with large undeveloped tracts. Erosion and sedimentation are occurring in the May Creek system which is under review in a I-- basin-wide study. • 0 Recommendation: The City of Renton recommends that this area be designated as Urban and included within the City's Urban Area Growth Area. It should be classified within the City's Comprehensive Plan as an -W.a sbit A ge 2 lPlioN{11 urban separator, "Low Density Single FamilyResidential D This classification allows two zoning �- SF). Single Family (SF) and Resource Conservation (RC).gories: Low Density recommended future zoning is Resource Conservation- The m. Technical Review Area R-3 (East Renton) Description: This area begins at 148th Ave. SE. and extends to 1 6th Ave. SE. , The area is semi-rural, with some smaller lots and subdivisions, but there are many large tracts of vacant land. Opportunities remain for • small scale agricultural uses and maintenance of resource lands. The area is not served by sewers, but has fire and water services. It is also located within the May Creek Drainage Basin which would - - be severely impacted by new urban development within the area. Expansion of services to urban levels would not be feasible within the 20 year planning horizon. Recommendation: The City of Renton recommends that this Technical Review Area be designated as Rural, and remain outside the City's Urban Growth Area, although it would remain within the City's Sphere of Influence. IV. TechicaI Review Area R-X (Briarwood) Description: The Briarwood neighborhood is a suburban residential district which has been developed with inadequate urban services. Much of the area has been subdivided into urban size parcels of 15,000 square feet or less. The area has been developed with septic systems only, of which many are in poor condition, and sewer services are not presently available. It is within the Cedar River drainage system, and is located over the Cedar River aquifer, which is the City's sole source municipal water supply. The area presents a high risk for contamination of the aquifer, and sewer needs to be extended: Recommendation: The City of Renton recommends that the Briarwood district be included within the Urban area as defined on the map. This area generally included properties that have already been subdivided at urban densities. The area should be designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan as Single Family (SF), but with a ten-year phasing overlay similar to the Soos Creek PIan that prohibits ,3 subdivision or development until sewers and other urban services are available. i—. =tea � �� r ---.- ¢r.ate- �{ .?, __ .� . .,, ..« Resolution No . JI LI:to 1 " '� --1I URBAN GROWTH AR ;-1 44...... BM w 1t-Akfilw ' Ir-- --x-P.'"' a. _. ,,,,,,,?_,. , , , .. .. ,. ` •i ., , ........, ,,,,.„. , ,, <.r.,,,-/,` I4IiÔ4!E _ EiP! , ... , .... . , • 2.I I - a, MOM 4^ • 1)• ,)•' v ---, .- '>``{,> X' 5:i� `t� ._.7.« . f ��aai''"r��rr��lll�llli'"TTTTf1�-fi1��-��717`1ill - tii .._ A?,( • { .2 -..-- -y0,H I .v.5vEnram.._.- 2 fir f► . 0.•.,.<,(A 111111M1,4 .. . ..:,,:.. 11 i t""'""".'. ...-ar*I"..' ...'-.'.." < ..I• g=1"111?:...:=I i # ... ...A. ..._,1 rq- CC Q _ - 2- INN 4. 0.: i .... ..,, I ...... --11 s,==tum • --- ..qmpw - E 1 . .. _i__::-.11fto • A: 1---.4. ir __ -.... �• ��' Vr - T - � irnc Mai J�1t.�„ti, - (� -jjFt��• is - _ rPim.. i�F r >. � � 11r�tisIli Ilili r-ai Ni -- ti ^ems` U �� , illi?� ll1 .: _ .. = Ll. ' r i. ._ ..1 1 Ill •IMI _.! .:A'. -�! ' �� • .'fir 1 $1..rioxl;A AI �r 1�R � � 8 w _ _-� I N -I Cr')• o o I I -Q a i c - a. -Q F— 'o 1 - IF/ Z a> n1 CC b c aCL _I c yr c v b - ; .: 4. a,-�z -¢ 3Z. oT _ >-- Z ✓> 3c S - c _ _ __ g CO Z —.>Q- — } v `e �y - E c f _ .•fir --J c C c» C w .¢ o. g E E c- -- < _ 8 c> C' .Q U u CY -Q C.� c� �:. c� a can o = a- _ }Tc } -Th. IN-- ) G o .- ` C4 f J i i t� � O _c u`� G_ u }`1 fl it v )-- -,C \/ CD Q_ DCD'..--_z n' C-D.-«- 1"t C-' x U o -- -' - • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL • Co intywide Planning Policies Urban Growth Areas; Renton Technical Study Area •R-2 June 16,1993 atus Reports Renton Technical Review Area R-2 • 1992 CPP_Designation: Urban j291St11 R comr�elida t Retain Urban:designation. The CIMPC directed City'and County staff to work together to address four Technical Review Areas concerning the Urban Growth Boundary near Renton. These four areas are known as NC-3,R-2,R-3 and R-1. Technical Review•Area R-2 is shown on the attached map, Kin County and the City of Renton held two public workshops to discuss land use designations in the technical review areas near Renton. The first meeting was held on• September 17, 1992 and attended by about 70 people. The second meeting was held on A n7 28, 1993 and was attended by approximately 60 people. Both King County and City •• of Renton staff fielded numerous calls from the public on the technical review areas and also met with interested parties throughout the review process. Dack.¢ou d • • 182 acres encompassing 62 parcels • o Designated Urban by 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan • Current zoning under Ne�GPle Community Plan is Suburban Ouster with development conditions )_ ° • Not necessary to meet area capacity requirements for next 20 years • Existing development pattern is rural. The area is surrounded by urban 'development but remains at low densities with large undeveloped tracts. o Outside of Local Service Area Boundary(not +ed by sewer) o Sedirmentation and erosion are occuring within May Creek drainage basin • Amount of conversion from vegetation to impertniable surface is an important consideration. • Stonegate subdivision proposed far this area and neighboring land is to include 53 lots on 38.4 acres. Six of the lots are to be located within Technical Review Area K- 2 • Issue@: • ' . . • $ecause of th environmental se ' itivity and poen space benefits of TechnicaIRiview Ares,_,_ R-2, staff recommends that� County an the City of Renton consider theUrban Separator designation through t joint planning process. AbwLGt-2'j The Urban Separator classification as described in Countywide Planning Policy 5is •' - .---:---47 intended to_provide a framework for further refinement. Urban separator is currently defined in Countywide Planning Policy lgisIS as follows: - � • 'Urban separators are lot/density areas or areas of little development and must be _- —..ram within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low density land which protect resource lands and environmentally sensitive area and create open space co::ridors within and between urban areas which,provide environmental,visual,recreational and wildlife benefits. These lands shall not be redesignated In the futur',e to other urban uses or higher densities. ' King County and the City of Renton will undertake coordinated planning for this area through the Potential An.nexatiOn Area process. The Potential Annexation Area will be established by interlocal agreement before July 1994,with phasing and development conditions to be addressed in a-ubsequent interlocal to be completed by early 1995. King County and the City of Renton are currently preparing a Basin Plan for the area. The Executive Proposed Basin Planis scheduled to be transmitted in October of 1994,with adoption anticipated in June of 1995. • The City of Renton currently recommends Resource Conservation zoning for this area(1 dwellingunit per-10 acres). Specific zoning(densities)will likely result from the Basin Plan Process. . • - Key components of thejointylanning agreement will specify tee appropriate densities awl • zoning tncluding1Trban Separator refinements).development standards, impact mitigation and future annexation within ihb poieri al annexation area. Placing Technical Review • Area R-2 within the urban boundary does not automatically signify development approval. . Adequacy, concurrency and environmental tests would still be requited and have to be met. . • tk:c:r2x • • i • . f A~m -r' . . rillitrifunArminM, • m `\ / lJ>l1m' 14-1'1i�mmi•, �T�J ,•,a::n.144......+•.#1I1► IL.Z..r:rt Ili ----... -t-„, ii iiii vvelp�■r_m _>• i t" �i llUllliii »� _IrnI # ___ I&*111 ,..� 1■ )' . • 11111=w�wa.•1 ae "" �' ;r• " \')t ITtNttri LIMO ;. 111iin1/1riffia="01..."7"°-„ i 4Milt.11 ----are ' "'0r� —=fir- rlEi 2 (~ ties A grit aiimegrion....._-- ;-.. aa- mi ,��•`•r.+-- �' �"w�--i3%! t'�'.�•�� = C .link II !a am ma... � ��s m aim 1111111. 11[ ..• it• 11111111pWli a��;`_N- Iif11�aai Ig �`p;#i� i'rani paw 71.2.0. ailit(-= -'erg- ' 33 l: ::.ate -'0 amist-- -11410:0 es1).� ��111: 1111:1 �� tti T_: I e e_.. ■ _t Jim� �3a r��`f ... -� Y '�� ~ �--��.'.� e ��"�.Z'�' �' —amer-+tom /117 _ wit ran fIS44 G MIN P'shmr: .arum ..� .t.-'41 •!=Mp:.■ j" �i=r- pi ., 1 _ 71111111 - r ti/�`li�. �T- 0 uI a � I )•`ai-n u'• �_�= up aw---e'l- '2owlAt'1°'--4,,..li =4110911-.A=ctit.; fr-- I I .4 :- .68CINHI -- :. ,'s+. . .omits.' : I • I : N:ilitl II7 I r I :--_-•: . d- LI • a 1 env g .E 3 •��ti..3 �N� II w .+ .�. . :_r t ._ y @ T. z.. 1 a I +"� C 67 g !' O �� <,- 61 re • W i3G "r� . .. w .�'r .s o 6l NI QC.� t� . '� a G' .ct C� v .: V ¢ u4 c-i �'r. e3 —% ! • }..� V) T • �!' •Gi ,D1fl ' ! 1 2.i I t-1 ' �-lYlJ L ]� o' .. 6 CITY OF RENTON bal. . = Mayor .... - •- _ : Jesse Tanner 0 — o June 2,2000 'i ---* .�. - .r S - The Honorable Members IP Metropolitan King County Council i i%l . King County Courthouse- - • —_v _ 546 Third Avenue,Room 1200 0- r�; :Seattle,WA 98104 = `- D - SUBJECT: Executive Recommended King County Comprehensive Plan 2000-Land Use Map • - . Amendment 2-May Valley Urban Separator Dear Council Members: . The Renton City Council and Administration have reviewed the proposed Map Amendment 2 to -redesignate a portion of Renton's Potential -Annexation Area from Urban Residential, -Low to• Greenbelt/Urban Separator. The City suppots the-proposed change. . Recognizing its environmentally sensitive attributes, the-City_.Council adopted R-1 as a proposed zoning regulation,or prezone,for the subject area in 1997: The susceptibility of the area to erosion and flooding, - the presence of May Creek arid other "potential issues recommend- against higher density residential development and higher intensity land uses. . . The area proposed for the Greenbelt/Urban.separator.-represents an extension of the public open space corridor that extends west• along May -Creek.""-to I-405. The area proposed for designation as Greenbelt/Urban Separator, together with the areas_under public ownership, implements the intent of Countywide Planning Policy LU-27. As stated:in Policy LU-27, the May Creek greenbelt provides "environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits". It also serves.as a visual break between the Cities of Renton and Newcastle. Finally, included in the draft May Creek Basin Action Plan, cooperatively produced by King County and the City of Renton, is a recommendation that areas.draining-to May Valley be maintained at existing zoned densities. The parcels'proposed-for Greenbelt/Urban Separator designation-fall within the area subject to this recommendation. Although the Basin Action'Plan is not yet adopted;the Comprehensive - - Plan amendment implements the recommendation. - - As the King County Council considers the amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan,the City •• . of Renton encourages the Council to adopt Map Amendment 2, V . cerely, - . - / . . Jesse Tanner andy.h orman,President. " Mayor Renton City Council - • e0-077roo:mp • . cc: Ron Sims,King County Exccurivc - • _ . Renton CityCouncilnxinb rs • Jay Covington Sue Carlson Owen Dennison 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 • LARRY PHILLIPS Chair Metropolitan King County Council November 1, 2004 James Benton,Chair Washington State Boundary Review Board of King County 400 Yesier Way, Room 402 Seattle,WA 98104 RE: City of Renton's Merritt II Proposed Annexation Dear Mr. Benton: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Renton's proposed Merritt II annexation currently under review by the Washington State Boundary Review Board (BRB). I am pleased by the City of Renton's interest in the East Renton Plateau annexation area and their willingness to expand their original proposed annexation area. However, I remain concerned about a key issue raised by King County Executive Ron Sims in invoking this review. This concern is: "The application of appropriate zoning to protect the regionally designated May Valley Urban Separator." The Urban Separator designation exists for several purposes. One purpose is to create and preserve open space corridors that define the boundaries between communities within the urban areas. Another is to create a seamless connection between open space lands that are part of the larger regional open space system. The May Valley Urban Separator was cooperatively identified by King County and the City of Renton as a regionally recognized and designated urban separator, as well as a part of the regional open space system. The Merritt II Annexation includes 20.59 acres of the May Valley Urban Separator. King County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code implement the Urban Separator designation through the R-1 zone category. King County's R-1 zone creates and maintains open space corridors by requiring development to be clustered to retain at least 50%of the site in permanent open space tracts. 516 Third Ave,Room 1200,Seattle,WA 98104-3272 206-296-1004 TTYITDD 206-296-1024 Fax 206-296-0370 larry.phillips@metrokc.gov James Benton November 1, 2004 Page 2 Though the City of Renton proposes to continue the intent of the urban separator by maintaining low residential density R1 zoning, the City does not currently have zoning provisions such as clustering and open space retention. Without such provisions, development could occur on the entire lot, thereby losing any chance of preserving an open space corridor. At best, the open space corridor would be contained within a native growth protection easement on a lot. Experience shows that encroachment will eventually occur,diminishing the value of the Urban Separator designation. Clearly, the City of Renton should modify development regulations relating to Urban Separators in order to ensure the creation and preservation of open space corridors. • Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) LU-27 provides that: "The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modification should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King • County review and concurrence." CPP CC-12 states: "All jurisdictions shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation tools available to create, maintain and steward the regional open space system which has been cooperatively identified." I respectfully request that the BRB bring the Merritt II annexation into compliance with the CPP by making the annexation contingent on the City of Renton's modification of their development regulations for urban separators. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sirs ere • Phillip , hair Metropolitan King County Council LP:lz Enclosure cc: The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive The Honorable Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor of Renton • The Honorable Dwight Pelz, Metropolitan King County Council The Honorable Rob McKenna,Metropolitan King County Council Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary,Washington State Boundary Review Board of King County Kurt Triplett,Chief of Staff, King County Executive Office Rick Bautista, Legislative Analyst,Metropolitan King County Council Alex Pietsc, Economic Development, Renton Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department vowCITY ON LATON RECEIVED Jean Rollins NOV 16 .2004 9605 143rd PL SE Renton, WA 98059 BUILDING DIVISION November 12, 2004 Rebecca Lind, Planning Manger Strategic Planning Division EDNSP Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: File Number LUA-04-141,A,PZ.ECF Dear Ms. Lind: I wish to submit the following comments for R-1 Zone Text Amendments - "Mandatory Clustering Provisions within Urban Separators". I strongly support this proposal. Pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), specifically WAC 197-11-444, consideration should be given to the relationship of a proposed action to existing land use plans. This proposal reinstates the existing land use plan presently in place under King County Code. The King County land use plan for urban separators maintains the open space corridor by requiring development to be clustered and retention of at least 50% of the site in permanent open space tracts. This proposal enacts similar code for the maintenance of urban separators within the City of Renton. This proposal rectifies the negative environmental impact of not providing for open space tracts. The lost of open space tracts could have significant adverse impacts on surface water,runo l7absorption, erosion and flooding. The mandatory clustering of this proposal creates a more efficient provision of public services, a consideration under SEPA. Comments specifically for May Valley Area: One of the 3 affected areas of this proposal is the May Valley Area. Under King County Code, May Valley zoning has been one dwelling unit per acre with the requirement for clustered development and at least 50 % open space retention. Historically under King County's jurisdiction this has been a requirement since 1983, the year King County adopted the "Newcastle Community Plan"which designated the area Suburban Cluster with provisions (SC P.) The SC zone was a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre with lot clustering . The P-suffix required permanent open space in reserve tracts created under the SC zone. • In 1994, during the development of the King County Comprehensive Plan in response to the state Growth Management Act, the county changed the area's zoning to R-1-P. This R-1 designation still meant one dwelling unit per acre and the "P" "provision" required clustering and 50%permanent open space as it had been for the previous 11 years. In 1998 Renton adopted a pre-zone for the area should it ever be annexed to the city. The purpose of the pre-zone was "to give certainty to the citizen/residents and any future land purchasers in Renton's Potential Annexation Area (PAA)". Everyone was invited to participate in the public pre-zone process, which began in the spring of 1996, thus to avoid controversy when, and if, the residents chose to annex. After almost two years of public process the City of Renton concurred with the County's land use for the area and prezoned development at one dwelling unit per acre. (City of Renton, Ordinance No. 4732, July 13, 1998) Cooperatively identified and fully supported by the City of Renton, in 2001 King County amended its Comprehensive Plan and adopted the permanent Greenbelt/Urban Separator designation for 107 acres in the west end of May Valley, all within Renton's PAA. The City of Renton ratified the May Valley greenbelt/urban separator. Since the King County zoning change in 1983 this area has been one dwelling unit per acre with the requirement for clustered development and 50%permanent open space. Nothing has changed in that regard for 21 years. Urban separators are a regional provision and are part of the County's planning to meet the GMA requirements for open space. Urban separators are REGIONAL. They provide for open space corridors within and between urban areas that each county and city shall identify pursuant to RCW 36.70A.160 of the GMA. The May Valley urban separator lies directly between the borders of the City of Renton and the City of Newcastle, i.e. between urban areas. Comments for all Urban Separators within the City of Renton: Besides historical zoning there exist a compelling rational why development regulations of the County must be retained for urban separators within the City of Renton. These 3 areas are designated Urban Separators ratified by the City of Renton. King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP)implement the State Growth Management Act(GMA). The GMA requires designation of urban growth areas and each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include jreenbelt and open space areas. (RCW 36.70A.110 (1) & (2). Further GMA states, "each county and city shall identify open space corridors within and between urban areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat,trails, and connection of critical areas." (RCW 36.70A.160) Countywide Planning Policies address the state's requirement for compact development densities as well as protection of environmentally sensitive areas though development clustering, greenbelts, open space and urban separators. The CPP call for preservation of open space and corridors through interconnected systems regionally and within jurisdictions locally. Specifically CPP CC-12 states, "All jurisdictions shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation tools available to create, maintain and steward the regional open space system which has been cooperatively identified."Therefore pursuant to CPP CC-12, the City of Renton, "shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation tools available to create, maintain and steward {this} regional open space system". The concept of Urban Separators was developed within the Countywide Planning Policies in response to the requirement of RCW36.70A.110. Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 states in part, "The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence." (These specific King County Code development regulations are enclosed) The development regulations for urban separators under County jurisdiction and Renton jurisdiction are not yet in sync. Those regulations being in sync are paramount to the regional provision of urban separators and the open space they provide under GMA. As the City of Renton development regulations do not currently require clustering and 50%permanent open space, this is a modification to the development regulations governing this area. Without this proposal the development regulations for urban separators within the City of Renton directly conflicts with Countywide Planning Policies, specifically Policy LU-27 and CC-12. In summary, I am in full support of this proposal. Urban separators are a regional provision and are part of the County's planning to meet the GMA requirements for open space. Urban separators are REGIONAL. They provide for open space corridors within and between urban areas that each county and city shall identify pursuant to RCW 36.70A.160 of the GMA. The CPP call for development regulations that maintain urban separators and the open space they provide. The May Valley area has been zoned one dwelling unit per acre with provisions for clustering and open space since 1983. This proposal once adopted will make the development regulations governing urban separators within the City of Renton consistent with Countywide Planning Policies specifically but not limited to LU-27 and CC-12. I thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Jean Rollins Enclosures: King County Code Title 21A.12.030 17a (7)&17b. King County Code Title 21A.14.040 A. King County Code Title 21A.14.040 C Zoning History cc `r^ f .. a g-,; 2)89.91.;ion;F Mike Thomas, Senior Policy Analyst,King County Office of Management and Budget C:lwordlsepaclull 1116/04 • (Kinc County 12-2001) 21A.14.010-21A14.040 ZONING 21A.14.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to Improve the quality of development by providing building and site design standards that: A. Reduce the visual impact of large residential buildings from adjacent streets and properties; B. Enhance the aesthetic character of large residential buildings; C.Contain sufficient flexibility of standards to encourage creative and innovative site and building design; D. Meet the on-site recreation needs of project residents; E. Enhance aesthetics and environmental protection through site design; and F. Allow for continued or adaptive reuse of historic resources while preserving their historic and architectural integrity. (Ord. 11521§45, 1994: 10870§361, 1993). 21A.14.020 General layout standards. For residential developments in the UR and R zones: A. The maximum length of blocks shall be 1,320 feet; and B. Except for corner lots, lots for single detached dwellings shall not have street frontage along two sides unless one of said streets is a neighborhood collector street or an arterial street. (Ord. 10870§ 362, 1993). 21A.14.030 Lot segregations -Zero lot line development. In any UR or R zone or in the NB zone on property designated commercial outside of center in the urban area, interior setbacks may be modified during subdivision or short subdivision review as follows: A. if a building is proposed to be located within a normally required interior setback: 1. An easement shall be provided on the abutting lot of the subdivision that is wide enough to ensure a 10-foot separation between the walls of structures on adjoining lots, except as provided for common Walt construction; 2. The easement area shall be-free of permanent structures and other obstructions that would prevent normal repair and maintenance of the structure's exterior; 3. Buildings utilizing reduced setbacks shall not have doors that open directly onto the private yard areas of abutting property. Windows in such buildings shall not be oriented toward such private yard areas unless they consist of materials such as glass block,textured glass,or other opaque materials, and shall not be capable of being opened, except for clerestory-style Windows or skylights;and 4. The final plat or short plat shall show the approximate location of buildings proposed to be placed in a standard setback area. B.• In the UR or R zones, setbacks on existing individual lots may be modified provided that the standards set forth in subsection A.1 of this section are met. (Ord. 12522§ 5, 1996: Ord. 11978§6, • 1995: Ord. 10870§363, 1993). 21A.14.040 Lot segregations -clustered development. if residential lot clustering is proposed, the-following provisions shall be met: A. In the R zones, any designated open space tract resulting from lot clustering shall not be - altered or disturbed except as specified on recorded documents creating the open space. Open spaces may be retained under ownership by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, or conveyed to a third party. If access to the open space is provided, the access shall be located in a separate tract; 8. in the RAzone: 1. No more than eight lots of less than two and one-half acres snail be allowed in a cluster; 2. No more than eight lots of less than two and one-half acres shall be served by a single cul- de-sac street; 3. Clusters containing two or more lots of less than two and one-;half acres, whether in the same or adjacent developments, shall be separated from similar clusters by at least one hundred twenty feet: 21 A--113 • 21A.12.030 ZONING • 14. The base height to be used only for projects as follows: a. in R-6 and R-8 zones, a building with a footprint built on slopes exceeding a fifteen percent • finished grade;and b. in R-18,R-24 and R-48 zones using residential density incentives and transfer of density • credits in accordance with this title. 15. Density applies only to dwelling units and not to sleeping units. ' 16. Vehicle access points from garages,carports or fenced parking areas shall be set back from • the property line on which a joint use driveway is located to provide a straight line length of at least • twenty-six feet as measured from the center line of the garage,carport or fenced parking area,from the access point to the opposite side of the joint use driveway. . 17a. all subdivisions and short subdivisions in the R-i zone shall be required to be clustered if• the property is located within or contains: . • (1) a floodplain, • (2) a critical aquifer recharge area, (3) .a Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Area, • (4) existing or planned public parks or trails,or connections to such facilities, (5) a Class I or II stream or wetland,or (6) a steep slope, or (7) a°greenbelt/urbar:separator"or"wildlife corridor"area designated by the Comprehensive Plan or a community plan. b. The development shall be clustered away from sensitive areas or the axis of designated corridors such as urban separators or the wildlife habitat network to the extent possible and the open space shall be placed in a separate tract that includes at least fifty percent of the site. Open space tracts shall be permanent and shall be dedicated to a homeowner's association or other suitable organization,as - determined by the director,and meet the requirements in K.C.C.2IA.14.040. On-site sensitive area and . buffers,wildlife habitat networks, required habitat and buffers for protected species and designated urban separators shall be placed within the open space tract to the extent possible. Passive recreation(with no development of recreational facilities)and natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian trails are acceptable • uses within the open space tract. 18. See K.C.C. 21 A.12.085. 19. All subdivisions and short subdivisions in R-1 and RA zones within the North Fork and -Lipper Issaquah Creek subbasins of the Issaquah Creek Basin(the North Fork and Lipper Issaquah Creek • • subbasins are identified in the Issaquah Creek Basin and Nonpoint Action Plan)and the portion of the Grand Ridge subarea of the East Sanunamish Community Planning Area that drains to Patterson Creek • shall have a maximum impervious surface area of eight percent of the gross acreage of the plat. Distribution of the allowable impervious area among the platted lots shall be recorded on the face of the plat. Impervious surface of roads need not be counted towards the allowable impervious area. Where both lot-and plat-specific impervious limits apply,the more restrictive shall be required. • 20. This density may only be achieved on R4 2.5 and RA 5 zoned parcels receiving density from rural forest focus areas through the transfer of density credit pilot program outlined in K.C.C. chapter 21A.55. • - 21. Base density may be exceeded, if the property is Iocated in a designated rural city urban growth area and each proposed lot contains an occupied legal residence that predates 1959. 22. The maximum density is four dwelling units per acre for properties zoned R-4 when located in the Rural Town of Fall City. 23. The minimum density requirement does not apply to properties located within the Rural • • Town of Fall City. (Ord. 14429'•2, 2002: Ord. 14190°33,2001:Ord. 14045° IS,2001:Ord. 13881° 1, • 2000:Ord. 135?1° I, 1999: Ord. 13527°1, 1999: Ord. 13274° 10, 1998: Ord. 13086° 1, 1998:Ord. • 13022° 16, 1998: Ord. 12822°6. 1997:Ord. 12549° 1, 1996:Ord. 12523°3, 1996: Ord. 12320°2, 1996:Ord. 11978°4, 1995:Ord. 11886°5, 1995:Ord. 11821°2, 1995:Ord. 11802°3, 1995:Ord. - 11798° 1, 1995: Ord. 11621 °41, 1994: Ord. 11555 0 5, 1994:Ord. 11157' 15, 1993:Ord. 10870°340, 1993). rrr 21A.14.040-21A.14.070 ZONING C. In the R-1 zone, open space tracts created by clustering required by K.C.C. 21A.12.030 shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts as required by the Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans or open space functional plans, to connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas as defined in K.C.C. 21A.06.1065, to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors designated by the Comprehensive Plan and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. King County may require open space tracts created under this subsection to be dedicated to an appropriate managing public agency or qualifying private entity such as a nature conservancy. In the absence of such a requirement, open space tracts shall be retained in undivided interest by the residents of the subdivision or short subdivision. A homeowners association shall be established for maintenance of the open space tract, (Ord. 14199 §234, 2001: Ord. 14259 §8, 2001: Ord. 14045 § 25,2001: Ord. 13022§19, 1998: Ord. 12822§ 8, 1997: Ord. 11621 §47, 1994: 10870§364, 1993). 21A.14.050 Lot segregations- UR zone reserve tract. Subdivision of UR zoned property of 10 or more acres shall be required to be clustered and a reserve tract shall be created for future development pursuant to the following provisions: A. The reserve tract shall be no less than 75 percent of the net developable area of the property to be subdivided. B. The reserve tract shall be configured to contain lands with topography and natural features that allow future conversion of the reserve tract to residential development at urban densities. C. The reserve tract may contain a single dwelling unit, provided: 1. The unit was included in the overall density calculations for the original subdivision creating the reserve tract,and 2. The unit was noted on the face of the original subdivision (plat or short plat). D. The reserve tract shall not be altered or disturbed except as specified on the face of the original subdivision (plat or short plat). E. The reserve tract may be retained under the ownership of the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the subdivisions, or conveyed to a third party. Regardless of ownership of the reserve tract, all restrictions relative to the reserve tract shall apply. F. The reserve tract shall not be used to satisfy the recreation space requirement of the original subdivision. G. The layout of the lots and roadways created in the original subdivision shall facilitate future development of the reserve tract. H. The lots created in the original subdivision shall be of a sufficient area to comply with on-site sewage disposal requirements, if public sewers are not available. I. The reserve tract shall not be eligible for further subdivision until such time that reclassification of the reserve tract occurs pursuant to the community plan area zoning process outlined in K.C.C. 20.08.030. J. Any proposed subsequent development on the reserve tract shall be governed by the development standards in effect at the time of such development. (Ord. 10870 §365, 1993). 21A.14.060 Townhouse development. In the R-1 through R-8 zones and in the NB zone on property designated commercial outside of center In the urban area, a building that contains a grouping of attached townhouse units shall not exceed a 200-foot maximum length without a separation of at least 10 feet from other groupings or rows of townhouses. (Ord. 12522 § 6, 1996: Ord. 11978 § 7, 1995: Ord. 10870§366, 1993). 21A.14.070 Attached dwellings and group residences - Applicability. The standards of K.C.C.21A.14.080 through 21A.14.090 shall apply to all new apartment developments exceeding four dwelling units, new townhouse development and new group residences except Class I Community Residential Facilities ("CRF-I"). Expansions of existing development that involve four or more dwelling units shall be subject to compliance with K.C.C. 21A.14.080 to 21A.14.090. (Ord. 13086 § 3, 1998: Ord. 10870§367, 1993). 21A-121 U C) 04 r• 1.4 C.0 jJj: t CSC-..` � ``.' v r( ctj v-,, ,..„ U 4) M •..• , Cv � C3 U J J J 0 J . j U C C =" Cv Cr) --+ :.r Q rV. ^_� r �.i •mil Cv' ` CC G v w QI r• :..f Cv — ;� v J L- •T. I ^ -( N.C t o f• �-' II t/: r II •� II C) ._.I J V) o 5 81 L^ c3 O O r —ti C 0 0 e� o �� cc a c G - -. ,,` iJ Y / .1,7 'f ii 71/,r % ''..;7„./r ' '- - , - . , i r „F.„r - ,- 1 ,1 r,,,- ...-,.:-:„..7-,---.,,-„,_5-__: x ' / ,E Ftx E xY �1 � /./7',• x E♦ � Ile/ N f//(� � Q� � � � yi / _� � � iWP xz�T xY xp � / , _y , , _ , „ , iri, :„ ,. ) 0 iiiiith. • II Ina _ , ,,, ,,. .! „,.,.. , . ,, , , ,. , ., ,„ . , ,./„..,,,,,,, ,,, . , 4 xG %�� % %Jf'- i U .r l �� 1 � .j// s. d .t,lp 2 a `„ . %// pp�� ij r, / /r xE xa . x / , 1 /( / �) xE ,1 CD ,--• p 2 ' ,, xp xz 74/1J, J1/1 if �� x.,/r (1 ', ' (' ,), . FF- *' xG ' ' � 1,: E � •. Y / / / r ; ! CD IJ a xY zy x tyi,/• t a; g x f _ _1-1 AD 111 MIN ,/, /ter x s.-.'x .. a En ,V /1� rjJ,J'�',/ YJ( fig / ��1/� x3 • xX G _ .�. Q a g ` y f/j/� 7, 01, s'( I ! 1, P'v �;i:.+ , G ' - x In xp��yx' ,//. f ) ' ( 1 ( �I , / . : ,lit, CD Eiiiii x f//f� 1 ) ' .1 sx x 1 '- r* 1� 2' 11 a ', /' /r/ �� 1 I lr/' / / i ;" l� a FK k tl` .� , /� 1 f I �/ x 2 - G - / /,,, r , " x t ‹,-r- P� zL xL y y tlx x` B I ) , 1 , I ' ,' I , ir 1 .I �/ xE xE Ex xg "I" xg E x E / / / 8 �t 1 ` t! ! rA � ,- . -R. r CD l j J%/ . . 11 ! //�� 0OS ��UR x�Ng mi.. EN x !/ �' - ! 1114 I ! t f.1 xg - 3 a`a O ' xE imixe ... g.., � x. xa f t t/ l,l� , I g (7 , 0 0 Q 3 r Y ' 1' _ %/•�! j 9Y S �,x x; Y x/ r, E A �� aii / 4 ! 5 oSao �• xp �` __ xy O -.3 e-+ 4 F, V1 1 itl i3 1 ,��, Aog� . infrii. _.__,/ r �,, r. , mp • zC \� 4 '(' i (1;(./l/ :df If:: / x', oJ !!f/�l _ Em (� L }( i I rr P ix 1/„ tyllirl. a�o - M E x II Ili' l' ' � j,r. f x9 .t, x aR �..� t `J r,r F 1 1 � xy J V`-f g � x xAil i. /'Mx (I r /� b �w �. -ir ` 7 r" ® Ts /_ i'r/� I 1\;, "'` i( fi, r ° 1 •1 * / 1/ - ?i� it i 11 1/ r ,y 4 re VNI E:' f 1 X i '' ,. ,' PIMII 2// / 1 \ \ ! ''rr ' 1' fri I l Iu.111Ints 11� 1 , , gx , xE x Jl J f // L✓j.ff/, ,/l, 1u t !� fo a4 G ! .! r � 9 % oIft � x ;/'(l x ua 7 16I ill r J- a G zJ : ff' z Y 00, . .... .____ __,..) / / ...:„....,;,,r2::„,..,..,i,,2 .. i,,,,,„,,, ,..„,,,,,,,,,. .:T! ,. _,...„,,. . . ... . di .,. , rili t; g0 t " af /f ,� . .1 _ J • ii, Orli t � Fi /r/,I,l / ` J � \ � � r r ::' , V ' R'6-ii,:e':%? r ,4 t1 ! v \ 'j i xr � kill.(;,!:-;;;1 r(i cl 'It I 114 (0/f ci , 11111114119, '; a >/ 1x xp I } x0 , i In ....._ ,..,„:,,,,,,,,,- x,,_ L� Ex tx G mr.4 „ ., , g • _ t \ V A — _ ,• g / 3 N N O `' J l \ �p xio( \ $ tilt. A o o xs x= xb e 1 1 xs x E } ax N 5IT O �� xpa alma ii6a . -,7 -, z , s 1 - �: T E �/ • y) z xt 2 , L Y0 ,„ y` V xE _ /s7 'i ¢4 G ix x4 xY ., x xY / E x 7x sx :' g /x;El xg X b t xa f . I .r !_" :�g1 x t, xL 5 x4 b T, f1 s E "sue (' xE 'T xT ;_5, xE M = ti x; k s i Y -- R I xg � r �� rr t ; I x2 2 - - ' _ E } ' a 1N ',g ,�11 y T xz y °i J d s W Y , - Efiza S. , lX L T !x tz x2 rO - E G EL • �` ' O _ I x xa R /„ • O ; z! xE r 2 x2 xT xr xF B rz$ x2 8 !x .T . xL - x a I. L-� x/x 1E QTx x Z. 'bE x xT L • xG _2x x 2 s T r !O z �„// E', s E ; E .: O y ri 7 � x E /E xp r,, x2 x _ • x g ) six i t x2 J, ; = x 'C' '� "/ z E ' x x xT xp Y1!, J r �� (> ' �� - "J f.-t -1 -PI-1 p C O; :Q kCf', "C3M,'•"y + t' rr ° ,« N M M CO CO CO coet 14 �. N, N if<.sN. u i-' v's,- wT,• 5,x•x:r, m - i ;\ice. '�w• iw ;`)— aQ�xs"'» -� Y.� `- �'�, ;�-_,`..11:-. .! � 'F� "-a::ms, � . a'��"`:,�.� m '' sA M' -`_.ram .� lk . -,c.. .� �;�,1. '�". am,. '� � i, -s emu,:,=c=- /; 3 3v m o . g " ..41, '-• o.t i,«,,-® ; a .. ' . CO r- O e} O M 4 `d O O _ 0 Z m V �E,'f � '�. �3�"��'.��i<4m .e' .. >,i'E' �-..7. � N O M M d' �i' M � d' � (� coCfl co , ;x ' ; ' , n= • u ,- • ,',- -:tea' "6 , ram'=.:. . •:0 r .n, 6w ; �L';•. xl a� " ma t-,,pt .�,. ; ;t. _ � ; , g ,nh; Oa m = `` .',.:� 'a::, ffi4.�, s; Z� y,. > � >_ ax r:. ; :�. ��. O O O d' � O � O � `� h M CO r a m'r z .® a«` a•} rs `,,o--0" n f"1.,,, 0"- ,� ,0 O O O •- ''- O a-- N N (� 'Q m,; s<;. - �. '`;.3:441,-^fir.,'.✓, ':9 ,.5+ ;', of.x,, , �'- i': ?3 _ _. a:' mNN �ttnhhooa) rnrncDcp CNI 0„ `f ;, ;- $, - -tip ,,..: ; ' -,t a '.; 4.m o � '/ ;;, 3x ''t 1 ',..-,,, ,,,,,,,,I' 4. CriV' c•o • • • Li — ,— NMM • 41 Z —y v„ - G � ' -- :°; A 4.`• c- NONNNNMMMM 2£�44 '"�'' id,- ` : ,, 1 • � ` fO �FL .:: -macY=t. �` �`,5^ � .,; G, aOa m 'm x� �4 " z � � :.• '"® � p', >C� 4NOd' � NC0000GOOOM�°' x < � ,. .g®G `:C000NNNNONNMd t— a0'53trit „ Z i*N-,, .,'gam OO s + « , = L31'M O In OrCONMMoN ,;, +'., , . ',h _, ,, '.r NNNNNMMM CV,O , y` -- . ,.. :. am: — 5� -" t7 EC� ,,• �' t•�!r!_O 0 M to COCOCO0, ,• ,';- : r,% 4a i s- ,. ff^'n. it- ., � ;` ''t*: '^� CV O � � u) n cr) to tC) CO A CO NZ U 7 " ,..,, a .., r, r, t' r, o N "4a: >.rr�- -cp.,"Y! v� ,a,.�" o _" .p�s'.`o'.< .' '-. \ \ o 0 0 \ o \ 0 0 0 0 0 \ ,* am' - > r4" �`• '. t•v' .�:iN,�- "-o o o O o 0 0 0 0 \ \ 0 0 0 - _'C?:'. ,,,�LS>' 't.`, ,. if?'CM O O I� CO to a0 M M O N m �,"^ ,d,,,-s,-`-?_,-,,`,r= 0,2 „a>�'" +£ dam ".t=�;; G ::- N ae. Yi0,', e,,L(y ,, . g «-a 14 O CO O O t- M O co In N N O • O a ' .. 5 `± rCw', <1°"sue• tier ''“,4 ` `:€,. ,�..<,x,s` ' ""(G. . 0 o 0 0 o co o •0 0 0 o N II) \��p�. Cat; +0,",� �q0 ti CA O t0 O CO CO .-- N M M 1n O C• .-°Af'&t In pi° oy" „ ,xr?..' s." 13,ty',w; �," ,.3, ., •s-,• -•�? - 4:1Ct,, .. �: f,rNM �tettott) toCDO0000a0 C9 Q ` � �,s. �' ",�'' �" ems'' .� '�,;� .�- co • • s Af CLiw " ,,l.t"V`CO..-CO 0) — COO 0) to n N. CO N — M ""ram' .'C'd N2 ... i e� k°,,fie•""' �•u' :co O) to O — Co O 4 4 Co O N - _ a<Q7N' LS1,r..4. GUI c7) t'-rn"`3,-,,,ugl .ulry .r �.C7)c O O CA O Cn O CA O CA i I I CAn , ,. ., �tn:rt (4)(4i"-° 4u)u us° 14) II=un'to to to to to to toto0 to �nr�G. C.kC o• ''' ' _Q.,•'a'o O' ;t�'U O O O O O O OOO O O y C' a '%C4 '. •. • :('4°C!`('.1 M'c%l'•Ci":i�{�+''a," Cv3.C',N CO �Y' •ct(N M M Co) M d' M ,zrN M M M ,'�. -rC r F`�GV;KV', JLa'-',.r`4 ,t Czt�,..N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 `,�.`t�"fi",>'P •�C') "' ,.s`'-,M.,4'``f'tl' #'•;0."c,i V�`V''" r,:5),t��0 9,d` CO 0 0 CO CO CO Cr) � M st M M M ,C "5. k e, :,., m lwe„, 5''3C3;C . E`?: et .-C" t C MOMMOOOOMOMOOO I 1 I QmUoWLL (92 - '- YJ2 100, February 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 54 OLD BUSINESS Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Transportation (Aviation) recommending concurrence in the recommendation of staff to approve the Committee Transportation Capital Improvement Fund 317 2004 reallocation. The Transportation: Fund 317 2004 appropriation remains the same as projected in the 2004-2009 Transportation Reallocation Improvement Program at$6,960,400 with the addition of the North Renton Redevelopment road improvement design funding of$1,500,000 for a total 2004 appropriation of$8,460,400. The reallocation includes four new projects as follows: North Renton Redevelopment, Rainier Ave. S. (SW 7th St. to S. 4th Pl.), Benson Rd. S. Pedestrian (S. 26th St. to Main Ave. S.), and Monster Road Bridge emergency design and construction. The new projects, which have not yet come before Council, are forthcoming in the near future. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Airport: Kenmore Air Harbor Transportation (Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Lease, 608 Building recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation that Kenmore Air Harbor,Inc. be selected to initiate lease negotiations for the 608 Building at the Airport to establish the following: 1. Aircraft radio and instrument repair station; 2. Aircraft and float sales office; 3. Float conversions; and 4. Potentially conduct partial to full-service maintenance for wheeled aircraft and seaplanes. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning& Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Committee regarding the revision to City Code for R-1 zone community separators. The Planning: R-1 Zone Committee met on February 19, 2004, to consider the request from D. J. Rollins Community Separators (January 26, 2004)to include a City Code amendment addressing clustering requirements in the R-1 zone in the 2004 work program. The Committee •-V recommended that this item be moved in priority ahead of the annual City Code amendment docket due to current annexation activity in the portion of the Potential Annexation Area prezoned R-1. The intent of the work program will be to evaluate opportunities to increase consistency between King County 's policies and zoning and Renton's requirements. The issue will remain in Committee pending staff and Planning Commission analysis and recommendation. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilman Clawson thanked D.J. Rollins and other citizens for bringing this matter to the City's attention. *MOTION CARRIED. Planning: Density Credit Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Transfers regarding density credit transfers. The Committee met on February 19, 2004, to consider correspondence from Davie Petrie (January 26, 2004) requesting that the City petition the King County Council in opposition to King County's density credit transfer program. Renton already commented on this issue in the context of the King County Comprehensive Plan update, and is on record as February 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 55 opposing the Transfer of Development Rights policies as now adopted. The Committee recommended that the Administration prepare a letter to the King County Council setting forth the City's concerns about application of the density credit transfer program in Renton's Potential Annexation Area. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the Robert Latecomer Agreement: SE Holmes'latecomer request(January 5, 2004)for sewer main extension. Mr. 100th St,Holmes (Hanson Holmes wanted to apply for a latecomer agreement for the installation of Consulting), Sewer Installation approximately 500 lineal feet of eight-inch sewer main, which was installed in April, 2003, under permit. In April, 2003,Mr.Holmes began construction of a 500-foot extension of eight-inch sewer main needed to serve his two lots. The construction of this line was completed in May, 2003. City Code requires application for a latecomer agreement to be made 30 days prior to issuance of the construction permit. City Code also requires that benefiting property owners be notified by mail and upon that notification, the owners may request an appeal hearing within 20 days of mailing. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to deny Mr. Holmes'request for a latecomer agreement. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Council President Persson pointed out that staff presented Mr. Holmes with an alternate solution. *MOTION CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending approval Finance: Vouchers of Claim Vouchers 223589 -224086 and 0 wire transfers totaling $2,609,668.65; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 49169 -49392, one wire transfer and 566 direct deposits totaling$1,762,427.03. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Lease: Intensive Asset Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending Management,200 Mill Bldg concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the three-year lease with (6th Floor) Intensive Asset Management,Inc. for the sixth floor of the 200 Mill Building. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the lease with Intensive Asset Management,Inc. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services: Summer Pointing out that there are many summer recreation employment opportunities Recreation Positions with the City,Councilman Corman stated that a Summer Job Fair will be held at the Renton Community Center on March 10th, and information is also available via a Community Services Department employment opportunities brochure. January 26,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 25 regulations, he cannot build a single dwelling if the structure is not already in place, and has to build a duplex or larger unit. Explaining that he does not have the resources at this time to build a duplex or to extend the roofline from the current home, Mr. Kernie asked for a compromise that allows the single unit now, with his guarantee that he'll increase the number of units in the future. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that City staff will investigate the concerns of all the previous speakers. Citizen Comment: Rollins - D. J. Rollins, 9605 143rd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, asked that Renton's zoning R-1 Zone Community code be modified so it achieves the same development patterns within the R-1 Separators zone community separators as in King County, which concern clustering and the retention of open space to protect sensitive environmental features. She stated that a disconnect exists between Renton's policies and the actual zoning code, and the code does not fully implement the Countywide Planning Policies in regard to community separators. Due to the City's pending annexations in a community separator, Ms. Rollins urged Council to consider the matter immediately to ensure the resulting annexations abide by Renton's vision for these areas. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler noted that Ms. Rollins also submitted a letter on this topic, which was listed under Correspondence on the agenda. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Cooke - Suzette Cooke, Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce President/CEO, 300 Renton Visitor's Connection Rainier Ave. N.,Renton, 98055, stated that the Renton Visitor's Connection, formerly the Renton Lodging Association, connects people to lodging, dining, and entertainment opportunities in the City of Renton. She introduced Janette Blaine with the Silver Cloud Inn, and Kathleen Keator, Business and Visitor Services Director for the Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Cooke announced that the Renton Visitor's Guide will be available next week, and noted that an advertisement regarding Renton that appeared in Horizon Alaska Air magazine generated over 1,500 requests for information. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO OLD BUSINESS, FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING THE RENTON VISITOR'S CONNECTION. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report regarding the Renton EDNSP: Hotel/Motel Tax Visitor's Connection funding. The Committee discussed the recommendations Revenue Allocation to Renton of the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and in regard to the request of Visitor's Connection,Chamber the Renton Visitor's Connection (formerly known as the Renton Lodging of Commerce Contract Association),the Committee recommended recognition of the successes of the group's tourism promotional efforts, and funding of the program's fifth full year of operation by allocating$100,000 in hotel/motel tax collections to that end. The Committee further recommended that the Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce for year five of the Renton Visitor's Connection tourism promotional effort. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. t January 26,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 26 CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of January 12, 2004. Council concur. January 12, 2004 CAG: 02-118,Traffic Community Services Department submitted CAG-02-118, Traffic Management Management Center,Fredhoes Center; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay Building Const Co estimate in the amount of$11,257.08, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$8,302.33 to Fredhoes Building Construction Co., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Plat: Liberty Ridge Phase 6, Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the Index Ave NE,FP-03-112 Liberty Ridge Phase 6 Final Plat; 122 single-family lots on 34 acres located on Index Ave. SE, south of NE 3rd and 4th Streets, and east of Edmonds Ave. NE (FP-03-112). Council concur. (See page 28 for resolution.) Annexation: Carlo, 136th Ave Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department SE& 140th Ave SE recommended a public hearing be set on February 9, 2004,to consider the 50% Petition to Annex and R-8 prezoning for the proposed Carlo Annexation; 37 acres bounded by 136th Ave. SE,NE 3rd St., 138th Ave. SE,and SE 132nd St. to 140th Ave. SE. Council concur. Annexation: Johnson, 142nd Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Ave SE submitted 10%Notice of Intent petition to annex for the proposed Johnson Annexation, 14.22 acres bounded by 142nd Ave. SE, SE 121st St., and NE 9th St., and recommended that a public meeting be set on February 9, 2004, to consider the petition. Council concur. Transportation: North Renton Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract in the Infrastructure Improvements, amount of$98,164.92 with W&H Pacific for engineering design and survey W&H Pacific services for the North Renton infrastructure improvements. Council concur. CAG: 03-067,Kennydale Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-03-067,Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Lakefront Sewer Improvement, Improvement; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay Blackwater Marine estimate in the amount of$5,827.33, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$16,729.37 to Blackwater Marine,LLC, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Patrick Miller, President,AFSCME Local 2170, Citizen Comment: Miller- AFL-CIO, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98055,requesting that the topic of Landscape Maintenance contracting out of parks maintenance work be placed on the Community Services Contract Services Committee agenda. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Petrie- Correspondence was read from Dave Petrie, 811 S. 273rd Ct.,Des Moines, Density Credit Transfers 98198,regarding the impact of Density Credit Transfers (DCT) on intended residential density zoning. He urged Council to petition King County Council to change or abolish them,pointing out that DCT degrade the residential quality of the involved area. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED.