HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 Title IV Code Docket & Related Amendments (2/28/2005) 4.
'- ..1,
G �,� O o O O O CO � W '"
w
CSO oOC� DA.' O tO-0 > a);xi
cwm 2C p U a�- O d ) 1. 6 '� OOV U {y W p ' a) , ts� �^ w,N y„C� C by ?� uCl" , ' C 4.,-0^ C 8""� Q•y o U'C•,.,w o� � o oCo ,^__,�
E• C o w o s a ••0 o U co l05 „ �, c> g - rgU o
mct yw° o r- ° m � GdQ � o o _
--10 oo >�o o>� > ° n xg o- 'U., bpi ›,5, , bo a-^y roCAc'-,•, A
G..8N a s • C • O 4U—., o awOY" wo Q., 0 0 p D,°ti U G, pit,
oc� oo�, aoU.bp'� ZUcna� 5 woo Z ^U OCI o•.^ Wo
.a clx $°; oW o gW m. 4z6 � ..yU� 0Z 0o CObD•-' ap". 'c ,p, 000w aa om a'd oW yGZ , ,ra 0. � C •gcqr nC,,.., a P•,` " ; ayo oU "0 • ', +
cx,
� o oGJ
r. o Ob "1oN , o G3 O coAacAy C oy� room ti. G . [ x bpz � d Ow ,
,4- aU >co rf) o o o. -G �O~ 8 > oai. O>4P; 't/-,- V m- 'Oc0 y ,CgC` maS - q U ,--i ^C E. p poc, to u , a.) ›. g 4 ,
,b . G o -, �nG ° o_0 • 0 oq am OcoQ03ro00' ed : of ai . m z,. oaL.° , ,-
vao w o ., O^o 'o c.m w a> ,_•,�m >.O' A : O > m o ti P. o N-do-i o dVic' , �• G : o•Ec E 0x _ [� .•
0 ap g- B0. E' . °. E , ot$ .a. °: n ' : o 8 e ,yq 0 ciy;
avd' o � ogmc ; W 'C 4c>•^ ydoyb � �W ,.gjOo' OOu ,-
Qc `°,a' g Vm -d � c3 o�4 b W oa o" UE 0 �o ,„=I 60
y .., G cu5c:G 5UUE.Oc7x c 2>� 3 w��U s V.
o .a a,op
-s N' CG > E C.b,� C , O m•- O;.8'q C 'O'O C �' U C oGOOO O0 oUO4,-, ,- dGGom • .,..c),,,iC .-,.y C °O U m y � F ) .od bUlE. ' m a+ ym c3 w by ,oW. wG mCdov m a � � g+ G a.� cal
LC
.UU oSC'nn` ao c> m s C 2•5oo,A0.w b'^. G'r d+w� . iT „ mo," mgpC)igC � _ oo ' 7,bc .� 0m �i °u -0t • °y0w8 "o00,4 ,as >- � oa �o � > y� q m O 'iOZC U 0by
4iuii:
obpCcC'.0 w0 ,ajw' .- GO 0G6 moy • o o m4 d .. aW =mo• ZE'•' a • O > d o• p -to °- b E i CI,„U o r G 0oQ 0 0.G-U v o.0 ma . C o ° Z T. oa8q gaCoeG gE Eb �Gg
.. G.0GGc v w > o o^ amCoI � cO x Gd cdo m wowEos ° gO.o-" Cco
03cC0O ti p dG o.noG` wG �ny 0m yO ,p :o•,.'p 0 0 z ^ J maG U m aH Gc-.3 — � o- 2 4.:i —
zq o0go • U o 0 m G4' c,,a ao. F.: aoa ° E ci as,E a) i G`�' C a.t
_ y 'aco 0 - ° 4i . 0 ' 06o.�gg .g2. 2vg ` ma: 0 6 acf b coApo Ea -oy >P. Gmo 'dC ,, 46 78 t"- ,ti ° x' •c Ga'
gU ;+rdH C3 N� Cc . m..[GwC.�4 co' "3 . oE�Oc C7oc�W gfr4 m
EZ0 �3yN C y. CL C W
��``ytttlllttill
a
- � to OO aa •• • a3' b N b0 , ,x •Q:.
«+ d .-• w �'L` cl; 4
O
W '- a �CIA CIA w c 0 Ti rt //s'� STP+���'�
3 c 3 ttltl�tlt�' to
ez
='Z E'' s Z oA o o a -. a 0 ac � to n ro '^' U bA x O •~ w y O 'O
Z E CD
0 3 CZ a a� Z74
U >, g
C . c = 0 w• O C al = y „V, vi w C'd t ,,
C. W o ° � .� c o o x d c
VV0/ U t c. > ci C i-' N a0 • r, a
V b (u 3 .
►-w a i = °: , -- ai a a) w tz o y
Q .2 2 — 2 O 0 o• a cn a 2 a Na
,..
bA
° a a.n . ti .. oad : acQ a
°° a)
NCQ cs a• a U ha
0 , c „•
. O �OA Nr a aaF'' ate' > .o oU 2 20 Q,
' ° - c H - a-
0. Hc4 a0 o Uv) F o E- o E-, 1 C/ CZ
September 26,2005 w.► Renton City Council Minutes Page 329
1
Ordinance#5153 An ordinance was read amending Chapters 4-1,4-2,4-4, 4-6 through 4-9, and
Planning: Development 4-11 of Title IV(Development Regulations)and Chapter 9-11 of Title IX
Regulations (Title IV)Docket (Public Ways and Property)of City Code by clarifying zone density controls
&Amendments over zone lot size provisions and removing Green River Valley landscaping
requirements; and by amending administrative, interpretation, and enforcement
procedures; fees and fee refunds and waivers; binding site plan regulations;
planned unit/urban development regulations; nonproject SEPA requirements;
and definitions. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES.
CARRIED.
Ordinance#5154 An ordinance was read adding Section 4-8-110.A.7 and 4-8-110.I to Chapter 8,
Planning: Growth Permits -General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations)of City
Management Hearings Board, Code regarding the filing of appeals to the Growth Management Hearings
Filing of Appeals Board. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT
THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance#5155 An ordinance was read amending Title II(Commissions and Boards) of City
Board/Commission: Code by eliminating the Boards of Adjustment, Ethics, Public Works,
Organization &Process Emergency Services Organization,Human Rights and Affairs, and Unfair
Modifications Housing Practices; adding the Advisory Commission on Diversity,Library
Board,Environmental Review Committee,LEOFF Disability Board,Lodging
Tax Advisory Committee, and Airport Advisory Committee; and updating all
remaining chapters. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER,
COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL
AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance#5156 An ordinance was read amending Chapters 4-2,4-4 and 4-6 through 4-9 of Title
Board/Commission: IV (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8-7 of Title VIII(Health and
Organization &Process Sanitation) and Chapter 9-2 of Title IX(Public Ways and Property)of City
Modifications Code by changing references from the Board of Public Works to the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. MOVED BY LAW,
SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS
READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance#5157 An ordinance was read repealing Chapter 1-6 of Chapter 6, Code of Ethics, of
Board/Commission: Title I(Administrative), and amending Chapters 4-1,4-4, 4-5,4-8 and 4-9 of
Organization &Process Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by changing references from
Modifications the Board of Adjustment to the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator.
MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance#5158 An ordinance was read vacating three portions of Bremerton Ave. NE, located
Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE, south of NE 4th St. and north of SE 2nd Pl. (Liberty Ridge LLC; VAC-04-007).
Liberty Ridge, VAC-04-007 MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT
THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS Councilman Clawson expressed concern regarding the emergency preparedness
Fire: Emergency Preparedness of individuals, families, and businesses, and inquired as to the possibility of the
City serving as a coordinating agency for other agencies and community groups
for the formulation of an emergency preparedness plan that applies to everyone.
MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR CITIZENS TO THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
September 19,2005 *.r Renton City Council Minutes "" Page 318
Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending
Latecomer Agreement: concurrence in the staff recommendation to grant preliminary approval of the
Wyman/Blood, Sewer application for a latecomer agreement request from Kevin M. Wyman and
Extension (SE 132nd St),LA- Durwood E. Blood for a period of one year. The application for latecomer
05-003 agreement was submitted to recover the$60,290.92 estimated cost of sewer
extension along SE 132nd St. at 152nd Ave. SE to allow development of two
single-family residences without the need for a previously approved site sewage
system.
The Committee further recommended that Council authorize the preliminary
assessment roll to be forwarded to the City Clerk, who will notify the affected
property owners. If no protests are received, after construction of the facilities
and approval of the final costs, Council can authorize preparation of the final
assessment roll and latecomer agreement. In the event there is a protest for
valid cause, a public hearing will be held to resolve any issues prior to
proceeding with this matter. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY
CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report
Committee recommending a public hearing be set on 10/3/2005 to consider the zoning text
Planning: Residential Uses in amendments residential uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. MOVED BY
Commercial Arterial Zone CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
ORDINANCES
Resolution#3772 A resolution was read declaring the City's intent that certain capital
Finance: Bond Proceed expenditures shall be reimbursed from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds or
Reimbursement, S Lake WA other obligations in an amount not to exceed$15,000,000. MOVED BY LAW,
Roadway &SW 27th SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS
St/Strander Blvd Connection, READ. CARRIED.
Capital Expenditures
The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the
Council meeting of 9/26/2005 for second and final reading:
Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapters 4-1,4-2,4-4,4-6 through 4-9, and
Regulations (Title IV)Docket 4-11 of Title IV (Development Regulations)and Chapter 9-11 of Title IX
&Amendments (Public Ways and Property)of City Code by clarifying zone density controls
over zone lot size provisions and removing Green River Valley landscaping
requirements; and by amending administrative, interpretation, and enforcement
procedures; fees and fee refunds and waivers; binding site plan regulations;
planned unit/urban development regulations; nonproject SEPA requirements;
and definitions. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL
REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON
9/26/2005. CARRIED.
Planning: Growth An ordinance was read adding Section 4-8-110.A.7 and 4-8-110.I to Chapter 8,
Management Hearings Board, Permits -General and Appeals,of Title IV (Development Regulations)of City
Filing of Appeals Code regarding the filing of appeals to the Growth Management Hearings
Board. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER
THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/26/2005.
CARRIED.
•
March 14,2005 ',,.• Renton City Council Minutes Page 84
UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval
Finance Committee of Claim Vouchers 235347-235730 and two wire transfers totaling
Finance: Vouchers $3,576,567.39; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 56119-56348, one wire
transfer, and 571 direct deposits totaling$1,821,204.14. MOVED BY
PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Lease: Engenio Information Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending
Technologies, 200 Mill Bldg concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the amendment to the lease
(3rd Floor),LAG-00-002 with Engenio Information Technologies, Inc. for Suite 300 on the 3rd floor of
the 200 Mill Building. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor
and City Clerk be authorized to sign the lease amendment. MOVED BY
PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning&Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report
Committee regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations)Docket and
Planning: Development related amendments. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff
Regulations (Title IV)2004 recommendation for the following items:
Docket&Amendments
• Title IV, Chapter 1: Housekeeping Changes
*k • Title N, Chapter 1: Sureties and Bonds (4-1-230)
• Title IV, Chapters 2 and 7: Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density
• Title IV, Chapters 2 and 4: Green River Valley Landscaping
• Title N, Chapter 8: Appeal Process -Growth Management Hearings
Board
• Title IV, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and State Environmental Policy Act
Process for Nonproject Actions
The Committee further recommended that school impact fee code
reorganization amendments be approved in concept,but that ordinance
preparation be deferred until the Finance Committee considers the Issaquah
School District impact fee amount.
The Committee further recommended that the R-10 zone not be amended to
allow attached townhouses or flats on pre-existing lots. The Committee
recommended that the issue of appropriate zoning and unit types for duplex and
townhouses uses be addressed through the Cedar River Sub-Area Plat process
in a separate work program.
The Committee further recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation
to deny requested amendments to the binding site plan amendment proposal and
support: 1)allowances for condominiums, and 2) revisions to the planned unit
development (PUD)regulations(4-9-150).
The Committee further recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation
for the PUD amendments and to require consistency with Ordinance 5124
regarding nonresidential open space standards. MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
ORDINANCES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT /4,/ aOO5
March 14,2005
2004 Title IV Code Docket and Related Amendments
(Referred May 10, 2004)
The Planning & Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff
recommendation for the following items:
• Title 4, Chapter 1: Housekeeping Changes
• Title 4, Chapter 1: 4-1-230 Sureties and Bonds
• Title 4, Chapters 2 and 7: Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density
• Title 4, Chapters 2 and 4: Green River Valley Landscaping
• Title 4, Chapter 8: Appeal Process—Growth Management Hearings Board
• Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process For Nonproject Actions
The Committee-further recommends that school impact fee code reorganization amendments
be approved in concept, but that ordinance preparation be deferred until the Finance
Committee considers the Issaquah School District impact fee amount.
The Committee recommends that the R-10 zone not be amended to allow attached
townhouses or flats on pre-existing lots. The Committee recommends that the issue of
appropriate zoning and unit types for duplexltownhouse uses be addressed through the"Cedar
River Subarea Plat"process in a separate work program.
The Committee further recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to deny
requested amendments to the binding site plan amendment proposal and support 1)
allowances for condominiums and 2) revisions to the PUD Regulations (RMC 4-9-150).
The Committee further recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation for the PUD
amendments and to require consistency with Ord. 5124 regarding nonresidential open space
standards.
Dan Clawson, Chair
&no , (J4tr._
Denis W. Law, Vice Chair
Marcie Palmer, Member
cc: Alex Pietsch
Rebecca Lind
March 14,2005 —' Renton City Council Minutes •61° Page 82
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 Specialized Recreation Winter Sports Banquet will be held at the
Senior Activity Center on March 16th. This year's event is generously
supported by a donation from The Soroptimist International of Renton.
* In response to the Governor's declaration of a statewide drought emergency
due to expected low water supplies from low snow pack in the mountains,
the City recommends that customers use water wisely. The City's water
supply is not immediately impacted by the low snow pack because the
supply comes from groundwater in the Cedar Valley Aquifer. However,
the City recommends that customers try not to use more water than
necessary,especially during summer months when water use can double
that in winter months.
AJLS: Remembering Former Mayor Keolker-Wheeler expressed sadness at the loss of former Mayor Barbara
Mayor Barbara Shinpoch Shinpoch who passed away on March 9th. Ms. Shinpoch served as Renton's
Mayor from 1980 through 1987. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler relayed that Ms.
Shinpoch did not want memorial services, but that anyone who was interested
could contribute to the Renton Salvation Army Food Bank and the Renton
Historical Society. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that Ms. Shinpoch will be
missed by everyone who knew her,and pointed out that she was a mentor and a
friend to her and a stellar example of a good leader.
AUDIENCE COMMENT Nora Schultz, 540 Williams Ave. N.,#12,Renton, 98055, spoke on the topic of
Citizen Comment: Schultz- her Title IV docket item concerning the R-10 zone amendment to allow
Development Regulations attached townhouses or flats on pre-existing lots. She indicated that the density
(Title IV)Docket,R-10 Zone calculation overrides the zoning of her property on Wells Ave. N., on which she
Amendment Request wants to build a duplex. Ms. Schultz expressed disappointment with the staff
Titrecommendation to take no action and instead address the issue through the
Cedar River Master Plan for 2005/2006, which means that she may be able to
obtain a building permit in 2008. Noting that it seems as though the
amendment will eventually occur anyway, Ms. Schultz asked Council to
expedite the process so she can build on her property sooner rather than later.
Councilman Clawson acknowledged Ms. Schultz's concern,but pointed out that
careful consideration is necessary when making zoning changes.
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 March 7, 2005. Council concur.
March 7,2005
Development Services: Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of
Oakesdale Commerce Center- dedication for a 40-foot-wide strip of land known as Tract E on the west side of
West Binding Site Plan ROW Springbrook Creek to fulfill a requirement of the Oakesdale Commerce Center-
Dedication, Springbrook Creek West Binding Site Plan (LUA-03-089). The land will be used for the
development of a trail and open space system. Council concur.
Development Services: Trench Development Services Division recommended approval of an ordinance that
Restoration &Street Overlay revises the trench restoration and street overlay requirements. Refer to
Requirements Transportation(Aviation)Committee.
0 a, 0 0 C CD G "' N vp�i ° � S c 0 0 Wit' w 0 r bri
CA
Y z o b D cr oa G .1, a 5.G w i z
-0 'v • a s C '' o _ w c n o• o < o 1 `< = (PP C 1 .1 ►-3
�' oo n as _ o a o � 5' c° � `� o' er co y
CO , C = o �. » p., o G.,� CD 0- z Ci"
S 0III
, '"-� �7 c = K s cn a rp o b a b4 'rJ
�^p •`ti 69 N N a' w O w 0rL, G O., S 1—, G. Y
v < w o 'b G o w o r-r
c _ co 7 LA C Z m < 'b 4 CD Q
a -, s ,— C, a. C c' �' N = " ro 0 O
a ;.
n •
n G = o 'cD 7 °na G,rit? -1 ? c r, ' !* b 0 w c ° 'ti o C"c o
Po 0
G.
0r � 1
< Q- < CCD ° e° = C x 10 0 w w �: Po l l O
o �(to „ „' 2 to c CD "'t � �y
c) 5 O `<611 w b as a a o 10
5 k CD
�. � ,
S o � � .ti c o o w "C
u a- o �' 0- ". O- '< � _sue ° Nol
O A' n 0. n G ~ m m w
n. = • S ti 0 VW ". CCDD
Po
0_ S o �' a ^G (o c C11.
R O� o a 41
°c o o CD rigcn
co 05'
''Cl c x m x w cco cra
- - -°J' 21 S O..`< CCD CCDD MI rig
CD A
c-
/ f
1���N
," m oo ''' " m o a °°m z za• 0 w00 gyo w g —CY no
m am aA '� wWm�•cnb P E 8'O'- .el"•
.x woo 5 rr �' c° m o �o '„q,�O p p`lLiln
00m S'o< '.b m b'o m n'a ° n lt�� aT m
Cii o m �,.< warnmm owo �*�� p bt"d�iy
ND o �cD w �,""+ w `a m (s)—
CDp 0 a, • w�" m ddo'mJ�( ° ow +, O
m d o,0 a 8 m '8 0.0 �`<$ oo'(w G�
February 28,2005 Renton City Council Minutes
• Page 59
Mr. Renner also announced that Ryan Spencer was chosen as the 2004
Employee of the Year, and the Facilities Technical Team was chosen as the
2004 Team of the Year.
PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE, accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
Liberty Ridge,VAC-04-007 public hearing to consider the petition to vacate three portions of Bremerton
Ave. NE, located south of NE 4th St. and north of SE 2nd Pl. (Liberty Ridge
LLC; VAC-04-007).
Karen McFarland,Engineering Specialist,explained that the petitioner plans to
use the subject vacation area in the proposed Elmhurst Plat to create a uniform
half-street right-of-way width along the western half of Bremerton Ave. NE.
She noted that the vacation area does not contain any City facilities. Ms.
McFarland reported that the vacation request was circulated to various City
departments and outside agencies for review and no objections were raised.
Continuing, Ms. McFarland pointed out that both the Transportation Systems
Division and the Development Services Division recommended that a 25-foot
right-of-way width from the road centerline be maintained. She stated that staff
recommends approval of the vacation subject to the two northerly portions
being set to a maximum vacation width of 12.5 feet to allow for the 25-foot
right-of-way width, and subject to the petitioner providing satisfactory proof
that outside utilities are satisfied with any easements necessary to protect their
facilities.
Public comment was invited.
David Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900, Bellevue, 98004, representing the
petitioner Liberty Ridge LLC, expressed agreement with the conditions as
recommended by staff and urged Council to approve the vacation proposal.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE
THE REQUEST TO VACATE THREE PORTIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
ALONG BREMERTON AVE. NE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: THE TWO NORTHERLY PORTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL
REQUEST BE SET TO A MAXIMUM VACATION WIDTH OF 12.5 FEET,
AND THE PETITIONER PROVIDE SATISFACTORY PROOF THAT
OUTSIDE UTILITIES HAVE RECEIVED AND ARE SATISFIED WITH
ANY EASEMENTS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THEIR FACILITIES IN
THE VACATION AREA. CARRIED.
Planning: Development This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Regulations (Title IV)2004 accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
Docket&Amendments public hearing to consider the 2004 City Code Title IV (Development
Regulations)Docket and related amendments.
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Administrator, explained that the
purpose of the Title IV Docket is to consider annual zoning code text
amendments proposed by both applicants and the City of Renton. The City
reviews the text amendments as a group once a year, although some items may
February 28,2005 '`.r Renton City Council Minutes •.,of Page 60
be the subject of separate work programs. He introduced Lisa Grueter,
consultant with the land use consulting firm Jones & Stokes Associates, who
reviewed the ten amendment requests.
Lisa Grueter stated that the proposed changes to Title IV, Chapter 1, include:
cleaning up long-standing inconsistency, interpretation, and organization
issues; addressing school impact fees by consolidating subsections and
removing provisions that are more suitable for the interlocal agreement or
appear unnecessary; and instituting the current City practice in cases where the
City requires securities or bonds. In Chapters 2 and 7,Ms. Grueter noted that
amendments are recommended to address an inconsistency between the
minimum lot size and the maximum density in single-family zones.
Ms. Grueter reported an amendment to the R-10 zone (Chapter 2) proposed by
Nora Schultz, who owns a property on Wells Ave. N. Ms. Schultz desires to
build a duplex that meets the minimum lot size; however, the density is greater
that ten units per acre. City Code does not allow attached units on pre-existing
smaller lots if the maximum density is exceeded.
Ms. Grueter reviewed four options that address this matter as follows: 1)No
action; 2) Allow multiplexes on individual pre-existing lots that meet the
minimum lot size but not the maximum density in the North Renton area only;
3) Allow multiplexes on individual pre-existing lots that meet the minimum lot
size but not the maximum density by requiring a conditional use permit; and 4)
Amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map and rezones to higher densities in
selected areas such as North Renton. Ms. Grueter stated that the Planning
Commission and staff recommends taking no action on this request, and
addressing the matter through the Cedar River Master Plan for 2005/2006 for
the North Renton area.
Moving on to the amendment concerning habitat set-aside in the Green River
Valley(Chapters 2 and 4),Ms. Grueter noted that the City's land acquisitions
have exceeded the original multijurisdictional target, and staff recommends
determining and documenting that the two percent habitat set-aside provisions
have been fulfilled and can be deleted from City Code. She reported another
amendment,proposed by Courtney Flora, regarding binding site plan (BSP)
provisions (Chapter 7)that are applicable to commercial, mixed use, and
industrial zones. Ms. Flora requests allowing subdivision of the Washington
Technical Center and similarly situated properties by treating the site as a
whole when considering compliance with zoning and development standards.
Ms. Grueter noted concerns with this proposal, including future property owner
disputes, creation of nonconformities, smaller lots and fragmentation,and
economic shifts. She reviewed the BSP options as follows: 1)No action; 2)
Revise BSP provisions so that, when reviewed as a whole, the site meets all of
the zoning and subdivision requirements; 3)Revise BSP provisions to include
allowances for condominiums as an option when the minimum lot size
requirements cannot be met through the BSP process; and 4)Revise the
planned unit development(PUD)regulations to allow for commercial/industrial
PUDs.
Continuing,Ms. Grueter reported that the next amendment concerns Growth
Management Hearings Board appeals (Chapter 8). Staff recommends correctly
identifying the appeals process for City Council actions on Comprehensive Plan
and Development Regulation amendments. Another amendment concerns the
February 28,2005 Renton City Council Minutes — Page 61
permit and SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act)process for nonproject
actions (Chapters 8 and 9). Ms. Grueter said this proposal addresses the timing
of the environmental review and the separation of the SEPA appeal and the
legislative hearing.
Ms. Grueter stated that the final amendment concerns PUD regulations
(Chapter 9). She explained that PUD regulations allow modification of
standard development regulations in exchange for open space or innovative
designs not otherwise allowed by the basic regulations applicable to a site. The
proposal modernizes the regulations, and provides a process to request
modifications to development standards in exchange for public benefits. The
amendments address applicable zones, the types of regulations that may be
varied with the PUD regulations,and other procedural items. In conclusion,
Ms. Grueter indicated that all docket items will remain in the Planning and
Development Committee for study.
In regards to the PUD regulations, Councilman Corman inquired if the
possibility of allowing apartment houses, via clustering, in the R-1 zone has
been eliminated. Ms. Grueter confirmed that variations are not allowed to the
permitted uses or the densities.
Public comment was invited.
Nora Schultz, 540 Williams Ave. N.,#12, Renton, 98055, spoke on the subject
of her docket item concerning the R-10 zone amendment. She pointed out that
the nature of the North Renton area is changing, the R-10 zone only applies to a
portion of the North Renton area, and the area is already highly dense, due in
part to a number of existing non-conforming use structures. Ms. Schultz
indicated that a duplex will not adversely affect the area, and expressed her
support for the second or third option presented by City staff that allow
multiplexes in only North Renton or by conditional use permit.
Courtney Flora, 2025 1st Ave.,#1130, Seattle, 98121, spoke on behalf of
Transpacific Investments, the proponent of the BSP amendment that applies
zoning and development standards to the entire B SP site rather than each
individual lot. Noting that the amendment has been adopted by other
jurisdictions, she explained that the proposal allows sites to be broken up and
marketed to individual users. She pointed out that this will help Renton, as the
City is experiencing a high vacancy rate, and will level the playing field with
other jurisdictions. Ms.Flora noted the importance of attracting businesses that
can actually use what is available. In regard to the PUD amendments, she
stated that it is unclear whether an existing office park will be able to comply
with those regulations.
Stan Kleweno, 101 SW Main St.,#350, Portland, OR,97204, stated that
Transpacific Investments is pursuing the BSP process amendment as a way to
compete in a challenging market. He indicated that it is difficult for individual
tenants and businesses to build and develop a property on their own, and this
would be an opportunity to attract tenants, owners, and users to the area. Mr.
Kleweno acknowledged that the leasing market can change; however, the
ability of a business proprietor to own property is invaluable in the current
market condition or any other.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development
Regulation Revisions 2004
February 28, 2005
The City reviews Municipal Code Title IV text amendments as a group once per year, although
some items may be the subject of separate work programs. The purpose of the Title IV Docket is
to consider annual zoning code text amendments proposed by both applicants and the City of
Renton. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed code amendments considered as part of the
Docket or as individual related work programs. A summary of the requests, options reviewed,
and staff and Planning Commission recommendations is available. Contact Strategic Planning at
425-430-6575 for a copy.
Table 1. Title IV Amendment Requests
Title 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1
Docket Item: Yes
Proponent: City of Renton
Summary: Amend to be more concise, better organized, and internally consistent.
Title 4, Chapter 1: School Impact Fees: 04-2
Docket Item: Yes
Proponent: City of Renton
Summary: Amend to be more concise, and remove provisions that are more suitable for the Interlocal
Agreement or appear unnecessary.
Title 4, Chapter 1: 4-1-230 Sureties and Bonds
Docket Item: No
Proponent: City of Renton
Summary: Amend RMC 4-1 Administration and Enforcement to codify common City of Renton
conditions and practice in cases where the City requires securities or bond.
Title 4, Chapters 2 and 7: Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density: 04-5
Docket Item: Yes
Proponent: City of Renton
Summary: Consider possible amendments to Title 4 in order to address an inconsistency between
minimum lot size and maximum density in single-family zones.
Title 4, Chapter 2: R-10 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13
Docket Item: Yes
Proponent: Nora Schultz
460
Table 1. Title IV Amendment Requests
Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-10. The
proponent's desire is to build a duplex on the property that meets the minimum lot size, which would
result in a density greater than 10 units per acre. Section 4-2-110F specifies that the density
requirements take precedence over the minimum lot size standards. The code does not allow infill of
multifamily structures on existing lots that meet the minimum lot size but do not comply with density
limits. Options reviewed address possible policy and code amendments that allow multiplexes(2, 3, or
4 units) on lots that meet the minimum lot size but not the zone density. Some options would apply
design standards. Some options would limit the effect of the regulations to North Renton, or limit the
multiplexes by requiring a conditional use permit. Another option conceptually reviews the potential
for Comprehensive Plan land use map and rezones; however this would require review in 2005 as part
of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
Title 4, Chapters 2 and 4: Green River Valley Landscaping: 04-6
Docket Item: Yes
Proponent: City of Renton
Summary: Determine/document if 2%habitat set-aside provisions have been fulfilled and can be
deleted from the code.
Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivisions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8
Docket Item: Yes
Proponent: Courtney Flora
Summary: The proponent has opted to seek a text amendment to RMC 4-7-230, the City's binding site
plan regulations, to allow further subdivision of the Washington Technical Center and similarly
situated properties by treating the site as a whole when considering compliance with zoning and
development standards. The binding site plan process is applicable to commercial,mixed use, and
industrial zones. Other code amendment options address provisions to combine condominium
ownership with binding site plans, as well as amending the current PUD regulations (see below).
Title 4 Chapter 8: Appeal Process—Growth Management Hearings Board: 04-11
Docket Item: Yes
Proponent: City of Renton
Summary: Correct the appeals process for Growth Management Act actions.
Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process For Nonproject Actions
Docket Item:No
Proponent: City of Renton
Summary: Identify and address options for the timing of environmental review for nonproject actions
and consider amendments for consistency with SEPA rules regarding the separation of hearings for
nonproject actions.
Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development(PUD) Regulation Update
Docket Item: No
Proponent: City of Renton
Summary: The proposal would modernize the City's current PUD regulations and provide a process to
request modifications to development standards in exchange for public benefits. The amendments
address applicable zones, the types of regulations that may be varied with the PUD regulations, and
other procedural items.
2
Renton Title IV
Docket
City Council Hearing
February 28,2005
oteimmimmommatc
Purpose
■ Adopt a series of regulation amendments to Title
IV as part of the annual docket process(RMC 4-
9-025)
■ Most procedural or housekeeping
• Substantive issues related to R-10 zone,binding
site plan provisions,and PUD regulations
Proposed Amendments
A.4-1:Housekeeping Changes
B.4-1:School Impact Fees
C.4-I:Sureties And Bonds
D.4-2 and 4-7:Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density
E.4-2:R-10 Zone,Multiplexes on Pre-Existing Lots
F. 4-2 and 4-4:Green River Valley Landscaping
G.4-7:Subdivisions Regulations:Binding Site Plan
H.4-8:Appeal Process—Growth Management Hearings Board
I. 4-8 and 4-9:Permit and SEPA Process For Nonproject Actions
J. 4-9:Planned Unit Development(PUD)Regulation Update(related to
BSP).
1
RMC 4-1 Housekeeping
Changes
Amendments to clean up long-standing
inconsistency,interpretation,and organization
issues identified by various staff PBPW.
List of Comp.Plan Elements matches GMA
Duties of interpretation(e.g.Zoning Administrator)
Definitions of violation and statement of remedies/penalties
Reorganization of PW fees(no change to fees themselves)
Clarify that fee waiver for CD,RM-U and RM-T replenished
from tax revenues(not just mitigation fees replenished).
mielimiimummummere-
School Impact Fees
• Purpose:Reduce and streamline Title 4&set up a
framework within which future amendments
could be made to convert SEPA mitigation fees to
impact fees if City pursues this approach.
Consolidate 14 subsections into five subsections and
Remove provisions that are more suitable for the Interlocal
Agreement or appear unnecessary.
• Review of ISD Capital Plan and any fee
adjustments--separate process.
t
Sureties
. Overview:What are sureties?
Devices that set aside funds as a guarantee to ensure that
infrastructure,landscaping,and environmental mitigation are
installed and maintained to City satisfaction,or for temporary
uses to ensure they are removed when the time limit is reached.
. Features-Proposal would institute current City practice:
Type of security devices:cash,letter of credit,set aside letter,
savings account,and performance or maintenance bond.
Requirements(City is payee,binding heirs,etc.)
City approval tied to term of security device-If the device Is not
renewed and the Improvements or conditions are not fulfilled,the
City's approval would lapse.
Ability to transfer obligation of the security device.
Provisions addressing default,failure to complete work.
Release of securities for private/onsite Improvements and for
public improvements.
2
■
Min. Lot Size and Max. Density
■ Amend the RMC 4-7(Subdivision Regs)to require:
Further subdivision of lot(s)must be consistent with the
applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the
plat as a whole.
• Amend the RMC 4-2 single family zones with a note:
Covenants shall be filed as part of any final plat that establishes
that future division of land within the plat must be consistent with
the maximum density requirements as measured within the plat
as a whole.
■ Does not affect R-10 and R-14 because those zones
explicitly state that density controls over lot size and
covenants are required to establish the density and unit
mix for those zones.
■
■
R-10 Zone Amendment
■ A Renton property owner,Nora Schultz,owns a property
on Wells Ave N zoned R-10.
• Desire is to build a duplex on the property.
■ R-10 zone allows multiplexes(up to 4 attached)on
smaller lots in new subdivisions if overall plat density is
met.
• Zone does not permit attached units on preexisting
smaller lots if max.density would be exceeded.
■ Question—should the R-10 zone be amended to allow
multiplexes on preexisting lots that meet the min.lot size
but exceed the max.density?
>
• Q
� \\\
-10 in N. Renton
I 10'
1M D `5.000 Sq.Ft.
E—_; 5,000-7.499 Sq.Ft.
I 7.500-10,000 Sq.Ft.
/ 1 / >10.000 Sq.Ft.
Dpelk 14
3
R-10 Options
l.No Action--Density Controls over Lot Size.
A"Cedar River Master Plan"to be developed in 2005/2006.Could
look at zoning options In the North Renton area.
2.Allow multiplexes on indiv.pre-existing lots that meet
the min.lot size but not the max.density—but only in N.
Renton
Policy LU-165 would need to be amended.
Could require some standard design features.
The mix of SF and MF could change to become more uniformly
multiplex in N.Renton on lots smaller than 8,700 s.f.
3.Allow multiplexes on indiv.pre-existing lots that meet
the min.lot size but not the max.density—but by
ADCUP. Same issues as#2,more oversight.
■
R-10 Options (cont.)
4.Amend Land Use Plan/Rezone to higher densities
if City vision has changed in selected areas such
as North Renton arterial frontage lots.
e.g.RM-T zone:"The RM-T Zone occurs in areas where
compact,traditional residential neighborhood
development already exists,or...where traditional
residential neighborhoods are planned in the future.
Density ranges from fourteen(14)to thirty five(35)
du/acre."
Policy decision requiring Comp.Plan amendment.
■
a
R-10 Recommendation
■ Recommendation:Option I No Action—
Do not amend the R-10 zone.
Address the Issue of appropriate zoning and unit types through
the"Cedar River Master Plan"work program for 2005/2006
addressing the North Renton area.
■ Allowing duplexes on existing smaller lots meeting the
lot size of 5,000 s.f.
Could lead to densities that are significantly higher than the R-10
zone maximum-up to 17 du/ac
Would not meet the current R-10 zone intent.
Allowing lot size to control may mean more multiplexes In
established R-10 neigh'ds without a way to control dwelling mix
as happens in newly created larger plats.
4
Green River FF� `
7 �� Y—." dh�
Valley: City A j lL i
Ownership 4
& Wetlands �� i -k
s
„� jj r
Y • r I
1 ,a F
1 Imp=
441-1 t
Green River Valley '' ""
■
Green River Valley Habitat Set
aside - Recommendation
■ The City should repeal the 2%habitat set aside
regulations in RMC 4-2 and 4-4.
City's land acquisitions have exceeded the original
multijurisdictional target(purchased 340 ac.with approx.
208 ac.of wetlands greater than 110 acre target)
The City's critical area,shoreline,and clearing regulations
are essentially substitute regulations that achieve the
intent for habitat protection that the 2%set aside was
enacted to provide.
■
■
Binding Site Plan - Request
■ Revise BSP provisions so that,when reviewed as
a whole,the site meets all of the zoning and
subdivision requirements.
5
a
Binding Site Plans - Key Issues
. Pitfalls of treating the site as a whole:
Future property owner disputes—need for complex cross
easements,Joint use and maintenance agreements,etc.
Creation of nonconformities—that require ongoing administrative
interpretations and review.
Smaller lots and fragmentation—reduces the redevelopment
potential of the sites—"freeze"development in place.
Reducing the individual lot sizes below the minimum zone
standards could circumvent the zones'purposes.
.Industrial,Office,and Urban Center zones--larger scale,
.Corridor Commercial zone intended for smaller comm.&bus.
development.
.Allowing parcel fragmentation could result in defacto'Yezones".
a'
eiMMMIIillMMIIIMIMMIIIriW
Binding Site Plans- Key Issues
(cont.)
The incremental and potentially uncertain benefit of attracting a
different pool of"business buyers"as opposed to"business
tenants"appears short-term In nature.
Economic shifts may result in a greater demand for vacant space
without the need for the code amendment.
The City should consider Its overall long-term vision:
.The City is trying to reinvent itself and shouldn't limit long term
economic development goals;
.The City is an Urban Center which will have spin-off and
supporting economic development;
. Having zones with larger properties are important for the City's
vision/strategies.
.
t
At t� t
gir a {'r
1(
I ... 't, .'' I
' � f " .4
le , `r i
FIN f ,
au . i e
r .
Sample Binding Site Plan Lot Configuration
6
•
Binding Site Plans - Options
No Action-Keep the current requirements that the
development standards for the underlying lot apply to
each individual lot created.(Staff recommendation)
Revise BSP provisions so that,when reviewed as a
whole,the site meets all of the zoning and subdivision
requirements.
Revise BSP provisions to include allowances for
condominiums as an option when the minimum lot size
requirements cannot be met through the binding site plan
process.
Revise the PUD Regulations(RMC 4-9-150)to allow for
commercial/industrial PUD's.
InIgliMMIIIIIIIMIIMMISW
GMHB Appeals
• Purpose:Correctly identify the appeals process for City
Council actions on Comprehensive Plan Amendments and
Development Regulation Amendments.
Tables in RMC 4-9 show that appeals of City GMA related decisions
would go to Superior Court,when they would need to be be filed
with the Growth Management Hearings Board(GMHB).
The GMHB decisions then may be appealed to Superior Court.
• Ordinance specifies:
Who may file an appeal
Matters which may be appealed
Who has standing
Time for an appeal
Contents of Petition
•
■
Changes to Permit Process --
Nonproject
• Public Process—No Code Changes
The Notice of Application process should be retained.
Public hearing notices would continue.
Consider other public participation techniques when preparing
the public participation plan for the annual CPAs or Title IV
docket amendments.GMA requires plan;City practice more
formalized.
Administrative Appeal-Keep current process that allows.
• Environmental Review—Code Amendments.
For nonproject actions,start env.review before hearing on
proposal,but issue SEPA determination(e.g.DS,DNS,MDNS)
after hearing on proposal-lets SEPA be conducted on more
firmly described proposal.
Housekeeping:Related to hearings on nonproject actions-SEPA
appeal and legislative hearing do not need to be combined.
7
mi,AMMimminuminw
PUD Amendments- Overview
■ Outgrowth of BSP docket options,but long outdated.
■ PUD regulations allow modification of standard
development regulations in exchange for open space or
innovative designs not otherwise allowed by the basic
regulations applicable to a site.
■ E.g.cluster developments,low impact developments,zero
lot line developments,or other approaches may be
allowed with the process.
■
a
PUD Amendments - Issues and
Approach
■ Which zones are eligible?
Currently the City's PUD regulations only apply to
residential zones.
Recommended code allows Planned Unit Development
regulations to be applied in residential zones and
commercial,mixed use and industrial zones.
.Options include allowing PUDs with any City zone,or any City
zone except R-1 and R-4 zones,which have their own cluster
regulations,or the COR zone since it is like a"master plan"zone
now with few numeric standards.
■
a
PUD Amendments - Issues and
Approach (Cont.)
■ What regulations should be allowed to be varied?
Allow variations to:
.Zoning,subdivision,and parking standards(continue)
.Property Development Standards in RMC 4-4
.Street standards in RMC 4-6.Streets could be public or private.
.Allow modification of other standards with City Council approval
D/sallowvariatioos to:
.Allowed land uses or maximum densities
.Utility standards in RMC 4-6(e.g.water,wastewater,storm water),
.Building/fire codes in RMC 4-5
.Procedures
.CAR,SMP,Tree Cutting/Land Clearing,and Grading
.Can combine modifications/variances to these with PUD(keep
same review criteria).
8
PUD Amendments- Issues and
Approach (cont.)
. Open Space:Currently,35%of the site inc.critical areas.
Since critical areas may vary from site to site,an alternative
would be to place emphasis on common usable open space.
Residential:Open space must be equal to or greater in size than
the total square footage of the lot area reductions requested by
the PUD.
Mixed Use,Commercial,Industrial:Similar to Urban Center req'ts
with some recent amendments by EDINISP.
. Process:
City Council review of Preliminary PUD and HEX review of Final
PUD.
Consider HEX review and approval for existing nonresidential
developments proposing to use the binding site plan process.
The decision would be appealable to the City Council.
9
-7 ,._AIL !-4.7-
®O91 S aasel ,.2rzti-,.,.- ciagei ssaappy ®A 13AV V
Elizabeth McNagny SEPA/GMA Coordinator Steve Penland
Department of Social and Health Department of Ecology Department of Fish and Wildlife
Services Post Office Box 47600 Post Office Box 43155
Post Office Box 45848 Olympia,WA 98504-7600 Olympia, WA 98504-3155
Olympia,WA 98504-5848
Review Team
Harriet Beale Department of Community, Trade and Bill Wiebe
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Economic Development Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 40900 Growth Management Services Post Office Box 47300
Olympia,WA 98504-0900 Post Office Box 42525 Olympia,WA 98504-7370
Olympia,WA 98504-2525
Anne Sharar Nancy Winters John Aden
Department of Natural Resources Department of Corrections Depa
Post Office Box 47001 Post Office Box 41112 Divisioonn of
t Drinking Water
of Health
7822
Olympia,WA 98504-7001 Olympia, WA 98504-1112 Olympia,Pos Office WABo9 504-
98504-7822
Joyce D. Brandow Jose Ramirez Greg Smith
429 Wells Avenue N PO Box 1441 6811 Ripley Lane N
Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98056
Lynn Simpson Dan Sperry Courtney Flora
111 Wells Avenue N 2504 Crestmont Place W Seattle,1st Aveonue #1130
Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98199 WA 98121-2100
Nora Schultz
540 Williams Avenue N #12
Renton,WA 98055
®09TS Kg apidwa$asn wisiaagS paaj 41oowS
CITY OF RENTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 28th day of
February, 2005, 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:
2004 Title IV (Development Regulations) Code Docket and related amendments
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
February 11, 2005
Account No. 50640