Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAmendments to Setback & Landscaping Provisions (7/17/1995) vow .4,04 April 1, 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 128 Legal: Adult An ordinance and summary ordinance were read amending sections 4-31-2, 4- Entertainment Businesses, 31-10, 4-31-11, 4-31-12, and 4-31-16 of Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title Zoning Changes IV (Building Regulations) of City Code relating to zoning for adult entertainment businesses. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/08/96. CARRIED. Development Services: An ordinance was read amending section 4-24-5 of Chapter 24, Uniform National Electrical Code Building Code; sections 4-25-1, 4-25-4 and 4-25-5 of Chapter 25, National and Other Uniform Code Electrical Code; subsection 4-27-1.E of Chapter 27, Uniform Mechanical Amendments Code; and section 4-28-2 of Chapter 28, Uniform Building Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations) of City Code by adopting the 1996 National Electrical Code and updating service fees. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/08/96. CARRIED. Comprehensive Plan: 1995 An ordinance was read amending the City's Comprehensive Plan, maps and Amendments data in conjunction therewith (1995 Comprehensive Plan amendments). MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/08/96. CARRIED. The following ordinance and summary ordinance were presented for second and final reading: Ordinance #4593 An ordinance and summary ordinance were read amending sections 4-31-10.2, Building: Commercial & 4-31-10.3, 4-31-10.4, 4-31-10.5, 4-31-11.1, 4-31-11.2 and 4-31-16 of Industrial Setback Changes Chapter 31, Zoning, of Title IV (Building Regulations), of City Code relating to commercial and industrial setbacks in the Center Suburban (CS), Center Neighborhood (CN), Convenience Commercial (CC), Commercial Office (CO), Commercial Arterial (CA), Light Industrial (IL) and Medium Industrial (IM) zones, limiting parking associated with the commercial use, subject to modification, establishing a conditional use permit for excess height when a commercial or industrial use adjoins a residential use and establishing additional design requirements when the industrial or commercial use abuts a residential use. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Beverly Franklin, PO Box 685, Renton, 98057, requested that a copy of the Citizen Comment: renewed operating permit agreement with Puget Sound Helicopters be Franklin - Puget Sound provided to affected residents. Although she hoped this agreement would Helicopters satisfy resident concerns, she disagreed with putting citizens in the position of serving as watchdogs over this business. Citizen Comment: Lukins Speaking as a private citizen, Jeff Lukins, 1113 S. 23rd St., Renton, 98057, - Downtown Transit said although the existing Park 'N' Ride on Grady Way is widely used, the Hub/Transit Changes transit hub would be better located in the CBD to enhance downtown revitalization. Cautioning that it will take time to transition to the future vision of having Park 'N' Rides in various neighborhoods connecting to the transit hub, he said nevertheless service increases are needed now. Emphasizing that the Seattle express route #101 is a critical component of the system which must connect somehow to the downtown transit hub, Mr. Lukins reviewed the various options available for ensuring this connection. Mayor Tanner replied that the purported extra four minute transit time related to switching the express route from Burnett to Williams and Wells will be investigated. He did not believe that the success or failure of the entire r..r March 25, 1996 ti.. Renton City Council Minutes Page 114 Citizen Comment: Richter Correspondence was read from Marge Richter, 300 Meadow Ave N., Renton, - Renton Area Sounding 98055, clarifying that Phil Peretti was not speaking on behalf of the Renton Board Recommendations Area Sounding Board at the 3/18/96 City Council meeting. Information. OLD BUSINESS Council President Nelson presented a report recommending Council Committee of the Whole concurrence in the staff recommendation to modify commercial and industrial Planning: Commercial & setbacks. In the Center Suburban (CS), Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Industrial Setback Changes Convenience Commercial (CC) zones, the Committee recommended amendments to incorporate maximum setback provisions, objectives, and modification language. In the Arterial Commercial (CA) and Commercial Office (CO) zones, the Committee recommended elimination of the maximum setback requirements. In the Light Industrial (IL) and Medium Industrial (IM) zones, the Committee recommended the proposed amendments to the setback and landscaping provisions. In the.Heavy Industrial (IH) zone, the Committee recommended that the existing Code language be retained. The Committee further recommended that the City Council place the ordinance adopting these amendments on the agenda for first reading. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for ordinance.), Finance Committee Finance Committee Vice Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report Finance: Vouchers recommending approval of Claims Vouchers #133208 - 133711; two wire transfers in the total amount of $1,395,342.66; approval of Payroll Vouchers #142022 - 142340; and.426 direct deposits in the total amount of $1,117,059.50. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,_SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Public Works: Mt Olivet MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE Landfill Closure MATTER OF THE MOUNT OLIVET LANDFILL CLOSURE FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution #3177 A resolution was read setting a hearing date on April 22, 1996, to consider Vacation: SW 13th/Maple vacating a portion of SW 13th Street and Maple Avenue SW (James Pierre, Ave SW (Pierre/VAC-96- VAC-96-003). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY 003) NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Resolution #3178 A resolution was read to reassign Renton from the Regional Transit Authority Transportation: Renton "South King Sub-Area" to the "East King Sub-Area" for planning purposes. Reassignment to East MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL ADOPT King Sub-Area (RTA) THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/01/96 for second and final reading: Building: Commercial & An ordinance and summary ordinance were read amending sections 4-31-10.2, Industrial Setback Changes 4-31-10.3, 4-31-10.4, 4-31-10.5, 4-31-11.1, 4-31-11.2 and 4-31-16 of Chapter 31, Zoning, of Title IV (Building Regulations), of City Code relating to commercial and industrial setbacks in the Center Suburban (CS), Center Neighborhood (CN), Convenience Commercial (CC), Commercial Office (CO), Commercial Arterial (CA), Light Industrial (IL) and Medium Industrial (IM) zones, limiting parking associated with the commercial use, subject to March 25, 1996 'I"' Renton City Council Minutes Page 115 modification, establishing a conditional use permit for excess height when a commercial or industrial use adjoins a residential use and establishing additional design requirements when the industrial or commercial use abuts a residential use. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/01/96. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second reading and adoption: Ordinance #4588 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Rezone: Cedar River Park, 23.07 acres located at 1715 Maple Valley Highway (Cedar River Park) from 1715 Maple Valley Hwy, P-1 (Public Use) to COR (Center Office Residential), File No. R-95-125. from P-1 to COR MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #4589 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of 4.37 acres located Rezone: Heather Downs south of NE 3rd St. and west of Union Ave. SE (Heather Downs Park), from Park, NE 3rd Ct/Union P-1 (Public Use) to R-10 (Residential/Up to Ten Units per Acre), File No. Ave NE, from P-1 to R-95-100. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, R-10 COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE.AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #4590 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of 1.07 acres located Rezone:Jones Park,.Wells between.Wells.and.Mill_Avenues S.-just south of the.Cedar River (Jones Park) Ave S, from P-1 to from P-1 (Public Use).to RM-U.(Residential Multi-family Urban Center), RM-U File No. R-95-112. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #4591 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of 44.64 acres Rezone: NARCO Site, located at 1500 Houser Way N. (NARCO site) from P-1 (Public Use) to RC 1500 Houser Way N, from (Resource Conservation), File No. R-95-126. MOVED BY KEOLKER- P-1 to RC WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #4592 An ordinance was read granting unto the City of Tukwila the right and CAG: 96-, City of franchise to use and occupy the streets, avenues, roads and other public Tukwila Franchise for rights-of-way of the City of Renton for constructing, maintaining, repairing, Storm Drainage renewing and operating a storm drainage interceptor, principally along SW Interceptor in SW 16th St 16th St. as more particularly described in the franchise agreement. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Parker took exception to a remark made by an earlier speaker Council: Public Input, implying that Council does not listen to those who address it. Mr. Parker Parker stressed that Council is always interested in hearing from citizens. AUDIENCE COMMENT Nita Olson, 430 Burnett Ave. S., Renton, 98055, requested a copy of the tape Citizen Comment Olson - to be made at this Thursday's Transportation Committee meeting where the Transportation Committee transit proposal will be discussed, since she is unable to attend. Tape Citizen Comment Leo Grazinski, 420 Burnett Ave. S., Renton, 98055, asked to be provided with Grazinski - Burnett a copy of the Renton Area Sounding Board recommendations on the proposed Transit Way transit changes. He also noted his interest in initiating a petition on this matter. ..> APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date ?S.-76 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT March 25, 1996 Commercial/Industrial Setbacks (Referred 9/25/95 ) The Committee recommends Council concurrence in the staff recommendations dated March 19, 1996. In the CS, CN, and CC Zones,the Committee recommends amendments to incorporate maximum setback provisions, objectives, and modification language. In the CA and CO Zones, the Committee recommends elimination of the maximum setback requirements. In the IL and IM Zones, the Committee recommends the proposed amendments to the setback and landscaping provisions. In the III Zone, the Committee recommends that the existing code language be retained. The Committee further recommends that the City Council place the ordinance adopting these amendments on the March 25, 1996 agenda for first reading. Toni Nelson, Council President cc: Gregg Zimmerman Mike Kattermann Jim Hanson Sue Carlson Document3\ Monday,March 25, 1996 10:16:30 AM A Renton,WA Citizen Page 2 of 2 833 Kirkland Ave.N.E. Renton, Washington 98056 March 25,1996 Councilwoman Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Chair Planning& Development Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,Washington 98055 cc: Councilman Randy Corman Councilman Tim Schlitzer Subject: Commercial/Industrial Setback Amendments Reference: Letter Gregg Zimmerman to Toni Nelson, dated March 19,1996; Subject: Commercial/Industrial Setbacks. Dear Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler: We, Penny Eskenazi and Lloyd Hoshide, wish to express our support for the Staff recommendation of referenced letter for acceptance of the proposed Commercial/Industrial setback amendments. We have reviewed the draft ordinance submitted with the letter and concluded that the concerns of residents adjacent to potential commercial development are adequately addressed. In closing, we wish to express our appreciation to the Planning and Development Committee, Staff, Planning Commission, and COW for working out provisions to enable Renton residents to coexist with future development. It follows that we feel good about the way the legislative process works in Renton and wish to express our support for the amendments. Respectfully, (a signed copy upon request) Penny Eskenazi (a signed copy upon request) Lloyd Hoshide MAR 25 '96 11:18AM PORT COMMUNICATIONS P.12/12 • s the full scale plant in DuPage comes after a long pilot demonstration period for the testing • and evaluation of the process. With the success of this approach as a guide we have • . constructed a trailer mounted portable test facility to be used to test.the performance of the process on other biomass wastes. Information gathered from the operation will then be used to do evaluate the processing and economic feasibility of a full scale facility for the waste tested. ', ' CBT is well aware of the pitfalls of using the experience,and engineering data from one plant ' to build full scale plants with a wide variety of feedstocks flog. some generic engineering plan. The generic approach has shown itself to be flawed in other processes resulting in failed plants around the country and is not an'approach we will take. Therefore, we propose a more conservative approach of taking our considerable experience to test individual feedstocks and • , . gather accurate data so we can successfully, engineer facilities that are economically feasible for processing the feed stock to be treated. Using this more conservative approach CBT•will provide clients with better service and more reliable systems that are environmentally, economically, and operationally sound. . • A brief, random and non-inclusive list of some of the benefits of the CBT ACIMET two phase anaerobic digestion method follows:' * The methane potential of many wastes is expected to be very high. . .. * Does better job of digesting fats & oils . . - ' * 99+l pathogen kill. . . • * Higher volatile solids reductions. • . * Volatile solids reductions well within the 503 regs governing sewage sludge. * Higher volume reduction than with conventional methods. , * Residual Solids will dewater better and more economically. - • * The CBT two phase method will concentrate a large portion Of the hydrogen sulfide in a . smaller volume of gas,for more economical removal thereby making clean air standards , • compliance more economical. . . * The two phase process produces more methane than conventional digestion. * The process is innovative and an improvement on existing methods used in the treatment of sewage sludge and will allow users to apply to federal programs for technology initiatives and other programs for assistance. . , * The usage of the gas product can.be as a clean fuel for vehicles. * Odor control is built into the system because it is closed for gas recovery, . * This allows for plants to be built close to the feed sources reducing the hauling costs and , making the energy product available without long distance transportation costs. , * The separation of the food waste and other organic waste from the general•waste stream • -reduces the amount of waste going to landfill. • • * The CBT•two phase anaerobic method will bring high tech state of the art jobs to the community in the fields of biochemistry and energy. ' * Utilization of the digestate will also bring jobs. ,A greenhouse industry can spin off from individual plants fox the utilization of the digestate. * Tire Cat produced could•be used by-a greenhouse industry or others such as a bottling . . plant. , CITY OF RENTON ' F-690 T—' 7 P-002 OCT 09 '9.5 13:10 CCT '8 1995 - RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PAWAR inc October 9, 1995 RECEIVED The Honorable Earl Clymer Mayor of Renton 9 1995 Honorable City Council 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 ,^-,:; ':1lN CITY CO UN('';, Re: Proposed Amendments to Setbacks in IH Zone rear Mayor Clymer and Honorable Councilmembers: This letter communicates PACCAR's comments on the City' s proposed amendments to setbacks in the IH Zone. We believe Section XI of the proposed ordinance should be amended as shown below. 4-31-12.D.5_e: Special Requirements '(3) If the IH lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, then all outdoor storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas within 100 feet of rbe residentially zoned lot shall be screened by a fence or landscaping Or some combination thereof as determined by the Reviewing Official. Loading docks shall not be located within 100 feet of an adjacent to or abutting e: lot zoned R- 1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time." The south half of PACCAR's Renton site is currently one approximately 40 acre parcel. Only 500 feet of frontage along N. Fourth St. is "adjacent" to (i.e. opposite) a residential zone. The 750 foot balance of PACCAR's N. Fourth Street frontage, ,and the entire 1300 feet of Garden Avenue N. frontage, are adjacent to other zones. It is unreasonable to create uncertainty and a cloud over development of PACCAR's entire 40 acre industrial parcel by requiring screening of previously permitted industrial activities, and prohibiting loading docks entirely, regardless of distance from a residential zone. In addition, a 50 foot setback adjacent to residential zones is otherwise required. P.C.Box i 518 Beiievue.';dartiing.o':93t:;.9 1 u,e cr:c(2C6)455-7'.CO PACCAP.3Uiicdir c 777 '.061ih Avenuo N.E. Beitcvue,`+alas:^ngzon 58001. 'a^^;mi;e 206-'53 4300 F-690 T- P-003 OCT 09 '95 13:11 The Honorable Earl Clymer Honorable City Council October 9, 1995 Page 2 PACCAR believes this modification respects the interests of residents in both the industrial and residential zones, and requests that it be adopted by the Council. Very truly yours, Philip E. Glad elter Corporate Real Property Manager PEG95021.DOC Enclosure cc: S. Buckner/J. Sass R. E. Sangert II/D. Bennitt F-690 T 3 P-004 OCT 09 '95 13:11 _ l 0WIRTH 8TH 5I1 1 - �'•.� SL STATta!! 180IITH" :-1 DETENTION FIRE TAW4 . - ••�'•• POND 1 KW i HOUSE l k4q ili • •� DEIST 0 PAC i LIANTACTT tIN6 >� • • •• - _� . PACEAR I 1 SSI TTtIST BI]ILDit \ PAR7CING I PAR ' ival TES AREA •_ - l� • •REAM' :--* *7- r i I I /J 1 1 1 p - R 2 BDWS HATER]AL•/ 1`W E7(ISTD13 L. BOOTH = WASTE XATE TREATICeir ; m IS WILDING i ! EOLt1ART t)EVV. "i AREA C)i�RMT. b v54pPm 1 fI I$ P.c.Z L iExlSTINS ii 0 Z. EXISTD$ 74 rik -- srug , 'bENet0?telem.-T 0-1 r ET i EXISTING NORTH 4TH STREET 7 `.- 1 11 K�1-+ — s . 4 '�--��nK lo —Reslo�'011�a ....) ... SCALE: l 300` Site Plan ►7 September 25. 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 361 Citizen Comment: Unsigned correspondence was read complaining of speeding traffic on Sunset Speeding on Sunset Blvd Blvd. SW and requesting more enforcement of the 35 MPH speed limit. SW MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. Councilmen Edwards and Stredicke noted their objections to taking action on an anonymous letter. h OLD BUSINESS MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL Building: Commercial & REMOVE FROM THE TABLE THE ORDINANCE REGARDING Industrial Setback Changes COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SETBACKS. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Noting that Council received a letter this week from the Planning Commission regarding these setbacks, Mr. Stredicke requested that a representative from the Commission attend the Committee of the Whole meeting on this issue. Council: Audience Councilman Stredicke commented on a recommendation from the City Clerk's Comment Policies Office relating to audience comment rules and the cablecasting of. Council meetings. Several jurisdictions who also cablecast Council meetings were surveyed, and none of them had heard of the concern regarding the requirement that audience members who address the Council state their name and address. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CURRENT AUDIENCE COMMENT RULES BE RETAINED. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report recommending Fire: Pumper Truck concurrence in the purchase of a second Fire Department pumper truck. The Purchases pumper will be paid with twelve-year debt, but the Department will make replacement payments for a period of 15 years which corresponds to the life of the vehicle. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Vouchers Finance Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report recommending approval of Claims Vouchers #127602 - 128044; two wire transfers in the total amount of $2,283,480.83; approval of Payroll Vouchers #137957 - 138318; and 412 direct deposits in the total amount of $1,096,230.84. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Acting Chair Nelson presented a report Committee recommending Council concurrence with the staff recommendation to approve Streets: Addressing the proposed addressing standards codification. The Committee further Standards Codification recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 363 for ordinance.) Airport: Arbitration Transportation (Aviation) Committee Acting Chair Nelson presented a report Services for Lease Rate recommending that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to Renegotiations, Bruce C. execute Task Order Authorization No. 1 to CAG-93-047, for an amount not Allen, CAG-93-047 to exceed $15,525, to authorize Bruce C. Allen & Associates to provide the City with arbitration services during rent renegotiations with airport leaseholders. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. . _ _ . o '� `'"CITY OF RENTON oA �i MO + PLANNING COMMISSION ��Nrro� C= "(leer Earl Clymer, Mayor ' -eAS September 22, 1995 Members of the City Council CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton,WA 98055 SEP 2 5 1995 Members of the City Council: TY CLERK'S OFFICE Several of our members watched last Monday's Cable TV broadcast and were awestruck by the proposed amendments to the maximum setback provisions currently before you. We are of the unanimous opinion that certain amendments ignore the record of citizen testimony, years of work, and previous Comprehensive Plan agreements. After reading the Council Minutes, the Commission unanimously agreed to petition Council to, at a minimum, hold these latest amendments which were proposed on September 22th by staff, and proceed with the draft which was reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee. This action is needed so that the intent of the maximum setback provisions can be preserved. Council seems focused on only one of the objectives of the maximum setback that is to encourage site planning which encourages transit uses. There are eight other objectives which are expressed in the Comprehensive Plan policies three of which are equally,if not more important: • Reduce frontage exposure of parking lots without impacting parking convenience; • Enhance the street scene with the opportunity for usable sidewalk amenities like small flag plazas and outdoor seats; and • Encourage pedestrian circulation. If a maximum setback is not required,these objectives of the citizens would be lost for another generation. We realize that some changes to the modification procedure are needed to accommodate some exceptional uses. However, the most recent amendments create too broad an exception and that the implications of this exception have not been adequately addressed. We ask that the Council act on the remainder of the ordinance, reconsider its September 11th motion, and refer only the issue of amendments to the modification sections back to Committee or the Planning Commission for review. Sincer , 7 / /- /1 ' �/Ioff_a 'c{fard Wagner, Acting Chair Planning Commission cc: Mayor Clymer 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton,Washington 98055 (206)235-2552 Facsimile (206)235-2541 September 18, 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 349 MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Stredicke presented a report Committee regarding the proposed amendments to the setback, parking and landscaping Building: Commercial & provisions of the Center Suburban (CS), Center Neighborhood (CN), Industrial Setback Changes Convenience Commercial (CC), Commercial Arterial (CA), Commercial Office (CO), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM) and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones. The Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance upon referral from the full Council. The ordinance was referred back to committee to determine that the Hearing Examiner held the responsibility to modify setbacks between any of these uses and residential properties. Appropriate language has been included within the ordinance. The committee was also requested to review the ordinance to make sure that the flexibility language was adequate to cover the Valley Fire Station and other similar uses, or uses that cannot meet the maximum setbacks because of sensitive areas or utility easements, or because the nature or function of the use would prevent the maximum setback from being effective, and where it would materially impair the function of the use and the purposes of the setback would not be unnecessarily burdened by modifying the setback. Adequate language has been included within the ordinance. The Committee recommended that this ordinance be presented for first reading. MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO DELETE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 4-31-10.2.D.5 (PAGE 3), RELATING TO COMMERCIAL PARKING ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET. THE SENTENCE READS AS FOLLOWS: "THESE PROVISIONS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER WHERE THE APPLICANT CAN SHOW THAT THE SAME OR BETTER RESULTS WILL OCCUR BECAUSE OF CREATIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS, UNIQUE ASPECTS OR USE, ETC. THAT CANNOT BE FULLY ANTICIPATED AT THIS TIME."* Councilman Tanner said this language adds nothing to the ordinance and only confuses the prohibition of commercial parking on residential streets. Council President Schlitzer agreed that the City's parking ordinance already addresses this issue. Responding to Councilman Edwards, Planning & Technical Services Director Mike Kattermann said this language may have been included to coordinate with existing Code provisions meant to provide flexibility in various regulations. *MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL TABLE ACTION ON THIS ITEM FOR ONE WEEK PENDING AN EXPLANATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. CARRIED. Zoning: Zero Lot Lines in Planning and Development Committee Chair Stredicke presented a report Residential Zones regarding zero lot line development. The City Council removed provisions for zero lot line development through amendments to residential setbacks. Upon additional consideration, the Planning & Development Committee does not find sufficient justification at this time to reinstate previously deleted or newly revised provisions for zero lot line development in the R-8 zone. The Committee recommended this item be taken off its referral list. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* . - - pl/E1-0P,4vTCoi /,iirrcE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMIT hE REPORT SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 Amendments to Commercial and Industrial Setbacks Referred (11/21/94) The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the setbacks, parking and landscaping provisions of the CS (Center Suburban), CN (Center Neighborhood), CC (Convenience Commercial), CA (Commercial Arterial), CO (Commercial Office), IL (Light Industrial), IM (Medium Industrial) and IH (Heavy Industrial) Zones. The Committee further recommends that the Ordinance be placed on the agenda of September 11, 1995 for first reading. Richard M. Stredicke, Chair , . /dere& OG Kathy Aker-Wheeler, Vice-Chair dy Corman, Member H:\P&TS\PLN\P&DC\RESSEI1rl •.r p�l/E!-o PAi1�NT CG,��� rree //,-9' PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 Amendments to Commercial and Industrial Setbacks Referred (11/21/94) The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the setbacks, parking and landscaping provisions of the CS (Center Suburban), CN (Center Neighborhood), CC (Convenience Commercial), CA (Commercial Arterial), CO (Commercial Office), IL (Light Industrial), IM (Medium Industrial) and IH (Heavy Industrial) Zones. The Committee further recommends that the Ordinance be placed on the agenda of September 11, 1995 for first reading. Richard M. Stredicke, Chair 4/0/1 /d,freki Kathy Aker-Wheeler, Vice-Chair landy Corman, Member H:\P&TS\PLNW&DC\RESSET\r1 • ve-n. CITY CR7E�... NT s Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J.Warren MEMORANDUM TO: Renton City Council FROM: Lawrence J. Warren City Attorney DATE: September 7, 1995 RE: Public Structure Setbacks in the CO Zone -- Fire Station in the Valley At the Council meeting on September 11, 1995, you will be taking up the subject of commercial and industrial setbacks. Since the drafting of the ordinance another minor problem has arisen. As you know, the Fire Department is in the process of designing and developing a fire station in the valley. The station will be developed in the CO (Commercial Office) Zone. That zone has minimum and maximum setbacks from the road. The ostensible purpose of those setbacks is to develop office building close to the street to make the buildings more accessible to pedestrians and transit. However, in developing a fire station, that public purpose is not furthered by requiring the fire station to be located within the minimum to maximum setbacks. In fact, a further setback is necessary to give the large fire apparatus adequate maneuvering room. Additionally, the fire staff will be sleeping in this structure and locating the building away from the street would assist them in providing an atmosphere conducive to sleep. Similarly, other City structures and quasi public utility structures such as well houses, pumping stations, transformers, etc., do not necessarily need to be located close to the street as there is little or no use by pedestrians or traffic. In fact, the public good might be better served by locating these uses away from the street or to one corner or edge of the property. • • The Council has already held public hearings on the topic of setbacks in these zones. The only commenting party was The Boeing Company. Additionally, the Council has previously adopted the comprehensive plan policies that are being addressed by this proposed ordinance change. Finally, the administration has determined that there is no reason to review the environmental impact of this ordinance as this change would be of no consequence to the environment. A fire station would.have previously been located in a P-1 Zone, but that zone has . been eliminated. The fire station is, therefore, being located in a CO Zone. The land use policies for the CO Zone are not furthered by requiring the fire station to be located within the maximum setback and, in fact, the public policies surrounding the fire service would be - 1 - Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, WashinJton 98057 - (206)255-8678 © Tr.s paper centa recjc'ea ca:ena 25', ,`cor,s,.rner *ere hindered by such a setback. It is therefore believed that the policies of the City would generally be furthered by exempting City structures and quasi public utility structures from the setback requirements of the CO Zone and including such language in the proposed ordinance on commercial and industrial setbacks, pending in front of the Council. For your information, the proposed language is located as paragraph (5) in the middle of page 30 in the proposed ordinance. If you have any questions, this office, the Planning Department, and the Fire Department stand ready to respond to those questions. _"Lawrence J. Wane LJW:ldm Enc. cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington 0NwellNPNCE NO. (i) Support opportunities for alternative modes of transportation through such measures as; providing pedestrian walkways, clustering buildings, utilizing transit compatible site design, incorporating High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) strategies . (ii) If the applicant can demonstrate that the preceding criteria cannot be met in the site plan due to factors including but not limited to site constraints such as sensitive areas or utility easements, the Reviewing Official may modify the maximum setback requirements . (4) For additions to existing structures, the maximum setback requirements shall only apply when the addition is subject to Site Plan review. (5) The front yard and street setbacks for City owned structures or those of quasi public utilities shall not be governed by the front _yard and street setbacks for the CO Zone. Rather, the setbacks shall be established by taking into account the characteristics of the parcel of land being developed, the type of structure being installed, the increase in efficiency of the public or quasi public improvement because of location on the property, the best interests of the general public, and the potential impacts on surrounding property owners . b. Rear and Side/Interior Setbacks: None shall be required except as listed in Special Requirements provisions below in Section 2 .c. 30 cP' IY\0 ` r it ITY OF RENTON July 31,1995 JUL 3 1 1995 833 Kirkland Ave NE RECEIVED Renton, WA 98056 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE To: Councilman Richard Stredicke Chairman, Planning and Development Committee 200 Mill Ave So. Renton, WA 98055 cc: Councilwoman Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Councilman Randy Corman Subject: Residential Compatibility Requirements of Proposed Setback Amendments Reference: 1). Letter, Mike Kattermann to Larry Warren, dated July 7,1995; Subject: Commercial & Industrial Setback Issues in the CS, CN, CC, CO, CA, IL, IM and IH Zones. 2). Item 6) of Mayor's Administrative Report dated January 3, 1994. Dear Councilman Stredicke: After a review of the proposed setback amendments detailed in Reference 1)., this Renton Citizen has concluded that the revisions as proposed for the single family compatibility requirements of the interim zone codes have virtually eliminated them. It is requested that the Committee preserve the feature assuring due process to abutting and adjacent property owners by restoring the Hearing Examiner approval of any modifications to these requirements, e.g.: item 7.c.(1), (2), & (3). of the CS zone, as they apply in cases which are abutting or adjacent to R-1, R-5, R-8, and R-10 zoned properties. In my opinion, preserving the due process feature for the aforementioned residential zones would provide assurances for the owner occupied residential community that a forum exists for their comments on modification of requirements. Moreover, it would be an action that would preserve the original intent of these requirements in the interim CB and CA zones. To this Renton Citizen, it would restore some assurances that the owner occupied resident could coexist with future development. While the cited example refers only to the CS zone, the same comment applies to all zone amendments currently being reviewed. In addition, item E.3. of the CS zone amendments of reference 1. refers to buildings in excess of fifty-five feet (55'). In response to my inquiries on this assumed typo, Staff has stated that confusion exists as to the actual height limit in a CS zone (formerly CB). I call to your attention a staff letter addressing this specific question for the Council in an administrative report dated 0 January 3,1994, reference 2, which defines the height at 50'. It is suggested that the 55' be revised to 50'. In closing, I recognize that there are those who will argue that requiring a Hearing Examiner approval of modifications to the residential compatibility requirements adds time to the development cycle. There is no argument. It does; so be it. For the developer, it's a one time inconvenience:for the residential owner occupant, it is an impact forever. In my opinion, he should have an opportunity to be heard. Sincerely, ''6,6ilt-1/)4—€' -L--- Lloyd Hoshide, 226-5891 July 24. 1995 .,..Renton City Council Minutes t""` Pane 303 thereto. MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CANCEL Council: 8/07/95 Meeting ITS REGULAR MEETING OF 8/07/95. CARRIED. Cancellation ' Council: 8/28/95 Meeting MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CANCEL Cancellation ITS REGULAR MEETING OF 8/28/95. CARRIED. Building: Village on Councilmember Nelson asked staff to see that a new sign is installed at the Union, Project Signage Village on Union (Willing Demonstration Project) to replace the current faded project signage. AUDIENCE COMMENT Sandy Webb, 430 Mill Ave. S., Renton, 98055, noted his agreement with Citizen Comment: Webb - comments made last week by Lloyd Hoshide regarding The Boeing Company's Commercial/Industrial opposition to the imposition of maximum setback requirements. Saying that Setbacks; Police Contract negotiating setbacks on a case-by-case basis would result either in favoritism with Newcastle or unfair treatment, Mr. Webb said the City needs to adopt rules that are fair to all and then abide by them. He felt that a remark made by a Boeing representative that the City of Renton is well-known at the state level for its cooperation with the business community illustrates how Renton has capitulated to the demands of special interests to the detriment of its residents. On another subject, Mr. Webb complained that according to a recent newspaper article, Renton will contract with the City of Newcastle to provide police services. Under the agreement, Newcastle will obtain the services of six experienced Renton officers, while the City will hire and train six new officers. Commenting on his concern about how quickly the new officers can be assimilated into the department, Mr. Webb asked where the Newcastle officers and their back-up will be based. Citizen Comment Evans - Ralph Evans, 3306 NE 11 th P1., Renton, 98056, sought and received Committee Meeting clarification on the scheduling of next week's Transportation and Utilities Schedule Committee meetings. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR 25 MINUTES TO DISCUSS LEASE NEGOTIATIONS. CARRIED. Time: 9:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:35 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:36 p.m. ARILYNLI.a0 ERSEN, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Brenda Fritsvold 7/24/95 Nftwo .................... ............. . • • What are Setbacks? Setback requirements indicate how close a building can be to a property line. Each commercial and industrial zone contains setback requirements listed as minimum front and rear/side yards. Landscaping standards are established within and in conjunction with setbacks. Sometimes, extra distance and landscaping is required if a commercial or industrial lot is across the street from or shares property lines with land zoned for a residential use, especially single family development. What requirements are being changed and Why? A number of revisions have been proposed to current setback and landscaping standards in order to allow greater flexibility while ensuring compatibility between different types of development. These revisions come from the suggestions of Renton citizens, local developers and City officials. The proposed amendments would modify the current setback and landscaping provisions in the following zones; CS Center Suburban CN Center Neighborhood CC Convenience Commercial CA Commercial Arterial CO Commercial Office IL Industrial -Light IM Industrial -Medium IH Industrial -Heavy The proposed amendments would modify the current setback and landscaping provisions as generally described below. These changes would apply to future development. • 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Minimum Setbacks Revise the minimum setbacks to require a 10' setback in the CN, CS, and CC Zones. Allow a zero setback if no blank walls are located in the reduced setback. Allow a reduced setback for tall buildings in the CO Zone through the site plan process. Maximum Setbacks Add a clause in the CS, CN, CC and CO Zones which would allow a waiver or modification of the maximum setback if the site plan satisfied specific criteria identified in each zone including; support of a strong pedestrian environment, a defined street front, safety and visibility and alternate modes of transportation. Also allow modifications if the applicant can demonstrate that these criteria cannot be satisfied or if the proposal is not subject to the site plan process. Eliminate the maximum setback requirement in the CA Zone. Pedestrian Connections Require pedestrian connections in the CS, CN, CC, CA and CO Zones between the street front and a public entrance. Landscaping, Screening and Buffers Reduce landscaping from 15' to 10' in the CS, CN, CC, CA and CO Zones. In the IL, IM and III Zones require landscaping of 10% of lot depth or 20' along arterials (15' along non-arterials) whichever is less. Require a minimum of 10' of landscaping. Require a 15' setback and sight obscuring landscaped buffer when adjacent to an RC, R-1, R-5, R- 8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I Zone in the CS, CN, CC, CA, CO, IL, IM and IH Zones Require a 15' sight obscuring landscaped rear setback when abutting an RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I Zone but allow reduction to 10' with a solid barrier wall in the CS, CN, CC, CA, CO, IL, IM and HI Zones Require that all outdoor storage, loading , repair, maintenance or work areas be screened when next to a an RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I Zone Require that garbage, dumpster or refuse areas be located 50' from a lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I. Allow a reduction through the site plan process but no less than the required minimum required setback of the zone. Incorporate the provisions of the Single Family Compatibility sections of the CA and CS Zones in the general requirements of the CS, CN, CC, CO, CA, IL, IM and IH Zones. These provisions would establish landscaping and buffering requirements to limit the effect of commercial use and associated traffic, loading, storage, maintenance, repair and parking on adjacent lots zoned R-1, R- 5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I. or w.rr IPURPOSKFOR'PROPOSED2CHANGESom . Allow greater flexibility . Ensure compatibility between different types of development . Respond to suggestions of Renton citizens, developers and City officials DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSE AMEND '' E T Minimum Setbacks . Require a 10' setback in the CN, CS, and CC Zones . Allow a zero setback if no blank walls are within the reduced setback . Allow a reduced setback for tall buildings in the CO Zone through the site plan process DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED' IIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111AMENDMENTSEMBEENEEN Maximum Setbacks . Allow waiver of maximum setback in CS, CN, CC, and CO Zones through site plan process . Eliminate maximum setback requirement in CA Zone Pedestrian Connections . Require pedestrian connection from street to building in Commercial Zones DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Landscaping, Screening and Buffers . Reduce landscaping from 15' to 10' in Commercial Zones . Industrial Zones, generally: 20' landscaping along arterials 15' along non-arterials . Industrial Zones on lots < 200' depth: r � c 10 feet or 10% or lot depth (whichever is greater) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED .A E 1 M NTS Landscaping, Screening and Buffers . Adjacent to Residential 15' setback sight obscuring landscaped buffer . Abutting Residential 15' setbacks 15' sight obscuring landscaped buffer Allow a 10' buffer with solid barrier wall through site plan ►E C RIP`TI ON O "ROP(O SED. AMENDMENTS.... Landscaping, Screening and Buffers • . Require screening next to Residential for: outdoor storage loading repair maintenance or work areas . Require that garbage, dumpster or refuse areas: located at least 50' from Residential require site plan if closer than 50' not within minimum setback DESCRIPTION' Q PROPOSED NDs Single Family Compatibility . Incorporate Single Family Compatibility sections of CA/CS Zones in all Commercial and Industrial Zones ADDITIONAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS . Modification clause for maximum setbacks, include: Sensitive areas Utility corridors . Internal language conflict in landscape provisions: "Under no condition... " v. "Hearing Examiner may modify... " Modification for "same as or better results" A EI DME TS . Side Yard Setbacks for MF in CA Zone Reduce 20' maximum to 12' for lot width Extra 1' setback for each story over 2, maximum 20' setback V �.rf July 17, 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 286 Ruthie Larson, 714 High Ave. S., Renton, 98055, was worried that neither the sit-in park area nor the staircase leading up to Cedar Ave. S. will be lighted. She was also concerned about the visibility of this area, saying that part of the park cannot readily be seen from the road. She inquired about the utility poles that were recently erected at this location. Responding to Council inquiry, Community Services Administrator Chastain said neither the Parks Dept. nor WSDOT had been informed in advance regarding the installation of the utility poles. Agreeing that these impact the park, Mr. Chastain offered to investigate this matter. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published Planning: Commercial and in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened the public Industrial Zone Setbacks hearing to consider proposed amendments to the setback and landscaping provisions of the following commercial and industrial zones: Center Suburban (CS), Center Neighborhood (CN), Convenience Commercial (CC), Commercial Arterial (CA), Commercial Office (CO), Industrial Light (IL), Industrial Medium (IM) and Industrial Heavy (IH). Michael Kattermann, Planning & Technical Services Director, explained that the changes are proposed to provide greater flexibility, to ensure compatibility between different types of development, and to respond to suggestions made by citizens, developers and City officials. For minimum setbacks, the changes would: require a 10' setback in the CN, CS and CC zones; allow a zero setback if no blank walls are within the reduced setback; and allow a reduced setback for tall buildings in the CO zone through the site plan review process. The changes would also allow a waiver of the maximum setback in the CS, CN, CC and CO zones through the site plan process, and would eliminate the maximum setback requirement in the CA zone. Pedestrian connections would be required from the street to the building in commercial zones. Continuing, Mr. Kattermann explained that landscaping, screening and buffers would change in the following manners: 1. Landscaping requirements would be reduced from I5' to 10' in all commercial zones; 2. Industrial zones generally would require 20' landscaping along arterials and 15' along non-arterials; 3. For industrial-zoned lots less than 200' deep, landscaping would have to be either be 10' feet in width or 10% of the lot depth (whichever is greater); 4. Sites adjacent to residential would have to provide a 15' setback and a 15' sight-obscuring landscaped buffer; 5. Sites abutting residential would require 15' setbacks and a 15' sight- obscuring landscaped buffer (alternatively, a 10' buffer with a solid barrier wall could be allowed through site plan review); 6. Screening would be required for sites adjacent to or abutting residential properties for outdoor storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas; and 7. Garbage, dumpster or refuse areas would have to be located at least 50' from residential properties; a site plan would be required if they were closer than 50' but in no case would these areas be allowed within the minimum setback. Mr. Kattermann concluded that the changes would also incorporate single family compatibility sections of CA and CS zones in all commercial and industrial zones. July 17, 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Pane 287 Allan Johnson, Associate Planner, added that at Boeing's suggestion, staff recommends a modification to the clause regarding maximum setbacks to address sensitive areas and utility corridors. Boeing also had pointed out an internal language conflict in the landscape provisions, which staff proposes be resolved by removing the "under no condition" verbiage contained in section 10c(2), Special Requirements and retaining the next sentence which states that, with Hearing Examiner approval, the provisions may be modified if the same or better results can be shown. Mr. Johnson added that staff also recommends side yard setbacks for multi- family uses in the CA zone be reduced from a 20' maximum to 12' for lot width, with an extra 1' setback provided for each story over two to a maximum of 20'. Noting that the current setback regulations were developed during the extensive Comprehensive Plan process, Councilman Tanner felt the proposed changes should go to the Committee of the Whole for discussion before final Council action. Audience comment was invited. Mike Wasch, 800 Logan Ave., Renton, representing The Boeing Company, objected to the imposition of maximum setback requirements, saying that commute trip reduction was meant to be a cooperative effort between government and businesses. He suggested that the proposals might be inconsistent with CTR rulings and CTR-related rules in other jurisdictions, and may result in land devaluation. Mr. Wash said site-specific factors such as wetlands, steep slopes and easements are of primary consideration when determining the distance between a building or facility and a road. He suggested that negotiations on setbacks would best be made on a case-by-case basis, concluding that this would allow the City to accomplish its planning objectives in a non-confrontational manner. Responding to Councilman Edwards, Mr. Kattermann explained that the CO zone maximum setback referred to by Mr. Wasch is intended to encourage a pedestrian-oriented environment. An applicant seeking a modification of the maximum setback would have to demonstrate that any proposed alternative siting option supported opportunities for alternate modes of transportation (this might include pedestrian walkways, building clusters, the utilization of transit-compatible site design, or the incorporation of high occupancy vehicle strategies). Lloyd Hoshide, 833 Kirkland Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, expressed surprise that, per Mr. Wasch, The Boeing Company opposes all the proposed amendments to the setback requirements. As a resident, he preferred that setback requirements be known rather than negotiated on a case-by-case basis, as certain setbacks afford security for residential areas and help them co-exist with development. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER BACK TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY BOEING. CARRIED. .-1995 11:01 1 206 361 5131 STERLING SAVINGS NORTHGATE P.02 To: Renton City Cov it 10 July 95 Subjects Rand Response To Side Yard Setback Requirements For MF In A CA Zone hakatand Firsti I would like to.; reiterate my appreciation to Mayor Clymer, City Qounoil, Ms. Carlson and the Renton Staff for listening to my concerns on my property zoning that fortunately thru your support resulted in rezoning from mixed residential to Arterial Comaereial (CA) with a provision to allow exclusive Multifamily (MF) development. When I spoke to the City Council 3waat Sept. 94 concerning rezoning to allow MIS' development I enclosed an isometric sketeh of the orginal site plan approval for a 6 level building indicating we just wanted to utilize the top 2 levels that portrayed 7 contiguous townhouses plus a garage under each unit that City Council approved. Ineidently, the footprint of the 7 townhouses would be 110 feet wide (providing a 5 foot side yard setback on each side) and approximately 40 feet deep. The previous owner Mr. Steiner had been trying to market this property for over 3 years with no success, as well, as investigating the economic feasibility of developing this property that did not warrant pursuing. Unflotioentely. I, gained.: control.of this property in Piny 95. After examining the possibility of developing the property for resale or trying t¢:Ra421 this vacant lot I concluded due to the slow real estate market-Boeing- downsizing that the later choice is most reasonable; )Cowever, if I cannot sell this vacant lot I might eonsider developing this property if .the-market4mprores. �. Comments . . . I would like to offer to the City Council and Renton Staff the following suggestions: 1., .I am aware the Long Range Staff is mRking a proposal to reduce the side yard setback requirements. for MF housing to you. I concur that the side yard setbacks should be reduced and. I. believe for all MF' in the CA.zone it would not be unreasonable to allow .a.5 foot side yard setback regardless of lot width. 2. Being allowed a 3 foot side yard setback is crucial for the MF development of this property and if I have to comply with the current or proposed side yard setbacks. I:liarl,ta. 6 townhouses-not 7 townhouses on this lot. Note: If you have a mixed usage building (commercial/townhouses) you can have a 0 side yard setback so it should not seem unreasonable to be allowed a 5 foot side yard setback for a multifamily building. 3. The reason the side yard setback width is so crucial is that the access to my property is fromathe front, the view is to the aaaek and I need the maximiun building width to accommodate the most townhouses that will maximize the value of the property. Furthermore, the 5 foot side yard setback will not have awadverse affect on my adjacent neighbors. Thank you. CITY OF RENTON %' Sincerely, JUL 1 3 1995 1- RED ,vED ''�`^�"'�. GITY CLERK'S OFFICE Larry G. Rand oe Mayor Clymer/Ms. Carlson/Long Range 6taff-Mr. Johnson < cn EA g a^ o5' m37aw w z c cr H w c � -1 �� 7oa) w = (I) 7' a- 7• = per• H. cn A) CD -- ` 0 CD a 70 7 (D 7 w' =0si, ,_G• O a.II LS•.It CD N c o ° H m a) `a 7 CD 7 co : „ �'► Z ��o$ 7 • 0 a r c owsv co / Nam` O iHA0 a a, c 0 n 0� o r. �n:.N co 1 �,;G>� cn 7 co a S n�c �c CD w a • / o o o 0 0 o m i • � ! 2:r/ o 3 coo �' 71 lll'•0 n / 7 ,-n mcDX : wmaw '0 rn 11 0, 0 c o m r, 0 �ItTpN% •... ..... ayr o m i 0 0 o m (D ° c w en D m a) 01/4.0000.00- m < 3 7- r CD v D- 9, � A � -. sCt. w r 0 N cD w w n 7 X 7 m CDx 0 ? o 0 O a D) S. - O a (D 7- -, CD N p' Q O) (o w sa)7 co co — 7 0 m Z n 7 c,_ 7 Cn' 7 > o cn H. X a (D 3 D T • c �� W CD CD •-0 * - O COn CCD r CD v a �t acw � o -0m -� C �� CD •a o 7o we o m CD acD 0 - a) cn m 0 0 m aso D C o a ° Q � 0 �. a�i cn cc C cn n 0 y R x 7 (n N o cn — 1> �G 00 c. G c c 7 C0 in 7 cp 0_ o co w -1 Cv 4 cr CD - 0 N - o 7 N N (D O DN `G 0 ao O a7 n. c cs CD 0 4 0 0 52, ,Z (cQ -CD � `� Z -0 c N O 0 b; 0.)• \ 8 z c------s--• w * cD cn cn ,� - asi, o \ In cn c Z 0 7 7co cD O 3 CD 6 * Q cn ? CC) A) 7 (n Cc) N ? CD X a) 3- C�3agErgroo • 3ogg0 _ 137.c'83wc= Z ccOc v,2 w 3 �-9 m�m cb Ao=.<n`!.a•^N o3 E' g91 crc 0... * ii) Z tv o l' , (3•=-%=.a 5 1g(51- .0."6"•::( = -I Z �£ c,_To un n m m--g w 0C?rn7o2i Wa mYi'91zw = • - 63Z0-3wwR. w0a�7�_mn mawE, gmwy mm "Fmv.3 �0 FaG 00 cTo w m w g p_ �., w`� o• _, ?"� mZTO coxi m ? a� �< o Ow<� v 3 ��:—w 8�rtttnc-n 0 3 m m R ,, sey o gao 0 o x —c TO< a-0 <0 -. �'n ' o5• 0 � `� mZ z d, a-ia= w x rD3 m , -o gagZ�z Q w = � t =v mom'Q .c --•-•-g O c_ �ie'a• • - t 6-3m w gm ,m , � w > > co r3 _?•'. .X 'c === mom �= � W� Qw ? ma,< m w cr,-.. 7 r • *POI CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 17th day of July, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the second floor Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, 98055, to consider the following: Proposed amendments to the setback and landscaping provisions of the following commercial and industrial zones: Center Suburban (CS), Center Neighborhood (CN), Convenience Commercial (CC), Commercial Arterial (CA), Commercial Office (CO), Industrial Light (IL), Industrial Medium (IM), and Industrial Heavy (IH). All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Call 235-2501 for additional information. Interpretive services available upon advance request. (Proceedings televised live on Channel 28; rebroadcast 10 am Tuesday, 7 pm Wednesday, and 5 pm Saturday.) •'V Marilyn i.tif rsen, CMC City Clerk Published: Valley Daily News July 7, 1995 Account No. 50640 The Boeing Company P.O.Box 3707 •or Seattle,WA 98124-2207 CITY OF RENTON June 29, 1995 n F. r �_C,Ei tU�. : 1 JUL 0 7 1995 REvciVED _* 1ay9ITY CLERK'S OFFICE Richard M. Stredicke, Chair Planning & Development Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South `,Renton, WA 98055 BOE/AW' Subject: Proposed Amendments to Setbacks in CO, CA, IL, IM and IH Zones Dear Chairman Stredicke: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the setbacks in the related Zone sections. We have reviewed the draft and have had clarifying conversations with Mr. Allan Jackson in the Planning Department. Our comments are detailed below: Section 3,a (page 3 of the letter to R. Stredicke dated 6/21/95) describes the minimum and maximum setback requirements in the Office Commercial (CO) Zone. We are very concerned with the imposition of maximum setback requirements. The practical effect is to establish a very narrow band of space in which the building outer edge must be located. This is very restrictive when trying to plan for the most efficient utilization of a piece of property. We suggest a sentence replace the maximum language which states, for example: "The State Commute Trip Reduction Act should be considered and buildings located as close to arterials as practical, all other restrictions considered, to encourage transit use." Section 3,a,(1),(A) does allow a request for modification of the maximum setback requirement. However, to obtain such a modification, the applicant must show that the proposed alternative siting option supports opportunities for alternative modes of transportation. Boeing actively supports alternative modes of transportation in our effort to meet our very aggressive transportation demand management programs. However, considering only transportation issues when applying for a modification is very limited in scope. Many properties will have physical limitations which will actually determine the location of proposed facilities. Examples of these limitations may be the location of wetlands, steep slopes, easements, utility lines, the lack of utility service to portions of the site, or the presence of other critical area features. Amendments to Setbacks June 29, 1995 page two Through conversations with Mr. Jackson, we understand that the paragraph directly following Section 3,a,(1),(A) is intended to allow other factors , such as those mentioned above, to be considered in the request for modification process. Assuming this is the case, we ,suggest that the request for modification be strengthened by elevating in the text this paragraph to a specific criteria, (new) 3,a,(1),(B). For BOE/NG even more clarity we suggest that the new paragraph 3,a,(1),(B) include criteria, such as: wetlands, steep slopes, critical areas, etc., which could cause a building to be situated away from an arterial. The applicant should have the opportunity to show the limitation that exists on the property that force the proposed configuration and show that alternative modes of transportation were considered. Section 10,c,(2), Special Requirements both here and in corresponding sections, appears to have contradictory statements in it. It states that "under no condition" may a certain action be taken. However, in the very next sentence it states that with "Hearing Examiner approval the provisions may be modified." Mr. Jackson was aware of these potential contradictions and is working on alternative wording to correct it. CA, Arterial Commercial Zone: Section D,6,c,(3) states: "with Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval." Two questions arise. First, what is the criteria to determine if Hearing Examiner or Administrative approval is required? Second, why is this wording included in the section? All other sections similar to this one have omitted this particular phrase. The phrase should be omitted or clarified. Again, thank for the opportunity to comment. If you need clarification, please contact Lori Pitzer at 544-7458. Sincerely, Frank Figg, Manager . Local Government Affairs Puget Sound cc: Gregg Zimmermann Lenora Blauman Allan Jackson `"'' CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 0 1995 ► ECEIVED MEMORANDUM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: June 21 , 1995 (amended) TO: Richard M. Stredicke, Chair Planning & Development Committee Members VIA: Mayor Clymer FROM: ! {Gregg Zimmerman STAFF CONTACT: Allan Johnson (277-6187) SUBJECT: COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SETBACK ISSUES IN THE CO, CA, IL, IM and IH ZONES. The proposed amendments to setbacks in the CO, CA, IL, IM and IH Zones are attached for your review along with an issue paper that discusses two items where staff needs further direction. SETBACK AMENDMENTS %IV NNW June 25, 1995 Page 2 + CO, CA, IL, IM and IH ZONE SETBACKS The draft amendments to the setback provisions of the CO, CA, IL, IM and IH Zones have been developed based on the guidance of the Planning and Development Committee. There are two items within the draft amendments where staff needs further direction from the Committee. These issues relate to: 1 . Minimum setback in the CO Zone. 2. Site Plan when Industrial Zones are next Commercial and Residential Zones. ITEM #1 Minimum setback in the CO Zone. Currently a 1 5' setback is required for structures under 25' in height. A increased setback of 20' is required if the structure is between 25' and 80' in height. Structures exceeding 80' in height are required to be setback at least 30'. The staff feels that setbacks in excess of 15' may not always be needed and may in fact undermine some transit goals by increasing walking distances from the street and bus stops. The staff would like further direction from the Committee on whether a reduced setback should be allowed for structures over 25' feet in height. The site plan review process would be used in these situations to mitigate any undue impacts resulting from the reduced setback. OPTION 1 . Keep current minimum setback provisions. OPTION 2. Allow a reduced setback for taller structures through the Site Plan review process. ITEM #2 Site Plan when Industrial Zones are located next to Commercial Zones. In Industrial Zones, Site Plan review.is required only of projects larger than 4,000 square feet located in the IL or IM Zones. Site Plan review is not required in the IH Zone. The Committee indicated that site plan should be required whenever Industrial Zones are next to less intense zones. This approach would significantly change the City's current approach. The staff would like the Committee to clarify when Site Plan review should be used in Industrial Zones. OPTION 1 . Always require Site Plan when Industrial Zones are next to Commercial or Residential Zones. OPTION 2. Keep current Site Plan review requirements. SETBACK AMENDMENTS *Nov June 25, 1995 Page 3 DOCUMENT: SET 67 DATE: 6/19/95 SUBJECT: DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO CO, CA, IL, IM and IH ZONES STATUS: FOR REVIEW FOR REVIEW BY: P&DC DUE DATE: 6/21/95 CO (OFFICE.GOMMERc:1 I..) ;ZONE . 3. Setbacks: Setbacks in the CO Zone shall be required as follows: a. FrontYard /Street Setbacks A minimum of fiftccn fcct (15') MAXIMUM BUILDING MINIMUM MAXIMUM HEIGHT SETBACK SETBACK Less than 25' 15' 30' 25' - 80' 20' 40' Over 80' 30' 50' A reduced minimum setback of no less than fifteen feet (15') may be allowed for structures in excess of twenty five feet (25') through the site plan review process. On lots abutting more than one street, the maximum setback requirement shall only be applied to the primary street as determined by the Reviewing Official. (1) The maximum setback may be modified by the Reviewing Official through the site plan review process if the applicant can demonstrate that the site plan meets the following criteria: (A) Support opportunities for alternative modes of transportation through such measures as; providing pedestrian walkways, clustering buildings, utilizing transit compatible site design, incorporating High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) strategies. If the applicant can demonstrate that the preceding criteria cannot be met in the site plan, the Reviewing Official may modify the maximum setback requirements. For additions to existing structures, tThe maximum setback requirements shall only apply when the addition which is subject to Site Plan review. SETBACK AMENDMENTS June 25, 1995 Page 4 b. Rear and Side Yards: / Interior Setbacks: None shall be required except as listed in Special Requirements provisions below in Section 2.c.)andscaping section below., c. Special Requirements: If a CO lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot Zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') setback subject to the landscaping provisions in Section 10.c.(1) 10. Landscaping/Improvements: a. Street Frontage: Landscaping along areas Lots abutting public streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of fifteen ten feet 41-6-) (10'1, except where reduced through the site plan review process.. b. Pedestrian Connection: A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street unless the Reviewing Official determines that the requirement would unduly danger the pedestrian. c. Special Requirements: (1) If the CO lot is adjacent to a residential lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R- 10, R-24 or RM-I, SF or SF4 on the City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring landscaped strip or a five foot (5) wide sight obscuring landscaped strip and a solid six foot (6) high barrier used along the common boundary. The Review OfficialHearing Examiner may waive the sight obscuring provision in order to provide reasonable access to the property. If the street is designated arterial in the Transportation Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, non-sight obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Hearing Examiner. (2) If the CO lot abuts a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring landscaped strip. A ten foot (10') sight obscuring landscaping strip may be allowed through the Site Plan process provided that a solid six foot (6') high barrier wall is provided within the landscaped strip and a maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip is secured. Under no condition, shall a solid barrier wall be located closer than five feet (5') to an abutting lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R- 10, R-24 or RM-I. With Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.(SF Compatibility Point A) (3) If the CO lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R- 24 or RM-I, then all outdoor storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Reviewing Official. With Hearing Examiner or SETBACK AMENDMENTS ,,,,,, June 25, 1995 Page 5 Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.(SF Compatibility Point C/E) (4) All garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall not be located within fifty feet (50') of a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I except through the site plan process. In no case shall the garbage, refuse or dumpster area be located within the required setback. SETBACK AMENDMENTS June 25, 1995 Page 6 CA. (ARTERIA . C+ 3lllfMERCIA )ZONE D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 2. Setbacks: Setbacks in the CA zone shall be required as follows: a. FrontYa-rd/Street Setback: (1) Fronting Public Streets: Minimum Setback: A minimum setback of ten feet (10') is required. The minimum setback may be reduced down to zero feet (0') through the site plan review process provided that blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. Building Height Minimum Setback Maximum Setback Less than 25 feet 9 1 5' Above 25 feet 15' from the street level N/A setback b. Rear and Side Yards: / Interior Setbacks: None shall be required except as listed in Special Requirements provisions below in Section 2.c. in the landscaping section below.: c. Special Requirements: If a CA lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot Zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') setback subject to the landscaping provisions in Section 6.c.(1). 6. Landscaping/Improvements: a. Lot Linc Requirements: Street Frontage (1) Fronting Public Streets: A minimum of fifteen feet (15'). Lots abutting public streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of fifteen ten feet H-64 (10'), except where reduced through the site plan review process . b. Pedestrian Connection: A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street unless the Reviewing Official determines that the requirement would unduly danger the pedestrian. c. Special Requirements: (1) If the CA lot is adjacent to a residential lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R- 10, R-24 or RM-I, SF or SF/ on the City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, then there shall be a minimum fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring landscaped SETBACK AMENDMENTS ftrie June 25, 1995 Page 7 strip or a five foot (5) wide sight ebscuring la-ndsca-ped strip and a solid six foot (6) high barrier used along the common boundary. The Reviewing Official may modify the sight obscuring provision in order to provide reasonable access to the property. If the street is designated arterial in the Transportation Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, non-sight obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Reviewing Official. (2) If the CA lot abuts a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring landscaped strip. A ten foot (10') sight obscuring landscaping strip may be allowed through the Site Plan process provided that a solid six foot (6') high barrier wall is provided within the landscaped strip and a maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip is secured. Under no condition, shall a solid barrier wall be located closer than five feet (5') to an abutting lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R- 10, R-24 or RM-I. With Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. (SF Compatibility Point A) (3) If the CA lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R- 24 or RM-I, then all outdoor storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Reviewing Official. With Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. (SF Compatibility Point C/E) (4) All garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall not be located within fifty feet (50') of a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I except through the site plan process. In no case shall the garbage, refuse or dumpster area be located within the required setback. 15. Single Family Compatibility: Where the CA Zone abuts or is adjacent to (adjacency being defined as across the street from) a single family zone: a- a residential street or property. Include in 6.b.1 cannot be accessed from a residential street. Include in 6.b.1 . and 5. SETBACK AMENDMENTS June 25, 1995 Page 8 E residential property. Include in 6.b.3. d- Parking of vehicles related to the commercial uses shall not be allowed on residential streets. Include in 5. e- Require vehicle storage for repair and/or maintenance and other outdoor storage ar as to be screened from residenua1-arm+-s-by- one r nd ed pe (100%) sight obscuring fence or other barrier. Include in 6.b.3. where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXCESS HEIGHT 1 . In consideration of a request for conditional use permit for a building height in excess of forty five feet (45') , the Hearing Examiner or Zoning Administrator shall consider the following factors in addition to the criteria in Section 4-31- 36 of this Chapter, among all other relevant information. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: Buildings in excess of fifty feet (50') in height at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. When a building in excess of fifty feet (50') in height is proposed adjacent to or abuts a lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, a multiple family lot zoned MF or MR on the City of Renton Zoning Map and Multi Family on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, then setbacks shall be equivalent to the requirements of the adjacent residential zone if the setback standards exceed the requirements of the CA Zone. SETBACK AMENDMENTS June 25, 1995 Page 9 D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS �- Setbacks Abutting Public Streets: Minimum landscaped setback on the following types of streets shall be: a. Street Setbacks: (1) Along all streets designated arterial by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a setback of twenty feet (20') is required. Along all other streets, a setback of fifteen feet (15') is required. Street Types Minimum Setback Arterials 20 All others 15' th f' 4 '1 id h+ h lands strir lid foot �iiv on vv (6') high barrier, shall be required along the common property line if an IL lot is adjacent to a lot with a residential designation on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. b. Rear and Side / Interior Setbacks: None shall be required except as listed in Special Requirements provisions below in Section 2.c.in the landscaping section below.. c. Special Requirements: If a IL lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot Zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a twenty foot (20)' setback subject to the landscaping provisions in Section 7b.(1). 7 Landscaping: a. Lots abutting arterial streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of 10% of lot depth or twenty feet (20') feet, whichever is less. Lots abutting non- arterial streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of 10% of lot depth or fifteen feet (15'), whichever is less. In no case, however, shall the landscaping strip be less than ten feet (10'). b. Special Requirements: (1) If the IL lot is adjacent to a lot zoned designated R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R- 24 or RM-I, , then there shall be a minimum fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring landscaped strip. The Reviewing Official may waive the sight obscuring provision in order to provide reasonable access to the property located on the adjacent street. If the street is designated arterial in the City Comprehensive SETBACK AMENDMENTS 11110 *10 June 25, 1995 Page 10 Plan, non-sight obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Reviewing Official. (2) If the IL lot abuts a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring landscaped strip. A ten foot (10') sight obscuring landscaping strip may be allowed through the Site Plan process provided that a solid six foot (6') high barrier wall is provided within the landscaped strip and a maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip is secured. Under no condition, shall a solid barrier wall be located closer than five feet (5') to an abutting lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R- 10, R-24 or RM-I. With Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.(SF Compatibility Point A) (3) If the IL lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, then all outdoor storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Reviewing Official. With Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.(SF Compatibility Point C/E) (4) All garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall not be located within fifty feet (50') of a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I except through the site plan process. In no case shall the garbage, refuse or dumpster area be located within the required setback. SETBACK AMENDMENTS Nor' June 25, 1995 Page 11 D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I A h bl' C Min Iandsc ba„k the s� Sc�cres�'-cvcrt�i-RE�}-�Paunv—Qt-�e•cc�T �pc�e��ucrc cn rrrc following types of streets shall bc: a. Street Setbacks: (1) Along all streets designated arterial by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a setback of twenty feet (20') is required. Along all other streets, a setback of fifteen feet (15') is required. Street Types Minimum Setback Arterials 20 All others 1 5' • • to a lot designated residential on both the City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning public/quasi public use on the City Comprehensive Plan. b. Rear and Side / Interior Setbacks: None shall be required except as listed in Special Requirements provisions below in Section 2.c. in the landscaping section below.. c. Special Requirements: If a IM lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot Zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifty foot (50)' setback subject to the landscaping provisions in Section 6.b.(1) 6. Landscaping: a. Lots abutting arterial streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of 10% of lot depth or twenty feet (20') feet, whichever is less. Lots abutting non- arterial streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of 10% of lot depth or fifteen feet (15'), whichever is less. In no case, however, shall the landscaping strip be less than ten feet (10'). b. Special Requirements: (1) If the IM lot is adjacent to a lot zoned designated R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R- 24 or RM-I, then there shall be a minimum fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring SETBACK AMENDMENTS *IMO June 25, 1995 Page 12 landscaped strip. The Reviewing Official may waive the sight obscuring provision in order to provide reasonable access to the property located on the adjacent street. If the street is designated arterial in the City Comprehensive Plan, non-sight obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Reviewing Official. (2) If the IM lot abuts a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring landscaped strip. A ten foot (10') sight obscuring landscaping strip may be allowed through the Site Plan process provided that a solid six foot (6') high barrier wall is provided within the landscaped strip and a maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip is secured. Under no condition, shall a solid barrier wall be located closer than five feet (5') to an abutting lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R- 10, R-24 or RM-I. With Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.(SF Compatibility Point A) (3) If the IM lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, then all outdoor storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Reviewing Official. With Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.(SF Compatibility Point C/E) (4) All garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall not be located within fifty feet (50') of a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I except through the site plan process. In no case shall the garbage, refuse or dumpster area be located within the required setback. SETBACK AMENDMENTS „ftio, -wow June 25, 1995 Page 13 ` EAVI(2— Setbacks Abutting Public Stfects: -Minimum landscaped setback on the following types of streets shall be: a. Street Setbacks: (1) Along all streets designated arterial by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a setback of twenty feet (20') is required. Along all other streets, a setback of fifteen feet (15') is required. Street Types Minimum Setback Arterials 20 All others 15' Special Setback Requirements:A fifty foot (50') wide setback, including a ten fence, shall be required along the common property line if an IM lot is adjacent to a lot designated residential on both the City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning public/quasi public use on the City Comprehensive Plan. b. Rear and Side / Interior Setbacks: None shall be required except as listed in Special Requirements below in Section 2.c. in the landscaping section below._ c. Special Requirements: If a IH lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot Zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifty foot (50)' setback subject to the landscaping provisions below. If the IH lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned MF-C, MF-N, MF-U, CD, CS, CN, CC, CA or POR, then there shall be a twenty foot (20') setback required subject to the landscaping provisions in Section 6.b.(1). 6. Landscaping: a. Lots abutting arterial streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of 10% of lot depth or twenty feet (20') feet, whichever is less. Lots abutting non- arterial streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of 10% of lot depth or fifteen feet (15'), whichever is less. In no case, however, shall the landscaping strip be less than ten feet (10'). b. Special Requirements: (1) If the IH lot is adjacent to a lot zoned designated R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R- 24 or RM-I, then there shall be a minimum fifteen foot (15') sight obscuring SETBACK AMENDMENTS June 25, 1995 • Page 14 landscaped strip. The Reviewing Official may waive the sight obscuring provision in order to provide reasonable access to the property located on the adjacent street. If the street is designated arterial in the City Comprehensive Plan, non-sight obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Reviewing Official. (2) If the IH lot abuts a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot {15') sight obscuring landscaped strip. A ten foot (10') sight obscuring landscaping strip may be allowed through the Site Plan process provided that a solid six foot (6') high barrier wall is provided within the landscaped strip and a maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip is secured. Under no condition, shall a solid barrier wall be located closer than five feet (5') to an abutting lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8, R- 10, R-24 or RM-I. With Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.(SF Compatibility Point A) (3) If the IH lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I, then all outdoor storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Reviewing Official. With Hearing Examiner or Administrative site plan approval, these provisions may be modified where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc. that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.(SF Compatibility Point C/E) (4) All garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall be screened by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall not be located within fifty feet (50') of a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-24 or RM-I except through the site plan process. In no case shall the garbage, refuse or dumpster area be located within the required setback. SETBACK AMENDMENTS June 25, 1995 Page 15 OPTION # SITE PLAN FOR INDU:ST# tAL USES ::>: Require Site Plan in the IL, IM and IH when abutting or'adjacent to',a Residential-or Commercial Zone. SITE..PLAN.I~4R.INb J: 1:1 .. .US Maintain current site plan requirements. Apply site plan to projects in the IL • and IM over 4,000 square feet in size. Do not require site;,plan in the IL and IM zone of small project when they abut.or are adjacent to Residential or Commercial Zone.- Do not require site plan in the IH Zone. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date -26- (s PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT June 26, 1995 Setback Amendments (Referred: 11/21/94) The Planning and Development Committee recommends that a public hearing be set for July, 17, 1995 for comments regarding proposed amendments to the setback and landscaping provisions of the CS, CN, CC, CA, CO,IL,IM and HI Zones. Richard M. Stredi e, Chair cA"ducAkeei k)L2.(2—ea„, Kathy ICeellker-Wheeler,Vice-Chair • Randy Colman,Member