The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-04-154.~fie CITY OF RENTON :!!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 \6~ 722400042502 KENNELLY JOHN M -< z...l OU (1.1 .... 1410 "55 ~.~ U.S. POS1'4GE DEvELOPMENT P~NlNG CITY OF RENTON '··6333 LK WASH BL NE STE 200 KIRKLAND W A 98033 DEC 15200+ ' RECEIVED : r :-:.-.:..: i:. .......... -• .-. ,_,-.. W::::II,:.iI ':::1.1::11_'..:1 9~O.s.S 7.:3.23,2 KENN333 X 990 N1 1 C03 C 01 12/14/04 FORWARO T7ME EXP RTN TO SEND KENNELLY'JOHN M 224:36 NE 10TH ST SAMMAM7SH WA 99074-6999 RETURN TO SENDER 11.1 •• 1111,111111','111,1,1,1111,1,11,11,,11,1,1.1111,111,11,1 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) I DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: \ APPLICATION NAME: December 10, 2004 LUA04-154, ECF City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title' IV Procedural and Development Regulation ReVisions 2004 include . amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. Title 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Amend to be more concise, better omanized and intemallv consistent B. Tille 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. C; Tille 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. D. Tille 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 familv zones. . E. Title 4, Chapter 2: R-10 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz 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 4-2-11 OF specifies that the density requirements take precedence over the minimum lot size standards. The code does not allow infin of multifamilystruclures 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. F. Tille 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. G. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivisions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Courtney Rora 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 reQulationsjsee below). H. 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. I. Tille 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process For Noriproject 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. Amendment Requests J. Title 4. Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulation Update Docket Item: No Proponent City of Renton Summary: The proposal would modemize 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. K. Title 4. Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non-traditional medical activities and mixed-use medical activities. PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City IImits_ '" ,~ ____ ~ _~_.,_-._OPTIONAL_DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency;-the-City -of-Renton' has --. determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore. 'as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 O. the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. ' PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTlCE'OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 10, 2004 PermltslRevlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation. City Council Legislative Action. State of Washington Department of Community. Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested Studies/Existlng Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: Planning!Building/Public Works Division. Development Services Department. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services DiviSion. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail. contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NolName: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton MuniCipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ____________________ ~--------~{~. ____________________ _ ADDRESS: ____ -~~'~~ ____________________ ~ ____________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________ __ .~Fe CITY OF RENTON ::! Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 \~ 722450018006 ., .... : ,-"" ~.." OU 0 .... LYCO f! DEVELOPMENT P~NlNG CITY OF RENTON SAUNDERS-WHITE ERlC+CYNTHIA 541 WELLS AV N DEC 16200+ RECEIVED RENTON W A 98055 ._i-I Cst-iP-. S'8i:iS! 900.5.5%3232 NIXIE 990 0 i 00 i2/i.5/04 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD Be: S190,5.53.~3.2.sS*2:1e9-00.5:10-:1.5-27 II, J , , J, I J, J J 11/1/,1,,1,111 , 111111,1111111,1,1,1,1111,111111, J NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) r DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPUCATION NAME: December 10, 2004 LUA04-154, ECF City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. Title 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Amend to be more concise, better oroanized and internally_consistent. B. 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 Intertocal Agreement or appear unnecessary. . C. 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. D. 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 litle 4 in order to address an inconsistency between minimum lot size and maximum density In single family zones. E. Title 4, Chapter 2: R-l0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-l0. The proponenfs 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 4-2-11 OF 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 fimlts. Options reviewed address possible porlCY 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 Comorehensive Plan amendment process. F. 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 jlrovisions have been fulfilled and can be deleted from the code. G. Title 4, Chapter 7: SubdMsions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Courtney Rora 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). H. 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. I. Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process For Noriproject 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 nonproiect actions. Amendment Requests J. 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 mo<flflcations to development standards in exchange for public benefits. The amendments address applicable zones, the Jypes of regulations that mav be varied with the PUD reQulations and other procedural items. K. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related ActMties Docket Item: No . -, .. ~ -, . Proponent City of Renton Summary: Change medlcal related terminology to address non-traditional medlcal activities and mixed-use medical activities. PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION, OF. NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that Significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be iSSUed. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the,issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPUCATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETEAPPUCATION: December 10, 2004 Environmental (SEPA) Review PennitslRevlew Requested: Other PennltslApprovals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Councillegislalive Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested StudiesIExlsting Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. LocaUon where applicaUon may be reviewed:, PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of reCord to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Rle NoJName: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton MuniCipal Code, Title IV Pr~dural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ______________________________ ~{~' ____________________ _ ADDRESS: ____ -=~· __ ~ ____ ~ ______________ ~ ____________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________ _ let(! CITY OF RENTON :!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 \61 722550001001 THUERINGER DARVIN G 405 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 , i.I: ~~ ~d E)Q 01-&.Yet) a:f!i &,.~ PgMIlTgA ~141B9mLu.i. POUAGE DEVELOPMENT pLANNING CITY OF RENTON DEC \ 62004 RECE\VED NIXJ:E 9ao 0:1. 00 :1.2/:1..5/04 -_i-r iJSJ-·jP SEerS 9S0S5 %3.2:32 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD Be : se05.53.23.25.5*.2:l. eg-00506-:1..5 -.27 II ,1111, ,1,1111111, /, ,1,1", II, ,,1,1,,1111,1,1,1,1, ,J,I,,, ILl NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ( DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPUCATION NAME: December 10, 2004 LUA04-154, ECF City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. 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. B. Tille 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. C. Tille 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 reauires securities or bond. .. D. Tille 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. . E. Title 4, Chapter 2: R-l0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-l0. 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 4-2-11 OF 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 !Iddress 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 designstandlirds. Some options would: limit the effect of the regulations to North Renton, or lirriitthe multiplexes by requiring"a Conditional use permit. Anoiher option conceptually reviews the potentia.1 for Comprehensive Plan land use map and rezones; however this would require review in 2005 as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. F. Tille 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. G. Tille 4, Chapter 7: Subdivisions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Courtney Rore 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 compnance 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). H. Tille 4 Chapter 8: Appeal Process -Growth Management Hearings Board: 04-11 Dockel"ltem: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Correct the appeals process for Growth Management Act actions. I. Tille 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 nonproiect actions. I Amendment Requests J. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulation Update Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: The proposal would modemize 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 rEllLulations that may be varied with the PUD re~gulations and other procedural items. K. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities Deicket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton .'. Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non-traditional medical activities and mixed-use medical activities. . . . PROJECT LOCATION: City C?f Renton CorPorate limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. OPTIONAL-DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has-" determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C:ll0,.the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of 'h.e DNS. -. PERMIT APPliCATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPliCATION: December 10, 2004 Environmental (SEPA) Review PermltslRevllilw.Requested: Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Legislative Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. ' Requested StudlesIExlsting Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: PlanninglBuilding/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and retum to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ______________________________ ~(~~---------------------- ADDRESS: ____ ·~~'~~--------------------~--------------------- TELEPHONE NO.: __________________ __ '~~fie CITY OF RENTON :! Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 &t 722400061502 ~a Eti @,,_I! HAHN TODD M+CASSANDRA M , 1350 INDEX A V NE #2 RENTON W A 98056 NIXIE : OJ5 ~ U.S. POSTAGE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON DEC t 62004 RECEIVED sso 0 ~ 00 12/1.5/04 RETURN TO SENOER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNAe~E TO FORWARD ec: 9905.53232.5.5 *2~e9-0~.s73-1S-27 ·)-IOSt·iP 9805E ge0.5-5%323.2 11,1,,111 I ,I 1,,111 ,1111 II III JJ", I, I" J I,ll J ,1,1,1, ,I, J "' J I, I NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) > DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPLICATION NAME: December 10, 2004 LUA04-154, ECF City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. Tille 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Docket Item: Yes Proponent City of Renton Summary: Amend to be more concise, better organized, and Intemally consistent. B. ntle 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. C. 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. D. Tille 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 ntle 4 in order to address an inconsistency between minimum lot size and maximum density in single family zones. . E. ntle 4, Chapter 2: R-l0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a properly on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-l0. The proponent's desire is to build a duplex on the properly that meets the minimum lot size, which would result in a density greater than 10 units per acre. Section 4-2-11 OF 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 amimdment process. F. Tille 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. G. ntle 4, Chapter 7: Subdivisions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Courtney Aora 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 reoulations (see below). H. nUe 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. I. 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 sep_aration of hearings for nonproject actions. I I Amendment Requests J. ntle 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulation Update Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: The proposal would modemize 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 . !voes of reQulations that may be varied with the PUD regulations and other procedural items. K. TItle 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities Dock~t Item: No •. Proponent: City of Renton . ..' ": ,.'. .... .' ... Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non-traditional medical activities and mixed-use medical activities. PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agenpy, the City of Renton has·o;.:.....o_~ 0 .... 0 determinea that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 10, 2004 PermltslRevlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Legislative Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested StudlesiExlstlng Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/BuildingiPublic Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ADDRESS: ____ -~~·~~ ______ ~ ______ ~----~-------------------- TELEPHONE NO.: ______________ __ CITY OF RENTON ... Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 (\ ~ ~W\ ~ qJ \~ 722400031000 MILLIKAN MERIL YN I 9110 COAL CREEK PKWY SE NEW CASTLE W A 98059 .. :i-r DS~'~~S~~~J ~< ;1:-' QU tn .... !.Yen f! ~ OJ5~ y.s. fi08U(U DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON DEC 16 200~ RECEIVED NIXIE eeo 1 01 12/15/04 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARO Be: ge05S~2~2SS ~21e9-010~7-1S-27 II, J /I J " J,) I,) ) ) 1,1 ) ) I ) III) II) II I)) 111111 ) I d) J.) II J ,III" I) I NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIG~IFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPLICATION NAME: December 10, 2004 LUA04-154, ECF City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. Title 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Amend to be more concise better organized and Intemally consistent. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. E. Tille 4, Chapter 2: R-10 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz 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 4-2-11 OF specifies that the density requirements take precedence over the minimum lot size standards. The code does not allow il)fill 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 pennit. 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. F. 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. G. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivisions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Courtney Rora 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). H. Tille 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. I. Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process For NOriproject 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 nonproiect actions. I I Amendment Requests J. 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 tvoes of l'9Qulations that mav be varied with the PUD reQulations, and other procedural items. K. Trtle 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non-traditional medical activities and mixed-use medical activities. PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof in North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern CHy limits. _,/,_,,",~_,, __ .-,-_.~:,.~.OPJIQNAL-DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead ·Agency; -the:Cityof' Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 10, 2004 PermltslRevlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review , , ~. ' ..., " Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Councii Legislative Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested Studies/Existing Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other stUdies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: PlanningIBuiiding/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 . Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this. proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 43Q-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ______________________________ ~~ __________________ __ ADDRESS: __________ ·=~'~~--------------------------~------------------------ TELEPHONE NO.: _________________ _ .~te CITY OF RENTON ~ Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 {o~ 722450002000 ARAGON_HECTOR+ FRAULEIN+MACA 1803 N 185TH ST SEATTLE WA 98133 .J-IOSt'lP sa i 3: !9S0SS%3232 .. ' .~ < ,;.c -' OU 0 .... weill f.! U.fJ. POSTAGe DEVELOPMENT PlANNING CITY OF RENTON DEC 1 5, 200It RECEIVED x 9S0 N~ ~ 903 C 01 12/14/04 FORWARD T~ME EXP RTN TO SEND ARAGON 1642 N 1S3RD ST SHOREL~NE WA 96133-4510 RETURN TO SENDER 11,1"1,,/,1/11,,1,1,,1,1,, ,1111,1,1"11,, ,1,1,1,111111,1,1111 DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: .. .-." H··'.._'-_"·>"\*'~ __ ' __ APPUCATION NAME: December 10, 2004 LUA04-154, ECF City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. Title 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Amend to be more concise, better or!!anized, and intemally consistent. B. ntle 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. C. 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. D. 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 ntle 4 in order to address an inconsistency between minimum lot size and maximum density in sino Ie family zones. . E. nile 4, Chapter 2: R-l0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats·on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wells Avenue North currenlly zoned R-l0. 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 4-2-11 OF specifies that the density requirements take precedence over the minimum lot size standa,rds. 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 pennit. Another optionCQnceptual1y 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. F. Title 4, Chapters 2 and 4: Green River Valley Landscaping: 04-6 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Detennine/document if 2% habitat set-aside proviSions have been fulfilled and can be deleted from the code, G. ntle 4, Chapter 7: Subdivisions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Courtney Rora 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 subdMsion 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 ownershiD with bindino site Dlans, as well as amendin!! the current PUD reQulationsisee below). H. 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. I. ntle 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Pennit and SEPA Process For NOriproject 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. I Amendment Requests J. TItle 4, Chapler 9: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulation Update Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: The proposal would modemize 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 ml!}! be varied with the PUD reoulations and other procedural items. : .. K. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities Docket Item: No , Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non·traditional medical activities and mixed-use medical activities. PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 10, 2004 Environmental (SEPA) Review PermltslRevlew Requested: Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Legislative Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested StudieslExlsting Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton MuniCipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: _________________ ~-----~---------------- ADDRESS: ____ ·~~·~ ____________________ ~~ __________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: ________________ _ .~~ CITY OF RENTON :! Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ~\Jn .~ \~ 722400036504 .;:s gu C 0 .... !MY.! f.2 BOEHM CHIMO K+AUTUMN A 25910 29TH PL S #D-103 KENT W A 98032 N:rX:IE If. jilt , ;; ·'=ltlP fI : #I fI fI " II U.8. UlOU£(U f: DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON DEC 1 52004 RECEIVED 9ElO 0 1 00 12/14/04 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNAeLE TO FORWARD -_i-1 DSt-1P S8::i3~ 9 e o.s.s % 3.23!O~ ec: geo.s.sS.232.s.s *:2:1S9-04.s.sS-14-.27 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIG~IFICANCE (DNS) ,~ ... DATE: December 10, 2004 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA04-154, ECF .• ..c.,~~ ••. ~., ~~_. __ ., •• _ •. _ .• __ . APPLICATION NAME: City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. Title 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Amend to be more concise, better oraanized and intemallv consistent. B. 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. C. TIlle 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 reauires securities or bond. D. Tille 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. E. TIlle 4, Chapter 2: R-l0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-l0. 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 4-2-11 OF 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 multijilexes 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 01 the annual COlT\llrehensive Plan amendment process. . F. Tille 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. G. 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 zonil1g and development standards. The binding site plan process is appficable to commercial, mixed use, and industrial zones. Other code amendment options addr.~~ provisions to combine condominium ownership with binding site plans, as well as amending the current PUD reaulations see below). H. Tille 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 Manaaement Act actions. I. 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 reaardina the separation of hearinas for nonproiect actions. Amendment Requests J. ntle 4. Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulation Update Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: The proposal would modemize 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 rejiulations that mav be varied with the PUD regulations. and other procedural items. K. mle 4. Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities " Docket Item: No Proponent City of Renton '. , ... .. ... ... -" . . '" Summary: Change medical related terminology to address noil-traditional medicalaclivities and mixed-use medical .. activities. PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency. the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore. as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.ll O. the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 10, 2004 PermltslRevlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation. City Council Legislative Action. State of Washington Department of Community. Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested StudieslExlstlng Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division. Development Services Department. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of repord to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and retum to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Rle NoJName: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton MuniCipal Code. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ________ ~~ __________________ ~(~. ____ ~ ______________ __ ADDRESS: ____ ·~~·~ __________ ~ ____ ~--~------~------~------ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________ __ .~fie CITY OF RENTON :!!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ~ 722450013502 PETERSON CHARLES A+ SARAH D GARNER 225 S 51ST ST #C RENTON W A 98055 _. to·: .r" C gG "' .... wen ~.I NIXIe: 9190 o ~ Y.I. POSTAGe DEVELOPMENT PVWNlNG CITY OF FiEN'f'oN DECr 7. 200~ RECEIVED 00 ~2/~8/04 ~ETU~N TO SENDE~ ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FO~WA~D .j-IOSNP 9805. 990.5.5%3232 ElC: 990.5.532:3.'2.5.5 '*2:1.199-02390-18-21 IJ,J"I"I,JJ""J, J I d dJl I /I" II I 1,,111 II IIIIIII I I I 11,,11111 :.~ l NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) t l~ .. DATE: December 10, 2004 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA04-154, ECF APPUCATION NAME: City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. -Amendment Requests A. Title 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summarv: Amend to be more concise better organized, and intemally consistent. B. 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 unnecessarv. C. 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. . D. Trtle 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 sinale family zones. E. Trtle 4, Chapter 2: R-l0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-l0. 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 4-2-11 OF 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· Omit the effect of the regulations to North Renton, or limit the multiplexes by requiring a conditional use pennit. 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 Comorehensive Plan amendment process. J"': F. Trtle 4, Chapters 2 and 4: Green River Valley Landscaping: 04-6 - Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summarv: Detennine/document if 2% habitat set-aside provisions have been fulfilled and can be deleted from the code. G. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivisions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Courtney Aora 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 bindina site plans as well as amendina the current PUD regulations (see below). H. Trtle 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 Manaaement Act actions. I. Trtle 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Pennit 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 hearil1gs for nOIlJ)rQiect actions. I Amendment Requests J. 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. , K. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton , • Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non"raditional medical activities and mixed-use medical activities. . PROJECT LOCATION: City ,?f R~nton Corporate Limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 10, 2004 PennJtslRevlew Requested: Environmen~1 (SEPA) Review Other PennitsiApprovals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Legislative Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested Studies/Exlsting Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: PlanninglBuilding/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services DiVision, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form' and retum to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File No.lName: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ____________ ~ __ ~ ____________ ~l~· ____________________ __ ADDRESS: ____ ·~~'~~ __________________ ~ ____________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: ________________ _ z~fie CITY OF RENTON :!!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 \~ 722400012505 .:< ':C .... C U u."-We/) f.! U.s. '08fAGE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF REflJTON DELMUNDO DANILO S+GLORIA L 16546 SE 19TH ST DEC Il2C.:4 ReCeIVED ~j BELLEVUE W A 98008 "_i-.r OSt"lp· Si3i:iiJ 9S0S.s%3232 N:rX.IE gSO 0 i 00 i~/ie/04 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD Be: 9S0SS3~3~SS *2SS9-0S1S9-1S-27 11,1,,1,,1, I 1""1,),, 1,1" dll,I,I"II,"I,ld, 1,,1 ,1,"1 I ,I ~.': .. ~ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIG~IFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPLICATION NAME: December 10, 2004 LUA04-154, ECF City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. . Amendment Requests A. 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. B. 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. C. 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 Citv reauires securities or bond. D. 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. E. Title 4, Chapter 2: R-10 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-l0. 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 4-2-11 OF specifies that the density requirements take precedence over the minimum lot size standards. The code does not allow infill of muHifamily 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 meetthe minimum lot size but-not the zone density. Some· options wouldappiy'design standards. Some options would limit the effect of the regulations to North Renton, or limit the multiplexes by requiring a conditional use pennit. Another option conceptually reviews the potential for Comprehensive Plan land use map and rezones; however this would require review in 2005 as Dart of the annual Comorehensive Plan amendment orocess. F. Title 4, Chapters 2 and 4: Green River Valley Landscaping: 04-6 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Detennine/document if 2% habitat set-aside provisions have been fulfilled and can be deleted from the code. G. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivisions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Courtney Aora 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 ownershlo with binding site olans, as well as amending the current PUD regulations (see beloll{}, H. Title 4 Chapter 8: Appeal Process -Growth Management Hearings Board: 04-11 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Correct the aooeals orocess for Growth Management Act actions. i. 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 rulesr6!l.arding the seDaration of hearings for nonproject actions. I • Amendment Requests J. TrtJe 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 rejJulations that may be varied with the PUD'reQulations, and other prOcedural itemS.· .', . ' K. TrtJe 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medic~1 Related Activities ., .. .. . Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non-traditional medical activities and mixed-use medical activities. PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE .. (DNS):". -As--theLead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be iSSUed. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION: December 10, 2004 PermltslRevlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review Other PermHslApprovals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Legislative Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested StudieslExisting Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.u5 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and retum to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton MuniCipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ____________ ~------------~~~<~ .. ---------------------- ADDRESS: ____ '~~'~~ ____________________ ~ __ ~----------------- TELEPHONE NO.: _____________ -,-__ -,--....; Joyce D. Brandow 429 Wells Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 tel: 425-228-2568 (party of record) City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 (owner) Dan Sperry 2504 Crestmont Place W Seattle, WA 98199 (party of record) S.L. Knickerbocker 4148-1 Patterson Street Anchorage, AK 99504 tel: 907-229-4662 (party of record) Updated: 03/11/05 PARTIES OF RECORD 2004 DOCKET CHANGES LUA04-154, ECF Jose Ramirez PO Box 1441 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Judy Wright City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 (contact) Courtney Flora Greg Smith 6811 Ripley Lane N Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Lynn Simpson 111 Wells Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Nora Schultz 2025 1st Avenue ste: #1130 Seattle, WA 98121-2100 (party of record) 540 Williams Avenue N ste: #12 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) .~~ CITY OF RENTON :! Planning/Building/Public Works ~a g 1055 South qrady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ret; ~.I! 722500014005 LJJI/~I.f-1S1 KNOWLES DEIRDRE EILER KELLEN 301 PELLY AVN \ sy RENTON WA 98055 NIXIE ge0:1 0;1. ;12/:19/04 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNABL.E TO F'ORWAR'O o_i-r OSt-1P 98;:i5! Be: seO.S53.23.25S *.2.1 e9-0$1444--.1 $1-:1.5 $1605.5%3232 j J J 1 ) ) j ) , j ,II J 'I J f,l J ) 111,1111 J ,,1,1,,11./ , ,I, I,f J j , , j J 11,111,1 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) > DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: ~ ... '".~.' .'-.-'--~ APPLICATION NAME: December 10, 2004 LUA04-154, ECF City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. ntle 4, Chapter I, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Amend to be more concise. better olQanized, and intemally consistent. B. ntle 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. C. ntle 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. . D. 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 ntle 4 in order to address an inconsistency between minimum lot size and maximum density in single familY zones. E. ntle 4, Chapter 2: R-l0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-l0. 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 4-2-11 OF specifies that the density requirements take precadence 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. . F. 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. G. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivisions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04-8 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Courtney Aora 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 amendina the current PUD reaulationsisee belollol}. H. ntle 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 Manaaement Act actions. I. Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process For Noriproject 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 sep.aration of hearings for nonproject actions. I Amendment Requests J. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulation Update Docket Item: No Proponent City of Renton Summary: The proposal would modemize the City's current PUD regulations and provide a process to request mocflfications to development standards in exchange for public benefits. The amendments address applicable zones, the types cif regulations that may be varied with the PUD regulations and other procedural items. K. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non-traditional medical activities and mixed-use m'edical activities. PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION .OF.,.NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 10, 2004 PermltslRevlew Requested: . Envlr~nmental (SEPA) Review Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Legislative Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested StudieslExlstlng Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: PlanninglBuilding/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27,2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File No.!Name: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: __________________________ ~--~~----------__ -------- ADDRESS: ____ --~·,~ ____________________ ~ ____________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ___________ _ _.-..:::.,;,.- L~fie CITY OF RENTON :!!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ~ 135230030003 ARTEGUS WILLIS 353 MEADOW AVN RENTON W A 98055 .)-r OSNP SaOS! ge0.5.5%3~:3~ _. i..r. ,D <IIC gG tn .... i;! NIXIE r)JJY 9ao 0:1 00 1!2/:19/04 RETURN TO SENDER AT"rE"'PTEO -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD Be : geO-S.53~S.~.s.s *~:1e9-0943S-19-1.5 111111111 I1111 J I J I J I11111 J J III I J I L 111111111111111111 J j J 111111 ·~~~ CITY OF RENTON ::! Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 \~\ 722400030002 COOK DENISE E 215 PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 4_i-I DSt-iP' . SSi:iS! Se0.5.5%3~32 , .,. ,-< :1:-1 aU 0 .... '" en f.~ N:rXIE ~ Sileo 1 -1"''",1 'ff : "~: O'J'5l'l! : • y.g. P08f4(U 1= 01 12/19/04 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEI'1FTEO -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD Be: geO.5.532312.5.5 *,2:1 S9-094:32-.1 9-1.5 JJ J J J J J, J J J" I J II J ,I,,1, i ",II",J I j Illl 11,1,1" ,1111, j,l, 11 I i ~. ~JI ... CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady'\yaY-.R.enton Washington 98055 \~ 135230053005 WILSON NAOMI 340 MEADOW A V N RENTON W A 98055 ._1-r CiSt·iP SSCiS£: '.990.5.5 %323~ , ..,:' ._ c .x ...I OU U) ~ WU3 a;c:.r: ~.it ~/ NIXIE S90 0 1 00 1~/19/04 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARO Be: 990.5.5323255 *21S9-09450-19-15 II I J I III I lilill III II I I I I I I I 1111 I 11.1 II II I I ,I 11,1,1'1 II 111,11,1 .~fie CITY OF RENTON :! Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ~ > ..... ~ .. " .,.. " .~~~i·~ ... ... ... """". 722400039003 MOORE BOB A 228PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 ·j-IOSNP saGs!: ge0..5..5%3232 A U~t .-<' ~d CI'.) ..... if N:rXIE j.OO ~ ~~ 900 ;1 0;1. ;1.2/:1.9/04 RETURN TO SENDER AT-rEHI=TED -NOT KNOWN UNASLE TO FORWARD ec: 98055:3232.5.5 *2189-09459-19-1..5 11.1 •• 1 •• j J II II J J I J I J J 1,1, J J II J J J 1.1 J J II J II 1,1,1 J I J ,1,1," 11,1 ~ .~fie CITY OF RENTON :! Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ~ A"'" 722400052006 ONEAL DIANE MARIE 330PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 -_i-r DSt-1P 9·ai::~!: 9S0.5.5'?3232 .;.;:.:c ;r;-' OU (I) .... &.1.1 (I) 11:$ ®;. .. ~ J,o"~ r-s?Zi!.!, • * : 0 j 5 ~ Ii • • • U.o. POUACU..J: NIXIE 990 0;1. 00 i2/;1.S/04 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEt-'PTEO -NOT KNOWN UNAeLE TO FORWARD ec: 990.5.532·3.2.5.5 *.2.:1 as-094S0-19-;1..5 1J 1111 1111111111111 I111I fll I II I111I I 111111 If I I I I I III 111111 II II .- ~ --~ CITY OF RENT'ON Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ~ 135230069506 HAMBLIN DONALD E 14250 SE 142ND PL RENTON W A 98056 ~o~~lS"" '3.~'9~ . 990.5.5%32-3.2 .! c,..: ,-<II: ':C ~ o en .... 1&10 ~~ ®:'.~ r tI 1'1 12 1184 PlESORTEn ft~ * :~1"';~U ( Vtp.1 !'9§M •• NIXIE :]:1~: ~ .. f' .~,', ,~ / :::'(. (\ /,',. ~ .. :,' 990 1 01 1.2/;1.9/04 RE-rURN TO SENDER NO SUCH NU1"ElER UNABLE TO FORWARD ElC: 990.5.53..23..2.5.5 *01.26-01473-1.2-17' 11,L ,JII1,HII/) ilL ,1,1,,, li" ,1,1-" II" ,I, I, I, I, ,Ii 1",11.1 D~fiie CITY OF RENTON ::! Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ., 1.~.1 "";., D-cC IX..I 0" en .... wen f .. ! " It 11 64 PRESORTED ~ 172305905009 KNICKERBOCKER GLEN M + SANDRAL 41481 PATTERSON ST ANCHORAGE AK 99504 ~~~(".J~/~~~-:; 990.5.5 7.32:S2 NIXIE E~ 99.5 0 1 00 12/1.5/04 RETURN oro SENDER NO SUCH NUHeER UNAe~E TO FORWARD ec : 9905.53232.5.5 *0.526-07347-11-39 111111 11,1,11111111 It , II 111111",1,1 " 1111,1, " 1,1,,1,111,11,1 .d ... ~~f' ....... P.-..__ ~~ ------~~-~~-- 14~fe CITY OF RENTON :!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 01--\ '" \6 ~ 172305905801 KIRKMAN JAMES C 1002 N 35TH RENTON W A 98055 __ 1-r CiSi··iP ::H3i:i·5i 9'BagH:~~f§.2 ~< ~-' gU en .... auen ~.I NIXIE =-~"f' lI' : 0 J 5 ~ Ii • it • !J.G. rOQUO! I: f}/ $leo 0:1 00 :1.2/20/04 RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNAeLE TO FORWARD ec: 9S0SS3232SS *2~eg-:123:1S-14-:14 II I J ,,1,,1,11, ",I,I"I,I,"IIIl,/'/ "11,,,1,1,1 J I J J I J I J J J Jill ~ -,----, .~~ CITY OF RENTON :!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ; 0'>-\"" \c:)<. .j-r OSJ'a{~j~~2 ,~~ ~ zej o (1)1-",(I) III:flI!ii a.. Ii; ATHERINEM NIXIE: f " it !'9. POSTAG~ I: JY~ sao :1 Oi :12/.20/04 RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 99055:3232.5.5 *21.99-:12333-14-i4 'J I J" ,,, I, "1111'1111 J I ',11 " III J I J! I J J 1111/1111 J 111,1 " 11111 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ~ 722400007000 ONE PARK PLACE LLC 127PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 1 I .j-IDSt'lP Sii.JS WU~_32 7;": _<=t :3: G o (I) .... ",en f.! S,Y ~o-J5~ U.S. POSTAGE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JAN 102005 RECEIVED I NIX:rE S90 ;1. 01 01/07/05: I RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD Be: 99055323255 *2199-00546-14-19 :~ II, I" I" I, II" "I, I "I, I" III" ,','"11,,,',1,1,1,,',',,,"" -------- .~~ CITY OF RENTON :!!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 \51 -- 722450024202 PHAM DIEN KIM 508 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 .< ;god oy fnl-wen t8:~ ~.~ ~/ 'i'~QE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CIT'( OF RENtON JAN 10 2005 RECEIVED NIXIE 900 0 1 00 0:1/07/05 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD Be: 98055323255 *2189-00024-15-15 II ,1"1,,1,11,, "1,1,,1,1,,, II,,, 1,1"11,, ,1,1,1,1"1,1,, ,11,1 '~Fe CITY OF RENTON :! Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 722450034003 MEIER MICHAEL F ,.. 524 BURNETT A V N RENTON W A 98055 ,f!\ I ,)-r OSl"iF SSCiS! ........ 2 ~< ;Cd aU 01-&.Y0 C!:fl!t ~.~ ~., -9' ,;"",., .. ~ p,fl' -I'4II'i'ri~L" • POiT£(U! 71 ~1 ,,~~_ t:J==:, 1i1I=, _____ . DEIIEl.OPME/Ifr CI7-y OF AEt,.~~NING JAN 10 2005 RECEIVED --. -,--~~~~-.~-------.- : II .. .. .. * itt ft N:rXIE 900 ;1 01 01/07/0.$ RE,URN ,0 SENDER NO, DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 90055323255 *2199-00999-15-25 J J ,I"I"I,II,,,,J,I,,I,I,,,II,, ,I,I"Il",I,LI, III I,)" ,1/,1 .. \, . II .. v Date: To: • -CITY OF RENTON PLANNING I BUILDING I PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM April 20, 2005 City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M. Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: 2004 Docket Changes LUA (file) Number: LUA-04-154, ECF Cross-References: AKA's: 2004 Docket Text Amendments Project Manager: Rebecca Lind " Acceptance Date: December 10, 2004 Applicant: City of Renton Owner: Contact: PID Number: ERC Decision Date: January 4, 2005 ERC Appeal Date: January 24, 2005 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: 'bate: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: Title IV 2004 Docket Amendments including Housekeeping Amendments in Chapter 1 -Procedural changes to the school impact fee section, codification of sureties and bonds provisions, Chapters 2 and 7 -Minimum lot size and maximum density, Chapter 2 -R-l0 Zone attached townhouse or plats or pre-existing lots, Chapter 2 and 4 -Green River Valley landscaping, Chapter 7 -Binding Site Plan, Chapter 8 -Appeal process, Chapter 8 and 9 -Permit an,d SEPA process for non-project actions, Chapter 9 -Planned Unit Development, Chapter 11 - Definitions of Medical Institutions. Location: City of Renton Corporate Limits Comments: • Agencies See Attached Joyce D. Brandow Party of Record Jose Ramirez Party of Record Greg Smith Party of Record Lynn Simpson Party of Record Dan Sperry Party of Record Courtney Flora Party of Record Nora Schultz Party of Record (Signature of sender~ ~ , ............ ",,'\ STATE OF WASHINGTON __ -·:·~iN KAA~"'" ) SS _-~\; ......... :.VfCL I, .: ~ "~sSION ' •• ~ I, COUNTY OF KING ) i ~ .... ~~ ~-to' .. ':.(\ '~ , :0 ~\OTAl"> ~'.'"'t\~ : • () \" 'T Y fT\' , I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker ~ ~ f:> -.-en J j signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and vOluntc41...ec,t fo~e\t1se~'~# purposes mentioned in the instrument. II,::i-···~:?~:.C?7 ... ··&'C:f ~ I I O~ WAS,",\~lI:~ .... -Dated:~ 13 I 2t:l;S I" ~~ \\\\."""''-.'-" ..... Notary (Print):. ____ -r.M'tf'IAfii!RIlF;'LYN'iItIff1IKAJlrM II17 C";CHrnEFFii:l"Ct'"'!:'?'i7lr _________ _ My appointment expires: ;vj'{}\~F0INiMtiQj EXt'IRtSS:~9-o7 City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 LUA04-154, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, W A 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Bbx47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 . Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 .'. Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Eric Swennson 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98104-5004' • • AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * clo Department of Ecology Attn. SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshbot Cultural Resources Program * 14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW -Front A Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Burien, WA'98166 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Stephanie Kramer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 7200 Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager . Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 South center Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON . DEC 092004 RECEIVED Last printed 12/8/20042:38 PM . . " -. • STA~AGENCIES REVIEWING DEV REGS Revised October 24, 2003 Cities and counties need to send their development regulations to the agencies' representatives, as listed below, at least 60 days ahead of adoption. Adopted development regulations should be sent to Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) immediately upon publication, as we" as to any state agencies that commented on the draft regulation. A jurisdiction does not need to send its regulation to the agencies which have been called ahead and that have indicated the local plan will not be reviewed. The jurisdiction should keep a record of this contact with state agencies and the state agencies response. . Elizabeth McNagny Department of Social and Health Services Post Office Box 45848 Olympia, Washington 98504-5848 (360) 902-8164 Fax: 902-7889 Email: mcnagec@dshs.wa.gov Steve Penland Department of Fish and Wildlife Post Office Box 43155 Olympia, Washington 98504-3155 (360) 902-25Q8 Fax: (360) 902-2946 Email: penlastp@dfw.wa.gov Review Team . Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Growth Management Services Post Office Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 (360) 725-3000 Fax: (360) 753-2950 Email:reviewteam@cted.wa.gov Anne Sharar Department of Natural Resources Post Office Box 47001· Olympia, Washington 98504-7001 (360) 902-1739 Fax: (360) 902-1776 Email: anne.sharar@wadnr.gov John Aden Department of Health Division of Drinking Water Post Office Box 47822 Olympia, Washington 98504-7822 (360) 236-3157 Fax: (360) 236-2253 SEPAIGMA Coordinator Department of Ecology Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 (360) 407-6960 Fax: (360) 407-6904 Email:gmacoordination@ecy.wa.gov Harriet Beale Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Post Office Box 40900 Olympia, Washington 98504-0900 (360)407-7307 Fax: (360) 407-7333 Email: hbeale@psat.wa.gov Bill Wiebe .. Department of Transportation Post Office Box 47300 Olympia, Washington 98504-7370 (360) 705-7965 Fax: 705-6813 Email: . wiebeb@wsdot.wa.gov Nancy Winters Department of Corrections Post Office Box 41112 Olympia, Washington 98504-1112 (360) 753-6547 Fax: (360) 586-8723 Email: nlwinters@doc1.wa.gov C:\Documents and Settings\lgrueter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6D\State . Agencies Reviewing Dev Regs.doc . Maintained by Linda Weyl STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on Monday, 1110105 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $170.00 at the rate of $16.00 per inch for the first publication and Nt A per inch for e~subs~quent insertion. Lily Nguyen Legal Advetfising Representative, King County Journal Subscri d a~orn to me t~is 10th day of January, 2005. . , !~ ,\\\\\\\\111/111/11// Tom A. Meagher ,:,,:,\ WlEAGfi~lll/,-: Notary Public forthe State of Washington, Residing in RedmonckWa~!1Uigtpj}"'~ \. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 LUA04-154, ECF Location: City of Renton Corporate Limits. The proposal is to adopt a series of regulation amendments proposed as a result of the Title 4 Development Regulation Revision Process in accordance with RMC 4- 9-025. The City Council approved a list of docket items for study in May 2004, and those that are being addressed in this work program are listed below: • 04-1, StaffEDNSPIPBPW, RMC 4-1 Housekeeping amendments. • 04-2, Staff EDNSPIPBPW, RMC • 4-1 Chapter 1 mitigation fees. • 04-5, Staff PBPW, RMC 4~2, clar- ,ify re-platting rules for plats to ensure that density cannot be re- calculated for remaining larger lots, • 04-6, Staff PBPW, delete the Green River Valley Map for 2% habitat set-aside. • 04-8, Courtney Flora representing Unico Properties Inc. owner of Washington Technical Center, amendments to RMC-4-7-230 Ad Number: 858009 P.O. Number::;(,?'//' Ry~$II'\. ~ Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge.: i S ~ \) \ ~ _ l Z ~ . ! -1". : 0 :: _'. \..\'J ./--:::; ':: .. '0\ PU~ <:>" ... 0:::: ~>;, '-" J .. -. 0"1<:) •• -~ .::::-"/..... -•• MAY 2. -~ •• ,,~ ."/-1/'12' ........... s-<' ~ ///111 0 F \f.J r>-\\\\,,, ///111/1/11\\\\\\\ binding site plan section of code to address the size of the land area to be considered in the binding site plan process. .04-11, Staff PBPW, RMC 4-8, clarify the appeals process, • 04-13, Nora Schultz, RMC 4-2, amend density and/or lot size provision in the R-10 to allow . duplex uses. Also reviewed concurrently with the official 2004 Docket are other Title 4 amendments addressing: • Sureties and bonds (proposed by Renton PBPW Dept.). .SEPA review requirements for non-project actions (proposed by Renton EDINISP Dept,). • Amendment of the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations (related to docket item 04-8, and proposed by Renton EDINISP Dept.). • Amendments to the definition of "Medical Institution" (proposed by Renton EDINISP Dept.). Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writ- ing on or before 5:00 PM on January 24, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are gov- erned by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430- 6510. Published in the King County Journal January 10, 2005. #858009 '. • .. '. • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: City 01 Renton Munlcpal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revilions 2004 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-154, ECF LOCAnON: City of Renton Corporate Limits DESCRIPTION: The proposal Is to adopt a serlas of regulation emendmentl proposed as a result of the Title 4 Development Regulation Revision Procels In accordance with RMC 4-9-025. The City Council approved a list ot docket Items tor study In May 2004, and those that are being addressed In this work program are listed below: 04-1, Staff EDNSPIPBPW, RUe 4-1 Housekeeping amendments. • 04-2, Staff EDNSPIPBPW, RYC 4-1 Chapter 1 mHlgation fees. 04-5, Staff PBPW, RMC 4-2, clarify r.plattlng rules for plats to ensure that density cannot be r. calculated for remaining larger lots. ~ Staff PBPW, delete the Green Rtver Valley Map for 2% habitat set·aslde. 04-8, Courtney Flora representing Unlco Properties Inc. owner of Washington Technical Center, amendments to RMC4-7·230 binding site plan section of code to address the size of the land area to be considered In the binding site plan process. 04-11, SIa" PBPW. RMC 4-8, clarify the appeal. proce8II_ 04-13, Nora Schultz. RMe 4-2, amend density and/or lot size prOVision In the R·l0 to allow duplex l .. un. Also revlewed concurrently with the offlclal 2004 Docket are other Title 4 amendments addressing: SUreties and bonds (proposed by Renton PBPW DepL). SEPA review requirements for non·proJ8Ct actions (proposed by Renton ED/NISP Dept). Amendment 0' the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations (related to docket Hem 04-8, and propoaed by Renton EOINISP DepL~ Amendments to the definition of "Macllcallnstltutlon" (proposed by Renton EDINISP Dept.). THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, Appeals of the environmental detennlnatlon must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 24, 2005. Appeals must be flied In wriUng together with the required $75.00 applicatIon fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code SectIon 4-&-110.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk'. OIIIce. (425) 431H51o. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING, . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200, DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PIe8seIric:ll!dli.~e;p!:pI~.NUMBJ:R when'caUlng for proper file Identification. \ ............ , ... """ :--~;"~\~:.~.~""I, .f ~ .. ~~\SSfO.1;·~O"" : .... 0° NOrA ~ ... ~\ "': ,.,,t, _. 1\ ., : (J) : ,,'7)... :n~ ." , ~ -4. .¢ .~ m: ~ , ~ U/:3 (;) • , ~---r..rlL.... 3 ~~.. uL/C : : I,; J~ , hereby certify that copies of the ab~v..0 ~ent ..... j wen;p<}Sd by me in~ conspicuous places or nearby the described pr~~~on~?···G~O~-: t1____ 11'1 J.iSH\~ ... --- DATE: Ijlcjrr; SIGNFD;..~..;;/NN""""--- CERTIFICATION $' T)Jt!bscribed and sworn before me, or the State of Washing on re,.,-,),,\!' ~~-:-- ____ '7P-n..!.-'_~_, on the /3 day 6f;z~~~~fZL_~ NOTARY BLle SIGNATURE: MARlL YN KAMCHEFF \'I]'{ P,PPOINTMENT EXPiRES 6-29-07 DATE: December 10, 2004 LANO USE NUMBER: LUA04-154, ECF • Amendment Request. J. TIde 4, Chaptel 9: Planned Unit Development (PUO) Regulation Update Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: The propoaal would modernize the City's current PUD regulations and provide 8 process 10 request =:lca11onS to development standards In exchange for public benefits. The amendmenta address applicable zones, the • of reaulaUons that may be varied with the PUD r8Qulatlons and other oroceduraillems. K. TItle 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non-traditional medical activities and mixed-use medical activities. PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits R-l0 zone. or portion thereof In North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. APPUCATION NAME: , OPTIONAL OETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (ONS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has City of Renton Municipal Code, TItle IV Procedural and Development determined that significant environmental mpacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as Regulation Revisions 2004 J?Brmltted u~der the ACW 43.21C: 110, the City o! Renton Is using the Optional DNS process to give notice thai a DNS is PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Trtle IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include .:> amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases ralated amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. TItle 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Oocke1ltam: Yea =:~n:r:! ~':,to;ore concise better organized and IntemeRY consistent. B. TItle 4, Chapter 1: School Impact Fees: 04-2 Docket Itam: Yes Proponent City 01 Renton SUmmary: Amend to be more concise, and remove provlslons that are more suitable for the Interlocal Agreement or appear "nn." ..... ry. C. T1Ue 4. Chapter 1: 4·1-230 Sureties and Bonds Docket Item: No Proponent: City 01 Renton Swnmary. Amend AMC 4-1 AdministraUon and Enforcement to codify common City of Renton conditions and practice in casea where the citY'~~ 88CUrities or bond. O. TItle 4, Chapters 2 and 7: Minimum lot Size and MaxImum Density: 04-5 00cke11tem: Yea 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 sin Ie family zones. E. TItle 4, Chapter 2: R-1D Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04·13 Oodte1ltem: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wens Avenue North currently zoned A·tD. The proponent's desire is to build a duplex on the property that meets the minimum lot size, which would result in e denslly greater than 10 units per acre. Section 4-2-11DF specifies that the density requirements take precedence over the minimum kit size standards. The code does not allow IntiU of muttifamlly structures on existing lots that meet the minimum lot size but do not comply with density limits. Options nMewad address possible policy and code amendments that anow multiplexes (2, 3, or 4 units) on lots that meet the minimum lot size but not the zone density. Some opUons woutd apply design standards. Some options would limit the effect of the regulatiOns to North Renton. or omit the multiplexes by requiring a conditional use pennit. Another option conceptually revlews the potential for ComprehelJsNe Plan land use map and rezones; however this would require review in 2005 as Darl 01 the annue! Comprehensive Plan amendment process. F. Tllfe 4, Chapters 2 and 4: Green River Valley LandscapIng: 04-6 Docket Item: Yea Proponent: City of Ranton Summary: Datannlneldocument 112% habitat set-aside !!..rovislons have been fulfitled and can be deleted from the code. G. Tltfe 4, Chapter 7: Subdivtsions Regulations: Binding Site Plan: 04·8 Docke1ltem: Yes Proponent: Courtney Flora Summary: The proponent has opted to seek a text amendment to RMC 4-7·230, the City's binding slle plan regulations, to anow further subdivisJon 01 the Washington Technical Center and similarly situated properties by Ireating the site as a whole when considering compliance with zoning and development standanb. The binding site plan process is applicable to =r::aI~=;~;'s~p:~~::~~::'=~~=~~~=~~:=(:sa:r:.~!ors to combine condominium H. Title 4 Chapter 8: Appeal Process -Growth Management Hearings Board: 04-11 Doclr;e1 Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Correct the appeals Drocess lor Growth Manaaement Act actions. I. TItle 4. Chapters 8 and 9: Pennlt and SEPA Process For NonproJect Actlons Docket Itam: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: IdentITy and addre88 options for the Uming of environmental review for nonproJecI actions and conslder amendments lor conslstencv with SEPA rules reaardlna the seoaratlon of hear1nas for nonpro'act actions. hkely to be ISSUed. Comment penods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a Single comment period !:;::~~~pen;:~I~~~~;~~~~~:~90~h~!S~,::~.ce of the Threshold Determination of Non~Slgnlficance (DNS). A 14~ PERMIT APPUCATION OATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION: PennltalRevlew Requested: December 9, 2004 December 10, 2004 Environmental (SEPA) Review Other PermltalApprovals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City CounCil Legislative, =!:~e of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Requested StudleslExlstlng Studies or EnVironmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal Include Issue papers for each item. location where application may Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department. be reviewed: 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Comrrients on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December ZT, 2004, If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright a1 (425) 43G-6575, Anyone who submfts written comments will automatically become a party 01 record and will be notIfled of any decision on this project, CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, lei: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwrlghl@cl,renlon,wa,us PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be m~de a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete thIS form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So, Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Fila No.IName: LUA()4..154, ECFI City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ________________________________________________ _ ADDRESS: ______________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO,: _________________ _ CERTIFICATION ,""""""'\, .a.Ln -,Lt./"\..-. 3 ,:-....... .~~~/{k·',I,' ~~ J LlC-f K7Y , hereb~ertIfy that.. copies of the ff .!1 .... ···GOMMi.s.~.::z.-t~ove doWment were posted by me in 0 cons icuous places on or nearby : ~ .... 1\10,>. ~\ ~\ described prop~ on _ ......... =.L.L ........... ~---+.,"'+'''-=~+---------~ m: !' " m: &rm~ ~ o:q> ~.~ ':P x: .- , '1'\ ~ ~ (~\Ii -< :P:,.,.. " ., '.\p '0 ,:1:): ~" ~ ", .z. "':~.> ~~ .. , .:;JtrnST: SubscrilVl<~m+~", , "1~ • • ... , h' 'd' ~~~rptjj,L2-. '. JYI. ............ _'n as mgton reSl 1 - '111, NGrON .. --- \\\\\,\,\,,, ........ ,,' .. MARILYN KAMCHEFJ= f1r{ APPOINTMFIJT FXPIRF.':l6-29.07 I- f..b ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: City of Renton Munlcpal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-154, ECF LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits DESCRIPTION: The proposal Is to adopt a series of regulation amendments proposed as a result of the Title 4 Development Regulation Revision Process In accordance with RMC 4-9-025. The City Council approved a list of docket Items for study In May 2004, and those that are being addressed in this work program are listed below: • 04-1, Staff EDNSPIPBPW, RMC 4-1 Housekeeping amendments. • 04-2, Staff EDNSPIPBPW, RMC 4-1 Chapter 1 mitigation fees. • 04-5, Staff PBPW, RMC 4-2, clarify re-platting rules for plats to ensure that density cannot be re- calculated for remaining larger lots. • 04-6, Staff PBPW, delete the Green River Valley Map for 2% habitat set-aside. • 04-8, Courtney Flora representing Unico Properties Inc. owner of Washington Technical Center, amendments to RMC-4-7-230 binding site plan section of code to address the size of the land area to be considered In the binding site plan process. • 04-11, Staff PBPW, RMC 4-8, clarify the appeals process. • 04-13, Nora Schultz, RMC 4-2, amend density andlor lot size provision in the R-10 to allow duplex Issues. Also reviewed concur'!~ntly with the official 2004 Docket are other Title 4 amendments addressing: :;. • Sureties and:bonds (proposed by Renton PBPW Dept.). <' • SEPA revlew,requlrements for non-project actions (proposed by Renton ED/NISP Dept.). • Amendment of the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations (related to docket item 04-8, and proposed by Renton EDINISP Dept). • Amendments to the definition of "Medical Institution" (proposed by Renton ED/NISP Dept.). THE CITY OF RENTON 'ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 24, 2005. Appeals must be flied In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION ........ ::. ,. :c· '.: .. , .. .' ... ;'.' . ...... .~ .. ,.,. eft .• '+, ..IL' ' .. .. ~' .... . . Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayoc' .. January 7, 2005 Washington' State , Department of Ecology' ' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 . Olympia, WA 98504~ 7703 CITY.FRENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublicW6rksDepartment . . Gregg' Zimnlerman P~E.,AdliJ.inistriltor·, Subject: , 'Environmental Determinations , Transmitted her~with is atopy of the Environmental' Detennin,<ltion for the following project reviewed by • the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 4, 2005: DETERMINATION OF NON~SIGNIFICANCE . . , PROJECT NUMB.ER: LOCATIQN: . DESCRIPTION: " . City of Renton Municpal Code, Title IV Procedural and' '. Developm~nlReguiation ,Revi.sions 2004 ' . LUA04-154,ECj=.. , ' . . CitY.C)f Re'nton Ce:,rpo~ate Limits '., The proposal is ',~oadopi 'a series of regulation ,amendments ,'proposec:t,as a result ofthe Title 4 Pevelopment Reg~latioilRevision ' , "~rocessin accor~ance with RMC4-:9~25::The City Council'apptoved a list of docketjte-ri1s;for.s~~y in May 2094~and those that iuebeing . . addressed hithis\vorkprogtam are listed below:' . ". 04~ t,'StaffEDNSf'/P.BPW,' RMC4-1 Housekeeping amendments. • 0~2;'sia,ff~bNsp,iPBPw,RMC4~1:Chapter1 mitigation fees. . . • 04-:5i"S~,f.f,"I;JPW /~NI~4~2, clarify re-;platting rules for,plat~ to ensure ~hat:density c~r:'not be re-,calc,:!lated for remaining larger ,lots., '.' . ". ' .' . . '. .... . • .04~,Staff PBPW, delete the Green' River Valley Map fo(2% habitat$etc3side. . ., : . . ....... . • '" 04~8,:Courtl1ey.Flor:a representing Vnico Properties Inc. oWrier of Wf)shingtoil'Technieal'Center, amendments to RMC-4-7-230 . binding site plansect.io,,!ofcode to adc:Jressth,e sizeofthe land area 'tobecQlislc:t~red ,in the binding site. plan 'process. . • . 04~ 11, Staff PBPW~' RMC 4-8, clarify the appeals process. ., • 04-13, Nora Scl1ultz,' RMC 4-2, amend density and/or lot size provision in',theR-10 to. allow duplex issues: .. . Also reviewed concurrently with the official 2004 Docket are other Title 4 •. amendments addressing: .'. , . . • . SlJre~ies and bonds (proposed by Renton PBPW Dept.). • SEPA review requirements for non-projeCt actions (proposed by Renton EDINISP Dept.). . .' Amendmentofthe City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations: (related to docket item 04-8, and proposed. by Renton EDINISP Dept.). • Amendments to the definition of "Medical Institution" (proposed by Renton EDINISP·[)ept;) ... -----'---'--IO-S-S-s-ou-t-h.-G-ra-dy-· W;-ay---R....:...e-nt-o-n,-W;-as-h-i-ngt-o-n-9-8-0S-S----~-~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post ronsumer AHEAD OF THE ,CURVE ". :-. ,-, Appeals' Qf 'the' environl11ental,' dete~mination mU!tl be ,flied 'in writing ; ()n, orbefQrE~, $:O() PM pn~: ,JanuarY 24; 2005. 'A.PPEl~lIs must be filed in wrltingtogether with therequired,$75;QOappliccitioilfeewith',: H~Cll"ing Examin,er,CityofR~dton,1O?5 South Grady Way, HElri!on, WA98055. Appea!s tot~eExaminer _ are 'governed by City of Renton Municipal Code $ectioll 4-l3-11 O.B. Additional jnfCirmationJeg~rdingthe' , appe'alpr6cElssrriaybe ()bt~ihedJromthe Hento'n Cit{CI~rk's Office,(425) 430-6510. ' ' " ' . . "."....: . . 'Jf yoLihave'questkms;pleas~call meaf(425) 430~6575;, . . ',", ", . ~ '.. ; . -. : '. For the, Enyir~)nmElntal Review Gpmmittee, " ' 'Rebecca Lind 'priricipaIPI.anner,EDNSp' , .. -.~. ~', -," \ .- ". 9": ...• ' ~6.$,::tw1~~~7~~~Tte~~;;~~~~m~:;~'~"~',,,, . , David F. Dietzman; OepartmElnfof'NatL:irpl ResQurces ;'17-~,,~~ -'.'P~~T~~1~~;;ec?~rc:9i~?;~. ,,;<;' ."}:;:'~:"·;':·::':;~:'·:'~·'~"";~~~:"'_~f:~ ,-';~ 'Rod Malcom; Fisheries, JyTu,ckles~o9HhdianTribe,(O~diiiaricEl) , " M~lissaCalvert, Muckle'~hdpt CulhJiaLReso rce Pro ram \, uS Amy'Corp: of Engiffeers,*z;r ,/ ".,:~. '. \ " Stept!imieKramer, Otf,teof Arc~aept6gyi& atiorl~: . . .. , '. '':1''. '. r ',';)" " .. '. ~;. ~.: .. ~\ " "i::nclosure .', l' . .. ; ............... , ..•. " .. . : : ,:', . ,j" . .;' " , . . -,', ",' . ...~ . ... ',:: . CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA04-154, ECF City of Renton City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to adopt a series of regulation amendments proposed as a result of the Title 4 Development Regulation Revision Process in accordance with RMC 4-9-025. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Corporate Limits City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on o~ before 5:00 PM on January 24, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: Dennis Culp, Administrator Community Services Department January 10, 2005 January 4, 2005 DATE STAFF REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public, Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: January 4, 2005 City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 LUA-04-154, ECF Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner, ED/N/SP Project Description: The proposal is to adopt a series of regulation amendments proposed as a result of the Title 4 Development Regulation Revision Process in accordance with RMC 4-9-025. The City Council approved a list of docket items for study in May 2004, and those that are being addressed in this work program are listed below: • 04-1, Staff EDNSP/PBPW, RMC 4-1 Housekeeping amendments. • 04-2, Staff EDNSP/PBPW, RMC 4-1 Chapter 1 mitigation fees. • 04-5, Staff PBPW, RMC 4-2, clarify re-platting rules for plats to ensure that density cannot be re-calculated for remaining larger lots. • 04-6, Staff PBPW, delete the Green River Valley Map for 2% habitat set-aside. • 04-8, Courtney Flora representing Unico Properties Inc. owner of Washington Technical Center, amendments to RMC-4-7-230 binding site plan section of code to address the size of land area to be considered in the binding site plan process. • 04-11, Staff PBPW, RMC 4-8, clarify the appeals process. • 04-13, Nora Schultz,RMC 4-2, amend density and/or lot size provisions in the R-10 to allow duplex uses. Also reviewed concurrently with the official 2004 Docket are other Title IV amendments addressing: • Sureties and bonds (proposed by Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works), • SEPA review requirements for non-project actions (proposed by the Renton Department of Economic DevelopmenUNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning). • Since one of the options for Docket 04-8 includes amending the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations, amendments to the PUD regulations are likewise addressed. • Amendments to the definition of "Medical Institution" (proposed by the Renton Department of Economic DevelopmenUNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning). Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: B. RECOMMENDATION City of Renton Corporate Limits R-10 zone, or portion thereof in North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. nla Site Area: nla Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: ERC_FINJAN04.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department a Eamental Review Committee Staff Report City of Renton Municipal Code, Tit/~Procedural and Development Regulation isions 2004 LUA-04-154, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF JANUARY 4. 2005 Page2 of 6 x DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES None proposed. See Section D. Advisory Notes to Applicant: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations Non-applicable. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. Has the applicant adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed code amendments, and the manner in which they may affect environmental topics. The checklist focuses on regulations affecting future development density or intensity or development configuration. Procedural items that do not contain substantive standards regarding use/modification of the environment are exempt from SEPA (197-11-800(20», but because the RMC procedural amendments are part of the overall 2004 dockeUamendments under review, they are considered part of the whole non-project action. However, as procedural items, they are primarily addressed under the Land Use section of the checklist since they relate to code implementation. Most docket items have one or more options that are reviewed in the checklist. T bl 1 TOtl IV D k t Am d tS dE tiT a e 0 Ie oc e en men ummaryan nVlronmen a OplCS 0 Docket Item Proposal Increases the Affects City Policy or Density or Intensity· of Implementation of Development or Affects Development Regulations? Configuration of Development? Title 4, Chapter 1 , X Housekeeping Amendments Title 4, Chapter 1: School X Impact Fees Title 4, Chapter 1: 4-1-230 X Sureties and Bonds City of Renton PIBIPW Department a. Enl8lJmental Review Committee Staff Report City of Renton Municipal Code, TitI~Procedural and Development RegulationWvisions 2004 LUA-04-154, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF JANUARY 4, 2005 Page3 of 6 Docket Item Proposal Increases the Affects City Policy or Density or Intensity* of Implementation of Development or Affects Development Regulations? Configuration of Develo~ment? Title 4, Chapter 8: Appeal X Process-Growth Management Hearings Board Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: X Permit and SEPA Process for Non-project Actions Title 4, Chapter 2 and 7: X Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density Title 4, Chapter 2: R-10 Zone, X X Attached Townhouses or Flats May allow for additional on Pre-,Existing lots multiplexes subject to locational, design and potentially special permit requirements. Title 4, Chapters 2 and 3: Green X X River Valley Landscaping Does not increase maximum lot coverage or maximum impervious surface requirements or building height or setback, but does modify landscape requirements and may alter location of development on a site. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivision X Regulations: Binding Site Plan Since development standards (both procedural and would have to be met for either development regulation the site as a whole or for amendments) individual lots, and since no development standards related to density or intensity are proposed, the issue is primarily one of code implementation and process. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit X X Development Regulations (both Allows individual applicants to procedural and development request modifications to City regulation amendments) development standards in exchange for ~ublic benefits. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions X of Medical Related Activities The definitions amend medical institution and convalescent care terminology. Medical institutions would now encompass hospice and holistic health centers, but the permit review process for institutions would not change. * Intensity of development applies to the mass, height, and bulk of development A discussion of selected development regulation amendments (that are primarily nonprocedural) and mitigating features of the proposals or current codes are summarized below. Review Committee Staff Report 2004 LUA-04-J ECE REPORT AND DECISION OF JANUARY 4. 2005 Page4of6 Title 4. Chapter 2: R-10 Zone. Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots Option 1, the No Action Alternative applies the current development standards, which maintains that the density controls over the lot size in the R-10 zone. The R-10 zone allows multiplexes (up to 4 attached) on smaller lots in new subdivisions if overall plat density is met; this approach provides alternative housing types in single family residential zones which will help the City to meet housing demands and population growth. The R-10 zone does not permit attached units on preexisting smaller lots if the maximum density would be exceeded. Option 1 maintains the current requirement that density controls over lot size. This approach maintains the single-family residential character of older residential areas in the R-10 zone by restricting development that is higher than the allowable density. Under Options 2 and 3, multiplex units would be allowed on individual pre-existing lots which meet the minimum lot size but which exceed the maximum densiti. Option 2 and 3 allow for a range of housing types within the R-10 zone, such as multiplexes and townhouses, provided the minimum lot size requirements are met. While this allows a greater diversity of unit types and mix within the R-10 zone, over time, this approach could have an effect on the residential neighborhood character by allowing a higher density on older platted parcels less than 0.5 acres than what was envisioned in the zoning district and result in a different mix of residential types over time. However, the development would occur on the standard lot size of the zone. The areas affected by Option 2 and 3 are those R-10 areas that are in pre-existing residential areas such as north of downtown Renton (Option 2) and R-10 generally (Option 3, controlled by conditional use permit process). The proposed code amendments under Options 2 and 3 include design standards to address land use compatibility and scale between multiplex units/townhouse units and single-family residential development. The design standards apply to multiplex units and townhouses and require design treatments such as pitched roofs, visible building entries, and frames around each window. Option 3 would further require a conditional use permit process, which may control or limit the number of multiplexes over time. Title 4. Chapters 2 and 3: Green River Valley Landscaping Amendments as part of the docket items address habitat set-aside areas that may be suitable for wildlife habitat, however these areas are not necessarily designated critical areas. Two alternatives are under consideration in the Green River Valley Landscaping docket amendment. Both of the Alternatives fulfill the requirements to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Under Option 1, No Action Alternative, the existing 2% set-aside regulations, developed as part of a multi-jurisdictional watershed plan agreement in 1980, would be retained. These requirements were developed before the City had instituted wetland and shoreline regulations. The City's 2% habitat set-aside regulations require that any development in the Green River Valley provide 2% of the total site area for landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat; in addition to other required landscaping. Other watershed plan agreement language required public land acquisition for wetland protection. Since the Green River Valley regulations were enacted, the City has implemented a number of measures to protect critical areas which exceed the requirements of the Green River Valley Landscaping requirements including acquisition of 340 acres of land (with 208 acres of wetlands) well beyond the 110 acre I Option 2: With this option, it appears that in North Renton, there would be approximately 67 lots that would meet the lot size of 5,000 to 21,780 s.f. However, several have existing multifamily dwellings. Approximately 33 of these lots consist of single-family homes, and two lots are vacant. If one additional dwelling unit were added to the single family lots and five total were added to the vacant lots (one would meet the lot size for a duplex and the other would meet the lot size for a triplex), then about 38 units would be possible, about 0.1 % of the City's 2004 housing stock estimate of 25,908. Option 3: This option would be similar to Option 2, except that it would apply to any R-10 property less than 0.5 acre and platted before March 1, 1995, and except that a conditional use permit would be required. Considering the R-10 zone citywide, about 78 vacant lots equal between 5,000 s.f. and 21,780 s.f. and may be eligible for multiplexes. There are also approximately 277 R-10 lots within this size range that have single-family homes that may be eligible to add one or more units. (Those lots that are greater than 8,712 s.f. could already have a duplex or greater based on today's code allowances.) However, for the vacant or single family lots estimated, not all would be eligible for the following reasons: Many of the lots were created after March 1, 1995 which is the cut off point for the code allowance; not all properties are configured so that all other standards could be met (e~g. setbacks, lot coverage, parking location); existing single family homes may be located in a manner that precludes adding another dwelling; and property owner preferences may be to build or maintain single family homes which is another primary use of the zone. Further the conditional use process would limit how many would be interested in applying for a multiplex. Future added units are expected to be small in percentage compared to the existing city housing stock (25,908) given the limitations described. City of Renton PIBIPW Department A En_mental Review Committee Staff Report City of Renton Municipal Code, TitI~rocedural and Development Regulation~isions 2004 LUA-04-154, EeF REPORT AND DECISION OF JANUARY 4. 2005 Page5 of 6 multijurisdictional acquisition target; development of new critical areas or land management regulations (Shoreline Master Program applicable to Springbrook Creek, tree cutting and land clearing, aquifer protection areas, geologically hazardous areas, habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands) and development of the East Side Green River Watershed Plan/EIS in 1997. Under Option 2, the 2% habitat set- aside regulations would be repealed as the original Green River Valley requirements have been fulfilled. The City's critical area, shoreline, and land clearing regulations serve as replacement regulations which achieve and exceed the intent for habitat protection that the original 2% set-aside landscaping regulation was enacted to provide. Option 2 will not result in any net decrease in protected sensitive areas, as the critical areas, shoreline, and shoreline regulations in place include provisions for their protection. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivision Regulations: Binding Site Plan. The binding site plan applies to properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial uses, and the development standards reflect these types of uses. Option 1, No Action, keeps the current requirements that the development standards for the underlying lot apply to each individual lot created through the binding site plan process. This ensures that the development standards in place are applicable to all commercial/industrial 'IQts created through a binding site plan process, and does not alter the requirements of the 'underlying zone. Under Option 2, the Binding Site Plan would look at the site as a whole when applying the development standards of the underlying zone. ,This approach could result in lot sizes, setbacks, and building coverage that do not meet the development standards of the underlying zone, provided that the site subject to the Binding Site Plan as a whole meets the standards. This option would result in commercial/industrial deveiopments, which may alter the standards of the underlying zone (e.g. lot size or lot coverage, etc.) for particular portions of the property but not the site as a whole. The overall intensity of a development would not be increased. Localized deviations from the development standards, on a portion of the site but not the whole site, could result in complicated code administration, and may require the use of covenants, site plan and code interpretations, and continued attention to ensure the zoning and binding site plan requirem'ents are properly implemented in consideration of the whole site. Option 3 revises the binding site plan process to allow for'commercial condominiums as an option when the minimum lot size requirements cannot be met through the binding site plan process. Option 3 provides greater flexibility for the subdivision of commercial and industrial properties by providing a condominium option for those lots that cannot meet the development standards of the underlying zone and may reduce the administrative burden and maintain larger properties for redevelopment. Binding Site Plan Option 4 proposes that future subdivision of commercial/industrial properties be addressed through a Planned, Unit Development in conjunction with a binding site plan. This approach would allow variations from the development standards of the underlying zone, provided that acceptable alternative development standards are proposed to meet the intent of the code. See discussion below also. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development Regulations The current PUD code allows variations to zoning, subdivision, and parking standards. The proposed PUD regulations would allow alteration of a range of development standards. However, PUD decision and review criteria, together with the City's environmental requirements, uniform codes, and other sections contain provisions that may be used to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. Additionally, site- specifiC developments would be subject to case-by-case environmental review. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities This proposal would amend the definition of "Medical Institution" to allow a wider range of medical practices to occur on-site as accessory functions to the hospital, clinic, or sanitarium use such as Holistic Health Centers recognizing more contemporary medical uses. The "Convalescent Centers" definition would be amended to delete hospice facilities, as these would now be defined under Medical Institution. Convalescent Care facilities are allowed in fewer zones than Medical Institutions. While amending the Medical Institution definition to add hospice may mean that more zones are eligible to have a hospice use, in the zones where Medical Institutions , are allowed and Convalescent Care facilities are not allowed, Medical Institutions require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use permit. This is a discretionary process allowing the City to consider site-specific impacts and compatibility. Future site-specific institutional development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. City of Renton PIBIPW Department a Enamental Review Committee Staff Report City of Renton Municipal Code, TitI~rocedural and Development Regulation~isions 2004 LUA-04-154, EeF REPORT AND DECISION OF JANUARY fl. 2005 Page6 of 6 E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant . ...L-Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. No comments from the public were received during the Notice of Application/Optional DNS Comment Period. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM January 24, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. TITLE 4, CHAPTER 9: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS PURPOSE This issue paper reviews amendments to RMC 4-9-150, Planned Unit Development Regulations 1, a long outdated section of Renton's Municipal Code. These 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. For example, cluster developments, low impact developments, zero lot line developments, or other approaches may be allowed with the process. BACKGROUND Renton has a Planned Unit Development code but it has not been updated since before the GMA zoning was applied in 1993. It makes reference to old residential zone classes. It allows variation of zoning, parking, and subdivision standards in exchange for public benefits, e.g. protection of environmentally sensitive areas, open space, public facilities, etc. Some of the key sections include provision of common and private open space, density bonus allowances, public dedication of all streets, and others. The Planned Unit Development regulations have been part of Renton staff's list of code docket items, but is made more of a priority in relation to review of the City's Binding Site Plan Regulations. One of the options reviewed in the Binding Site Plan issue paper is: • Revise the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations (RMC 4-9-150) to allow for commercial/industrial PUDs. This approach, similar to the City of Bothell, would allow binding site plan applications to deviate from the requirements of the underlying zone provided that acceptable alternative development standards are proposed to meet the intent of the code. In such a case, a binding site plan would be required to be processed concurrent with a Planned Unit Development, and would require Hearing Examiner approval. The City would need to develop a new PUD ordinance as the current one is out of date and has not been used recently. LOCAL CASE STUDIES Three local planned unit development type ordinances were reviewed in addition to Renton's Planned Unit Development regulations as described in the following table: REGULATION BELLEVUE BOTHELL REDMOND RENTON (CURRENT ORO.) Applicability • Residential or • Single family • Planned • Residential zones mixed use PUDs Residential: (residential and • Non-single family Residential Zones commercial) PUDs including • Planned projects. multifamily, retail, Commercial office, service, Development: industrial, or any Commercial and combination. Industrial Zones Regulations allowed • Density (110%; • Generally zoning • Density (110%) • Zoning (including to be Varied 120% for senior and subdivision (Residential) density), parking, citizen development) regulations may be • Lot size and subdivision, except • Height varied. dimensions procedural, • Any other except • There are percent (residential; business environmental, and 1 If approved as applying to both residential and commerciallindustrial zones, it is proposed that the title be Planned "Urban" Development since dwellings may not be involved necessarily. December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department REGULATION BELLEVUE BOTHELL REDMOND RENTON (CURRENT ORO.) permitted uses, limits to reductions in and industrial tracts) land use. shoreline single-family lot • Site Requirements regulations, and sizes and front yard • Building Setbacks procedural setback. • Building regulations. • Cannot change Separation density or side or • Lot Coverage and rear yards. Impervious Surface • Cannot increase • Structure Height density or intensity and Floor Area Ratio beyond what would • Street and Utility normally be allowed. Standards • Other site requirements unless specifically prohibited. • Other, except sensitive area or procedural requirements, subject to City Council approval. Key Requirements/ • Design -interior • Coordinated • Design -interior • Demonstrate Criteria and perimeter planning internally and perimeter. compliance with • Public Facilities and externally. • Public Facilities code intent and and streets are • Adequate public and streets are superior outcome adequate. services and streets. adequate. ~hat could not • Open space must • Area reduced by • Open space must otherwise be be equal to 40% and lot sizes must be in be equal to or required. 10% recreation (may common open space greater in size than • Demonstration of be part of 40% when or used to protect the gross area public benefit meeting certain Significant trees or reduction below the (protection of critical requirements). noncritical areas to lot size requirement area, site/vegetation, meet for all lots proposed provison of public Comprehensive Plan (residential). faciliites, or design goals (residential). that could not otherwise be required) • Provide at least 35% of the total site area for common open space, contiguous and usable. • Provide private open space for individual units. ISSUES AND OPTIONS As part of this review, the following questions have been considered: • To which zones should the regulations apply? Currently the City's Planned Unit Development regulations only apply to residential zones. However, given the City's changing market conditions for reSidential, commercial, and manufacturing activities, Planned Unit Development regulations may be an appropriate tool to respond to changing conditions while ensuring there is quality development and a public benefit. The code allows Planned Unit December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 2 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department 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. What regulations should be allowed to be varied? o Continued allowances: . The current code allows variations to zoning, subdivision, and parking standards. This would be continued in the attached proposal. • There is a continuing prohibition on modifying critical area regulations and land use regulations. o New allowances: Reference is made to allow modification of RMC 4-4, which addresses Property Development Standards, including signage, parking, and landscaping. This would be more permissive than the current standards but may address site development issues of interest to applicants. A public benefit would need to be demonstrated in any case. There would be exceptions to the allowance to vary RMC 4-4 requirements. It is proposed that tree cuttinglland clearing regulations not be varied beyond current code allowances since it addresses tree retention, clearing limits, and indirectly affects water quality. Also modification of grading regulations would not be allowed either, except by the standard grading review process. • Reference is made to disallow variations to utility standards in RMC 4-6 (e.g. water, wastewater, storm water), or building/fire codes in RMC 4-5. Any modifications would be those specifically allowed by the code subject to other specific review criteria. A new section is added, similar to Redmond's, which allows an applicant to request modification of other standards, provided there is agency approval. This would reduce the need for future demonstration ordinances. • Public or private streets may be proposed rather than solely public streets. Alternative street standards may be requested. However, adequate emergency access and circulation would need to be provided. • Are review criteria and development standards appropriate? o Generally Renton's review criteria are comparable to and in some cases more strict than other example codes. Criteria that are stricter include requiring a public benefit and requiring a certain dimension private open space for residential units. o Common open space standards are currently required to be 35% of the site and appears to include critical areas. Since the presence of critical areas may vary from site to site, an alternative would be to place emphasis on common usable open space. Critical areas would need to be protected with or without a Planned Unit Development. Is the review process of hearing examiner r,,!commendation and City Council approval still appropriate? The attached proposal continues the current Planned Unit Development review process. This may be too rigorous for smaller-proposals or for existing developments using the process for binding site plans. Alternatively, Hearing Examiner review and approval would be required for existing nonresidential developments proposing to use the binding site plan process. The decision would be appealable to the City Council. December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 3 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department • 4-9-150 PLANNED UNl+-URBAN DEVELOPMENT ~REGULATIONS: F' A.PURPOSES:L addresses nonresidential developments, combines current -",,== subsection D, removes objectives as redundant with review criteria.] There are two (2) principal purposes of the planned unit development regulations. First, it is the purpose of this Section to preserve and protect natural features of the land, especiOllly "'here steep slopes or' other envimnmentally sensitive areas exist, and to tOlke into accoblnt special conditions of topography ang soil stagility. Second, it is also the purpose of this Section to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of AeW-residential areas in the City of Renton, to create desiraale neighhorhoods fGr family and commblnity life, to make maximblm blSO of now concepts and tochnology of land development and building constrblction, and to carry Obit the objoctivo and spirit of the Ronton Comprehensil/e Plan ay allowing dovelopment that will pmvide particbllar pblblic henefits. business. manufacturing, or mixed use developments by permitting a variety in the type. design, and arrangement of structures and improvements. In order to accomplish these purposes. this Section is established to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning. parking, street. and subdivision regulations when it is demonstrated that such new development will be superior to traditional development under standard regulations. In consideration of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions. the reviewing agencies, Hearing Examiner. and City Council shall have wide discretionary authority in judging and approving or disapproving the innovations which may be incorporated into planned unit developments proposed under this Section. [Edifo;:;§~'NbTi!i: Portions of this paragraph moved from current subsections B and D.] In pblrsuing tho first purpose, the specific ol:ljectives of this Soction are to: 1. Preserve as much as possigle the natural characteristics of the land, including topography, native vegetation and viows; 2. Redblce tho risks of constrblction in hazardobls or onl/ironmentally sensitive areas; J, RresoP'Q and/or creato wildlifo habitatj 4. ~ncoblrage and permit flexibility in deSign, placement and configuration of buildings, use of open space, circulation facilities, and parking areas in order to best utilize the potential of sites characterized by special features of geography, topography, size or shape, while at the same time maintaining suhstantially the same popbllation density and area coverage permitted in the zone in which the project is located; 5, ~ncourage del/elopment of housing types that will ae compOltible "lith OIdjacent existing and pmposed uses and that will he beneficial to the community; . 9. ~ncourage the development of a viaale hOblsing stock that enhances the image of the City; 7. Create and/or preserve usable open space for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment of resigents; 8. ~ncourOlge creativity in design; December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 4 • Q. Provide for maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility neh'Vorks, and other public improl/ementsj am~ 10. Provide a guide for property o ... mers, the public and City officials in reviewing and approving new developments proposed under this Section. B. APPLICABILITY: In order to accomplish these purposes, this Section permits new development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's loning and subdivision regulations '''''hen it is demonstrated that such new development will be superior to traditional lot by lot development. Any applicant seeking to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking. street. and subdivision regulations in a comprehensive manner Shall be subject to this Section. Any amendment to existing planned urban developments shall be subject to this chapter. It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, enlarge or change any land or planned unit development in the City or cause or permit the same to be done contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this Section. All associated aplicatiOris shall be merged consistent with Subsection H. (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) 1. ElC.emptioAS: (Reser-fed) Zones: Planned unit developments may be permitted in the following zoning districts, when processed and approved as provided in this Section: a. All zones designated in RMC 4-2. a. AlII zones, except R-1, R-4 and COR. [EWtor::s;:note~ Second option does not include R-1. R-4 and COR zones. R-1 and R-4 zones have their own cluster regulations. There are minimal development standards in the COR zone as it is like a "master plan" zone.] 2. Code Provisions That May Be Modified: a. In appro'.1ng a planned unit development, the City may modify any of the standards of RMC 4-2. 4-4, 4-6-060, and 4-7 except as listed in subsection 3. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the Planned Urban Development. [E1.ilt6rl~~f,{(5t~i Allows amendments to zoning, subdivision, and parking standards similar to current PUD section. but also allows for variation of RMC 4-4 (see exceptions in Subsection 3) and alternative street standards in 4-6-060.J b. An applicant may request additional modifications from the requirements of RMC Title 4, except those listed in subsection 3. Approval for modifications other than those specifically described subsection 2. a shall be approved by the City Council prior to submittal of a preliminary Planned Urban Development plan. [Ealfor;'~1note: This would be a new section. similar to Redmond's. which allows an applicant to request modification of other standards. This is also ,similar to Renton's few "demonstration ordinances."] 3. Code Provisions Restricted from Modification: a. Permitted Uses: A Planned Urban Development may not authorize uses that are inconsistent with those uses allowed by the underlying zone, or overlay district. or other December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 5 -'" location restriction in RMC Title IV, including, but not limited to: RM C 4-2-010 to 4-2-080, RMC 4-3-010 to 4-3-040, RMC 4-3-090, RMC 4-3-095, and RMC 4-4-010. b. Density/Permitted Number of Dwelling Units: The number of dwellings units shall not exceed the densit allowa the a licable base or overla zone or bonus criteria in RMC 4-2 or 4-9. Eo ro riate densities were a ke discussion with the recent Comprehensive Plan update, and density bonsues were removed in the R-8 and R-10 zones, but retained in the R-14, CD, and COR zones. Removing the ability to modify density is then resulting in a PUD regulation that is more like a "master cluster" or "master variance" type of application. The only bonuses are those allowed by the base zones.) c. Planned Urban Development Regulations: The City may not modify any of the provisions of this Section 4-9-150, Planned Urban Development; d. Procedures: The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions of Title IV, including but not limited to, fees, submittal requirements, and other similar provisions found in RMC 4-1, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9; and e. Specific Limitations: The City may not modify any provision of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations. RMC 4-4-130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing, RMC 4-4-060, Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations. RMC 4-5, or RMC 4-6-010 to 050 and 4-6-070-110 related to utilities and concurrency. Except that provisions may be altered for these codes by alternates. modification, conditional use, or variance as specifically allowed in the referenced Chapter or Section. Such alternates, modification, conditional use. or variance applications may be merged with the consideration of a Planned Urban Development per RMC 4-9-150. H. C. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY: 1. Development Services Divisi on: The Development Services Division shall be responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Section. However. all proposed code modifications shall be reviewed at the same time by the Hearing Examiner and City Council. 2. Reviewing Agencies: City departments shall review each proposed planned unit development in accordance with procedures in RMC 4-8 and 4-9 as appropriate. [EtHtB'r'~ R6t~\:\ Generalize to adopted procedures.] ~. Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner is designated'as the official agency of the City for the conduct of public hearings and for recommendation to the City Council for all requested code modifications and the overall proposal itself. (Ord. 4039, 1-19-1987) 2. De'lelopment Services Division: Tho Oovolopmont £OP04COS Oi'lision shall bo responsiblo for tho gonoral aaministration ana cooraination of this Soction. 3. R.eviewing Agencies: Tho OO'lolopmont SOP'icos Di"ision, tho Public 'Norks Dopartmont, tho Firo Oopartmont, tho Policy Oo"olopmont OopartmlilRt, tho Polico Oopartmont, tho Parks ans Recreation Dopartmont, ana tho Soattlo King County Hoalth Oopartmont shall reviow oach proposos plannoa unit devolopmont. December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 6 • 4. City Council: The City Council, upon recommendation by the Hearing Examiner and the other agencies detailed in the paragraph above, shall be the final approving agency under this Section for all requested code modifications and the overall proposal itself. C. SC.oPE .oF REVIEW; In Ggnsideratign gf the latitblde given and the aQsenGe gf Ggnventignal restriGtigns, the reviewing agenGies, Hearing Examiner, and City CmmGil shall have wide disGretignary ablthgrily in jbldging and a~~mving gr disa~~mving the inngvaligns whiGh may Qe inGgr~grated intg ~Ianned blnil '~)~~~:~:';:~>'\~'-~~!%% develg~m9nts pmpgsed blnder this aeGtign. [EditOr;S~n6te: Moved to subsection A.] GQ. DECISION CRITERIA: The City may approve a Planned Urban Developmen!J2lJQ only if it finds that the following requirements in Subsections 1, 2, 3, and 4gf sblQseGlions E1, E2 and E3 of this aeGtion have beeRare met. 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: AAy-8,applicant§. fgr planned blnit develo~ment a~~mval shall have the Qblrden gf demonstratingmust demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2.W.G, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. rEdit(%i~;~N'ote: Section RMC 4-8 is proposed for amendment to add "justification for PUD" as part of the submittal requirements.] 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, aA-8,applicant§. for ~Ianned blnit develo~ment shall have the burden of demonstrating shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits to the residents gf the City that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2.W.G, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits Ig the City as ~art gf the pro~osed PUDthan would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed Planned Urban Development: a. Critical Areas: Protect§. environmentally sensitivecritical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same deqree as without a Planned Urban DevelopmentP-tJQ.; Q[~ b. Natural Features: Preservat;"onPreserves, enhanGementenhances, or FehaQilitation rehabilitates of-natural features of the subject property such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topograpy, or non-critical area wildlife habitats gr streams that the City GOWd--not requireg the a~~liGant tg preserve, enhanGe or rehaQilitate through develo~ment gf the sUQjeGt pro~erty withoblt a PUDby other City regulations; or~ c. Public Facilities: Provides pl2ublic facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a Planned Urban Development~;.,Q[ d. Overall Design: Provides a Design of the proposed Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2.W.G design that is superior in one or more of the following ways to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2.W.G: i. Open Space/Recreation: December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 7 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department • • @l..lncreased provision of open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered eqivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and (b) Creation of a quality environment through the provision of either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways: or~[EditOr:;s!:N8r~: Addes criteria from 3.e.1 ii. Circulation/Screening: Superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities.;..QfT iii. Landscaping/Screening: Superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed Planned Urban Development~~T iv. Site and Building Design: Superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy~~ v. Alleys: Provision of alleys to at least 50 percent of any proposed Single family detached, semi-attached. or townhouse units. fEdWo!rsiJ1'b~: Standard is similar to R- 14 bonus standards and Sumner's Traditional Neighborhood Design standard.] ''''''"'''%1&';''''·''.'';4 fEaitor:s·;rf0te: The critieria primarily address new development. When applied to existing development. the criteria may mean that the site needs to be improved ir. some way in exchange for development flexibility.1 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed Planned Urban Development~ shall also be reviewed for conSistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: criteria "i'·'. Test should be compatibility with zones not existinq uses as existing uses may change over time.] ii. Interior: Promotion of coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles. but contract should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials. architectural detailing. building orientation or housing type; e.g .. single family. detached. attached. townhouses. etc. rEHiibfiMN~t~: Former "h" from below.] . b. Circulation: LProvision of sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities which are sbJitable and ade~bJate to carry anticipated traffic within the pro posed project and in the vicinity of the proposed prC>ject. The planned unit development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location. size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 8 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department detrimental to adjacent areas. [Edit~r:~~: Combines some standards from former Section J.71. ii. Promotion of safety through sufficient sight distance. separation of vehicles from pedestrians. limited driveways on busy streets. avoidance of difficult turning patterns. and minimization of steep gradients. [E(fit6T1~'N5~: Fomer criteria "I".J Fomer criteria "j" .] iv. Provision of safe. efficient access for emergency vehicles. [E'Hit5flg7;Ndf~ Fomer criteria "m" .] c. Infrastructure and Services: Provision of utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are adequate sufficient to serve the development. . d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in impervious surfaces otherwise required. e. Creation of a quality environment through the f}ro'lision of either f}assive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, incluGing accessibility to buildings from f}arking areas ami f}ublic 'Nalkways. [Efit<rt,'SfN'5te: Combined with 2.d above.! ~. Privacy and Building Separation: L...Provision of internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Creation of a sense of wivacy anG sef}aration from aGjacent units through careful location of building entrances, windows, and by tha usa of fences, walls anG lanGscaf}ing. ii. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties: fences, insulation, walks. barriers. and landscaping are used, as appropriate. for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property. the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise; windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy: and sufficient light and air is provided to each dwelling unit. [E:dirbtJ~N~ta: Adapted from .former Section J.4.] sf. Building Orientation: Orientation of buildings to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. h. Promotion of variety anG innol/ation in site anG building Gasign. 8uilGings in grGuf}S shoulG be related ay coorGinateG matarials anG roof styles, but contract should be f}Fo'liGeG throughout a site ay tha use of varieG materials, architactural Getailing, builGing orientation or housing tyf}e; i.e., single family, GetacheG, attacheG, townhouses, etc. [ECi1t~'fl§fN5t~: Combined with "a".] ·i. Design of the f}arimeter of a wojeel to enhance aGjacent uses anG not create a "walled corridor" of auildings, hael"ily traveleG streets, or light anG glare. Perimater builGings December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 9 • shm,lld ge similar in scale and gl,Jlk to gl,Jildings (In adjacent sites. [81iiI6~~~Ni6't~: Combined with "a".1 j. PrGvision of a system of walkways '...,hich tie residential areas t(l recreational areas, ='.?':"t<"'''4J;i~'''':0,t\1'=l''*;-'"·1 transit, pl,Jglic walk'Nays, schools, and commercial activities. [Eoifor:'si)NbtEl: Combined with "b".] kg. Parking Area Design: i. Design: Design of parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas shol,Jld ge is minimized l!J comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking. and shared parking facilities where appropriate. f8aiidi\i§'fi6'I1r.4 remove "should" from code, Address cooperative parking since nonresidenital uses in particular may apply.] ii. Adequacy: Sufficient onsite vehicular parking areas shall be provided consistent with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Parking management shall ensure sufficient resident. employee, or visitor parking standards, and no reliance on adjacent or abutting properties unless a shared parking arrangement consistent with RMC 4-4-080 is accomplished. I. PrGmotion of safety thrGl,Jgh adeql,Jate sight distance, separation of vehicles frGm pedestrians, limited dri'le'Nays on gl,Jsy streets, avoidance of diffic\Jlt t\Jrning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. [E'clTf6T?~ifuF~: Combined with "b".] m. PrGvision of safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. [EBitb[;SXn6il:j: Combined with "b".] n. Phasing: Design of eEach phase of the proposed development, so that as it is planned to ge completed, it will contain§, the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, and so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. 4. Compliance with Open Space Standards: Each Planned Urban Development shall demonstrate compliance with the open space development standards contained in subsection E of this Section. F. PERMITTED lOCATIONS: 1.Planned \Jnit de"el(lpments may ge permitted in any residential zoning district, except the R 1 5 District, when processed and apprGved as provided in this aection. [EdTtdr.,si;r1ot~: See SUbsection S.] G. PERMITTED USES: In an apprGved planned \Jnit de'lelopment, only the following \Jses may ge permitted on a prGperty, or any portion thereof, with the respecti'le \Jnderlying zoning classification. If a site contains more than one zoning classification, then only the \Jses allowed gelow shall ge permitted in each correspondingly zoned area. December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 10 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department 1. G 1 aRd R 1 ResideRce Districts: a. SinQle taR'lily detached dwellinQs, and attached dwellinQ blnils provided that no structure shall contain R'lore than four (4) dwellinQ \,Jnits and that each blnit shall have its own gFOblnd floor access and no blnit shall Qe located aQove another blnit. Q. Accessory uses cblstoR'larily incidental to such allowed blses. 2 R 2, R :1 and R 4 Residence Districts: a Single faR'lily detached dwellings, sinQle taR'lily attached dwellings, dblplexes, to' .... nhoblses, and R'I\,Jltiple faR'lily dwellinQs. Q. ,A.ccessory blses c\,JstoR'larily incidElntal to s\,Jch aI/owed blses. c. P\,JQlic and ~blasi PblQlic blses which arEl cOR'lpatiQle with surrounding uses or are an integral part of the PUD. [6~fitO/;~ffoffi: See subsection S.l H. MINIMUM SITE A.REP.: No R'liniR'luR'l site area shall Qe re~uir9d for a PUD. [EdftbrJ'§sr;Ofe: See subsection S.l I. DENSITY/PERMITTED NUMSER OF DWEbblNG UNITS: rEaTto11f:fjdm Appropriate densities were a key discussion with the recent Comprehensive Plan update. and density bonsues were removed in the R-8 and R-10 zones, but retained in the R-14. CD. and COR zones. Removing the ability to modify density is then resulting in a PUD regulation that is more like a "master cluster" or "master variance" type of application. The only bonuses are those aI/owed by the base zones.] 1. Method of Computing: The R'laxiR'lblR'l nUR'lQElr of dWEllling units perR'litted in a planned blnit developR'lent shall Qe determined Qy R'lultiplying the gross site area tiR'les the allo' .... ed Qase units per acre of the underlying zoning tiR'les thEl total of the percentage incrElases of each earned density Qonus. Gross site areas shall R'lean the total site area before allO'.\'ing for iR'lproveR'lents. sblch as streets, bltility easeR'lents, and circbllation areas. In no case shall the numQer of dwelling units permitted on a site exceed the maximum permitted density of the blnderlying zoning of the site, as specified in sblQsection 13 of this Section. 2. Formula: The general formulas for deterR'lining the permitted nblmQer of dwelling units in a PUD are as follows: # of dwelling units permit~d -the smaUer of: (Gross site area in acres x Qase density, or moditied Qase density for environmentally sensitive areas, of thEl respective underlying zoning) x (100% + sum of percentages of all bonuses earned); or (Gross site area in acres x maxiR'lblR'l perR'litted residential densities, or R'lodified R'laxiR'luR'l density for environmentally sensitive areas, of respectil/e underlying zoning). 3. Ma~imum Sase Residential Densities' The Qase residential density permitted in a PUD shall Qe: December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 11 ao G 1 Zone: One dwelling uni! per acre. bo R 1 Zone: Foyr (4) dwelling blni!s per aCFe. c. R 2 Zone: Eight (8) d'Nelling !'mi!s per acre. d. R J Zone: Sevonteon (17) dwelling blnits per acro. eo R 4 Zone: Twonty four (24) d'o''o'elling ynits per acre. 40 RedLiction in Base Density for bands Identified as Sensitive: These base densities shall apply to the gross acreage of all lands within a PUO, provided that the base density of any portion of a site that is identifiod as containing vory severe environmentally sensitive areas is reduced by seventy five percent (75%) and the base density of any portion of a site identified as containing se'lere environmentally sonsitil/e areas is reduced by fifty percent ~ 50 Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map Folio: The purpose of these maps is to alert tho public and responsible officials to the potential presence of environmontally sensiti'le areas on the sites of de'lelopment proposals, In cases of mapping ~rror, the actual presence or absonce of the features defined in this 5ection as environmentally sensitive, as determined by qualified professional and technical persons, shall gO'lorn tho troatment of an individual building sile or parcel of land as en'lironmentally sensitive. 60 BonLis Densities: One or more of the follo .... ing denSity bonyses may be earned in addition to the base units per acre allowed in a PUD. The bonys percentages shall be added together Defore being multiplied by the permitted base density. ao Open Space: A five percent (5%) density bonus if at least twenty five percent (25%) or ORe half (1.l2) acre, whiche'ler is loss, of the open space has a slope of ten percont (10%) or less. 5uch open space shall be concentrated aroas and shall not be covored by standing water except occasionally during the year. bo Acth.'e Recreation Areas: A five porcent (5%) density bonys if two (2) or more active recreational features, sych as jogging/walkiRg trails, pools, recreation building, childron's play areas, tenRis courts aRd sports courts are pro"ided for each one hundred (100) residential ynits. c. En'!ironrRentally Sensitive Areas: A five percent (5%) bonus for each ton percont (10%) of the silo identified as hal/ing very sevore or se'lore environmentally sensitive fsatbiFes that 3re left uRdistbirbed. d. PLiblic Access: A ten percent (10%) density bonus if public accoss which is acceptable to tho City is granted to lakes, rivers, and other unusual site features (e.g., uniqble open space, recreation areas, etc ), eo Parking bots: A fille percElnt (5%) density bonus if off street parking is grouped in areas of sixteen (16) stalls or less and separated from other parking areas by significant landscapiRg. f. Enclosed Parking: A fivo percent (5%) density bonbls if at least fifty parcent (50%) of the parking stalls aro placod undergrouRd or enclosod D)' walls on three (3) sides, such as in garages. December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 12 g. Arterial Ac::c::ess: A five percent (5%) density bonus if the principal vehicular access point opens directly onto a primary or secondary arterial. 1:10 Pyblic:: Transit: A Ave percent (5%) density bonus if pblblic transit is available within Ave hblndred feet (500') walking 9istance from the PUD. i. SeGl.lrity: A Ave percent (5%) gensity bonbls if the PUD proviges a crime prevention plan, inclbl9ing locks, secblrity lighting, apwopriate 90OFS, windows an9 alarms apwove9 by the Renton Police Department. jo Perimeter SetbaGk and auffer: A ten percent (10%) gensity bonbls if the lan9scape9 setback from adjacent R 1 Residential Districts required in sblbsection J4 a of this Section is increase9 to fifty feet (50'). blnless sblch increased setback 'A'oblld be reqblire9 anY'J'Jay 9b1e to topography, easements or other limitations of the property. ko Private Open SpaGe: A five percent (5%) gensity bonbiS for blsable private open space in excess of minimblm reqblirements (sblbsection J3 of this Section) an9, specifically, when the prill ate open space for a grobln9 floor blnit excee9s three hbln9re9 (300) sqblare feet or eighty (80) square feet for an upper story blnit. 7. Ma~imum Total Residential Densities' The maximum resigential densities that may be achieve9 in a PUD shall not exceed: a. G 1 Zone: One an9 one foblrth (1.25) 9welling blnits per acre. b. R 1 Zone: Six (6) 9welling blnits per acre. Go R 2 Zone: Twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. do R 3 Zone' Twenty five (25) 9vvelling units per acre. e. R 4 Zone: Thirty five (35) d'l"elling blnits per acre. S. RedyGtion in Total Density for bands Identified as Sensitive: These maximblm densities shall apply to all lands within a PUD, proviged that the maximblm gensit~' of any portion of a site that is igentifie9 as containing very severe environmentally sensitive areas is re9uced by fifty percent (50%) an9 the maximblm gensity of any portion of a site identifie9 as containing se"ere enVironmentally sensitive areas is redblced by twenty five percent (25%). JI;. OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 10 Code Provisions Tl:lat May ae Modified: In approving a planned unit ge"elopment. the City may modify any of the stan9ards of the Zoning. Parking an9 loa9ing, am:! Sblb9ivision C0ges except the following: a. The Cit}' rna}' not modi!}' any of tho proviSions of this Section; b. The City may not modify any provision of the above codes that spocifically stato that its reqblirements are not sblbject to modifications binder a PUD; c. The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions of these codes; and December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 13 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department ~ I, ,. d. The City may not modify any provision that specifically applies to development on a wetland, floodplain, or regulated slope. [Etliib'Pj~iIBT~: See subsection B.l 21. Common Open Space Standard: Each PUb) shall provide not less than thirty five percent (:35%) of the total site area for common open space. Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed provide either active or passive recreation or to provide a wildlife habitat. a. Residential: For residential developments, open space must be equal to or greater in size than the total square footage of the lot area reductions requested by the Planned Urban Development. The open space shall not include a critical area and shall be concentrated in large usable areas. Stormwater facilities may be incorporated with the open space on a case-by -case basis if the Reviewing Official finds: i. The stormwater facility utilizes the the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Resources Division or ii. The surface water feature serves areas outside of the planned urban development and is appropriate in size and creates a benefit. Site Area: 1.5 acres Typical Lot Size: 4,500 sq, ft. Total Number of Lots: 12 Standard Subdivision ElqrtfFEf!d1. Common Open Space Example b. Mixed Use, Commercial, Industrial: Site Area: 1.5 acres Typical Lot Size: 3,500 sq. ft. Total Number of Lots: 12 Open Space: 4,500 s.f. minus 3,500 s,t. = 1,000 s.f. x 12 lots = 12.000 sq. ft. Example Planned Urban Development Approach i. Mixed-use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents, The location. layout. and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Reviewing Official. The required common open space may be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Reviewinq Official may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces; December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 14 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department (b) Upper level common decks. patios. terraces. or roof (J3rdens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including. but not limited to: tennis/sports courts. swimming pools. exercise areas. game rooms. or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. ii. In mixed-use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping. driveways. parking. or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. iii. In mixed-use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards. plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development. iv. Private decks, balconies. and private qround floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Rfgure12. A visible and accessible residential common area containing landscaping and other amenities. v. In mixed-use residential and attached residential projects other required landscaping. and sensitive area buffers without common access links. such as pedestrian trails. shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. vi. All buildings and developments with over 30.000 square feet of non-residental uses (excludes parking qarage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian-oriented space according to the following formula: December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 15 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department 1 % of the lot area + 1 % of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian- oriented space Reeco$Cd ..... If:l :>reil$ CJI' l;uiiit, a£ CWi;il,uo- Qlien:e~ q)1I!" II tMi mc-et fe:;;:irem(trcG.-., -, \ -\ C .. rtraiZi;~ OM \/islbllt I'cd""iri;m«i\ml<:l! ~P<l1:O l:r.aicd ;:!If\;jq' l:·.;iI~i"ll t!l1try an' a"'AlIroi 1£ '! .' / \ \ \ vii. To qualify as pedestrian-oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (includina barrier-free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard, (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving, ll<LOn-site or building-mounted lighting pro'viding at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground, and {QLAt least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space, viiL The following features are encouraged in pedestrian-oriented space and may be required by the Reviewing Official. (a) Provide pedestrian-oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian-oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security -such as adjacent to a building entry, December 8; updated December 15.2004 Page 16 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department (cl Provide pedestrian-oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space consistent with Figure 4 of RMC 4-3-100. Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations. (d) Provide movable public seating. ix. The following are prohibited within pedestrian-oriented space: (a) Asphalt or gravel pavement, (b) Adjacent unscreened parking lots, (cl Adjacent blank walls, (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas, and (e) Outdoor storage or retail sales (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Fig~. Pedestrian-oriented spaces, visible from the street, including ample seating areas. movable furniture, special paving, landscaping components, and adjacent pedestrian-oriented uses. c. Open Space Orientation: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure. and local micro-climatic conditions.- d. Common Open Space Guidelines: i. Common space areas in mixed-use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents. and visible from surrounding units. ii. Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unigue topography or architecture, and solar exposure. III. In mixed-use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 17 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department [~it6f;~'N'bi~: Applies Urban Center criteria from 4-3-1 00.G.2. including preliminary proposed edits that are under consideration by the City Economic DevelopmenU Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department.! l~. Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a Planned Urban Developmentgu,Q. shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit and shall be an area of at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross square footage of the dwelling units. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least ten feet (10') in every dimension. Decks on upper floors can substitute for some of this required private open space. For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5'). 4. Setback an'tHeight Standards: a. Setback from R 1 Zones: VVhenever a PUD shall abut a R 1 zoned parcel, whether developed or undeveloped, then any building or structure in the PUD shall be set back at least twenty five feet (25') from such parcel. Sblch twent}' five toot (25') setback shall be open space, and shall not be utilized for parking. streets, drive' .... ays, plaYQrounds or other intensive uses, but such twenty five root (25') setback shall be landscaped as hereinabove described and maintained as a common elrea and open space. b. Setback and Height limitations Adjacent to R 1 Zones: Any structure within one hundred feet (100') of eln R 1 Zone shall be comprised of detelched single family housinQ ~,o.;/<~"~.·:' ';: <,. !"J~.;·"'1JL -... ': no more than thirty five feet (35') in heiQht. [EClitoYS'5Nofe: In the proposal. there would be no limitation on requesting building heights; however. development would be subject to the decision criteria in subsection D regarding compatibility and ability to serve development.] c. Spacing Beh-veen Buildings: No minimum spacing between buildings within a PUD is re~llired provicled that each development shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units elnd surrouncling properties; fences, insulation, walks, belrriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, ror the protection and aesthetic enhancement ot the property and the privacy of its occllpants and surrollnding properties, screening of objectionable view or llses, and redllction of noise; winclows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide ade~uate privacy; and adequate liQht and air is provided to each dwelling llnit. [Edita~'mwm: Concepts combined with decision criteria in subsection D.] 5. Shoreline ,A.reas: Planned unit de"elopments which incillde any shoreline of natural lakes, rivers and other water-yays shall be Qo"erned by the re~llirements of the City Code entitled Residential £ubdHsion of First Class £horelands and £horeline Master ProQram. [8drf6t:r~ ';j'5ili: These standards cannot be varied per Subsection B.] 6. En¥ironmentally Sensiti¥e Areas: PUDs in areas identified as very severe or severe environmentally sensiti>,'e areas shall be sllbject to special reviaw by the City to aSSllre stable building conditions, safa and convenient access, and minimum disruption of the natural physical features of the land Special engineering, soils, hydrologic or geoloQic stlldies may "" '''§~~'''' "-"'~'; ',;<->":~"~",'}0 be re~uired to assure public safety and welfare. [Eaitor3siN6te: These standards cannot be varied per Subsection B.] December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 18 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department 7 • .6.,:<:ess, Circulation and Parking: a. General: The planned Ilnil development shall have ade~llate pedestrian and vehicle access and parking commenSblrate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. Vehicle access shall not be blndblly detrimental to aGljacent areas and shall take into consideration the anticipated traffic which the development may generate. [EaTi~'s1Nb~: Combined with decision criteria in Section D.l b. Streets: All streets within a PUD shall be dedicated to the City for Pblblic blse. Sblch streets shall be developed to the fblll minimblm standards specified in RMC 4 6 060, '~·~'·:··-ll%':":;F?r:%.:;~ im:lb/ding cb/rbs, gbltters and sidewalks. [Eaitor~s,n'ote:; Adequate circulation required in Subsection D Decision Criteria. Section B allows modification of standards but with performance standards in Section D.) c. Parking: Ade~blate vehicbllar parking areas shall be provided. Vehicbllar parking may be provided either on street or off street within the PUD, provided that the total m~mber of available spaces is at least e~blal to the resident and gllest parking re~blirements specified in the parking and loading regb/lations. [E~ait&rJ~i?l= Adequate parking required in Section D Decision Criteria. Current and proposed Subsection B allows modification of parking standards. but with performance standards in Section D.) d. Pedestrian Cin:ulation: Ade~llate pedestrian circb/lation facilities shall be ~mwided. These facilities shall be dblrable, serviceable, safe, convenient to the dwelling Iolnits, and separated by cllrb or other means from the vehicle traffic facilities.[Eaitbr~§;~'6i~~ Combined with performance standards in Subsection D.) ~. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City, provided that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a performance bondsecurity device to the City in an amount equal to a minimblm of one hllndred fifty percent (150%) of the cost of the installation of the approved landscapin9t.tl.§ provisions of RMC 4-9-06(),..wAA;h~ Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the Planned Urban Developmentf2..U.{;), and the maintenance of sblch landscapingmaintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A OOAG-security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. [6'dff6~s~Nijte: Cross references section that establishes bond amount (also at 150%) and standardizes terms used elsewhere ("security device"}.) b. Maintenance: Landscaping and unimproved common open space shall be maintained permanently by the property momers' association or the owner of the PUD, or the agent or agents thereof and shall be subject to periodic inspection by the City. In the event that slolch landscaping or open space is not maintained in a responsible manner, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance tl:lereof and bill the property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if blnpaid, shall become a lien a9ainst each individlolal property. Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. 94. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 19 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Board of Public Works, assured through a performance gondsecurily device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4- 9-060in an amount e~ual to a minimum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the cost of installation, except for such common facilities that are intended to serve only future phases of a Planned Urban Developmentl21J.Q. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the present and future phases of a Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2lJG shall be installed or gonded secured with a security instrument as specified above before occupancy of the earliest phase that will be served. At the time of such bonding security and deferral, the City shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is attributable to each phase of a Planned Urban Developmentgu.c. rEtli'r6rJ's1iNBt~: Cross references section that establishes bond amount (also at 150%) and standardizes terms used elsewhere ("security device").] b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2lJG owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. KE. PROCEDURE FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: The approval of a planned unit development shall be by the City Council, upon recommendation by the Hearing Examiner, and shall be processed in accordance with the following procedures: 1. Who May Apply: Any owner, group of owners of contiguous property acting jointly, develsper, sr authori~ed agent may sygmit an application tor a PUD. Planned Urban Developments shall be processed consistent with RMC 4-8 as Type VI or VII permits as specified. 2. Filing of Application: The application for preliminary approval of a Planned Urban Developmentgu.c shall be filed with the Development Services Division accompanied by a filing fee as established by RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. Wherever a planned unit development is intended to be subdivided into smaller parcels, an application for preliminary plat approval may be submitted together with the application for final plan Planned Urban Developmentgu.c approval. In such case, the preliminary plat and the final pan Planned Urban Developmentgug shall be processed and reviewed concurrently. Subsequent to final plan Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2lJG approval, a Planned Urban Developmentl21J.Q may also be subdivided by the binding site plan process. 3. Informal Review: Prior to making application for preliminary approval, the developer shall meet 'Nith the reviewing departments to stydy and review the proposed PUD. The developer shall pr~par9 and sugmit to the Development aer'lices Division eight (g) copies of a tentative application with vicinity and site maps csntaining the intormatisn required in subsection K4 of this aeetion, together '.\lith other pertinent information FeqYired by the reviewing departments. The maps may be reasonal:lly aCCYFate sketches. A fee as established by RMe 4 1 170, Land Use Review Fees, for a tentati"e PUD shall ge paid by the petitioner prior to this informal review. submit a conceptual plan for preapplication review. rEtlitbii';S'lin8hil: Would make reference to the City's preapplication review process which is the most common review December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 20 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department procedure before a formal application is submitted for any comparable permit such as a preliminary plat. This is a free process.] 4. Submittal Requirements and Application Fees: A preliminary development plan shall be submitted to the Development Seryices Division and shall include the general intent of the development, apportionment of land for buildings and land use, proposed phases, if any, and such other information or documentation which the Development Services Division shall require. Submittal requirements and fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees, and 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications. 5. Public Notice and Comment Period: In additign tg See RMC 4-8-090, Public Notice Requirements, pyblic notice shall be in the form gf three (3) sisns placed on or near the sybject pmperty and clearly ¥isible fmm the larQest pyblic street sep/ing the pmpertj'. The Development Services Divisign shall alsg make a reasonable effort to notify by mail all known homeg'tmers' associations, commynity clybs or similar organizations in the neighborhood of a pmposed PUD. The pyblic comment period shall be as specified in RMC 4 8 090, Pyblic =C' ~'W"··'\¥iiF.'-117''W Notice Re~Yirements. [Editor0swNofe: Standardizes public notice and comment period requriements and does not included increased requirements.] Failure to receive such mailed notification shall have no effect upon the proposed action or _""'1"W'W'Y''o/',wW'" application. [Eaito~s~N0te: Retain here or move this sentence to general permit procedures in RMC 4-8.] 6. Phasing: Planned unit developments may be proposed to be developed in one or more phases. If developed in phases, each phase of the Planned Urban DevelopmentP-YG shall contain adequate parking, open space, recreation space, public benefits, landscaping, buffering, Circulation, utilities and other improvements necessary so that each phase, together with any earlier phases, may stand alone and satisfy the purposes of this Section. Further, each phase must meet the reqUirements of subsection E2 of this Section, Public Benefit Required, unless the public benefits have been met by previously approved phases. 7. Review Process: The preliminary plan shall be circulated to all reviewing departments for comments. The Development Services Division shall determine that evaluate whether the plans comply with the development poliCies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan and this Section and shall make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner accordingly. 8. Decision: After public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the preliminary plan. The City Council, upon recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, shall approve, modify or deny the preliminary plan Planned Urban DevelopmentgyG. City Council action to approve a preliminary plan Planned Urban DevelopmentP-YG shall be by ordinance and shall include an accurate description of the boundaries, land uses, any modified development standards, and number of units or building square feet of the Planned Urban DevelopmentP-YG, and any phases thereof, as well as the effective date of approval and the date of expiration of such approval. 8. Decision: a. Preliminary Planned Urban Development -New Development: After public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the preliminary plan. The City Council, upon recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, shall approve, modify or deny the preliminary plan. City Council action to approve a preliminary plan shall be by ordinance and shall include an accurate description of the boundaries, land December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 21 uses, any modified development standards, and number of units or building square feet of the Planned Urban Development. and any phases thereof, as well as the effective date of approval and the date of expiration of such approval. b. Preliminary Planned Urban Development -Existing Development with Binding Site Plan: After public hearing. the Hearing Examiner shall approve, approve with conditions. or deny the preliminary plan. The preliminary plan shall contain an accurate description of the boundaries. land uses and number of units of the Planned Urban Development. and any phases thereof. as well as the effective date of approval and the date of expiration of such approval. on its face prior to recording with King County. 9. Effect of an Approved Preliminary Plan: The approval of a preliminary plan constitutes the City's acceptance of the general project, including its density, intenSity, arrangement and design, Approval authorizes the applicant or subsequent owner to apply for final plan approval of the Planned Urban Development~ or phase(s) thereof, Preliminary plan approval does not authorize any building permits or any site work except that reqYired fQr syrveyin9 and en9ineerin9 Qf the final plan Qr that reqYireo gy the City for improvements that are necessary fur a particylar phase Qf the PUO fm II/hich final plan approval has geen 9ranted. An approved preliminary plan binds the future Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2UQ site and all subsequent owners to the uses, densities, and standards of the preliminary plan until such time as a final plan is approved for the entire site or all phases of the site, or a new preliminary plan is approved, or the preliminary plan is abandoned or expires subject to the provisions of subsection.§, G-G and K of this Section. 10. Zoning Map Revised: a. New Planned Urban Development Approval: Upon the authority of the approval ordinance of a preliminary [or final?] plan Planned Urban Developmentl21JQ., the City shall place the Planned Urban Developmentl21JQ. desi9natiQn ordinance number as an overlay on W:;':P',,-'· .';:' "',:.;'%'<':1""'~,* the subject property on the City of Renton Zoning Map. [Editor's"Note: Discuss time and method of map amendment.] b. Demonstration Ordinances: Ordinances 4468 and 4550 which created demonstration developments known as Village on Union and certain divisions of the Orchards are hereby considered final Planned Urban Developments for the purposes of code implementation. 11. Sale of Planned Unit Development: If a develQper sells the site or a PQrtiQn Qf the site after preliminary approval, Sych sale shall nQt prevent final approval of the planned ynit develQpment, pro"idin9 that any sycceedin9 Qwner a9rees to comply with the reqYirements of this ~ectiQn, and any and all cQnditiQns m CQvenants that have geen established fQr the M,"'P'W·-.-W ,,"10C'~: approved PliO. [EditOr:siNcite: Recommended to be removed by Development Services staff.] l. MERGER OF REVIE'N STAGES: [E[Wt"§~f!i~l~: See Subsection H.] The applicant may reqyest that revie' .... and QecisiQn Qn the preliminary plan ami final plan be merged in Qne decisiQn. The meFged decision shall follow the prQcedYral steps reqYired Qf a preliminary plan. HQwever, the applicant shall sybmit all plans and informatiQn in the detail FeqYired fur a final plan and shall cQmply '}lith all Qther reqYirements and standards for a fi nal pIaA. M~. FINAL PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES: December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 22 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department 1. Time Limits: The developer shall, within two (2) years of the effective date of action by the City Council to approve the preliminary plan, submit to the Development Services Division a final development plan showing the ultimate design and specific details of the proposed planned unit development or the final phase or phases thereof. Upon application by the developer, the Hearing Examiner may grant an extension of the approved preliminary plan for a maximum of twelve (12) months. Application for such extension shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of preliminary plan approval. Only one such extension may be granted for a Planned Urban Development~. If a final development plan is not filed within such two (2) years or within the extended time period, if any, the Planned Urban Development~ preliminary plan shall be deemed to have expired or been abandoned and shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 0 sf this aectisn. To activate an expired or abandoned Planned Urban Development a new application is required. 2. Submittal Requirements and Fees for Final Plan Application: A final plan application shall be submitted for a Planned Urban Development~, or a phase thereof, to the Development Services Division. The proposed final plan shall be in sUbstantial conformance with the approved preliminary plans, including phasing, subject to the provisions of subsections M4-G4 and MS.-G5 of this Section. Submittal requirements shall be as listed in RMC 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications. Application fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. 3. Public Notice: Public notice shall be provided in the manner prescribed for preliminary plans. 4. Minor Modifications: As part of the approval of a final plan, the City may require or approve a minor deviation from the preliminary plan if: a. The change is necessary because of natural features of the subject property not foreseen by the applicant or the City prior to the approval of the preliminary development plan; or b. The change will not have the effect of significantly reducing any area of landscaping, open space, natural area or parking; or c. The change will not have the effect of increasing the density or significantly increasing the total amount of floor area of the Planned Urban Development~; or d. The change will not result in any structure, circulation or parking area being moved significantly in any direction; or e. The change will not reduce any setback approved as part of the preliminary plan by more than ten percent (10%) and the required minimum setback is met; or f. The change will not result in a significant increase in the height of any structure as approved in the preliminary plan; or g. The change will not increase or create any adverse impacts or undesirable effects on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Major Modifications: Major modifications are those which substantially change the basic design, density, circulation, or open space requirements of th~ Planned Urban December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 23 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Development~. Major modifications to a preliminary plan Planned Urban Development~ shall be processed as a new preliminary plan. 6. Review and Approval of Final Plan: The final plan shall be reviewed by the departments and the Hearing Examiner, in the manner prescribed for preliminary plans, to determine if the final plan is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan and is consistent with the purposes and review criteria of this Section. After a public hearing thereon, the Hearing Examiner shall make a decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the final plan. The decision shall include a description of the elements of the approved Planned Urban Development~, including land uses, number of units, phasing, the effective date of approval and of expiration, time limits, required improvements and the schedule for implementation, and any conditions that may apply to the Planned Urban Development~. a. Covenants Required: i. Covenants Generally: As a condition of final plan Planned Urban Development~ approval, covenants shall be executed that run with the land, and with all subdivided portions thereof, stating that such property is part of an approved Planned Urban Development~, and including the file number thereof and a description of the uses, densities and phases of the approved Planned Urban Development~. Such covenant shall also be recorded for each property created through any subsequent subdivisions. ii. Specifications of Variations: All final Planned Urban Developments shall include specifications that are recorded with the Planned Urban Development indicating which lots or structures vary from which specific zoning requirement. Covenants shall indicate that such lots or structures shall meet the standard created with the approval of the Planned Urban Development or the current zone in effect at the time of subsequent land use, building or construction permits. b. Property Owners' Association Required: For residential Planned Urban Developments. t~e developer or owner(s) of a Planned Urban Development~ shall be required to 'form a legally incorporated property owners' association prior to the occupancy of any portion of a Planned Urban Development~. If there is only one owner of the Planned Urban Development~, either a property owners' association shall be formed or a covenant running with the land shall be filed requiring the formation of such an association prior to the first subsequent sale of the property, or portion thereof. For nonresidential Planned Urban Developments, the City may establish covenants as necessary to ensure maintenance of infrastructure and open space or other common improvements. 7. Effect of an Approved Final Plan: a. Standards Superimposed: The final approval of a planned unit development, under the procedures detailed in this Section, shall superimpose the requirements of that specific approved planned unit development on the underlying zone regulations as an exception thereto, to the extent that the requirements of the planned unit development modifies or supersedes the regulations of the underlying zone. Final plan approval shall be binding upon property or the respective phase(s) with regards to density, intensity. open space, uses, and other standards until such time as a new final plan Planned Urban Development~ is approved or the final plan expires or is abandoned subject to subsection G-!:S...of this Section. December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 24 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department b. Construction Authorized: Approval of a final plan Planned Urban Developmentgy.Q is authorization to apply for building permits to construct the Planned Urban Developmentgy.Q. The developer shall prepare and sblbmit bblilding permit applications which are accepted as sblbstantially complete to the Development Services Di'w'ision within six (6) months of the effective date of approval. The de'w'eloper shall complete the approved planned blnil development or any phase thereof inGiblded in the afolfolroved final follan within two (2) years from the date of the decision to afolfolro'w'e the final plan by the Hearins Examiner, blnless the examiner desisnates a shorter time. Failblre to comfollete the PUD, or any phase thereof, within this time limit will reqblire the submittal of a ne'N preliminary and final plan apfollication in ordeF to continble construction of the PUD. Failure to sblbmit a new afolfol'ication I)r tl) complete the PUD once constrblction has beSbln shall constitblte abandonment of the PUD sblbject to subsection 0 of this Section. Expiration of any bblildins permit issbled for a PUD shall be SO'lerned by the folrovisions of the afolp/icable 6blilding Code. Constrblction of any portion of the PUD requires a current ~~'''''''_~·;;'''~':WfW~~ apfolFOved PUD and a Cblrrent bblilding permit. [Eaitor~s'1'J6te: Combined with 9 below.] 8. Phasing: If developed in phases, each phase of the Planned Urban Developmentgy.Q shall contain adequate parking, open space, recreation space, public benefits, landscaping, buffering, circulation, utilities and other improvements necessary so that each phase, together with any earlier phases, may stand alone and satisfy the purposes of this Section. Further, each phase must meet the requirements of subsection ~D2 of this Section, Public Benefit Required, unless the public benefits have been met by previously approved phases. 9. Extensign gf Time Limits fgr Remaining Phases i. Expiration: The developer shall prepare and submit building permit applications which are accepted as substantially complete to the Development Services Division within six (6) months of the effective date of approval. The developer shall complete the approved planned unit development or any phase thereof included in the approved final plan within two (2) years from the date of the decision to approve the final plan by the Hearing Examiner, unless the examiner designates a shorter time. Failure to complete the Planned Urban Development, or any phase thereof. within this time limit will require the submittal of a new preliminary and final plan application in order to continue construction of the Planned Urban Development. Failure to submit a new application or to complete the Planned Urban Development once construction has begun shall constitute abandonment of the Planned Urban Development subject to subsection J of this Section. Expiration of any building permit issued for a Planned Urban Development shall be governed by the provisions of the applicable Building Code. Construction of any portion of the Planned Urban Development requires a current approved Planned Urban Development and a current building permit. [8Jit6rr~~: Moved from 7.b above.] ii. Remaining Preliminary Phases with Completion of One Phase: Approval of a final plan for any phase of the approved preliminary plan shall constitute an extension for two (2) years of the remainder of the preliminary plan from the effective date of Hearing Examiner action on the final plan. H. MERGER OF APPLICATIONS OR REVIEW STAGES: 1. Merger of Review Stages: The applicant may request that review and decision on the preliminary plan and final plan be merged in one decision. The merged decision shall follow the procedural steps required of a preliminary plan. However, the applicant shall submit all lans and information in the detail re uired f and shall com I with all other December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 25 2. Merger with Other Applications: A preliminary Planned Urban Development may be considered simultaneously with any other land use permit required for a proposal. including but not limited to: preliminary plats. short plats. binding site plans. critical area modifications or variances. shoreline substantial developments permits. shoreline variances. shoreline conditional use permits. grading regulation modifications or variances. or other applications. Where merged. the review criteria for all of the applications shall be considered simultaneously with the Planned Urban Development criteria in RMC 4-9-150.C. Where there are conflicts with review criteria. the criteria of 4-9-150.C shall govern. Where merged. all permits shall be considered simultaneously as part of the Planned Urban Development. The review authority shall be determined consistent with RMC 4-8-080.C.2. Review Authority for Multiple Permit Applications. I. APPEALS OF EXAMINER'S DECISION ON A FINAL PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT: The Hearing Examiner's decision on a final plan Planned Urban Development may be appealed to the City Cou ncil pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. If the Hearing Examiner acts on appeal to approve a final Planned Urban Development. the decision will include an effective date of approval consistent with subsections G and K of this Section, Decision. NJ.. BUILDING AND OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 1. P",bIiG NotifiGatioR SigRage: Prior to issyance of any 9Yilding perrnits fur a final PUD, the applicant 'Nill erect and rnaintain in a legi91e rnanner a sign which is syfficiently large and prerninently sited, and which graphically portrays all phases of the prelirninary PUD inclyding dVlelling ynit types, nyrnger of Ynits, parking, open space, and recreational facilities. The pYrpose of this ternporary sign is to inforrn neigh90rs and fytYre residents a90yt fytyre phases of developrnent plans, their content and configYration. If a prelirninar}' PUD is rnodified and has any rnajor rnodifications perrnitted to it, then this sign shall sirnilarly be rnodified to cornply "'lith any approved changes to the rnodified PUD. A,ny sign erected pyrsyant to this Code Section shall ge exernpt frern the previsions of the Sign Code. All 6ych pY91ic notification signs preposed SY9ject to this Section shall be reviewed and approved by the Developrnent Services Division to insldre that the inforrnation to ge displayed is clearly legi91e and that the size of the sign is no larger than what is needed to convey the reqYired infurrnation. The sign is to ge rernoved at Sych tirne as the final phase of the PUD has been approved and constrYcled. (Ord. 4060, ,., 20 1967) [E1Ilt~J§rN8tt1i: Consider deleting and relying on standard notification requirements in RMC 4-8.1 21. Conformance with Final Plan Required: Building permits shall be issued for construction in planned unit developments only in accordance with the approved final plan and pregrarn elernents of the final plan as approved by the Hearing Exarniner. 3~. Minor Adjustments to Final Plan: i. Minor Adjustments prior to Buidling Permits: Minor adjustments to the final plan which involve only inSignificant revisions to the exact location and configuration of buildings, roadways, open space or other features and do not involve any changes in density, relative denSity within the site, intensity, architectural style, housing type or other significant characteristics of the Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2.® may be approved by the Development Services Division when issuing building permits. Adjustments that are determined by the Development Services Division to not be minor adjustments shall require the submittal of a new final plan or preliminary plan application, according to subsections M4-G4 and ~G5 of this Section, Modifications. December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 26 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department approval and any applicable City codes. 4. Occupancy Permit Issuance Procedure: Occupancy permits shall be granted consistent with the requirements in Title IV. Conditions of approval shall be based upon actions to be achieved prior to issuance of construction permits or building permits. Deferrals of improvements shall be determined by the Board of Public Works pursuant to 4-9-060. +I:le ge¥elg~ment Services gi¥isign girectgr may issue a tem~grary gr final gccu~ancy ~ermit subject tg any cgnditigns a~~m~riate tg insure the ~ublic health, safety and general welfare, and tg insure the timely executign gf the remainder gf the ~Ianned unit develgpment. Prigr tg issuance gf the permit the girectgr shall find: a, That the developer is engaged in the continuation of the constnolction of the remainder of the PUg a~plication. b. That all requirements of the PUg ap~mval, and requireQ health and safety regulations gf the City have been satisfied. c. That the partial gccu~ancy has been granted deferrals gf on site or gff site impmvements not yet cgmpleted pursuant to pmvisions of the Renton Municipal Code. d. That partial occupancy will be in the general public interest, and not detrimental to the ~ublic health, safety and welfare. 5. Occupation of Structures: Any finished structures, short of full implementation of an approved final plan for a Planned Urban Developmentf2U.G or those phases thereof, may be occupied upon the issuance of a conditional use permit by the Hearing Examiner together with such conditions, covenants or other terms in order to assure compliance with the requirements of subsection J of this Section, Development Standards, and/or any other applicable provision of this Section and the City's zoning regulations. OK. EXPIRATION OR ABANDONMENT OF A PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENTJltJ.O.: 1. Expiration: Expiration of an approved preliminary plan shall be defined as failure to satisfy the time limits or other requirements of submitting a final plan application. Expiration of an approved final plan Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2U.Q shall be defined as failure to initiate' construction of a Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2U.Q. Expiration can only occur if no on-site construction has begun. Upon expiration of a preliminary or final plan, the undeveloped site may only be developed if a new preliminary and final plan Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2U.Q is approved or if the City Council, by ordinance, removes the Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2U.Q designation and revokes the original approval. 2. Abandonment: Abandonment of a preliminary and/or final plan for the purpose of this Section shall mean the failure and neglect of the developer to meet the requirements of subsection M+b-G9 of this Section, or to diligently pursue the project and the improvements incidental thereto for a period of six (6) months, after beginning or completing construction of December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 27 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department any of the residential units, utilities, streets or other improvements of any phase of a Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2.U.Q. 3. Resuming Development of an Abandoned Planned Urban Developmentf!.UD Site: In order to resume development of an abandoned Planned Urban Development~ site, a new final plan application shall be submitted for any partially completed phase of the Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2.U.Q and a new preliminary plan application shall be submitted for all remaining portions of the site. In any case, all subsequent preliminary or final plans shall adhere to the Renton City Code provisions in force at the time of resubmission including open space, dwelling unit density and setback requirements. No building permits shall be issued, renewed or extended until such new preliminary or final plans are approved. P. APPEAbS OF EXAMINER'S DECISION ON A. FINAb PUD: The Hearing Examiner's decision on a final plan PUD may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to gMC 4 g 11 Q If the Hearing Examiner acts on appeal to apprOl!e a final PUD, the gecision will include an effective date of approval consistent with subsection K8 of this Section, ~:-'·'~~'*q?}~~""'·'1e:l~·t:::,~ Decision. [Editor~sJ\l0te: Moved to Subsection 1.1 Q!:. APPEAL OF COUNCIL DECISION ON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The action, by ordinance, of the City Council to approve, modify or deny a Planned Urban DevelopmentJ2.U.Q shall be final and conclusive, unless the time period specified in RMC 4-8-110, Appeals, an aggrieved party obtains a writ of review from Superior Court. If Council acts in appeal to approve a preliminary Planned Urban Development~, the decision will include an effective date of approval consistent with subsection ~G and Kof this Section, Decision. (Ord. 4039, 1- 19-1987) RM. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: Penalties for any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be in accord with RMC .k 3-2, Civil Penalties. (Ord. 4351, 54-1992) December 8; updated December 15, 2004 Page 28 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department City of Re.n Department of Planning / Building / Public as ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 27, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-154, ECF APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: 2004 Docket Chan es PLAN REVIEW: Jennifer Hennin SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA ross): N/A ECONOMIC 0 LOCATION: N/A WORK ORDER NO: 77357 NEI EVELOPMENT M ATEG/c' <> A . SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Title IV 2004 Docket Amendments including Housekeeping Amendments in Chap e -~ I changes to the school impact fee section, codification of sureties and bonds provisions, Chapters 2 and 7 -Minimum lot size and maximum density, Chapter 2 -R-10 Zone attached townhouse or plats or pre-existing lots, Chapter 2 and 4 -Green River Valley landscaping, Chapter 7 -Binding Site Plan, Chapter 8 -Appeal process, Chapter 8 and 9 -Permit and SEPA process for non-project actions, Chapter 9 -Planned Unit Development, Chapter 11 -Definitions of fv1edicallnstitutions. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT{e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistOric/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS hich we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or Date City of Rlon Department of Planning / Building / Public IkS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 27, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-154, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 17,2004 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: 2004 Docket Chan es SITE AREA: NlA LOCATION: NlA SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Title IV 2004 Docket Amendments including Housekeeping Amendments in Chapter 1 -ral changes to the school impact fee section, codification of sureties and bonds provisions, Chapters 2 and 7 -Minimum lot size d maximum densitY, Chapter 2 -H-10 Zone attached townhouse or plats or pre-existing lots, Chapter 2 and 4 -Green River Valley landscaping, Chapter 7 -Binding Site Plan, Chapter 8 -Appeal process, Chapter 8 and 9 -Permit and SEPA process for non-project actions, Chapter 9 -Planned Unit Development, Chapter 11 -Definitions of Medical Institutions. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More. Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural PreseNation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet ...... 10& " B. C. We have reviewed this application wi articular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or n eded to properly as,edj, proposa1 /2 It ¥a1 Date I City of ,Ion Department of Planning / Building / Public Irks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 27, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-154, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 17,2004 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: 2004 Docket Chan es SITE AREA: NJA BUILDING AREA LOCATION: NJA WORK ORDER NO: 77357 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Title IV 2004 Docket Amendments including Housekeeping Amendments in rOCIJ8tllaf changes to the school impact fee section, codification of sureties and bonds provisions, Chapters 2 and 7 -Minimum lot size and maximum density, Chapter 2 -R-10 Zone attached townhouse or plats or pre-existing lots, Chapter 2 and 4 -Green River Valley landscaping, Chapter 7 -Bindin9 Site Plan, Chapter 8 -Appeal p.r~~ess, Chapt~r 8 an~ 9.-Permit and SEPA process for non-project actions, Chapter 9 -Planned Unit Development, Chapter 11 -Definitions of Medical Institutions. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whef< dditional information is needed to roperly assess this proposal. City of Rein Department of Planning / Building / Public .S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: T COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 27, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-154, ECF APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT TITLE: 2004 Docket Chan es PLAN REVIEW: Jennifer Hennin SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA ross): N/A LOCATION: N/A I WORK ORDER NO: 77357 RE'CEIVED SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Title IV 2004 Docket Amendments including Housekeeping Amendments in Chapter 1 -Procedural changes to the school impact fee section, codification of sureties and bonds provisions, Chapters 2 and 7 -Minimum lot size and maximum density, Chapter 2 -R-10 Zone attached townhouse or plats or pre-existing lots, Chapter 2 and 4 -Green River Valley landscaping, Chapter 7 -Bindin~ Site Plan, Chapter 8 -Appeal p,r~~ess, Chapt~r 8 an~ 9,-Permit and SEPA process for non-project actions, Chapter 9 -Planned Unit Development, Chapter 11 -Definitions of Medical Institutions, A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals T ransjJorlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are s where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal, Date City of R.n Department of Planning / Building / PUbIiC~.kS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 27, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-154, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 17,2004 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind OEVElOPMENT SERVICes PROJECT TITLE: 2004 Docket Chan es SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: NlA I WORK ORDER NO: 77357 RECEIVED SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Title IV 2004 Docket Amendments including Housekeeping Amendments in Chapter 1 -Procedural changes to the school impact fee section, codification of sureties and bonds provisions, Chapters 2 and 7 -Minimum lot size and maximum density, Chapter 2 -R-10 Zone attached townhouse or plats or pre-existing lots, Chapter 2 and 4 -Green River Valley landscaping, Chapter 7 -Bindin~ Site Plan, Chapter 8 -Appeal p.r~~ess, Chapt~r 8 an~ 9.-Permit and SEPA process for non-project actions, Chapter 9 -Planned Umt Development, Chapter 11 -Deflmtlons of Medlcallnstltubons. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public SeNices Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS . " .. , ... C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this-application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are s where additional' formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date I I • NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIG~IFICANCE (DNS) DATE: December 10, 2004 LAND USE'NUMBER: LUA04-154, ECF APPLICATION NAME: City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Amendment Requests A. ntle 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping Amendments: 04-1 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Amend to be more concise better oraanized and intemally consistent. B. ntle 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. C. 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 reauires securities or bond. D. ntle 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 ntle 4 in order to address an inconsistency between minimum lot size and maximum density in single family zones. E. ntle 4, Chapter 2: R-10 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz 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 4·2-11 OF 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. F. ntle 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. G. 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 amendina the current PUD reQulations (see belowl. H. ntle 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 Manaaement Act actions. I. 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 reQardinQ the separation of hearinas for nonproiect actions. \ Amendment Requests J. 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. K. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Change medical related terminology to address non-traditional medical activities and mixed-use medical activitie~ _ PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton Corporate Limits !~ .. ~ R-10 zone, or portion thereof in North Renton Green River Valley area generally between SR-167, the western City limits, the Black River and the southern City limits. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (ONS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significimce (DNS). A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. ' PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 9, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 10, 2004 Permlts/Revlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review Other Permits/Approvals which may be required: Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Legislative Action, State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Coordination of State Agency Comments. Requested Studies/Existing Studies or Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist has been prepared. Other studies related to the proposal include issue papers for each item. Location where application may be reviewed: PlanningIBuilding/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive .additional notification by mail, contact Judy Wright at (425) 430-6575. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Judy Wright, tel: 425-430-6575, eml: Jwright@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File No./Name: LUA04-154, ECFI City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 NAME: ____________________________________________________ ___ ADDRESS: __ ~ ______________________________________________ ___ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________ _ -• • • CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: December 10, 2004 To: Rebecca Lind From: Development Services Division Subject: 2004 City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 LUA04-154, ECF The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on January 4,2005. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Acceptance Memo 04-154.doc WAM-tS4- City of Renton NT PLANNING .OEV~~~~ RENTON LAND USE PERMIT ASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) CITY: Renton .. '.' ZIP: 98055 NAME: N/A TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAILADDRESS: 425-430-6575 ADDRESS: iwriaht(Q)ci.renton.wa.us CITY: ZIP: PROJECT INFORMATION' PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: City of Renton Title IV TELEPHONE NUMBER: Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 APPLICANT (if other than owner) . PROJECT/ADD~ESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: NAME: . City of Renton City of Renton Corporate Limits " City of Renton COMPANY (if applicable): Economic Development! Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): .. Attn: Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner . N/A ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way EXISTING LAND USE(S): N/A CITY: Renton ZIP: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): N/A 98055 -. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-430-6588 N/A CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N/A NAME: Judy Wright. EXISTING ZONING: N/A COMPANY (if applicable): City of Renton Economic PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A Development! Neighborhoods/Strategic SITE AREA (in square feet): Planning Department SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): N/A Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planninglmasterapp.doc 12/08/04 P_JECT INFORMATION con&ed , ~. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET PROJECT VALUE: N/A ACRE (if applicable): N/A -IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ~N¥lI;m:.~!=RS1.:Jor., , " ... _. NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A ENVIR0f'.JMENTALL YCRITICAL'AREP".';~[,~.A~,Sil,NCI.oUDE SQUARE FOOTAG.~ (if applicable): N/A not site specific ,l/'lii\" ('p'" :1'[ NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A 0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA"ON~"·_A_~ o AQUIFE~PROTECTION AFi'~/':tWo.>:,;< NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): o FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL o GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. 'SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL o SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A o WETLANDS . sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILI;>INGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A .- NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A . LEGAL ~ESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE '. ··QUARTER OF SECTION ._, TOWNSHIP _, RANGE_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. N/A " . 'TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. SEPA Determination -Non' Project' 3. 2; 4. ~ i - , Staff will calculate applicable 1ees and pos.tage: $ .. Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/p1anninglmasterapp.doc . . 12/08/04 · .' .,. .JECT INFORMATION (continue AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) 1;4""e /Iv , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planninglmasterapp.doc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/h'-e-r/;;;th-e-:-ir--;f'-re-e-a-n--;d:-v-o:-Iu-n-:-ta-ry-a-ct:-C~;-o-r th"" e uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) _____________ _ My appointment expires: ___________ _ 12/08/04 . . \ .~ , . 722550'010507 e 722600008501 ~ 722500030001 1995 MANN LIMITED FAMILY PA ADAMS JOAN L AGNESANI PETER D C/ODMANN . 230 BURNETT A V N 217PELLY AV 17437 SE 102ND ST RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98059 722550002009 722930062509 722550019508 AJA YI ruDITH C ALLINGHAM WILLIAM D ANDERSON JENNIFER L 415 WILLIAMS AVN PO BOX 48117 447 WELLS AVN RENTON W A 98055 SEATTLE WA 98148 RENTON W A 98055 722450035505 722450002000 722400008008 ANGEVINE THERESA+ ARAGON HECTOR+ ARCARIUS HOMES LLC HOOKS DION V FRAULEIN+MACA 6672156THAV SE 514 BURNETT AVN 1803 N 185TH ST BELLEVUE W A 98006 RENTON W A 98055 SEATTLE W A 98133 135230030003 756460025007 722400022009 ARTEGUS WILLIS ASHURST JAMES F & M W A TESER BEVERLY G 353 MEADOW A V N 223 GARDEN A V N 532 213TH ST SW RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 BOTHELL W A 98021 722400028006 722500023006 722500018105 BADISSY ZINE+NAlIBA BAILEYBC BALCOM BARBARA A 4909119THPLNE 330WELLSN 335 PELLY AVN KIRKLAND WA 98033 RENTONWA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 722450026009 723150105002 722400005509 BARNES CLIFFORD L SR+DENICE BARNETT MARK BARR THOMAS 505 WILLIAMS A V N . . C/O JD FINANCIAL CORP 739WCATSPAWWY . RENTON W A 98055 29308 132ND A V SE WASHINGTON UT 84780 . AUBURN W A 98092 722600005002 722400040506 722550025000 . BARRY TRENT L-+:CHERYL L BARTEL LISA BAYLOR PATRICIA A 209 WILLIAMS A V N 212PELLY AVN 414 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON WA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 756460029009 756460022509 722550024508 BECK EVONNE RUBY BENSON BONNIE A BERGSMA EDWARD H 1200N 2ND ST 237 GARDEN AVN 418 WILLIAMS AVN RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 . RENTON W A 98055 . 722550039001 182305926400 722400036504 B.INGAMAN T G BNSFRWYCO BOEHMCHIMO K+AUTUMN A 310 WILLIAMS AV N PO BOX 961089 25910 29TH PL S #D-I03 RENTON WA 98055 FORT WORTH TX 76161 KENT W A 98032 072305910001 135230015509 722550048507 BOEING COMPANY THE BOLINGREGORYD BOLSTAD SHARON 100 N RIVERSIDE M/C 5003-4027 245 MEADOW A V N 320 BURNETT A V N CHICAGO IL 60606 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 e . 135230029005 BOSTEDER DARWIN L 11051 24TH PL SW SEATTLE WA 98146 722450027502 BRAINARD IRENE . 519 WILLIAMS AV N RENTON W A 98055 722550030000 BRAVO SERGIO A 321 WELLSAVN RENTON WA 98055 722500010508 BROWN L SCOTT+DANIELLE M 420 WELLS A V N RENTON WA . 98055 722400014006 BRUSH RyAN L 108PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055· 135230005005 . BRYANT MOTORS INC 1300 BRONSON WY N RENTON W A 98055 . I 722400047006 ·BUETfNER CAROL PO BOX 2168 RENTON W A 98056 722400049002 BUSHARD JAMES A+RITA A 350PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 722450011001 CALL HOWARD M 6il S 291S1' ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 723150096508 CEDAR RIVER COURT APTS' , LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 201 27TH AV SE #A-200' PUYALLUP WA 98374 135230052502 BOSWELL KAREN E . 344 MEADOW A V N RENTON W A 98055 7225500i7502 BRANDOW JOYCE D 429 WELLS A V N RENTON WA 98055 722550006505 BROSKA BRYAN P+ANN K 451 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 756460030~02 BROWN SUZANNE 1203 N 2NDAV . RENTON W A 98055 722450023501 BRUSH TRICIA 514 WILLIAMSAVN RENTON W A 98055 135230002507 BRYANT WILLIAM R 1300 BRONSON WY RENTON W A 98055 · 722400042007 BURGESS TIMOTHY L · 200PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 135230071C)07 BUSINELLO FRED+DEANN 208 MEADOW A V N RENTON W A 98055 722500039507 CARR RITA LOUISE .208 WELLS AVN · RENTON W A 98055 .. 135230106001 CHANWENG+SOU WAN' 1509 N MARION ST RENTONWA 98055 ·e 172305908409 BOYINGTON ANNE 803 N 1ST ST RENTON W A 98055 756460031005 BRANDT PATRICIA J+BUNKER NA 1814 WHITMAN NE CT RENTON W A 98059 722600001001 BROWN BERNADETTE J 233 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON WA 98055 172305911403 BRUCE KEVIN J+ TONI L 921 N 1ST ST RENTON W A 98055 . 135230024501 BRYANT MABLE 334 GARDEN A V N RENTON WA 98055 172305908607 . BUCK DOUGLAS M+CLAUDIA J 904 N RIVERSIDE DR RENTON W A 98055 172305900604 BURLINGTON NORTHERN . ATTN PROP TAX . PO BOX 96189 . . FORT WORTH TX 76161 722600007503 . CALEY-THORNE LESLEY L+RONAL 202 BURNETT A V N RENTON W A 98055 7225000i950~ . 'CASEBOLT WILLIAM DAVID+DARL 215 PELLY AV N RENTON W A 98055 722600004500 . CHASE FLOYD 2200 ABERDEEN A V NE . RENTON W A 98056 · 722500013007 CHAU CAN H+HUE THUC HUYNH 404 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 756460018309 CHEUNG KWOK PING 6001 NE 4TH PL RENTON W A 98059 135230118501 CHOGYUDONG 1525 N 4TH ST RENTON W A 98055 722400059506 COLEE JEFFREY J 330PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 BLANK 722550008501 CORNELIUS WILLIAM E+JODIE C 442 BURNETT A V N RENTON WA 98055 722500015507 CRA YEN LARRY D 10833 LAKERIDGE DR S SEATTLE WA 98178 756460026005 DANIELS GEORGE W ARNOLD SARAH E 215 GARDENAVN RENTON W A 98055 722400012505 OELMUNDO DANILO S+GLORIA L 16546 SE 19TH ST BELLEVUE W A 98008 722400051503 DERRY LUELLA H 900 CUMBERLAND RD GLENDALE CA 91202 -722500025506 CHEN TOMMY Y W+SHU-MEI H 8125 144TH AV SE NEWCASTLE W A 98059 722550013006 CHICOINE LEE R 406 BURNETT A V N RENTON W A 98055 135230019006 CHRISTENSEN MARIAH " 219 MEADOW AVN RENTON W A 98055 135230054508 COLLIER ANGELA M 330 MEADOW A V N RENTON WA 98055 722400060504 COOK DEBORAH E 6401 84TH ST E PUYALLUP WA 98371 722600010507 CRABTREE JAMES W+KATHLEEN M 115 WELLS AV NORTH" RENTON W A 98055 722550010002 CRECELIUS LEWIS 428 BURNETT N RENTON WA 98055 722500030506 DAWSON FLORENCE DARLENE+WILLIAM DAVID 223 PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 135230070504 DELOSSANTOS JUANITO DELOSSANTOS ELIZABETH 214 MEADOW AVN RENTON W A 98055 722550023500 DETHMAN PAMELA J 428 WILLIAMS A V NORTH RENTON W A 98055 e 722400014501" CHENEY BEN L+ALICE M 104 PELL Y A V N RENTON W A 98055 722450003503 CHIENTE-YU C/O PRESTIGE PROP MNGMNT 12505 BEL-RED RD BELLEVUE W A 98005 722500022008 CODE LAUREL A 338 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400078001 COLLINS BRUCE DONALD POBOX 2996 RENTON W A 98056 722400030002 COOK DENISE E 215PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 722550015001 CRAIG DAVIDA & TERRI POBOX 53 EGMONT BC VON lAO CANADA 0 722450036008 CUTTING LARRY D 16919 150TH AV SE RENTONWA 98058 722450034508 DEADMAN ROBERT C 520 BURNETT A V N RENTON W A 98055 722550021504 DENNISON DAYTON P+MARIL YNN 3717 LK WASH BL N RENTON W A 98056 1"35230019501 DEWINTER VICTORIA 6514 102ND PL NE KIRKLAND W A 98033 e -722400037007 135230079505 722450013007 DIRKS GARY L+SUSAN T DO DU KHAI+TRAN THE DOBSON STEVEN L+DARLENE M . 234 PELL Y A V NORTH 201 FACTORY AVN 1114 N 33RD PL RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98056 722400046008 172305903707 756460023002· DOBSON WYMAN K , DOBSON WYMAN K + DONCKERS ROBERT & LORI POBOX 59. DOBSON VICKI L 235 GARDEN A V N RENTON W A 98057 821 N 1ST ST .' RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A . 98055 756460026500 135230032504 722500018501.' DOOHANJAMESM+WENDEC DOUGHERTY JOHN &. SUSANNAH DOW NANCY P o BOX 2800 339 MEADOW A V N 337PELLY AVN REDMOND WA 98073 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 135230087508 722400023007 . 722450032502' DUNN LUMBER NORTHWEST-RT DUNN PATRICKF · EBALO LEANDRO E+ANECITA A BOX 45550 9768 WATERSAV S 536 BURNETT A V N SEATTLE WA 98145 SEATTLE WA 98118 SEATTLE WA 98055 722500035505 000720009703 722550016504 ECCLES GREGORY L+ESTELLE BA ECCLES LARRY W+BETTIE A EIFFERT DALE A 240 WELLS A V N 13905 E LAKE KATHLEEN DR SE 421 WELLS AV N RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98056 · RENTON W A 98055 722550050503 722400078506 722550048002 ELLIOTT DEBBIE A EMERY SAM E · ENGER HAROLD C JR 23406 115TH A V W 2522 N PROCTOR ST APT 12 322 N BURNETT ST VASHON ISLAND WA 98070 TACOMA WA 98406 . RENTON W A 98055 I 722400021001 722550029507 722400069505' EPSTEIN EDWARD & ELAINE· ESCATELL FRANCISCO J+ABDALI ESCOM MANAGEMENT LLC '8405 SE 53RD PL 317 WELLS A V N 15513 SE 53RD PL MERCER ISLAND W A 98040 . RENTON W A 98055· BELLEVUE W A 98006 722930061501 756460017004 722500002000 F & K INVESTMENTS LLC FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR FAKHARZADEHALI M+MARYA 13810 152ND AV SE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR 556 CONCORD A V RENTON W A 98059 300 SW7TH ST LEXINGTON MA 2421 RENTON W A 98055 135230085007 722500003503 . 722450009500 FAKHARZADEH.JALAL FAKHARZADEH M HADI FARBER KENNETH W POBOX 78404 POBOX 78404 524 WELLS A V N SEATTLE WA 9817~ , SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON WA 98055 '. 722550022007 072305909805 135230023503 . FASHAWPAULA FEDERAL RECOVERY OF WA . FETTEROLF DAVID W 436 WILLIAMSAVN . PO BOX 1435 338 GARDEN A V N RENTON WA 98055 . TACOMA WA 98401 RENTON WA 98055 . 135230062808 FIELDS BROWN BETTY E 319 FACTORY AV N RENTON W A 98055 135230010005 FISHER JACKSON O+ANNA C 238 GARDEN AVN RENTON W A 98055 722450021505· FIX GRACE PO BOX 202 DUVALL WA 98019 756460019703 FOSNAUGH JASON H 1201 N 3RD ST RENTON W A 98055 722450029508 FRANKLIN BEVERLY 535 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722450007504 FRIEND VICKIE D 540 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400073002 GALLUZZO JOHN & LINDA . 8519 129TH PL SE . NEWCASTLE W A 98056 . 13 5 23 0061008 GARDNER RONALD L 337 FACTORY AV N RENTON W A 98055 722450014005 GEORGE-HADFIELD CATHERINE M 1116 N 30TH ST RENTON W A 98056 722550011000 GILL JASONR+CAROLYN D GILL 422 BURNETT A V N RENTON W A 98055 e 722550045503 FINCH KERRYD 335 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98056 722600009004 FISHER SALLY A 854 REDMOND A V NE RENTON W A 98056 135230058509 . FLA TIRON ESTATES LLC 5164 150TH PL SE BELLEVUE W A 98006 135230013009 FOSTER TIMOTHY W+DENYSE 210 GARDEN AV N RENTON W A 98055 722450030001 FRANKLIN IRA L+BEVERLY K 537 WILLIAMS A V NORTH RENTON W A 98055 722500010003 GALL ESTHER R 424 N WELLS ST RENTON WA '98055 722500016000 GALTT S &CA 12628 SE 169TH PL. . RENTON WA 98055 722500025001 GASS JOHN & T ARANOV A ANNA 318 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400062005 GHIOTTO GAYLE 350 PARK AVN RENTON W A 98055 722500016505 GIOMETTI RA YMOND+LORI 323 PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 e 722400094008 FISH JOHN T+N.VEANN TAWNEY 526PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 722550037500 FITTERER MARCUS 1906 ROLLING HILLS A V SE RENTON W A 98055 722500000509 FOREMAN WILLIAM L 27316 NE 143RD ST DUVALL WA 98019 722500020507' FRACARO ANN MARIE 350 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722500021000 . FREELUND MONICA L 346 WELLSAVN . RENTON W A 98055 135230061206 GALLIANO RESIDENTIAL' PROPERTIES L L C 1837 CAMAS AVNE RENTON WA 98056 722500036008 GARDENER MARK K MUELLER CHRISTY S 238 WELLS A V NORTH RENTON W A 98055 722450037501 . GASSER JOHN K 708 N 5TH ST RENTON WA 98055 722400084504 GIETZEN JEFF D+ JENNIFER 21701 HWY99 LYNNWOOD W A 98036 722600012107 GIULIANI JOHN R JR 812 N 1ST ST RENTON W A 98055 135230021507 GOETZ MA TfHEW M 356 GARDEN A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400030507 GOUGH STEPHEN R+PAULA J P o BOX 4231 RENTON WA 98057 722550011505 GRAHAM JOHN M PO BOX 2428 . KIRKLAND.W A 98083 722450002588 GREENSTEIN TODD & STACEY. 517PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 756460019604 . HAHNMARKW 1211 N3RD ST RENTON W A 98055 722400079009 HALL JOm· 428PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 135230022000 . HAMMILL L NICOLE 350 GARDEN A V N RENTON WA 98055 182305920601 HARRIS SUSAN . 2610 38TH AV SW SEATTLE WA 98126 135230025508 HAYES DOLORES M 3i6 GARDEN A V N RENTON W A 98055 . 722550038508 HENSON GARY W+ LINDA L NEWMAN-. 312 WILLIAMS AV N . RENTON W A 98055 722400025002 GONZALEZ JUAN C 224PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 722400032503 GRAHAM CHERYL PO BOX 3197 FEDERALWAYWA 98063 722550044001 . GREENE MARK S 323 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 ·722500012009 GUSTAVESON ROBERTL 412 WELLS AVN RENTON WA 98055 722400061502 HAHN TODD M+CASSANDRA M 1350 INDEX A V NE #2 RENTON W A 98056 722500040505 HAM FREDERICK H JR 200 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400041504 HARDY THOMAS M+ELlAS VANESSA 204 PELLY A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400095500 HART SHIRLEY 512 PELLY AVNO RENTON WA 98055 135230029500 .. HENDERSON coRIliNE E ··359 MEADOWAVN RENTON W A 98055 7224000II002 . HESSCAROLM 968 ANACORTES CT RENTON WA. 98056 722400053004 GOTTI EUNICE M 322 PELL Y A V NORTH RENTON WA 98055 000720000801 GRAHAM DEAN & KERRI CEDAR RIVER PROPERTIES LLC. 16410 SE 143RD PL RENTON W A 98059 · 722500012504 . .. GREENSP AN PAMELA M 410WELLSAVN . RENTON WA 98055 722450005003 . HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SEATTLE SOUTH KING COUNTY · 13925 INTERURBAN AV S STE A SEATTLE WA 98168 722600006000 HAINES IMMOGENE K 214 BURNETT AV N . RENTON W A 98055 135230069506 HAMBLIN DONALD E 14250 SE 142ND PL RENTON W A 98056 · 722600009509 HARGROVE JOHN P 105 WELLS A V N . RENTON W A 98055 722400031505 HARTMAN BRAD P+KRISTI N 9050 SEWARD AV S BOX 12 SEATTLE W A 981 i 8 · 722400032Q08 . HENDERSON RALPR S 229 PARK AVN RENTON W A 98055 135230055000 HIGMAN GAVIN P 326 MEADOW A V N RENTON WA .98055 . 722500043509 HINDMAN TODD GREGORY· 913 N 2ND ST RENTON W A 98055 172305909803 HOBART JEAN G 100 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722450019004 HOLMES DENNIS W 546 N WILLIAMS RENTON W A 98055 722450022503 HOWE EVELYN J 14548 SE 51ST ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 722550034200 HUYTHETRAN .807N 4THST RENTON WA 98055 . 172305907401 . JK WANGLLC. 7518100THAV SW LAKEWOOD WA 98055 722400025101 JEFEERS R DAVID 228 PARK AVN RENTON W A 98055 135230051009 JONESTROYH 17328 185TH PL SE RENTON W A 98058 . 722400038500 KAHNSARAHJ 230 PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 722450015002 KESSLER JULIE 14302 148TH PL SE RENTON W A 98059 -722500044507 HINOJOSA LISA M+SMITH W ARRE 108 WELLS AVN RENTON W A 98055 722550003502 HOLMAN MICHAEL P+ANNETTE L 421 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722550008006 HOOT CHERYL L 16434 SE 235TH ST KENTW A 98042 722400034004 HUANG-YUNG CHIANG &SU LINY 5656 32ND SW SEATTLE WA 98126 722500043004 HYLER ROBERT S+GERALDINE R 127PELLY AVN RENTON WA 98055 135230024006 JACOBSON COLLEEN B 336 GARDEN AV N RENTON W A 98055 722450031504 JEFF'S AUTO REPAIR INC 21701HWY99 . LYNNWOOD WA 98036 135230070009 . JOY KRISTIN A 218 MEADOW AVN RENTON W A .98055 722400058003 KENNELLY JOHN M 6333 LAKE WASH BL #406 KIRKLAND W A 98033 722400037502 KIDMAN MARY KING 232 PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 ~ 756460024000 HISEY JOHN A . EASTBERG MICHAEL E 231 GARDEN AVN RENTON W A 98055 722400024500 HOLMES BERNICE 220PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 000720021302 HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF RENTON PO BOX 2316 RENTON W A 98056 722500040000 HUFFMAN TIMOTHY N+KEOMARIE 206 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 756510002501 J G RENTON LLC 400 112TH A V NE #230 BELLEVUE W A 98004 135230033502 JAHNJACK 14622 196TH AV SE RENTON W A 98059 722400013008 JENSEN PAUL S+KATHLEEN 112PELLY AVN· RENTON W A 98055· 722450017008 KAERCHER RICK . PO BOX 8 HOBARTWA 98025 722400042502 KENNELLY JOHN M ·6333 LK WASH BL NE STE 200 KIRKLAND W A 98033 135230082509 KIMDONGOH 9741128THAVNE KIRKLAND W A 98033 e e 172305905801 172305905009 135230026506. ~ KIRKMAN JAMES C KNICKERBOCKER GLEN M + KNICKERBOCKER HEATH A· 1002 N 35TH SANDRAL KNICKERBOCKER JENNIFER D . RENTON WA 98055 41481 PATTERSON ST 318 GARDEN AVN ANCHORAGE AK 99504 RENTON W A 98055 172305904705 722500014005 135230076006 KNICKERBOCKER SANDRA KNOWLES DEIRDRE EILER KELLEN KOKKOCH 4148-1 PATTERSON ST 301 PELLY AVN 221 FACTORY AVN ANCHORAGE AK 99504 . . RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 722550022502 722400092507 722400024005 KOWALSKI EMIL J KURASPEDIANI TIM LACKEY BOB E+JUDITH E 432 N WILLIAMS ST 532-1/2 PELLY AVN' 216PARKAVN RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON W A 98055 ' 135230035507 ' 722550046501 722400028501 LAM KHIEM QUOL LAM QUANGK LANDAU SETH D ET AL 171616THAVS 334 BURNETT A V N 271570THAVSE SEATTLE WA 98144 RENTON WA 98055 MERCER ISLAND W A 98040 722500017008 722550045008 722500046007 LANDON PEARL+PARKIN,HELEN G LARKIN JACQUELINE J LAUCK MARION L 3311 25TH A V S 408 WINDSOR WY NE 904 NORTH 1ST ST SEATTLE WA 98144 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON W A 98055 135230027504 135230056008 722450022008 LAULAINEN FRANS A LAWLESS TIMOTHY B+ESTELLE E LEAHY JEFFREY M 314 GARDEN AVN 320 MEADOW A V N ' 524 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON VIA 98055 RENTON WA 980~5 ' RENTON WA 98058 I 722550017007 722400029509 135230062501 LEE CHARLES LEE MARTIN M+JANICE P LEEPOOYL 425 WELLS A V N 312 N 80TH ST 4124 23RD AVE SW ' RENTON WA98055-1404 SEATfLE WA 98103 SEATTLE WA 98106 722600003007 722600001100 756460018200 LEW ARNE JACK W LEWIS DALE J LI YUAN JU 231 WILLIAMS A V N 3006 S 363RD ST 505124TH AV S .' RENTON W A 98055 FEDERAL WAY.w A 98003 SEATTLE WA 98108 722500028500 722400036009 722550027501 L~CATA DOMENIGA+SPERRY _ LIM KEVIN-W & DANA y--,.--LINDHOLM VICTOR L+DOROTHY M DANIEL+REGINA ' 240PELLYA V N 400 WILLIAMS A V N .'93MARTYCT RENTON WA 98055 RENTON W A 98055, . NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 c . 756460031104 722550042005 722400002506 LONG FLORENCE S LUKE GINELLE D LYONS JACK A+LEOTA M 131 GARDEN AVN 1603 PIERCE A V SE 15002 135TH A V SE RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98058 . RENTON WA 98058 • 756460023507 MALPHRUS THOMAS H NZIRAMASANGA NY ~RADZO J 18713 102ND AV SE RENTON W A 98055 722550049505 MCBREEN K L+FRANCES(TRUSTEE 11244 MILITARY RD S SEATTLE WA 98168 722400086004 MCEVOY AL B+SALLY G 18321 SE 147TH PL RENTON W A 98059 722550031503 MCKINNON PATRICK A+KAREN J 333 WELLS A V NO RENTON W A 98055 722550009509 MEAD ROBERT C 432 BURNETT A V N RENTON W A 98055 722450034003 MEIER MICHAEL F 524 BURNETT A V N RENTON W A 98055 722600003502 MILNER DAVID 2115 TALBOT RD S RENTON W A 98055 722400052501 . MONILLAS MERCEDIT ASM· 326PELLYN RENTON WA98178 722450018501 MORELAND DON & BOB 809 NO 6TH #3 RENTON W A 98055 135230009502 MUDD F AMIL Y TRUST 18624 SE 213TH ST RENTON W A 98055 ~722550024003 MARSHALL JOHN R M 420 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400045000 ' MCCLINTON MACK + JENNIFER 323 PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 722500038004 MCGRIFF SEAN C+PAMELA A 222 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 182305923902 MCLEES WILLIAM & BELINDA 21730 176THAV SE KENT W A 98042 135230020509 MEADOW AVELLC 21004 NE 115TH ST REDMOND WA 98053 722550030505 MEZEK JEAN D . 325WELLAVN RENTON W A 98055 135230106506 MITCHELL DONALD+MELISSA M 1515 NMARION ST RENTON W A 98055 722400023502 MONTEL R JENKINS DMD 212PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 722550023005 MORITZ GARY 2525 NE 24TH ST RENTON W A 98056 722450035000 MUNAGLIA DOMINIC A & TERR M . 518 BURNETT AV N RENTON WA 98055 . e 756460027003 MASTON JUNE H 1005 HARBOR A V SW #202 SEATTLE WA 98116 722500014500 MCCUE LAWRENCE 1+ JOAN 9505 S 198TH ST RENTON W A 98055 722550032501 MCGUANE MICHAEL H 341 WELLSAVN RENTON WA 98055 722600011000 MCMILLAN RENA 121 WELLS AVN RENTON W A 98055 722400046503 MEDINA CARLOS . 10837 DIXON DR S SEATTLE WA 98178 ", .' 722400031000 MILLIKAN MERIL YN . 9110 COAL CREEK PKWY SE NEWCASTLE WA-98059 135230008504 MONCRIEF SHEILA+GOVE MICHAE 248 GARDEN A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400039003 MOORE BOB A 228 PELLY A V N RENTON W A 98055 722500044002 MORRISON JACK 112 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722550005002 . MUNSON ERIC M 433 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON WA 98055 .. , e .- 135230059507 722600002009 722500041503· MUNSON RONALD & ELIZABETH MURILLO MARIANO M + . MVH-RENTON P.ROPERTIES LLC 623 CEDAR A V S CONST ANCIA M . 771131ST AVNE RENTON W A 98055 210 BURNETT AVN SEATTLE WA 98115 RENTON W A 98056 722550043003 722550001506 722400039508" MYKA CORRINE M+BRUCE E . NAICKER KESV AN NAKANISHI RAY T ".315 WILLIAMS AVN 8312 132RD ST E 220PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 " UPYALLUP WA 98373 RENTON WA 98055· 722500031504 722500031009 172305906700 NAKASHIMA GEORGE NAKASHIMA JOYCE N " NEAR CHARLES 235 PELLY AVN 225 PELLY AVN. SAMP ADIAN.KIMBERLEY RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 903 N 1ST ST RENTON WA 98055 722450003008 722500001507 722500027502 NELSON DA VID+NELSON ALLISON NELSON JAMES BRADLEY NELSON ROSE & EMIL 525 PELLYAVN 409PELLY AVN POBOX 78526 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 722550050008 . 722500018006 . 722500004006 NEUFELD SHELDON E+ JUDITH C NEWMAN LINDA L NEWMAN ROBERTE+DIANE 8413 118TH A V SE 335112 PELLY AVN 341 SMITHERS A V S NEW CASTLE W A 98056" RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98055 722400035001 722500022503 172305904903 NEWMAN VNIAN NEWMAN ZOLA MAE NGUYEN JOSEPH T 250PELLY AVN 334NWELLS 913 N 1ST ST RENTON W A 98055 . RENTON W A 98055 " RENTON WA 98055 I 722450028005 722400072004 .722550018500 NGUYEN LINH M NGUYEN PHONG T NGUYEN THACH & CAMIE NG" " 1509 MCDOUGALL AV 17012 BISHOPSGATE DR 1530 33RD AV S EVERETT WA 98201 PFLUGERVILLE TX 78660 "SEATTLE WA 98144 722450016000 722550034507 722400081005 NICOLI DARlO+CAROL E TRUSTE "NIEMI ROY NOBLE HELEN M " C/O MARIO J NICOLI 803 N 4TH 410 PELLY AV N 529 WELLS AV N RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 722550019003 135230028502 756460025502 NOLAN BARBARA A . NOMURA DONALD RYAN ". NORDEN LA WRENCER "" 443 WELLS A V N 304 GARDEN A V N 217 GARDEN AVN RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 722500003008 722500039002 722450024509 ODONIN MICHAEL G+VIRGINIA A OGRYZEK RANDALL W " OLSON CARRIE K 423PELLY AV· 210 WELLS A V N 502 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON WA 98055 . RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 ·722450001507 ~135230095501 e 722400007000 OLSON JERRY R OL YNCO DEVELOPMENT LLC ONE PARK PLACE LLC 13802 SE 141ST ST 1222 BRONSON WAY #ioo 127PARKAVN' RENTON W A 98059 '. RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 722400007505 722400052006 135230031001 ONE PARK PLACE LLC ONEAL DIANE MARIE ONOFERSON RICHARD J 135 PARKAVN· 330PELLY AVN 10653 CORNELL A V S RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055· SEATTLE WA 98178 722550016009 722300001004 . 722550027006 O'RILEY MEGAN PACCARINC PANGLIJIN MARILYN 419 WELLS AVN ATTN: CORP ACCOUNTING 406 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 POBOX 1518 . RENTON W A 98055 BELLEVUE W A 98009 756460019406 722550034002 722550031008 PAPINI CARLO N+ANGELA M PARKER JOE A+RAETINA PARSONS JOHNNY T 12912 SE 1915T ST 811 N4THST 329 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055, 135230015004 722550033509 722400020003 PELAYO JESUS M PENITSCH ARLINE N PERELLI ROBERT G 251 MEADOW AVN 9716 MERCERWOOD DR 144PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 MERCER ISLAND W A 98040 RENTON W A 98055 722400000609 722450008502 722450013502 PERETTI RAY L PETCHNICK GRATZER & PETERSON CHARLES A+ PO BOX 796' GUNDERSON SARAH D GARNER. RENTON W A 98057 534 WELLS A V N 225 S 51ST ST #C RENTON WA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 135230035002 135230014502 135230061503 PETERSON CHARLES AARON PETERSON FRANKIE L+ROBIN R PETERSON RICHARD EUGENE 507 WELLS A V N 200 GARDEN A V N 8405 S 121ST ST RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A . 98055 SEATTLE W A 98178 722450024202 135230078507 722400079504 PRAM DlEN KIM PHAMKEVINV PHAMTAMT 508 WILLIAMS A V N 209 FACTORY AVN 424PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98005 135230031506 . 135230060505 756460018101 PIEPER EARL R & FRANCES M PILWALLIS JOSEPH PLA VIDAL GARYS+OLGA 345 MEADOW A V N 14233 171ST AVE SE 1204 N 3RD ST RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98059 RENTON W A 98055 722550026008 722550038003 135230025003 POLLACK ELMER A PONDER THOMAS L & SYLVIA M POQUETTE ROGER L 17806 SE 146TH ST .. 3609 SHATTUCK A V S 328 GARDEN ST RENTON W A 98059 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 .. e· -756460029504 722550012008 . 722400053509 PORTER JAMES JOSEPH+SALL Y J POZEGA JUSTIN A . POZZI MICHAEL F+MARY E 1218 N 2ND AV 414 BURNETT AVNO. 17822 SW 102ND ST RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98059 722400080502 722550004500 . 135230033007 PRATER ROBERT W+NANCY L PRITCHARD JANELLE RAE PROUTY GALEN SANFRY 412PELLY AVN 431 WILLIAMS A V N 335 MEADOW A V N RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 722400010004 i72305905108 722400080007 PUGET SOUND RESIDENTIAL PULSIFER MICHELLE '. PURCELL DAVID S SERVICES 835 N 1ST ST 422 PELLY AVN POBOX2577 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98055 .. RENTON W A 98056 722400019005 722400015508 722930038004 R & J PROPERTIES LLC % RONA R & J PROPERTIES LLC %.RONA . RAJARA TNAM LESLIE J 625 WlNDSON DR SE 7670 80TH PL SE 21 LOGAN AV S SAMMAMISH WA 98074 MERCER ISLAND W A 98040 RENTON W A 98055 722400061007 722550049000 182305915007 RAMIREZ JOSE MONROY RANKIN M JAMES RENTON LOCAL 1797 340 PARK AVN 316 BURNETT AVN BROTHERHOOD CARP & JOINER;S RENTON W A 98055 •. RENTON WA 98055 231 BURNETT N . RENTON WA 98055 722400060009 756460014001 722400002001 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT . REPP WILBUR L 435 MAIN AV S . '·.300 SW 7TH ST POBOX 5532 . RENTON W A .98055 RENTON W A 98055 . KENT W A 98064 . I 722400088109 . '722400086509 722450010003 . RIFFLE GARY M RIFFLE GARY+LINDA RITTENHOUSE STEVEN B 541 PARKAVN 16846 188TH AV SE 520 WELLS AV N RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98058' RENTON W A 98055 722400004007 000720013507 135230053500 RIVERSIDE APARTMENTS LLC RIVERVIEW APARTMENTS ROBERTS MARIAN H 1924 E MILLER ST ". C/O GRAN INC 336 MEADOW A V N SEATTLE WA98112 . 10211ST AVW RENTON W A 98055 SEATTLE WA 98199 '722400085006. 135230052007 722500015002 . ROGOJIN .PETER J+LINDA M ROLLER ROBERTl~ . ROSENSTROM EVELYN M '. 7634 S LAKERIDGE DR 350 MEADOW A V N 309PELLY AVN SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON W A 98155 RENTON W A 98055 722400009006 722450009005 722550044506 RUSNADI ERIKA NATALIA . RUSSO .ROBERT A RYAN JACKE 145PARKAVN . 528 WELLS A V NORTH 327 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98059 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 . . 722600004005 RYAN MARY PATRICIA PO BOX 336 RENTON W A 98057 722400003009 SANTOS RENATO & LUCY 1008 N RIVERSIDE DR RENTON W A 98055 722400055009 SCHMULAND OSCAR DR 8504 S 125TH ST RENTON W A 98055 722450005508 SCHULTZ NORMAN CORP 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD SEA TILE W A 98178 722500045504 SHIELDS JANET & DAVID 104 WELLSAVN RENTON W A 98055 722600010002 SIMPSON CRAIG L+MARGARET LY III WELLS AVN RENTON W A 98055 722450010508 SINGSON MARILYN V 512 WELLSAVN RENTON WA 98055 756460018002 SMITH GREGG 13715 SE 23RD LAND BELLEVUE W A 98005 722550047004 SMITH TRACY A+ROSEMARIE R 328 & 330 BURNETI A V N RENTON W A 98052 172305916303 STARKOVICH BEVERLY J 810 N RIVERSIDE DR RENTON WA 98055 e 172305911304:· RYNNING KAREN M ·909 N 1ST ST RENTON W A 98055 722400003504 SANTOS RENATO L+PAZ C 1815 LAKE YOUNGS WY SE RENTON W A 98058 722600000508 SCHOOLING DEBORAH 243 WlLLIAMSAVN RENTON W A 98055 722500034003 SEED OF ABRAHAM PENTECOSTAL 246 WELLS A V N RENTON WA 98055 722400026505 SIENDA PATRICK L+SCHRUM ANN 236PARKAVN RENTON W A 98056 .722550020506 SIMPSON MICHAEL G+ANDREA L 450 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722500021505 SMITH BRIAN D+ JESSICA D 340 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722500024509 . SMITH JACK 320 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722600007008 SORENSON SOREN ROBERT POBOX 895 RENTON W A 98057 722500017503 STEER DANIELLE T 329PELLY AVN RENTON WA 98055· . e 722550021009 SANTOS CRISPIN C+LILIBETH C 444 WILLIAM A V N RENTON W A 98055 722450018006 SAUNDERS-WHITE ERIC+CYNTHIA 541 WELLS AV N RENTON W A 98055 722500033708 SCHULTEKJEFFREY+BERNARDINE 2921 TALBOT RD S RENTON W A 98055 722550002504 SHARMA VISHNU DEO 16442 IIITH AV SE RENTON W A 98055 722500011001 . . SIMPSON BASIL L+ELEANOR L 418 WELLS AVN RENTON W A 98055 756460018408 . SIMPSON RUTH P 303 GARDEN A V N RENTON W A 98055 722550047509 SMITH DONALD P+DEBBIE J 22022 93RD A V S KENT W A 9803} 722550013501 .. SMITH JOHN F+SHARON L 11216 164TH AV SE RENTON W A 98059 000720009505 ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 99WELLSAVS RENTON W A 98055 722400059001 STEPHENSON GORDON ET AL 800114THAVNE SEA TILE. WA 98115 722600002504 STEVENS DAVID A 222 BURNETT A V N ' RENTON W A 98055 722400047501 SUMM'SINC POBOX24 RENTON W A 98055 722600005507 TASCAJAMESG " 14805 SE JONES PL RENTON W A 98058 722500037006 • THARP mLIET R 359 THOMAS A V SW RENTON W A 98055 135230032009 THOMAS VERNIE E 341 MEADOW AVN RENTON W A 98055 756460024505 THOMPSON JOHN F+SHELLEY JOy 227 GARDEN A V N RENTON W A 98055' 722600001506 TIEDE KEITH J 7209 S'180TH KENT W A 98031 722550042500 JILTONJOHN S, _ 313 WILLIAMS AV N RENTON W A 98055 135230126504 TONDA ERNEST i 528 EDMONDS A V NE RENTON W A 98056 722400050505 , TOURANGEAU JAMES L+KARYN L 340PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 722500033500 STEVENS RHETT INGALLS RHONDA 11424 18TH ST E EDGEWOOD WA 98372 722450026504 SWANKE ,CRAIG 'D 509 WILLIAMS A V N " RENTON W A 98055 722400051008 TERRY TIMOTHY M & NANCY A 338 PELLY AVN RENTON WA 98055 172305907500 THAYER MICHAEL W+LISA J 817N 1ST ST RENTON WA 98055 ' 722450036503 THOMPSON HEATHER' 702N5THST" , RENTON VIA 98055 722500038509 THORNTON NATHAN A+, TIENNEY K MILNOR 216 WELLS AVN RENTON W A 98055 172305913409 TIEUANNN 830 N RIVERSIDE DR RENTON W A 98055 722400014709 ' TINKER WILLIAM E " , " PO BOX 88361 SEA TILE W A 98138 , , 182305915908 TONELLI TERESA K 931 SW 296TH ST FEDERAL WAY W A 98023 135230012001 '"TOY JIMMY J 220 GARDEN A V '. ,RENTON W A 98055 135230028007 STITES BRYAN A 310 GARDEN AVN RF;NTON W A 98055 722600008006 SYTH BONITA L '119PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 , 722500024004 THARP JOHN & NANCY M 236 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 ' 082305901900 THE BOEING COMPANY TAX DEPT MAIL CODE 5003-4027 - 100 NORTH RIVERSIDE CHICAGO IL 60606 756460028506 , THOMPSON JACK S 5975 HILLSIDE DR FERNDALE WA 98248 722550001001 ' THUERINGER DARVIN G 405 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722550046006' TIGLAO MELVIN A 711 N 4TH ST , RENTON W A 98055 " 722450027007 , TOMICH RONNIE 30738 229TH PL SE BLACK DIAMOND WA 98010 '722550000508 _ _ --" ,TORKELSON EDWARD R 11006 RAINIER A V S ,. SEATTLE WA 98178 13~230105508 " TRAN DAN TUAN '" 320 FACTORY AVN RENTON W A 98055 • 722400082003 TRAN HAN+HANH VO 1002 N 4TH ST RENTON W A 98055 722400049507 ULRICH SAMSON 346PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 135230078002 VALESKO ALBERT D 215 FACTORY AVN RENTON WA 98055 756460030007 VAUPEL WARRENF PO BOX 755 RENTON W A 98057 722500001002 WADE MICHAEL C 405 PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 135230054003 WALLEMGINA 334 MEADOW A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400004502 WELSH JUDITH A 101 PARKAVN RENTON W A 98055 722550043508 . WESTFORD GREGORY T 317 WILLIAMS AVN RENTON W A 98055 722500019004 WICKS GEORGIA M 341 PELLY AV W RENTON W A 98056 722550020001 WIGREN CARL W . 449 WELLS AVN RENTON WA 98058 e 722550009004 TRAN PHUQC+THI NUOI FANG TU 438 BURNETT A V N RENTON W A 98055' 722450029003 UYSAL MEHMET +RAZIYE 529 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 135230022505 VANDYKE JERRY+KELLY 346 GARDEN A V N RENTON W A 98055· 722550036502 VICKERS WESLEY & DIANA 328 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 135230124509 WALDENBURGERFRIEDEL 345 FACTORY PL N RENTON W A 98055 722500037501 WARREN ALFRED G 224 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722500009500 WESLEY ANTHONY M 430 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 722450024004 WHEELER MELANIE 512 WILLIAMS A V N RENTON W A 98055 135230055505 WICKSTROM ROGER G POBOX 59444 RENTON W A 98058 135230020004 WILHELM FREDRICK S JR 211 MEADOW AVN RENTON W A 98055 e 135230105003 TUNG JEAN C/O CLARA CHEUNG -REALTY PA' PO BOX 50033 BELLEVUE WA 98015 722500004501 VAIL DONALD J 435 PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 722400081500 VANDIVERGA 406PELLY ST .RENTON W A 98055 756510004507 VISCHER BALDWIN & DANA 260 RIDGE DR PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 135230014007 WALKER JENNIFER M 204 GARDEN A V N . RENTON W A 98055 722450004501" WEISS CONNIE J ,531 PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 722550012503 WESSEL JOHN THOMAS+ TAMARA CHRISTINE 410 BURNETT AV N RENTON W A 98055 722550015506' WHITAKER MATILDA M 413 WELLS AVN RENTON W A 98055 756460022004 WIGREN CARL W 1201 112 N 3RD ST RENTON W A 98055 722550032006 WILLIAMS LORETTA K POBOX 1382 RENTON W A 98057 135230018503 WILLIAMS MARCUS+BUI VAN 27940 25TH PI; S FEDERAL WAY W A 98003 722400041009 WIRICK LISA A 208PELLY AVN RENTON W A 98055 722450006506 , WONG PHILIP J 4067 24TH PL S SEATTLE WA 98108 ' 082305912709 WOODALL WENDELL 329NW2NDPL RENTON W A 98055 722450014500, YANG TAO 517 WELLS AVE N RENTON W A 98055 722500009005' ZHANG SHAO WEN 434 WELLSAVN ' RENTON W A 98055 I ,'756460019505 ZIMMERMAN LIEF E+ANGELAS 1207 N Jim ST ' , RENTON W A 98055 ,6·, • 722550025505 , WILLOUGHBY CHARLES D+HELEN 410 WILLIAMS AVN , RENTON W A 98055 135230071502 WOLFGRAM MARY 204 MEADOW A V N RENTON W A 98055 722400095005 WONGTEK POBOX 24 RENTON W A 98055 722450008007 , WYATTLILAM, 538 WELLS A V N , ,RENTON W A 98055 722400013503, , YOUNG SIMON+HANNA (TR) 8225 SOUTH SARGENT A V ' WHITTIER CA 90605 135230079000 ZHAO JU QUAN 205 FACTORY AVN , RENTON W A 98055, 135230053005 WILSON NAOMI ' 340 MEADOW A V N ' , RENTON W A 98055 722450015507 WONG KING KUEN 328 CEDAR A V S RENTONWA 98055 722400011507 WOOD PATRICIA GRACE 126PELLY AVN#A RENTON W A 98055 722550007503 YAMAMOTO DICK 10811 SE LAKE RD BELLEVUE W A 98004 722500041008 YOUNG SIMON+HANNA (TR) , 920N 1ST ST RENTON W A 98055 172305908003 'ZIMMERMAN JAMES V+THERESA A 813 N FIRST ST RENTON W A 98055 Project Narrative: City of Renton Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 December 8, 2004 1. Proposal Overview The proposal is to adopt a series of regulation amendments proposed as a result of the Title 4 Development Regulation Revision Process in accordance with RMC 4-9-025~ The City Council approved a list of docket items for study in May 2004, and those that are being addressed in this work program are listed below: I • 04-1, StaffEDNSPIPBPW, RMC 4-1 Housekeeping amendments. • 04-2, StaffEDNSPIPBPW, RMC 4-1 Chapter 1 mitigation fees. • 04-5, StaffPBPW, RMC 4-2, clarify re-platting rules for plats to ensure that density cannot be re- calculated for remaining larger lots. • 04-6, StaffPBPW, delete the Green River Valley Map for 2% habitat set-aside. • 04-8, Courtney Flora representing Unico Properties Inc. owner of Washington Technical Center,· amendments to RMC-4-7 -230 binding site plan section of code to address the size of land area to be considered in the binding site plan process. • 04-11, StaffPBPW, RMC 4-8, clarify the appeals process. • 04-13, Nora Schultz, RMC 4-2, amend density and/or lot size provisions in the R-I0 to allow duplex uses. Also reviewed concurrently with the offic;ial 2004 Docket are other Title IV amendments addressing: • Sureties and b()nds (proposed by Renton Department ofPlanninglBuildinglPublic Works), • SEP A review requirements for non-project actions (proposed by the Renton Department of Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning). • Since one of the options for Docket 04-8 includes amending the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations, amendments to the PUD regulations are likewise addressed. • Amendments to the definition of "Medical Institution" (proposed by the Renton Department of . Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning). 2. Regulation Amendment Requests and Options The following table identifies the proposal requests, and options proposed for consideratiori by the· Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department. The SEP A checklist considers the Wt!~~\NRects of the options except those shown with an asterisk (*). OE\I~~ of RENTON . DEC {\ 9 ;'l{\{\~ 1 ther docket items have been addressed in other work programs • 04-3, StaffPBPW, RMC 4-3, Aquifer Protection Area Map Amendment needed to reflect changes. • ; 04~, Staff PBPW, RMC 4-2, clarify that density calculations cannot be rounded up. • 04-12, StaffPBPW, add references to the NC-I and NC -2 Zones in the Binding Site Plan Process. Item 04-3 is being processed with the overall Critical Area Regulations update as part ofLUA 04-084, ECF. Items 04-4 and 04- 12 were addressed with the recent 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update and associated development regulation amendments, and are completed. December 8,2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton EDINISP Department Table 1. Amendment Requests and Options AmendmentRequests A. 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. B. Title 4, Chapter 1: School Impact Fees: 04-2 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Amend to bemore concise, and remove provisions that are more suitable for the Interlocal Agreement or ' appear unnecessary. , C. Title 4,Chapter I: 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 r~guires ~ecuritiesor bonds. December 8, 2004 Options 1. No Action: Retain current RMC 4-1 format and contents. ' 2. Proposed amendments to RMC4-l to clean up long- standing iriconsistency, interpretation, and organization issues identified by various staff in the Development Services Division. 1. No Action: Retain current structure of school impact fee code. 2. Code Streamline: Consolidate 14 subsections into five subsections, and remove provisions that are more suitable for the Interlocal Agreement or appear unnecessary. In particular, the proposal would: • Streamline the subsections into the following five topics: purpose/authority/applicability/exemptions; fee calculations; fee adjustments; administration; and . appeals. • Eliminate most defmitions because few are actu~lly used, and those terms that are used are presented with sufficient context in the body of the code: The exception is that the definition of "encumbered" would be moved to RMC 4-11 Defmitions.' ' • Eliminate or "move" School District administration type provisions to the Interlocal Agreement. These include'provisions that specify the District should calculate fees for different unit types, how the funds may be used to repay bonds, and other provisions. • Eliminate or "move" City administration provisions not typi~ally ~odified such as at what point fees would • be transferred, an administration cost, how often the fee schedule will be reviewed, and the City's non-, responSIbility if it fails to collect fees. ' The code amendments would 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. Included in the document are provisions governing:": :}r"~'. :'f;''':''''<:~;i;:':~ J • TyPe of security devices: cash, letterofj~ib:~iit~ s~t i ':i(' aside letter, savings account, and performance or ". maintenance ,bond,.: ' "~.<~ " .. .' Requirements for the surety device: payable to City, clause binding the applicant or "heir" to posting security, and available only for purposes of "project"; • City approval tied to term 'of security device -if the device is not renewed and the iinprovements or conditions are not fulfilled, the City's approval would Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Amendment Requests : D. Title4, 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 the R-4 and R-8 zones. E. Title 4, Chapter 2: R-IO Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: "Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on WellsAvenue North currently zoned R-IO. 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 4-2-11 OF 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. F. Title 4, Chapters 2 and 4: Green River' Valley Landscaping: 04-6 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Determine if 2% habitat set- aside provisions have been fulfilled and can be removed. December 8, 2004 • • • l. 2. 3. l. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. Options 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. No Action: Current practice is to apply a working policy that restricts future subdivision of previously platted lots. Redmond also has this practice. (*) Lot Size Controls: Similar to Bellevue, the City could include a code provision that applies to all residential zones statjng that if there is a conflict between minimum lot size and density, minimum lot size controls. (This would modify the density framework in several zones and is considered conceptually in the issue paper.) Maximum Density Controls: The City could amend the code to specifically establish that further platting must be consistent with the applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. No Action -Keep Current Requirements that Density Controls over Lot Si?:e. A "Cedar River Master Plan" is being evaluated as a work program for 2005/2006, and it may be appropriate at that time to look at zoning options in the North Renton area. Allow Multiplexes on ~dividual Preexisting Lots that Meet the Minimum Lot Size but Not the Maximum Density, generally limited to North Renton. Allow Multiplexes on Individual Preexisting Lots that Meet the Minimum Lot Size but Not Maximum DensitY -by Conditional Use Permit. (*) Amend Land Use PlanlRezone Appropriate Areas to Higher Densities if 10 Units Per Acre Does Not Achieve City VisionforSelected Areas such as North Renton Arterial Frontage Lots. (Since this would involve a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone that would need to be considered concurrent with other map/zone amendments in 2005, it is not addressed in the SEPA checklist.) No Action: Retain 2% Habitat Set Aside Regulations. Repeal the 2% habitat set aside regulations in RMC 4- 2 and 4-4 since the City's land acquisitions have exceeded the original multijurisdictional target, and since 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. 3 " Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton EDIN/SP Department I Amendment Requests G. 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. H. 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 ac.tions. 1. 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. J. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit· Development (PUD)Regulation Update (related to item 04-8). 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 s~andards in exchange for public benefits. December 8, 2004 . Options 1. No Action-Keep the current requirements that the development standards for the underlying lot apply to . each individual lot created through the binding site plan process. 2. Revise Binding Site Plan provisions so that, when reviewed· as a whole, the site meets all of the zoning and subdivision requirements. 3. Revise Binding Site Plan provisions to include allowances for condominiums as an option when the . minimum lot size requirements cannot be met through the binding site plan process: 4. Revise the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations (RMC 4-9-150) to allow for PUDs in conjunction with a binding site plan where underlying zoning provisions are proposed to be varied (see below). The proposed ordinance correctly identifies the appeals process for Type IX and X decisions -City Council actions on Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Development Regulation Amendments. Tables in RMC 4- 8 show that the appeals of such decisions would go to Superior Court, when in faCt they would be filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board, whose decisions then may be appealed to Superior Court. 1. No Action: Retain current regulations. 2. Amend Some Aspects of Nonproject Process: • To recognize the value of the public input process at. hearings and the possibility that the proposal may be further refmed as a result, the nonproject SEPA determination itself could be issued at any point prior t6 the City taking action (accounting for required comment and appeal periods), particularly for non-map amendment items. •. The regulations should be amended to allow for exceptions to the consolidated hearing given the SEP A Rules allowing hearings to be separate when involving a SEP A appeal on a nonproject action. 1. No Action: Retain current regulations .. 2. Amend PUD regulations to provide a .usab1e process to .request modifications to development standards in exchange for public benefits: .. • Applicable Zones. Currently the City's PUD regulations only apply to residential zones. However, given the City's changing market conditions for residential, commercial, and mailUfacturing activities; PUD regulations may be an appropriate tool to respond to changing conditions while ensuring there is quality . development and a public benefit. ·The proposed code 4 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department '-' Amendment Requests Options allows PUD regulations to be applied in residential zones and commercial, mixed use and industrial zones. • Regulations not Proposed to be Varied:. Currently the regulations allow density bonuses for certain site or dwelling aspects. It allows certain residential and accessory uses. Similarly, the proposal would not allow variations to land uses. Unlike the current code densities of the und~rlying zone would not be increased through a PUD .bonus system. The proposal would not allow variations to environmental . . regulations beyond that allowed to be requested as modifications/variances now. • Regulations which may be Requested to be Varied: -The PUD code would continue to allow variations to zoning, subdivision, and parking standards. .. -Reference is made to allow modification ofRMC 4-4 regulations, which addresses Property Development Standards. -A provision would allow an applicantto request modification of other standards subject to agency review. This would reduce the need for future demonstration ordinances. -Public or private streets may be proposed rather than solely public streets. Alternative street standards may be requested. However, adequate emergency access and circulation would need to be provided. • Open space: -Common open space standards are currently included in the PUD. Other open space alternatives are proposed as options. K. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of The proposed amendments would address hospice and Medical Related Activities holistic health centers as part of the definition of medical Docket Item: No institution and add a definition of "holistic health center". Proponent: City of Renton Hospice would not be defined as a type convalescent. Summary: Change medical related center. The permit application types for medical terminology to address non-traditional institutions and convalescent centers would not change medical activities and mixed-use medical from those allowed currently. activities. The SEP A checklIst conSIders the envIronmental effects of the optIOns except those shown WIth an asterisk (*). . 3. Proposed Code Amendments Each amendment request is the subject of an issue paper. The request and potential code amendment options are described conceptually. Proposed code amendments have been prepared for selected option(s). These are provided under separate cover, and submitted as part of the SEP A review proposal. December 8, 2004 5 . Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton EDIN/SP Department I • 4. Public Review Process and Schedule Most code items are being reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has reviewed various amendment proposals at study sessions in November and December 2004: The Planning Commission is scheduled to meet and make recommendations in early January 2005. The City Council's Planning and Development Committee is anticipated to consider the amendments in . January 2005. It is expected that the City Council will hold a hearing in January 2005, and complete its review and decision process in February 2005 Additional information can be obtained by contacting the Renton Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6575. Decerriber 8, 2004 6 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for . RentonED/N/SP Department DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ~-. ciTY OF RENTON City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 DEC 092004 PURP~~CKLlST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are Significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FORNONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Oocket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc December 8, 2004 I A. BACKGROUND 1 . Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Renton Municipal Code, Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton, Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: City of Renton Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoodsiStrategic Planning Department 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Contact: Rebecca Lind 425-430-6588 4. Date checklist prepared: December 8, 2004 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. 7. City of Renton Proposed timing or schedule. (including phasing, if applicable): The City of Renton Municipal Code, Title N Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 are being reviewed as part of the City's annual zoning code amendment process. It is anticipated that the Docket Amendment recommendations would be adopted in February 2005. Prior to adoption, opportunities for public review and comment include: • Notice of Application comment period. • Planning Commission review of most amendment items prior to Council review. The Planning Commission meeting would occur in January 2005. • City Council meetings and hearing in January/February 2005. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 include amendment options and recommendations making text amendments to the Renton Municipal Code, and in some cases related amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. This environmental checklist is part of a phased environmental review, and analyzes the options presented in the amendment issue papers to compare the environmental impacts associated with each option. As part of phased environmental review in accordance with SEPA rules, the City or applicants will prepare site-specific environmental analysis of development or infrastructure proposals as they occur and as may be required. No specific development proposals have been prepared or are under review under this proposal. The Project Narrative, Appendix A, describes the proposed code amendments/options. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 2 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The City's basic land use framework is addressed in prior environmental review including: • City of Renton. 1992. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for City of Renton Land Use Element. January 16,1992. • City of Renton. 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. February 1, 1993. • City of Renton. 1995. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. February 10, 1995. • City of Renton. 1999a. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Southport Development Planned Action. June 1999. • City of Renton. 1999b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Southport Development Planned Action. September 9, 1999. • City of Renton. 2003a. Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS. July 8, 2003. • City of Renton. 2003b. Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS, Final Environmental Impact Statement. October 21,2003. These documents are available as reference documents from the Renton Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department. The City has prepared a series of SEPA Checklists and threshold determinations for a series of annual comprehensive plan and zoning amendments since the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations were prepared following 1993. As part of phased environmental review, this SEPA checklist focuses upon the topics and issues most relevant to the potential adoption of the Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 and does not repeat prior analysis. A summary of each of the proposed Title IV text amendments is provided in the attached Project Narrative (Appendix A). 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Not applicable. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEP A Threshold Determination Planning Commission Recommendation City Council Legislative Action State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development -coordination of State Comments 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. 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. Each docket item provides the context or background behind the proposed code amendment, summarizes the purpose, intent, and content of the current code provisions, presents options, proposes text amendments based on one or more options, presents recommendations, and analyzes the implications of the text amendments within the City'S existing regulatory framework. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed code amendments, and the manner in which they may affect environmental topics. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reporls\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 3 I T bl 1 Ttl IV D k t A d tS dE tiT a e . I e oc e men men ummaryan nVlronmen a OplCS . Docket Item Proposal Increases the Density Affects City Policy or or Intensity* of Development Implementation of or Affects Configuration of Development Regulations? Development? Title 4, Chapter 1, Housekeeping X Amendments Title 4, Chapter 1: School Impact X Fees Title 4, Chapter 1: 4-1-230 Sureties X and Bonds Title 4, Chapter 8: Appeal Process-X Growth Management Hearings Board Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Pennit X and SEPA Process for Non-project Actions Title 4, Chapter 2 and 7: Minimum X Lot Size and Maximum Density Title 4, Chapter 2: R-lO Zone, X X Attached Townhouses or Flats on May allow for additional Pre-Existing Lots mUltiplexes subject to locational, design and potentially special pennit requirements. Title 4, Chapters 2 and 3: Green X X River Valley Landscaping Does not increase maximum lot coverage or maximum impervious surface requirements or building height or setback, but does modify landscape requirements and may alter location of development on a site. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivision X Regulations: Binding Site Plan Since development standards would (both procedural and development have to be met for either the site as regulation amendments) a whole or for individual lots, and since no development standards related to density or intensity are proposed, the issue is primarily one of code implementation and process. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit X X Development Regulations (both Allows individual applicants to procedural and development request modifications to City regulation amendments) development standards in exchange for public benefits. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of X Medical Related Activities The definitions amend medical institution and convalescent care terminology. Medical institutions would now encompass hospice and holistic health centers, but the pennit review process for institutions would not change. * IntensIty of development appbes to the mass, heIght, and bulk of development Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 4 The checklist focuses on regulations affecting future development density or intensity or development configuration. Procedural items that do not contain substantive standards regarding use/modification of the environment are exempt from SEPA (197-11-800(20», but because the RMC procedural amendments are part of the overall 2004 docket/amendments under review, they are considered part of the whole non-project action. However, as procedural items, they are primarily addressed under the Land Use section of the checklist since they relate to code implementation. A summary of each of the proposed Municipal Code Title IV text amendments is provided in the attached Project Narrative (Appendix A). B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______ _ The City contains a variety of topographic features, including flat terrain in the Valley along SR167, hills and slopes such as the Renton Highlands and Kennydale Hill, and other pockets of steep slopes. Renton's Steep Slope map is available for review at Renton City Hall, Development Services Division. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The City has mapped slopes 25 to 40% and greater than 40%, as shown on maps available for review at Renton City Hall, DevelopmentServices Division. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. A variety of soil types including clay, sand, gravel, and hydric, are found in the City. As an urban area there is little farmland that remains. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The City has mapped the following types of geologic hazards in the City limits: • Erosion hazards • Landslide hazards • Seismic hazards • Coal mine hazards • Steep slopes, including sensitive slopes 25-40% and protected slopes greater than 40% (often considered to be a landslide hazard) Most of the hazard maps are provided at ,\·ww.ci.renton.wa.us (under DepartmentslPlanning Building Public Works/Utility Systems/Standard Maps/). To a lesser extent there is a potential for volcanic hazards. Proposed code amendments do not alter the implementation of City critical area regulations. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable to this project. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_ Reports\LUA _ SEPA \envchlst_ docketitemsDec04.doc Page 5 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. For the R-lO Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots text amendments, an increased number of dwellings could result in additional construction under Option 2 (mUltiplexes on minimum lot sizes in North Renton) and Option 3 (multiplexes on minimum size lots in R-IO zone by conditional use permit). However, most of the R-IO zoned areas are currently developed or partially developed, particularly in North Renton. For the Planned Unit Development text amendments increased density would not be allowed; however alternative development configurations may be allowed such as alternative street standards, lot arrangements, impervious surfaces, etc. It is possible that increased impervious surface and decreased setbacks could be requested, therefore potentially increasing the areas of disturbance on a property. However, public benefits must be demonstrated, such as, but not limited to additional critical area or open space protections. There would be some requirements for open space or recreation space. There is a potential to have cluster development, low impact development, or zero lot line development with the proposed amendments which may result in more localized and focused development activities compared to traditional developments. Green River Valley landscaping text amendments do not affect erosion control regulations, and do not increase the maximum lot coverage or impervious surface percentages of the zones in the Green River Valley. The amendments may indirectly alter the location ofland construction and development on a property and landscaping type and amount since the 2% set-aside would not be required. However, critical area and tree cutting/land clearing and general landscaping requirements would remain. Under any of the proposed amendments, future site-specific activities would be subject to further environmental review on a case-by-case basis. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The amount of impervious surfaces is determined by the requirements of the zoning district. Future impervious surfaces would be consistent with the maximum impervious surface coverage allowable within the zone. Under the Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development text amendments, it is possible that increased impervious surface and decreased setbacks could be requested. However, public benefits must be demonstrated, such as, but not limited to additional critical area or open space protections. There would be some requirements for open space or recreation space. There is a potential to have cluster development, low impact development, or zero lot line development with the proposed amendments which may result in more localized and focused development activities compared to traditional developments. Future site- specific activities would be subject to further environmental review on a case-by-case basis. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The City's existing regulations -critical areas regulations, tree cutting and land clearing regulations, grading, excavation and mining regulations, building code regulations, and stormwater controls -maintain development precautions related to earth resources and hazards. Future site-specific activities would be subject to further environmental review on a case-by-case basis. At a programmatic level, impacts to earth can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlsl_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 6 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Adoption of the text amendments would not have a direct effect on air quality. Indirect air quality effects could occur associated with the proposed text amendments to R-IO Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots. Increased density of development could result in a slight increase in traffic or use of home heating fuel, which could in tum affect air quality. The potential added units are small in percentage compared to the City's current housing stock. Please see Appendix B. The Puget Sound region is currently in attainment of air quality standards. Air quality is managed at a regional level. PSRC develops and monitors regional emission budgets in an air quality maintenance plan. The emission budgets are based on future growth for King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The City's future growth targets comprise a portion of the overall King County population allocations. The PSRC monitors implementation of the air quality maintenance plan to see that regional emissions will be within the allowable emission budgets mandated by the air quality maintenance plans. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Non-applicable. Site-specific development is not proposed. However, general sources of air emissions or odors include roads and highways due to traffic, industries, public utility wastewater treatment, and other sources. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The area is currently in attainment. There are certain measures in place at a regional and local level designed to mitigate air quality impacts. These include: • Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations require construction contractors to take all reasonable steps to minimize fugitive dust emissions during construction. These required mitigation measures are designed to reduce localized impacts affecting homes and businesses adjacent to the construction sites. • Localized impacts caused by traffic emissions at congested intersections would be addressed on a case- by-case basis according to Transportation Conformity hot-spot requirements. • Any point sources will be required to use Best Available Control Technology (BACT) in accordance with PSCAA regulations. All stationary equipment must have appropriate PSCAA permits. This will greatly reduce potential air quality issues and odor issues. • Transit programs would help reduce impacts associated with new development. • City erosion control measures would help reduce construction dust. • Future site-specific project actions would be subject to further environmental review on a case-by-case basis. At a programmatic level, impacts to air quality can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Dockel_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlsl_docketitemsDecO4.doc Page 7 I • The City contains wetlands, streams, rivers, and lakes. See maps available for review at Renton City Hall, Development Services Division. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. The City contains mapped IOO-year floodplains. See maps provided at ww\v.ci.renton.wa.us (under DepartrnentslPlanning Building Public W orkslUtility Systems/Standard Maps/). 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The City is dependent upon groundwater for water supplies. It has mapped aquifer protection areas. Site- specific development proposals are subject to the aquifer protection area regulations. See maps provided at ,V\"w.ci.renton.wa.us (under DepartrnentslPlanning Building Public WorkslUtility Systems/Standard Maps/). 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 8 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, if so, describe? A source of runoff could include impervious surfaces. The amount of impervious surfaces is determined by the requirements of the zoning district. Future impervious surfaces would be consistent with the maximum impervious surface coverage allowable within the zone. Under the Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development text amendments, it is possible that increased impervious surface and decreased setbacks could be requested. However, public benefits must be demonstrated, such as, but not limited to additional critical area or open space protections. There would be some requirements for open space or recreation space. There is a potential to have cluster development, low impact development, or zero lot line development with the proposed amendments which may result in more localized and focused development activities compared to traditional developments. The City's existing development regulations for aquifer protection areas, and surface water regulations are in place to reduce surface, ground, and run-off water impacts. Future site-specific activities would be subject to further environmental review on a case-by-case basis. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. See 3.c.1 above. The City's stormwater regulations would address water run-off associated with an increase in impervious surfaces. Site-specific development proposals would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The City's existing development regulations for aquifer protection areas, and surface water regulations are in place to reduce surface, ground, and run-off water impacts. Future site-specific activities would be subject to further environmental review on a case-by-case basis. At a programmatic level, impacts to water can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _X_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _X_ shrubs _X_ grass _X_ pasture _X_ crop or grain _X_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _X_ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other _X_ other types of vegetation A variety of plant species are found in the Renton City Limits. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Additional dwellings allowed by the R-IO zoning amendments could result in alteration of vegetation. However, areas that are supporting critical area habitats or species will still be protected under the City's critical areas regulations and noncritical area vegetation managed through the tree cutting and land clearing regulations. Additionally, general landscaping regulations may apply. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton. City 01\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockels\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 9 I 5. The Green River Valley 2% habitat set-aside regulations are proposed to be deleted because the City's wetland acquisitions have exceeded the original multijurisdictional target of prior watershed plans, and since 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 (the set-aside was enacted prior to the City's critical area, clearing, and shoreline regulations for the subject Green River Valley).With the Green River Valley 2% set-aside requirements proposed for deletion from the code, it is possible that the set-aside areas that are not supporting critical area habitats or species could be altered over time. While this may reduce the quantity of plant material required under the City'S regulations, areas that are supporting critical area habitats or species will still be protected under the City's critical areas regulations and noncritical area vegetation managed through the tree cutting and land clearing regulations. Additionally, future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. For the Planned Unit Development text amendments increased density would not be allowed; however alternative development configurations may be allowed such as alternative street standards, lot arrangements, impervious surfaces, etc. It is possible that increased impervious surface and decreased setbacks could be requested, therefore potentially increasing the areas of disturbance on a property. However, public benefits must be demonstrated, such as, but not limited to additional critical area or open space protections. There would be some requirements for open space or recreation space. There is a potential to have cluster development, low impact development, or zero lot line development with the proposed amendments which may result in more localized and focused development activities compared to traditional developments. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The State of Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife has mapped "priority" habitats and species in Renton, including wetlands, riparian corridors, and urban natural open space. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Database does not identify rare plant species and high quality ecosystems in the Renton City limits, although the database is updated regularly. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The City's critical areas regulations protect wetlands and habitat conservation areas. The City may condition proposals that impact critical areas. Other relevant regulations include tree cutting and land clearing regulations and landscaping requirements. Additionally, future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. At a programmatic level, impacts to plants can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: X Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ________ _ X Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other _________ _ X Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _____ _ A variety of birds and animals are found in Renton, particularly those adapted to an urban and suburban environment. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. A key source of information about wildlife, including those endangered, threatened, and sensitive, is available from the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_ Reports\LUA_ SEPA \envchlst_ docketitemsDec04.doc Page 10 Species (PHS) Program. The City's lakes, rivers, and creeks support anadromous fish runs. Other priority species include bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, and other waterfowl. Discussions of potential plant habitat alterations would apply to animals that use those habits. Please see discussion under 4.b. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Migratory birds may be found in Renton. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: See section 4.d. At a programmatic level, impacts to animals can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. R-IO Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots amendments could result in increased numbers of dwellings. This increased density may increase demand for energy resources. The potential added units are small in percentage compared to the City's current housing stock. Please see Appendix B. Under the PUD regulations, building size may be altered if alternative standards are requested. However, public benefits must be demonstrated, such as, but not limited to additional critical area or open space protections that may limit building size. There would be some requirements for open space or recreation space. There is a potential to have cluster development, low impact development, or zero lot line development with the proposed amendments which may result in more localized and focused development activities compared to traditional developments and may reduce the need for energy compared to traditional developments. For those PUDs that may alter building size and energy needs, future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Through the proposed PUD process, building height may be requested for amendment. PUD review criteria address internal and external development compatibility. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Development will be subject to City energy codes. Local and regional service providers will determine capacity and the need for future improvements. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. At a programmatic level, impacts to energy and natural resources can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No proposed code amendments would affect permitted land uses of the zones. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Dockel_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 11 I 8. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services are anticipated. Future development would be subject to building and fire codes. Any PUD proposals to alter street standards would have to demonstrate adequate emergency access. Future development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Application of City fire and building codes would reduce environmental health hazards. Future development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. At a programmatic level, impacts to environmental health can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The City of Renton is a developed urban area with typical urban noise levels. The dominant noise sources are vehicular traffic on 1-405 and major arterials, and aircraft and air traffic noise. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. The proposed text amendments to the R-I0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots, would allow additional dwellings, which could result in a slight increase in traffic and traffic related noise. The potential added units are small in percentage compared to the City's current housing stock. Please see AppendixB. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ·Future development would be subject to the maximum environmental noise levels established pursuant to the Noise Control Act of 1974, RCW 70.107 adopted in RMC 8-7. Noise associated with future construction would be regulated by the City's noise regulations, limiting the hours of construction (RMC 4- 4-030). Vehicular noise emission standards are regulated by the State per Chapter 173-62 WAC. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. At a programmatic level, impacts to noise can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. LAND AND SHORELINE USE Each of the docket items includes options for consideration. Some of the docket items are procedural amendments that are not expected to have an adverse impact on land and shoreline use. They achieve greater conformity with State law, or would improve the application and implementation of code procedures. These procedural amendments include proposed changes to: Title 4, Chapter 1: School Impact Fees; Title 4,Chapter 1: 4-1-230 Sureties and Bonds; Title 4, Chapter 8: Appeal Process-Growth Management Hearings Board; and Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process for Non-project Actions. The amendment to Title 4 Chapter 11 to modify medical type definitions would be a citywide definition that would only be implemented where an applicant proposes such uses typically by conditional use permit, and changes to the permit process are not proposed. Title IV Docket Items related to the City'S development regulations have the greatest bearing on land and shoreline use within the City. These include: Title 4, Chapter 2 and 7: Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density; Title 4, Chapter 2: R-I0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots; Title 4, Chapters 2 and 3: Green River Valley Landscaping; Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivision Regulations: Binding Site Plan; and Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDecO4.doc Page 12 Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development Regulations. An analysis of the environmental impacts for each docket item option is discussed below where applicable. a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The proposal does not include site-specific locations or development. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. The proposed amendments such as Title 4, Chapter 1: School Impact Fees; Title 4,Chapter 1: 4-1-230 Sureties and Bonds; Title 4, Chapter 8: Appeal Process-Growth Management Hearings Board; and Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEP A Process for Non-project Actions are procedural and apply to development citywide. The amendment to Title 4 Chapter 11 to modify medical type definitions would be a citywide definition that would only be implemented where an applicant proposes such uses typically by conditional use permit, and changes to the permit process are not proposed. Docket items which include text amendments to existing development standards generally apply to the following land use types: Title 4, Chapter 2 and 7: Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density The options analyzed apply to density in single-family residential zones R-4 and R-8 to ensure that the maximum approved density is carried through over time. The predominant uses in those zones are single family. Title 4, Chapter 2: R-lO Zone Current land uses in the R-I0 zone are predominantly single family and small scale multifamily. Secondary uses may include public or institutional uses or nonconforming uses. Title 4, Chapters 2 and 3: Green River Valley Landscaping The Green River Valley landscaping requirements generally apply to the area between SR-167, the western City Limits, and Black River to the southern City Limits. Existing uses include a range of industrial, commercial, and resource conservation activities. Public/institutional and other nonconforming uses may also be found. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivision Regulations: Binding Site Plan The Binding Site Plan is a method of subdivision applied to commercial, industrial or mixed-used properties. Current land uses are similar to those allowed by the zones that apply, although other secondary public/institutional or nonconforming uses may be found. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Historically, land within the planning area has been used for agricultural purposes. A few relatively small operations remain. However, there are no GMA designated agricultural lands oflong-term commercial significance. c. Describe any structures on the site. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No site-specific development is proposed. It is possible that dwellings allowed by the R-I0 amendments could result in replacement of single-family dwellings with multiplexes, but there likely would not be a net reduction. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDecO4.doc Page 13 The proposal does not include site-specific locations or development. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. The proposed amendments such as Title 4, Chapter 1: School Impact Fees; Title 4,Chapter 1: 4-1-230 Sureties and Bonds; Title 4, Chapter 8: Appeal Process-Growth Management Hearings Board; and Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process for Non-project Actions are procedural and apply to development citywide and not particular to one specific zoning district. The amendment to Title 4 Chapter 11 to modify medical type definitions would be a citywide definition that would only be implemented where an applicant proposes such uses typically by conditional use permit, and changes to the permit process are not proposed. Docket items which include text amendments to development standards or a particular zoning district include: Title 4: Chapter 2 and 7: Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Densitv Options apply to the minimum lot size and maximum density requirements within single-family R-4 and R-8 zones. The intent is to ensure that the maximum densities of the subject zones are maintained over time. No changes to the zone density are proposed. Title 4: Chapter 2: R-lO Zone The R-lO zone allows for a mix of residential dwelling units including detached and attached single family, townhouses, and flats. The maximum density is 10 dwelling units/acre when there is a mix of attached and detached unit types. The R-lO zone is applied in several locations including older neighborhoods in North Renton and Renton Highlands, and newly developing areas east of the Renton Highlands. Title 4: Chapters 2 and 3: Green River Valley Landscaping The Green River Valley landscaping requirements generally apply to the area between SR-167 and the western Renton City limits and between the Black River area and the southern City limits. This area includes a range of industrial, commercial and open space zoning districts including: IL-Industrial Light, 1M-Industrial Medium, IH-Industrial Heavy, CA-Commercial Arterial, CO-Commercial Office, and RC- Resource Conservation. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivision Regulations: Binding Site Plan The Binding Site Plan is a method of subdivision applied to commercial, industrial or mixed-used properties in the following zones: CN-Commercial Neighborhood, CD-Center Downtown, CO-Commercial Office, COR-CommerciaIlOfficelResidential, CA-Commercial Arterial, CC-Convenience Commercial, UC- Nl Urban Center North 1, UC-N2 Urban Center North 2, IL-Industrial Light, 1M-Industrial Medium, and IH-Industrial Heavy. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development Regulations The existing regulations apply PUD provisions with residential zones. The proposed PUD regulations could be applied with a range of residential, commercial, mixed use, and industrial zones. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The proposal does not include site-specific locations or development. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. The proposed amendments such as Title 4, Chapter 1: School Impact Fees; Title 4,Chapter 1: 4-1-230 Sureties and Bonds; Title 4, Chapter 8: Appeal Process-Growth Management Hearings Board; and Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process for Non-project Actions are procedural and apply to development citywide and not particularly to one specific comprehensive plan land use designation. The amendment to Title 4 Chapter 11 to modify medical type definitions would be a citywide defmition that would only be implemented where an applicant proposes such uses typically by conditional use permit, and changes to the permit process are not proposed. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 14 For those text amendments related to specific zoning districts or development standards, as listed above, the associated comprehensive plan designations generally include: Title 4: Chapter 2 and 7: Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density Single-family residential comprehensive plan designations include: Residential Low Density and Residential Single Family. Title 4: Chapter 2: R-IO Zone. The R-l 0 zone generally corresponds to the Residential Medium Density land use designation. Title 4: Chapters 2 and 3: Green River Valley Landscaping The Green River Valley is within the Employment Area Valley comprehensive plan land use designation. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivision Regulations: Binding Site Plan Commercial, industrial and mixed use areas generally correspond to the following comprehensive plan designations: Commercial Corridor, CommerciallOfficelResidential, Commercial Neighborhood, Center Village, Urban Center North, Urban Center Downtown, Employment Area Industrial, and Employment Area Valley. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development Regulations The PUD regulations do not reference Comprehensive Plan designations, but compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies is required. g, If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The City contains several environmentally sensitive areas. Most maps are available at v..'ww.ci.renton.wa.us (see DepartmentslPlanning Building Public Worlcs!Utility Systems/Standard Maps). Amendments as part of the docket items address habitat set-aside areas that may be suitable for wildlife habitat, however these areas are not necessarily designated critical areas. Two alternatives are under consideration in the Green River Valley Landscaping docket amendment. Both of the Alternatives fulfill the requirements to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Under Option 1, No Action Alternative, the existing 2% set-aside regulations, developed as part of a multi-jurisdictional watershed plan agreement in 1980, would be retained. These requirements were developed before the City had instituted wetland and shoreline regulations. The City's 2% habitat set-aside regulations require that any development in the Green River Valley provide 2% of the total site area for landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat; in addition to other required landscaping. Other watershed plan agreement language required public land acquisition for wetland protection. Since the Green River Valley regulations were enacted, the City has implemented a number of measures to protect critical areas which exceed the requirements of the Green River Valley Landscaping requirements including acquisition of 340 acres of land (with 208 acres of wetlands) well beyond the 110 acre multi jurisdictional acquisition target; development of new critical areas or land management regulations (Shoreline Master Program applicable to Springbrook Creek, tree cutting and land clearing, aquifer protection areas, geologically hazardous areas, habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands) and development of the East Side Green River Watershed PlaniEIS in 1997. Under Option 2, the 2% habitat set-aside regulations would be repealed as the original Green River Valley requirements have been fulfilled. The City's critical area, shoreline, and land clearing regulations serve as replacement regulations which achieve and exceed the intent for habitat protection that the original 2% set-aside Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 15 landscaping regulation was enacted to provide. Option 2 will not result in any net decrease in protected sensitive areas, as the critical areas, shoreline, and shoreline regulations in place include provisions for their protection. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: General The pwpose of Title IV ofthe Municipal Code is to implement the goals and policies ofthe City's Comprehensive Plan. The annual Title IV Docket provides an opportunity to refme and update the City's development regulations each year. The non-project proposal would increase the compatibility of the City's plans and regulations by including refmements to the municipal code consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan prepared under the Growth Management Act. The Project Narrative, Appendix A provides more background details on the Title IV Amendments. An analysis of the specific options considered for each code item and their compatibility with land use plans, if any are described in greater detail below: Title 4, Chapter 2: R-IO Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots Option I, the No Action Alternative applies the current development standards, which maintains that the density controls over the lot size-in the R-lO zone. The R-lO zone allows multiplexes (up to 4 attached) on smaller lots in new subdivisions if overall plat density is met, this approach provides alternative housing types in single family residential zones which will help the City to meet housing demands and population growth. The R-I 0 zone does not permit attached units on preexisting smaller lots if the maximum density would be exceeded. Option 1 maintains the current requirement that density controls over lot size. This approach maintains the single-family residential character of older residential areas in the R-IO zone by restricting development that is higher than the allowable density. Under Options 2 and 3, multiplex units would be allowed on individual pre-existing lots which meet the minimum lot size but which exceed the maximum density (see also Appendix B). Option 2 and 3 allow for a range of housing types within the R-IO zone, such as multiplexes and townhouses, provided the minimum lot size requirements are met. While this allows a greater diversity of unit types and mix within the R-I0 zone, over time, this approach could have an effect on the residential neighborhood character by allowing a higher density on older platted parcels less than 0.5 acres than what was envisioned in the zoning district and result in a different mix of residential types over time. However, the development would occur on the standard lot size of the zone. The areas affected by Option 2 and 3 are those R-l 0 areas that are in pre- existing residential areas such as north of downtown Renton (Option 2) and R-IO generally (Option 3, controlled by conditional use permit process). The proposed code amendments under Options 2 and 3 include design standards to address land use compatibility and scale between multiplex units/townhouse units and single-family residential development. The design standards apply to multiplex units and townhouses and require design treatments such as pitched roofs, visible building entries, and frames around Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 16 each window. Option 3 would further require a conditional use permit process, which may control or limit the number of multiplexes over time. Title 4, Chapter 7: Subdivision Regulations: Binding Site Plan. The binding site plan applies to properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial uses, and the development standards reflect these types of uses. Option 1, No Action, keeps the current requirements that the development standards for the underlying lot apply to each individual lot created through the binding site plan process. This ensures that the development standards in place are applicable to all commerciaVindustriallots created through a binding site plan process, and does not alter the requirements of the underlying zone. Under Option 2, the Binding Site Plan would look at the site as a whole when applying the development standards of the underlying zone. This approach could result in lot sizes, setbacks, and building coverage that do not meet the development standards of the underlying zone, provided that the site subject to the Binding Site Plan as a whole meets the standards. This option would result in commerciaVindustrial developments, which may alter the standards of the underlying zone (e.g. lot size or lot coverage, etc.) for particular portions of the property but not the site as a whole. The overall intensity of a development would not be increased. Localized deviations from the development standards, on a portion of the site but not the whole site, could result in complicated code administration, and may require the use of covenants, site plan and code interpretations, and continued attention to ensure the zoning and binding site plan requirements are properly implemented in consideration of the whole site. Option 3 revises the binding site plan process to allow for commercial condominiums as an option when the minimum lot size requirements cannot be met through the binding site plan process. Option 3 provides greater flexibility for the subdivision of commercial and industrial properties by providing a condominium option for those lots that cannot meet the development standards of the underlying zone and may reduce the administrative burden and maintain larger properties for redevelopment. Binding Site Plan Option 4 proposes that future subdivision of commercial/industrial properties be addressed through a Planned Unit Development in conjunction with a binding site plan. This approach would allow variations from the development standards of the underlying zone, provided that acceptable alternative development standards are proposed to meet the intent of the code. See discussion below also. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development Regulations The current PUD code allows variations to zoning, subdivision, and parking standards. The proposed PUD regulations would allow alteration of a range of development standards. However, PUD decision and review criteria, together with the City's environmental requirements, uniform codes, and other sections contain provisions that may be used to mitigate the impacts of future site-specific development. Additionally, site-specific developments would be subject to case-by-case environmental review. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of Medical Related Activities This proposal would amend the definition of "Medical Institution" to allow a wider range of medical practices to occur on-site as accessory functions to the hospital, clinic, or sanitarium use such as Holistic Health Centers recognizing more contemporary medical uses. The "Convalescent Centers" definition would be amended to delete hospice facilities, as these would now be defined under Medical Institution. Convalescent Care facilities are allowed in fewer zones than Medical Institutions. While amending the Medical Institution defmition to add hospice may mean that more zones are eligible to have a hospice use, in the zones where Medical Institutions are allowed and Convalescent Care facilities are not allowed, Medical Institutions require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use permit. This is a discretionary process allowing the City to consider site-specific impacts and compatibility. Future site-specific institutional development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\04.572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDecO4.doc Page 17 The proposed text amendments to the R-IO Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots, would allow additional dwellings. The potential added units are small in percentage compared to the City's current housing stock. Please see Appendix B. The proposed text amendments to Title 4, Chapter 2 and 7: Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density, would ensure that the maximum density allowable in R-4 and R-8 zoning districts is not exceeded, and would not increase the number of dwellings. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No site-specific development is proposed. It is possible that dwellings allowed by the R-IO amendments could result in replacement of single-family dwellings with multiplexes, but there likely would not be a net reduction. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: The amendments would not decrease the City's housing supply or affect its ability to meet housing targets and measures to reduce impacts are not required. See Land Use and Aesthetics for related issues of housing compatibility. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The proposed text amendments to the R-IO Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots, would allow additional dwellings. The potential added units are small in percentage compared to the City's current housing stock. Please see Appendix B. The proposed R-IO code amendments for Options 2 and 3 include design criteria for dwellings on lots less than 0.5 acre in size proposed for multiplex uses. The PUD regulations would allow variations to development standards, but the review criteria address coordinated design and compatibility with nearby properties. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The proposed R-I0 code amendments for Options 2 and 3 include design criteria for dwellings on lots less than 0.5 acre in size proposed for multiplex uses. Under Option 3, additional compatibility measures could be determined through the conditional use process. The City code would continue to include landscaping requirements and setbacks consistent with other R-IO properties. The PUD regulations include review criteria address coordinated design and compatibility with nearby properties. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_ Reports\LUA _ SEPA \envchlst_ docketitemsDec04.doc Page 18 a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Proposed code amendments do not address lighting or materials, and are not expected to affect light and glare. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Added dwellings in the R-IO zone may result in additional light sources. Typical residential lighting is not expected to result in glare or create a safety hazard. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: RMC 4-4-075 addresses exterior onsite lighting and avoiding light trespass. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No code amendments affect the permitted recreation or open space uses of the zones. The PUD regulations may lead to an increase in open space or recreation where proposed as public benefits. Added dwellings in the R-IO zone may slightly increase the demand for recreation uses in the vicinity of where they are proposed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Implementation and regular review of the City's Capital Facilities Plan including the Parks and Recreation plans would allow the City to provide adequate recreation resources. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. At a programmatic level, impacts to recreation can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockels\Docket_Repor!s\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 19 Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Future projects will adhere to and comply with all State and Federal historical/archaeological preservation laws, should any artifacts or items be discovered during construction. Washington cultural resource laws (RCW 27.53) state that no known archaeological resources or site can knowingly be damaged without obtaining a certified permit from the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). Also under Washington State law, all archaeological sites and resources are protected on private and public lands (RCW 27.53). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, stipulates early, often, and continuous consultation with the project's Federal/State lead agency and affected Native American Tribe(s) depending on the jurisdiction of the proposed project. If any significant archaeological resources are discovered during project related construction excavation and/or operation/maintenance, all activities must stop in the immediate area. A professional archaeologist should be contacted to inspect and assess the disturbed archaeological deposits. Ifnecessary, OAHP and the affected Native American Tribe(s) would be contacted to further assess the damaged cultural resources. Future site-specific project actions would be subject to further environmental review on a case-by-case basis. At a programmatic level, impacts to historic and cultural preservation can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by complying with Federal, State, and local laws. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the apprOXimate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Future PUD development would require parking. It is possible that PUD development may request alternative parking standards; however criteria would require parking to meet the developments' demands. Also future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Future R-IO development as a result of the amendments is expected to occur on lots platted prior to March 1, 1995 and are not expected to require substantive new roads or streets. Future PUD development may require streets. It is possible that PUD development may request alternative street standards; however criteria would require adequate emergency access and mitigation of traffic would Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reporls\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 20 be required. Also future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by- case basis. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Future additional R-lO multiplexes may occur southeast of the Renton Airport, but the amendments do not change the location of the zone or the height of future structures as allowed in the zone. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The proposed text amendments to the R-lO Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots, would allow additional dwellings. The potential added units are small in percentage compared to the City's current housing stock. Please see Appendix B. The trip rate for attached dwellings is typically less than single-family dwellings per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The Transportation Element and 6-Year TIP identify needed transportation improvements for the community. RMC 4-1 addresses mitigation fees. RMC 4-6 addresses transportation concurrency and street standards, and RMC 4-4 addresses parking standards. Any variations to these standards through the PUD process would be the subject of site-specific review. Additionally proposed PUD standards require adequate transportation and parking facilities to meet the proposal demands, and adequate emergency access. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposed text amendments to the R-l 0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots, would allow additional dwellings. The potential added units are small in percentage compared to the City's current housing stock. Please see Appendix B. This may slightly increase the demand for services. Future PUD development may alter development standards affect building size and location. However, PUD review criteria require adequate infrastructure and services. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. The Docket item, Title IV: School Impact Fees is a procedural amendment, which addresses how the school impact fee code is structured. Option 1, the No Action Alternative retains the current structure to the school impact fee code. Option 2 proposes a more streamlined school impact fee code, removing provisions that are more applicable to Interlocal Agreements. These amendments also establish a framework within which future amendments could be made to convert SEP A mitigation fees to impacts fees if the City decides to pursue this approach in the future. The amendments would continue the impact fee program, and simplify the code. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Adequate public facilities are addressed in RMC 4-1, 4-5 and 4-6. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. 16. UTILITIES Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_dockelilemsDec04.doc Page 21 I a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. The proposed text amendments to the R-IO Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots, would allow additional dwellings. The potential added units are small in percentage compared to the City's current housing stock. Please see Appendix B. This may slightly increase the demand for utilities. Future PUD development may alter development standards affect building size and location. However, PUD review criteria require adequate infrastructure and services. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis. Service providers would be contacted through the development permit or environmental review process as appropriate. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific development would be subject to environmental review as appropriate. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned. state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Propanent: d~J!wh) ~ 'I--£fo~ Name Printed: L\~bYVL+, .. £L ... Date: 10.-/ B/tJ1 Title IV Procedural and Development Regul.ation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 22 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? See B.2, B.3, and B.7. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: See B.2, B.3, and B.7. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? See B.4 and B.5. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants. animals, fish, or marine life are: See B.4 and B.S. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? See B.6. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: See B.6. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? See B.3, BA, B.S, B.8, B.12, and B.13. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: See B.3, BA, B.5, B.8, B.12, and B.13. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? See B.8. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 23 See B.8. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? See B.l4, B.lS, andB.I6. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: See B.I4, B.IS, and B.I6. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal would not affect the implementation of State or Federal permit requirements for any development proposal. As noted in B.8, the amendments are generally intended to refine and better integrate the City's local requirements for development. The non-project proposal would increase the compatibility of the City's plans and regulations by including refinements to the municipal code consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, prepared under the State Growth Management Act, and general procedural needs. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-Significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack Offull=~:on~rt. . .. Proponent ~ i_ r "6-SfDk..<:J Name Printed: U~ vu..eJ-~ Date '1'6/0-( ENVCHLSTDOC REVISED 6/98 Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDec04.doc Page 24 APPENDIX A PROJECT NARRATIVE G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_ Reports\LUA _ SEPA \envchlst_ docketitemsDec04.doc Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City of\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reports\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDecO4.doc Project Narrative: City of Renton Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 December 8, 2004 1. Proposal Overview The proposal is to adopt a series of regulation amendments proposed as a result of the Title 4 Development Regulation Revision Process in accordance with RMC 4-9-025. The City Council approved a list of docket items for study in May 2004, and those that are being addressed in this work program are listed below: I • 04-1, StaffEDNSPIPBPW, RMC 4-1 Housekeeping amendments. • 04-2, StaffEDNSPIPBPW, RMC 4-1 Chapter 1 mitigation fees. • 04-5, StaffPBPW, RMC 4-2, clarify re-platting rules for plats to ensure that density cannot be re- calculated for remaining larger lots. • 04-6, StaffPBPW, delete the Green River Valley Map for 2% habitat set-aside. • 04-8, Courtney Flora representing Unico Properties Inc. owner of Washington Technical Center, amendments to RMC-4-7 -230 binding site plan section of code to address the size of land area to be considered in the binding site plan process. • 04-11, StaffPBPW, RMC 4-8, clarify the appeals process. • 04-13, Nora Schultz, RMC 4-2, amend density and/or lot size provisions in the R-I0 to allow duplex uses. Also reviewed concurrently with the official 2004 Docket are other Title IV amendments addressing: • Sureties and bonds (proposed by Renton Department ofPlanninglBuildinglPublic Works), • SEPA review requirements for non-project actions (proposed by the Renton Department of Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning). • Since one ofthe options for Docket 04-8 includes amending the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations, amendments to the PUD regulations are likewise addressed. • Amendments to the definition of "Medical Institution" (proposed by the Renton Department of Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning). 2. Regulation Amendment Requests and Options The following table identifies the proposal requests, and options proposed for consideration by the Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department. The SEPA checklist considers the environmental effects of the options except those shown with an asterisk (*). I Other docket items have been addressed in other work programs • 04-3, StaffPBPW, RMC 4-3, Aquifer Protection Area Map Amendment needed to reflect changes. • 04-4, StaffPBPW, RMC 4-2, clarify that density calculations cannot be rounded up. • 04-12, Staff PBPW, add references to the NC-I and NC -2 Zones in the Binding Site Plan Process. Item 04-3 is being processed with the overall Critical Area Regulations update as part of LUA 04-084, ECF. Items 04-4 and 04- 12 were addressed with the recent 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update and associated development regulation amendments, and are completed. December 8, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton EDINISP Department Table 1. Amendment Requests and Options Amendment Requests A. 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. B. 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. C. 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 bonds. December 8, 2004 Options 1. No Action: Retain current RMC 4-1 format and contents. 2. Proposed amendments to RMC 4-1 to clean up long- standing inconsistency, interpretation, and organization issues identified by various staff in the Development Services Division. 1. No Action: Retain current structure of school impact fee code. 2. Code Streamline: Consolidate 14 subsections into five subsections, and remove provisions that are more suitable for the Interlocal Agreement or appear unnecessary. In particular, the proposal would: • Streamline the subsections into the following five topics: purpose/authority/applicability/exemptions; fee calculations; fee adjustments; administration; and appeals. • Eliminate most definitions because few are actually used, and those terms that are used are presented with sufficient context in the body of the code. The exception is that the definition of "encumbered" would be moved to RMC 4-11 Definitions. • Eliminate or "move" School District administration type provisions to the Interlocal Agreement. These include provisions that specify the District should calculate fees for different unit types, how the funds may be used to repay bonds, and other provisions. • Eliminate or "move" City administration provisions not typically codified such as at what point fees would be transferred, an administration cost, how often the fee schedule will be reviewed, and the City's non- responsibility if it fails to collecHees. The code amendments would 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. Included in the document are provisions governing: • • • Type of security devices: cash, letter of credit, set aside letter, savings account, and performance or maintenance bond. Requirements for the surety device: payable to City, clause binding the applicant or "heir" to posting security, and available only for purposes of "project". 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 2 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Amendment Requests D. 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 the R-4 and R-8 zones. E. Title 4, Chapter 2: R-I0 Zone, Attached Townhouses or Flats on Pre-Existing Lots: 04-13 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: Nora Schultz Summary: The proponent owns a property on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-I0. 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 4-2-11 OF 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. F. Title 4, Chapters 2 and 4: Green River Valley Landscaping: 04-6 Docket Item: Yes Proponent: City of Renton Summary: Determine if 2% habitat set- aside provisions have been fulfilled and can be removed. December 8, 2004 • • • 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. Options 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 j,ublic imyrovements. No Action: Current practice is to apply a working policy that restricts future subdivision of previously platted lots. Redmond also has this practice. (*) Lot Size Controls: Similar to Bellevue, the City could include a code provision that applies to all residential zones stating that if there is a conflict between minimum lot size and density, minimum lot size controls. (This would modify the density framework in several zones and is considered conceptually in the issue paper.) Maximum Density Controls: The City could amend the code to specifically establish that further platting must be consistent with the applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. No Action -Keep Current Requirements that Density Controls over Lot Size. A "Cedar River Master Plan" is being evaluated as a work program for 2005/2006, and it may be appropriate at that time to look at zoning options in the North Renton area. Allow Multiplexes on Individual Preexisting Lots that Meet the Minimum Lot Size but Not the Maximum Density, generally limited to North Renton. Allow Multiplexes on Individual Preexisting Lots that Meet the Minimum Lot Size but Not Maximum Density -by Conditional Use Permit. (*) Amend Land Use PlanlRezone Appropriate Areas to Higher Densities if 10 Units Per Acre Does Not Achieve City Vision for Selected Areas such as North Renton Arterial Frontage Lots. (Since this would involve a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone that would need to be considered concurrent with other map/zone amendments in 2005, it is not addressed in the SEPA checklist.) No Action: Retain 2% Habitat Set Aside Regulations. Repeal the 2% habitat set aside regulations in RMC 4- 2 and 4-4 since the City's land acquisitions have exceeded the original multi jurisdictional target, and since 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. 3 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Amendment Requests G. 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. H. 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. I. Title 4, Chapters 8 and 9: Permit and SEPA Process For Nonproject Actions Docket Item: No Proponent: City of Renton I 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. J. Title 4, Chapter 9: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulation Update (related to item 04-8). 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. December 8, 2004 Options 1. No Action-Keep the current requirements that the development standards for the underlying lot apply to each individual lot created through the binding site plan process. 2. Revise Binding Site Plan provisions so that, when reviewed as a whole, the site meets all of the zoning and subdivision requirements. 3. Revise Binding Site Plan provisions to include allowances for condominiums as an option when the minimum lot size requirements cannot be met through the binding site plan process. 4. Revise the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations (RMC 4-9-150) to allow for PUDs in conjunction with a binding site plan where underlying zoning provisions are proposed to be varied (see below). The proposed ordinance correctly identifies the appeals process for Type IX and X decisions -City Council actions on Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Development Regulation Amendments. Tables in RMC 4- 8 show that the appeals of such decisions would go to Superior Court, when in fact they would be filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board, whose decisions then may be aI>Pealed to Superior Court. 1. 2. • • 1. 2. • No Action: Retain current regulations. Amend Some Aspects of Non project Process: To recognize the value of the public input process at hearings and the possibility that the proposal may be further refined as a result, the nonproject SEPA determination itself could be issued at any point prior to the City taking action (accounting for required comment and appeal periods), particularly for non-map amendment items. The regulations should be amended to allow for exceptions to the consolidated hearing given the SEP A Rules allowing hearings to be separate when involving a SEPA appeal on a nonproject action. No Action: Retain current regulations. Amend PUD regulations ~o provide a usable process to request modifications to development standards in exchange for public benefits: Applicable Zones. Currently the City's PUD regulations only apply to residential zones. However, given the City's changing market conditions for residential, commercial, and manufacturing activities, PUD regulations may be an appropriate tool to respond to changing conditions while ensuring there is quality development and a public benefit. The proposed code 4 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Amendment Requests Options allows PUD regulations to be applied in residential zones and commercial, mixed use and industrial zones. • Regulations not Proposed to be Varied: Currently the regulations allow density bonuses for certain site or dwelling aspects. It allows certain residential and accessory uses. Similarly, the proposal would not allow variations to land uses. Unlike the current code densities of the underlying zone would not be increased through a PUD bonus system. The proposal would not allow variations to environmental regulations beyond that allowed to be requested as modifications/variances now. • Regulations which may be Requested to be Varied: -The PUD code would continue to allow variations to zoning, subdivision, and parking standards. -Reference is made to allow modification ofRMC 4-4 regulations, which addresses Property Development Standards. -A provision would allow an applicant to request modification of other standards subject to agency review. This would reduce the need for future demonstration ordinances. -Public or private streets may be proposed rather than solely public streets. Alternative street standards may be requested. However, adequate emergency access and circulation would need to be provided. • Open space: -Common open space standards are currently included in the PUD. Other open space alternatives are proposed as options. K. Title 4, Chapter 11: Definitions of The proposed amendments would address hospice and Medical Related Activities holistic health centers as part of the definition of medical Docket Item: No institution and add a definition of "holistic health center". Proponent: City of Renton Hospice would not be defined as a type convalescent Summary: Change medical related center. The permit application types for medical terminology to address non-traditional institutions and convalescent centers would not change medical activities and mixed-use medical from those allowed currently. activities. The SEP A checklist considers the envlronmental effects of the optIons except those shown with an asterisk (*). 3. Proposed Code Amendments Each amendment request is the subject of an issue paper. The request and potential code amendment options are described conceptually. Proposed code amendments have been prepared for selected option(s). These are provided under separate cover, and submitted as part of the SEPA review proposal. December 8, 2004 5 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton EDINISP Department 4. Public Review Process and Schedule Most code items are being reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has reviewed various amendment proposals at study sessions in November and December 2004. The Planning Commission is scheduled to meet and make recommendations in early January 2005. The City Council's Planning and Development Committee is anticipated to consider the amendments in January 2005. It is expected that the City Council will hold a hearing in January 2005, and complete its review and decision process in February 2005 Additional information can be obtained by contacting the Renton Economic DevelopmentlNeighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department at 425-430-6575. December 8, 2004 6 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Appendix B R-10 Zone: Potential Added Units Option 2: On a per-lot basis rather than a whole development basis, this option would allow attached dwellings on preexisting smaller lots similar to how multiplexes are allowed on smaller lots in new subdivisions. If the City desires to allow attached dwellings units on properties meeting the minimum lot size requirement but not the density requirement, Policy LU-165 would appear to need amendment as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. If this policy choice were made, the implementing R-10 code could be amended to indicate that for pre-existing lots/developments less than 0.5 acres (prior to March 1, 1995), the minimum lot size controls over density. To limit the location where multiplexes may be allowed subject to lot size, but not sub~ect to density, the option proposes to limit applicability to North Renton neighborhood, between North 6\ Street, 1-405, Cedar River, and Logan Avenue N. Further, design standards to enhance compatibility of multiplexes are included addressing roof pitch, entry orientation, and windows. With this option, it appears that in North Renton, there would be approximately 67 lots that would meet the lot size of 5,000 to 21,780 s.f. However, several have existing multifamily dwellings. Approximately 33 of these lots consisting of single- family homes, and two lots are vacant. If one additional dwelling unit were added to the single family lots and five total were added to the vacant lots (one would meet the lot size for a duplex and the other would meet the lot size for a triplex), then about 38 units would be possible, about 0.1 % of the City's 2004 housing stock estimate of 25,908. Option 3: This option would be similar to Option 2, except that it would apply to any R-10 property less than 0.5 acre and platted before March 1, 1995, and except that a conditional use permit would be required. Multiplexes on lots meeting the lot size but not the density could be subject to development standards that address the scale of the unit such as roof pitch, entry orientation, etc. To make it less process oriented, it could be an administrative conditional use. If it were not controversial, a hearing would not be needed. If the City desires to allow attached dwellings units on properties meeting the minimum lot size requirement but not the density requirement, Policy LU-165 would appear to need amendment as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Considering the R-10 zone citywide, about 78 vacant lots equal between 5,000 s.f. and 21,780 s.f. and may be eligible for multiplexes. There are also approximately 277 R-10 lots within this size range that have single-family homes that may be eligible to add one or more units. (Those lots that are greater than 8,712 s.f. could already have a duplex or greater based on today's code allowances.) However, for the vacant or single family lots estimated, not all would be eligible for the following reasons: Many of the lots were created after March 1, 1995 which is the cut off point for the code allowance; not all properties are configured so that all other standards could be met (e.g. setbacks, lot coverage, parking location); existing single family homes may be located in a manner that precludes adding another dwelling; and property owner preferences may be to build or maintain single family homes which is another primary use of the zone. Further the conditional use process would limit how many would be interested in applying for a multiplex. Future added units are expected to be small in percentage compared to the existing city housing stock (25,908) given the limitations described. Title IV Procedural and Development Regulation Revisions 2004 G:\Projects\Renton, City 01\04572.04 -City of Renton Municipal Code Dockets\Docket_Reporls\LUA_SEPA\envchlst_docketitemsDecO4.doc DOCKET ITEM TITLE 4, CHAPTER 1 UPDATES FOR BETTER CONSISTENCY AND EASE OF INTERPRETATION In 2003, Strategic Planning Staff prepared a set of proposed amendments to RMC 4-1 to clean up long-standing inconsistency, interpretation, and organization issues identified by various staff in the DevelopmentServices Division. The amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission in April 2003 and by the City Council's Planning and Development Committee in May 2003. The City Attorney's office reviewed the amendments and prepared a formal draft ordinance. However, the amendment process was not completed. In the intervening months several ordinances amending similar sections passed, and it was necessary to review the 2003 RMC 4-1 proposal against recent ordinances to ensure that the docket proposal would not inadvertently undo the changes made in recent ordinances. As part of this current review in Fall 2004, the proposal was reviewed against the RMC Title 4 book updated through July 2004 as well as any ordinances that passed between July and September 2004 based on a review of City Council actions .. 'In addition, Development Services editorial comments following May 13, 2003 were considered .. Attached is the May 13, 2003 memo to the Planning and Development Committee with "track change edits" that show original proposals plus refinements requested by Development Services based on comments that post-dated the May 13,2003 memo to the Planning and Development Committee. Changes to make the "base" code match recent ordinances do not appear in "track changes". December 8, 2004 . MENT PLANNING OEV~~ OF RENTON . DEC 0 9 200lt RECElVED Page 1 ,e CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, , AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 13, 2003December 7,2004 TO: , Terri Briere, Planning & Development Coinmittee Chair Members of the Planning & Development C;:ommittee FROM: Alex Pietsch,EDNSP Administrator STAFF CONTACT: , Gil Cerise, x6578Rebecca Lind'x6588 SUBJECT: Part 1 of Title 4, Chapter 1 Docket Items, ISSUE: Staff has developed a series ofreconimended amendments to Chapter 1 of Title 4 as part of the annual Title 4 docket work program. These recommended amendments are long-standing docket items identified by staff as necessary code amendments in the continuing effort to rationalize the City'S zoning and development regulations while ensuring that critical development regulations are clearly stated. This issue paper is slightly different from the'standard issue paper format. Recommended amendments are bulleted below, followed by code text amendments shown in italics in legislative format. RECOMMENDATION: • c RMC 4-1-060C1, relating to required elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Staff recommends minor text changes to the "Required Elements" introductory paragraph to shorten and only retain necessary language. The State Legislature added Economic Development and Parks and Recreation elements as required elements of the , Comprehensive Plan in 2002. However, a provision was added stating that these elements shall not be required until such time as the Legislature provides funding for cities and counties to develop these newly required elements. Therefore, staff and the City Attorney's office agree that these new elements should not be included in this code section at this time. '.-'; '11/..\ I~ ; V ,/.1,:-;, • ,-, ' '. _ -' ','p{, .",~,' _"''' • ,.f.J:,' (I -~iJ " ." f ':J-. ~ -1~.\ \.. t !.-\ ' ,PLAN ELEMENTS: • 'i,i.(-" . . • ; ,'-'.~ Jt ~'~~.:~,; 1. Required Elements: The,Conwrehensive Plan shalf be a policy plan containing de8GFiptWe-text-cey.eFing-OOjeGtive5-i7¥inGip'/~-:an-d-standards used to develop the .cempreheA8ive-P18n-t~r with a map or maps. It shall be an internally Gonsistent-fieGUmeAt; and all elements-shalJ be consistent with the future tEnd use ma~ The Comprehensive Plan May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8,2004 Page 2 I shall contain the following mandatory planning elements as required by the Growth Management Act: a. A land use element designating the proposed distribution, location and extent of the uses of land. b. A transportation element that is consistent with the land use element and includes land use assumptions, an inventory of facility and service needs, service standards, financing needs and a reassessment of land use, if service standards cannot be met. c. A housing element containing an inventory of needs, policies for protection and development of housing for all economic segments of the community and identifying sufficient land for,housing. d. A utilities element consisting of an inventory of needs and policies for the development of utilities and the location, proposed location and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities .. e. A capital facilities element that includes an inventory of all capital facilities, forecast of future needs, proposed location of new or expanded facilities, a six (6) year funding plan and a reassessment of the land use element, if funding falls short. • RMC 4-1-060C2, relating to optional elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends eliminating the specific listing of optional elements in favor of a more . general statement allowing the City to include additional elements and subarea plans (similar to South Renton Plan) .. This allows the City flexibility to add or eliminate optional elements without requiring concurrent code changes to update this sectio'n of code. 2. Optional Elements: The Comprehensive Plan may include a,ny or aU of the following optionaJadditional elements, relating to the physicaldevelopment within the City; including. but not limited to subarea' plans. each of which is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.i a. A shGFeJiRe-element setting forth policies oORoerning eoonomio development; public access and oirou,lation; reoreation; urban design, consel'lation, restoration and natural environment; and historical, cultural, scientific and educational valves; b. An economio element utiHzing an economic base by standard industria! employment oategories and indicating employment le~<e,ts and trends, capital employee ratios and potential sites for major economic expansion;' . o. An environmental-element indicating environmenta! conditions and natural processes including climate, air quamy, geoi-ogy, hydrology, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries and other natural factors that affect or would be affected by development; d. A disaster element identifying areas, sites or structures of historical, archaeologica!, architectural, ecological or scenic significance; e. A conservation element; f. A solar energy element; g. A recreation and open space element that pro'Jides a comprehensi'.<e system of areas. for-re£reafion.;-parl{s, p!ayf}round&f2nd-otheHe£-reaiifJRa/-fjnd-open-sp-ase fflCiJitie-s; h. Subar~a-plans, where appropriate, consistent with-the Comprehensi'le Plan. May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 3 I • RMC 4-1-060C3, regarding the Land Use Element Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is suggesting amendments to replace the referenced map from that shown in City Council Chambers to that shown in the customer service area of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. 3. Land Use Element Map: The land use element map, maintained on display in the customer service area orthe Planning/Building/PUblic· Works DepartmentCitj' CO/;/AC# chambers, illustrates in broad and general terms the desired development of the City during the twenty (20) year planning period. Tho l:JSe areas shown there OR iRCJicafe tho priRciples ... /hiGh . are inteRded to guide imp!emeR#atioR of this develepmeRt program. (Ord. 4437, 2-21-1994) • RMC 4-1-0600, regarding adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff is suggesting text amendments to include amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and any associated subarea plans, such as South Renton Plan. D ADOPTION: The Comprehensive Plan and any amendments and associated subarea plans are shaN be adopted by ordinance of the City Council after public hearing by the. Council. • RMC4-1-07081, relating to Title 4 Development Regulations that implement the City's Comprehensive Plan: Staff suggests amending this subsection of code to add "Chapter 11 -Definitions." This chapter was forgotten during the last Title 4 update, yet· definitions of zoning and development terms are vital to code interpretation. • RMC 4-1-080A, Administrative Interpretation: Staff suggests adding a new subsection A under the Interpretation Section of Code that covers administrative interpretation of Title .. 4. Suggested language is similar to that found in other municipal codes within the region. Suggested amendment directs that interpretation shall be in accordance with the intent or . purpose statement of the specific regulation and the Comprehensive Plan, as the City's policy document. Atthe City Attorney's suggestion, staff has added "over other regulations" to the end of this new code subsection .. 4-1-080 INTERPRET A TION: A. A DMINISTRA TlVE INTERPRET A TlON: 1. General: The Planning/Building/Public Works AdministratorfMG 11 is hereby authorized to make . interpretations regarding the implementation of unclear or contradictory regulations contained in this Title. Any interpretation of the Renton Municipal Code shall be made in accordance with the intent or purpose statement of the specific regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety and public health regulations are assumed to prevail over other regulations. . · 2. Zoning Conflicts: In the event that there is a conflict between either the development standards or special development standards listed in chapter 4-2 RMC, Zoning Districts: Uses and Standards, and the standards and regulations contained in another Section, the Zoning Administrator shall determine which reguirement shall prevail in accordance with the intent or purpose statement of the specific regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety and public health regulations are assumed to · prevail over other regulation. [MG2] • RMC 4-1-0808, Conflicts and Overlaps: Re-Ietter thi; code section and make a minor editing change to eliminate the word "regulation." AB CONFLICTS AND OVERLAPS: This Title is not Intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this Title and another regW~easement, covenant, or deed restriction May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 page 4 I conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. (Ord. 4071, 6-1- 1987) . • RMC 4-1-080C, Interpretation of Requirements: Staff modified the·Gode secti~n title and edited this code section for clarity and to reduce duplicative language~ g~ INTERPRETA TlON OF REQUIREMENTS LISTED ARE MtAJJMl:JMS: In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Title, the requirements herein shall be~ 1. c~onsidered the minimum for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; therefore, where this Tit/e imposes a greater restriction upon the use of the buildings or premises, or upon the height of buildings, or requires larger open spaces than are imposed or required by other JaW&,-f}rdinanGes,riJles or regulations, the provisions of this TiUe sRaI~ In the interpretation and appJiGatieR-f>f.thi&-+itle,a1J provisions shalf-be; 1. Considered as minimum requirements; 2. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and 3. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under State statutes. (Ord. 4071, 6-1-1987) . ~. RMC 4-1-0800, More Restrictive/Higher Standards to Govern: This subsection of code is proposed for addition to clarify that higher or more restrictive standards shall govern whether they are located in this Title or another Title. This language is similar to that located in other municipal codes. D MORE RESTRICTIVE/HIGHER STANDARDS TO GOVERN: Wherever any regulation in this Title imposes higher or more restrictive standards than are required in any other statute or regulation, the provisions of this Title shall govern. Wherever the provisions of any other statute or regulation impose higher or more restrictive standards, the provisions of such other statute or regulation shall govern. CE TERMINOLOGY: When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory. (Ord. 4007, 7-14-1986) • Duty of Zoning Administrator -Conflicts: This subsection of code is proposed for deletion because it is duplicative of other provisions of code. In addition, clarified language in other portions of code duplicate that located in this subsectionamended Sections Aand B above. The title of Zoning Administrator is outdated. D . DUTY OF ZONING A D!'AIA'lSTRATOR CONFLICTS; tnthe event that there is a conflict betvlfJen either the development standards or special dev.elopment standards listed in chapter 4 2 RMC, Zoning Districts: Uses and Standards, and the standards and regulations contained in another Section, the Zoning Administrator shall determine which reqlJirement shall prev.ail based upon the intent of the zones. Life, safety and pubUc health reguJafJons are assumed to prevail. (Ord. 4404, 67 1993; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5 13 2002)[MG3] • RMC 4-1-100A, Purpose of Enforcement Code Section: Staff recommends adding a purpose statement for the enforcement section of code. This purpose statement reflects similar enforcement purpose statements in other municipal codes .. In addition, code enforcement staff and the City Attorney's office have been consulted in drafting this code language. . 4-1-100 ENFORCEMENT: May 13,2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 5 A . PURPOSE: . The purpose of this section is to promote compliance with this Title bv establishing enforcement authority, defining violations. and setting standards for initiating the procedures set forth in Chapter 1-3, _ Remedies and Penalties, when violations of this Title occur. The provisions of this Title and any _ conditions associated with entitlements approved by the City shall be diligently enforced in order to . promote the City's planning efforts and to protect the public health. safety, and welfare. A further intent of this section is to ensure that no permit. license, or land use approval is issued in conflict with the provisions of this Title. • . RMC 4-1-1 OOB, Responsibility and Authority:. This subsection of code was modified to provide more detail based upon what other municipal codes state in their responsibility and authority sections for code enforcement. Staff felt that existing code was too vague--aM the title of Development Sen/ices Administrator does not exist. . B. RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY: The Development Services AdministratorDirector [MG4]or his or her designated representative shall be . authorized to enforce the provisions of Title 4 of the Renton Municipal Code. The Director shall also enforce any implementing administrative rules, administration, and approval conditions attached to any land use approval. through revocation or modification of permits, or through the enforcement. penalty and abatement provisions of Chapter 1-3 RMC, Remedies and Penalties. responsible for investigation of violation and citation of the violating parties. (Ord. 4856,8-21-2000) . • RMC 4-1-11 OA, Violations Defined within Violations and Penalties section: Staff recommends adding a code subsection that specifically defines violations of Title 4. The intent is to make everything listed in this code section a violation, and hence a civil penalty. Currently, this is not well-defined within Title 4, causing some issues when code enforcement brings matters to court. . 4-1-110 VIOLA TIONS AND PENALTIES: A. VIOLA TIONS DEFINED: Structures, uses, or actions which do not conform to this Title, except legal nonconformances specified in Chapter 4-10 and approved variances, are violations subject to the enforcement. penalty and abatement provisions of Chapter 1-3 of Renton Municipal Code. Violations include but are not limited to: 1. Establishing a use not permitted in the zone or critical area/buffer in which it is located; -2.·· . Constructing; expanding or placing a structure in violation of setback. height or other· dimensional 0; environmentalstandards in this Title; 3. Constructing, expanding or placing a structure without a permit; 4. Establishing a permitted use without complying with applicable development standards set forth in this or other titles. inCluding but noUimited to, infrastructure construction. sutiace water management, and the Fire Code; 5. Failing to carry out or observe conditions of land use or permit approval. including contract development standards; stop work order: c:r othe~ official notice issued by the City: . .' . 6. Failing to secure required land use or permit approval prior to establishing a permitted or conditional or accessory use; 7. Failing to maintain on-or off-site improvements. such as landscaping. parking or drainage control facilities as required by this Title; . May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8,2004 , Page 6 8. Dividing or selling parcels, or reconfiguring parcels boundaries in violation of the provisions of this Title or state subdivision regulation; 9. Removing or defacing any sign, notice. complaint, or order reguired by or posted in accordance with this Title; . 10. Misrepresenting any material fact in any application, plans, or other information submitted to obtain any land use authorization. • RMC 4-1-1108, Remedies and Penalties: Staff is recommending amending this code section from Violation Unlawful and Violation Penalties which are basically covered in the new section A above, to a discussion of remedies and penalties resulting from a violation of Title 4. Newly proposed language carefully outlines stop work orders, refusal of approvals, voided permits, remedies cumulative, how provisions of RMC 1-3 relate, and recovery of costs. Staff coordinated language with both code enforcement staff and the City Attorney's office in order to ensure that proposed language is legal and defensible in court. B. VIOLATION UNLAWFULREMEDIES AND PENAL TIES: !t sha'!! be unlavliu! for any person, firm or corporation to violate any of the prov.~/ons of this Title. (Ord. 4346, 3 9 1992) . 1. Stop Work Order: Any construction in violation of this Title, or any condition(s) imposed on a permit or license, may be subject to the issuance of a "Stop Work Order. " 2. Refusal of Approvals: a. The City shall not issue any permit or grant any approval necessary to develop any real property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division; in violation of the provisions of the Renton Municipal Code or state subdivision regulations . . b. No approval shall be granted for a land-use permit, land division, or building permit for any parcel of land on which there is a violation of any city or state law or pertinent to use or development of the property, unless such violations are either corrected prior to application or are required to be corrected as a condition of approval. c. The City shall not issue any permit or grant any land use approval to any individual or corporation that has not paid al/laild use-related fines, penalties, permit fees, or collections due to the City for any previous infraction or violation of Title 4 of the Renton Municipal Code. 3. Permits Void.' Any permit, certificate, or license issued subsequent to the effective date of and in conflict with this Title shall be null and void. 13. . VIOLA:fION.s OF THIS CHAP+liiR--ANfJ.-.PeNALTJES: PeRalties for any violations of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be in accord with chapter 1 3 RMC. (Ord. 4722, 5111998;Amd. Ord. 4856, 8212000) 4. Provisions of RMC 1-3: Any person violating or failing to comply with any order made hereunder, shall be subject to the provisions of RMC 1-3. 5. Remedies Cumulative.' All remedies concerning this Title shall be cumulative and not exclusive. The conviction and punishment of any person hereunder shall not relieve such person from the responsibility of correcting prohibited conditions or removing prohibited structures. signs. or improvements, and shall not prevent the enforced correction or removal thereof. 6; Recovery of Costs: Where any action or activity is required to be taken by a person under the proviSions of this Title. the Cit v Administration may direct that in default of its being May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 7 done by the responsible party. such action or activity shall be done at the expense of the party in default and the City may recover the expenses. • RMC 4-1-100C, Initiation of Proceedings AgainstViolation: Staff suggests a new code section to discuss how the City initiates proceedings against a violation of Title 4. Upon the suggestion of the City Attorney, staff has modified language in subsection C2 and added a proposed definition of "Aggrieved Party» for Chapter 11 (also shown below). The City Attorney's office has proposed the definition of aggrieved party below. C. INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VIOLATION: 1. The City may initiate proceedings to revoke or modify any permit or land use approval it has issued; 2. . An aggrieved party may file a request for the City to initiate revocation or modification proceedings. or suspend a permit. or land use approval. [NEW DEFINITION14-11-01O: DEFINITIONS A AGGRIEVED PARTY: A person seeking to protect what must be "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question" and must alleqe an "injury in fact." i.e., that he or she will be specifically and perceptibly harmed by the proposed action. • RMC 4;.1-1000, Authority to Revoke or Modify a Permit or Land Use Approval: Staff is recommending a new section covering the authority to revoke or modify a permit or land . use approval. City Attorney review resulted in adding the words"for caw~e" under both subsections D1 and D2. . D.AUTHORITY TO REVOKE OR MOD/FYA PERMIT OR LAND USE APPROVAL: Authority to revoke or modify a permit or land use approval shall be exercised by the approving body, as follows: . 1. The City Council may. for cause, after a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner. revoke or modify any preliminary subdivision. zone reclassification or other approval issued by the Council or Hearing Examiner. 2. The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator may. for cause,' revoke or modify any permit or other land use approval issued by the Administrator. . • RMC -4:'1"-100E, 'Criteria for Permit Suspension, Revocation or Modification: Staff recommends new language that provides criteria for permit suspension, revocation or modification. This language is similar to code language common in other municipal codes in the region .. Again, code enforcement and city attorney staff have reviewed this language. City Attorney review resulted in addition of the phrase "related to the permit or . approval" in subsection E6. E. . CRITERIA FOR PERMIT SUSPENSION, REVOCA TION OR MODIFICA TlON: Permit suspension, revocation or modification shall be carried out through the procedures set forth in Chapter 1-3. Any permit. or other/and use approval issued by the City pursuant to this Title may be suspended, revoked or modified on one or more of the following grounds: 1. . The approval was obtained by fraud; 2. The approval was based on inadequate or inaccurate information; 3. The approval, when given. conflicted with existing laws 'or regulations applicable thereto; May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 . Page 8 e· 4. . The approval or permit granted is being exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval or in violation of ariy statute, law. or regulation; 5. The use for which the approval was granted is being exe~cised in a manner detrimental to the public health or safety: 6. The holder of the permit or approval interferes with the Administrator or any authorized representative in the performance of his or her duties related to the permit or approval: or 7. The holder of the permit or approval fails to comply with any notice and order issued pursuant to code compliance regulations .. • RMC 4-1-100F, Appeals: Staff recommends addition of this new section of code to reference the appeals process for Enforcement. F. APPEALS: See RMC 4-8-110 for appeal process. .RMC 4-1-1400, Demolition Permit Fee: This section of code retained a title for a previously deleted code on Nonresidential Energy Code Fees for Alterations without . Associated Floor Area. Staff recommends replacing this deleted reference with a Demolition Permit Fee showing the permit fee of $15.00 that the City currently charges. D NONRESIDENTIAL ENERGY CODE FEES FOR ALTERATIONS WITHOUT ASSOCIATED FLOOR AREA DEMOLITION PERMIT FEE: $15.00(DeJeted by Ord. 4768, 3 8 1999HOr~. 4450,523 -1-994f • . RMC 4-1.;140E, State Building Code Fee: Development Services Division states that they do not collect the Energy Code Fees for Ne1tV Nonresidential Projects with Associated Floor Areas that are currently shown in this section of code. Staff recommends deleting this code section, including the associated fee table; and replacing it withaddressing the State Building Code Fee which is currently collected by the City~ but not located within Title 4. E(Deleted BY Ord. 5085, 621 2004) (Ord. 4450, 5 23 1994) STA TE BUILDING CODE FEE: A state building fee of $4.50 shall be charged to all projects requiring a building permit as well as an additional $2.00 for each unit of multi-family. .. [MG5] . • RMC 4-1-.140P, Refund of Building Division Fees: Staff recommends adding a code section dealing with the refund of Building Division fees. This subject matter is currently absent from Title 4. Developers have inquired and the Building Division has subsequently requested that a code provision be inserted outlining how Building Division fee refunds are processed. Upon comment by the City Attorney, modifications were made to subsections P2a and P2b. P. REFUND OF BUILDING DIVISION FEES: 1. Authority to refund fees. The Development Services Director may authorize the refunding of any fees paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or cof/ected. 2. Amount Refunded. a. Permit Fee. Due to the City's cost in screening, accepting. and initial processing of land use applications the Development Services Director may authorize the refunding of not more than eight (80) percent of the permit fee paid when no substantial work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this Code. May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 9 b. -Plan Review Fee .. Due to the City's cost in screening, accepting, and initial processing of land use applications the Development Services Director may authorize the refunding of not more than eighty (80) percent of the plan review fee paid when an applicant for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or -cancelled before any substantial plan review effort has been expended. 3. Method of Obtaining Refund and Time Limit. The Development Services Director shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid except upon written application fi/edby the original permittee not later than one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of the fee payment. . • RMC·4-1-180, Public Works Fees: The Utilities Division made amendments to this code -section in recent months. However, this code proposal recommends some clean-up and reorganization agreed to by both Development Services and Utilities that alphabetize subsections, makes consistent formatting changes, and moves a portion of the code existing in RMC 4-1-180 to a more appropriate location in Chapter 9 dealing with specific permits. The proposed code amendments are shown in two phases on an attachment to this memo. . [Editor's Note: See attachments #1 for specific code amendments in legislative format, and attachment #2 for reorganized, changes-accepted code format.' . • RMC 4-1-210, Waived Fees: Staff recommends adding a new section of code specifically authorizing the City Council to, have the authority to waive fees. Upon advice of the City Attorney, staff added the language, "upon stating an equitable or legal reason for waiver," Further amendments to this section include providing a title for new subsection B "Owner- Occupied Housing Incentive" and adding the newly created RM-T zone to that code subsection. This final act was an oversight from South Renton Plan adoption. 4-1-210 WAIVED FEES: A. GENERAL The Renton City Council shall, upon stating an eguitable or legal reason for waiver. have the authority to , waive any and all fees authorized under this Chapter of Title 4, B. OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING INCENTIVE To encourage owner-occupied housing in the COL and RM-U, and RM-T zones, certain development and mitigation fees for "For Sale" housing may be waived for eligible projects, subject to CityCounci! approval. Fees which may be waived include building permit fees, utility system development charges, Public Works plan review and inspection fees, and impact mitigation fees. Waived impact mitigatioR fees will be replenished from tax revenues from the projects over time. The fee waivers apply to multi-family housing projects with four (4) or more dwelling units each in the COL eF-RM-U, or RM-T zones. These fee waivers are effective for building permits issued after August 13, 2001, and will sunset on October 1, 2007, unless extended by City Council action. (Ord. 4913, 8272001) [16] , , Conclusion: The code amendments listed above represent a majority of the proposed docket amendments to chapter 1 of Title 4. Staff will bring the remaining chapter 1 amendments to Planning & Developmen! ' after developing a pr~posal in ,conjunction_ with a staff design team being formed ·to study the-remaining -issues relating to SEPA and GMA Mitigation Fees. If you have specific questions about this proposal, please feel free to contact Gil CeriseRebecca Lind at (425) 430-65§+8. cc: Mayor Jesse TannerKathy Keolker Wheeler Jay Covington, CAO Neil Watts, Development Service Director Rebecca Lind; Planning Manager _ Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner '. May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8,2004 Page 10 Mike Benoit, Civil Engineer III Chapter 1 p&d-1.doc May 13,2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 11 , , ',' ,,' ,ATTACHMENT#l " " Only Related to RMC 4.S0'and sections of ~ode mov,ed fro.ere (page 10 ofmenio) 4-1-1BOPUBLIC WORKS FEES: 'AB. LA TECOMER'S AGREEMENT APPLICA T/ON FEES: The feliewiRf}processing fees is due at the time of application. The administration and collection fee is deducted from each individual latecomer fee payment and the balance forwarded to the holder of theare asoeciated wi#H~cation by a developer for a latecomer's agreement pursuant to RMC 9-5-9, ' Tender of Fee. ' Fee to be due and payable at time of application Latecomer's Agreement -Administration,. processing. and collection fee Fee to be co#ected by deduction from each individual latecomer fee payment and the balance foP/larded to the holder of the latecomer's agreement pursuant to R.\4C 9 5 9, Tender of Fee. Segregation processing fee, if applicable $500.00 if amount covered by latecomer's is $20,000.00 or less ' $1,000.00 if amount covered by latecomer's is .1 between $20,000.00 and $100,000.00 $2,000.00 if amount covered by latecomer's is ,..ro.:>70rthan $1 000.00 15% of total amount to be collected amount covered by latecomer is $20,000.00 or less; 10% if amount covered by latecomer is between $20,000.00 and $100,000.00; , 5% if amount covered by latecomer is greater than $100,000.00; , 00 B£. PUBLIC WORKS PLAN REVIEW ANO INSPECTION FEES: All developers, municipal or quasi-municipal entities, or utility corporations or companies, except those specifically exempted, shall pay fees under this Section. Exempted entities include City-franchised cable TV, cable modem, natural gas, telecommunications, and electrical power. Half of this fee must be paid upon application and the remainder when the permit(s) is issued. There are additional construction permit fees which are also payable upon issuance. The fee will be based upon percentages of the estimated cost of improvements using the following formula: May l3, 2003, With Amendments December 8,2004 Page 12 · . • ATTACHMENT #1 A . . Only Related to RMC 4-~0 and sections of code moved from Were (page 10 of memo) Over $100,000.00 but less than $200,000.00 $200,000.00 and over 000.00, plus 3% of cost $200,000.00 over· .GQ. PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES: The following public works construction permit fees, utility permit fees, and miscellaneous charges are payable at or prior to the time of construction permit issuance. 1. WA TER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES: Water meter tests for meters greater than 2" Open and close fire hydrants for conducted by others flow tests Installation fees for ring and cover castings Service size reductions Water <:'OJ",,"'O disconnection (cut at main) . Meter resets Repair of damage to service connections Water turn ons/offs after hours Installation of isolation valve New water Ime chlorination fee Miscellaneous water installation fees May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Time and materials cost ($60.00 deposit) and materials $200.00 $50.00 $250.00 Cost of test plus $40.00 processing fee Time and materials $2,000.00 deposit $250.00 plus $0.15 per lineal foot for any footage after the first two hundred fifty (250) lineal feet. Time and materials Page 13 I ATTACHMENT #1 . . .' . . Only Related to RMC &SO and sections of codeinoved fro_ere (page 10 ofInemo) .' . 2. WA TER METER INST ALLA TION FEES -.: CITY INSTALLED: The following fees are . payable at the time of application for water meter installation(s).. . . 314 "meter installed by City outside City limits 1" meter I.:>ta",:;;u by City 1-112" meter installed by City 2" meter ." ...... .., ... by City, $1,300.00 (full installation of stub service .and meter) . $240.00 (meter drop in) . $1 ,400.00 (full instaliation of stub service and meter)' . $240.00 (meter drop in) . $1,400.00 (full installation of stub service and meter) $250.00 (meter drop in) $2,400.00 (full installation of stub service and meter) $300.00 (meter drop in) $2,800.00 (full installation and meter) $370.00 (meter drop in) , 3.'-WA TER METER PROCESSING FEES -APPLICANT INSTALLED: For meters larger than two inches (2"), applicant provides materials and installs. City charges a two hundred dollar ($200.00) processing fee at the time of meter application. ' 4. WASTEWATER AND SURFACE WATER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES: ' . Residential' $60.00 each connection $60.00 each connection Commercial $80.00 each connection $80. Industrial $100.00 each connection Repair any of the above $50.00 each service' ,Cut and Cap 1 Demolition Permit Ground Water Discharge (Temporary $150.00 connection to sanitary sewer system for one time discharge of contamina~ed water to 000 Ground Water Discharge emporary 00.00 + Billed for current NIA . connection to sanitary sewer system for . Renton and King County discharge of contaminated ground water sewer rate on·discharged over 50,000 gallons) amount. (meter provided by May 13,2003, With Amendme~ts December 8,2004 Page 14 .' ATTACHMENT#l' '. ' Only Related to RMC 4-_0 and sections of code moved from ere (page 10 of memo) 5. Work in Right-oF-Way -Construction Permit: (Utility and Street/Sidewalk 'Improvements): A bond as stipulated in RMC 9-10-5, Street Excavation Bond, is required. Exception: No permit fee shall be charged for individual homeowners for work in street rights-of-way for street tree or parking strip irrigation systems. 6. Street Light System Fe,e: All new installations of street lighting facilities shall incur a fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per connection to the power system, payable at or prior to the time of construction permit issuance. [MG8] , f)~. FRANCHISE PERMITS FEES: ,,.;';1: ,;,.,. ""i .,;11-.;" Ih~ ro;1 f. R t' f v' 'J:II vi d t w I t#'t1'tH:1e&prtWttllRfj-sernce 'MtHH-rtH<::t-trlt:y-een4Jn ~a~ ,er, ca ~ mo~m. na UN' gas, telewmmtJRiGatien&,-a-ntJ-e:leGlr~all 00 so undef-aWroved agreement-w#:h-the-Gity. Construction by one of. thesfH:JtiI#ie&-witf:Hn-fights of. vlaY, easements, and on puv~uviect to a permit. Permit fees aore subiect to the terms within each fndMooa! franchise agreement. Unless otherwise specified inlf a franchise agreement does not specify the timing of fees, the fee shall be due and , payable at or prior to the time of construction permit issuance. If a franchise agreement does not specify the fee amount, the generic fee, as identified in the fol/owing table shall be col/ected. A bond as stipulated in RMC 9-10-5, Street Excavation Bond, is also required. fiF. RELEASE OF EASEMENT FEES: The imposition, collection, payment and other specifics concerning this charge are detailed in chapter 9- 1 RMC, Easements. " May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 15 . ATTACHMENT #1 . . .. .. Only Related to RMC.SO and sections of code moved fro_ere (page 10 of memo) FG. RIGHT-OF-WA Y USE PERMIT FEES -REVOCABLE PERMITS FOR THE USE OF EXCESS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WA Y: These fees are payable at the time of application .. The imposition, collection, payment and other specifics concerning this charge are detailed in chapter 9-2 RMC, Excess Right-of-Way Use. All uses without public benefit 0.5% per month of property value of land to be utilized; plus leasehold excise tax2, if applicable. Payable yearly in advance. Uses with public benefit 0.5% per year of assessed value of land adjoining the property, plus leasehold .excise tax2, if applicable: In no case less than tendollars ($10.00). Payable yearly in advance. . Right-of-way value shall be based on the assessed value of the land adjoining the property as established by the King County Assessor. 2 There is hereby imposed a leasehold excise tax against fees so determined which are two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per annum or more. Such tax shall be imposed at the rate as established by the State of Washington, Department of Revenue.· Insurance Required: Public liability and property damage insurance is also required pursuant to RMC 9-2-58, Minimum Permit Requirements for Excess Right-of-Way Use. Exception for Public Agencies: A no fee permit may be issued only when the applicant is a public. agency and when the proposed use of the right-of-way provides a direct service to the public (e.g., . METRO applications for right-<1f-way for bus shelters) . . Gtl..STREET AND ALLEY VACATION FEES: . The imposition, collection, payment and other specifics concerning this charge are detailed in chapter 9- 14 RMC; Vacations. . and completion fee . the May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 16 . ATTACHMENT #1 Only Related to RMC 4-_0 and sections of code moved fromere (page 10 of memo) H[. TEMPORARY UTILITY CONNECTION FEES: Temporary connections to a City utility system maybe granted for a one-time, temporary, short-term use of a portion of the property for a . period not to exceed three (3) consecutive years .. Annual fee equal to ten percent· (10%) of the current system development charge applicable to that portion of the property, but not less than three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) per year1 Annual fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the current system development charge applicable to that portion of the property, but not less than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00)per Said fee shall be paid annually and shall be nonrefundable, nontransferable (from one portion of the property to another) and shall not constitute a credit to the system development charge due at the time of permanent use of the utility system. The application for temporary connection shall consist of a detailed plan and a boundary line of the proposed development service area for use in the fee determination. IQ. PUBLIC WORKS CHARGES FOR EQUITABLE SHARE OF PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES: Owners of properties to which improvements are being proposed that have not been assessed or charged an equitable share of the cost of public works facilities, such as water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water drainage systems, and street improvements including signalization and lighting, shall be subject to one dr more of the charges listed in the following subsections. Any fees triggered by improvements or development, as detailed in this section, are due and payable at the first of the following instances: • . Prior to the issuance of a Public Works Construction Permit, or • Prior to the recording of a single family residential plat or single family residential short plat, or • Prior to the issuance of a building permit. All of the following charges shall be paid into the Waterworks Utility Construction Fund except that any fees collected under a private Latecomer's Agreement shall be passed on to the holder of the agreement with the appropriate fees paid to the general fund. For the purposes of this section the terms property(ies) or parcel(s) shall mean a lot of record as defined in Chapter 11 of this Title a lot which is part of a subdivision recorded in the office of the County Assessor, or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds or aliguot parts, the description of which has been so recorded in conformance with all applicable regulations in effect at the time of recording. 1. Private Held Latecomer's Fees and Special Assessment District (formerly known as City held Latecomer's) Fees: a. Applicability of Private Held Latecomer's Fee: The City has the discretionary power, as detailed in chapter 9-5 RMC, 'to grant latecomer's agreements to developers and owners for the reimbursement of a pro rata portion of public works facilities (water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water drainage systems, and street improvements including signalization and lighting) they install and turn over to the City. b. Applicability of Special Assessment District Fee: The special assessment charge is a fee that enables the City to recover a pro rata portion of the original costs of public works improvements (water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water drainage systems, and street improvements including signalization and lighting) from the owners of property who would benefit from future connections to, or future users of, improvements to the City's infrastructure that were not installed by LIDs or by a private developer under a latecomer agreement. The imposition, collection, payment and other May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 17 I. .. ... ATTACHMENT#l ... . Only Related to RMC .so and sections of code moved fro~ere (page 10 of memo) .. . . . . specifics concerning these charges are detailed in chapter 9-16 RMC, Special . Assessment Districts. Interest may be charged pursuant to RMC 9-16-6, Payments to City. . . .... . c. Exemptions for Latecomer~s or Spe~ial Assessment Distri~t Fees: i. Segregation of Fees: The City may grant segregation of private developer latecomer's fees or special assessment district fees on large parcels ofland perRMC 4 1 180.1.3 Subsection (C)(3) [MG9]below. ii.· . Relief Due to Two (2) Similar Facilities: The Planning/Building/Public Works. Administrator will consider relieving a parcel of a latecomer's or special assessment district fee/assessment if the property has a benefit from either (but not both) of two (2) similar facilities. The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will make the decision based on engineering and policy decisions as to which facility(s) benefit and/or are utilized by the parcel. The assessment due would be that assoCiated with the utilized facility. If there are no sound engineering or policy reasons that indicate one facility over the other, the City.· shalf give the applicant the choice of facilities to utilize. III. Relief Due to Future Subdivision:. At the time the latecomer's agreeinent or special assessment district is formed, and as a condition of the latecomer's agreement or special assessment district, the City may require that the assessment against a parcel be divided such that a single family residential· connection will be assessed based upon the size of a typical single family residential lot in that area. The remainder of the cost attributed to said site will be due at such time as the parcel develops further either by subdivision or increased density. In the case of a special assessment district, interest will continue to accrue on the remaining portion of the assessment. iv. . Reallocation of Assessment Due to Subdivision of Property: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator will consider realfocation of the latecomer's assessment or the special assessment if a property is subdivided for any purpose other than single family use. Reallocation maybe granted based upon front footage, area, or other equitable means.· Consideration may. be given to adjusting the assessment between the new parcels, based upon value of benefit from the improvements, such that two (2) similar parcels may pay different amounts because one receives more benefit. 2. System Development Charges (SDC) -Water, Wastewater, and Surface Water: The City may hold and charge certain other fees similar to special assessment district charges, which are commonly referred to as "system development charges. " a. Applicability of System Development Charge: The system development charge is hereby imposed against properties and, by inference, the owners of said properties which have not been assessed or charged or borne an equitable share of the .. cost of the City's utility systems. Said property owner(s) shall pay, prior to connection. to or benefit from a City utility or utility facility, the system development charge associated with that utility as detailed in the fees table in subsection 4 1 180.!.2.b (C)(2)(b) [MG 1 Olof this section. A parcel may benefit from a City utility system during the development or redevelopment of the property with or without a connection to an established facility. Therefore, the system developmen-t charge for a utility may be triggered without a physical connection to an existing facility. i. Development of a utility system shall mean: • Development of the Sanitary Sewer System, including but not limited to lift stations, force mains, interceptors and other sewer collection mains. .1 May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 18 • ATTACHMENT #1 _ Only Related to RM C 4-0 an d sections of code moved from Were (page 10 of memo) • Development of the surface water system, including but not limited to retention/detention or water quality facilities, flood hazard reduction improvements, lift stations, force mains, interceptors, and other surface water collection and conveyance systems. • Development of the Water System, including but not limited to wells, pump stations, reservoirs and transmission mains. ii. The phrase "properties, which have not been assessed or charged or borne an equitable share of the cost of the utility, II as used in this Section, shall mean any of the following: • First Time Service Connection or Benefit: Any property which has not paid a system development charge for the property based upon the total square footage of the property and which is connecting to or benefiting from a Renton utility system for the first time (including but not limited to new construction, conversion from private well, or conversion from septic system). • Further Subdivision: Any property which has not paid a system development charge for the property based upon the total square footage of the property and is served or benefited by the utility and is subdividing further for single family usage shall receive a credit for the existing single family residence(s). For example, a five (5) acre parcel with an existing single family house is being subdivided for single family lots. If the existing house is connected to the City sewer and water systems, the development would get credit for one single family system development charge for sanitary sewer, storm water, and water. If the existing house was not connected to the City sewer system, the development would get credit for one single family system development charge for storm water and water. A property subdividing further for single family usage that receives a credit for existing single family residence(s) shall not qualify for prorating of the system development charge under subsection -WG,-ffilH2Hcl.[MG111 • Existing Developments -Water and/or Sanitary Sewer: Property that was developed before the effective date of the first development charge ordinances for water and sanitary sewer in 1974 is exempted from the connection chargers) for water and sanitary sewer. Any rebuilding, change in use or additions to exempted property that does not require additional water usage such that a fire hydrant, additional meter, or larger meter is necessary will not trigger a new system development charge. However, except as provided herein, when property is redeveloped or the use changed or intensified such that larger or additional water meter(s) or the addition of a fire hydrant is necessary, app/ication(s) for these items will trigger the system development chargers). An application for the installation of a meter(s) solely for the purpose of either irrigation or fire protection or the installation of a fire hydrant will trigger a system development charge for water. An application for an additional or a larger water meter(s) for any purpose other than solely for irrigation or fire protection will trigger a system development charge for both water and sewer. Exceptions: The addition of an irrigation meter only for an existing single-family residential dwelling will not trigger a system development charge for water or sewer. May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 19 I '. . '. .' ATTACHMENT #1 ',' . Only Related to RMC 4.80 and sections of code moved fro.ere (page 10'ofmemo) 'If an existing single family residence is being remodeled or rebuilt and remains a single family residence on the same lot (not involved in a new plat, short plat, orlot line adjustment), the addition of a larger or additional meter will not trigger the system development charges for water or sewer. The addition of a second meter to an existing duplex in oider to divide . . consumption for billing purposes will not trigger a system development charge. Existing Developments -Surface Water: Property that was developed before the effective date of the first development charge ordinances for surface (storm) water in 1992 is exempted from the surface water system development charge. The addition. of any new impervious surface to exempted properties will require payment of the system development charge for surface water for the additional new impervious area only. If an exempted property is making a connection forthe first time to a surface water system, it will require payment of the system development charge for surface water only for the impervious area tributary to the point of connection. Any rebuilding, change in use or additions to exempted property that does not create additional impervious surface area or does not cause a first time connection to be made will not require payment of . the system development charge for surface water. Exceptions: Improvements to existing single family residential units such as additions that are less than 500 square feet, decks, small sheds and other minor improvements are exempt from the system developmentcharge for surface water unless a new connection to the Renton surface water utility collection system is proposed or required as part of the permit application. May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 20 .. ATTACHMENT #1 _ Only Related to RMC 4-IIllP~w and sections-of code moved fromWere (page 10 of memo) b. System Development Charge Table: Mobile/Manufactured Homes located in'a mobile home or manufactured home Multi-family $915.00 per dwelling $540.00 per (in all zones except CD unit, (auxiliary buildings unit, (auxiliary -_ and COR zones) like club houses are buildings like club new impervious considered inclusive to houses are considered surfacing, but the development and inclusive to the not less than are not counted as a development and are $715.00 dwelling unit and are not counted as a thus not included in the dwelling unit and. are calculation of the fee) thus not included in the calculation of the fee Mixed Use Mixed use buildings Mixed use buildings $0.249 per (in all zones except CD with over 50% floor with over 50% floor square foot of and COR zones) space used for space used for new impervious residential shall be residential shall be surface, but not assessed at the rate assessed at the rate of less than $915.00 per dwelling $540.00 per dwelling $715.00 unit unit and COR zones $0.213 per gross $0: 126 per gross per square foot of property, square foot of square foot of but not less than property, but not less new impervious $1,525.00 than $900.00 surface, but not less than 715.00 All other uses $0.213 per gross 126 per gross $0.249 per square foot of property, square foot of square foot of but not less than property, but not less new impervious $1,525.00 than $900.00 -surface, but not less than 00 [MG12] c; Prorating the System Development Charge for Redevelopment of Property: An option exists for prorating the system development chargers) for property which has not previously paid a charge in full. Any parcel that currently has water or sanitary sewer service is eligible for a prorated system development charge for the associated utility. i. Prorating based upon meter sizes: The prorated system development charge will be based upon the capacity of the new meters as _ compared to the capacity of the existing meters. Meters installed solely for fire protection, either existing or proposed are not included in the calculation for water or sanitary sewer. If there is an additional _ or larger meter solely for fire flow or additional hydrants required for the proposed development, please refer also to sub-section fif..ii, below. Meters May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 21 I . .. .. ATTACHMENT #1 . . Only Related to RMC 4_80 and sections of code moved fro_e~e ·(~age 10 of memo) · installed solely for irrigation (either existing or proposed) are not included in the calculation for sanitary sewer .. This prorated redevelopment charge is calculated using the following formula: (Proposed meter(s) capacity in gallons per minute (GPM) -Existing meter(s) capacity in GPM] / [Proposed meter(s) capacity in GPM] x [SOC Fee] = Amount owed. . ,..' The City will determine the safe maximum operating capacities of all meter sizes using American Water Works Association tables (see below). The fee paid shall be posted in the. City's database and applied to the total system development charge applicable for the parcel. · Reduction in meter capacity shall not result in a payment from the City to the· applicant. WA TER METER EQUIVALENCIES for purposes of calculating redevelopment credit: . .ii. Prorating the System Development Charge for Fire Protection · Improvements Associated with Redevelopment of Property: . Installation of a water meter solely for a fire protection system, such as a new hydrant or fire sprinkler system shall be charged a fee equal to thirty percent (30%) of the system development charge applicable to the portion of the parcel containing the improvements for which the fire protection system is constructed to seNe. Thirty percent (30%) is the amount the water utility has expended throughout its system for fire flow protection. This fee shall be posted to the City's database and applied as a partial payment to the total system development charge applicable for the parcel. . For th~ purposes o{ this section,. "portion of the parce" containing the improvements for which the fire protection system is constructed to seNe" shall be described as: . The smaller area of either the total square footage of the property or the square· footage of the property designated by a line drawn twenty (20) feet around the footprint of the building being seNed by the meter installed for fire protection. May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 22 .. ATTACHMENT #1 I . Only Related to RMC 4-I'rSO and sections of code moved from ere (page 10 of memo) . . . . ' The smaller area of either the total square footage of the property or the square footage of the property designated by a line drawn twenty (20) feet around the footprint of the building(s) which by their construction, reconstruction or improvement triggered the need for the new fire hydrant(s). "Footprint" shall include the primary building plus ancillary structures such as garages, carports, sheds, etc. that are considered by the Fire Department when calculating fire flow requirements. In the case of multiple improvements, . overlapping areas shall only be counted once. If the "portion of the parcel containing the improvements for which the fire protection system is constructed to serve" is eighty percent (80%) of the parcel or more, then the thirty percent (30%) shall be calculated on the total square footage of the property. If a project both increases water meter capacity and installs a fire protection system, the total of both prorated system development fees (subsections i and ii) would be charged. Payment of said fees would be posted in the City's database and applied to the total system development charge applicable for the parcel. In no case shall the total of the prorated system development chargers) be more than the total system development charge applicable for the parcel. Installation of a water meter solely for a fire protection system shall not trigger a sewer system development fee. III. Prorating the System Development Charge for installation of an Irrigation Meter only: When a water meter is installed solely for the purpose of providing irrigation water for private landscaping (exempt meter), there will be charged a fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the water system development charge applicable to the property. Said fee shall be nonrefundable, nontransferable (from one portion of the property to another). Payment of said fee would be posted in the City's database and applied to the total system development charge applicable for the parcel. At the applicant's option, the full water system development charge may be paid instead of the ten percent (10%) payment described herein. iv. Examples:[MG13] Example 1: A redevelopment project that involves a change from a single family home on a ten thousand (10,000) square foot lot with a five-eighths inch by three-quarter inch meter (5/8" x 3/4", a standard single family meter) that . has a safe operating capacity of twenty (20) gallons per minute (GPM), to a commercial usage with a one and one-half inch (1-1/2'J meter with a safe operating capacity of one hundred (100) GPM can apply to pay for the following prorated charges: (100 GPM-20 GPM)/(100 GPM) = 0.8 For water: 0.8 x (10,000 sq. ft. x $0. 213/sq. ft.) = $1,704.00 For sewer: 0.8 x (10,000 sq. ft. x $0. 126/sq. ft.) = $1,008.00 Without the redevelopment credit, this project would have paid $0. 126/sq. ft. x 10,000 sq. ft. = $1,260.00 for sewer and paid $0. 213/sq. ft. x 10,000 sq. ft. = $2, 130.00 for water. May 13,2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 23 I . A ATTACHMENT #1 .' .... . ... Only Related to RMC 4,,80 and sections of code moved frOlaere (page lOof memo) Example 2: A property owner is planning to redevelop a half acre parcel that includes a single family home with a five-eighths inch by three-quarter inch meter (518" x 314", a standard single family meter) that has a safe operating capacity of twenty (20) GPM. The new development will be an eight (8) unit '. multi-family dwelling with a two inch (2'J meter with a safe operating capacity of one hundred sixty (160) GPM, a three-quarter inch (3/4") irrigation meter with a safe operating capacity of thirty (30) GPM, and a four inch (4'J meter for fire sprinklers, The property owner can apply to pay the following prorated' charges: . For water: based on meters (160 GPM + 30 GPM -20 GPM) 1(160 GPM + 30 GPM) = 89.5% . based on fire service = 30% Total = 119.5% Therefore; 100% of the water system development charge would be due .. f8 units x $915.00/unit = $7,320.00 For sewer: based on meters -irrigation meter excluded (160 GPM -20 GPM) I (160 GPM) = 87.5% Therefore, 87.5% of the sewer system development charge would be due. 87.5% x f8 units x $540.00 I unit = $3,780.00 Without the redevelopment credit, this project would have paid $540.00 I unit x 8 units = $4,320.00. . d. Exemptions to System Development Charge: i. Installation of an Irrigation Meter Solely for the Purpose of Providing Irrigation Water to City Right-of-way: Installation of a water meter solely for the purpose of providing irrigation water to City right-of-way is exempted from the System Development Charge. ii. Exemption for City-Owned Property: No system development charge will be collected on City-owned properties. The benefits to the utility from the use of other City properties such as utility easements, lift stations and other benefits offset the amount of the system development charge. III. Limited Exemptions for Municipal Corporations: A limited exemption to the system development charge will be granted to municipal corporations for portions of property subject to the system development charge to the extent that those specific areas are available and maintained at all times' for public use (e.g., ballfields adjacent to a school building) and shall be . segregated from the fee determination as herein provided. In applying this . 'exemption to the extent possible, a single straight line shall be drawn across the property separating the exempt property from the property to be charged. If a single straight line would not achieve substantial equity, then additional lines . may be drawn to include substantial open space areas in the exemption. For purposes of this exemption, substantial open space areas shall be at least one hundred thousand (100,000) squa;e feet in area. Lines shall not be drawn closer than fifteen feet (15J to any structure. '. Nonexempt Areas: Parking lots, driveways, walkways, similar areas and required landscape areas shall not be part of the exempt area .. • Administrative Fees: The applicanfshall pay the City's administrative costs for the preparation, processing and recording the segregated fee. At May 15, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 . Page 24 · _ ATTACHlVIENT#l A· Only Related to RMC 4-~0 and sections of code moved from.ere (page 10 of memo) the time of application for system development charge segregation the applicant shall pay the administrative fee of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00). . • Restrictive Covenants: The exemption must be memorialized by means of a restrictive covenant running with the land .. Should the property exempted under this Section later develop, then that property shall pay the system development charge in place at the time' of development. •. Interpretation of Partial Payment: The Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall make the final decision on the interpretation of this limited exemption and the achievement of substantial equity. iv. Exemption for Undeveloped Critical Area(s) and Undeveloped Major Easement(s): When calculating· the area to be charged the system development charge, undeveloped critical areas (per RMC 4-11-030) and undeveloped major easements within the property shall not be included in the square footage for the calculation of the charge. It is the responsibility of the property owner or applicant to submit ~ study determining and classifying the critical area .. The property owner or applicant shall submit a legal description of anyeasement(s) or critical area(s) so that these portions of the property can be exempted from the development chargers). The intent of this exemption is to not charge property that is undevelopable. If the property is used or can be used to satisfy any condition of the development such as parking or landscaping, it shall be considered developed and does not meet the qualifications of this exemption. v. Exemption Credit for Regional Improvements: If an applicant's project proposes to solve a regional drainage problem, over and above the requirements to mitigate their project's impacts, the value of the additional improvement shall be credited toward the surface water system development charges due. The applicant must provide the Administrator of the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works with the costs of the drainage improvements and a suggested method of calculating the costs due to the extra work done to solve a regional drainage problem. The Administrator will make the final decision on the amount of the credit. In no instance shall the credit duplicate a latecomer's agreement such that the applicant will be paid twice, nor may the credit against the connection charge exceed the connection charge (i.e., no payment to the applicant under this Sect~on). .. vi. Surface Water Exemption forlrifiltration Facility: Developments which infiltrate or contain on site one hundred percent (100%) of the on-site storm water runoff volume from a one hundred (100) year storm are exempt from the surface water system development charge. For the application of this credit, the owner/developer must use the current design criteria to show that the infiltration facility will infiltrate all of the volume of runoff produced from the site during the one hundred (100) year storm. If a development that is granted an exemption under this section discharges water offsite during a hundred year storm or less, the development shall be required to make corrections or improvements to the onsite system such that it will infiltrate up to the hundred year storm. If, in the future, the development can no longer infiltrate one hundred percent (100%) of the on-site storm water runoff from a one hundred (100) year storm, the systems development charge shall be due and payable as a condition ofthe connection to or utilization of the City's storm water system. May 13,2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 25 .. .' ATTACHMENT #1 ...... ..' Only Related to RMC 4_80 and sections of code moved froaere(page 10 of memo) Nothing in this section shall relieve the property owner(s) from complying with the City's current flow control and water quality treatment standards at the time the development converts fromone-hundred percent (100%) infiltration to use of the City storm system. When a development is converted from one hun.dred percent (100%) infiltration to use of the City storm system, the storm water management standards used shall consider the existing conditions prior to the property being developed under the one hundred percent (100%) infiltration exemption and the developed conditions at the time the conversion is made. There may be certain areas within the City that partially or completely prohibit the use of infiltration facilities. If a current or future code or standard prohibits or limits the use of infiltration facilities to any level below the one hundred (100) year storm, the development will not qualify for this exemption. 3. Segregation Criteria and Rules: Except for parcels being developed for single family use,· the ability exists for the segregation of system development, special assessment district, and latecomer's charges in the partial . development of a large parcel of property. ThIS segregation shall be based on the following criteria and rules: a. Segregation by Plat or Short Plat: Charges shall be determined on the basis of the specific piatted properties being developed regardless of the parcel size. Unplatted or large-platted parcels may be platted or short-platted prior to development, . in which case the system development charge wiII be applied to the specific platted lots being developed. . . b. Segregation by Administrative Determination: For the partial development of a large tract of property the owner may apply for a segregation of the system development, special assessment district, and latecomer's chargers) for the specific portion of tf?e properly to be developed .. The burden of establishing the segregation by legal description, number of units, and map would be on the party owing the fee and not the City. The following criteria shall determine the segregation of fees: i. . Provisions: This provision shall apply to all developments with the exception of single family residential and mobile home developments. When a parcel is segregated by administrative determination, prorating of the system development charge for redevelopment shall not be allowed. ii. Segregation of Fees: The segregation of fees shall be by formal, written agreement, including a legal description approved by the City, which shall be recorded as a restrictive covenant running with the land. The restrictive covenant shall list the percentage of the system development charge fee that has been paid for the property .. The applicant shall also include a detailed plan, drafted to current adopted City standards, of the proposed development, which shall include the proposed boundary line, as described in the legal description, for the system development charge determination . . '. . III. Segregated Areas: Minimum size of area segregated for determination and payment of system development chargers) shall be two (2) acres. The segregated area shall include; but not be limited to, all contiguous. existing developed land for which the system development charge(s)·havenot been paid; all proposed buifdings; driveways and sidewalks; parking areas; grass and landscape areas; public access areas; storm drainage facilities and detention ponds; and improvements required for mitigation of environmental impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The boundary line for the segregation of system development charge shall be established by . survey and legal description and shall not be closer than fifteen feet (15J to any structure. May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 26 • . ATTACHMENT #1 a Only Related to RlVIC 4-0 and sections of code moved fromWere (page 10 of memo) iv. . Remnant Parcel: Minimum size of the remnant parcelof undeveloped property for which the system development charge is deferred shall be two (2) acres. Should the property partially paid for under this Section later develop, then that property shall pay the system development charge fee in place at the time of development. Should the propertyparfially paid for under this Section later be subdivided, then the partial payment credit shall run with the subdivided lots. The burden of establishing that the partial payment has been made would be on the party owing the fee and not on the City. v. Determination of Charge: The system development charge shall be determined on the basis of the percentage of a property that is developed (existing development plus proposed development). When a proposed development takes a parcel over the threshold of full development, as described in this Section, one-hundred percent (100%) of the systems development chargers) is owed and any balance is due and payable. vi. Full Development: For the purpose of this Code, "full development" is considered to be sixty percent (60%) property coverage for multi-family development and eighty percent (80%) property coverage for commercial, industrial, mixed use, and all other development. "Property coverage" is defined as the portion of the property supporting buildings, driveways and sidewalks, parking areas, grass and landscape areas, public access areas, storm drainage facilities and detention ponds, and improvements required for mitigation of environmental impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). vii. Developed Area: The "developed area" shalllnciude, but not be limited to, all contiguous existing developed land for which the system development charges have not been paid: all existing and proposed buildings, driveways and sidewalks, parking areas, grass and landscape areas, public access areas, storm drainage facilities and detention ponds, and improvements required for mitigation of environmental impacts. VIII. Administrative Fees: The applicant shall pay the City's administrative costs for the preparation, processing and recording of the partial payment of the fee(s). At the time of application for systemdeveiopment charge partial . payment the applicant shall pay the administrative fee of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) for each segregation. If the same segregation is used for more than one utility's system development charge, than only one administrative fee is· collected. ix. Interpretation: The Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall make the final decision on interpretation of the partial payment of system development charges. [NEW SECTION) 4-9-075: FRANCHISE PERMITS A. APPLICABILITY Utilities providing service within the City of Renton (Cable TV. cable modem. natural gas. telecommunications[MG14]. and electrical) shall do so under approved agreement with the City. If. for any reason. a utility is allowed to provide service within the City of Renton without an approved agreement with the City. they shall be subject to the permitting requirements of this section. B. FRANCHISE PERMIT REQUIRED Construction by one of these utilities within rights of way. easements. and on public property is subject to a permit. May l3, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 27 . . . . ATTACHMENT #1. ... . . Only Related to RMC .SO and sections of code movedfroaere (pageJO of memo) C. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FEES 1. FEES: Fees shall be stipulated in RMC 4~1-180A.·· 2. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Submittal requirerrients shail be stipulated bv the Development Services Division. NEW DEFINTION IN 4-11-200 DEFINITIONS T: . . TELECOMMUNICATIONS: The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. May I), 2003, With Amendments December 8,2004 Page 28 May 13, 2003, With Amendments December 8, 2004 Page 29 Page:.4 . . [MGI] A comment was made in May 2003 that the person responsible for Title IV interpretation should be the Development Services Director instead ofPBPW Administrator as that is the common case now. However, based on additional Staff review, it was agreed that the PBPW Administrator should be charged with this task. Depending on if it is a code section from Utilities or Development Services, the appropriate section leader can be directed by the Administrator tomake the interpretation. Page: 4 . [MG2] Comments from Development Services Division recommended keeping Zoning Administrator duties from "D" below since the Zoning Administrator duties are still performed by the Development Services Division Principal Planner. Page: 5 [MG3] See Section A.2. Page: 6 [MG4] Development Services Director is the correct title, and that position is responsible for Title IV code enforcement today. Page: 9 [MGS] The original proposal was going to delete energy code fees which were then deleted by Ordinance 5085, 6-21-04. Page: 10 [16] This paragraph was recently amended to apply to multifamily of four units or more, and also extended to the date of October 1,2007 through Ord. 5095 in September 2004. Staff recommenq.s the ability to "replenish" other fees such as system development charges or plan review fees in addition to mitigation fees. Page: 13 [MG71Increased from $60.00 to $120.00 based on Ord. 5013,6-23-03. Page: 15 [MG8] New street light fee code from Ordinance 5017,8-18-03. Page: 18 [MG9] Amend reference since code is being reorganized. Page: 18 .[MGIO] Amend reference since code is being reorganized. Page:.19 . .' [MGlI] Amend reference since code is being reorganized. Page: 21 [MGl2] Table of system development charges updated per Drd. 5040, 11-24-03 . . Page: 23 [MGI3] Example fees updated per Ord. 5040, 11-24-03. Page: 27 [MGl4] Definition of Telecommunications recommended by the City Attorney. DOCKET ITEM TITLE 4, CHAPTER 1 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PURPOSE The City entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the Issaquah School District in 1999 to collect impact fees for the portion of the City in the School District.· Concurrently, the City prepared an ordinance to codify an impact fee process consistent with State law. Because the City lies within a small portion of the Issaquah School District, and because most of the growth inducing school improvements are occurring in other parts of the District (at schools that Renton area students do not attend), the City reviews the Issaquah School District Capital Facility Plan to determine the benefit that Renton area students would receive and has adjusted the impact fee to be smaller than the standard District-wide rate. As part of an effort to reduce and streamline Title 4, the Title 4 Docket includes a request to shorten the existing Issaquah School District Impact Mitigation Fee section in Section 4-1-160. The Docket item is also intended to set up a framework within which future amendments could be made to convert fire, parks and transportation SEPA mitigation fees to impact fees should the City pursue this approach. DESCRIPTION The attached proposal is presented in track change and "revisions accepted" formats. The proposal would consolidate 14 subsections into five subsections, and remove provisions that are more suitable for the Interlocal Agreement or appear unnecessary. In particular, the proposal would: • Streamline the subsections into the following five topics: purpose/authority/applicability/exemptions; fee calculations; fee adjustments; administration; and appeals. • Eliminate most definitions because few are actually used, and those terms that are used are presented with sufficient context in the body of the code. The exception is that the definition of "encumbered" would be moved to RMC 4-11 Definitions. • Eliminate or "move" School District administration type provisions to the InterJocal Agreement. These include provisions that specify the District should calculate fees for different unit types, how the funds may be used to repay bonds, and other provisions. • Eliminate or "move" City administration provisions not typically codified such as at what pOint fees would be transferred, an administration cost, how often the fee schedule will be reviewed, and the City's non-responsibili~y if it fails to collect fees. • VI. Modification: No changes or modifications of this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such changes or modifications are in writing and executed by both parties. VII. Integration: This Agreement, together with the school impact fee ordinance, contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to bind either party. By rewriting some Code provisions to be briefer and by removing provisions or "moving" some provisions to the Interlocal Agreement, it appears the Mayor would need to be authorized to amend the Interlocal Agreement, and the Council would need to approve the proposed code amendments by ordinance. December 8, 2004 Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department • TheS~hool District has provided more recent information for the Comprehensive Plan C~pital Facility Element. This may result in a need for an alternative impact fee to be included in the proposed code . . RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed code amendments are recommended as attached. Related to the issues identified above: • Upon concurrence of the approach by the City and School· District, a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an amended Interlocal Agreement, and an Ordinance containing the attached RMC amendments, can be reviewed. by Council Committee as appropriate. These items would be presented to the· City Council as a whole for approval. The Mayor would then sign the Interlocal Agreement. . - • The Strategic Planning Staff will be reviewing the fee amount separately from the proposal for the . "streamlined" code. Any recommendations on revising the fee will be made through that separate effort, as appropriate .. The fee amount modification, if any, would consist of a brief code amendment. December 8, 2004 Page 2 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Proposal with Revisions Accepted . Chapter 4-1: ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 4-1-160 SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEES: A. PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, APPLICABILITY, AND EXEMPTIONS: 1. PURPOSE: It is the intent of this Section to: a. Ensure that adequate school facilities are available to serve new growth and development, b. Ensure that new growth and development will pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and c. Establish a procedure and criteria so that specific developments will pay reasonable and legally appropriate fees and not pay duplicate fees for the same impact. 2. AUTHORITY: This section is adopted under RCW 82.02.050(2) which authorizes cities planning under the Growth Management Act, primarily codified at Chapter 36. iOA RCW and Chapter 82.02 RCW, to assess, collect, and use impact fees to pay for school and other facilities needed to accommodate growth. The City of Renton is required to plan under the Growth Management Act and has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, which includes a Capital Facilities Element that complies with RCW 36.70A.070(3), RCW 82.02.050(4), and all other applicable requirements. Consequently, the City of Renton is authorized to impose, collect, and use impact fees. a. Capital Improvement Plans: The Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan has been adopted by reference in RMC 4-4-030.B. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes impact mitigation fee requirements for these improvements. 3. APPLICABILITY: a~ Issaquah School District Mitigation Fees: All residential building permits for properties located within the City of Renton within the Issaquah School District Boundary depicted in Subsection A.3.b. are subject to the school impact fees listed in Subsection B.1 unless specifically exempted by Subsection AA. b. Issaquah School District Boundary Map: December 8, 2004 3 Proposal with Revisions Accepted ("Clean") I Issaquah School District within Renton City Limits and PAA ----Rentoo City limits -.-.-Rentoo PM Sct:r411ry i'@'#t'};lJ, lssaquat}&hool Dislrictin Renion andPAA 4. ,. EXEMPTIONS: The following shall be exempt from payment of school impact mitigation fees: December 8, 2004 4 Proposal with Revisions Accepted (·Clean") a. Dwelling Unit Additions and Renovations: The alte~ation,exp'ansion', enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation, or conversion of an existing dwelling unit or units where no additional units are created. b. Dwelling Unit Replacement: The replacement of the same number of dwelling units at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within twelve (12) months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure(s}. c. Senior Housing: Any form of housing exclusively for persons aged sixty-two (62) years of age or older, including nursing homes and retirement centers, so long as these are maintained in perpetuity and the necessary covenants or declarations of restrictions are recorded on the property to ensure that no children will reside in the development without payment of the school impact fees in effect at the time of conversion. d. Activities Which Have Already Paid School Environmental Mitigation' Fees: Any development activity that is exempt from the payment of an impact fee pursuant to RCW 82.02.100, due to the mitigation of the same system improvement under the State Environmental Policy Act. B. FEE CALCULATIONS: 1 • .FEE AMOUNT: The fee for each non-exempt dwelling unit is $2,937.00 2. TIMING OF PAYMENT: The applicable fee shall be payable prior to issuance of a building permit. [EClit~Si1$:c)i!: Standardizes time of payment language.] 3. FEE CALCULATIONS: Fees shall be calculated as follows: a. The District shall calculate impact fees in accordance with RCW 82.02 and based on its' adopted Capital Facility Plan. b. TheCity Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection,~s it sees fit, to take into account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price differentials throughout the District in the '. cost of new housing, school occupancy levels, and the percent of the District's Capital Facilities Budget which wi~1 be exeended locally. Any changes to the standard fee collected shall be made by legislation. [§.ElitOrg,slS9~: See B.1. Added requiremert to adopt new fees 'by legislation to avoid confusion with Section C, which addresses case-by-case adjustments.] C. FEE .ADJUSTMENTS 1. APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR FEE ADJUSTMENT~: a. When permissible: Impact fees may be paid under protest, in order to obtain a permit or other approval of development activity. After the City has collected school mitigation fees, the ~ may ~~l~II~~J>~ion.of th~ assessed school impa~t fee~if the Applicant. can demonstrate to the ~lt!~ali1<J"E>lst!;Jeijs. satisfaction that one of the follOWing circumstances eXist: i. The school impact fee was incorrectly assessed; or . ii. Unusual and/or unique circumstances identified by the Applicant result in the application of the standard impact fee amount being unfair, unjust, or unlawful. b. Data: An applicant may provide s.tudies and data to demonstrate that any particular factor used by the District may not be appropriately applied to the development proposal, but the District's data shall be presumed valid unless clearly demonstrated to be otherwise by the applicant. The applicant shall pay for the cost of the studies al')d.data, and must demonstrate to the ti.~ ~jsliG1i§ satisfaction that the discount fails to adjust for the error in the fee. December 8,2004 5 Proposal with Revisions Accepted ("Clean") I . c. Process: Requests for fee adjustments shall follow the process for an appeal of the underlying 'development application pursuant to Section RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. The District shall provide . staffing and legal assistance for such an appeal. d. Appeals of Decision of Hearing Examiner: For Appeals of Decisions of the Hearing Examiner, see RMC 4-8~110,Appeals. 2. FEE WAIVERS: The City Council may, at its discretion, exempt specific projects from the requirements of this Section. However, in doing so, the City then accepts the financial obligation of the fees that would have been paid, and the City ,must meet the requirements of this Section. 3.REFUND OF FEES: a. When possible: In the following cases, impact fees are refundable: i. Fees Not' Expended: The current owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if the impact fees have not been expended or encumbered within six (6) years of the receipt of funds by the City, unless the Council identifies in written findings extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the District to hold the fees beyond the Six-year period [RCW 82.02.070(3)]. The District may petition the Council for an extension of the time period by setting forth the reason(s) in its petition. In determining whether impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis. ii. No School Impact Has Resulted: An Applicant may request and shall receive a refund when the Applicant does not proceed to finalize the development activity as . required by statute or City Code or the City's adopted Building Code and no impact on . the Issaquah School District has resulted. "Impacf shall be deemed to include cases where the District has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a refund. In the event that the District has expended or encumbered the fees in good faith, no refund shall be forthcoming. However, if within a period of three (3) years of refund application, the same or substantially the same development activity is again submitted for building permits, the owner shall be eligible for a credit. The current owner must petition the City and provide receipts of impact fees paid by the owner for the development of the same or substantially similar nature on the same property or portion thereof. The City shall determine whether to grant such credit, and such determinations may be appealed by following the procedures set forth in Subsection C.1.c and d above. b. . Refund Request Timing ancl Process: An owner's request for a refund must be submitted to the District in writing within one (1) year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever date is later. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees. Interest dues upon the refund of school impact fee~ shall be calculated according to the average rate received by the City or District on invested funds throughout the period during which the fees were retained and paid by the governmental entity controlling the funds and receiving ttie interest. 4. POSSIBLE DISTRICT CREDIT FOR PREVIOUS SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION: If the Issaquah School District makes a determination in writing pursuant to the 1999'City of Rentonllssaquah School District Interlocal Agreement, the following projects are eligible for credit or partial credit by the Issaquah School Districttoward the required school impact mitig<;ition fees provided the applicant's request to the District is made within 20'calendar'days of submission of an application for a building permit. . . . .. . . . a. Projects with Preliminary Approval: 'Any development activity for which school. impacts have been mitigated by the payment of fees, dedication of land, or construction or improvement of school facilities pursuant toa land development application, such as a preliminary plat, prior to ~~iPptifi1ro.1)t9:S:~ the effective date of this Section unless the terms of December 8,2004 6 . Proposal with Revisions Accepted ("Clean") the land use approval provide otherwise. [~it!DltsWl~1l1:if~: Need to confirm date. The shaded date is consistent with the original code adoption of Ord. 4808.] ~ b. Projects with Pre-existing School District.Agreements: Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated by the payment of fees, dedication of land, or construction or improvement of school facilities pursuant to a volu.ntary agreement entered into with the District prior to November 10, 1999, the effective date of this Section unless the terms of the land use approval provide otherwise. 5. CREDITS FOR OTHER FACILITIES OR LAND: An applicant can request that a credit or credits be awarded by the District for the value of dedicated land, improvements, or construction provided by the developer, provided the applicant's request to the District is made within 20 calendar days of submission of an application for a building permit. The District shall determine the suitability of the land, facilities or improvements, the consistency with the Capital.Facilities Plan, and the appraisal value. The District shall forward its determination to the City, as to whether the District determines that the dedicated land, improvements, and/or construction are or are not suitable for District purposes. The District's determination to grant a credit or credits shall specify tDe time period within which the applicant must sign the letter or certificate committing to the provision of dedicated land, improvements, or construction. 6. SPECIAL FEE FOR PROJECTS APPROVED BY KING COUNTY: For projects that have received preliminary approval from the County and that have already paid any part of the King County-permitted Issaquah School District fee through King County, the remainder of the County's school impact fees, shall be assessed and collected from the lot owner prior to building permit issuance. If no payment was made through King County, then the entire Renton-permitted Issaquah School District impact fee, will be due and payable prior to issuance of building permits. 7. TERMINATION OF IMPACT FEE PROGRAM: Should the City seek to terminate any or all school impact fee requirements, all unexpended or unencumbered funds, including interest earned, shall be refunded to the current owner of the property for which a school impact fee was paid. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the City shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) times, and shall notify all potential claimants by first-class mail addressed to the owner of the property as shown in the King County property tax records. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the City, but must be expended for. the District, consistent with the provisions of this Section. The notice requirement set forth above shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within the account or accounts being terminated. D. ADMINISTRATION: 1. SPECIAL ACCOUNTS: a. City: For administrative convenience while processing the fee payments, school impact fees may be initially deposited in the City account known as the "School Impact Fee Fund," with interest earned retained by the District. As soon as advisable, the City shall deposit the school impact fees collected for the District in the District's School Impact Fee Account. b. District: The District shall establish a School Impact Fee Account with the Office of the King County Treasurer, who serves as the Treasurer for the District. The Account shall be an interest- bearing account, and the school impact fees received shall be prudently invested in a manner consistent with the investment policies of the District. 2. ANNUAL REPORTS: Annually, the City shall provide accounting records to the District. The District shall prepare an annual report on school impact fees showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned or received, and capital or system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. December 8, 2004 7 Proposal with Revisions Accepted ("Clean") 3. PERMITTED USES OF FUNDS: The fee shall be collected and spent only for public facilities defined i~ HCW 82.02.090 which are addressed by a Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, or a school district capital facilities plan adopted byreference in RMC 4-4-030.8. 4. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Fees in the impact fee account shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six years of receipt unless there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for the fees to be held longer than six years and then only by written findings by the City Council [RCW 82.02.070(3)]. The District may petition the Council for an extension of the six (6) year period and the District set forth any such extraordinary or compelling reason or reasons in its petition. Where the Council identifies the reason or reasons in written findings, the Council shall establish the period of time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered, after consultation with the District. 5. REFUND OF UNEXPENDED FEES: The current owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if the City fails to expand or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or such other time as established by the City Council. In determining whether impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall be encumbered on a first in, first out basis. Any notices to any potential claimant shall be mailed by first class mail to the last known address of t!1e claimant. Any claim for a refund must be submitted to the City Council in writing within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. Any fee for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period shall be retained and expended on the indicated capital facilities. Refunds of impact fees shall include interest earned on the impact fees. . . E. APPEALS: See RMC 4-8-110 for appeal process. CHAPTER 4-4: CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4-4-030 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS -GENERAL: B. ADOPTION BY REFERENCE The goals, objectives, and policies as set forth in the following documents and related studies or documents are presently in force or as modified from time to time are hereby incorporated by reference· and shall be considered as if fully set forth herein: . . Cedar River Master Plan Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Green River Valley Plan Fire Department Master Plan Airport Master Plan King County Stormwater Management Manual Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan Comprehensive Water System Plan Long Range Wastewater Management Plan· King County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Shoreline Master Program King County Solid Waste Management Plan Countywide Planning Policies Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan December 8,2004 8 Proposal with Revisions Accepted ("Clean") . Street Arterial Plan Traffic Mitigation Resolution and Fee Parks Mitigation Resolution and Fee Fire Mitigation Resolution and Fee Comprehensive Plan The 1998 Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan CHAPTER 4-11: Definitions ENCUMBERED: to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities. December 8~ 2004 9 Proposal with Revisions Accepted ("Clean") I '. ' . . SECTIONS TO ADD TO THE INTERLOcAL AGREEMENT AND GENERALL YREMOVE (OR . . . SHORTEN) FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: . District Responsibilities 1. Separate fees shall be calculated for single family and multi-family dwelling units: and separate student generation rates must be determined by the District for each type of dwelling unit. For purposes of this the ·Interlocal Agreement and RMC 4-1-160, mobile homes shall be treated as single family dwelling units and duplexes shall be treated as multi-family dwelling units. 2. The fee calculations shall be made on a district-wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all school facilities in the District currently used for instructional purposes. 3. The formula in Attachment A to ~jdCfnraihc:eT4~ provides a credit for the anticipated tax contributions that would be made by the development based on historical levels of voter support for bond issues in the District. 4. The District may provide a credit for school sites or facilities actLially provided by an applicant which the District finds to be acceptable as provided for in RMC 4-1-160. 5. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for the advanced provision of capital· facilities for which impact fees may be expended and where consistent with the provisions of the bond· covenants, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of the Interlocal Agreement and RMC 4-1-160. . City of Renton Responsibilities 1. Impact fee receipts shall be initially deposited into a City fund as identified in RMC 4-1-160.D. When sufficient funds have accumulated to make transfer of those funds to the District advisable, the Finance and Information Services Department shall make such transfer. Such funds shall be transferred not less than quarterly, if the balance in the fund is more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). Impact fee· . receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in a special interest-bearing account established by . the District solely for the District's school impact fees as provided for in RMC 4-1-160.0. All interest shall . be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes identified in RMC 4-1-160.D. Annually, the City shall provide accounting records to the District and the District shall prepare a report on school impact fees showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned or received, and .. capital or system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. 2. The City shall retain five percent (5%) of all fees collected to pay for its costs in administering this Section. . 3. The fee schedule established in RMC 4-1-160 shall be reviewed and updated by the Council on an annual basis after the Council receives the District's Plan and data required under subsection 12 above. The review may occur in conjunction with the annual update of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. . 4. The City will use its best efforts to collect such fees during its ordinary administrative process, such fees as are due under this Section and consistent with the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the District, as that Agreement may be amended from time to time, but shall not be responsible to the District for failure to collect such fees. . December 8, 2004 10 Proposal with Revisions Accepted ("Clean") Proposal with Track Changes Revisions' Chapter 4-1: ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 4-1-160 SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEES: A. F·IN'[}INGS-PURPOSE. AND-AUTHORITY. APPLICABILITY. AND EXEMPTIONS: 1. PURPOSE: It is the intent of this Section to: a. Ensure that adequate school facilities are available to serve new growth and development, b. Ensure that new growth and development will pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and c. Establish a procedure and criteria so that specific developments will pay reasonable and legally appropriate fees and not pay duplicate fees for the same impact. 2. AUTHORITY: This section is adopted under RCW 82.02.050(2) which authorizes cities planning under the Growth Management Act, primarily codified at Chapter 36.70A RCW and Chapter 82.02 RCW, to assess, collect, and use impact fees to pay for school and other facilities needed to accommodate growth. The City of Renton is required to plan under the Growth Management Act and has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, which includes a Capital Facilities Element that complies with RCW 36.70A.070(3), RCW 82.02.050(4), and all other applicable requirements. Consequently, the City of Renton is authorized to impose, collect. and use impact fees. . a. Capital Improvement Plans: The Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan has been adopted by reference in RMC 4-4-030.8. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes impact mitigation fee requirements for these improvements. 3. . APPLICABILITY: " . a. Issaquah School District Mitigation Fees: All residential building permits for properties .Iocated within the City of Renton within the Issaquah School District Boundary depicted in Subsection A.3.b. are subject to the school impact fees listea in Subsection B.1 unless . specifically exempted by Subsection A.4. . . b. Issaquah School District Boundary Map: December 8.2004 11 Proposal. Track Change .e . Issaqyah School District within Renton . City Limits and PAA . . _--R$fItoo City limits . -.~.-Renton PM SouMary ~"'iillssBqullh SchoolOis1rtct In Remon aod·PAA . 4. EXEMPTIONS: The following shall be exempt from payment of school impact mitigation fees: December 8, 2004 12 Proposal, Tr~ck Change a. Dwelling Unit Additions and Renovations: The alteration. expansion, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation, or conversion of an existing dwelling unit or units where no additional unit's are created. . b. Dwelling Unit Replacement: The replacement of the same number of dwelling units at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within twelve (12) months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure(s). c. Senior Housing: Any form of housing exclusively for persons aged sixty-two (62) years of age or older. including nursing homes and retirement centers, so long as these are maintained in perpetuity and the necessary covenants or declarations of restrictions are recorded on the property to ensure that no children will reside in the development without payment of the school impact fees in effect at the time of conversion. d. Activities Which Have Already Paid School Environmental Mitigation Fees: Any development activity that is exempt from the payment of an impact fee pursuant to RCW 82.02.100. due to the mitigation of the same system improvement under the State Environmental Policy Act. The City Council of the City of Renton (the "Council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and development in the City of Renton will create additional demand and need for school facilities in the Issaquah School District. and the Council finds that new growth and development should pay a ;:2;;~:t?i.share of ;he cost of new-fac#ities needed to serve the newgrO'.¥th and development. .lto.es.Nete. See A.1 Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the Council adopts this Section to assess school impact fees for the Issaquah School District. The provisions of this Section shall be liberally construed in order to carry . out the purposes of the CotIflcil in estabJ.is~the school impact fee program. IlfdllQ'rtSiil§iotEl See A.21 8. DliFINITIONS: . . lB;ait~!llt&t~: Most definitions are not used in the original code or in the proposed code;. Those that are used are adequately used in context. The term "Encumbered" is probosed for inclusion in RMC 4-11. Definitions, which is the preferred location for definitions in Title 4.1 . The following ' .... ords and terms shall have the follo'+'ving meanings for the purposes of this Section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCYV82.02.090, or given their usual and customary meaning. 1. "Capital Facilities Plan" means the District's Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the. School Board consJsting of: . . a. A forecast of future needs for school facilities based on the District's enrollment projections;" b. The long range construction and capital improvements projects of the District; c. The schools under construction OF expansion; d. The proposeG-locatioRs-a~itj.e.s-tlf.·exp3Reed or new school facilitiesi e. At least a six (6) year Financing Plan Component, updated as necessary to maintain at least a six-f61 yeaF-forecast period, for fiRaRGiAg-ReoGetl-schoet-facilities within projected funding levels. and ident~ SQtIfGOS of financing for such purposes,--j.nGIuei~ond issues authorized by the votefS-3Re-projocteG bantHssue~etl-by..tl::te-vatef&j-aR6 f:-Any--Gther-lOf\~e-projOGt£-f)laflneG-by-th-e-D+str~Gh 2. "City'-'-means the City of Ren-taA,-King-Gatln-ty,Wasl::ti~ December 8,2004 13 Proposal, Track Change ~1as-sfOOffi&:-me3R-S-eStlsatiOOal-facilfties-Gf...tJqe-Q.j.strict required to house students for its basic · eGI:lGatiGFl31-f)f09r..a~e-Glass-rooFfls-afe-tt:lese-faGllj.ties-the-G-is-tr~Gt-GeteFffii.nes-afe-BecessaFy-te-l:test · s-ewe-its-stl:tseflt-popt!latjelt-SpeGi~G-faGllilies-as-iGeAti:ffeG-By the District, inGJ.utHA9-0I:tt-rlet-Jjmj.teG-to ~JYffinasil:tffiS;-Gafeteria&;-+ISrarle5-;-aoffiiflj.s-trative-ef:fices, ans chiJ.G-care centers,s-hall not be countee-as GIas-sroom& . · 4. "Construction-Gest Per Stu sent" Ffleans the estimates cost of construction of a perFflanent school facility in the District for the gfaGe span of school to be provised,as.a function of the District's desigR · s-taRsard peF-§raGe-span and taking into accouRt-tt:le-reEttJirements of students with special neess . . 5. "Design Standard" Ffleans the space required, by grade span, ans taking into account the requireFflents of students with special neess, which is needed.in order to fulfill the educational goals of the District as ideRtified in the District's Capital Facilities Plan. ' . 6. "Developer" Ffleans the person or entity who o,,\'ns or holds purchase options or other developFflent control over property for which sevelopFflent activity is proposed. 7. "DevelopFflent Activity" Fflean~ any residential construction or expansion of a'suilding, structure or use; any change in use of a buiiding or structure; or any change in the I:Ise of land that creates additional deFfland for school facilities.' . . 8. "District" Ffleans the Issaquah School District No. 411, King County, \lIJashington. 9. "Elderly" Ffleans a person aged Sixty hvo (62) or oiGef:. 10. "EncuFflbered" Ffleans to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earFflark theiFflpact fees in order to pay for cOFflFflitments. contractual obligations. or other liabilities incurred for public facilities. . 11. "Fee Schedule" Ffleans the schedule setforth as l\ttachFflent B to Ordinance 4808 indicating the standard fee aFflount per d' .... elling unit that shall be paid as a condition of residential developFflent I.'/ithin · the City. . . . . . 12. "Grade Span" Ffleans the categories into which a District groups its grades of students. i.e., eieFflentary school, Ffliddle or junior high school. and high school. . 1 a. "Interlocal AgreeFflent" Ffleans the interloGal agreeFflent by and between the City of Renton and the Issaquah School District as authorized in subsection I of this Section. . 14. <lperFflanent Facilities" ,Ffleans the facilities of the Dist~ict ' .... ith a fixed foundation which are not relocatable facilities ... . . 15. <lRelocatable Facility" Ffleans any fabtory built structure, transportable in one or more sections, that is Ges-igned to be used as an educ(3tion space and is needed to prevent the overbuilding of school facilities te-meet the needs of service areas within the District, or to cover the gap bePNeen the tiFfle that faFflilies Ffl()'Je into new residential. deve\.epFflents and the. date that construction is cOFflpleted on perFflanent school facilities. '. . 16. <lRelocatable Facilities Cost Per St~dentn means the estiFflated' cost of purcfl.asi.ng and siting a relocatable facility.in the District-fer the grade span of school to be provided, as a function of the District's . desigfl--Staoo3rG-p8F-§rade-span, and-taki-R9~euHt.tf:l.e-reqtHreFflents of stUdents with::speGiaHleed&. . ~te-Ge6t-P.eF-Student" FHeaRS-the estimated cost of a site in the4Ji.striGt-fof...the grade span of school to--Ge--proviGeG,-as-a function of the-Q.i.strict's deSign standard peF-§rade span, and taking into account the · req u ireFflems-of-s.tu gents wHfl.-s-peGia1-fleed&. . . ~tanoard-ef-Service" rneans-tt:le-staooard adopted by the District wflicMdeRtifie~ tt:le-Glass-sioz.e-by-§faoe-sFlan,aml-tnkfR{}-fnte-accew'}t--tt:le-reqttireFf!ents-ef-.s-ttldeflts-with special needs, December 8, 2004 14 . Proposal, Track Change · . ffio-rH;.Iffibef-GklassFOam s, the-tYf)os-ef...faGilffie.s...t.Ae-Q+stfi.GW;)oJ.ieves-wi-l-l-best serve its--sttlGoA-t-f)of)watioo, aHd-Gther---faGtors-as-kioA-tifieG-by-lhe-Q.istfiGb--The-Gl+stfict's sta ooafti-Gke rvice sha II n ot-bo-adjusteG40r an-y-pOFtioA--of-tJ:te-GlasSFOOffis4=lOI:J.Se€HA-feJ.ocatable-faGililios-which are used as lransitional-faGil.itie&-oF-fof aA-y-sf)oGialj.ced-faGi-lities-OOu.sed:..fn-f8l.ocatabJe...faGiJ.iti~XGopt-as-otJ:torwise defined by the SBR~ard f)u-rsuaA-t-t-o-a-BoarG-resokffien, "transitional facilities" shall mean those facilities that are used to cover the time required for the construction of permanent facil+ties; provided, that the Qistrict has the necessary fiA.aA.Gial commitments in place to coffif)lete the permano~ed for in the Capital Facilities Plan. 19. "Student Factor" means the number deri'ied by the-Qistrict to describe how many students of each §F36e-span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit. Student factors shall be based on Qistrict records of average actual student generation rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation; provided, that if such information is not available in the District, data from adjacent districts, districts with similar demographics, or county\."ide averages may be used. Student factors must be separately determined for single family and multi family dwelling units, and for grade spans. . G..-lMPACT FEE-PROGRAM EbEME~ 2. The impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to the impact caused by the development and shall not exceed a pr.eportionate-s~st of system improvements that are reasonably related to the development. r~ltO'f~: See B.3, reasonable relationship is basic part of RCW 82.02.] . 3. The impact fee shall be based on a Capital Facilities Plan developed by the District and appro>/ed by the School Board, and adopted by reference by the City as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's C~mprehensive Plan. rmlQE.fsRfe: See B.3] '. . D!!. FEE CALCULATIONS: 1. FEE AMOUNT: The fee for each non-exempt dwelling unit is $2,937.00 2. TIMING OF PAYMENT: The applicable fee shall be payable prior to issuance of a building permit. rlm~$N0m: Standardizes time of payment language.] 3. FEE CALCULATIONS: Fees shall be calculated as follows: 1. Separate fees shall be calculated for single family and multi family d\,'elling units, and separate student generation rates must be determined by the District for each type of d'Nelling unit. 'For purposes of this Section, mobile homes shall be treated as single family dwelling units and duplexes shall be treated as multi family d\velling units. rm¥li(orlslfJldt See Additions to Interlocal Agreement.] " '. 2. The fee calculations shall be made on a district wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all school facilities in the District currently used for instructional purposes. [§li1t~:Usmt$'te: See Additions to Interlocal Agreement.] ~e-form.u-Ia-+n Attachment A to Ordinance 4808 provides a credit for the anticipated tax contributions that would be made by the devolopment based on historical levels of voter support for bond issues in the Q.istfict.:. r~1iJ:it0rqf;~ISl'Q'm: See Additions to Interlocal Agreement.] 4-:-TRe District may provide a credit for school sites or facilities actually provided by a developer which the Qistrict fiA-d&-tG-be-acceptable-a~or in subsection F of this Section. ~11~~: See . Additions to Interlocal Agreement.] a. The District shall calculate impact fees in accordance with RCW 82.02 and based on its adopted Capital Facility Plan. December 8,2004 15. Proposal, Track Change abo The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as it sees fit, to take into account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price differentials throughout the District in the cost of new housing, school occupancy levels, and the percent of the DistriCt's Capital . Facilities Budget which will be expended locally. Any changes to the standard fee collected shall be made by legislation. For purposes of the initial fee, the Ci!>,.,£~~~ablishes that fee-as two thousand nine hundred thirty seven dollars ($2,937.00). [Eajtor&SIm~te: See B.1. Added requirement to adopt new fees by legislation to avoid confusion with Section C, which addresses case-by-case adjustments.] C. FEE ADJUSTMENTS 1. APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR FEE ADJUSTMENTS: a. When permissible: Impact fees may be paid under protest, in order to obtain a permit or other approval of development activity. After the City has collected school mitigation fees, the 00iY may adjust all or a portion of the assessed school impact fees if the Applicant can demonstrate to the ~mmJID1&~1{s satisfaction that one of the following circumstances exist: . L The school impact fee was incorrectly assessed; or ii. Unusual and/or unique circumstances identified by the Applicant result in the application of the standard impact fee amount being unfair, unjust, or unlawful. b. Data: An applicant may provide studies and data to demonstrate that any particular factor used· by the District may not be appropriately applied to the development proposal. but the District's data shall be presumed valid unless clearly demonstrated to be otherwise by the apolicant. The applicant shall pay for the cost of the studies and data, and must demonstrate to th;~i&Vn1J mlSmCtls satisfaction that the discount fails to adjust for the error in the fee. c. Process: Requests for fee adjustments shall follow the process for an appeal of the underlying development application pursuant to Section RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. The District shall provide staffing and legal assistance for such an appeal. d. Appeals of Decision of Hearing Examiner: For Appeals of Decisions of the Hearing Examiner, . see RMC 4-8-110, Appeals.. .. 2. FEE WAIVERS: The City Council may, at its discretion, exempt specific projects from the requirements of this Section. However, in doing so, the City then accepts the financial obligation of the fees that would have been paid, and the City must meet the requirements of this Section. 3. REFUND OF FEES: a. When possible: In the following cases, impact fees are refundable: . .. i. Fees Not Expended: The current owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if the impact fees have not been expended or encumbered within six (6) years of the receipt of funds by the City, unless the Council identifies in written findings extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the District to hold the fees beyond the Six-year period [RCW 82.02.070(3)]. The District may petition the Council for an extension of the time period by setting forth the reason{s) in its petition. In determining whether impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis. . ii. No School Impact Has Resulted: An Applicant may request and shall receive a refund when the Applicant does not proceed to finalize the development activity as required by statute or City Code or the City's adopted Building Code and no impact on December 8,2004 16 Proposal, Track Change the Issaquah School District has resulted. ·"Impact" shall be deemed.to include cases where the District has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the o application fora refund. In the event that the District has expended or encumbered the fees in good faith. no refund shall be forthcoming. However. if within a period ()f three (3) years of refund application. the same or substantially the same development activity is again submitted for building permits. the owner shall be eligible for a credit. The current owner must petition the City and provide receipts of impact fees paid by the owner for the development of the same or substantially similar nature on the same property or portion thereof. The City shall determine whether to grant such credit, and such determinations may be appealed by following the procedures set forth in Subsection C.1.c and d above. b. Refund Request Timing and Process: An owner's request fora refund must be submitted to the District in writing within one (1) year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given. whichever date is later. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees. Interest dues upon the refund of school impact fees shall be calculated according to the average rate received by the City or District on invested funds throughout the period during which the fees were retained and paid by the governmental entity controlling the funds and receiving the interest. 4. POSSIBLE DISTRICT CREDIT FOR PREVIOUS SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION: If the Issaquah School District makes a determination in writing pursuant to the 1999 City of Renton/Issaquah School District Interlocal Agreement. the following projects are eligible for credit or partial credit by the 0-Issaquah School District toward the required school impact mitigation fees provided the applicant's request to the District is made within 20 calendar days of submission of an application for a building permit. is consistent with the original code adoption of Ord. 4808.] b. Projects with Pre-existing School District Agreements: Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated by the payment of fees. dedication of land. or construction or improvement of school facilities pursuant to a voluntary agreement entered into with the District prior to November 10. 1999, the effective date of this Section unless the terms of t~e.lan~ u~e approval provide otherwise. 5. CREDITS FOR OTHER FACILITIES OR LAND: An applicant can request that a credit or credits be awarded by the District for the value of dedicated land. improvements, or construction provided by the developer. provided the applicant's request to the District is made within 20 calendar days of submission of an application for a building permit. The District shall determine the suitability ofthe land, facilities or improvements. the conSistency with the Capital Facilities Plan. and the appraisal value. The District shall forward its determination to the City. as to whether the District determines that the dedicated land, improvements. and/or construction are or are not suitable for District purposes. The District's determination to grant a credit or credits shall specify the time period within which the applicant must sign the letter or certificate committing to the provision of de.dicated land. improvements. or construction. 6. SPECIAL FEE FOR PROJECTS APPROVED BY KING COUNTY: For projects that have received preliminary approval from the County and that have already paid any part of the King County-permitted Issaquah School District fee through King County, the remainder of the County's school impact fees, shall be assessed and collected from the lot owner prior to building permit issuance. If no payment was made through King County. then the entire Renton-permitted Issaquah School District impact fee, will be due and payable prior to issuance of building permits. December 8,2004 17 Proposal, Track Change 7. TERMINATION OF IMPACT FEE PROGRAM: Should the City seek to terminate any or all school impact fee requirements. all unexpended or unencumbered funds. including interest earned. shall be refunded to the current owner of the property for which a school impact fee was paid. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the City shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) times. and shall notify all potential claimants by first-class mail addressed to the owner of the property as shown in the King County property tax records. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the City, but must be expended for the District, consistent with the provisions of this Section. The notice requirement set forth above shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balancesiNithin the account or accounts being terminated. E. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES: . " -. . ' . . . . 1. The City shall collect school impact fees. established by this Section as acijusted from time to time, from any applicant seeking development approval from the City for dwelling units located within the District's boundaries where such development activity requires final plat or PUD approval or the issuance of a residential building permit or a mobile home permit. (~j{a~smote: See A.3.a. Simplified to apply to all residential building permits.] . 2. For a plat or PUD applied for on or after the effecti'Je date of Ordinance 4808, the impact fees due on the platar the PUD shall be assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit for each d"velling unit is issued, using the fee schedule in effect when the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval. Residential developments proposed for short plats shall not be governed by this subsection, but. shall be governed by subsection (E)(4) of this Section. r€aifOES1.;m'0fe: See A.3.a.J . .. 3. If, on the effective date of Ordinance 4808, a plat or PUD has already received preliminary approval through King County. but then if any of the fee has been paid through King County, the remainder of the impast fees shall be assessed and collected from the lot owner at the time the building permits are issued, using the fee schedule then in effect at the time of preliminary plat apprO'.<al. If no payment was madothrough King County, then the entire fee ' .... iI! be due and ol .... ing at the time bUilding permits are issued. If, on the effective date of Ordinance 4808, an applicant has applied for preliminary plat or PUD :~e~~~~~~~~~~ ~?! ~t:=d 8,!!2.~~;~,I!:::al, the applicant shall folio' .... the procedures set forth in . subsectJo~{E}(2) ofthts SectI9A-; tE~ilto~sJ~40te: See C.6] .. . .. 4. for existing lots or lots not covered by subsection B of this Section, applications for single family, · mobile home permits, and site plan ~pproval for mobile home parks proposed, the total amount of the · impact fees shall be assessed and collected from the applicant '...,hen the building permit is issued, using tRe fee sCRedule then in effect. Irrespective of the date that the application for a building permit or mobile · home permit or site plan approval was submitted, no approval shall be granted and no permit shall be issued until the required school impact fees set forth in the fee schedule have been paid. [~€IiW~m~ote: See 8.2 and A.3.aJ .. . 1. The follo\\'ing shall be exempt from the application of impa.ct fees: a. Any form of housing exclusi-vely for the elderly, including nursing homes and retirement centers, so leflg-as these uses are maintained in pel'petuity and the necessary covenants or declarations of .. · restrfcti.Gns-.re recorded on the property to ensure that no children will reside in the development; or ~::rit~"!Ilk\Q· 'kio(.'Jli! S A 4 ] [l:.iv _ EbgSEN0tt;l: ee .. ~e-replacement of the same number of dwe~::~~:: ~;:: s:~:~~:~ =: s::m~~~irt ocCUfS-Wi.thin twelve (12) months of the demolition~~destruCtio~ofth&prio~structure;~)itt ,;r,rs~NWtEt See AA.J December 8, 2004 18 Proposal, Track Change ~fat.i.eH~ASiGf1 or en I a Fgemeflt-GH-effiOO-eJ.iAg-eHeRaeil itation or COf).~fl-Of...aA-E*i&tffitJ eweJ.IiflQ-\:ffift...wl:l.ere-ne-aOO+tiooal-!:Jfli.ts..-ar~t-e€k2fl€1.-tR.e use is n-ot-ffiangee; or p'E3tiffi5tI§frNme: See A.4.J . d. Any development activity that is exempt-ff0ffi--tl:le payment of an impact fee pursuant to RCVV 82.02.100, due to mitigation of the sam-e-system improvement under the State Environmental Policy Act; '6~-.t!"i;(.tfip S A 4 1 or kiwlOliiSfl.'J01.e: ee . . e. An'y development activity for wRffih-scROOI impacts have been mitigated by the payment of fees, El-e4GatiGn of land, or construction or improvement of school facilities pursuant to a preliminary plat or PUD approval prior to the effective date of Ordinance 4808, unless the terms of the plat or PUD approval provide otherwise; or~Na: See CA:a.l . . f. Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated. by the payment of fees, dedication of land, or construction or improvement of school facilities pursuant to a vOluntary agreement entered into with the District prior to the effective date of Ordinance 4808, unless the terms of the agreement provide otherwise. r1tal~0te: See CA.b.l . . .' 2. Any credit shall be the responsibility of the District, and shall be independent of the fees collected by the City. The burden of establishing such credit shall be on the party seeking the credit. Proof under subsection (F)(3) of this Section shall include such things as a receipt or cancelled check. 3. I'.fier the effective date of Ordinance 4808, and if the development activity is not exempt from impact f-eesi:lursuant to subsection (F)(1) of this Section, the developer shall receive a credit from the District for any-payment made for the lot or d-ev-eJ.o.pment activity in question, either as a condition of development approval or pUFSt:laAt to the terms of a voluntary mitigation agreement. The fOe amount due on the development activity shall be reduced by the amount of the credit. [J¥(fitOistNi5'te: District responsibility. Move to Interlocal Agreement.] 4. After the effectilo'e date of Ordinance 4808, the developer can request that a credit or credits be awarded by the District for the value of dedicated land, improvements, or construction provided by the developer. The District shall first determine the general suitability of the land; improvements, and/or construction for District purposes. Second, the District shall determine whetheFthe land, improvements, and/or the facility constructed are included within the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan or the Boare of Directors for the District may make the finding that such land, impro'lements, and/or facilities would serve the goals and objectives of the Capital Facilities Plan of the District. The District shall forward its determination to the City, including cases where the District determines that the dedicated land, improvements, and/or construction are not suitable for District purposes. [~mr0G$'N0te: See C.5.J 5. For each request for a credit or credits, if appropriate, the District shall select an appraiser from a list of independent appraisers. The appraiser shall be directed to determine for the District the value of the dedicated land, improvements, or construction provided by the developer on a' base by case basis. The del/eloper shall pay for the cost of the appraisah rmlfta'isr~: See C.5.J .' . . 6. After receiving the appraisal,the District shall provide the developer with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, where applicable, the legal description of tRe-sitedonated, and the legaklescription oF-Gth-er adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The-awJ.icant must sign and date such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or certificat&,-afld return such signed OOctImen.t to the District eefore the~ty. will. award the-impaGt-fee-Gr-€ei~failBre of ~he J;.ge~~t t~ sigfl,eate,aR4-return such . OOGHment-witfHn sixty (60) caleneaF-Gays-sAa1l nUllity the credit. [Ee!ltewS'r~: See C.S.] 7. !',ny claim for credit must be made no later than t ... +'enty (20) calendar days after the submission of an aw-!ication for-a-building permit. r~e: See CA.1 . G. APPEALS AND INDEPENDENT CALCULATIONS: December 8, 2004 19 Proposal, Track Change +.-After the City has-GGIlecteG-fees under this SeGt-iGn, the District may adjust the amouflt-ef the scheffi .fmf)act-fee-assessed if one Of the foliowing-sifGl:lmstaAces exist; proviEled, that the develGpeF-GaA .. demonstrate-te-the:-Q.istHct:-s-satisfactien that tAe-GisGOtffit-fa#s to ameljGfate-foF-t~rness of the fee;. rEilf~m: See C.1.J a. The developer demonstrates to the District's satisfaction thatan impact fee assessment was incorrectly a&se&seG;--er .. . b. Unusual-and unique circumstances identified by the developer demonstrate that if the standard impact fee amount were applied to the development, it would be unfair, unjust or unlawfuk . . 2. Requests for tee adjustments, and the administrative appeals process ~r tho appeal of an impact fee, shall follow the process for the appeal of tAe underlying developmerit application. The District shall provide staffing and legal assistance for such an appeal consistent with the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the District, as that Agreement may be amended from time to time. [~~: See C.1.J . 3. A developer may provide studies and data to dem·onstrate that any particular factor used by the District· may not be appropriately applied to the development proposal, .but the District's data shall be presumed valid unless clearly demonstrated to be other .... ise by the developer. The developer shall pay for the cost of the studies and data, and must demonstrate to the District's satisfaction that the discountfails to adjust for the error in the fee ~~: See C.1.] . .. 4. Any appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner with regard to fee amounts shall follO'.¥ the appeals PfOCess-for the underlying development application and not be subject to a separate appeal process. Any errors identified as a result of an appeal should be referred to the Council for possible modification. ~: SeeC.1.J . . . . . . . :. :::~c~ paid under protest, in order to obtain a permit or o~Aer approval of development actl¥lty: recUter4s\\tWt : See C.1.] ... . H. THE IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT, USES OF IMPACT FEES, AND REFUNDS: 1; Impact fee receipts shall be initially depo~ited into a Cityfund created under subsection L of this Section. '.'Vhen sufficient funds have accumulated to make transfer of those funds to the District advisable, the Finance and Information Services Department shall make such transfer. Such funds shall be transferred not less than quarterly, if the balance in the fund is more than five thousand dollars ($5·,000.00). Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in a special interest bearing account established by the District solely for the District's school impact fees as provided for in subsection . J of this Section. All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes. identified in subsection (H)(2) of this Section. Annually, the City shall provide accounting records to the District and the District shall prepare a report on school impact fees showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned or received, and capital or system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. rEmwfrs1&0M: See D.1 and D.2 and Proposed Additions to Interlocal Agreement.] 2 .. Impact fees for the District's system improvements shall be expended by the District for capital improvements including but not limited to school planning; land acquisition; site improvements; necessary off site improvements; construction, engineering, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative BXf)ORses; relocatable facilities, capital equipment pertaining to educational facilities; and any other ~,e:s~t~~d be capitalized, and which are consistent with the District's Capital Facilities Plan. r··altof!ss.~ete. See D.3.1. ... . . ~e event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issueG-.f.o.r...the advanced provision of capital facilities for which impact fees may be expended and ' .... here consistent-with the provisions of the bond GO-venant&,..:tmf)3Ct-fees may be used to pay-debt serilise--9rl--sHch bonds oF-SimilaF-debt..:tRstruments to the extent-t-hat--l-he-facitities-.oHrnpr-ovement&-pfOVided-are"coflsi-stefl.t.-.witA-:the-reEluirements of this SectiGfh (~: See Proposed Additions to Interlocal Agreement.1 December 8,2004 . 20 Proposal, Track Change 4.-SGAeeHfHpaGt-fee~{)eooee-eF-eRQlffi.ger-ee-wftRfA-si*-f9i-yeaF&-ef-..recei~J.ess-tRe-G9tlHcit kleHtif4e&-ffi-writteR-fineings-ex-tfaerGffiaF-y-aOO-BO~nfR.g-feaS0f1-9F-f.eaSeruHaf tR e' D istfict ta R 01 d tRe fees-GeyooG-tRe-&i-*"~6) year pefie~R-e-GistfiGt--m-~itioo-tRe-Gel:l-ncil fer aA-EOOeHsief1-ef tRe six (61 yea~er-ieG-and-tHe District set-feft.R.-a~tfaereffiaFy-or com~~a&Ofl-eF-feasons in its ~etit:ien, WRere the Council identifies tRe reason or reasons in written fineings, the Council SR-a#-esta.eHs4 ~rioe of tirn&Wi-thln 'Nhich the imf}3-Gt-fees-sflaH-Ge-e~ed~er consultation 'Nith ~·stfiGh [l£€IitcmSllNote: See 0.4.1 . . 5, The current owneF-ef property on which an impact fee has beeR-paid may receive a refune of such fees if the iFTtf}act fees have not been ~xpended or encumbered within six (6) years of receipt of the funes by the City, except as provided fer in subsection (H)(4) of this Section. In determining 'Nhettier impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees sRail be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis. The District sRall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service addressed to the owner of the property as shown in the King County property tax records. rEaUOi:+s:£N6te: See 0.5.1' . 6. An owner's request fer a refund must be submitted to the City, in writing, 'Nithin one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whicRever date is later. ,1\ny impact fees tRat are not expended or encumbered within the limitations in subsection (H)(4) of this Section, and fer wAich no application fer a refund has been made within this one year period, shall be retained and expended consistent '/lith the provisions of this Section. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees. (liamtN0ta: See 0.5.1 . 7. Should the City seek to terminate any or all sCRool impact fee requirements, all unexpended or unencumbered funds, including interest earned, sRali be refunded to tRe current owner of the property for '1.'hich a school im~e was paid. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, tRe City shall place-ootice of such termination and tRe availability of refunds in a nO'.vspaper of §SHeral circulation at least two (2) times, and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail addressed to the ol .... ner of the property as sRown in the King County property tax records,'Allfunds available fer refund shall be retained fer a period of one year. At tRo end af one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the City, but must be expended for the District, consistent with the provisions of this =::;n!:::~::=:=;::=:~::=::=~~:=t= ia*~~~~dsO:e C.6.] 8. A ~e;iF&r~~equest and ~hall receive a refund, including interest earned on the impact fees, wheffi r~1 oFi ... o.t . See C.3.a. a. The developer does not proceed to finalize the development activity as required by statute or City Code or the UnifermBuilding Code, and ... . ' ... B,-No impact on the District has resulted. "Impact" shall be deemed to include cases where the District has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application fer a refund. In the event that the District has expeOOed-er encumbered the fees in good faith. no refund shall be feAAGoming. However, if within a period of tRree (3) years, the same or subsequent owner of the property f)Foceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner shall be eligible fer a . creei!. The owner must petition the City and provide receipts of impact fees paid by the owner fer a development-of the same or substantiany..&imilar natl:l-fe on the sama.prof)erty OF seme-pertioR-tReF-Oef., The-Glty-shal.\-eetefmine WR-ether-te-g.raH~eteffflfnatiens may be appealed by following tRe-pffiGedures set-ferth-ifl-subsection G of this Sectief+.. 9.:-Jffiefest due upon the refund of impact fees requifed by this SeGtiefl-sflaIl-be-calculated accordffi9-tG tAe-avefagB-F3te-F-eceivee 9y4R-e-Gity-ef-tRe-Q+stfffit-oo-invested funds throughout the period duri~iGR tJ;e-fee~d by the governmental entity controlling the funds and receiving the interest rlWQltoiSJ~@te: See C.3.b.1 k-INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: December 8,2004 21 Proposal, Track Change . -1-:-+J:le-Ma)l{,)Hs.,al:ftoo~ to execute, on behalf-ef-tl:le City, an Interl~cal AgFgement for the collection, &l$eREl.j.tuffi;-afH~-ref,'}ertiffg-Of-schooHm~ees; provided, that-suGl:l--lffi6rlooa1--Agreement complies-witR the provisfOfls-ef-tRis-S&ctiGfh r~: Already in the Interlocal Agreement.] . . . . . 2. The DistriGt--sha1i establish a School Impact Fee Account 'Nith the Office of the King County Treasurer, who serves-as-the Treasurer for the District. The Account shall be an interest bearing account, and the . school impact fees received shall be f,'}rudently invested in a manner consistent with the investment policies of..#le-QfstRGt-: rE:(mlfrJ~t:ltWte: See 0.1.1 ... . .. . . . 3. For aEJ.l:mnfstfative convenience while proceSSing the fee payments, school impact .fees may be initially depOSited in the City account known as the "School Impact Fee Fund," with interest earned retained by the District. As soon as advisable, the City shall deposit the school impact fees collected for the District in . the District's School Impact Fee ,A.ccount.fl±tdifG>"r$sll~llMEt See 0 .1.]· . .' . 4. The City shall retain five percent (5%) of all fees collected to pay fur its costs in administering this Section. [Jz:aitm~~W(5tij: . See Proposed Additions to Interlocal Agreement.)· J...-AJ;}GP+I()N OF THE DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND· SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE--S-AN-D-RePORT AND DATA: 6·;:I=I=:~=~~~t:~~~~~:::::::~~:.d[;;r&~re~:: ~~i~o~gi~tS 'part of the 2. On an annual basis, the District shall submit the follo\."ing materials to the City: rEait'erJs1I}1)tlJ,: Already in thelnterlocal Agreement.] . a. The annual \;Jpdafe of the District's Capital Facilities Plan; . . b.' An updated fee calculation based on the formulain Attachment ,fl. to Ordinance 4808, and a revised fee schedule (Mtachment B to Ordinance 4808); and . &;-An annual report on the School Impact Fee Account, showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the f,'}ublic imf,'}FOvemerlts that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. .. K. REVIEW: , . ~: See Proposed Additions to Interlocal Agreement.] The fee schedule established in this Section shall be reviewed and updated by the Council on an annual basis. after, the Council receives the District's Plan and data required under sI:Jbsection.J of this Section. The .review may occur in conjl:Jnction with the annI:Jal update of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's. Comf,'}rehensive Plan .. b-SP-E-GJAb-F-YND-GREATED: .' . . There is hereby created a special City fund known as the "School Impact Fee F\;lnd" into ''''hich all school impact mitigation fees will be deposited. rirdif~'i1mmtil See 0.1 .1· . M. CITY NOT--RESPONSIBLE: , rEaifbTsitlJ'ite: See Proposed Additions to Interlocal Agreement.] The City will use-its-Gest efforts to collect such fees dI:Jring its ordinary adminisJrative process, such fees as-a~He-tffieeFtffis-Section and consistent with the Interlocal Agreement beh ... een the City and the ~at Agreement may be amendee from time to time, but shall not be responsible to the District for failure to collect such fees. . N. SEVER}\BILlTY: December 8, 2004 . 22 Proposal, Track Change .Jf-aR.y--peFt-ie~s-SeGti0R-is-feuFlG-te-ge··jflvaJ.i.(j....gf-tlf\eRfe.FGeable-fer-aflY-feasGA;-St::}GR-fin d in 9 s hall-Ret affeGt-the-valj4fty-eF-eRfe.fGea9Hit-y-of-·afly-etheF-&l::!bseGtion--eqt-tis-Se~fh-~08, 1.1 1 199-9-) [§tit'th'M§';jm~fEl See RMC 4-1-120 for a global severability clause.] .... D. ADMINISTRATION: 1. SPECIAL ACCOUNTS: a. City: For administrative convenience while processing the fee payments, school impact fees may be initially deposited in the City account known as the "School Impact Fee Fund," with interest earned retained by the District. As soon as advisable, the City shall deposit the school impact fees collected for the District in the District's School Impact Fee Account. b. District: The District shall establish a School Impact Fee Account with the Office of the King County Treasurer, who serves as the Treasurer for the District. The Account shall be an interest- bearing account, and the school impact fees received shall be prudently invested in a manner consistent with the investment policies of the District. 2. ANNUAL REPORTS: Annually. the City shall provide accounting records to the District. The District shall prepare an annual report on school impact fees showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned or received, and capital or system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. 3. PERMITTED USES OF FUNDS: The fee shall be collected and spent only for public facilities defined in RCW 82.02.090 which are addressed by a Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. or a school district capital facilities plan adopted by reference in RMC 4-4-030.B. 4. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Fees in the impact fee account shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six years of receipt unless there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for the fees to be held longer than six years and then only by written findings by the City Council [RGW 82.02.070(3)). The District may petition the Council for an extension of the six (6) year period and the District set forth any such extraordinary or compelling reason or reasons in its petition. Where the Council identifies the reason or reasons in written findings, the Council shall establish the period of time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered, after consultation with the District. 5. REFUND OF UNEXPENDED FEES: The current owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if the City fails to expand or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or such other time as established by the City Council. In determining whether impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall be.encumbered on a first in. first out basis. Any notices to any potential claimant shall be mailed byfirst class mail to the last known address of the claimant. Any claim for a refund must be submitted to the City Council in writing within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. Any fee for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period shall be retained and expended on the indicated capital facilities. Refunds of impact fees shall include interest earned on the impact fees. E. APPEALS: See RMC 4-8-110 for appeal process. CHAPTER 4-4: CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4-4-030 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS -GENERAL: B. ADOPTION BY REFERENCE The goals, objectives, and policies as set forth in the following documents and related studies or documents are presently in force or as modified from time to time are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be considered as if fully set forth herein: December 8, 2004 . 23 Proposal, Track Change · . Cedar River Master Plan Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Green. River Valley Plan Fire Department Master Plan Airport Master Plan King County Stormwater Management Manual Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan Comprehensive Water System Plan Long Range Wastewater Management Plan King County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Shoreline Master Program King County Solid Waste ManagementPlan Countywide Planning Policies Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan Street Arterial Plan Traffic Mitigation Resolution and Fee Parks Mitigation Resolution and Fee . Fire Mitigation Resolution and Fee Comprehensive Plan . The 1998 Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan CHAPTER 4-11: Definitions ENCUMBERED: to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities. December 8, 2004 24· Proposal, Track Change ·e SECTIONS TO ADD TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND GENERALLY REMOVE (OR ,. SHORTEN) FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: District Responsibilities 1. Separate fees shall be calculated for single family and multi-family dwelling units, and separate student generation rates must be determined by the District for each type of dwelling unit. For purposes of this the Interlocal Agreement and RMC 4-1-160, mobile homes shall be treated as single family dwelling units and· duplexes shall be treated as multi-family dwelling units. . 2. The fee calculations shall be made on a district-wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all school facilities in the District currently used for instructional purposes . . 3. The formula in Attachment A to 0'alilf?atl~&f4008 provides a credit for the anticipated tax cont~ibutions that would be made by the development based on historical levels of voter support for bond issues in the District. 4. The District may provide a credit for school sites or facilities actually provided by an applicant which the District finds to be acceptable as provided for in RMC 4-1-160. 5. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for the advanced provision of capital facilities for which impact fees may be expended and where consistent with the provisions of the bond covenants, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of the Interlocal Agreement and RMC 4-1-160. City of Renton Responsibilities 1. Impact fee receipts shall be initially deposited into a City fund as identified in RMC 4-1-160.0. When sufficient funds have accumulated to make transfer of those funds to the District advisable, the Finance and Information Services Department shall make such transfer. Such funds shall be transferred not less than quarterly, if the balance in the fund is more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in a special interest-bearing account established by the District solely for the District's school impact fees as provided for in RMC 4-1-160.0. All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes identified in RMC 4-1-160.0. Annually. the City shall provide accounting records to the District and the District shall prepare a report on school impact fees showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned or received, and capital or system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. 2. The City shall retain five percent (5%) of all fees collected to pay for its costs in administering this Section. 3. The fee schedule established in RMC 4-1-160 shall be reviewed and updated by the Council on an annual basis after the Council receives the District's Plan and data required under subsection 12 above. The review may occur in conjunction with the annual update of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.' 4. The City will use its best efforts to collect such fees during its ordinary administrative process, such fees as are due under this Section and consistent with the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the District, as that Agreement may be amended from time to time, but shall not be responsible to the District for failure to collect such fees. December 8,2004 25 Proposal, Track Change DOCKET ITEM TITLE 4, CHAPTER 2: R-10 ZONE ATTACHED TOWNHOUSES OR FLATS ON PRE-EXISTING LOTS PURPOSE Nora Schultz owns a property on Wells Avenue North currently zoned R-10. Her desire is to build a duplex (two flats using terms in the Renton code) on the property. Her request was the subject to a code interpretation and ultimately was accepted for review by the City Council as part of the 2004 Title 4 Docket items. Within the R-10 zone, a mix of dwelling types is allowed: single-family detached, semi-attached, attached, townhouses, and flats. This zone allows for a maximum density of 10 dwelling units/acre whenthere is a mix of attached and detached unit types. Up to four units may be attached.·A density of 10 dulac translates to a minimum lot size of 8,712 sq. ft. for a two-flat (duplex) residential building. The R-10 zoning code currently permits the subdivision of a parcel into new lots containing flats as small as 5,000 sq. ft. (2,500 sq. ft.lunit). However, if these minimum lot sizes were applied to a pre-existing lot, atwo-f1at structure on a 5,000 sq. ft lot (2,500 sq. ft.lflat) would equal approximately 17 dwelling units/acre, much higher than the maximum allowable density in the R-10 zone district. The code provision's specify that density requirements take precedence over the minimum lot size standards. The maximum allowable density is inconsistent with the specified minimum lot sizes allowed through a platting process. Given this lack of clarity between minimum lot size dimensions and maximum density allowed in the R-10 zone, this issue paper analyzes the zone provisions to determine whether amendments can be made to the R-10 zone to allow for attached dwellings on pre-existing lots while also maintaining the purpose and intent of the zone. Although the R-14 zone has a similar statement that density controls over minimum lot size standards, the zone has been applied in areas that have larger parcels and would be plated/shadow platted, rather than applied to long-established mixed unit neighborhoods. Therefore, this issue paper focuses on the R- 10 zone. BACKGROUND AND ISSUES Intent Comprehensive Plan policies and the Land Use Map provide for Medium Density Residential land uses implemented by the R-10 or R-14 zones. Relevant policies are as follows (as recently amended in 2004): Policy UJ-157. Residential Medium Density designated areas should be zoned for either Residential 10 dwelling units per net acre (R-10), Residential 14 dwelling units per net acre (R- 1-t), Or new zoning designations that allow housing in this density range. policy LU-158. Residential Medium Density neighborhoods may be considered for Residential 10 (R-10) zoning if they meet three of the following criteria: 1) The area already has a mixof small-scale multi-family units or has had long standing zoning for flats or other low-density multi-family use; 2) Development patterns conducive to medium-density development are established; 3) Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential for medium-density infill development; 4) The project site is adjacent to major arterial(s) and public transit service is located within ~ mile; Decem ber 8, 2004 Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I 5) 'The site can be bufferedfrom eXisting single-family residential neighborhoods having , densities of eight (8) dwelling units or less; or 6) The site can be buffered from adjacent or abutting incompatible uses. Policy LU-159. Areas may be considered for Residential 14 (R-14) Zoning where the site meets the following criteria: . 1) Adjacent to major arterial(s); 2) Adjacent to the Urban Center, Highlands Neighborhood Center, or Commercial Corridor designations; . 3) Part of a designation totaling over 20 acres (acreage may be in separate ownership); . 4) Site is buffered from single-family areas or other existing, potentially incompatible uses; and 5) Development within the density range and of similar unit type is achievable given environmental constraints. . Policy LU-160. Support projects that create neighborhoods with diverse housing types that achieve continuity through the organization of roads, sidewalks, blocks, setbacks, community gathering places, and amenity features. '. . Policy LU-162. Development densities in the Residential Medium Density designation area should range from seven (7) to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre, as specified by implementing zoning. . . . PolicyLU-163. For attached or semi-attached development in the R-14 zoned portions of the Residential Medium Density designation, a bonus density of 18 dwelling units per acre should be available, subject to Density Bonus Review and other applicable development conditions. Policy LU-164. When a minimum density is applicable, the minimum development density in the Residential Medium Density designation should be four (4) dwelling units per net acre. ' Policy LU-165. Provision of small lot, single-family detached unit types, townhouses, and multi- family structures compatible with a single-family character should be allowed and encouraged in the Residential Medium Density designation, provided that density standards can be met (see also the Housing Element for housing types). Policy LU-166. Very small-lot single-family housing, such as cottages, zero-lot line detached, semi-detached, townhouses, and small scale multi-family units should be allowed in the Residential Medium Density designation in order to provide a wide range of housing types~ Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. , Policy LU-167. A range and variety of lot sizes and building densities should be encouraged. Policy LU-169. Residential Medium Density site development plans having attached or semi- attached housing types should reflect the following criteria for projects:' , 1) Parking should be encouraged in the rear or side yards or under the structure; 2) Structures should be located on lots or arranged in a manner to appear like a platted development to ensure adequate light and air, and views (if any) are preserved between lots or structures; 3) Buildings should be massed in a manner that promotes a pedestrian scale with a small neighborhood feeling; 4) Each dwelling unit should have an identifiable entrance and front on streets rather 'than courtyards and parking lots; December 8,2004 'Page 2 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department 5) Fences may be constructed if they contribute to an open, spacious feeling between units and structures; and 6) Streetscapes should include green, open spa~e for each unit. Policy LU-170. Residential Medium Density development should provide condominium or fee simple homeownership opportunities, as well as rental or lease options. Objective LU-II: Residential Medium Density development should be urban in form and fit into existing residential neighborhoods if developed as infill projects. Policy LU-171. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior courtyards or parking areas. Policy LU-17S. In the Residential Medium Density designation common open space equal to 1 ,200-square feet per unit and maintained by a homeowners' association, should be provided for each semi-attached or attached unit. Policy LU-176. Support site plans that transition to and blend with existing development patterns using techniques such as lot size, depth and width, access points, building location setbacks, and landscaping. Sensitivity to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods should be reflected in site plan design. Interpret development standards to support ground- related orientation, coordinated structural design, and private yards or substantial common space areas. Implementing the Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the R-10 zone as articulated in Section 4-2-020G is threefold: • Increase opportunities for detached and semi-attached single family dwellings as a percent of the housing stock; • Allow some small scale attached housing choices; • Create high quality infill development that increased density while maintaining the single-family character of the existing neighborhood. The zone serves as a transition to higher density multifamily zones. The zoning is applied in several locations, including older neighborhoods developed with a mix of detached and attached housing types such as North Renton and Renton Highlands, as well as further east in newly developing areas. Typical lot sizes in long established areas zoned R-10 include: • North Renton: generally less than 5,000 s.f. to 7,500 s.f. • Renton Highlands -Monroe and Harrington Avenues: generally 5,000 s.f. to over 10,000 s.f.· . R-10 Development Standards The R-10 development standards are structured to address development according to the following types of lots: • . Development on pre-existing lots; • Parcels a maximum of 0.5 acre; • Subdivision and/or development on parcels greater than 0.5 acre. A summary of the key standards from Section 4-2-11 OF are shown below in Table 1: December 8, 2004 Page 3 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department ·' Table 1: R-10 Development Standards Development For Pre-existing For Parcels ~O.5 For Full Subdivision Standards Lots/Development Gross Acres or Parcels> O~5 Gross Acres Dwelling unit mix No requirement No requirement • Minimum of 50% to a maximum 100% detached or semi- attached dwelling units; • One detached/semi- attached dwelling unit per each attached dwelling . unit (townhouse or flat); • Maximum of four units consecutively attached. Density No minimum density/ , No minimum density/ • 4 min. -10 max. maximum 10 dulac maximum 10 dulac dwellin~ units/acre Minimum Lot Size No minimum; density No minimum; density • Detached units: requirements apply requirements apply 3,000 sq. ft./du; • Attached townhouse units: 2,000 sq. ft./du; • Flats: 2,500 sq. ft. per unit Source: City of Renton Zomng Code, Title IV, Chapter 2, SectIOn 4-2-11 OF. - For reference lots zoned R-10 that are in the range of the minimum lot size standards are shown on the attached map. In new developments on the Plateau many lots are less than 5,000 square feet. Existing lots range from less than 5,000 s.f. to more than 10,000 s.f. Previous Policy Interpretations Section 4-2-110F specifies that the density requirements take precedence over the minimum lot s'ize standards. A code interpretation from November 2003 addresses this issue of inconsistency betWeen the . maximum allowable density and minimum lot sizes. The policy interpretation determined that density takes precedence over the minimum,lot size requirement, and 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. The interpretation further states that the density requirements apply on a per lot basis for pre-existing lot developments. For subdivision and short plats of parcels 0.5 acre or less, there are no minimum lot sizes, however the development must comply with maximum density requirements in R-10 zone. For subdivisions on parcels greater than 0.5 acre, the maximum density requirements apply to the overall development; minimum lot size requirements apply to individual lots in the subdivision provided the maximum density is not exceeded. ' Local Case Studies In order to explore options for accommodating attached units on pre-existing lots smaller than the density would permit, a brief survey of a few cities in the region was conducted. December 8, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/NISI:' Department Page 4 e. Bellevue A multiplex of 2-4 units is n.ot allowed in single-family zones,' except by a planned unit development. . The City has a R-10 zone, considered a multifamily zone, where multiplexes or apartments with 5 or more units may happen outright. The minimum lot size is 8,500 square feet, which would generally result in a density of 10 units an acre if a duplex were developed, or more than 10 units per acre if a triplex or greater were developed. However, the City indicates .that: If there is a conflict between the minimum lot area and the permitted number of dwelling units per acre, the minimum lot area controls. Kent The City of Kent's MR-D Duplex Multifamily Residential District allows for duplex and single family uses within the zone. Two different maximum density requirements are applied within this zone, one for single family residential and one for duplex units. The maximum density applied to single-family units equals 8.71 dulac, and the maximum density of 10.89 dulac applies to duplexes. This equates to a minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. per unit for duplexes, or a total of 8,000 sq. ft. for one duplex building. Redmond In Redmond, duplex, triplex or fourplex structures are allowed outright in R-8 zones and greater, or by conditional use permit in lower density zones. The average lot size required is 3,000 square feet, but the maximum density is consistent with the zone name (e:g. 8 units per acre in the R.,8 zone). The multiplex units in the R-8 zones and greater are subject to land use, density, and site requirements of the underlying zone, except that some provisions are made to eliminate interior side yard requirements if the duplex units are to be individually owned. In lower density zones (R-6 and below), the same base zone requirements apply except that minimum lot sizes are increased, and design standards require pitched roofs, visible entry from the street, chimney forms, frames around each window, and similar height, bulk, and scale as surrounding residential. uses .. The only dwelling type that is exempt from density requirements consists of duplexes that meet affordability standards. Generally speaking, the City of Redmond has a similar code arrangement as Renton in that density requirements need to be met even if lot sizes can be smaller. It would limit the existing developed R-8 + areas from developing a duplex if they had lots smaller than the density would permit (e.g. lots smaller than 10,890 s.f. in the R-8 zone). Sumner The City of Sumner allows small-scale multiplexes 1 in their Low Density Residential (LDR) zones as a conditional use subject to the Hearing Examiner's approval. The maximum allowable density for a "multiplex unit" is 20 dulac, with a maximum of four units per building site and a minimum lot size of 2,125 sq. ft. per unit. In addition, only one multiplex development is allowed per block in the LOR zone, and may not occur on "pipestem" lots. An additional multiplex cannot be added if one already exists on the block. Multiplex type development is also subject to the requirements of the City's design guidelines. It should be noted that the City Community Development staff might review this section to see if modifications to the multiplex allowance should be made to promote cottage ho'using style structures instead (more than one detached dwelling on a lot). This is a potential future work program. ISSUES AND OPTIONS 1. No Action -Keep Current Requirements that Density Controls over Lot Size: This provision ensures that on pre-existing lots or in new subdivisions, the density of property overall is uniform when new development occurs. It promotes a mix of unit types while achieving a moderate 1 Multiplex is defined as two to four dwelling units within a single structure. December 8,2004 Page 5 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I ,·e· '. ... . '. . density -greater densities are applied through otherzories such as Residential Multifamily (see Option 4). The No Action Option does maintain the density of whole platted areas, but does not recognize that infill attached dwellings on small lots may fit the character of existing older neighborhoods that already have a mix of attached and detached dwellings on similar small lot sizes. It should be noted that a "Cedar River Master Plan" is being evalu~ted as a work program · for 2005/2006, and it may be appropriate at that time to look at zoning options in the North Renton area. 2. Allow Multiplexes on Individual Preexisting Lots that Meet the Minimum Lot Size but Not the Maximum Density: On a per-lot basis rather than a whole development basis, this option ' would allow attached dwellings on preexisting smaller lots similar to how multiplexes are allowed on smaller lots in new subdivisions. If the City desires to allow attached dwellings units on properties meeting the minimum lot size requirement but not the density requirement, Policy LU- 165 would need to be amended and may only be amended with the overall Comprehensive Plan annually. If this policy choice were made, the implementing R-10 code could be amended to ' indicate that for pre-existing lots/developments (prior to March 1, 1995), the minimum lot size· controls over density. ' Regarding attached dwellings, allowing Ipt size t6 control for multiplexes could lead to concerns that in some neighborhoods where the lot sizes are less than 8,700 square feet (the minimum for. a two-flat structure under current rules), such as North Renton, the mix of single family and multifamily on the R-10 zoned lots could change to become more uniformly multiplex in nature . (see the map for lots less than 7,500 s.f. in particular). This is already a possibility in the Renton Highlands where the lot sizes are large enough to support two or three attached dwellings under the current rules if the property owner desired. Attached dwellings on lots meeting the lot size but not the density could also be subject to development standards that ac;ldress the scale of the unit' such as roof pitch, entry orientation, etc. similar to Redmond or Sumner. Regarding detached dwellings, given the City Council's recent direction on the R-8 zone to remove density bonuses and to increase lot sizes and to remove the R-10 density bonus for detached dwellings, it is likely that the City would want to ensure that single family dwellings are subject to 10 units per acre on any size parcel to be subdivided. If this is the case, allowances for lot size could still be the pri'mary standard but a larger lot size for detached dwellings on parcels ' less than 0.5 acre could be applied. On the other hand, allowing lot size to control no matter the unit type could be an encouragement to have single family detached dwellings in a style conducive to ownership housing, and help retain a mix in established neighborhoods. To limit the location where multiplexes may be allowed subject to lot size, but not subject to density: the option proposes to limit applicability to North Renton neighborhood, between North 6th Street, 1-405, Cedar River, and Logan Avenue N. Further, design standards to enhance . · compatibility of multiplexes are included addressing roof pitch, entry orientation, and windows. · With this option, it appears that in North Renton, there would be approximately 67 lots that would meet the lot size of 5,000 to 21,780 sJ, However, several have existing multifamily dwellings. ' Approximately 33 of these lots consisting of single-family homes, and two lots are vacant. If one additional dwelling unit were added to the single family lots and five total were added to the vacant lots (one would meet the lot size for a duplex and the other would meet the lot size for a triplex), then about 38 units would be possible, about 0.,1 % of the City's 2004 housing stock estimate of 25,908. 3. Allow Multiplexes on Individual Preexisting Lots that Meet the Minimum Lot Size but Not the Maximum Density -But by Conditional Use Permit: This option would be similar to Option 2,except that it would apply to any R-10 property less than 0.5 acre and platted before March 1, 1995, and except that a conditional use permit would be required. Multiplexes on lots meeting the lot size but not the density could be subject to development standards that address the scale of the unit such as roof pitch, entry orientation, etc. similar to Redmond or Sumner. To make it less process oriented, it could be an administrative conditional use. If it were not December 8, 2004 Page 6 ' Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department controversial, a hearing would not be needed. Policy LU-165 density language would need to be amended and may only be amended with the overall Comprehensive Plan annually. Considering . the R-10 zone citywide, about 78 vacant lots equal between 5,000 s.f. and 21,780 s.f.and may be eligible for multiplexes. There are also 277 R-10 lots within this size range that have single-family homes that may be eligible to add one or more units. (Those lots that are greater than 8,712 s.f. could already have a duplex or greater based on today's code allowances.) However, for the vacant or single family lots estimated, not all would be eligible for the following reasons: Many of the lots were created after March 1, 1995 which is the cut off point for the code allowance; not all properties are configured so that all other standards could be met (e.g. setbacks, lot coverage, parking location); existing single family homes may be located in a manner that precludes adding another dwelling; and property owner preferences to build or maintain single family homes which is a primary use of the zone. Further the conditional use process would limit how many would be interested in applying for a multiplex. 4. Amend Land Use Plan/Rezone Appropriate Areas to Higher Densities if 10 Units Per Acre Does Not Achieve City Vision for Selected Areas such as North Renton Arterial Frontage Lots. With this option a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and rezone would be applied to the subject property and similarly situated lots that fits with the resulting density of a duplex on existing platted lots less than 8,700 s.f. 17.42 units per acre). For example, the RM-T zone could be applied, which is intended as follows per RMC 4-2-020: "The RM-T Zone occurs in areas where compact, traditional residential neighborhood development already exists, or in Comprehensive Plan designations where traditional residential neighborhoods are planned in the future. Density ranges from fourteen (14) to thirty five (35) du/acre." However, this is a policy decision that will require consideration as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. As noted above a "Cedar River Master Plan" is being evaluated as a work program for 2005/2006 and it may be appropriate at that time to look at zoning options in the North Renton area. The potential code amendments that would appear with Options 2 or 3 are attached. A discussion of this Docket Item should occur in tandem with the other Docket proposal addressing Minimum Lot Size and Maximum Density addressing single-family zones. RECOMMENDATIONS Allowing duplexes (two flats) on existing smaller lots meeting the lot size of 5,000 square feet could lead to densities that are higher than the R-10 zone maximum -17.42 units per acre, and would not meet the current R-10 zone intent. Allowing lot size to control could lead to more multiplexes (flats) in established R-10 neighborhoods without a manner in which to control dw~lIing mix as happens in larger plats newly created, although code options seek to either limit the number by either restricting location or by requiring a conditional use permit. It is recommended that Option.1 No Action be selected -i.e. do not amend the R-10 zone and address the issue of appropriate zoning and unit types through the "Cedar River Maste( Plan" a future work program for 2005/2006 addressing the North Renton area. December 8, '2004 Page 7 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I OPTION 2: Allow Multiplexes on Individual Preexisting Lots that Meet the Minimum Lot Size but Not the Maximum Density Policy LU-162. Dev'elopment densities in the Residential Medium De'nsity designation area should range from seven (7) to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre, as specified by implementing zoning. Policy LU-16S. Provision of small lot, single'-family detached unit types, townhouses, and multi- family structures compatible with a single-family character should be allowed and encouraged in the Residential Medium Density designation, provided that density standards can be met (see also the Housing Element for housing types). ,Regulations may allow higher densities on pre- existing lots in established neighborhoods to match the current dwelling density and character, if the resulting density is in the range identified in Policy LU-162. 4-2-020 G. RESIDENTlAL-10 DUIACRE (R-10): The Residential-10 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-10) is established for medium- density residential development that will provide a mix of residential styles including detached dwellings or semi-attached dwellings on small lots, attached townhouses, and small-scale attached flats, Development promoted in the zone is intended to increase ' opportunities for detached and semi-attached single-family dwellings as a percent of the housing stock, as well as allow some small-scale attached housing choices and to create high-quality infill development that increases density while maintaining the single-fC!mily character of the existing neighborhood. Allowable base densities range from four (4) to ten (10) dwelling units per net acre. Regulations may allow higher densities on pre- existing lots in established neighborhoods to match the current dwelling density and character, if the resulting density is in the range identified in Policy LU-162. The zone serves as a transition to higher density multi-family zones. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the objectives and policy direction established in the Residential Medium-density land use deSignation, Objectives LU-GG and/through LU-II, Policies LU-157 through LU-181 or the Center Village land use designation, Objective LU~CCC, Policies LU-317 through 332 and the Community DeSign Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 4-2-110F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) DENSITY: Minimum Housing Density4.13 DENSITY: Maximum Housing Density R-10 For parcels over 1/2 gross acre: 4 units per net acre for any subdivision or development.4•13 . Minimum density requirements shall not apply to: a) the renovation or conversion of an existing structure, or b) the subdivision, and/or , development of a legal lot 1/2 gross acre or less in size as of March 1, , -1995. ,--' ,- For developments or subdivisions including attached or semi- attached dwellings: 10 dwelling units per net acre.4 , PLATS OR SHADOW Uses shall be developed on a "legal lot.IO For the purposes of this December 8, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Pa~e8 .' .. R-10 PLATS: General subsection, "legal lot" means: a lot created through the subdivision process, or created through another mechanism which creates individual title for the residential building and any associated private yards. If title is created through another mechanism other than a subdivision, the development application shall be accompanied by a shadow plat and if, applicable, phasing or land reserve plan.18 Covenants shall be filed as part of a final plat in order to address the density and unit mix requirements of the zone. Existing development: None required. For parcels which are a maximum size of 1/2 acre as of the effective date hereof (March 1,1995): None required. DWELLING UNIT MIX: Full subdivisions and/or development on parcels greater than 1/2 acre, excluding short plats: A minimum of 50% to a maximum of 100% of General detached or semi-attached dwelling units. A minimum of one detached or co semi-attached dwelling unit m'ust be provided for each attached dwelling unit (e.g., townhouse or flat) created within a proposed development. A -maximum of 4 units may be consecutively attached. 4 Only 1 residential building (e.g., detached dwelling, semi-attached dwelling, townhouse, flat, etc.) with a maximum of 4 residential units and assoCiated NUMBER OF accessory structures for that building shall be permitted on a legal lot except for residential buildings legally existing at the effective date hereof. DWELLING UNITS Forthe purposes of this subsection, "legal lot" means a lot created through PER LOT: General the subdivision process, or through another mechanism which creates individual title for the residential building and any associated"private yards (e.g., condominium).4 .. . For parcels over 1/2 gross acre: Density requirements shall take precedence over the following minimum lot size standards. For parcels which exceed 1/2 acre in size: Detached and semi-attached dwelling units: 3,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. , Attached townhouse dwelling units: 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. 2 flats: 5,000 sq. ft. per structure. 3 flats: 7,500 sq. ft. per structure. 4 flats: 10,000 sq. ft. per structure. LOT DIMENSIONS For parcels that are 1/2 acre or less in size as of March 1, 1995, Except Minimum Lot Size for lots in the North Renton subarea Bounded by: North 6th Streetl 1-4051 Cedar created after July 11, 1993 River, and Logan Avenue N: No minimum lot size requirement when they are subsequently subdivided. Density requirements shall apply. For parcels that are 1/2 acre or less in size as of March 11 1995 in the North Renton subarea bounded by: North 6th Street, 1-4051 Cedar River, and Logan Avenue N: Minimum lot size reguirements shall aQQly, exceQt that for attached townhouse units the minimum lot size shall be 2,500 sguare feet Qer dwelling unit. Lot size shall take Qrecedence over density for these Qarceis. (~(f~~f:'sTmm~: the language maintains the density range of Policy LU-162 and limits the location of the units to North Renton.] December 8, 2004 Page 9 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I R-10 NA Attached townhouse dwelling units or flats on l2arcels that are 1/2 acre or less in size as of March 11 1995 in the North Renton Subarea Bounded by North 6th Street, 1-405; Cedar River, and Logan Avenue N~. Such BUILDING units shall be subject to the following standards: STANDARDS: Building • A pitched roof covered with non-metallic material. Design • An entry visible from the street. ·0 . Frames around each window. BUILDING STANDARDS: Project NA ; Size Limitations BUILDING STANDARDS: NA Maximum Building Length Street Patterns: Non-meandering street patterns and the provision of alleys (confined to side yard or rear yard frontages) shall be the predominant . SPECIAL DESIGN street pattern in any subdivision permitted within this zone; provided, that this does not cause the need for lots with front and rear street frontages or STANDARDS: General dead-end streets. Cul~de-sacs shall be allowed when required to provide public access to lots where a through street cannot be provided or where 4-2-110H topography or sensitive areas necessitate them. CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS . 4. Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions that are not eligible for a variance include: building size, units per structure/lot, or densities. Unless bonus size or density provisions are speCifically authorized, the modification of building size, units per structure, or densities requires a legislative change .in the code provisions and/or a Comprehensive Plan amendmenUrezone. . . 13. In the event the applicant shows that minimum density cannot be achieved due to lot configuration, lack of access, or physical constraints, minimum density requirements may be reduced by the Reviewing Official. . Phasing, shadow platting, or land reserves may be used to satisfy the minimum density requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the current development would not preclude the provision of adequate access and infrastructure to future development and would allow for the eventual satisfaction of minimum density requirements through future development. Within the Urban Center, surface parking may be considered a land reserve. -- 18. The applicant must demonstrate to the Reviewing Official that the proposed . development will: . a. Be developed to standards equivalent to those requirements established in this . chapter for yards·, land areas, widths, setbacks and frontages, and December8, 2004 Page 10 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department. b. Provide access and infrastructure to serve the development, equivalent to those requirements established in the subdivision regulations. December 8, 2004 Page 1f Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I ,e OPTION 3:_Allow Multiplexes on Individual Preexisting Lots that Meet the Minimum Lot Size but Not the Maximum Density -But by Conditional Use Permit Policy LU-162. Development densities in the Residential Medium Density designation area should range from seven (7) to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre, as specified by implementing zoning. Policy LU-165. Provision of small lot, single-family detached unit types, townhouses, and multi- family structures compatible with a single-family character should be allowed and encouraged in the Residential Medium Density designation, provided that density standards can be met (see also the Housing Element for housing types) .. Regulations may allow higher densities on pre- existing lots in established neighborhoods to match the current dwelling density and character, if the resulting density is in the range identified in Policy LU-162. ' 4-2-020 G. RESIDENTIAL-tO DUIACRE (R-tO): The Residential-10 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre' Zone (R-10) is' established for medium- density residential development that will provide a mix of residential styles including . detached dwenings or semi-attached dwellings on small lots, attached townhouses, and small-scale attached flats. Development promoted in the zone is intended to increase opportunities for detached and semi-attached single-family dwellings as a percent of the ' housing stock, as well as allow some small-scale attached housing choices and to create . high-quality infill development that increases density while maintaining the single-family character of the existing neighborhood. Allowable base densities range from four (4) to ten (10) dwelling units per net acre. Regulations may allow higher densities on pre- existing lots in established neighborhoods to match the current dwelling density and character, if the resulting density is in the range identified in Policy LU-162. The zone' serves as a transition to higher density multi-family zones . . Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone 'shall be based on the objectives and policy direction established in the Residential Medium-density land use designation, Objectives LU-GG and/through LU-", Policiies LU-1S7 through LU-181 or the Center Village land use designation, Objective LU-CCC, Policies LU-317 through 332 and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 4-2-060 ZONING USE TABLE -USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS: I USES Attached Dwellings I R·10 50. a. General Requirements: Permitted subject to the applicable density limitations, building length, and dwelling unit type mix requirements of thed~velopment standards for this zone. b. R-10 Zone: ill..Limited to no more than four (4) attached dwellings per building. December 8,2004 . Page 12 . Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department (ii) If rati~tl!r%-11 dwellings arfl.Q[QQQ5.ed on lots less than 0.5 acre as of March 1, 1995 and minimum lot area requirements_9If:U11et. but density limits would be exceeded, an administrativ~' conditional use permit is reilllireQ, c. R-14 Zone: Buildings shall not exceed six (6) dwelling units per structure except as provided in RMC 4-9-0650, Bonuses. 4-2-110F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) R-10 For parcels over 1/2 gross acre: 4.units per net acre for any subdivision or development.4.13 . . DENSITY: Minimum Minimum density requirements shall not apply to: a} the renovation or H . D ~ 413 ouslng ensl y . conversion of an existing structure, or b} the subdivision, and/or development of a legal lot 1/2 gross acre or less in size as of March 1, 1995. DENSITY: Maximum For developments or subdivisions including attached or semi- Housing Density attached dwellings: 10 dwelling units per net acre.4 ., Uses shall be developed on a "legal lot. .. For the purposes of this subsection, "legal lot" means: a lot created through the subdivision process, or created through another mechanism which creates individual title forthe PLATS OR SHADOW residential building and any associated private yards. PLATS: General If title is created through another mechanism other than a subdivision, the development application shall be accompanied by a shadow plat and if, applicable, phasing or land reserve plan.18 '. Covenants shall be filed as part of a final plat in order to address the density and unit mix requirements of the zone. Existing development: None required. For parcels which are a maximum size of 1/2 acre as of the effective date hereof (March 1,1995): None required. DWELLING UNIT MIX: Full subdivisions and/or development on parcels greater than 1/2 acre, excluding short plats: A minimum of 50% to a maximum of 100% of General . detached or semi-attached dwelling units. A minimum of one detached or semi-attached dwelling unit must be provided for each attached dwelling unit (e.g., townhouse or flat) created within a proposed development. A maximum of 4 units may be consecutively attached. 4 Only 1 residential building (e.g., detached dwelling, semi-attached dwelling, townhouse, flat, etc.) with a maximum of 4 residential units and associated NUMBER OF accessory structures for that building shall be permitted on a legal lot except for residential buildings legally existing at the effective date hereof. DWELLING UNITS For the purposes of this subsection, "legal lot" means a lot created through PER LOT: General the subdivision process, or through another mechanism which creates individual title for the residential building and any associated private yards (e.g., condominium}.4 December 8, 2004 . Page 13 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton EO/N/SP Department I . LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size for lots created after July 11,1993 BUILDING STANDARDS: Building Design BUILDING ANDARDS: Project BUILDING STANDARDS: Maximum Building·Length SPECIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: General ·R-10 Density requirements shall take precedence over the following minimum lot size standards. For parcels which exceed 1/2 acre in size: Detached and semi-attached dwell.ing units: 3,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. Attached townhouse dwelling units: 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. 2 flats: 5,000 sq. ft. per structure . 3 flats: 7,500 sq. ft. per structure. 4 flats: 10,000 sq. ft. per structure. or parcels that are 112 acre or less in size as of March 1, 1995: No minimum lot size requirement when they are subsequently subdivided. Density requirements shall apply. • A pitched roof covered with non-metallic material. • An entry visIble from the street. • Frames around each window.WA . NA 'NA Street Patterns: Non-meandering street patterns and the provision of alleys ed to side yard or rear yard frontages) shall be the predominant pattern in any subdivision permitted within this zone; provided, that does not cause the need for lots with front and rear street frontages or streets. Cul-de-sacs shall be allowed when required to provide access to lots where a through street cannot be provided or where hy or sensitive areas necessitate them. 4-2-110H. . CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED' WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 4. Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions that are not eligible for a variance include: building size, units per structure/lot, or densities. Unless bonus December 8,2004 Page 14 . Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department size or density provisions are specifically authorized, the modification of building size, units per structure, or densities requires a legislative change in the code provisions and/or a Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezone. 13. In the event the applicant shows that minimum density cannot be achieved due to lot configuration, lack of access, or physical constraints, minimum density requirements may be reduced by the Reviewing Official. Phasing, shadow platting, or land reserves may be used to satisfy the minimum density requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the current development would not preclude the provision of adequate access and infrastructure to future development and would allow for the eventual satisfaction of minimum density requirements through future development. Within the Urban Center, surface parking may be considered a land reserve. 18. The applicant must demonstrate to the Reviewing Official that the proposed development will: a. Be developed to standards equivalent to those requirements established in this chapter for yards, land areas, widths, setbacks and frontages, and b. Provide access and infrastructure to serve the development, equivalent to those requirements established in the subdivision regulations. December 8, 2004 Page 15 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department PURPOSE DOCKET ITEM . TITLE 4, CHAPTER 7: SUBDIVISIONS REGULATIONS BINDING SITE PLAN This issue paper analyzes potential amendments to the Binding Site Plan (RMC 4-7-230) requirements to address the relationship between the Binding Site Plan requirements and the development regulations for the underlying zone, such as minimum lot size, and their application during the binding site plan process. Per RMC 4-7-230, the Binding Site Plan process is an optional method for the division of land classified industrial, commercial;or mixed use and currently applies to the following zones: CN-Commercial Neighborhood, CD-Center Downtown, CO-Commercial Office, COR-Center Office Residential, CA- Commercial Arterial, CC-Convenience Commercial, UC-N1-Urban Center North 1, UC-N2-Urban Center North-2, IL-Industrial-Light, 1M-Industrial Medium, and IH-Industrial Heavy. The issue paper analyzes the relationship between the development standards of the underlying zone and the application of the binding site plan process to commercial and industrial properties. This paper explores whether the binding site plan provisions should apply the development standards to the larger site as a whole or to the individual parcels created through the binding site plan process. This is particularly relevant for property owners who would like to apply the binding site plan process to pre- existing commercial and industrial developments, where if subdivided, the existing buildings are located in a configuration that would not conform to the minimum lot size requirements for the underlying zone. BACKGROUND The issue of the mini·mum lot size requirements and whether they are applied tathe entire binding site plan lot or the individual lots resulting from the subdivision arose in 2003, when a property owner wanted to apply the binding site plan procedures to a preexisting industrial office park. Unico Properties Inc, owns the Washington Technical Center (WTC) site located near Powell Avenue and SW 7th Streets (see Exhibit A) The WTC site contains four large parcels, comprising a total of . approximately 16 acres. Each parcel contains three to four buildings with shared access, landscaping, and parking facilities. The site is zoned IM-Industrial-Medium Zone, which requires a minimum lot size of 35,000 sq. ft for newly created lots. In the fall of 2003, Unico Properties, Inc decided to pursue further subdivision of the WTC property through the City's binding site plan process. A prelimin~ry proposal was submitted to the City and a meeting was held in November 2003 to discuss potential lot configurations for the site. In correspondence between Unico and the City, Unico questioned whether the development standards of the underlying zone (such as minimum lot standards) apply to the entire site being considered under the binding site plan or whether the development standards would be applied to the individual lots created through the binding site plan. The City's current code requires that each lot within the binding site plan comply with the zoning and development regulations of the underlying 1M zone. This means that the lot size, configuration, access, landscaping, and parking requirements of the 1M zone are applicable to each lot created through the binding site plan, not the development as a whole. In order for Unico Properties to further subdivide their site, the development standards of the underlying zone must be met and ~nico must obtain a variance from standards, or else the applicant must pursue a zoning code amendment to alter the City's binding site plan regulations. Unico 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 parcels. This issue· paper analyzes the implications of this type of text amendment to the binding site plan regulations, Decem ber 8, 2004 Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department ·e researches how other local communities address this question of the underlying zoning requirements, and presents options and recommendations for the City's consideration. . INTENT-REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON A binding site plan is an alternative method of land subdIvision, authorized per RCW 58.17.035, which is generally applied in one of the following circumstances: 1) The division of commercial or industrially zoned land for sale or lease when used for commercial or industrial purposes; . 2) The division of land for lease when used as a mobile home park or recreational vehicle park; 3) The division of land resulting from a portion of a parcel or tract for condominiums. . RCW 58.17.020 defines a binding site plan as a drawing which: 1) identifies and shows the areas and locations of all streets, roads, improvements, utilities, open spaces, and any other matters specified by local regulations; 2) contains inscriptions or. attachments which defines the limitations and conditions for the use of the land as established by the local government body; and 3) contains provisions making . development be in conformitywith the site plan. INTENT-RMC 4-7.,.230A BINDING SITE PLANS The Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-7-230A) states that the purpose and intent of the City's binding site plan is to"provide an optional method for the division of land classified for industrial, commercial, or mixed use zones ... this method may be employed as an alternative to the subdivision and short subdivision procedures in this Chapter." RMC 4-7-230A also states that the administrative requirements for the review and approval of binding site plans are in addition to the procedural requirements of Chapter 4-8 RMC (Permits-General and Appeals) and other applicable City development regulations such as the development standards ofthe underlying zone. Comprehensive Plan Policies . . While there are no Comprehensive Plan poliCies that specifically· address binding site plans or commercial property ownership, some policies support and promote flexibility in commercial/industrial development. Relevcmt policies include: Policy LU-335. Increased demand for commercial uses should be accommodated primarily through redevelopment and intensification of existing business area designations rather than expansion of those areas. Policy LU-349. Support development plans incorporating the following features: 1) Shared access pOints anc,i fewer curb cuts; . 2) Internal circulation among adjacent parcels 3) Shared parking facilities 4) Allowance for future transition to· structured parking facilities; . 5) Centralized signage; 6) Unified development concepts; 7) Landscaping and streetscape that softens visual impacts. Policy LU433. Encourage flexibility in use and reuse of existing, conforming structures to allow business to evolve in response to market and production requirements. - BINDING SITE PLAN PROCEDURES The provisions of RCW 58.1 t .035 include general direction to local jurisdictions to develop procedures to allow for binding site plans as an alternative method of subdivision. The provisions address applicability of binding site plans, the approval process, and the required elements to a binding site plan. The key features identified in RCW 58.17.035 include: . December 8, 2004 Page 2 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department • After the approval of the general binding site plan for industrial or commercial properties, the approval for improvements and finalization of ~pecific individual commercial or industrial lots shall be done administratively.· - • The binding site plan must be a record of survey, recorded with the County and all lots, parcels, or tracts created through the biding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. • The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, and or divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed by the local zoning ordinance.1 . . • All provisions, conditions; and requirements of the binding site plan must be legally enforceable on the purchaser or any other person acquiring a lease or other ownership interest on any lot, parcel, or tract created pursuant to the binding site plan. This is typically handled by recording the conditions on the recorded Binding Site Plan. • Any sale, transfer or lease of any lot, tract, or parcel created pursuant to the binding site plan that does not conform to the requirements of the binding site plan, or without binding site plan approval is a violation of the RCW 58.17. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING AND LAND USE STANDARDS While the intent of RCW 58.17.035 is to provide an alternative method of subdivision, its direction regarding the requirements of the underlying zone and whether it is the intent of the binding site plan to provide greater flexibility with the underlying zone's development standards is somewhat unclear. The greatest direction is with regard to the State's definition of lot as a "fractional part of divided lands having fixed boundaries, being of sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area." From this definition it appears that the zoning requirements for the underlying zone apply to each individual lot, as opposed to the entire site area under consideration. The law also states that the number of lots, tracts, parcel, sites, and or divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed by the local zoning ordinance, which can be interpreted to mean that the individual parcels created through a binding site plan cannot exceed the maximum density or a maximum lot size if such a standard exists for commercial/industrially zoned properties. LOCAL CASE STUDIES Local subdivisions codes were researched to determine how other cities and counties apply the binding site plan procedures in their community and for the purposes of applying development standards, whether they look at the collective site area or whether they apply the development standards to each individual lot created through subdivision. Cities and counties have applied the binding site plan subdivision option as a means of simplifying the subdivision process or providing greater flexibility for segregating industrial or commercially zoned property for the purpose of sale or lease without the necessity of completing formal platting procedures. For those communities that clearly addressed the definition of "lot", the minimum lot size is typically addressed by stating that the entire site area of all lots involved in the binding site plan function as one site and are treated as a single lot when applying development standards such as minimum lot area, lot dimensions, and setbacks. In those instances, the conditions placed on the binding site plan applicable to each individual lot will ensure that the landscaping, parking, and other development standards are considered for the site as a whole and recorded with the legal lot of record. However, the Renton City Attorney should review RCW 58.17.035 to verify that the provisions allow for this type of interpretation. The Cities of Tukwila, Redmond, Bellevue, Bothell and King and Snohomish County codes were reviewed. 1 RCW 58.17.020 defines 'lot' as "a fractional part of divided lands having fixed boundaries, being of sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area. The term shall include tracts or parcels." December 8, 2004 Page 3 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department CITY OF TUKWILA . The City of Tukwila considers the entire land area of the binding site plan as a single lot when applying the development standards of the underlying zone to the review and approval of the binding site plan. According to their subdivision code, the purpose of the binding site plan provisions are to allow for subdivi.sion of commercial or industrial centers with modifications to certain zoning standards such as minimum· parking, setbacks, landscaping, lot area and lot dimension on the individual lots provided the standards for the entire center are met (TMC 17.16.010). The definition of a lot is clarified in the . approval criteria by specifying that the commercial and industrial property must meet the definition of an integrated site2 and "when taken as a whole,and not considering any interior lot lines, the integrated site meets all the zoning and subdivision requirements." Similarly, the modifications to the minimum zoning requirements permitted through a binding site plan such as se~backs, parking, landscaping, lot area, and lot dimension are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and does not adversely affect adjacent properties. Approval criteria also address access, internal pedestrian circulation, and· . . infrastructure availability: CITY OF BELLEVUE . . . . Bellevue does not have specific binding site plan provisions in their subdivision code, but does allow for certain commercial/industrial site plan applications to be merged with a binding site plan pursuant to RCW .58.17 such as site plans associated with conditional use permits, administrative conditional use permits, shoreline conditional use permits, and site plans subject to design review. Once the binding site plan has been approved and recorded, an applicant can develop the subject property "in conformance with the approved and recorded Binding Site Plan and without regard to lot lines internal to the subject property. Any sale or lease of lots or parcels within the subject property shall be subject to the approved and recorded Binding Site Plan and the requirements of state law." (Bellevue Land Use Code 20.30B.160C). CITY OF BOTHELL Bothell's binding site plan procedures (BMC 15.12) include a two-step review process in which a general binding site plan is first reviewed and approved administratively, and a specific binding site plan approval . is obtained through the Hearing Examiner. A binding site plan is only allowed in conjunction with a planned unit development (PUD) for commercial or industrial property and is reviewed concurrently with the PUD. Binding site plans in Bothell are applicable to commercial/industrial property and do not apply to condominiums or mobile home parks. Through the PUD process, potential applicants/property owners may propose development standards for location, dimensions, and design of buildings, streets, and parking areas, which, if approved, become a part of the site plan in lieu of the requirements of the underlying zone. SpeCific regulations are identified for pre-existing development which state that final PUD's for industrial/commercial use, which have been approved prior to the effective date of the binding site plan provisions, qualify as a general binding site plan. Further division of land must occur through the second phase specific binding site plan or through a formal subdivision or short plat. CITY OF REDMOND The City of Redmond's Community Development Guide (RMC 20F.40.150-100) also contains proviSions for binding site plans, although limited direction is provided regarding the treatment of underlying zoning requirements. In discussions with City staff, the City receives a low number of binding site plan applications, approximately 1-2/year, primarily for existing commercial developments (office parks) where 2Anlntegrated Site is defined as a commercial or industrial zoned pr~perty for which a Binding Site Improvement Plan is being or has been approved and recorded. The site typically contains within it multiple tracts of land under separate leasehold or ownership, but functions as a single center~ Characteristics of an integ"rated site includes commonly shared access, parking, utilities, signage and landscaping; the site is not bisected by a public or private street; and zoning and sign regulations are applied to the entire site, as if there were no interior property lines. December 8, 2004 Page 4 Prepared by Jones.& Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department a property owner wants to sell off a portion of the land while maintaining ownership or control over other portions of the land. The Binding Site Plan has also been applied to residential development- condomiriiums and affordable housing developments. According to staff interpretation, the binding site plan supersedes the development standards of the underlying zone. Requirements for the lot size, setbacks, lot coverage: parking, landscaping, etc are treated for the site as a whole. . SNOHOMISH COUNTY The Snohomish County Code 30.23.060 also addresses the applicability of the development standards in' a binding site plan. The land divided through the binding site plan is subject to the bulk regulations of the underlying zone. The entire land area subject to the binding site plan is treated "as a single lot when . applying minimum lot area, minimum lot width, setbacks, maximum lot coverage, off-street parking, sign, and landscaping requirements. KING COUNTY King County Code Chapter 19.20.010 identifies that one of the purposes of the chapter is to "allow the Director to modify interior lot based or lot line requirements contained within the zoning, building, fire and other similar uniform codes adopted by the County." The provisions are also in place to allow the administrative determinations which authorize sharing of open space, parking, access, and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan.· The binding site plan is a , method upon which "the collective lots continue to function as one site with respect to, but not limited to, lot access, interior circulation, open space, landscaping, drainage facilities, facility maintenance, and parking". The King County Code includes specific language that the conditions of use, maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space, parking, access or other improvements shall be identified and enforced by covenants, easements, or other similar mechanisms: BINDING SITE, PLANS AND SEPA REVIEW . A question was raised during preliminary Planning Commission review regarding whether environmental review is required fqr binding site plans. Reviewing SEPA rules anc:\ the City's SEPA regulations, the following types of activities on a mixed use, commercial, or industrial site are exempt from environmental review, unless they occur on lands covered by water (e.g. streams, wetlands): • The construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling units. • The approval of short plats or short subdivisions pursuant to the procedures required by RCW .58.17.060, but not including further short subdivisions or short platting within a plat or subdivision previously exempted under this subsection. [Note: Renton allows short plats of up to 9 lots . . Binding site plans are subject to RCW 58.17.035, different than the short plat law.] • The construction of an office, school; commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 4,000.square feet of gross floor area, and with associated parking facilitjes designed for twenty autorriobiles. . .' • The construction of a parking lot designed for twenty automobiles. • Any landfill or excavation of 500 cubic yards throughout the total lifetime of the'fill or excavation. [Note: City regulations apply 500 cubic yards as part of SEPA flexible thresholds.] • Purchase or sale of real property. Even if some categorical exemptions apply but others do not, the thresholds triggered would require that environmental review be completed. Irrespective of the number of "lots" created, binding site plans that authorize commercial or industrial construction of buildings greater than 4,000 square feet or landfill of 500 cubic yards or parking lots of greater than 20 spaces would be required to provide environmental review. Binding site plans that create an alternative form of ownership such as condominium ownership but do not authorize new construction would likely be considered exempt because no change to the environment is proposed. December 8, 2004 Page 5 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department ',e ISSUES AND OPTIONS· " \ , . . 1. No Action-Keep the current requirements that the development standards for the underlying lot apply to each individual lot created through the binding site plan process. This provision ensures that the development standards are met for each parcel created through the binding site plan process. Although the No Action approach works for new development, it could potentially constrain future subdivision of existing shopping centers and office/industrial parks due to the potential site challenges and the location of existing buildings on the site and the need to meet setback requirements, minimum lot size, parking, landscaping, site access, and signage for each new "lot" created. Minimum lot size, ' requirements would likely preclude further subdivision of existing, larger developed commercial and industrial parcels, and larger properties, for such uses may preserve options for redevelopment. While the . existing commercial/industrial development may meet the requirements of the underlying zone for the site as a whole, if broken into smaller parcels, it would be challenging to meet all of the underlying zoning requirements-particularly minimum lot size, building setbacks, lot coverage,site access, parking, signage and landscaping where these site improvements were originally planned for the whole site. Although State Law allows the binding site plan to be used as a tool to subdivide commercial/industrial properties; under current Henton code, tlie binding site plan will likely only be applicable in limited circumstances for pre-existing development, if lot conditions are right, and the configuration of buildings on the site can meet the development standards after further subdivision. 2. Revise Binding Site Plan provisions so that, when reviewed as a whole, the site meets all of the zoning and subdivision requirements, if determined an appropriate course of action by the City , Attorney. This approach would likely facilitate further subdivision of existing commercial/industrial development through the binding site plan process by providing greater flexibility to property owners on commercial/industrial zoned land, but would increase the number of non-conformities and would circumvent the development regulations of the underlying zone, particularly minimum lot size' requirements, setbacks, and lot coverage (Existing development standards allow for shared parking, landscaping, and signage in shopping centers per RMC4-4-080E3 and RMC4-4-100E5). This approach would allow the individual lots created through the binding site plan process to be smaller than the minimum lot size requirements for the underlying zone, provided that the entire site considered through the binding site plan meets the minimum lot size requirements. Revisions to the binding site plan process to allow this interpretation will not advers,ely affect new development and may have a beneficial effect on 'occupancy rates in office/industrial parks with a high vacancy rate. The binding site plan can be used as an alternative approach to allow the division of larger sites, which would allow property owners to break up the land and building for sale to individual purchasers. This may become a way to address high vacancy rates in existing shopping centers and office/industrial complexes by providing greater flexibility for the subdivision, sale, and development of commercial and industrial property. Although some communities have taken this approach, the City Attorney should review RCW 58.17.035 to verify that the provisions allow for this type of interpretation. [Note: Question has been posed to the City Attorney.] In addition, this approach will increase the administrative burdens for review and approval of binding site' ; plans .. Although the restrictive covenants and conditions are in place with a binding site plan regarding the future use of the land, future revisions to the approved binding site plan would require coordination with multiple property owners to ensure that they all agree to the proposed changes. For example, this could be challenging if one property owner proposed a building expansion with reduced parking or increased lot coverage and required buy-off from all property owners to do so. . ." 3. Revise Binding Site Plan provisions to include allowances for condominiums as an option whEm the minimum lot size requirements cannot be met through the binding site plan process. Amend the municipal code to allow for condominiums per RCW 64.34 Condominium Act. This approach would essentially allow two options to property c;>wners who would like to subdivide or sell off portions of ' lease space., Property owners could subdivide property through the binding site plan process if the development standards could be met. If the development standards of the underlying zone could not be met, an alternative option would allow property owners to convert existing lease space into commercial· condominium space. For example, this approach would allow property owners to sell off space in buildings without further subdivision of land. This would be an option for applicants who would like to use the binding site plan process to sell off portions of a commercial/industrial property but due to site December 8, 2004 Page 6 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department constraints would not be able to achieve the minimum lot size requirements through the binding site plan process. Developmentstandards such as minimum lot size, parking, landscaping, setbacks, lot coverage, outdoor storage, etc would be applied to the site as a whole, and since the land is not subdivided further, the minimum lot size requirement for the entire site can be met. New condominiums would be addressed through RCW 64.34 and processed through the City's (amended) Binding Site Plan process. This may become a way to address high vacancy rates in existing shopping centers and officelindustrial complexes by providing greater flexibility for the sale of existing commercial and industrial property. This may in turn stimulate economic development and investment in the City. This approach minimizes the administrative burden by ensuring the development standards for commercial/industrial properties can be met. It also ensures that any restrictions for future modifications to the property are tied to condominium covenants and restrictions. 4. Revise the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations (RMC 4-9-150) to allow for commercial/industrial PUD's. This approach, similar to the City of Bothell, woul~allow binding sit~ plan applications to deviate from the requirements of the underlying zone provided that acceptable alternative development standards are proposed to meet the intent of the code. In such a case, a binding site plan would be required to be processed concurrent with a Planned Unit Development, and would require . Hearing Examiner approval. The City would need to develop a new PUD ordinance as the current one is out of date and has not been used recently. ANALYSIS This section analyzes the implications of applying Options 1 through 3 to existing sites within the City: the Unico site located near Powell Avenue and SW 7ti1 Street and the Time Square site located near SW 39th Street and Lind Avenue SW. OPTION 1 In the case of the Unico site, the existing zoning is 1M-Industrial Medium, which requires a minimum lot size of 35,000 sq. ft. (0.80 acres) and front yard and side street setbacks between 15-20' depending on the type of arterial frontage. There are no side or rear yard setback requirements unless adjacent to a residential zone. There are no minimum lot width or building lot coverage standards for this zone. Existing lots within the complex range from 3.36 acres to 4.82 acres in size. . The Times Square development is located in IL-Industrial Light zone, which requires a minimum lot size of 35,000 sq. ft. (0.80 acres) and front yard setbacks of 15-20' depending on the type of arterial frontage. There are no side or rear yard setback requirements unless adjacent ba residential zone. The IL zone requires maximum lot coverage for buildings of 65%. Two parcels within this complex include a 4.71 acre· (1 building) lot and a 17.99 acre lot (4 buildings). Under Option 1, conditions would continue as they currently exist today. Property owners could apply the binding site plan process to subdivide their property, provided that they comply with all of the development standards of the underlying zone. OPTION 2 Under the proposed Option 2, the respective property owners could use the binding site plan process to subdivide the commercial/industrial land into parcels smaller than the required minimum lot size of the underlying zone provided that the entire site as a whole is larger than 35,000 sq. ft. Setbacks would be measured from the original parcel line and not for each individually created lot. Individual lots would not need to have the required number of parking stalls, landscaping, and direct access to a street provided the site as a whole met the parking, landscaping, access, and signage standards. As a result, the smaller parcels and setbacks for each individual parcel could become non-conforming with the requirements of the underlying zone. December 8, 2004 Page 7 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department •• OPTION 3 Under this scenario, the Unico and Times Square sites could not be further subdivided unless the minimum lot size, width, and setback requirements could be met for each individually created lot. Parking, landscaping, access, outdoor storage, and signage requirements could be applied to the site as a whole, where the City code already allows for shared facilities or improvements. If the minimum iot dimensions and setback requirements could not be met, a binding site plan for this site would need to be processed as a Binding Site Plan for Condominiums in which the property owner converts eXisting lease space into condominium space for sale, but the land itself is not further subdivided. This ensures that the zoning code provisions for lot dimensions and setbacks can still be met. RECOMMENDATIONS Potential zoning code amendments for Option 3 are proposed below. Option 2. code revisions would be similar to Option 3 but would allow for smaller parcels that do not meet the minimum lot size requirements for the underlying zone provided the whole original site meets code standards (see Tukwila's definition of . an integrated site on page 4 as an example). The recommendations depend on the policy choice the. City wishes to make regarding Land Use and Economic Development, balancing that with policies for Commercial and Industrial development,. and ensuring that the intent of the commercial and industrial zones can be met. Staff recommends options that reduce the potential for nonconformity and administrative burden and could help retain larger parcels for redevelopment, such as Option 3. However, under separate cover, Option 4, amendment of PUD regulations is addressed and would provide an alternative approach that provides consideration of variations at the same time that a binding site plan is under consideration. December 8,2004 Page 8 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department OPTION 3: REVISE BINDING SITE PLAN PROVISIONS TO INCLUDE ALLOWANCES FOR CONDOMINIUMS AS AN OPTION WHEN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE MET THROUGH THE BINDING SITE PLAN PROCESS. 4-7-230 BINDING SITE PLANS: A. PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this Section is to allow for: j}FGvfGe LaOptional Methods of Subdivision. To 'provide two A-optional processes method for the division of land classified for industrial, commercial, or mixed use zones fCN, GS,CV, CA,CD, CO, COR 1, COR 2, COR 3, CA, CC, UC-N1, UC-N2,..JL, 1M, and IH zones] through a binding site plan and/or commercial condominium process as authorized in_ chapterRCW 58.17 RGWand 64.34. Theseis method.§. may be employed as an alternative to the subdivision and short subdivision procedures in this Chapter. 2. Procedural Requirements. To specify the This Section specifies administrative requirements for the review and approval of binding site plans that are in addition to the procedural requirements of chapter 4-8 RMC and other applicable provisions of the City development regulations. 1. All proposals for binding site plans shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. A binding site plan may be processed in one of two ways: ' a. Binding Site Plan: A binding site plan creates or alters existing lot lines, subject to the ·development standards of the underlying zoning district. b. Commercial Condominiums: Where the development standards of the underlying zoning district cannot be achieved through a Binding Site Plan, a binding site plan with condominium ownerships allow for greater flexibility in the sale and lease of commercial and industrial sites. This alternative allows the site in question to be treated as a single lot when applying the development standard for the underlying zone. 2. A binding site plan may be reviewed and approved: a. As a separate mechanism for the division of commercial and industrial land; b. Merged with a site plan review under RMC 4-9-200, development agreement under the authority of RCW 36.70B.170, or both a site plan and development agreement per the' criteria listed in this Section. A development agreement may include standards and . decision criteria that apply to a binding site plan application in lieu of the standards and criteria contained in this Section. Per RCW 36.70B.170-36.70B.210, a development agreement shall not be more permissive than the developments standards of the underlying zoning district. c. Independently for pre-existing developed sites, concurrent with or subsequent to a site development permit application for undeveloped land. or concurrent with or subsequent to a building permit application. December 8,2004 Page 9 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department e··· . , Approval of a binding site planar a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the following criteria are met: . , . . . 1 . Legal Lots. The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more contiguous ~lets-Iegallycreated lots. a. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zonihg district. New non-conforming lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process. b. If minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met, the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-230D. 2. Commercial or Industrial Property. The site is located within a commercial. industrial, or mixed- use zone. 3. Zoning Code Reguirements. Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district. -Where minimum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met. the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-230D. a. New Construction. The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. b. Existing Development. If the site is non-conforming prior to a binding site plan application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development standards of , the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations where the site cannot be brought into conformance due to physical limitations or other circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site more non-conforming than at the time a completed application is submitted. c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site plan may proposed shared signage, parking, and access if they are speCifically authorized per RMC4-4-080E3, RMC4-4-100E5,and RMC 4-4-08017, and other shared improvements as authorized in other sections of the City's development standards. 4. Building Code Reguirements. All building code requirements ~have been met per RMC 4-5- 010. 2~. Infrastructure provisions. Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or in a supporting document, ,have been made for drainageways: alleys; streets, other public ways, . water supplies, open space solid waste. and sanitary wastes, for the entire property covered by the binding site plan. 3. Comply '!lith all building code requirements. 4:-comply with all zoning-Gode requirements and development standards. 6. Access to Public Rights-of-ways and Utilities. Each parcel created by the binding site plan shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer; and utilities by means of direct access or access easement approved by the City. 7. Shared Conditions. The Administrator may a'uthorize sharing of open space, parking, access, signageand other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan December 8, 2004 Page 10 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department and the provisions of RMC4-4-080E3, RMC4-4-100ES,and RMC 4-4-08017. Conditions of use, maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space, parking, access, siqnage and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants, easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism .. 8 .. Future Development. The bindinq site pian shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan. 9. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication. the applicant shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan. . 5.Have suitable physical characteristics. 10. Suitable Physical Characteristics. A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of flood. inundation. or swamp conditions or construction of protective improvements may be required as condition of approval. A binding site plan may be approved as a separate mechanism for the division of land. A binding site plan may also be apPfO'led concurrently ' .... ith a site plan. A binding site plan may also be merged with a site plan, a develepmeflt-ag.reemeflt,of-both a site plan and development agreement per the criteria listed in this Section. The site that is subject-to the binding site plan may be revie· .... ed independently for developed . sites, concurrently with or subsequent to a site development permit application for undeveloped land or concurrently • .... ith or subsequent to a building permit application. . All applications for binding site plans shall be subject to the proviSions of this Section. including binding site plans to be incorporated within a development agreement under the authority of RCW 36.709.170 and including binding site plans to be approved in conjunction .... Iith site plan review under RMC 4 9 200; provJded that a development agreement approved under the. authority of RCVIJ. 36.70B.170 may include standards and decision criteria that apply to a binding site plan application in lieu of the standards and criteria contained inthis Section. D. l\PPLIC/\TION REQUIREMENTS: 1. General Requirements:~ All applications for binding site plans must conform to the requirements of RMC 4 3 120. E. Dl;SIGN STANDARDS FOR BINDING SITE PLANSS!rfiQI1'W'&mt_tl)m5Jnea1witf!it~7'2~,®j 1. Legal Lots: Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots. tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allov .. ed in the applicable zoning district. 2 .. ,I\ccess: Ali lots shall provide access to a public street, or to a public street by means of an access easement or other recOfGed-ifl.strument-appfGlJed by the City. ~Defficatjen Statement: ''',there lanGs-are required or proposed for dedication,:,tRe applicant shall provide a dedication statement-an€l-aGkAew~emeAt-en the binding sit~ 4 .• I\ccess to Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan shall have access to water supply, saffitary sewer, and utilities by means of-.d.irect access or access easement approved by the City. ga,.--SRareG-Gooditions: The-AGm-inistrator-may-authorize sharing of op.8fl--spaGe;-p.8fkfng,-access-aRG 0th.er-H:npfovements among-GORtigl:lo1:J.&-pr-ej:}erties subject to the--Sim:HRg-site-pla~4tiGns-of-use, December 8, 2004 Page 11 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department maiBt~e and restrictions on red-evelopmenklf-sf:lare~e,-paF~ess and OfRef fm.pfoV€meBt&-shali be ideR-tif.ieEkm-the-I:J.in4~-plan and enfo.rGeG-by--Go-venants, easements or other similaF-ffieGA-8ffiSffiS7 . 1. Applicability. Where subdivision of a commercial or industrial site will result in individual lots which cannot meet the development standards of the underlying zoning district. the condominium option allows for the conversion of lease space to condominiums without further subdivision of land. These standards are in addition to the requirements of RMC 4-7-230C . . 2. Approval: Condominium developments are eligible for binding site plan approval, when the purpose of such approval is to divide the property so that a portion of the parcel or tract can be subject to 64.34 RCW (Condominium Act). A condominium can only be recorded either when the development has already .. been constructed to City standards established through a binding site plan and a building permit for new development has been issued. Binding site plans for condominiums sites shall be in conformance with RCW 64.34 andRi~'i€T4i~i!igj;(U[Note: Verifying with City Attorney to verify applicability of RMC 4-9-040 in a commerCial setting]. The binding site plan shall also include conditions requiring that the condominium is recorded per the provisions of RCW 64.34. E. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: . . 1. General Requirements. All applications for binding site plans must conform to the requirements of RMC 4-8-120. F. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS: 1.lmprovements;-.!.. The following tangible improv~ments shall be provided for, either by actual construction or a construction schedule approved by the City and bonded by the applicant, before a binding site plan may be recorded: grading and paving of streets and alleys, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm sewers, street lights, water mains and street name signs, together with all appurtenances thereto to specifications and standards of this code, approved by the Department and in accordance with other standards of the City. A separate construction permit will be required for any such improvements, along with associated engineering plans prepared per the City Drafting Standards. 2. Phasing of Improvements;-.!.. To satisfy these requirements, the Administrator is authorized to impose conditions and limitations on the binding site plan. If the Administrator determines that. any delay in satisfying requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare, the Administrator may allow requirements to be satisfied prior to issuing the first building permit for the site, or prior to issuing the first building permit for any phase, or prior to issuing a specific building's certificate of occupancy, or in accordance with an approved phasing plan, or in accordance with plans established by a development agreement or as otherwise permitted or . required under City code. . G. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS: Access requirements and street design and development standards shall be provided in accordance with RMC 4~6-060, unless superseded by the terms of a development agreement as provided by RMC 4-7- a30J230J Merger with Development Agreement. New public roads shall be provided for lot access where determined by the Administrator to bereasonably necessary as a result of the proposed development or December 8, 2004 Page 12 . Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department to make appropriate provisions for public roads. Establishment of public roads may also be proposed by the applicant. H. PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR BINDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL: 1. Permit Type: Binding site plans shall be processed as Type III permits in accordance with the procedures in chapter 4-8 RMC for Type III permits and the standards and criteria set forth in this Section, unless the applicant elects to merge the binding site plan application with the site plan review process or combin'ed site plan/planned action review process in which case the binding site plan shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set out in chapters 4-8 and 4-9 RMC. If a binding site plan permit is processed concurrently, but not merged with another permit process, then the binding site plan application shall be processed ~s a Type' III permit. 2. Review Authority: Pursuant to chapter 4-8 RMC, the Bfesponsible Reviewing Official for a binding site plan application shall be the Administrator, unless the applicant elects to have the binding site plan application merged with a Type VI permit site plan application or a development agreement under chapter 36.70B RCW. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a Type VI site plan, then the responsible Reviewing Official shall be the Hearing Examiner. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a development agreement, the responsible Reviewing Official shall be the City Council. The final decision on a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council. No administrative appeal of the City Council decision shall be available. I. MERGER WITH SITE PLAN: 1. Review Standards for a Previously Approved Site Plan: If a previously approved site plan is submitted in conjunction with an application for binding site plan approval, the conditions and limitations imposed by the Administrator may, where appropriate, include any conditions and limitations contained in the previously approved site plan. Subsequent site development permits for the 'Iand will still be subject to compliance with the zoning, building, and other applicable land use codes and regulations existing at the time of development permit review, unless addressed as part of the binding site plan review and expressly depicted on the binding site plan. 2. Review Standards for Concurrent Site Plan Application: When a binding site plan is, being considered concurrently with another land development application, the Administrator will incorporate all conditions and limitations imposed on the concurrent application into the binding site plan. Subsequent site development permits for the land will still be subject to compliance with the zoning, building, and other applicable land use codes and regulations existing at the time of development permit review, unless addressed as part of the binding site plan review and expressly depicted on the binding site plan. J. MERGER WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: If a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement, in the event of a conflict between the terms of the development agreement and this Section, the terms of the development agreement shall control. Per RCW 36.70B.170-36.70B.210. a development agreement shall not be more permissive than the developments standards of the underlying zoning district. K. REVIEW AUTHORITY DECISION: 1. Action: The responsible Reviewing Official shall review and act upon binding site plans based upon the general criteria in this Section and other criteria applicable to the site plan or development agreement with which the applicant elects to merge the binding site plan . application. Every decision made under this Section shall include findings of fact and conClusions to support the decision. December 8, 2004 Page 13 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department 2. Approval: If the Reviewing Official finds the proposed binding site plan is in conformance to the standards and requirements of this Section, then it shall be approved. 3. Approval with Modifications: If modification(s) are deemed necessary by the Reviewing OffiCial, then they may be added to the binding site plan or a revised binding site plan may be required. The applicant shall be notified of any such modification action. 4; Referral to the Hearing Examiner: Except when a binding site plan is merged with a . development agreement, if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by residents in the area of the binding site plan, or by City staff, to warrant a public hearing, then he/she shall refer the binding site plan to the Hearing Examiner for public hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing will be given as fora Type VI permit hearing. Binding site plans merged with development agreements shall be approved by City Council· pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36. 70B.170 et seq .. 5. Denial: If the binding site plan is denied by the Reviewing Official, the applicant shall b~ notified in writing of the deCision, stating the reasons therefor~. ., 6. Reconsideration: Any party may request that an application, on which the Reviewing Official has made a decision, be reopened by the Reviewing Official if it is found that new information that was not previously available has come to light that might affect the action taken by the Reviewing Official. Requests for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision. . . . . L. RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION: Where dedication of right-of-way is required for the approved binding site plan or proposed by the applicant, the dedication shall require separate approval by City Council prior to recording of the binding site plan with record of survey. The dedication shall be effeCtive upon. recording of the binding site plan with record of survey. . M. SURVEY AND RECORDING: Prior torecording, the approved binding site plan shall be surveyed and the final recording forms shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor, licensed in the State of Washington. In addition to the requirements of RMC 4-8-120C, surveys shall include those items prescribed by RCW 58.09.060, • Records of survey, contents -Record of corner, information. 1. Administrator Approval: The binding site plan must be signed by the Administrator before it is filed. The final approved binding site plan shall remain with the City until such time as the applicant requests that the binding site plan be recorded. 2. Filing by City Clerk: The approved binding site plan will be sent to the City Clerk by the Department when the binding site plan is final and all prerequisites to filing have been completed. The binding site plan shall be filed by the City Clerk for record in the office of the King County Auditor and shall not be deemed approved until so filed. N. BINDING EFFECT: 1. Vesting: Upon filing ofa compl~te application for a binding site plan, the application shall be . considered under the binding site plan ordinance, the zoning, and other development regulations in effect on the date of application for the land uses and development identified in the binding site plan application or iqentified in a complete site plan review application filed in cqnjunction with or processed concurrently with a binding site plan application. . December 8, 2004 Page 14 Prepared by Jones ~ Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I I 2. Legal Lots: Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. . 3. Binding: Approved binding site plans shall be binding and shall be enforceable by the City. All provisions, conditions and requirements of the binding site plan shall be legally enforceable on the purchaser or on any person acquiring a lease or other ownership interest of any lot, tract, or parcel created pursuant to the binding site plan. The binding site plan shall include a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved binding site plan. A sale, transfer, or lease of any lot, tract, or parcel created pursuant to the binding site plan that does not conform to the requirements of the binding site plan approval, shall be considered a violation of this Section, shall be a nuisance and may be subject to an injunction action in Superior Court or such other remedies provided by City code. O. EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION: 1. Expiration Period: For binding site plans not merged with a site plan or development agreement, the approval shall lapse unless submitted for recording within five (5) years of the binding site plan approval. " 2. Expiration Period for Merged Approvals: For binding site plans approved as part of merged application with a site plan or development agreement, the binding site plan shall lapse when the site plan or development agreement expires unless submitted for recording prior to the date of expiration for the merged application. 3. Extension of Expiration Period: Additional time extensions beyond the five (5) year time period may be granted by the Administrator if the applicant can show need caused by unusual circumstances or situations which make it unduly burdensome to file the binding site plan within the five (5) year time period. The applicant must file a written request with the Administrator for . this additional time extension; this request must be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. The request must include documentation as to the need for the additional time period. Additional time extensions may be granted in not greater than one year increments, up to a maximum of two (2) years. 4. Extension of Expiration Period for Phased Projects: In the case of a phased binding site plan, submittal for recording of any phase of the binding site plan will constitute an automatic one year' extension for the submittal of the next phase of the binding site plan. P.APPEALS: See RMC 4-8-110H. Q. ALTERATION OR VACATION: 1. Alteration: Alteration of an approved binding site plan, excluding standard easements for utilities and lot line adjustments, shall be accomplished following the same procedures required for a new binding site plan application as set forth in this Section; provided, that only owners of lots within the binding site plan that are directly affected by the proposed alteration shall be required to authorize application for the alteration. If a binding site plan application was approved as part of a development agreement approval process as provided in subsection H2 of this Section or if property subject to a binding site plan approval is the subject of a development agreement, the alteration of the approved binding site plan shall not require an amendment to the development agreement or approval by the City Council and, after approval and recording, shall automatically be incorporated within the development agreement unless otherwise provided in the development agreement. . December 8, 2004 Page 15 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department· I I 2. Vacation: Vacation of a recorded binding site plan shall be accomplished by following the same procedures required for a new binding site plan application as set forth· in this Section. If a portion of a binding site plan is vacated, the property subject to the vacation shall constitute one lot, and the balance of the approved binding site plan shall remain as approved. ·If a binding site plan application was approved as part of a development agreement approval process or if property subject to a binding site plan approval is the subject of a development agreement, the vacation of· the approved binding site plan; whether total or partial, shall not require an amendment to the development agreement or approval by the City Council and, after approval and recording shall automatically be incorporated within the development agreement unless otherwise provided in the development agreement. (Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002) . . CHAPTER 4-11 DEFINITIONS 4-11-020 DEFINITIONS B: BINDING SITE PLAN: A drawing as authorized by chapter 58.17 RCW and provided for in RMC 4-7-230, which: 1. Identifies and shows the areas and locations of ali streets, roads, improvements, utilities, open spaces, and any other matters specified by RMC 4-8-120C, Submittal Requirements;,and 2. Contains inscriptions or attachments setting forth such appropriate limitations and conditions for the use of the land as are established by the City; and ., , 3. Contains provisions requiring site development to be in conformity with the approved binding site plan; (Ord. 4954,2-11-2002)· , December 8, 2004 Page 16 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department December 8, 2004 Exhibit A Washington Technical Center (WTC) Renton, Washington Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Page 17. December 8, 2004 Exhibit B Times Square Site Renton, Washington Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Page 18 TITLE 4 CHAPTER 1 4·1·230 Sureties and Bonds Bonds or securities are devices that set aside funds as a guarantee to ensure that infrastructure, landscaping, and environmental mitigation are installed and maintained to City satisfaction as appropriate to the conditions of development. They may also be required for temporary occupancy before improvements are installed or for temporary. uses to ensure they are removed when the time limit is reached. . Reviewing surrounding jurisdictions, Kent, Tukwila and Bellevue all have provisions addressing bonds and securities for a range of topics: infrastructure, critical area mitigation, right-of-way use', temporary uses, certain business licenses, and other items. While Kent and Tukwila provide sections within each code chapter that may require guarantees, Bellevue co-locates their requirements in one place in their Land Use Code administration section. The attached code amendments would amend RMC 4-1 Administration and Enforcement to codify common City of Renton conditions and practice in cases wherelhe .City requires securities or bond. Included in the document are provisions governing: Type of security devices: cash, letter of credit, set aside letter, savings account, and performance or maintenance bond. • Requirements for the surety device: payable to City, clause binding the applicant or "heir" to posting security, and available only for purposes of "project". • 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/on site improvements and for public improvements. Co-locating and specifyi~g common conditions and practice in one place will help assure consistent· application of requirements. The attached code amendments are recommended for approval. December 8, 2004 Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I New RMC Section 4-1-230 SURETIES AND BONDS A. City Approval Required: All sureties posted with the City shall be approved . as to form by the City Attorney and approved by the Administrator as to amount and adequacy. The City's decision as to the acceptability of the security shall be -conclusive . . B. Types of Security Accepted for Public Works Construction Permits and Future Public Works Street/Utility Maintenance Requirements: In order to ensure protection of City-owned facilities and ensure completion of required improvements to City standards, the City requires one of the following types of security in consideration of issuance of a Public Works Construction Permit: 1. Cash, 2. Letter of credit. . . . . 3. Set aside letter provided that the funds cannot be withdrawn, spent. or committed to any third party, 4. Savings account assigned to the City and blocked as to withdrawal by the secured party without the City's approval, or 5. Performance or Maintenance Bond. C. Types·of Security Accepted for All Other Purposes:· The following security devices are acceptable for the purposes of deferral requests, occupancy permit requests in advance of installation of required landscaping or other improvements, critical areas mitigation performance, and critical areas monitoring/maintence: 1. Cash, 2. Letter of credit, 3. Set aside letter provided that the funds cannot be withdrawn, spent. or . committed to any third party, or 4. Savings account aSSigned to the City and blocked as to withdrawal by the secured party without the City's approval. .. D. Security Requirements:; . 1. Payable to City: Any sec~rity device must be payable to the City upon· demand by the City and not conditioned upon approval or other process involving the applicant. . 2. Security Requirement Binding: The requirement of the posting of any security therefor shall be binding on the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns. 3. Purpose of Security: Security must be unequivocally committed to the project being secured, and cannot be available for any other purpose. I Editor's note: Item 4 relocated from old Section 4-9-0GO I 4. Agreement Required: In case of any suit or action to enforce any provisions of this code, the developer shall pay the City all costs incidental to such litigation including reasonable attorney's fees. The applicant shall enter into an . agreement with the City requiring payment of such attorney's fees. (Ord. 4521, 6- 5-1995) 6. Effect of Lapse of Security: Any security that. according to its terms, lapses upon a date certain, will cause the associated city approval (e.g. deferral, Temporary Occupancy Permit, etc.) to lapse on that same date unless additional adequate substitule security has been posted prior to the termination date of the prior security. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) I Editor's note: Items G and 7 relocater! from old Section 4-:9-0GO 6. Transfer of Responsibility: Whenever security has been accepted by the City, then no release of the owner or developer upon that security shall be granted unless a new party will be obligated to perform the work as agreed in writing to be responsible under the security; and has provided security. In the instance where security would be provided by a condominium owners . association or property owners association, then it shall be necessary for the owners association to have voted to assume the obligation before the City may . accept the security, and a copy of the minutes of the owners association duly . . certified shall be filed along with the security. 7. City Approval Required Prior to Transfer of Responsibility: The City shall not be required to permit a substitution of one party for another on any security if the Reviewing Official, after full review, feels that the new owner does not provide sufficient security to the City that the improvements will be installed when required. 8. Default: In the event that improvements are notcompleted as required or maintenance is not performed satisfactorily, the Administrator shall notify the applicant/developer, property owner and guarantor in writing. The notice must state the specific defects that must be remedied and the date the work shall be completed. . 9. ProceedinQ AQainst Security: In the event the developer fails to complete all improvement work required in compliance with this Title, and the City shall have to complete the improvements, the City reserves the right. in addition to all other remedies available to it by law, to proceed against the security for funds necessary to complete the improvements.· If the amount of security shall be less than the expense incurred by the City, the developer shall be liable to City for theSl::lffi difference. DOCKET ITEM TITLE 4, CHAPTERS 2 AND 7 MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND MAXIMUM DENSITY DESCRIPTION/PURPOSE The purpose of this docket analysis is to consider possible amendments to Title 4 in order to address an inconsistency between minimum lot size and maximum density in the R~ and R-8 zones. The issues discussed in this paper should be considered in conjunction with a related docket analysis for the R-10 zone which addresses, in part, the same issue (properties meeting minimum lot size but not density). The R-4 and R-8 single-family residential zones have the following provisions for density and lot size. (The table reflects amendments due to be adopted in early November 2004 to establish the R-4 zone and amend the R-8 zone.) . R-4 R-8 Minimum Housing Density for None 4 du/net acre'"" proposed short plats or subdivisions Maximum Housing Density 4 Dwelling Units per 1 Net Acre 5 years of preliminary plat approval. 13 8 Dwelling Units per 1 Net Acre Minimum Lot Size for lots 8,000 sq. ft. . l;j except where small 4,500 sq. ft. for parcels created after November 5, 2004 lot clusters 10 are allowed, R-8 greater than 1 acre. standards shall apply. 5,000 sq. ft. for parcels 1 acre or less. Note: For end notes, see 4-2-1100 at the end of thiS report. In the R~ zone, clustering is allowed as a transition between R~ and R-8 zones; In both of these zones, the subdivision of property into varying lot sizes, ranging from the minimum permitted lot size to larger lots, could result in the potential for future division of lots that exceed the maximum housing density for the zone. The following examples show how this may occur. Example 1. In the R-8 zone, a site with one net acre is subdivided with seven (7) lots consisting of 4,500 square feet and one lot containing 12,060 square feet. At the time of subdivision, the site meets the maximum lot size requirement of eight (8) dwelling units/1 net acre. Subsequently, the owner of the 12,060 square foot lot seeks approveil to subdivide the lot into two single-family lots. In the context of the 12,060 square foot lot considered in isolation from the prior subdivision, this action is consistent with the minimum lot size requirements for the zone and the maximum density requirement. It would result in nine (9) lots in the larger approved subdivision in which it is located, exceeding the maximum housing density for the larger subdivision. Example 2. In the R-4 zone, a site with 1.25 net acres is subdivided into four (4) lots of 8,000 square feet each and a fifth lot of 22,450 square feet. Subsequently, the property owner of the 22,450 square foot lot seeks approval to subdivide their property into two (2) lots. This meets the minimum lot size requirement and maximum density requirements for the subject property, but violates the maximum density requirements for the original subdivision. These issues do not appear to be of similar concern in the R-10 and R-14 zones because there are requirements for covenants to establish density and dwelling mix requirements. There is no difference in December 8, 2004 Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department , , lot size and density for the RC and R-1 zones, except in the R-1 zone where clustering is a possibility, and the recommendations later for the R-4 and R-8 zone should address the R-1 cluster situation as well. Discussion., The City has received inquiries from property owners in situations similar to these examples. The inquiries involve property that is part of a prior subdivision that meets the City's maximum density requirements and includes a lot or lots that could be further subdivided according to the minimum lot size standards. In these cases, further subdivision of a lot or lots within the subdivision would violate the maximum density standard of the original subdivision, but would be consistent with the lot size and density requirements for the smaller property. Currently, there are no explicit provisions in the zoning or subdivision regulations that would alert property owners or staff to this potential conflict. 'Applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code are found in Title 4, Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations. Chapter 7 identifies a short subdivision process for division of land into 9 lots or less and a subdivision process for division of land into 10 lots or more. Provisions that address multiple divisions of land and minimum residential size standards are listed below. ' Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions, Section 4-7-070 N. ' Limitations on Further Subdivision: Any land subdivided under the requirements of this Section shall not be further divided for, a period of five (5) years without following the procedures for subdivision. . " " Standards for subdivisions -Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards 4-7-160 C. Minimum Size: The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Section 4-7-070 N requires any property with an approved short subdivision to go through the full subdivision process if a request to further subdivide is submitted within the five-year period following approval of the short subdivision. There is no similar requirement for property that has been approved through a full subdivision. In addition and as described in Section 4-7-160C, the full subdivision requirements do not specifically regulate based on density, but rather on minimum lot size. These existing provisions do not address the situation described in the examples above. Chapter 7, Section 4-7-090 provides specific guidance regarding density for preliminary plats that have' been approved while in unincorporated King County and subsequently annexed to the City. Paragraph B.1 states that overall density of the subdivision shall not exceed the maximum "density allowed in the Zoning Code. It further states that lot size and lot width requirements need not comply so long as the density requirement is satisfied. This provision only applies to property that has preliminary plat approval fromthe County prior to annexation to the City. Objectives. The City's objectives in addressing this issue are to (1) ensure that maximum density requirements are maintained following subdivision approvals 1; (2) continue to provide for flexibility in lot sizes within residential subdivisions; and (3) ensure that property owners understand the lot size and , density restrictions on their property. Issues, options and approaches for achieving these objectives are described below. ISSUESIOPTIONS Several cities in the Puget Sound region were surveyed regarding their approach to this issue. ConsuJted cities include Federal Way, Kent, Kirkland, Bellevue,Redmond, and Shoreline. Noneof the 'consulted staff at these cities cou'ld recall a situation comparable to those described in the examples above. 1 If this is not an objective of the City, an alter~ative approach to resolving this issue would be to state that where there is a conflict between minimum lot size and density, minimum lot size controls. This is the approach taken by the City of Bellevue and is described in the Issues/Options section of this paper. December 8, 2004 Page 2 , Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department In some cities (Federal Way, Kent, Kirkland), the minimum lot size and density regulations are consistent, or are allowed to vary by 10 percent or less, such that the situation could not occur. . . Bellevue; Redmond and Shoreline have minimum lot size and density standards that could result in the situation described in the examples. However, none could recall any situations where it haej"occurred. Information provided by each city is summarized below: • City of Bellevue. The City has a code provision that applies to all residential zones stating that if there is a conflict between minimum lot size and density; minimum lot size controls. • City of Redmond. The City has a working policy that restricts future subdivision of previously platted lots. Although this is not a formal regulation, staff state that property owners are informed that if the property had been previously platted and conditions were unchanged, no additional subdivision is permitted. The interviewed planner reported that this type of inquiry rarely occurs and was not aware of any property owners that had questioned the City's informal policy. • City of Shoreline. The City does not address this issue. The interviewed planner stated that the zone in which this inconsistency could occur is fully developed and not in an area where re- development is likely, so the issue has not been a problem for the City. Although not specifically identified by any of the surveyed jurisdictions, another potential regulatory option could speCifically state that maximum density for an approved subdivisiofl cannot be exceeded. In order to provide adequate information to property owners, this restriction could be recorded with the final plat map. Conclusion. The City of Bellevue approach of establishing that minimum lot size prevails in the case of conflict does not satisfy the City's objective of ensuring that the maximum density requirement is maintained following subdivision approval and is inconsistent with how the City approaches other zones such as R-10 and R-14 provisions that indicate that density controls. However, the Bellevue approach does recognize that citizens typically experience density in terms of lot size of their property and neighboring properties, rather than the overall density of the larger area. If the City determines. that continuation of maximum density controls is not a primary objective, thiswould be a viable approach to resoiving the conflict between lot size and maximum density. The informal approach of restricting further division of approved subdivisions used by the City of Redmond results in uncertainty for the City and property owners. The approach in other cities of maintaini~g consistency between minimum lot sizes and maximum density does not meet the City's objective of providing for flexibility in lot sizes in subdivisions. . The recommended approach would specifically establish that the maximum density.for an approved . subdivision cannot be exceeded. This approach would satisfy all of the City's objectives and is described below. RECOMMENDATION 1 .. Amend the Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 7 (Subdivision Regulations) to require that any future platting of lots within an approved subdivision are consistent with the maximum density of the original subdivision. Section 4-7-070 applies to short subdivisions (9 lots or less); Section 4-7-170 applies to subdivisions (10 lots or more) Section 4-7-070 N. Limitations on Further Subdivision Any land subdivided under the requirements of this Section shall not be further divided for a period of . five (5) years without following the procedures for subdivision. Further short subdivision of 101(s) must be consistent with the applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole~ December 8, 2004 Page 3 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I Section 4-7-170 C. Minimum Size: . ' .' . ~he size, shape,and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area andwidthreq~irements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate forthe type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. . 2: Amend the Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 2 (Land Use Districts) to state that covenants shall be filed with all plats to address density requirements in the zone. The text amendment shown below proposes to include this text as a general note for all single family zones. Alternatively, this text could be included in the maximum qensity requirement cells for the R-4 and R-8 zones, or in . Chapter 7, Subdivision Ordinance, 42 110A D -- Maximum Housin~ ·Density~" Minimum Lot Size for lots created after November 10, 2004 eve opmen t St d d f S" I F "I R "d f I Z an ar s or m~ e .amllY eSI en la onmg D eSlgn RC R-1 R-4 R-8 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 4 dwelling units per 8 dwelling units per 10 net per 1 net acre 1 net acre13 per 1 net acre acre5 10 acres 1 acre 8,000 sq. ft. ,'') 4,500 sq. ft. for 4,500 sq. ft. for· except where sinall parcels greater· lot clusters 10 are than 1 acre. cluster allowed, R-8 developmene standards shall 5,000 sq. ft. for apply. parcels 1 acre or less. 4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE. FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS ations· 2~· Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions that are not eligible for a variance include: building size, units per structure/lot, or densities. Unless bonus size or density provisions . are speCifically authorized, the modification of building size, units per structure, or densities requires a . legislative change in the code provisions and/or a Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezone. 5. In order to pe considered detached, a structure must be sited a mi·ni~um of 6' from ~ny residential structure. .. 10. In order to serve as a transition between the lower density R-4zone and higher density development, "small lot clusters" of up to a maximum of 50 lots shall be allowed within 600 feet of the Single Family Land Use Designation as shown on the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan, when at least 30% of the site is permanently set aside as "Significant open space." Such open space shall be . situated to act as a visual buffer between small lot clusters and other development in the zone. The percentage of open space required may be reduced by the reviewing official to 20% of the site when: a) Public access is provided to open space, b) . Soft surface trails are provided within wetland buffers, and c) . Storm water ponds are designed to eliminate"engineered slopes-requiring fencing and enhanced to allow passive and/or active recreation. Special architectural features shall be provided on all dwelling units in small lot clusters. These shall include decorative hip or gable roofs with a pitch equal to or greater than one to two (1 :2), windows and doors with decorative trim at least four inches (4") in width, and eaves projecting at least eighteen inches (18") from the face of the building on at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the building's exterior perimeter with horizontal fascia at least ten inches (1 O")deep on all sides of the structure. December 8, 2004 . Page 4 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department . . . All portions of a site that are not dedicated to platted single-family lots shall be set in a separate tract and/or tracts to preserve existi~g viable stands of trees or other native vegetation. Such tracts shall be shown and recorded on the face of the plat to be preserved in perpetuity. Such tracts may be included in contiguous open space for the purposes of qualifying for small lot clustered development. Where trees are removed,landscaping designed to replace the functions of existing trees is required. 11. Lot size, width, and depth may be reduced by the Reviewing Official when, due to lot configuration or access, 4-dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved. The reduction shall be the minimum needed to allow 4-dwellingunits per net acre and shall be limited to the following minimum dimensions: Lot size -7,200 sq. ft Lot width -60 feet Lot depth -70 feet 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose of achieving maximum density, setbacks may also be reduced by the Reviewing Official. Setback reductions shall be limited to the following: Front -20 feet. Side yard along a street -15 feet primary structure, 20 feet attached garage with access from the side yard. Side -Minimum side yard combined setback -15 feet. Minimum for one yard - 5 feet. 13. For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to Nov. 10,2004, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within 5 years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum Density - 5 dwelling units per net acre Minimum Lot Size -7,200 sq. ft Minimum Lot Width -60 feet for interior lots, 70 feet for corner lots Minimum Lot Depth -70 feet Minimum Front Yard -15 feet for the primary structure, 20 feet for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right of way or all~y. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street -15 feet Minimum Side Yard - 5 feet 14. 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. December 8, 2004 Page 5 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department DESCRIPTION/PURPOSE DOCKET ITEM TITLE 4, CHAPTERS 2 and 4 GREEN RIVER VALLEY LANDSCAPING Current Code Requirements The Renton Municipal Code requires that any development in the Green River Valley (map in RMC 4-4- 070) provide 2% of the total site area for landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat; this is in addition to other required landscaping. In 1994, an applicant asked if it was possible to count drainage swales towards the 2% Green River Valley landscaping requirements. In a memo dated February 10, 1994, Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator determined that: Although a drainage swale's primary purpose is the disposal of stormwater, it may also be able to provide valuable wildlife habitat, if areas on the swale can be panted with vegetation suitable for habitat. The determination was based upon three factors: the King County Surface Water Design Manual allows/encourages swales to be planted with wetland vegetation, drainage swales if designed properly do not result in pockets of standing "contaminated" water, and in any case, wildlife can thrive in areas where clean water is stored or processed (e.g. City of Everett wastewater lagoon oxidation ponds). The determination was codified in 2002 . . The code language in effect today reads as follows: 4-4-070 LANDSCAPING: D. GENERAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 6. Green River Valley Landscaping Requirements: Any development in the Green River Valley shall provide a minimum of two percent (2%) of the total site for landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat. These areas should not be dispersed throughout a site, but should be aggregated in one portion of the property. Where possible, the required two percent (2%) landscaping for adjacent properties should be contiguous. This landscaping is in addition to any other landscaping requirements by this Section or 'any other regulation. A drainage swale, planted with vegetation suitable for habitat, may be counted toward the two percent (2%) additional landscape requirement if the Reviewing Official determines that the proposed planting plan and swale design will function to meet the intent of these regulations, including, but not limited to, that the facility slope and fencing design would not inhibit wildlife use. The following map depicts the , boundaries of this area: [See attached map.] The requirement is also repeated in the Development Standards tables in RMC 42 for the CA, CO, IL, 1M, and IH zones since these zones occur in the Green River Valley planning area. Origination of Code Provision The 2% habitat-landscaping requirement is based on a negotiated watershed plan/agreement (signed in 1980 based on a 1978 plan) between the City and the Federal Soil Conservation Service, now called Natural Resources Conservation Service. This regulation was included in the code in 1983 according to the Renton Municipal Code Ordinance Table.·· . December 8, 2004 . Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department The agreement to put into effect the 2% habitat-landscaping requirement was reached in 1980 as part of a multi-agency agreement, ,including the following agencies: • • '. • Federal USDA 'Soil Conservation Service Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila, King County Conservation District, Green River Flood Control District, and • King County. The 1980 agreement was based upon a 1978 "Revised Watershed Plan Eastside Green River , Watershed" addressing 24 square miles. The primary purpose of the plan was to address flooding. Proposed actions to, reduce flooding included structural measures such as enlargil')g or realigning 11.1 miles of "existing man-altered" channels, "land treatment measures" such as erosion control, wetland acquisition, and regulatory measures such as flood proofing and, habitat protection. The agreement indicated that the SCS would pay for all of the construction and engineering costs of the flood control improvements. Because the actions to reduce flooding were going to impact wetlands and habitat, and also facilitate urban industrial development, the jurisdictions were required to acquire and manage 110 acres of existing high value wetlands and to require private developmimt to have a 2% habitat set aside: Additionally, local sponsors will acquire and manage for the remaining life of the project a , minimum of 110 acres of existing high value wetlands in the lower Green River Valley to retain some measure of waterfowl habitat which otherwise will be lost as a result of future industrial expansion within the project area. The city of Renton has already acquired 20 acres in the Unbedacht Swamp Area and Kent has purchased 14 acres in Mill Creek which are expected to be dedicated for this purpose. At least another 76 acres of wetlands -preferably type'l -will be :acquired by the sponsors before construction contracts ate let. To maximize waterfowl habitat values, biologists from the Departments of Game and Fisheries recommend that this acreage be acquired in one unit located in an area of minimum human disturbance. ' To further minimize adverse effects of project action and industrial development, sponsoring local , municipalities and other governmental, units having construction permit jurisdiction, have agreed , to require the following as a condition for such permit: 1) the designation, and management by industry, of not less than 2 percent of the totallanci being developed, as wildlife habitat. These areas are to be planted to vegetation best suited to the site, local conditions, and wildlife using the area." ' 2) all temporarily unused land acquired for future development be similarly designated and 'managed for wildlife until such time that it shall be fully developed. . 3) all landscaping plans for developments be designed to provide maximum attraction for wildlife species. These requirements for wetland acquisition and designation of wildlife habitat were developed by the Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1980 agreemenUplan page 63) 'In 1983, the City of Renton became the sole "project sponsor" when funding concerns caused the other local governmerits and special districts to no longer participate. A Supplemental Agreement with the Soil Conservation Service was signed to put into effect the change in ·project sponsor," so that the City would be responsible for the P-1 Channel Pond Area. Again the City signed a Supplemental Agreement in 1986 to be the project sponsor for the Grady Way bridge crossing of the P-1 Channel. No further projects were built under the agreement. ' December 8, 2004 Page 2 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department CHANGED CONDITIONS Since the time" that the agreement was signed, the City of Renton has acquired the following wetlands in the Green River Valley Area (see attached maps for Green River Valley Boundary and for Property Ownership and Wetlands): • Land along the Black River (pump station, forebay including heron rookery/wetland): contains a Category 1 wetland area according to the City's rating system. • Land for a wetland mitigation bank (formerly railroad property and Glacier NW property): contains wetlands rated Category 1, 2, or 3 under the City's rating system. • Panther Creek Wetlands: containing a Catego ry 1 wetland under the City's rating system. This is equal to 340 acres of City property containing around 208 acres of wetlands according to City Geographic Information System estimates. Although the City was not required by itself to acquire the 110 acres of high value wetlands identified in the multi-jurisdictional 1978 Eastside Green River watershed "plan, it appears to have more than accomplished this. Additionally, the City adopted the following regulations after the time the 1980 agreement was signed: • Shoreline Master Program (portion addressing Springbrook Creek and associated wetlands); • Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations; • Aquifer Protection Areas Regulations; • Geologically Hazardous Areas Regulations; • Habitat Conservation Areas Regulations; • Frequently Flooded Areas Regulations; and • Wetlands Regulations. In addition the City completed a new East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement in September 1997, funded in part by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The 2% habitat set aside provision was intended to result in compensation for the flood control improvements and industrial growth that it facilitated -but now the City's wetland regulations (and other critical area regulations) provide protection that the Soil Conservation Service sought. Additionally, most of the planned industrial growth has taken place on developable lands in the Valley. RECOMM ENDATIONS • The City should repeal the 2% habitat set aside regulations in RMC 4-2 and 4-4 that are listed in full below, since the City's land acquisitions have exceeded the original multijurisdictional target, a-nd since 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: RMC 4-2-120A, 1208, and 130A, Applicable to CA, CO, IL, 1M, and IH zones Special Requirements for Properties Located within the Green River Valley Planning Area In the Green River Valley, an additional 2% of natural landscaping shall be required per the Soil Conservation S"ervice Environmental Mitigation Agreement. These areas should not be dispersed throughout a site, but should be aggregated in one portion of the property. Where possible, the required 2% landscaping for adjacent properties should be contiguous. A drainage swale, planted with vegetation suitable for habitat, may be counted toward the 2% additional landscape requirement if the Reviewing Official determines that the proposed planting plan and swale design will function to meet the intent of these regulations, including, but not limited to, that the facility slope and fencing design would not inhibit wildlife use. See RMC 4-4-070.0.6, Green River Valley Landscaping Requirements. " December 8, 2004 Page 3 "" Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department . RMC 4-4-070 6. Green River Valley Landscaping Requirements: Any development in the Green River Valley shall provide a minimum of two percent (2%) of the total site for landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat. These areas should not be dispersed throughout a site, but should be aggregated in one portion of the property. Where possible, the required 2% landscaping for adjacent properties should be contiguous. This landscaping is in addition to any other landscaping requirements by this Section or any other regulation. A drainage swale, planted with vegetation suitable for habitat, may be counted toward the 2% additional landscape requirement if the Reviewing Official determines that the proposed planting plan and swale design will function to meet the intent of these regulations, including, but not limited to, that the facility slope and fencing . design would not inhibit wildlife use. The following map depicts the boundaries of this area. [See attached map.] . December 8, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department . .Page4 Green River Valley Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch, Administrator .. . G. Del Rosario . 22 October 2004 Renton City - -Limijs . ~ Wetland II1II City Owned Property . o 1500 3000 rm:;:c:mctcococc:::wl,;;@::m ::::o:::o:w1 . 1 : 18000 DOCKET ITEM TITLE 4 CHAPTER 8 APPEAL PROCESS -GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD DESCRIPTION/PURPOSE The attached proposed ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney to correctly identify the appeals process for Type IX and X decisions -City Council actions on Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Development Regulation Amendments. Tables in RMC 4-8 show that the appeals of such decisions would go to Superior Court, when in fact they would be filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board, whose decisions then may be appealed to Superior Court. Currently RMC 4-8-110 includes procedures for appeals to the Board of Public Works, Hearing Examiner, City Council, Superior'Court, and the Shorelines Hearings Board. A new subsection "I" would add the appeals process to the Growth Management Hearings Board. The language of the ordinance identifies the following criteria and procedures: Criteria Summary Statute Who may file an appeal • State or local RCW 36.70A.270 (2) government agency RCW 34.05.530 planning under GMA; • A person who participated (commented orally or in writing) in the process with the local government; • A person certified by the governor; • A person who has standing to obtain judicial review of agency . action if that person is aggrieved or adversely affected by the agency action. Matters which may be appealed • Noncompliance with the RCW 36.70A.270 (1) Growth Management Act; • Noncompliance with the Shoreline Management Act, or State Environmental Policy Act, as they relate to plans/regulations. • State Office of Financial Management Population Projections, , December 8, 2004 Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I Criteria Summary Statute Who has standing • Must show participation RCW 36.70A.270 (4) and before the City was Case law Trepanier v. Everett, 64 related to the issue Wn. App. 380, 824 P.2d 524, 119 presented to the Growth Wn.2d 1012 (1992), and Leavitt Management Hearings v. Jefferson County, 74 Wn. App. Board. 668, 875 P.2d 681 1994. • SEPA Standing . .;.. must . show SEPA determination will cause specific and perceptible harm, and immediate, concrete, and specific iniury. Time for an appeal • Within 60 days of date of RCW 36.70A.290 (2) ordinance publication Contents of Petition • Detailed·statement of RCW 36.70A.290 (1) issues and citation of . . related law. RECOMMENDATION Some edits are desired to clarify the relevance of broader statute language to the City of Renton specifically: • Standing should include persons who participated before the City rather than also including those who participated before King County· .. • Matters which may be appealed related to population projections should be associated with the City's population share and not to Countywide population numbers. There are also other small formatting items need to be addressed such as sub-numbering and final table edits when the ordinance is finalized for public hearing. These are editorial and nonsubstantive. Upon concurrence with the City Attorney related to the minor edits, it is recommended that the proposed ordinance be approved. December 8, 2004 Page 2 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department . DRAFT 06/21/20044:51 P.M. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON· ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADDING SECTION 4-8-110.A.7 AND 4-8-110.1 TO CHAPTER 8, PERMITS -GENERAL AND APPEALS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF . THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" REGARDJNG THE FILING OF APPEALS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Type IX am Type X Land Use Pennits subsections of Section 4-8-080.0, Land Use Pennit Procedures, of Chapter 8, Pennits -General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as shown on Exhibit 1, attached. SECTION II. The legend of Section 4-8-080.0, Land Use Pennit Procedures, of Chapter 8, Pennits -General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding a definition, to read as follows: GMHB -Growth Management Hearings Board SECTION ill. A new section, 4-8-llO.A.7, of Chapter 8, Permits -General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby added, to read as . follows: 7. Appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board. SECTION IV. A new section, 4-8-110.1, of Chapter 8, Pennits -General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby added, to read as follows: 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD I e. 1. Starlding for App~als to GMHB: . a. Those who may file an appeal are: a~ . . The state of Washington or county or City that plans under this chapterGl\.t1A; bii. A person who has participated orally or in writing before the comity or city regarding the matter on which a review is being requested; €-iii .. A person wh() is certified by the governor within 60 days of filing the request with the Board; or ai....Y. A person who qualifies pursuant to RCW 34.05.530 as aggrieved or adverselv affected by the City's action on an item in Subsection 2. ~Q.Participatory standing: A person who flies an. appeal under Section 1.b above must establish participatory standing by showing that his or her participation before the City was reasonably related to the person's issue as presented to the Board. ~. Standing when a State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) appeal is made to the Board: To establish SEPA standing to appeal to the Board, the petitioner's endangered interest must be arguably within the zone of interests protected by SEP A. Also, tre petitioner must allege an injury in fact; that is, the petitioner must present sufficient evidentiary facts to show that the challenged SEP A deteimination will cause him or her specific and perceptible harm: The petitioner who alleges a threatened injury rather than an existing injury must also show that the injury will be 'immediate, concrete, and specific'; a conjectural or hypothetical injury will not confer standing. 42.. Matt~rs which may be appealed: a. That the City planning under Chapter 36.70A RCW is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, Chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of . Shoreline's master programs or amendments thereto, or chapter 43.21 C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments? adopted under RCW 36.70A.040.or Chapter 90.58 RCW; or b. That the 20-year Growth Management population projections applicable to the City of Renton or its Potential Annexation Area as adopted by the Office of Financial Management pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 should be adjusted. 3. Time for Appeal: All petitions under this Section must be filed within 60 days . after publication of the appealed Comprehensive Plan, development regulation or permanent amendment thereto by the legislative body of the City. The date of publication by the City shall be the date it publishes the ordinance, or summary of the ordinance, adopting the Comprehensive Plan, development regulations or amendment thereto, as is required to be published. 4. Contents of Petition for Review: Each petition for review to the Growth Management Hearings Board shall be initiated by the filing of a petition that includes a detailed statement of issues presented for resolution by the Board, and citation to the law that the appellant believes has been violated. SECTION V. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this __ day of~. ____ -', 2004. Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk . APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this __ day of_-_____ , 2004. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: _____ _ ORD. 1123:6117/04:ma ___ .J_U_N-_2_1_--2-0-0-4---17_._.0_8 ______ II ___ w_a_~_re_n __ B_a_r_b_e_r_& __ F_O_n_t_e_s_·· __________ 4It ___ · _______________ P.06/07 Ll-Z 0 0 C. -I UJ ~ a: « Oz C C 0 w C 0:: 0:: 0 c.. t=O z O· 0 c.. O-w « w (,) .. ...... z () O::t!) Z!;t ~. w(!J Zo UJ..J ..J 00 :: a:z 0-C z < -I-0::« :J:J 0 ZO: ~D. w_ 0 Zw u)o:: mOo () We( 00 we. 0« 5 LAND USE PERMITS ::JD-w D.w UJo e.c.. -IW :::I c..< 0:: ox 0< 0< o:t: "") !T~~~5:!Yt, ~:. .:.~ .~~ .:~':::" :'.~~~ ~i >·{.?f:~ ::~·A~;~:·:;~;~:i :~~~.~~~ !:~+~t}!~·.~~~;~~.~~;·¥·;~;·~~·~~:?~}~.?~~;.·l~:~~·~~~ff.~.?~~:~~~~~?~:: ~ \~~~~i~~:.:';~: .. ;.~. ": . ~ .::'.~:. : ; .... ;.~ 'r'.:::' ',-: . Variances, Board of Adjustments (and building Yes NA BOA BOA SC· permits submitted in conjunction with above) rrp.~}!:: i . ~ :"':: .::~. ::.J'\ ,,: ::;:;:.:~~:,:;.:::::r.<';"~':": :~"':':c;' ~~:" .'·:~';':';$i~::!tl~~':'"::~~,~:""s:":(·~,*~:'\:-)\~;.·h:l~~:7:::~~;';"\'::'2:<:~:": t..:>: . :.: c· '::":':. Conditional Approval Permit Yes Staff HE HECC SC (nonconforming uses) Request for Extension of Amortization Period Yes NA HE HE NA cc SC of Adult Use . :J.~y':~:~~~'yM~~~ £:':.~".: ~~: .. ::r::~-::~:~. ~-:.~.:-:; ~~~.~ :.::./: ~£.~~ ··;;~··::~l~4~ir~=~:r·:;·~_·~2: ;~:'::~~~;::;j~Z;;~ ~::;(::.~ ~: .. i.~?~rr!~:::~~~·~:;:J·~~f~~~:·~!;: ~~.::~ ... -: ~.: : ~:~.; .. : ~~-.,~~:: :~ :'.':. Bulk Storage Special Permit Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Conditional Use Permit (Hearing Examiner) Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Fill and Grade Permit, Special Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Master Site Plan Approval (overall plan) Yes Staff· HE HE CC SC Mobile Home Parks, Preliminary and Final Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Shoreline Conditional Use Permits Yes Staff HE DOE, HE SHB Shoreline Variance6 Yes Staff HE DOE, HE SHB Short Plats -5 to 9 Lots Yes Staff HE HE CC Site Plan Review (Hearing Examiner) with Yes Staff HE HE CC Environmental Review Special Permits Yes· Staff Variances (associated with Hearing Examiner Yes Staff land use review) Building Permits submitted in conjunction with . yes any of the above Environmental Review Site Plan Review (administrative) with Environmental Review. Yes Yes Staff No No HE HE CC HE HE CC HE HE CC No Staff HE cc No Staff HE CC SC SC J)'J'E-zYJI4 ~".:.' C;:·: .~: ·r.::;:·:: ~.>·.:/:::·;;~~.::;':.;~:;i~~{~:~:'";~::~·::.:i·.l.r.~;;.::.;:::-::~::.h.~:«:;::.<::::;~:~·iV!~~)~: :;.:~,,::;.:::-.:::.:. ":"::;' .••. .-' .•. '" . Preliminary Plats -10 Lots or More Yes Staff, HE CC SC HE Planned Unit Developments (preliminary and Yes Staff, HE CC SC final) HE Rezones (site-specific, not associated with a Yes . Staff, HE CC SC Comprehensive Plan amendment) HE Building Permits submitted in conjunction with Yes Staff, HE . CC SC any of the above HE SC Final Plats No Staff NA CC SC Street Vacations8 Yes Staff CC CC SC . !. ... . ' '. Development Regulation Text Amendments -Yes Staff CC CC Except Those Referred to Planning Commission (Revised S/02) 8 -10 .'~ ... .. ~ ;. e 'JUN-21-2004 17:08 Warren Barber & Fontes P.07/07 u. z 0 Q 0 ..I UJ ~ II: oct Oz C C 0 LU C a: a: Do 1=0 % 0 0 0 D-C-W (.) .... ....... Z 0 UJ oct z~ ~ UJ~ Zo LU..J t:CCJ ..J 00 :;: a:% 0-0% ~ -I-a:~ ::J:::i 0 zo: ~a. W_ (,) zw V)t.r: ma. (,) w~ (')0 WIl.. O~ C LAND USE PERMITS :;)Il.. UJ o.w UJ'C a.1l.. ..J w :;) a.~ a: OJ: O~ O~ O:I: "') .U~ .. ~: ~~) :'~'~:-~: !;.~;~? ;:~:'::: ~~~~~~.:~.::~:-l~:~:::.~.{ .l:~·d ?·:~·~:::~i;~:;=r.ti);~~:·~:.~:::::;::~~~~."~;:f.~~~~~:t·~~·::~1:::~~:.~:: ~::~::-r;~M:::~~:~'~:~::r:~:':" :;.~.:.:": :'::.: ~:' _ '::.<::~ ~ -".! -.,.. ..:~ .... Comprehensive Plan Map or Text Yes Staff, PC, CC CC .se Amendments PC ~ f11-J B Rezones with Associated Comprehensive Yes Staff, PC, CC CC ~ Plan Map or Text Amendments PC (;-M ~ b Development Regula1ion Text Amendments Yes Staff, PC, CC CC se Referred to Planning Commission PC 6-M ~ b r:X~E)(I~:/~~:~;:~:?(;~.~~~~~~~~~~~J:~~:~i:~.~~::\:~~~: . .:~~~.":~~~~:::::.~i.~:·~.~~~~~ ~:)~::'.::': .. :: f:.~:~.~~;~ :-:.~: . : ... : ..... -: .. : .. -: -_. _~~. ~j. ..... :-= .. :; r' M Reserved for Annexations LEGEND: Staff -Plannin~BuildingiPublic Works Division Staff ERC -Environmental Review Committee PC -Planning Commission BOA -Board of Adjus1ment HE -Hearing Examiner CC -City Council DOE -Washington State Department of Ecology SC -Superior Court :-:..SHB -Shoreline Hearings Board . C /NA -Not Applicable . -&-M b+e, -c; Ow~ no.., ...... CU\ e, ~¥\+ FOOTNOTES: ..) . 1. SEPA exempt or for which the SEPNIand use permit process has been completed. 2. Administratively approved. 3. In lieu of the public notice requirements of RMC 4-8-090, public notice of a SEPA exempt temporary use permit shall consis1 of the on-site installation 'of a 24" x 30" sign meeting the requirements of RMC . 4-9:-240E. At the discretion of the Administrator, additional notice may be required. 4. Environmental review may be associated with a land use permits. The Environmental Review Commit- . tee (ERC) is responsible for environmental determinations. . 5. Board of Adjustment shall hear variances where not associated with a development that requires review by the Hearing Examiner. S. . Shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances also require approval of the State Depart~ ment of Ecology (DOE). DOE has up to 30 days to make a decision on a permit. This time period does not count toward the 120-day maximum time limit for permit decisions. DOE's decision is followed by a 21-day appeal period, during which time no building permit for the project may be issued. 7. An open record appeal of an environmental threshold determination must be held concurrent with an open record public hearing. S. Street vacations are exempt from the 120-day permit processing time limit. 9. Environmental review for a permi~ed/seoondary/accessory use not requiring any other land use per- mit. (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000; Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4975, 7-1-2002) B -'1 (Revised 8102) TOTAL P.07 TITLE 4, CHAPTERS 8 AND 9 PERMIT AND SEPA PROCESS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS DESCRIPTION/PURPOSE The purpose of this Issue Paper is to identify and address options for the timing of environmental review for nonproject actions. It also addresses procedures that separate consideration of the legislative action from its environmental review. SEPA Process Overview The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires state and local agencies to consider the short-term and long-term environmental consequences of proposed plans, capital projects, or land development. Agencies are to review both the natural (e.g. water, plants and animals, etc.) and built environment (e.g. transportation, historic resources, utilities, etc.). SEPA recognizes there are generally two types of actions -project and non project: A project action involves a decision on a specific project, such as a construction or management activity located in a define'd geographic area. Nonproject actions involve decisions on policies, plans, or programs. CNAC197-11-704) Minor or procedural types of proposals may be categorically exempt (e.g. annexations, budget adoption, buildings less than 4,000 square feet, parking lots less than 20 stalls, and others). If not categorically exempt, an environmental checklist is typically prepared for agency review. For non-exempt activities, the type and level of environmental review varies according to the project size and scope, and the confidence the agency has that Significant impacts can be mitigated. The agency reviews the SEPA checklist and determines if a proposal iNiII have insignificant impacts, significant impacts that can be mitigated, or potential unavoidable significant impacts. SEPA gives agencies the authority to condition or deny a proposal based on the agency's adopted SEPA policies and environmental impacts identified in a SEPA document. (State Department of Ecology 1998) Based on the agency's conclusions, a threshold determination is issued: • If an agency determines that the proposal will have insignificant impacts, a Determination of Nonsignficance (DNS) is issued. • If a proposal is likely to result in Significant impacts, but mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the impacts to an inSignificant level, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is issued. • If a proposal i,slikeiy to result in Significant impacts for which mitigation measures need to be developed through additional study, or is likely to result in unavoidable significant adverse impacts, a Determination of Significance (DS) is issued. This means that an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. . Public comment periods are generally required for a DNS or Draft EIS (typically 14 days for DNS's requiring comment periods and for MDNS's; and 30 days for a Draft EIS). The Optional DNS approach allows an agency to consolidate comment periods up front for a DNS to streamline the process, but the Optional DNS must be announced in a Notice of Application (described further below under Regulatory Reform Law). If an Optional DNS process is not used, the comment period follows the issuance of the DNS, which is then followed by an administrative appeal period if applicable. Appeals of agency threshold determination on procedural or substantive grounds are possible if the city, county or other local agency has speCified an administrative process for appeals: December 8, 2004 , Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I e- . . "RCW 43.21C.060allows an appeal to a local legislative body of any decision by a local nonelected offidal. conditioning or denying a proposal under authority of SEPA. Agencies may establish procedures for such an appeal, or may eliminate such appeals altogether, by rule, ordinance or resolution." WAC 197-11-680(2) There are in any case judicial appeal opportunities. The City of Renton has a choice as to whether to offer administrative appeals and under what circumstances. The City has done so to allow citizens or applicants to voice concerns of completeness or fairness at a local venue before actions are taken. The City of Renton allows for SEPA appeals, except those related to Shoreline Master Program permits, as identified in RMC 4-9-070: . T. APPEALS: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA bya nonelected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of RMC 4-8-110, Appeals . . State Regulatory Reform Act In 1995 the State of Washington passed the Regulatory Reform Act to require local governments to reduce conflict, overlap, and confusion regarding permit application and public comment procedures. It requires that local governments: " ... establish by ordinance or resolution an integrated and consolidated project permit process ... n (emphasis added; RCW 36.70B.060). The following elements are to be included in the integrated/consolidated process: . • Adetermination of application completeness to the applicant; • A notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed project; • An optional consolidated project permit review-process providing for no more than one consolidated .. open record hearing and one closed record appeal; • Provision allowing for any public meeting or required open record hearing to be combined with any public meeting or open record hearing that may be held on the project by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency; • Availability of a single report stating all the decisions made as of the date ofthereport on all project permits that do not require a predecision hearing and any recommendations on project permi~sthat do require a predecision hearing;' . • Availability of appeals. The local government need not provide for any further appeal and may provide an appeal for some but not all project permit decisions; 1 . . • Requirements to issue a notice of decision within certain time periods provided in the statute (generally within 120 days for most permits, excluding periods when the applicant is asked to provide supplemental information or requests a suspension). The Regulatory Reform law is intended to apply to project permits, and generally does not apply to non project .actions: 1 Except for the appeal of a determination of significance as provided in RCW 43.21C.075~ if a local government elects to provide an appeal of its threshold determinations or project permit decisions, the local government shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing on such appeal. The local government need not provide for any further appeal and may provide an appeal for some but not all project permit decisions. If an appeal is provided after the open record hearing, it shall be a dosed· record appeal before a single decision-making body or officer. December 8,2004 Page 2 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department (4) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development.permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, but excluding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. Renton Permit Procedures In RMC 4-S the City applies a permit procedure to implement the State Regulatory Reform Act as described above. It classifies actions into ten permit types depending on which City officer or body reviews or makes a decision about the permit. Also the ordinance promotes a consolidated review process to have one open record hearing and one closed record appeal (RMC 4-S-0S0.C; 4-S-110.C.S). Non-Project Permit Process. Although not "project permits' subject to Regulatory Reform, the City applies two permit procedures for non project development regulation and Comprehensive Plan· amendments: • Type IX Development Regulation Text Amendments (not referred to the Planning Commission) • Type X Comprehensive Plan Amendments with or without aSl?ociated Rezones, and Development Regulation Text Amendments referred to the Planning Commission. . . The Renton permit process regulations require a complete application, notice of application, and other regulatory reform items, primarily because the nonproject actions require SEPA review, but the code exempts Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Renton Municipal Code Amendments from the standard permit review process because they typically require more than 120 days to process (RMC 4~S-050.B). While it appears that the City could exempt non project actions more fully from provisions such as notices of application, etc. it has been useful to provide a standard process for public notice,anq it makes available the use of the Optional DNS, a more streamlined SEPA review approach. However, for legislative items such as policy or code text amendments, the process can be unnecessarily cumbersome. Decision Authorities, Hearings, and Appeals. In the case of Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Type X permit chart shows a Planning Commission open record hearing. Appeal of an environmental threshold determination is to be heard by the Hearing Examiner (footnote 2). In the case·of development regulation amendments, the Type IX procedures indicate similarly that the Hearing Examiner is included in the SEPA appeal process. The Hearing Examiner allows for an open record public hearing on appeals (RMC 4-S-110.E:6). The duties of the Hearing Examiner do not include review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments or development regulation amendments (RMC 4-S-070.H). The duties of the Planning Commission do not include hearing appeals of ERC determinations (RMC 4-S-070.G). Additionally, SEPA rules at WAC 197-11-6S0 indicate that the appeal of a procedural determination made by an agency on a non project action is not required to be consolidated with a hearing or appeal of the underlying governmental action. A record of the administrative appeal is required by RCW 43.21 C.075(3)(c). In the past, given the conflicting regulations regarding a consolidated hearing and different decision authorities combined with the direction in SEPA that nonproject action SEPA appeals do not need to be consolidated with the hearing on the legislative item, the City has interpreted that the SEPA appeal hearing is held separate and prior to the legislative hearing. It would be appropriate to amend the City's regulations to state exceptions to the consolidated hearing given the SEPA Rules allow hearings to be separate when involving a SEPA appeal on a nonproject action. December 8,2004 Page 3 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department A consequence of 1) requiring that nonPfoject actions follow the same permit process as "projects" where the SEPA review and appeal·period must close before the legislative hearing, 2) together with an opportunity for a SEPA appeal, and 3) together with the need to separate the hearings on SEPA appeals from the legislative hearings due to different decision authorities, means that the consideration of the environmental review is considered separately from the merits of the legislative action. If the SEPA . appeal period did not occur prior to the legislative hearing on the nonproject action it could mean that commenter issues on the "merits of the proposal" would be addressed sooner, may satiSfy commenter concerns, and limit the potential for a SEPA appeal used as a tool to delay the nonproject action. EXAMPLE JURISDICTIONS Non~project permit procedures and SEPAappeal procedures are conducted in various ways by local cities and King County: JURISDICTION NON-PROJECT PERMIT SEPA APPEAL -NONPROJECT PROCESS IS SAME AS ACTION PROJECT PERMIT PROCESS? Bellevue Yes, in part: Need a Notice of No: When a threshold determination is .. . ~.,.~""":,~, ..... Application . issued on a legislative non project land use proposal (Process IV) it shall not be appealable. Kent No Yes King County No Limited: Only procedural appeals by Natural Resources and Parks Department Kirkland No Yes Tukwila No Limited: Substantive appeals of MONS. and .conditions. Most of the jurisdictions treat nonproject actions differently in their permit procedures and do not require the same types of applications, notices, or consolidation of hearings. Bellevue, King County, and Tukwila limit appeals to certain project actions and provide limited if no SEPA appeals related to nonproject actions. ISSUES & RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the discussion above, the key issues and recommendations are as follows: • Should the City exempt non project actions from regulatory reform provisions that were meant for project actions? . The City has provided more steps for nonproject actions than is required. The City could exempt nonproject actions more fully from provisions such as notices of application, having the SEPA complete before the public hearing on the merits of the items, etc. Having a notice of application has been useful to provide a standard process for public notice, and it makes available the use of the Optional DNS, a more streamlined SEPA review approach. However the process overall makes all legislative items subject to complex and intensive steps, even policy or code amendments that are not site or area specific. . . December 8, 2004 Page 4 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department. It is recommended that the Notice of-Application process be retained for nonproject actions to maintain a standard review process. Public hearing notices would continue per City code requirement as well. Aside from standard notices, the City may wish to institute other public participation measures. Based on City staff and preliminary Planning Commission input, the City could more regularly employ some practices to help "spread the word" such as posting long range planning items on the Department's web page, conducting focus groups, notifying property owners in a particular zone about zone text changes that modify key parameters (such as density or lot size), and/or other measures. The City has put into practice these various methods depending on the nature of the policy or zoning text changes. In preparing the public participation plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments or Title IV docket amendments, the City could indicate appropriate additional public participation measures for the group or individual items matching the level of proposed changes and public interest.' However, to recognize the value of the public input process at hearings and the possibility that the proposal may be further refined as a result, the nonproject SEPA determination itself could be issued at any point prior to the City taking action (accounting for required comment and appeal periods), particularly for non-map amendment items. Environmental information such as the SEPA checklist would be available at the time the proposal is accepted for review and the Notice of Application is published. • Should the City clarify that a consolidated hearing is not required where SEPA allows' unconsolidated hearings in cases of nonproject actions? It is recommended that the regulations allow for exceptions to the consolidated hearing given the SEPA Rules allowing hearings to be separate when involving a SEPA appeal on a non project action. This avoids confusion and is consistent with SEPA allowances. • Should the City Limit the Types of Appeals for Nonproject Actions? SEPA and Regulatory Reform laws recognize that challenges to SEPA determinations should generally not occur in the absence of. challenges to "actions" on the underlying permit or plan (which occurs in the City's processes where there are different decision authorities for aspects of nonproject actions). However, State law recognizes that appeals of environmental documents may occur separate from the legislative hearing for non-project actions. The City's current appeals approach allows citizens or applicants to voice concerns of completeness or fairness at a local venue before actions are taken. At this time, staff recommends maintaining the current appeals process. December 8, 2004 Page 5 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS " RMC 4-9-070 T. APPEALS: . Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3-:090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. - 4-8-050 EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS: A. STATE AUTHORITY: . RCW 36.70B.140 allows a local government to exclude certain project permits from procedure and time limit requirements. This Section deals with exemptions from State-mandated notice '. requirements. Permit types listed below may and often do have City Code requirements for review, notification, and appeal beyond State requirements. - B. EXEMPTIONS FROM CITY GOAL OF ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAY REVIEW PROCESS FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS REQUIRING MORE TIME: RCW 36:70B.140 provides that local governments may determine that there are "special circumstances" relative to certain actions or processes that warrant a different review process than that set forth in State law. Therefore, the City exempts the following actions since they typically require more than one hundred twentY (120) days to process or would be deemed _ emergencies: 1. Comprehensive Plan amendments with or without any other associated I~nd use application such as a rezone, 2. Renton Municipal Code amendments, 3. Annexations, . . -4. Planned unit developments, 5. Development agreements, . 6. Environmental impact statements, 7. Temporary emergency wetland permit,' 8. Declared emergency under SEPA, 9. Street vacations, to. Any project once it is appealed to the Hearing Examiner and/or City Council. _ 11. Any project once it becomes the subject of a petition under the Land Use Petition Act, -'12. Any project that is determined by the Mayor to present extenuating circumstances which would require more than one hundred tWenty (120) days to process. December 8, 2004 Page 6 Prepared by Jones &-Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department C. EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE NOTIFICATION AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR· PERMITS RELATING TO USE OF PUBLIC AREAS/FACILITIES: As permitted by RCW 36.70B.140, the City also exempts the following "approvals relating to the use of public areas or facilities" from the notification and procedural requirements of RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.080 and RCW 36.708.110 through 36.70B.130. 1. Deferral of off-or on-site improvements, 2. Drainage connection permits, . 3. Driveway construction permit (all uses/users), 4. Driveway relocation permit (all uses/users), 5. Franchise utility permits, 6. Right-of-way use permit, 7. Release of easem~nts, 8. Side sewer permit, 9. Side sewer cap permit, 10. Sidewalk repair permit (all uses/users), 11. Sidewalk/curb/gutter construction permit (all uses), 12. Permits to stop City water and/or sewer service, 13. Water meter applications, 14. Other SEPA exempt actions/activities as outlined in WAC 197-11-800. D. EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE NOTIFICATION AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECTTO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: RCW 36~70B.140 allows local governments to exclude certain approvals and building and engineerin·g permits from the public notification and procedural requirements of the statute if they are categorically exempt from environmental review or if environmental review has already been completed at an earlier stage. However, the City's one hundred twenty (120) day maximum processing time would still apply. Therefore, the City exempts the following actions from the public notification and procedural requirements since they are typically processed very quickly and would be considerably delayed by imposition of a public comment period(s). 1. Building and grading permits (SEPA exempt), 2. Business licenses for home occupations, 3. Board of Public Works variances (Le., driveway grade), December 8, 2004 Page 7 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I ··e. 4. Fire installation/consti"uctionpermits, 5 .. Electrical, mechanical, plumbing, sign and speciai fence permits, . 6, Lot line adjustments, 7. Final plats, 8. Minoramendmemts (less than 10 percent) toa previously approved site plan, 9. Occupancy permits, . . . . . 10. Open space, agricultural and timber lands current use assessment, 11. Public art exemption certificate, . . '.' ". 12. Routine vegetation management permits (SEPA exempt), ·13. Shoreline exemptions, 14. Temporary use permits (SEPA exempt), but not exempting sign requirements, 15. Water, sewer, storm drainage, roadway permits (SEPA exempt), 16. Other SEPA exempt actions/activities as outlined in WAC 197-11-800. (Amd. Ord. 4974, 6- 24-2002) . E. EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FORNON-PROJECT PERMITS: . . . RCW 36.708.020 excludes certain actions from the definition of project permits, particularly nonproject legislative actions. The following actions are exempt from procedures reguiring environmental review to be completed prior to the legislative hearing: 1. The adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations that do not involve site-sp·ecific rezones. RMC 4-8-080 C. CONSOLIDATED REVIEW PROCESS FOR MULTIPLE PERMIT APPLICATIONS: 1. Optional Process Resulting in a Single Open Record Public Hearing: An applicant may elect to have the review and decision process for required permits consolidated into a single review process. Consolidated review shall provide for only one open record hearing and no more than one closed record appeal period. An appeal of an environmental determination of significance (OS) is exempt from limits on the number of appeals. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be consolidated except when allowed to be part of separate hearings in accordance with RCW· 43.21G.075, Appeals, and WAC 197-11-680, Appeals. Where hearings are required for permits from other local, State, regional, or Federal agencies, the City will cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the outside agencies to hold a single joint hearing. Aflowchart showing the timeline for processing a combined land use, environmental, and building permit application is included in subsection H of this Section. December 8,2004 .. Page 8 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department 2. Review Authority for Multiple Permit Applications: Where more than one land use permit application is required for a given development, an applicant may file all related permit applications concurrently, pay appropriate fees, and the processing may be conducted under the consolidated review process. Where required permits are subject to different types of permit review procedures, then all the applications are subject to the highest-number procedure, as identified in subsection G of this Section, and highest level of review authority, as identified in RMC 4-8-070, that applies to any of the applications. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be consolidated except when allowed to be part of separate hearings in accordance with RCW 43.21C.075. Appeals, and WAC 197-11-680. Appeals. RMC 4-8-080 D. TIME FRAME BASED ON PERMIT TYPE: The flowcharts in subsection H of this Section indicate timelines for each of the eleven (11) land use permit types, as discussed in subsection G of this Section. For permit types I through VIII, t+he timelines include the statutory requirement that requires the issuance of a letter of completeness within twenty eight (28) days of the application submittal, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070(1), and the provision for final decisions on permits within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt of a complete application. In addition, there is a generalized flowchart for the consolidated review process. (Amd. Ord. 4974,6-24- 2002) RMC 4-8-080 E. TIME FRAMES -MAXIMUM PERMITTED: Final decisions on all Type I through Type VIII permits and reviews subject to the procedures of this Chapter shall occur within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date an application is deemed complete, unless the applicant consents to an extension of such time period. If a project application is substantially revised by an applicant, the one hundred twenty (120) day time period shall start again after . the revised project application is determined to be complete. Development applications which are specifically exempted under RMC 4-8-050, Exemptions from State Process Requirements, are not subject to this time frame. (Amd. Ord. 4974, 6-24~2002) RMC 4-8-080 F.EXCLUSIONS FROM ONE HUNDRED lWENTY (120) DAY TIME LIMIT: In determining the number of days which have elapsed since the applicant was notified that the application is complete, the following periods shall be excluded: 1. Revisions/Additional Information Required: The time period in which an applicant has been requested by the Development Services Division to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional information. The period shall be calculated form the date the Development Services Division notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until: (a) the date the Division determines the additional information satisfies the request for information, or (b) fourteen (14) days after the date acceptable information has been provided to the City, whichever is earlier. If the Division determines that· the information submitted is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies. 2.EIS Preparation: A period of two hundred fifty (250) days for the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), following a determination of significance. This time frame shall commence after the final scoping of the DEIS is complete. 3. Applicant Agreements: Any time extension mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Development Services Division. December 8, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Page 9 RMC 4-8-080 G .. LAND USE PERMIT PROCEDURES: PUBLIC RECOMMEND-OPEN DECISION/ OPEN CLOSED JUDICIAL LAND USE PERMITS NOTICE OF RECORD RECORD RECORD APPLICATION ATION HEARING7 ADOPTION APPEAL HEARING APPEAL TYPE I Building and Grading Permits1 No No No Staff .. HE CC SC Business Licenses for Home Occupations (no customer No No No . Staff HE CC SC· visits/deliveries) Deferrals No No No Staff HE CC SC , Lot Line Adjustments No No No . Staff HE CC SC Minor Modification to Previously Approved No No No Staff HE CC SC Site Plan «10%) Modifications, Deviations, Alternates No No No of Various Code Staff HE CC SC. Standards2 . Public Art Exemption . No Staff Certificate No No HE CC SC I Routine Vegetation Management Permits No No No Staff HE CC SC (SEPA exempt) , Shoreline Exemptions No No' .. No Staff HE CC SC Special Fence Permits No . No No Staff HE 'CC SC Waivers2 No No .. No Staff HE CC SC TYPE II Business Licenses for .. Home occupations -~-- (with customer Yes No No Staff .HE CC SC visits/deliveries) Conditional Approval Permit (nonconforming Yes No No Staff HE CC SC structures) December 8, 2004 Page 10 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department PUBLIC RECOMMEND-OPEN DECISIONI OPEN CLOSED JUDICIAL LAND USE PERMITS NOTICE OF RECORD RECORD RECORD APPLICATION ATION HEARING7 ADOPTION APPEAL HEARING APPEAL Hobby Kennel License Yes No No Staff HE CC SC Short Plats - 4 Lots or Less (SEPA exempt) Yes No No Staff HE CC SC Site Plan Review (administrative) for Yes No No Secondary Uses Staff HE CC SC (SEPA exempt) Temporary Use Permits (SEPA Yes3 No No Staff CC CC SC exempt) Temporary Emergency Yes No No Wetland Permit Staff HE CC SC Variances, Administrative Yes No No Staff HE CC SC TYPE 1114 Binding Site Plans Yes No No Staff HE CC SC Conditional Use Permit (administrative) with Yes No No Staff HE CC SC Environmental Review Development Permit (special flood hazard) Yes No No Staff HE CC SC Environmental Review9 Yes No No Staff HE CC SC Site Plan Review (administrative) with Yes No No Staff HE ·CC SC Environmental Review Shoreline Permit Yes No No Staff DOE CC SC Short Plats - 4 Lots or Less, with Yes No No Staff HE CC SC Environmental Review Temporary Use Permits (subject to Yes No No Staff HE CC SC SEPA). Building Permits submitted· in Yes No No . Staff HE CC SC conjunction with any of December 8, 2004 Page 11 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department PUBLIC ~ECOMMEND-OPEN DECISION! OPEN . . CLOSED JUDICIAL LAND USE PERMITS NOTICE OF RECORD RECORD RECORD APPLICATION ATION. HEARING7 ADOPTION APPEAL HEARING APPEAL . the above TYPE I~ Variances, Board of AdjustmentS (and building permits Yes NA BOA BOA SC -submitted in conjunction with above) .. TYPE V Conditional Approval Permit Yes-Staff HE HE CC SC (nonconforming uses) Request for Extension of Amortization Period Yes NA HE HE NA CC SC of Adult Use TYPE VI4 Bulk Storage Special Permit Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Conditional Use Permit (Hearing Examiner) -Yes Staff HE HE CC SC I . Fill and GradePermit, Special Yes . Staff HE HE CC SC Master Site Plan Approval (overall plan) Yes -Staff HE HE CC SC Mobile Home Parks, - Preliminary and Final Yes Staff HE HE CC SC Shoreline Conditional Use Permit6 Yes _ Staff HE DOE, HE SHB Shoreline Variance6 Yes Staff HE DOE,HE SHB . -Short Plats - 5 to 9 .- Lots Yes Staff HE HE CC Site Plan Review (Hearing Examiner) Yes Staff HE HE CC with Environmental December 8, 2004 Page 12 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department PUBLIC RECOMMEND-OPEN DECISIONI OPEN CLOSED JUDICIAL LAND USE PERMITS NOTICE OF RECORD RECORD RECORD APPLICATION ATION HEARING7 ADOPTION APPEAL' HEARING APPEAL Review Special Permits Yes Staff HE HE CC Variances (associated with Hearing Examiner Yes Staff HE HE CC land use review) Building Permits submitted in conjunction with any of Yes Staff HE HE CC the above Environmental Review Yes No No Staff HE CC SC Site Plan Review (administrative) with Yes No No Staff· HE CC SC Environmental Review TYPE VII4 Preliminary Plats -10 Lots or More Yes Staff, HE HE CC SC Planned Unit Developments Yes Staff, HE HE CC SC (preliminary and final) Rezones (site-specific, not associated with a Comprehensive Plan Yes Staff, HE HE CC SC amendment) Building Permits submitted in conjunction with any of Yes Staff, HE HE CC SC SC the above TYPE vm4 Final Plats No Staff NA CC SC Street Vacations8 Yes Staff CC CC SC TYPEI~ Development Yes Staff CC CC GMHB2~ Reaulatian Text 2 A change -is shown here related to another docket item that corrects the appeals process. December 8, 2004 Page 13 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department PUBLIC RECOMMEND-LANDUSE·PERMITS NOTICE OF APPLICATION ATION Amendments -Except Those Referred to Planning Commission TYPE )(I Comprehensive plan ~Text Yes Staff, PC Amendments Rezones-witl:! AsseeiateG Comprehensive Plan Map or Text Yes Staff, PC, " Amendments with , " associated Rezones Development Regulation Text Amendments Referred Yes Staff, PC to Planning Commission TYPE XI Reserved for Annexations LEGEND: Staff -Planning/Building/Public Works Division Staff " ERC -Environmental Review Committee PC -Planning Commission BOA -Board of Adjustment HE -Hearing Examiner , CC -City Council DOE -Washington State Department of Ecology , SC -Superior Court SHB -Shoreline Hearings Board NA -Not Applicable FOOTNOTES: OPEN DECISIONI RECORD HEARING7 ADOPTION PC,CC CC PC,CC CC PC,CC CC 1. SEPA exempt or for which the SEPAlland use permit process has been completed. 2. Administratively approved. ' OPEN CLOSED JUDICIAL RECORD RECORD APPEAL HEARING APPEAL SGGMHB GMHBSG GMHBSG , . 3. In lieu of the public notice requirements of RMC 4-8-090, public notice of a SEPA exempt temporary use permit shall consist of the on-site installation of a 24" x 30" sign meeting the requirements of RMC 4-9-240E. At the discretion of the Administrator, additional notice may be required. 4. Environmental review may be'associated with a land use permits. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) is responsible for environmental determinations.' . -., ' , 5. Board of Adjustment shall hear variances where not associated with a development that requires review by the Hearing Examiner. " 6. Shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances also require approval of the State Department of Ecology (DOE). DOE has up to 30 days to make a decision on a permit. This time period does not count toward the 120-day maximum time limit for permit decisions. DOE's decision is followed by a 21-day appeal period, during which time no building permit for the project may be issued. 7. An open record appeal of an environmental threshold determination must be held concurrent with an open record public hearing. 8. Street vacations are exempt from the 120-day permit processing time limit. 9. Environmental review for a permitted/secondary/accessory use not requiring any other land use permit. December 8, 2004 Page 14 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department (Amd, Ord. 4827,1-24-2000; Ord. 4963,5-13-2002; Ord. 4975, 7-1-2002) 4-8-080 H REVIEW PROCESSES Type IX -Land Use Permits City Council/Env~ronmental Review/Staff Letter Environmental Environmental Applie;nion of Complete Publlc Notice of Threshold Decision Hearing City CouncB Open CilyCouncil SubmRtal Applimtion App&cadon Determination 1 Notice Published' Record Public Hearing' Dedsion I 1 1 so,· .. _1 1 1 1 28 days max. 14da~maJt 14 days min. 6 days 15-29 days APplicatiol Submittal Letter of compre Applicalion Public Notice r Application City Council Open Record Public rearing City eounj' Decision 28 days max. 14 days max. 14 days min. -+4-----;:En'vironmental Determination 1, 2,~ Type IX -City CounciIlEnvironmental Review Committee (ERC)/Staff Development Regulation Amendments except those referred to Planning Commission Appeal Period En I 1 Environmental Threshold Determination shall not be issued prior to a 14-day comment period following the mailing of public notice of the development application. Any required comment and/or appeal period must be completed before action is taken. . . 2CommenUAppeal Period may include: 1) a 14-day appeal period with no comment period, 2) a 15-day combined commenUappeal period, or 3) a separate 15-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period. 3 Any appeal of Environmental Decision shall be heard before the Hearing Examiner.Open Record Apf>eal of Environmental Threshold Deterrrnnation may be included in Public Hearing (Hearing Examiner) if applicable. December 8, 2004 Page 15 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I Type X 4J_ Land· U sePermits - City Council/Planning CommissionlEnvironmental Review Process Environmental Planning Appeal Per t.eller Environmental Planning Commission Endsfo Application of Complete Public Notice of. . Threshold Decislon Hearing Open Record Commission Chy Counci City Coun Submlt1al AppliCltlon AppBcation Determination I Notice Publishe&! Pubtic Hearing Recommendation Decision Declslon I I -~I .. ·-1 I I I I Appeat I Period 14 days mall 14 days min Sdays . . . . . . . Type X 4~_ City Council/Planning Commission/Environmental Review Process: Comprehensive Plan Map or TextAmendments Rezones with associated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Development Regulations Text Amendments Referred to Planning Commission 1 For Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments or Rezones with associated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments: Environmental Threshold Determination shall not be issued prior to a 14'-day comment period following public notice of proposal. Any required SEPA comment and/or appeal periods shall conclude prior to legislative hearing. Any appeal of Environmental Decision shall be heard before the Hearing Examiner. 2 Any appeal4-E--fl.I.4FOOfReAtal-Gesision shall be-Aeard before the Hearing Examifler-;-For Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments or Development Regulation Text Amendments: Environmental Threshold Determination shall not be issued prior to a 14-day comment period following public notice of proposal. Any required comment and/or appeal period must be completed before action is taken. Any appeal of Environmental Decision shall be heard before the Hearing Examiner. 3Appeal of City Council decision to King County Superior Court .. 4Type3Type X Land Use Permits are exempt from the requirements of State Regulatory Reform Act. December 8, 2004 Page 16 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department • 4-8-110 E. APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations: Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, with the Hearing Examiner, Examiner's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord. 4521,6-5-1995) . b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4- 3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. c. Authority: To that end, the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the. appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned .. 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: See RMC 4-9-070 MN. 3. Standing: a. Standing for Filing Appeals of the City's Environmental Determinations: Appeals from environmental determinations as set forth in this Title4-8-11 0.E.1.b or 4-9-070.N may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. Any agency or person may appeal the City's compliance with chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of a Threshold Determi,nation. (Ord. 3891, 2- 25-1985) . b. Standing for Appeals of,Administrative Determinations other than Environmental: Appeals from administrative determinations of the City's land use regulation codes and from environmental determinations required by the Renton environmental review regulations may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) c. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Administrative Determinations Relative to the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations: Any individual or party of record who is adversely affected by such a decision may appeal the decision to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to the procedures established in this Section. (Ord.4351, 5-4-1992) . d. Special Standing Requirements for Appeals of Decisions Relating to Master Site Plans: Any appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Title must allege an injury in fact, and that injurY must be real and present rather than speculative. (Ord. 4551,9-18-1995) 4. Time for Appeal: Any such appeal shall be filed in writing with the Examiner within the following time limits: a. Appeals of Environmental Determinations: Appeals of a final environmental determination under the Renton environmental review regulations shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of publication of notice of such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) December 8, 2004 Page 17 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department I t, i. AFinal DNS:The appeal of the DNS mustbe made to the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14)days of the date the DNS is final. ' ii. A OS: The appeal must be made to the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the , publication date of the OS in the official City newspaper. ' iii. A Final EIS: The appeal of the FEIS must be made to the Hearing Examiner within twenty , (20) days of the date the permit or other approval is issued. (Ord. 3891; 2-25-1985) b. Appeals to Examiner of Administrative Determinations Other Than Environmental: Appeals from an administrative decision pursuant to this Chapter shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date that the action was taken. (Ord. 3454,7-28-1980) The appeal from an administrative decision irnplementing a land 'use decision of the City Council or the Hearing Examiner pursuant to this Chapter shall be filed with the Hearing Examiner, ' along with the required fee, within fourteen (14) days of the administrative decision or, if no date of administrative decision can be determined, within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of any permit which requires interpretation of that land use decision, such administrative decision being an essential' part of the issuance of the, permit, license, or other City permission to proceed. As between the permit holder and the City, any decision to modify or retract the permit shall give the permit holder a fourteen (14) day appeal period from the date of the action to modify or retract the permit. ' . . .' 5. Complaints After Expiration of Appeal Time: Any claim that an administrative decision maker has failed to correctly interpret or enforce a land use decision after the expiration of the appeal time established in this Section shall not create an appeal right, but will be treated as a complaint of noncompliance with the land use decision. (Ord. 4168, 8-8-1988)' 6. Appeal Procedures -Hearing Examiner: The City establishes the following administrative appeal proceduresunder RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680: ' a. Notice to Officer: Immediately upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the Hearing Examiner shall forward to the officer from whom the appeal is being taken a copy of the notice of appeal. b. Transmittal. of Records and Reports: Upon receiving such notice, the officer from whom.the. appeal is being taken shall transmit to the Hearing Examiner all of the records pertaining to the decision being appealed, together with such additional written reports as are deemed pertinent. The Examiner may request additional information from the applicant. c. Notice of Hearing Required: A written notice of the time and place of the hearing at which the appeal shall be considered by the Examiner shall be mailed to the applicant, all parties of record in the case, and to the officer from whom the appeal is taken not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) d. Content of Hearing: The Examiner m~y hear and consider any pertinent facts pertaining to the appeal. (Ord. 3992, 5-19-1986) , , , e. Record Required: For any appeal under this subsection, the City shall provide for a record that shall consist of the following: i. Findings and conclusions; December 8,2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department Page 18 ii. Testimony under oath; and iii. A taped or written transcript. . f. Electronic Transcript: The City may require the appellant to provide an electronic transcript. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985) 7. Examiner Decision: a. Substantial Weight: The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985) The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this ChapterfTitle. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) b. Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria: The Examiner may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: i. In violation of constitutional provisions; or ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or iii. Made upon unlawful procedure; or iv. Affected by other error of law; or v. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or iv. Arbitrary or capricious. (Ord. 3992, 5-19-1986) c. Time for Examiner's Decision: The Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision within ten (10) days. (Ord. 4401,5-3-1993) 8. Appeal of Examiner Decision: a. Appeal of Examiner's Decision to Council: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Amd. Ord. 4899,3- 19-2001) b. (Deleted by Ord. 4899,3-19-2001) (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) c. Other Bodies: (Reserved) December 8,2004 Page 19 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for Renton ED/N/SP Department TITLE 4, CHAPTER 9: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS PURPOSE This issue paper reviews amendments to RMC 4-9~150, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations, a long outdated section of Renton's Municipal Code. 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. For example, cluster developments, low impact developments, zero lot line developments, or other approaches may be allowed with the process. BACKGROUND Renton has a PUD code but it has not been updated since before the GMA zoning was applied in 1993. It makes reference to old residential zone classes. It allows variation of zoning, parking, and subdivision standards in exchange for public benefits, e.g. protection of environmentally sensitive areas, open space, public facilities, etc. Some of the key sections include provision of common and private open space, density bonus allowances, public dedication of all streets, and others. The PUD regulations have been part of Renton staffs list of code docket items, but is made more of a priority in relation to review of the City's Binding Site Plan Regulations. One of the options reviewed in the Binding Site Plan issue paper is: • Revise the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations (RMC 4-9-150) to allow for commercial/industrial PUDs. This approach, similar to the City of Bothell, would allow binding site plan applications to deviate from the requirements of the underlying zone provided that acceptable alternative development standards are proposed to meet the intent of the code. In such a case, a binding site plan would be required to be processed concurrent with a Planned Unit Development, and would require Hearing Examiner approval. The City would need to develop a new PUD ordinance as the current one is out of date and has not been used recently. LOCAL CASE STUDIES Three PUD ordinances were reviewed in addition to Renton's PUD regulations as described in the following table: REGULATION BELLEVUE BOTHELL REDMOND RENTON (CURRENT ORD.) Applicability • Residential or • Single family • Planned • Residential zones mixed use PUDs Residential: (residential and • Non-single family Residential Zones commercial) PUDs including • Planned projects. multifamily, retail, Commercial office, service, Development: industrial, or any Commercial and combination. Industrial Zones Regulations allowed • Density (110%; • Generally zoning • Density (110%) • Zoning (including to be Varied 120% for senior and subdivision (Residential) density), parking, citizen development) regulations may be • Lot size and subdivision, except • Height varied. dimensions procedural, • Any other except • There are percent (residential; business environmental, and permitted uses, . limits to reductions in and industrial tracts) land use . shoreline single-family lot • Site Requirements regulations, and sizes and front yard (e.g. December 8,2004 Page 1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department I~ REGULATION BELLEVUE BOTHELL REDMOND RENTON (CURRENT ORO.) procedural setback. • Building Setbacks regulations. • Cannot change. • . Building density or side or Separation rear yards. • Lot Coverage and • Cannot increase Impervious Surface density or intensity • Structure Height beyond what would and Floor Area Ratio normally be allowed. • Street and Utility Standards • Other site requirements unless specifically prohibited. • Other, except sensitive area or procedural . requirements, subject to City Council approval. . Key • Design -interior • Coordinated • Design -interior • Demonstrate Requirements/Criteri and perimeter planning internally and perimeter compliance with a • Public Facilities and externally. • Public Facilities code intent and and streets are • Adequate public and streets are superior outcome adequate. services and streets. adequate. that could not • Open, space must • Area reduced by • Open space must otherwise be be equal to 40% and lot sizes must be in be equal to or .required. 10% recreation (may common open space greater in 'size than • Demonstration of be part of 40% when or used to protect the gross area public benefit meeting certain signifiCant trees or reduction below the (protection of critical requirements). noncritical areas to lot size requirement area, site/vegetation, meet for all lots proposed provison of public Comprehensive Plan (residential). faciliites, or design goals (residential). thatcould not otherwise be required) • Provide not less than 35% of the total site area for common open space, contiguous and usable. • Provide private open space for individual units. ISSUES AND OPTIONS As part of this review, the following questions. have been considered: • To which zones should the regulations apply? Currently the City's PUD'regulations only apply to residential zones. However, given the City's changing market conditions for residential, commercial, and manufacturing activities, PUD regulations may be an appropriate tool to respond to changing conditions while ensuring there is quality development and a public benefit. The code allows PUD regulations to be applied in residential zones and commercial, mixed use and industrial zones. Options include allowing PUDs with any City December 8,2004 . Page 2 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department 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. • What regulations should be allowed to be varied? o . Continued allowances: • The current code allows variations to zoning, subdivision, and parking standards. This would be continued in the attached proposal. • There is a continuing prohibition on modifying critical area regulations. o New allowances: ' • Reference is made to allow modification of RMC 4-4, which addresses Property. Development Standards, including signage, parking, landscaping. This would be more permissive than the current standards but may address site development issues of interest to applicants. A public benefit would need to be demonstrated in any case. There would be one and possibly two exceptions to the allowance to vary RMC 4-4 requirements. It is proposed that tree cuttinglland clearing regulations not be varied beyond current code allowances since it addresses tree retention, clearing limits, and indirectly affects water quality. The proposal to allow variations to RMC 4-4 could be further limited by not allowing modification of grading regulations either. . • A new section is added, similar to Redmond's, which allows an applicant to request modification of other standards, provided there is agency approval. This would reduce the need for future demonstration ordinances. o Discussion -Streets: • Public or private streets may be proposed rather than solely public streets. Alternative street standards may be requested. However; adequate emergency access and circulation would need to be provided. • Are review criteria and development standards appropriate? o Generally Renton's review criteria are comparable to and in some. cases niore strict than other example codes (see Appendix A). Criteria that are stricter include requiring a public benefit and requiring a certain dimension private open space for residential units. o Common open space standards are currently included in the PUD. As alternatives, we show other possible standards that are similar to the recently approved R-4 cluster requirements or to Redmond/Bothell's open space standards. • Is the review process of hearing examiner recommendation and City Council approval still appropriate? The attached proposal continues the current PUD review process. This may be too rigorous for smaller proposals or for existing developments using the process for binding site plans. Alternatively, Hearing Examiner review and approval would be required for existing nonresidential developments proposing to use the binding site plan process. The . de.cision would be appealable to the City Council. December 8, 2004 Page 3 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department I 4-9-150 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REGULATIONS: A. PURPOSES: addresses nonresidential deve ments combines subsection removes objectives as redundant with review criteria.] . There are two (2) principal purposes of the planned unit development regulations. First, it is the purpose of this Section to preserve and protect natural features of the land;-especially 'Nhere steep slopes-eF-etR-ef.:eA-V-iroAmentally sensitive areas exist, and to take into account special GGflGitief}~eg.ra~€l-soil stability. Second, it is also the purpose of this Section to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of flew-residential areas in the City-ef . Renton, to create desirable neighborhoods for family and community life, to make maximum use of new concepts and technology of land development and building construction, and to carry out the objective-arid spirit of the Renton Comprehensive Plan by allowing development that will provide particular public benefit&.-.business, manufacturing. or mixed use developments by permitting a variety in the type, design. and arrangement of structures and improvements. In consideration of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions, the reviewing agencies. Hearing Examiner. and City Council shall have wide discretionary authority in judging and approving or disapproving the innovations which may be incorporated into planned unit developments proposed under this Section. In pursuing the first purpose, the specific objectives of this Section are to: 1. Preserve as much as possible the' natural characteristics of the land, including topography, native vegetation and '1iei,'Js; 2. Reduce the risks of construction in ha:;mrdous or environmentally ,~ensiti'le areas; 3. Preserve andlor create wildlife habitat; 4. Encourage and permit flexibility in design, placement and configuration of buildings, use of open space, circulation' facilities, and parking areas in order to best utilize the potential of sites characterized by special features of geography, topography, size or shape, ' .... hile at the same time maintaining substantially the same population density and area coverage permitted in the zone in ',.'hich the project is located; . 5. Encourage development of housing types that will be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed uses and that will be beneficial to the community; 6, Encourage the development ofa 'liable housing stocl< that enhances the image of the City; 7. 'Create and/or preserve usable open space for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment-of residents; 8. Encourage creativity in deSign; 9. Provide for maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility nev .... orks. and other public improvements; and 10. Provide a guide~roperty owners, the public and City officials in reviewing and approving new--{levelopments proposed under this Section. . December 8, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/NISP Department Page 4 B. APPLICABILITY: . . .' . In order to accomplish these purposes, this Section permits new development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning and subdivision regulations when it is demonstrated that such new development will be superior to traditional lot-by-Iot development. It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, enlarge or change any land or planned unit development in the City or cause or permit the same to be done contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this Section. (Ord. 4351,5-4-1992) 1. Nempt~()ns·;-(ReseFVed) Zones: Planned unit developments may be permitted in the following zoning districts, when processed and approved as provided in this Section: a. All zones deSignated in RMC 4-2. a. Residential: R-8, R-10, R-14, and RM zones. b. Mixed Use and Commercial Districts: CN, CV, CA, CD, CO, UC-N1. andUC-N2. c. Industrial: IL. 1M, and IH. rt2.aiteftstnQf~1 Second option does not include R-1, R-4 and COR zones. R-1 and R4 zones have their own cluster regulations. There are minimal development standards in the COR zone as it is like a "master plan" zone.} 2. Code Provisions That May Be Modified: a. In approving a planned unit development, the City may modify any of the standards of RMC 4-2, 4-4-080, and 4-7 except as listed in subsection 3. a. In approving a planned unit develoPment, the City may modify any of the standards of RMC 4-2, 4-4, and 4-7 except as listed in SUbsection 3. a. In approving a planned unit development, the City may modify any of the standards of RMC 4-2,4-4,4-6-060, and 4-7 except as listed in subsection 3. ri?€llt~tf~~ Allows amendments to zoning, subdivision, and parking standards similar to current PUD section. but also allows for-variation of RMC 4-4 except tree cutting and land clearing and potentially grading regulations. W_1I§lliel should PUD regulations allow for alternative street standards below the variations from standards in 4-6-060R?J b. If necessary to achieve the purposes of this division, an applicant may request additional modifications from the requirements of RMC Title 4. except those listed in subsection 3. Approval for modifications other than those specifically described subsection 2.a shall be approved by the City Council prior to submittal of a preliminary PUD plan. petllt0:'iIltlolt This would be a new . section. similar to Redmond's. which allows an applicant to request modification of other standards. This is similar to Renton's few "demonstration ordinances."} . December 8, 2004 Page 5 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department I . 3. Code Provisions Restricted from Modification: a. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses shall be consistent with those allowed by the underlying zone: b. Density/Permitted Number of Dwelling Units: The number of dwellings units shall not exceed the density allowances of the underlying zone. rEetlt0rlstoof~Appropriate densities were a key discussion with the recent Comprehensive Plan update, and density bonsues were removed in theR-8 and R-10 zones, but retained in the R-14, CD, and COR zones. Removing the ability to modify density is then resulting in a PUD regulation that is more like a "master cluster" or "master variance" type of application. The only bonuses are those allowed by the base zones.] c.PUD Regulations: The City may not modify any of the Provisions of this Section; d. Where Restricted: The City may not modify any provision of the above codes that specifically state that its requirements are not subject to modifications under a PUD; . e. Procedures: The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions of these codes; and f. Specific Limitations: The City may not modify any provision of RMC 4-3, Environmerital Regulations and Special Districts, or RMC 4-4-130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing, or RMC 4-4-060, Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations, except by modification, conditional use, or variance as specifically allowed in the referenced Chapter or Section. Such modification, conditional use. or variance applications may be merged with the consideration of a PUD. f. Specific Limitations: The City may not modify any provision of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations or 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations, or RMC 4-4-130 .. Tree Cutting and Land Clearing, except by modification, conditional use, or variance as specifically allowed in the referenced Chapter or Section. Such modification, conditional use, or variance applications may be merged with the consideration of a PUD. . .' . . . . . [EartOrs':'~0te: Some portions of RMC 4-3 are design standards and some are environmental. In one case RMC 4-3 is generally stated and in the other critical area or- land clearing is specifically identified. Also for consideration would be whether grading. requirements could or could not be varied.] C. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY: 1.· Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner is designated as the official agency of the City for the conduct of public hearings ~nd for recommendation to the City Council. (Ord. 4039, 1- 19-1987) 2. Development Services Division: The Development Services Divisiori shall be responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Section. 3. Reviewing Agencies: +Ae Development Services Division, the Public Works Department, the Fire Department, the Policy Development Department, the Police Department, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Seattle King County Health Department City December 8, 2004 . Prepared by Jones 8. Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 6 departments shall review each proposed planned unit develof?ment in accordance with procedures in RMC 4-8 and 4-9 as appropriate. [f£8l1fir§~~ Generalize to adopted procedures.] 4. City Council: The City Council, upon recommendation by the Hearing Examiner and the other agencies detailed in the paragraph above, shall be the final approving agency under this Section. In consideration of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions, the reviewing agencies, Hearing Examiner, and City Council shall have wide discretionary authOrity in judging and approving or disapproving th? inno'~ationl' ;~~~ be incorporated in!o planned unit developments proposed under this SectIOn. [EClltei\;silote: Moved to subsection A.] €Q. DECISION CRITERIA: The City may approve a PUD only if it finds that the following requirements of SUbsections E1,E2 a~ef-th+s-Section have beenare met. 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: An-y-8applicant.§ for planned unit de;lelopment approval shall have the burden of demonstratingmust demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superiorto that which would result without a PUD, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. moRl'6l:~: We are reviewing Section RMC 4-8 to see if a "justification for PUD" is or should be required as part of the submittal.] 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, aFl-8applicant.§ for planned unit development shall have the burden of demonstrating shall demonstrate that a proposed development will· provide specifically identified benefits to the residents of the City that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed PUD, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits to the City as part of the proposedPUDthan would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed PUD: a. Protect.§ environmentally sensitivecritical areas that would not be·protected otherwise to the same degree as without a PUD; or~ . b. Pfeservat-iGRPreserves, enhancementenhances, or fORabilitation rehabilitates ef natural features of the subject property such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topograpy, or non-critical area wildlife habitats or-stf€3ffiS-thaWRe City could not requireg the-appHGaAt-te preservB;-OAhance-er rehabilitate-t~Me-velefmlent of the subject f3!"~ithout a P-YGby other City regulations: or, c. Provides pPublic facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a PUD-,-~ d. Provides a Qesi§n of the propese4-PUD design that is superior in one or more of the following ways to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a PUD: i. Increased provision of open space or recreational facilities~~ December 8, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 7 ii. Superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities.;J2I~ . iii. Superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed PUD.;J2I~ iv. Superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy..-: or iv. Provision of alleys to at leas1.~~e:L~e~t of proposed single family detached. semi- attached, or townhouse units. (Eaitof?sli~t\;l Based on recent discussions about R-8 and alley development. Standard is similar to R-14 bonus standards and Sumner's Traditional Neighborhood Design standard.) rEtifit0t~:rt~@: the critieria primarily address new devel~pment. When applied to existing development. the criteria may mean that the site needs to be improved in some way in . exchange for development flexibility. Alternatively a public benefit criteria addreSSing nonresidential development that provides long-term economic vitality consistent with the Comprehensive Plan could be considered.} . 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed PUD shall also be reviewed for consistency with the following criteria: . a. Compatibility with present and potential surrounding land uses. {Compatibilityincludes, but is not limited to, size, scale, mass, character and architectural design.~. . . b. Provision of streets and pedestrian facilities which are suitable and· adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed project and in the vicinity of the proposed project. . . c. Provision of utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are adequate to serve the development. d. An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and . use of weil-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in impervious surfaces otherwise required. e.· Creation of a quality environment through the provision of either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways. f. Provision of internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Creation of a sense of privacy and separation from adjacent units through careful location of building entrances, windows, and by the use of fences, walls and landscaping. g. Orientation of buildings to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. . h. Promotion of vaRety and innovation incoordinated site and building design. Buildings in groyps should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contract should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; i.e., single family, detached, attached, townhouses, etc. i. Qesign of the perimeter of a project to enhance adjacent-ttSeS-and not create a "walled GOfrido?ef..OOi~~eavily traveled streets, or light and glaf&.. Perimeter buildings shGYlG-OOare designed to be similar in scale and bulk to t>l:l-il4fl~~flt.-sitesthe December 8, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department. Page 8 zoning standards of adjacent and abutting sites. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. ~lfdfl~R'15t~1 Test should be compatibility with zones not existing uses as existing uses may change dver time.] j. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. k. Design of parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas sAould be ~minimized in comparison to typical designs. and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking and storage areas and cooperative parking facilities where appropriate. riEaitt>Y:!?iffi'5m1 remove "should" from code. Address cooperative parking since nonresidenital uses in particular may apply.l I. Promotion of safety through adequate sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. m. Provision of safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. n. Design of each phase of the proposed development, so that as it is planned to be completed, it will contain the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, and so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. 4. Compliance with PUD Standards: Each PUD shall demonstrate compliance with the development standards contained in subsection E of this Section. F. PERMITTED bOCAT~ G. PERMITTED USES: In an approved planned unit-€ieve-laj}ffi8flt, anly the follo'Ning uses may be permitted on a property, or any portion-#:tereal',witll-tAe-r-espeGtive--t.lflge~ zoning Giassification. If a site contains more than one zoning classifiGat-ian, then only the uses allo' .... ed below-sflal.l....ge~ted in each correspondingly zoned area. 1. G 1 and R 1 R-es-iGe-flGe-DistfiGts. &.---Sifl§le-fam-i~y-GetaGA-eG--dwel1iRgs,-3flG.-attacAOO--dwel-l-in-g units provided4Aat-oo structure shal-I-Gaflt-ain-mare-than-fauF-(-4+Gwelling units an4-tl=lat-each unit shaJ-l-l:lav.e..-ts ovm ground fioGF-access and no Hflit shall be located above another unit. 2.R-2, R 3 and R-4-Resi-deflGe-Di-str-iGts7 &.-Single family detacAeG-tlwel-l-iRg-s.s-in~le family attached dwel-liRg~lexe&; townhouses,af1.G.-mHl-tif)le--fam-ily-tlwelliflg&: December 8, 2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department· Page 9 I -, b-:-AGGessory uses--GU-StomarHy-ffiGiGefltal-to--su6t:l--al-loweG--ilse-s-: ~tlblic and quasi ptiblic use~~ffif}ati91e-w+t~s or are an iRte§~rt of the~ ['ffi(fjrf0"rlIs't1~: See sUbsection 8.1 ' No minimum site area shall be required for a PUD. Pt~rlrgt~: See subsection 8,] J..[).E~-RMiTTED NUMS-€R-OF DWELLING UNITS: [Eelitbr,l$Y~1 Appropriate densities were a key discussion with the recent Comprehensive Plan update, and density bonsues were removed in the R-8 and R-10 zones, but retained in the R-14, CD, and COR zones, Removing the ability to modify density is then resulting ina PUD regulation that is more like a "master cluster" or "master variance" type of application. The only bonuses are those aI/owed by the base zones.] -, - 1. Method of Computing: The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a planned Hffit-Gevelej3meA-t-sflal-l-be-4etermined by multiplyi-A§-the-§F9SS-Si-te-affia--times the-allewe€i base units per acre of the underlying zoning times the total of the percentage increases of each earned density bonus. Gross site areas shall mean the total site area befo~ improvements, such as streets, utility easements, and circulation areas. In no case shall the number of dwelling units permitted on a site exceed the maximum permitted density of the underlying..zGA-iA§-Gf-the-site, as specified in subsection 13 o~ 2~ Formula: The general formulas for determining the permitted number of dwelling units in a PUD are as follows: # of dwel-.'iRg I-IRitS permitted -the smaller of: (Gross site area in acres x base density, or modified base density for environmentally sensitive areas, of the respective, underlying zoning) x (100% ,.. sum of percentages of aU bonuses earned); or . . (Gross site area in acres x maximum permitted residential densities, or modified maXimtJm-Elen-sit~onmentally sensit-ive-afe~derlying ~ , 3. Maximum Sase ResidentiafDensities: The base residential density permitted in a PUD shall-b07 a. G1 Zone: _ One dwelling unit per acre. b. R 1 Zone: Four (4) d' .... elling units per acre. c. R 2 Zone: Eight (8) dwelling units per acre. d. R 3 Zone: Seventeen (17) dweliing 'units per acre. e. R 4 Zone: Twenty four (24) dwelling units per acre. 4. Reduction in Sase Density for lands Identified as Sensitive: These base densities shaJJ-3j3j31y-tG-tB9-§r-e-s-s-asr-eag-&ef aI/ lands-wH-h-iA---a-P-tJ~~Ae-base density of December 8,2004 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 10 afl-y.-p9FOOB-Gf--cH;+te---tAat-is-iOOA-tifiea-a&GGAtaiflifl g very sevsf&-efWifeftfReffiafl.y-seAsitive areas-i-5-f8€It!GeG-Gy-seventy five--!3Bfcent (75%) and the base density ohIDy~~te f€!entified as centaining severe efWifeA-mefltafl.y-sensit·ive areas is reduGe~fty percent tw%}.- 5.-E-R-vif"GflfI1entaHy···Sensiti.ve-Areas-Map-Fe.H~e-pu-rpose-ef...tR-ese-maps-is-te-aJ.eMfle put:mG--afld-fes-pen-sible-effiGi.al.s-to the potential presence of efWifoomen-tatly-sen-silive-afeaS on the sites-ef.-Ge.velepmen-~esa!s. In cases of mapping error, the actual presenGe-ef a9seA-oo-o.f-tfle-features-tlefin-etl-ffi this Section as environmentally sensiti-ve-;-as-GeteffAin-etl by qualified prefessienal--afld-teGhnical pefSGflS;-Shall govern the treatment of an indt~ building site OF-par-GBI-Bf land as environmentally sensitive. . fi..-8.Gn-us-Oensi·ties-;-Gn-e-GF-Fllme of the fo1J.e.wiflg-den~s may be-earn-etl-+n aGd#ien--te-~~r acre allowed in a PUD. The bonus percentages shall be added togetheF-before being mLi~-t;}y-the permitted base density~ ci.-OpeR-SpaGe·~A-fj.v~erGen-t-(..ao/ot-Gen&ity-beoos-if-at.-least-twen-ty five pefG~ one half (1/2) acre, whicheveHs-less, of the open space has a slope of ten percent (10%) er less. Su~~ll-Ge-concentrated areas and shall not be covered-9y stafl4n-g-wateF-€-~sffinally during the year.' . 9-.-AG-tive-Recr-eatioA-Al'eas: A five percent (5%) density bonus if t'NO (2) or more active recreational features, such as jogging""lalking trails, pools, recreation building, children's play areas! tennis courts and sports courts are provided for each one hundred (100) residential units. c. En .... ironmentally Sensitive heas: l\ five percent (5%) bonus for each ten percent (10%) of the site identified as having very severe or severe environmentally sensitive features that are left undisturbea. e. Publi&-AcGeS&<-A-ten percent (10%) density bonus if public access which is acceptable to the City is granted to lakes, rivers, and other unusual site features (e.g., unique open space, recreation areas, etc.). e. Parking Lot57-A-fj.ve-perGeffi-(5%-}-defIsfty-beflus-if-eff street parking is grouped in areas of sixteen (16) stalls or less and separated from other parking areas by significaffi landscapiftg,- f.--E.n-GIGsed:-Parking: A five pCfGent (5%) density bonus-if-.at-teast-fffty-percent (50%) 'of the parking staUs are placed underground or enclosed by walls on three (3) sides, such as in garages. g..-Artefial-AGcess: l\ five percent (5%) density bonus if the principal vefficular access point opens directly onto a pFimary or secondary arterial. . t+.-Public Transit~~ercen-t-(5%-)-GeflSi.ty-boA-us-if-.pubJ.iG-transit is available within five.-h.tJflGraG--fe.et-f5.Q()!-}-waJ.kiflg distance from the PUD. i. Security: l\ five percent (5%) density bonus if the PUD provides a crime prevention pJ.afl-;-iflGluding locks, security lighting, appropfiate-GeeF-s, "'lindows and alafmS-approvetl by th e Rentofl-PeJ.i.ce-..Q.epartmen-h . December 8, 2004 Page 11 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department j-:-P-eAmeteF-SetbaGk-a.fw-Buffer: A ten~erG9RH.:u:)P/o-t·BeRsi-tY-OOf'H;I-s-if-tR.e-laooscaped set&ack':f/:om-aEijacent R 1 Residential Districts requir~OOseGti-oo--J4a of this SeGtfOR is--i-ABfoased to-.fifty feet (50'),' unless--stlGh--iRGfease€l-set9aGk--weHkl be required anyway €Iue-t0--tGpewaf)ft.y,easemeRts-er-etRef-Hffij·tations of the-f}f-epef'ty7 k. Private Open Space: A five percent (5%) density bonus for usable private open space in-e-xcess--ef...rn-iRirntlffi-feGI:fH:ements (subsection J3 of this Secti~ wf'l€fH:~fivat~en space fcif--a.-9l'Ol:fnG--fl.eof.-t:ffii.t-.e-XGeeGs--thfee hundred (300) squafe feet-er-eighty-{SQ)-SGUare-feet-fur-al'HlppeF--Stef.]4ffift-: . 7. Maximum Total Residential Densities: The maximum residential densities that maybe aGhi-eve4-ffi-.a--P-YQ...-s-hal1 not exceeffi . a. G 1 Zone: One and one fourth (1.25) dwelling units per acre. b. R 1 Zone: Six (6) dwelling units per acre. e: R .2 Zone: Twelve(12) dwelling units per acre. _ d. R J Zone: Twenty five -(25) dwelling units per acre. e. R 4 Zone: Thirty five (35) d'Nelling units per acre. 8. Redl:fction in Total Density for Lands Identified as Sensiti'le: Thes_e maximum deflSiti-es-shall--aj}p-ly to all lands within a PUD, provided that the maximum density of any pertion of a site that is identified as containing very severe environmentally sensitive areas is FOffi::IGed by fifty percent (5Q%) and the maximum density of any portion of a site identified as containing severe environmentally sensitive areas is reduced by tvventy five percent (25%). . .. . J~. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. Code Pro\'isions That May Be Modified: In approving a planned unit development, the Gity may modify any of the standards of the Zoning, Parking and Loading, and Subdivision GOOes--except the following: a_ The City may not modify any of the provisions of this SeGti-on-i b-:-The City may not modif~f9Vis.io~edes that specifically state that its feGH+femeRts are not !?OOfect to modifications under a PUDi' . G-:--+Re City may not-medify any' ef the procedl:lfa4>rev-isi-oRs--of...tReS8-'Gedes; and 21. Common OpenSpace Standard: a_ Residential: Open Space Set Asiae: For> dev~lopments in the zones listed in B.1 of this Section. eE!ach PUD shall provide not less than thirty five percent (35%) of the total site area for common open space. Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed provide either active or passive recreation or to provide a wildlife December 8, 2004 Page 12 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department habitat. At ieast 10% of the common open space shall meet the definition of contiguous open space in RMC 4-111. a. Residential: Open Space Set Aside: For developments in the zones listed in B.1 of this Section, each PUD shall provide the following: [mmlfr41~~: Similar to R-4 cluster.] i. Thirty percent (30%) of the site shall be permanently set aside as "contiguous open space." All portions of a site that are not dedicated to platted lots or individual ownership shall be set in a separate tract and/or tracts to preserve existing viable stands of trees or other native vegetation. Such tracts shall be shown and recorded on the face of the plat to be preserved in perpetuity. ii. Where trees are removed. landscaping designed to replace the functions of existing trees is required. iii. The percentage of open space required may be reduced by the reviewing official to 20% of the site when: (a) Public access is provided to open space, and (b) Soft surface trails are provided within wetland buffers, and (cl Storm water ponds are designed to eliminate engineered slopes requirinq fencing and enhanced to allow passive and/or active recreation. a. Residential: For developments in the zones listed in B.1 of this Section, open space must be equal to or greater in size than the gross area reduction below the average lot size requirement for all lots proposed. The open space shall not include a critical area or storm water conveyance or storage facility, and shall be concentrated in large usable areas. [m1imrAllt;f~: Similar to Redmond and BothelLJ b. Mixed Use, Commercial. Industrial: Comply with RMC 4-3-100.G for Landscaping/Recreation/Common Space. ~S5N0~: Applies Urban Center criteria. Alternatively R-14 bonus standards for open space/focal points could be applied in RMC 4-9-065.0.1 ag. Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a PUD shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit and shall be an area of at least twenty 1 OPEN SPACE. CONTIGUOUS: Land permanently set aside as open space located in recorded tracts. Contiguous open space lands typically exclude critical areas such as wetlands and steep slopes, but may include wetland buffers enhanced with amenities such as pedestrian trails and seating areas, as well as stormwater ponds enhanced per the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Resources Division. December 8, 2004 ~age 13 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department perce'nt (20%) of the gross square footage of the dwelling units. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least ten feet (1 O') in every dimension. Decks on upper floors can substitute forsome of this required private open space. For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5'). . 4~. SetbaGk-anGBuilding Separation and Height Standards: a-SetbaGk-froffi-R4-Z-9fles: VVhenever a PUG shall abut-a-R 1 zone4-parcel. wRather- developed or undeve~. then any building or structure in the PUD shall be set back at least-twenty five feet (25') from such parceL SLich twenty five foot (25') setback shaJ.1-be open space. and shall not be utilized fo~afkif-lg,-Streets. drive1Nays. play§fOU-nGs--0f--9tR-er intensive uses,-OOt-sl:lcMwenty five foot (25') setback shall be landscape4-as J:l.ereiflaooV8-{\escribed and maintainedas a common area and open s~ b-.SetbaGk-aflG-Wei-gJlt-.bimi.tati~GjaGent to R 1 Zones: Any structure within one hundred feet (1 00') of an R 1 Zone shaH .. G~ed of detached single family housing no more than thirty five feet (35') in height. G~. Spacing Between Buildings: Spacing between buildings shall be consistent with adopted Fire and Building Codes in RMC4-5. Building and Fire Prevention Standards. Ne minimum spacing between buildings within a PUD is required provided that eEach . residential or mixed use development shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties; fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property and the privacy of its occupants and surrounding properties, screening of objectionable view or uses, and reduction of noise; windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide adequate privacy; and adequate light and air is . provided to each dwelling unit. b. Building Heights: The building heights shall not excced the maximum building heights allowed by the base zone. or the height specifically allowed for certain zones through the conditional use permit process in RMC 4-2, Land Use Districts. [No limitation on requesting building heights; however, development would be subject to the decision criteria in subsection C regarding compatibility and ability to serve development.] s,...soorelffi.e-Areas.;-P-Iaflfled--u-Aft-€levelopments which include any shoreline of natural lakes, rivers and other waterways shall be governed by the requirements of the City Code entitled Residential Subdivision o~rst Class SAer-elands and-Shoreline Master Program. [E&1tf)~s ~: These standards cannot be varied per Section B.l 6.-Em/froflmen-tally-Sensiti'Je Areas: PUDs in areas identified as very severe or seVere environmefltal.ly sensitive areas shall be subject to special review by the City to assure stable .. building conditions, safe and convenient access, and minimum disruption of the natural physical features of the lan~sial engineering, soils, hydrolegiG.-or geologic stooies may be required to assure public safety and welfare. ~~~: These standards cannot be 'varied per Section B.l December 8,2004 Page 14 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department ~. Access, Circulation and Parking: a.General: The planned unit development shall have adequate pedestrian and vehicle access and parking commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas and shall take into consideration the anticipated traffic which the development may generate. b. Streets: All streets within a PUD shall oe-tieGi6ated-Jo the City for pl:lOH6-tlse. Such stfeets shall be developed to the full minimum standards specified in RMC 4-6-060, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and shall be consistent with any circulation requirements of the zone per RMC 4-2, Land Use Districts, unless street standard alternates modfications or variances are re uested consistent with RMC 4-6 and .. ".~. ;t;~@,m~: ~n:u. . considered with the PUD application. [Eal or4si;mGife3 Allows for private streets, but must be consistent with City private street standards.] b. Streets: All public and private streets shall be designed to provide adequate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. rEa7te~§ffi5m' Allows modification of standards but with performance standards.] c. Parking: Adequate vehicular parking areas shall be provided consistent with RMC 4-4- 080. Any parking modfiications shall be processed concurrent with the PUD application. Vehicular parking may be provided either on street or off street within the PUD, provided' =::'::=i==:I:::::r===:=_~: .' Section 1 allowed modification of parking standards but original language seems to negate changes to the number of stalls. The amendments would require consistency with Renton parking requirements, and where Renton parking requirements allow modifications. they can be considered with the PUD.J OR.· c. Parking: Adequate onsite vehicular parking areas shall be provided consistent with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Parking management shall ensure sufficient resident. employee, or visitor parking standards, and no reliance on adjacent or abutting properties unless a shared arkin arran ement consistent with RMC 4-4-080 is accom lished.E.&lfu1~ rl>l'a" Allows modification of standards but with performance standards.] d. Pedestrian Circulation: Adequate pedestrian circulation facilities shall be provided. These facilities shall be durable, serviceable, safe, convenient to the dwelling units..QI nonresidential development, and separated by curb or other means from the vehicle traffic facilities. ' 8. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City, provided that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a December 8, 2004 . Page 15 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department performance bond to the City .in an amount equal to a minimum of one hundred fifty . percent (150%) of the cost of the installation of the approved landscaping, which shall be . planted within one year of the date of final approval of the PUD, and the maintenance of such landscaping for a period of two (2) years thereafter. A bond for providing maintenance .of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. b. Maintenance: Landscaping and unimproved common open space shall be maintained permanently by the property owners' association or the owner of the PUD, or the agent or agents thereof and shall be subject to periodiC inspection by the City. In the event that such landscaping or open space is not maintained in a responsible manner, the City shall . have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. 9. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall .. be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Board of Public Works, assured through a performance bond to the City in an amount equal to a minimum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the cost of installation, except for such common facilities that are intended to serve only future phases of a PUD. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the present and future phases of a PUD shall be installed or bonded as. . specified above before occupancy of the earliest phase that will be served. At the time of such bonding and deferral, the City shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is attributable to each phase of a PUD. b. Maintenance: All common· facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the PUD owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property .. -. KE.. PROCEDURE FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: The approval of a planned unit development shall be by the City Council, upon recommendation by the Hearing Examiner, and shall be processed in accordance with the following procedures: 1. Who May Apply: Any owner, group of owners of contiguous property acting jointly, . developer, or authorized agent may submit an application for a PUD. 2. Filing of Application: The application for preliminary approval of a PUD shall be filed with the Development Services Division accompanied by ~ filing fee as established by RMC 4-1-- . 170, Land Use Review Fees. Wherever a planned unit development is intended to be subdivided into smaller parcels, an application for preliminary plat approval may be submitted together with the application for final plan PUD approval. In such case, the preliminary plat and the final plan PUD shall be processed and reviewed concurrently. Subsequent to final plan PUD approval, a PUD may also be subdivided by the binding site plan process. December 8, 2004 Page 16 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Departmef)t 3. Informal Review: Prior to making application for preliminary approval, the developer shall meet-with the re¥iB~paftfAeR-ts--te-&ttiGy-aA4-revie'N the proposed--P-YD. The develeper shall prepare and-stl-Gmft-t0-tR-e-G-evetof}rnent-Sef¥iGe~i¥isien eight (8) cefHesof a tentative applicat-ien "'lith vicinity and site-ffi~s-centaining the-iRfermatien-fe€{uifed in subseGt-ioo-K4-ef this SectioA-;-teg.etfler-:-witR--otAer-j:)eFtiflent information required by the reviewing department&; TAe maps may be reasonably aCGHr-ate--sketches. A fee as established by RMG 4 1 170, band Use Re~s, for a tentative-P~I be paid by the petitioner prior to this informal review-:-submit a preliminary plan for preapplication review. [~~: Would make reference to the City's preapplication review process which is the most common review procedure before a formal application is submitted for any comparable permit such as a preliminary plat. This is a free process.] . . 4. Submittal Requirements and Application Fees: A preliminary development plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division and shall include the general intent of the development, apportionment of land for buildings and land use, proposed phases, if any, and such other information or documentation which the Development Services Division shall . require. Submittal requirements and fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees, and 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications. 5. Public Notice and Comment Period:IH-addition to RMC 4-8-090, Public Notice Requirements, public notice shall be in the form of three (3) signs placed on or near the subject property and clearly visible from the largest public street sePling the property. The Development SePlices Division shall also make a reasonable effort to notify by mail all known homeowners' associations, community clubs or similaForganizations in the neighborhood of a proposed PUD. The public comment period shall be as specified in RMC 4 8 090, Public . Notice Requirements. rEmflf~Nb'm: Standardizes public notice and comment period '. requriements and does not included increased requirements.] . . . Failure to receive such mailed notification shall have no effect upon the proposed action or' application. 6. Phasing:Plannedunit developments may be proposed to be developed in one or more phases. If developed in phases, each phase of the PUD shall contain adequate parking, open space, recreation space, public benefits, landscaping, buffering, circulation, utilities and other improvements necessary so that each phase, together with any earlier phases, may stand alone and satisfy the purposes of this Section. Further, each phase must meet the requirements of subsection E2 of this Section, Public Benefit Required, unless the public benefits have been met by previously approved phases. . 7. Review Process: The preliminary plan shall be circulated to all reviewing departments for comments. The Development Services Division shall determine thatevaluate whether the I plans comply with the development policies ofthe Renton Comprehensive Plan and this Section and shall make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner accordingly. 8. Decision: After public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the preliminary plan. The City Council, upon recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, shall approve, modify or deny the preliminary plan PUb. City Council action to approve a preliminary plan PUD shall be by ordinance and shall include an accurate description of the boundaries, land uses and number of units of the PUD, and any phases thereof, as well as the effective date of approval and the date of expiration of such approval. 8. Decision: December 8, 2004 Page 17 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department ".. . ." . . .. a. Preliminary PUD -New Development: After public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the preliminary plan. The City Council, upon recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, shall approve. modify or deny the' preliminary plan PUD. City Council action to approve a preliminary plan PUD shall be by . ordinance and shall include an accurate description of the boundaries, land uses and number of units of the PUD, and any phases thereof, as well as the effective date of approval and the date of expiration of such approval. b. Preliminary PUD -Existing Development with Binding Site Plan: After'public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the preliminary plan. The preliminary plan shall contain an accurate description of the boundaries, land uses and number of units of the PUD. and any phases thereof, as well as the effective date of approval and the dateof expiration of such approval, on its face prior to recording with KingCounty. 9. Effect of an Approved Preliminary Plan: The approval of a preliminary plan constitutes the City's acceptance of the general project, including its density, intensity, arrangement and deSign. Approval authorizes the applicant or subsequent owner to apply for final plan approval of the PUD or phase(s) thereof. Preliminary plan approval does not authorize any building permits or any site work except that required for surveying and engineering of the final plan or that required by the City for improvements that are necessary for a particular . phase of the PUD for which final plan approval has been granted. An approved preliminary plan binds the future PUD site and all subsequent owners to the uses, densities, and standards of the preliminary plan until such time as a final plan. is approved for .the entire site or all phases of the site, or a new preliminary plan is approved, or the preliminary plan is. . abandoned or expires subject to the provisions of subsection 0 of this Section. 10. Zoning Map Revised: Upon the authority of the approval ordinance of a preliminary IQ!: final?] plan PUD, the City shall place the PUD designation as an overlay on the subject property on the City of Renton Zoning Map. r~~: Discuss time and method of map' amendment.] !J-1..Sale of Planned Unit Development: If a developer sells the site or a portion of the site after preliminary approval, such sale shall not prevent final approval of the planned unit developmeflt.;-providing that any succeeding owner agrees to comply with the requirements of ·::~::~.~d~~:!,;!lI conditions or covenants that have been established forYhe approvedPUD. [:.oltorls1f!.1om: Recommended to be removed by Development ServIces staff.J The applicant may request that reviO'.\' and decision on the preliminary plan and final plan be merged in one decision. The merged decision shall follow the procedural steps required of a . . preliminary plan. However, the applicant shall submit all plans and information in the detail required for a final plan and shall comply with all other requirements and standards for a final pIarh. . .. MG. FINAL PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES: . . . 1. Time Limits: The developer shall, within two (2) years of the effective date of action by the City Council to approve the preliminary plan, submit to the Development Services Division a final development plan showing the ultimate design and specific details of the proposed planned unit development or the final phase or phases thereof . . December 8, 2004 Page 18 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Upon application by the developer, the Hearing Examiner may grant an extension of the approved preliminary plan for a maximum of twelve (12) months. Application for such extension shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of preliminary plan approval. Only one such extension may be granted fora PUD. If a final development plan is not filed within such two (2) years or within the extended time period, if any, the PUD preliminary plan shall be deemed to have expired or been abandoned and shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 0 of this Section. 2. Submittal Requirements and Fees for Final Plan Application: A final plan application shall be submitted for a PUD, or a phase thereof, to the Development Services Division. The proposed final plan shall be in substantiai conformance with the approved preliminary plans, including phasing, subject to the provisions of subsections M4 and M5 of this Section. Submittal requirements shall be as listed in RMC 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications. Application fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. 3. Public Notice: Public notice shall be provided in the manner prescribed for preliminary . plans. 4. Minor Modifications: As part of the approval of a final plan, the City may require or approve a minor deviation from the preliminary plan if: a. The change is necessary because of natural features of the subject property not foreseen by the applicant or the City prior to the approval of the preliminary development plan; or b. The change will not have the effect of significantly reducing any area of landscaping, ()pen space, natural area or parking; or . " c. The change will not have the effect of increasing the density or significantly increasing the total amount of floor area of the PUD; or d: The change will not result in any structure, circulation or parking area being moved significantly in any direction; or . e. The change will not reduce any setback approved as part of the preliminary plan by more than ten percent (10%) and the required minimum setback is met; or . f. The change will not result in a significant increase in the height of any structure as ,approvedin the preliminary plan; or ' g. The change will not increase or create any adverse impacts or undesirable effects on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Major Modifications: Major modifications are those which substantially change the basic design, density, circulation, or open space requirements of the PUD. Major modifications to a preliminary plan PUD shall be processed as a new preliminary plan. 6. Review and Approval of Final Plan: The final plan shall be reviewed by the departments and the Hearing Examiner, in the manner prescribed for preliminary plans, to determine if the final plan is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan and is consistent with the purposes and review criteria of this Section:'After a public hearing thereon,the Hearing Examiner shall make a decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the final plan. The decision shall include a description of the elements of the approved PUD, including land uses, number of units, phasing, the effective date of C!pproval ahd of expiration, time December 8,2004 Page 19 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department I . limits, required improvements and .the schedule for implementation, and any conditions that may apply to the PUD." . . a. Covenants Req~ired: As a condition of final plan PUD approval, co~enants shall be executed that run with the land, and with all subdivided portions thereof, stating that such property is part of an approved PUD, and including the file number thereof and a description of the uses, densities and phases of the approved PUD. Such covenant shall . also be recorded for each property created through any subsequent subdivisions. ' b. Property Owners' Association Required: For residential PUDs, t+he developer or . owner(s) of a PUD shall be required to form a legally incorporated property owners' association prior to the occupancy of any portion of a PUD. If there is only one owner of ' the PUD, either a property owners' association shall be formed or a covenant running with the land shall be filed requiring the formation of such an association prior to the first subsequent sale of the property, or portion thereof. For nonresidential PUDs. the City may establish covenants as necessary to ensure maintenance of infrastructure and open space or other common improvements. 7. Effect of an Approved Final Plan: a. Standards Superimposed: The final approval of a planned unit development, under ' the procedures detailed in this Section, shall superimpose the requirements of that specific approved planned unit development on the underlying zone regulations as an exception thereto, to the extent that the requirements of the planned unit development modifies or supersedes the regulations of the underlying zone. Final plan approval shall be binding upon property orthe respective phase(s) with regards to density, intensity. ·1 openspace, uses, and other standards until such time asa new final plan PUD is ' approved or the final plan expires or is abandoned subject to subsection 0 of this . Section. b. Constru~tionAuthorized: Approval of a final plan PUD is authorizati~n to apply for building permits to construct the PUD. The developer shall prepare and submit building permit applications which are accepted as substantially complete to the Development Services Division within six (6) months of the effective date of approval. The developer shall complete the approved planned unit development or any phase thereof included in the approved final plan within two (2) years from the date of the decision to approve the final plan by the Hearing Examiner, unless the examiner designates a shorter time. Failure to complete the PUD, or any phase thereof, within this time limit will require the submittal of a new preliminary and final plan application in order to continue construction of the PUD. Failure to submit a new application or to complete the PUD once construction has begun shall constitute abandonment of thePUD subject to subsection'O of this Section. Expiration of any building permit issued for a PUD shall be governed by the provisions of the applicable Building Code. Construction of any portion of the PUD requires a current approved PUD and a current building permit. . 8. Phasing: If developed in phases, each phase of the PUD shall contain adequate parking, open space, recreation space, public benefits, landscaping, buffering, circulation., utilities and . other improvements necessary so that each phase, tci~jether 'with any earlier phases, may stand alone and satisfy the purposes of this Section. Further, each phase must meet the requirements of subsection E2 of this Section, Public Benefit Required, unless the public benefits have been met by previously approved phases. ' , . 9. Extension of Time Limits for Remaining Phases: Approval of a final plan for any phase of the approved preliminary plan shallcoristitute an extension for two (2) years of the ' .' . . . . December 8,2004 Page 20 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department remainder of the preliminary plan from the effective date of Hearing Examiner action on the final plan. . H. MERGER OF APPLICATIONS OR REVIEW STAGES: 1. Merger of Review Stages:The applicant may request that review and decision on the preliminary plan and final plan be merged in one decision. The merged decision shall follow the procedural steps required of a preliminary plan. However. the applicant shall submit all plans and information in the detail required for a final plan and shall comply with all other requirements and standards for a final plan. [i3almf:l§fN'Z5f'Et Former Section L.] 2. Merger with Other Applications: A preliminary PUD may be considered simultaneously with any other land use permit required for a proposal, including but not limited to: preliminary plats, short plats, binding site plans. critical area modifications or variances, shoreline substantial developments permits, shoreline variances, shoreline conditional use permits, street standard modifications or variances, or other applications. N!. BUILDING AND OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 1. Public Notification Signage: Prior to issuance of any building permits for a final PUD, the applicant will erect and maintain in a legible manner a sign which is sufficiently large and prominently sited, and which graphically portrays all phases of the preliminary PUD including dwelling unit types, number of units, parking, open space, and recreational facilities. The purpose of this temporary sign is to inform neighbors and future residents about future phases of. development plans, their content and configuration. If a preliminary PUD is modified and has any major modifications permitted to it, then this sign shall similarly be modified to comply with any approved changes to the modified PUD. Any sign erected pursuant to this Code Section shall be exempt from the proviSions of the Sign Code. All such public notification signs proposed subject to this Section shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Division to insure that the informaticm to be displayed is clearly legible and that the size of the sign is no larger than what is needed to convey the required information. The sign is to be removed at such time as the fined phase of the PUD has been approved and constructed. (Ord. 4060, 4-20-1987) r~Ofe: Consider deleting and relying on standard notification requirements in RMC 4-8.1 2. Conformance with Final Plan Required:.Building permits shall be issued for construction in planned unit developments only in accordance with the final plan and program elements of the final plan as approved by the Hearing Exarriiner. 3. MinorAdjustments to Final Plan: Minor adjustments to the final plan which involve only insignificant revisions to the exact location and configuration of buildings, roadways, open space or other features and do not involve any changes in density, relative density within the site, intensity, architectural style, housing type or other significant characteristics of the PUD may be approved by the Development Services Division when issuing building permits. Adjustments that are determined by the Development Services Division to not be minor adjustments shall require the submittal of a new final plan or preliminary plan application, according to subsections M4 and M5 of this Section, Modifications. 4. Occupancy Permit Issuance Procedure: The Development Services Division Director may issue a temporary or final occupancy permit subject to any conditions appropriate to insure the public health, safety and general welfare, and to insure the timely execution of the remainder of the planned unit development. Prior to issuance of the permit the Director shall find: December 8, 2004 Page 21 Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department I a. That the developer is engaged in the continuation of the construction of the remaind.er of the PUD application. . . . . . . .' b. That all requirements of the PUD approval, and required health and safety regulations of the City have be.en satisfied. . c. That the partial occupancy has been granted deferrals of on-site or off-site improvements not yet completed pursuant to provisions of the Renton Municipal Code. d. That partial occupancy will be in the general public interest, and not detrimental to the . public health, safety and welfare. 5. Occupation of Structures: Any finished structures, short of full implementation of an approved final plan for aPUD or those phases thereof, may be occupied upon the issuance of a conditional use permit by the Hearing Examiner together with such conditions, covenants or other terms in order to assure compliance with the requirements of subsection J of this Section, Development Standards, and/or any other applicable provision of this Section and the City's zoning regulations. GJ. EXPIRATION OR ABANDONMENT OF A PUD: {Expiration: Expiration of an approved preliminary plan shall be defined as failure to satisfy the time limits or other requirements of submitting a final plan application. Expiration of an approved final plan PUD shall be defined as failure to initiate construction of a PUD. Expiration can only occur if no on-site construction has begun. Upon expiration of a preliminary or final plan; the undeveloped site may only be developed if a new preliminary and final plan PUD is approved or if the City Council, by ordinance, removes the PUD designation and revokes the original approval.· . . . 2. Abandonment: Abandonment of a preliminary and/or final plan· for the purpose of this Section shall mean the failure and neglect of the developer to meet the requirements of subsection M7b of this Section, or to diligently pursue the project and the improvements . incidental thereto for a period of six (6) months, after beginning or completing construction of any of the residential units, utilities, streets or other iniprovements of any phase of a PUD. 3. Resuming Development of an Abandoned PUD Site: In order to resume development of an abandoned PUD site, a new final plan application shall be submitted for any partially completed phase of the PU[)..end a new preliminary plan application shall be submitted for all remaining portions of the site. In any case, all subsequent preliminary or final plans shall adhere to the Renton City Code provisions in force at the time of resubmission including open space, dwelling unit density and setback requirements. No building permits shall be issued, renewed or extended until such new preliminary or final plans are approved. . . P.!S. APPEALS OF EXAMINER'S DECISION ON A FINAL PUD: The Hearing Examiner's decision on a final plan pub may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. If the Hearing Examiner acts on appeal to approve a final PUD, the decision will include an effective date~o·f approval consistent with subsection K8 of this Section, Decision. Q!:. APPEAL OF COUNCIL DECISION ON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: December 8, 2004 . Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department Page 22 The action, by ordinance, of the City Council to approve, modify or deny a PUD shall be final and conclusive, unless the time period specified in RMC 4-8-110, Appeals, an aggrieved party obtains a writ of review from Superior Court. If Council acts in appeal to approve a preliminary PUD, the decision will include an effective date of approval consistent with subsection K8 of this Section, Decision. (Ord. 4039, 1-19-1987) RM. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: Penalties for any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be in accord with RMC 1- 3-2, Civil Penalties: (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) . - December 8, 2004 Page 23 . Prepared by Jones & Stokes for ED/N/SP Department DATE: TO: . VIA: FROM: CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM December 1, 2004 Don Persson, Council President Members of Renton City Council Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator Economic Development, Neighborhoods, . and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind (ext. 6588) SUBJECT: ISSUE: Exception to Title IV docket review process for zoning code amendment to the definition of "Medical Institution" The existing definitions of "Medical Institution," "Medical Office," and "Convalescent Facility" include exclusionary language that prohibits a mixed-use treatment facility that includes components of all of these land uses. The property owner of the existing convalescent facility on Sunset Blvd. is requesting consideration of a code amendment to allow a holistic health facility that combines out-patient treatment, short-term stay, retail products, gardens, doctor's offices, massage, and other forms of physical therapy. RECOMMENDATION: • Amend the definition of "Medical Institution" to allow a wider range of medical practices to occur on-site as accessory functions to the hospital, clinic, or sanitarium use. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The proposed holistic clinic is an example of a non-tradition medical use that challenges the assumptions underlying mainstream approaches to land use definitions. The activities described in the attached brochure for the "Healing Arts Clinic" are similar to a medical office use, however, as part of the business plan of this organization, over-night stays and a retreat atmosphere is incorporated into the treatment program. According to the proponents, many clients travel distances to use the facility, and at the present, need to stay in hotels. A small short-term convalescent use is envisioned within the facility to allow clients to remain on site. December 1, 2004 Page 2 The proposed amendments to the m~dical institution definition would facilitate this non- traditional medical activity, but could also be useful for mainstream "mixed-use" medical applications, such as cancer care facilities where patients need a place to, stay for treatment. The proposed definition would retain the hospital, clinic, or sanitarium as the primary activity, but allow a combination of medical offices, convalescent, and' other activities, such as retail as accessory functions. " , CONCLUSION: An amendment to existing definitions to' allow a response to evolving medical institutions is . supported to allow innovative uses and activities in the City. ' . . C:\Documents and Settings\lgrueter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6D\Medical Institution Issue_Code _ comb.doc Dec. 7, 2004 Definitions Handout MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS • A facility providing physical or mental health services, in-patient accommodations, and medical or surgical care of the sick or injured. This definition includes hospitals,-€fj.ni-€-£;-·an4~taHums hospice. and holistic health centers. This definition excludes medical and dental offices,_-convalescent centers, retirement residences, and group homes II and 1. OFFICES, MEDICAL AND DENTAL '. Any office used by physicians, dentists, and/or other medical professionals to examine, diagnose, and treat patients, and to administer day-to-day accessory office functions relating to the medical or dental practice. CONY ALESCENT CENTERS Facilities for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, terminal illness where care includes ongoing medical treatment,fficluding hospice and extended care facilities. This defmition does not include retirement residences, adult family homes, group homes II, medical institutions, and I or secure community transition facilities. HOLISTIC HEALTH CENTER A combination of activities intended for improvement or maintenance of health including out-patient and/or in- patient care and suppOlting accessory activities including space for medical practitioners, retail sales, educational classrooms and meeting space.