Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1Oh 4e- ryAoUil," 6 u w 1;��k -AC� r e- MZU aAdAti-o,- c -)J) 0 'A5 2 S i P,-c) orb i EL4)Ck /4 NE 13�-67,kuiTo kENT, kM 9i�)? i • L 0.1 41 'a U-+- OJIL For From Time ! /0 G Date ' Phone—�Q ❑U------- -------------------------------------- - ENT!__________ -- -------------------------------------- _r ------ -- --------------------------- C�_ STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the 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 September 25, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of W0.75. Jo arton - Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal s; Subscribed and sworn to me this 25`h day ofSep€ember, 2006, - B D Cantelon`- Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing i, erlli �7MWg' tone ' PO Number: "* - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has withdrawn its Determination of Non -Significance for the following project: Highlands Subarea Rezone and Zoning Text Amendments U.406-030, R, EC,F Location Text amendments would have generally been citywide Map amendments would have been applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton. The City of Renton proposed to rezone that part of the Highlands Subarea currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning was proposed to convert into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV- C) and Center Village - Residential (CV-R). Two new zones were to be created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV- C zone would have been a new zone that allowed commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone would have been a new zone that would have allowed medium density residential uses, but not high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Villagc Flex Bonus District would have been subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area would have likely increased the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. The applicant has withdrawn the application for this proposal. Therefore, the previously issued Determination of Non -Significance issued on April 4, 2006 under WAC 197-11-340 is hereby WITHDRAWN. Publication Date: September 25, 2006 Published in the King County Journal September 25, 2006. #861674 Y 1 Kathy Keolker, Mayor September 11, 2006 CITY JF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch, Administrator C 17T4 DF REN t-ON RE 111TY CII_ RK _q OFFICE Neil Watts, Director - Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Neil: SUBJECT: REQUEST TO WITHDRAW APPLICATION LUA-06-030 R, ECF Please withdraw the application Highlands sub -area zoning LUA-06-030 R, ECF from further review and processing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton proposal to rezone that part of the Highlands sub -area which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal includes the following: 1) Zoning map amendment to rezone Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones: Center Village -Core (CV- C) and Center Village -Residential (CV-R). 2) Zoning text amendment to create two new zones with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. a. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. b. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposal is located in the Highlands sub -area in the NW 1/4 of Section 4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 9 in Township 23 N, Range 5 E. The area to be rezoned is south of NE 10 Street, North of NE 9th Street, East of Edmonds Ave, and West of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and NE 12`h Street (see following map). 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE' September 11, 2006 Page 2 :h 5k NE 1 nth. Pf tVE . 17th St t. NE I th Pt. T11h NE. i 1th , St. -ICE t4fi PI 7 NE NE 0... o e . -NE . Btfi °S NE 7tn S Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones rMwMk M-%* N uA tss sw I-lownY M RMM to CW%W %%QV-CanMr"I (CV-C) wt." 0I% rc t` Rum toC V+i-R llepeeWenW(CV-R) � ie nwa H:1EDN5P\Comp PIan1Sub Area PlanslHigblands\Development Reg DrattslWithdrawal letter.do6d September 11, 2006 Page 3 It is the intention of the Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning to submit a revised application addressing potential zoning in the Highlands Sub -area and potential zoning text amendments in the City's Center Village and R-14 zones. The revised proposal will reflect recent Mayoral and City Council direction on a zoning approach for the Highlands Area. It is our intention to submit a new application, necessitating a new notice of application. Sincerely, , P)lb- wl�r4j Rebecca Lind Planning Manager cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Greg Zirnmerman, PBPW Administrator Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Larry Warren, City Attorney H. DNSP%Comp PlanlSub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg DraftslWithdrawal letter.docld CITY OF RENTON PLANNING / BUILDING / PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM Date: November 14, 2006 To: City Clerk's Office From: Hgraber Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Cleric`s nffire_ Project Name: Highlands Area Rezone LUA (file) Number: LUA-06-030, R, ECF Cross -References: Highlands Subarea Rezone AKA's: Project Manager: Rebecca Lind Acceptance Date: March 17, 2006 Applicant: City of Renton Owner: Various owners Contact: City of Renton - Rebecca Lind PID Number: ERC Decision Date: ERC Appeal Date: Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: HIGHLANDS AREA REZONE --CHANGE RMF, R10 AND CV ZONING OF 130 ACRES TO CV-R AND CV-C. Location: Highlands Comments: This Rezone proposal was withdrawn r Kathy Keolker, Mayor September 25, 2006 TO: Parties of Record FROM: Environmental Review Committee SUBJECT: Highlands Subarea Rezone LUA06-030, R, ECF CITX 3F RENTON Planning/ ilding/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that the application for the Highlands Subarea Rezoning has been withdrawn from further review and processing. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6588. For the Environmental Review Committee, k"4P6 b n� Rebecca Lind Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 SThis paper contains SU ', recycled material, 30% post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 26th day of September, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination withdrawal documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Parties of Record See Attached {Signature of Sende STATE OF WASHINGTON } SS COUNTY OF KING } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for th es and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary Public in d for the Sate=o s ingtoeF Notary (Print): ,�, L cir� �'•��� ' 0800 Lill My appointment expires: O �� tit; �� "",,;gig-' A 4 w Project Name: Highlands Subarea Rezone and Zoning Text Amendments Project Number: LUA06-030, R, ECF template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Stewart Reinbold Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 3190 160,h Ave SE 39015 —172°d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region ` Duwamish Tribal Office Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program " Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"d Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers ' KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms, Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev, Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template - affidavit of service by mailing Ackley M. Affleck Arianne Agnew Terence J. 1150 Sunset Blvd NE #304 560 Index PI NE 1551 Hillside Dr SE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Issaquah, WA 98027 Akesson Richard Alder Rebecca Alexandersen E 14225 SE 144th St 3112 NE 14th St 11115 56th Ave S. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98178 Alvestad Laurits & Lily Ayers Laurel Baack Charis L. PO Box 485 1150 Sunset Blvd NE #112 Box 2798 Grapeview, WA 98546 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Baldridge Howard Baldwin Raymone Barker Sharon A. 1526 Jefferson Ave NE 1150 Sunset Blvd #218 15718 SE 143rd St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Bauer Otto Bautista Ron Bech Steve 17211 190th Ave SE 8911 Inverness Ct NE 4735 NE 4th Renton, WA 98058 Seattle, WA 98115 Renton, WA 98059 Bentson Joseph L. Bergman Claudette Besaw Phyllis 1150 Sunset Blvd NE #213 2208 NE 12th St 15907 NE 65th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Redmond, WA 98052 Bezanson Mark Blyth William T. Bowers, Trustee Sandra 2301 Jefferson NE A204 1175 Harrington Place NE #111 1135 Harrington Ave NE Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Brand Andrew Brown Gary Brad Janice Lutheran Alliance To Create 2335 NE 12th St . 8757 Ave to 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #A203 Housing Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98117 Renton, WA 98056 Browne Kim Buenafe Rommel Burgess Dares 1003 N 28th PI 4406 NE 6th PI 2908 NE 8th PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Call Mary Lou Carter Dean E. Cavalli Robert 3609 NE 10th St 42918 SE Cedar Falls Way 16202 64th St E, Ste B-1 Renton, WA 98056 North Bend, WA 98045 Sumner, WA 98390 Chakravarty Patricia Charlebois Sandra Chmielewski Jessica 6947 Coal Ck Pkwy SE #228 1175 Harrington PI NE 9201 1150 Sunset Blvd NE #104 Newcastle, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Chu Philip Chvoj George Clingan Kristin 1150 Sunset Blvd NE #219 4800A NE 18th PI 2300 Jefferson NE 1138 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Cole Letty Conrad Keith Craig Kristin 1073 Harrington Ave NE 1429 Index Avenue NE 1180 Monterey Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Crothamel Fred Cunningham Liz Curley Pamela 2951 74th Ave SE 8502 S 119th St 1808 Country Manor Rd Mercer Island, WA 98040 Seattle, WA 98178 Fort Wort, TX 76134 Cyrbu Sam Dalpay Jim Dalrymple Lennice A. 1917 Jones Ave NE P. Q. Box 2436 1209 Jefferson Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Danielson Lester Dean Joel Deary Diann 2204 NE 24th St 1100 Harrington Ave NE #105 401 - 1124 Hongdale Renton, WA 0 Renton, WA 98056 North Vancouver, BC 0 Delgado Martin DeMastus Sandel Do Lan 1418 Index Ave 1137 Harrington Ave NE 1925 Kirkland PI -NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Dolleman Rich Dubose Sr. Edgar Dyer Adam 2406 NE 11th Ct 3233 NE 12th St #201 275 Index PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Elmer Theresa Emery Mary Engeland Marie 3101 NE 13th St #A 2606 Sunset Ln NE #B 2914 NE 6th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Erickson Robert & Marie Eskenazi Morrey & Penny Evans Hayes & Velma 1407 G St ST 951 Lynnwood Ave NE 2805 NE 8th St Auburn, WA 98002 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Falkner Kristin M. Farris Jason & Linda Ferguson Vivian 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #1-136 3233 NE 12th St #110 1162 Harrington Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Feser Malcom Filley Bette Fletcher Jonathan 2301 NE 10th PI 19801 SE 123rd St 2500 81 st Ave SE #104 Renton, WA 98056 Issaquah, WA 98027 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Franz Julia B. Garot Eugene Gerring Dale 1721 Harrington Ave NE P. O. Box 5001 2834 Sunset Ln NE Renton, WA 98056 Kent, WA 98064 Renton, WA 98056 Gevers Bob Gladney Jennifer Gleason Dale 900 Kirkland Ave NE 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #A104 10408 Meadlowlark Ct E Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Bonney Lake, WA 98391 Gonzalez Jose Graves Josh Gregg Vukelic Veronica Olpinski 964 Aberdeen Ave NE 5335 NE 4th St #3 2704 Williams Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Guillen Henry Gustman Wally Gutierrez Tina M. P. O. Box 3284 1719 Index Ave NE 3130 NE 20th PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Hallesy H. W. Halvorson Judi Hanan Lea & Kevin 830 SW Channon Dr 819 Jefferson Ave NE 1178 Edmonds PI NE Seattle, WA 98166 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Hansard Joseph Harbor Fred Harris Denise 3142 NE 20th Pi 12011 NE 1st St #201 5641 Pleasure Pt Ln Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98005 Bellevue, WA 98006 Harris John & Linda Hawton Brett Hedington Rhonda 1115 N 35th St 1308 Harrington Ave NE 2021 S 244th PI Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Des Moines, WA 98198 Hendrickson Stacy Hesting Mary Hoshide Lloyd 1420 Maple Ave SW #201 2832 NE Sunset Blvd 833 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Howard Kim Hsuek Martha Hunt Bob 2300 NE 10th PI P. O. Box 675 2210 NE 10th St Renton, WA 98056 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98056 Hurdle Elizabeth Johnson Chris Johnson Glenda L. 5211 NE 16th St 2412 NE 13th St 1216 Monroe Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Johnson Joann Johnson Scott I. Kachel R PO Box 2933 5164 150th PI SE P. O. Box 25926 Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 0 Federal Way, WA 98093 Kent Rhonda Kernie John Key Robert & Rosemary 804 Dayton Ave NE PMB 376, 330 SW 43rd St #K 1008 Anacortes Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98059 Khatibi M. Michael Kumar Subhashni Kundzins Mario PO Box 2115 2102 NE 23rd St 1150 Sunset Blvd NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Kupferer Jessica Laitila W. Paul Larson Shelly 2016 Harrington Pi Ne 5609 S Sheridan Ave 1832 NE 25th PI Renton, WA 98056 Tacoma, WA 98408 Renton, WA 98056 Le Nhuan Lemley Patricia Lewis Bonnie J. 3233 NE 12th St #306 4426 NE 17th St 1520 Harrington Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Lewis Julie Liu Haiyang Long Art 1175 Harrington PI NE #211 8223 126th PI SE 12201 Shorewood Dr SW Renton, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98056 Burien, WA 0 Luedke Norman Lukowski David & Jackie Lvedtke Doug & Shannon 3408 NE 7th St 1164 Camas Ave NE 14018 SE 135th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Lyons Jim Mace Janet MacLean Moira 2806 NE Sunset Blvd, #A 1100 Harrington Ave NE #302 1100 Harrington Ave NE #301 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Malgarini John Mandaville Cristin Marsh Gerry 1059 Union Ave NE 6035 SE 2nd Ct 437 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98055 Matthews Sylvia Maxwell Marcie McClincy Tim 3609 Meadows Ave N P. 0. Box 2048 4604 NE 4th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 McCready Jeanette McCready Marian R. McNeil James 2304 NE 9th St 2318 NE 10th St 1700 Harrington Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 McOmber Howard McPeak Marie Mecham Richard 475 Olympia Ave NE 409 Jefferson Ave NE 3233 NE 12th St #213 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Merrell Joe Mitzel Dordeen Moore Kirk & Linda 2300 Jefferson NE J140 650 Jefferson Ave NE 1901 Harrington Cir NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Morrow Donald Murph Frances M. Myers Carol 724 Bremerton PI NE 1053 Shelton Ave NE 1324 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Nelson Marc Norieiga Tony Odren Jerry & Sharon 2308 NE 10th PI 1542 Index Ave NE 11625 SE 88th Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98056 Ogden Rosemari O'Halloran Michael O'Laughlin Michael 1815 14th Ave #6 4420 SE 4th St P. 0. Box 2686 Seattle, WA 98122 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Ossenkop Kathleen & Dennis Page Michelle Paulus Gerald & Eunice B. 3316 NE 12th St 3233 NE 12th St #107 1617 Jones Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Pedersen Florence J. Perchyk Linda Perrine Linda 17016 27th St E 2712 NE 9th St 1157 Glennwood Ave NE Sumner, WA 0 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Persson Terry Petersen Inez Peterson John 2821 NE 8th PI 3306 Lake Washington Blvd #3 1007 N 36th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Petit John & Marie Pillon Helen Porter Barbara 2516 NE 19th St 1054 Kirkland Ave NE 1015 Tacoma Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Potter David Powers Doris Jean Powers Patrick H. 2104 Dayton Ave NE 2804 NE 7th St 1523 Index Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Primlani Indru & Mary Jo Rasmussen Edwin & Patricia Ravenscraft Jay 201 Union Ave E #186 1300 Monroe Ave NE 16812 NE 11th PI Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98008 Ray Delores Reid Sherri Rodger JoAnn 2606 NE 9th St 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #D115 2300 Jefferson Ave B109 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Rogers Elizabeth A. Royston Ted & Sandra Russo Paul & Catherine 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #B108 1401 Monroe Ave NE 1217 Jefferson Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ryan Mary Sado Mrs. Masaye Sado Pat P. O. Box 336 1143 Harrington Ave NE 9902 126th Ave SE Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Salavea Malu Sather Jim & Barbara Saunders Ashley PO Box 2694 3112 NE 10th St 23921 SE 160th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Issaquah, WA 98027 Schlegelmilch Dan Schouder Deena Scofield Marge 3143 NE 20th PI 2300 Jefferson Ave NE D218 2300 Jefferson Ave NE C-110 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Scott Breck Sewell Brett Smith Chris P.O. Box 2752 22539 SE 47th PI 15714 SE 25th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98075 Bellevue, WA 98008 Smith Gregg Sorenson Charles Sorenson Linda 6811 Ripley Lane N 2108 NE 13th 10930 Forest Ave S Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98198 Sorenson Rod 2800 NE 12th St Renton, WA 98056 Stahlecker Alice 1419 Index Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Tajon Ruth & Encarnacion 2033 Harrington PI NE Renton, WA 98056 Sparks Ina Ree 1633 Harrington Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Sterlington Kenneth W. Box 2186 Renton, WA 98056 Tang Yves 2412 NE 11th Ct Renton, WA 98056 Tarvinder Kaur Khalsa Jagjit Singh Taylor Ruby & 1150 Sunset Blve NE #215 2817 NE 16th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Thomas Burton Mary Hart Thompson Keith 2508 NE 7th St 660 Index Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Thueringer Darvin Tillman Bob 9601 248th Street 905 Ferndale Cir NE Kent, WA 98030 Renton, WA 98056 Troxel Jon Turner Priscilla P. O. Box 383 2300 Jefferson NE A204 Shaw Island, WA 98286 Renton, WA 98056 Van Buskirk Kim Varnadore Greg & Stephanie 18709 SE 44th PI 3317 NE 8th Issaquah, WA 98027 Renton, WA 98056 Wendling Fred L. Whitman Beth 2331 NE 12st St 4041 37th Ave SW Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98126 St. Peter Mark 407 Lyons Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 Stewart Mary PO Box 1552 Winterhoven, CA 92283 Tarlyn Aaron 2300 Jefferson Ave NE D118 Renton, WA 98056 Thirion Mamie 932 Lynnwood Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Thoresen Alan 17805 SE 259th St Covington, WA 98042 Tomchick Laurel 1900 Jones Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Underwood Barbara 1100 Harrington Ave NE #304 Renton, WA 98056 Watt Paul 2826 NE Sunset Ln Renton, WA 98056 Williams David Seattle -King Co Public Healthi 999 3rd Ave, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Williamson Gary Wood Lawrence 2011 Harrington Ave NE 1155 Shelton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Yuen Judy Zimmerman Mark 1606 Dayton Ave NE 4600 NE 12th St, #4 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Zura Terri Highlands Community Association 4507 E 4th St P. O. Box 2041 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Carl & Candy Berner Robert Jaeger 813 Jefferson Avenue NE 2304 NE 10* Place Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 James Greenlund Theresa Brehmer PO Box 3909 Bennett Development Kent, WA 98089 12011 NE I" Street #201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Brad Nicholson Ny Chan &Rap Chanthoun 2811 Dayton Avenue NE 1630 E 59" Street Renton, WA 98056 Tacoma, WA 98404 Yang Steve 1128 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Zuhkle Timothy 1215 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Wilma Dallosto, Madelene Zanatta, John Zanatta (Estate of American "Mary" Zanatta) 1020 Sunset Blvd NE Renton, WA 98056 John Visser 19404 102"d SE Renton, WA 98055 Grace Shibayama 4830 NE 23rd Street Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Keolker, Mayor September 25, 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Withdrawal CIT') JF RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination withdrawalfor the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on April 4, 2006: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone and Zoning Text Amendments PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-030, R, ECF LOCATION: Text amendments would have generally been citywide. Map amendments would have been applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton, between NE 5th and 23rd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE. DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton proposed to rezone that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area was proposed to convert into two new zones - Center Village- Core (CV-C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones were to be created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone would have been a new zone that allowed commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone would have been a new zone that would have allowed medium density residential uses, but not high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District would have been subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area would have likely increased the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6588, For the Environmental Review Committee, Rebecca Lind Planning Manager cc: Icing County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinhold David F_ Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation EurAnsura 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - RE N T O N M Pits apercontains 5Q!1, :e AHEAD OF THE CURVE p -cycled material, 3Q / post consumer CITY OF RENTON WITHDRAWAL OF DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S)- LUA06-030, R, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone and Zoning Text Amendments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton proposed to rezone that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area was proposed to convert into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV-C) and Center Village - Residential (CV-R). Two new zones were to be created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone would have been a new zone that allowed commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone would have been a new zone that would have allowed medium density residential uses, but not high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District would have been subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area would have likely increased the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Text amendments would have generally been citywide. Map amendments would have been applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton, between NE 5th and 23rd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The applicant has withdrawn the application for this proposal. Therefore, the previously issued Determination of Non -Significance issued on April 4, 2006 under WAC 197-11-340 is hereby WITHDRAWN. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 geewf Greg im er an dm strator ate )Fire avid Daniels, Fire Chief Date Planning/B it ng/ ublic Works Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date lex ietsch, AdmirMtrator Date Community Services EDNSP CITY OF RENTON WITHDRAWAL OF DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-030, R, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone and Zoning Text Amendments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton proposed to rezone that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area was proposed to convert into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV-C) and Center Village - Residential (CV-R). Two new zones were to be created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone would have been a new zone that allowed commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone would have been a new zone that would have allowed medium density residential uses, but not high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District would have been subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area would have likely increased the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Text amendments would have generally been citywide. Map amendments would have been applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton, between NE 5th and 23rd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The applicant has withdrawn the application for this proposal. Therefore, the previously issued Determination of Non -Significance issued on April 4, 2006 under WAC 197-11-340 is hereby WITHDRAWN. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 94z� Greg innr an Adm strator date )Fire avid Daniels, Fire Chief Date Plan ning/B it ng! ublic Works Department Terry Higashlyama, Administrator Date Alexietscll, Admi ' trator Date Community Services EDNSP Y ""R Kathy Keolker, Mayor 14, 2006 Larry Warren City Attorney PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Brent Carson Buck & Gordon LLP 2025 First Avenue, Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121 CIT' 4F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of Issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA-06-030 Dear Mr. Warren and Mr. Carson: This office has received email from the City Attorney Larry Warren as well as Mr. Carson, the attorney representing Highlands Community Association. Those emails indicate agreement that the City's action in withdrawing both its Highlands Rezone proposal and its SEPA determination moots the appeal This office will cancel the appeal hearing that had been scheduled for September 19, 2006, If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, i Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Alex Pietsch, Econ Dev Administrator Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Rebecca Lind, Economic Development Highlands Community Association, Appellant 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 MThis oaoer comains. 50 recycled material-30°/ oast consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE. Fred Kaufman - Page 1 From: "Larry Warren" <Ijwarren@seanet.com> To: "'Brent Carson"' <BCARSON@BUCKGORDON.COM> Date: 9/12/2006 4:23:24 PM Brent, I have confirmed with Alex Pietsch that the city intends to withdraw it's proposal for the Highlands rezone and resubmit a lesser intensity proposal with several features that your client favored. This would appear to moot the SEPA appeal and the necessity of the hearing on the 19th. SEPA would be redone on the new proposal, and, of course, there would be new appeal rights. I got your voice message about Alex's statements to the Planning and Development Committee, but we have had a chance to meet since then, and have made the decision to withdraw. I also have your email about SEPA process, but haven't had a chance to review it, but will before the end of the week. CC: "'Fred Kaufman"' <Fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'Alexander Pietsch"' <Apietsch@ci.renton.wa,us> Fred Kaufman - RE; Page 1 From: "Brent Carson" <BCARSON@BUCKGORDON.COM> To: "Larry Warren" <Ijwarren@seanet.com> Date: 9/13/2006 7:56:54 AM Subject: RE: Because Alex publicly stated to the Planning and Development Committee that a new Highlands rezone and text amendment proposal could use the existing SEPA determination, the SEPA appeal may not be moot unless the city also agrees to withdraw its SEPA determination that HCA appealed. If the City believes, in the future, that the existing SEPA determination is good enough to use for a new proposal, the city could reissue that threshold determination. My client cannot be put in a position where the current SEPA appeal is dismissed as moot, then later, the city uses the existing Threshold Determination for a new Highlands rezone proposal, and the city tries to claim that, by HCA's appeal being previously dismissed, HCA cannot challenge the SEPA determination. I understand that your email below indicates that "SEPA would be redone ..." and that "there would be new appeal rights." That would be fine if the current SEPA determination is also withdrawal with the Highlands proposal. However, you have not indicated that both the proposal and the SEPA determination would be withdrawn. Please confirm that both will be withdrawn. If the City does not intend to withdraw the current SEPA determination, please tell me why. From: Larry Warren [mailto:ljwarren@seanet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:25 PM To: Brent Carson Cc: 'Fred Kaufman'; 'Alexander Pietsch' Subject: Brent, 1 have confirmed with Alex Pietsch that the city intends to withdraw it's proposal for the Highlands rezone and resubmit a lesser intensity proposal with several features that your client favored. This would appear to moot the SEPA appeal and the necessity of the hearing on the 19th. SEPA would be redone on the new proposal, and, of course, there would be new appeal rights. I got your voice message about Alex's statements to the Planning and Development Committee, but we have had a chance to meet since then, and have made the decision to withdraw. I also have your email about SEPA process, but haven't had a chance to review it, but will before the end of the week. CC: "Fred Kaufman" <Fkaufman a@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Alexander Pietsch" <Apietsch@ci.renton.wa.us> Fred Kaufman - Page e 1 From: "Larry Warren" <Ijwarren@seanet.com> To: "'Fred Kaufman"' <Fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 9/13/2006 4:08:53 PM The city has withdrawn the zoning proposal for the Highlands and the SEPA determination. That should moot the appeal set for hearing next Tuesday. If you need any further information, please let me know. CC: "'Brent Carson"' <BCARSON@BUCKGORDON.COM> Fred Kaufman - Re: ---.._-.....__. Page 1 From: To: Subject: Fred Kaufman Larry Warren Re: It would appear that the City's action would result in making the appeal moot. I see by further email correspondence that Mr. Carson would agree. This office will issue a formal letter cancelling the appeal hearing. All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file- >>> "Larry Warren" <Ijwarren@seanet.com> 09/13/06 4:10 PM >>> The city has withdrawn the zoning proposal for the Highlands and the SEPA determination. That should moot the appeal set for hearing next Tuesday. If you need any further information, please let me know. CC: 'Brent Carson' Fred Kaufman - RE: Page 1 From: "Brent Carson" <BCARSON@BUCKGORDON.COM> To: "Larry Warren" <Ijwarren@seanet.com>, "Fred Kaufman" <Fkaufman@ci,renton.wa.us> Date: 9/13/2006 4:27:40 PM Subject: RE: assume, Mr.. Kaufman, that you will issue a formal order to this effect and officially cancel next week's hearing. From: Larry Warren [mailto:ljwarren@seanet.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:11 PM To: 'Fred Kaufman' Cc: Brent Carson Subject: The city has withdrawn the zoning proposal for the Highlands and the SEPA determination. That should moot the appeal set for hearing next Tuesday. If you need any further information, please let me know. .......................... . Fred Kaufman - RE: Page 1 From: Fred Kaufman To: Brent Carson; Larry Warren Subject: RE: All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. >>> "Brent Carson" <BCARSON@BUCKGORDON.COM> 09/13/06 4:27 PM »> I assume, Mr., Kaufman, that you will issue a formal order to this effect and officially cancel next week's hearing. From: Larry Warren mailto:l'warren seanet.com Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:11 PM To: 'Fred Kaufman' Cc: Brent Carson Subject: The city has withdrawn the zoning proposal for the Highlands and the SEPA determination. That should moot the appeal set for hearing next Tuesday. If you need any further information, please let me know. Fred Kaufman - RE: RE: Page 1 From: "Brent Carson" <BCARSON@BUCKGORDON,COM> To: "Fred Kaufman" <Fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 9/14/2006 8:59:47 AM Subject: RE: RE: Thank you -----Original Message ----- From: Fred Kaufman[mailto:Fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Thu Sep 14 08-.54:45 2006 To: Brent Carson Subject: RE: All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. >>> "Brent Carson" <BCARSON@BUCKGORDON.COM> 09/13/06 7:56 AM >>> Because Alex publicly stated to the Planning and Development Committee that a new Highlands rezone and text amendment proposal could use the existing SEPA determination, the SEPA appeal may not be moot unless the city also agrees to withdraw its SEPA determination that HCA appealed. If the City believes, in the future, that the existing SEPA determination is good enough to use for a new proposal, the city could reissue that threshold determination. My client cannot be put in a position where the current SEPA appeal is dismissed as moot, then later, the city uses the existing Threshold Determination for a new Highlands rezone proposal, and the city tries to claim that, by HCA's appeal being previously dismissed, HCA cannot challenge the SEPA determination. I understand that your email below indicates that "SEPA would be redone .." and that "there would be new appeal rights." That would be fine if the current SEPA determination is also withdrawal with the Highlands proposal. However, you have not indicated that both the proposal and the SEPA determination would be withdrawn. Please confirm that both will be withdrawn. If the City does not intend to withdraw the current SEPA determination, please tell me why. From: Larry Warren [mailto:ljwarren@seanet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:25 PM To: Brent Carson Cc:'Fred Kaufman': 'Alexander Pietsch' Subject: Brent, I have confirmed with Alex Pietsch that the city intends to withdraw it's proposal for the Highlands rezone and resubmit a lesser intensity proposal with several features that your client favored. This Fred Kaufman - RE: RE: Page 2 would appear to moot the SEPA appeal and the necessity of the hearing on the 19th. SEPA would be redone on the new proposal, and, of course, there would be new appeal rights. got your voice message about Alex's statements to the Planning and Development Committee, but we have had a chance to meet since then, and have made the decision to withdraw. I also have your email about SEPA process, but haven't had a chance to review it, but will before the end of the week. r CITY -.F RENTON R Economic Development, Neighborhoods and ♦ ♦ Strategic Planning Kathy Keolker, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator September 11, 2006 Neil Watts, Director - Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Neil: SUBJECT: REQUEST TO WITHDRAW APPLICATION LUA-06-030 R, ECF Please withdraw the application Highlands sub -area zoning LUA-06-030 R, ECF from further review and processing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton proposal to rezone that part of the Highlands sub -area which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal includes the following: 1) Zoning map amendment to rezone Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones: Center Village -Core (CV- C) and Center Village -Residential (CV-R). 2) Zoning text amendment to create two new zones with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. a. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. b. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposal is located in the Highlands sub -area in the NW 1/4 of Section 4 and the SW %4 of Section 9 in Township 23 N, Range 5 E. The area to be rezoned is south of NE 16t" Street, North of NE 9t11 Street, East of Edmonds Ave, and West of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and NE 12th Street (see following map). 1!'aWS"bA;Ca Reg 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 RENTaN AHEAD OF THE CURVE 0 September 11, 2006 Page 2 16th - Ile NE 17th ,c NE! 11h St 9 LLJ NE i 11ih E�E.� [tttl o 3 .. NE 10th � Nt 1 NE 'IOth-VSt. NE 9th FEE NE Rthfit.. r- N o.. CD �. c ICE 8th S1 ,l gbh NE E 7th S Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones F40wok [xvftrw m. 140000KRkAPON & si"ftv MMMOX M Room to Co tar VRIO20-Corr merdal (cV-Q . Ranorss to Comer Vlllepo-Rea+denlial (GVai) H:IBDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area PlanMighlands0evelopment Reg Drafts\Withdrawal letter.doold September 11, 2006 Page 3 It is the intention of the Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning to submit a revised application addressing potential zoning in the Highlands Sub -area and potential zoning text amendments in the City's Center Village and R-14 zones. The revised proposal will reflect recent Mayoral and City Council direction on a zoning approach for the Highlands Area. It is our intention to submit a new application, necessitating a new notice of application. Sincerely, Rebecca Lind Planning Manager cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Fred Kaufman, Bearing Examiner AIex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Greg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Larry Warren, City Attorney E\FDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area P1ansl14ighlands\Mvelopme❑t keg DratislWithdrawal letter.docld - ............ . Bonnie Walton - Fwd: Re: Land Use File Page 1 From: Bonnie Walton To: Inez Petersen Date: 8/29/2006 10:26:34 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: Land Use File Ms. Petersen: The requested file is available in this office for your review. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> Nancy Thompson 8/2812006 8:26 AM >>> Hi, I did not receive any note asking to view the below file... I have the file, tried to call Inez this morning and her answering machine stated "it was not receiving any messages at this time"... I will continue to try and reach her. I will bring the file to your office so it is available for her when/if I can reach her. Thanks, nancy >>> Bonnie Walton 08/25/06 4:22 PM >>> Inez Petersen submitted a records request stating that she had left a note at your office a couple of weeks ago asking to review the LUA file on the SEPA appeal she filed. She wants to look at the Traffic Study. y She said 6th floor does not have the file, that you do. She asks that she be called at 425-255-5543 to let her know when she can come to City Hall to review this. Bonnie Walton City Clerk, x6502 CC: Nancy Thompson ,4io -7 /4S '�S> �Sy�FS /Y a CITY F RENTON +�,��� ♦ � ♦ Hearing Examiner �y a Kathy Keolker, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman [�'N� ay 11, 2006 Highlands Community Association PO Box 2041 Renton, WA 98056 Inez Petersen 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N., #3 Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA-06-030 Dear Appellants: Please be advised that the appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing wit] take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 MThknanernn.tai., Sfl°G. rvcvclPr{, tP hl w/ nnct runs —, RENTaN A11rAD OF T11F CURVE =AR, Kathy Keolker, Mayor � N'Vo ay 11, 2006 Highlands Community Association PO Box 2041 Renton, WA 98056 Inez Petersen 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N., #3 Renton, WA 98056 CITY F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of Issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA-06-030 Dear Appellants: Please be advised that the appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way -.— Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 iT/ TFIIC YIAf1PY CI1Mainc �i(1�r��P�'Vr'�PfI n�ATPIIAI �i�}in 1V�C1 YYYi Cf ��I-SPY RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 { ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 APPLICANT: City of Renton APPEAL BY: Highlands Community Association PO Box 2041, Renton, WA 98056 Telephone 425-228-5848 TO: HEARING EXAMINER — City of Renton CITY OF REIITOW APR 2 4 2W6 RECEWED CITY CLERKS OFFICE CC: As shown on Attachment A LOCATION: Text amendments would generally be citywide. Map amendments would be applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located I northeast Renton, between NE 51h and 23'd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: As stated in LUA-06-030, the City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (131-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones -Center Village — Core (CV-C) and Center Village — Residential (CV-R). HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 1 of 12 IZ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 APPLICANT: City of Renton APPEAL BY: Highlands Community Association PO Box 2041, Renton, WA 98056 Telephone 425-228-5848 TO: HEARING EXAMINER — City of Renton CITY OF REIITOW APR 2 4 2W6 RECEWED CITY CLERKS OFFICE CC: As shown on Attachment A LOCATION: Text amendments would generally be citywide. Map amendments would be applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located I northeast Renton, between NE 51h and 23'd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: As stated in LUA-06-030, the City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (131-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones -Center Village — Core (CV-C) and Center Village — Residential (CV-R). HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 1 of 12 IZ APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approvals by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full.build out and to raise maximum densities in certain areas to as much as 80 units per acre. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. The ERC's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE was made on April 4, 2006. POINTS of DISAGREEMENT: The ERC's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE allows the City to bypass the typical and customary Environmental Impact Study (EIS) process for a slip -streamed and reduced standard, in order to facilitate faster redevelopment in the area. The Highlands Community Association (HCA) Board of Directors DOES NOT AGREE with the ERC's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. The HCA appeals on the basis that the Applicant has not complied with the rule and intent of the law, or with processes that are typical and customary for a proposal of this scope and scale. Further, that the proposed development is of such significance, scope, and scale as to require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study. 1. Applicant has not adequately identified and addressed Environmental Impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development, 2. With regard to Environmental Impacts, the Applicant's Documentation and Due diligence are inadequate to satisfy what is typical and customary for SEPA reviews, and 3. The Applicant's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE is being applied to avoid an Environment Impact Study (EIS) and the time and cost associated with both an EIS, as well as the resulting remediabon that may be required in order (this would cause a schedule delay). 4_ Lastly, the Applicant has held no Public Comment specific to Environmental Impacts and concerns. 1. Environmental Impacts. There are potentially serious and significant environmental impacts which must be studied; and planning for such an enormous undertaking, involving hundreds of acres of land and thousands of residents is SIGNIFICANT. Features to be rebuilt include and may not be limited to: streets, alleys, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities. The area under question also overlays the fragile aquifer supplying water to all Renton's residents. Of specific concern is the presence of asbestos, lead, and mold in the existing structures (mainly built in 1943 as Boeing housing), and the affect of demolition of these structures on the water, soil, and air quality. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 2 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 The affects of redevelopment on the water, soil, and air quality of thousands of people must not be summarily dismissed with a DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. And this would also include `bleed over impacts to areas adjoining the City of Renton, because city water and storm services extend beyond the designation of city limits in some areas. Due to the vast scoW and scale of the proposed redevelopment, the HCA appeals the DETERMINATION OF NOW SIGNIFICANCE and requests that a complete and comprehensive Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be done by an independent and unbiased party with expertise in this field. This study should include but not be limited to: a) Complete mapping of the area and environmental features, including topographical maps, aquifer maps, any underground or daylight streams and wetlands, mapping of mature significant trees, etc., must be conducted_ b) The level of contaminants actually present in existing buildings must be assessed. c) Potential for contamination of the aquifer under laying the site must be assessed. d) Potential for contamination of contiguous aquifers and the Cedar River watershed must be assessed. e) Ability for the aquifer to recharge as a result of high density development, and the increased pavement in the proposed street and alley network. f) Contamination of the air and the number of families that would be exposed to toxic lead and asbestos during the demolition and construction process. g) Pollution from petroleum products to the Cedar River and the aquifer, from the increase in cars and traffic through the area. h) Additional items that should be considered on maps and in the analysis are the geologic features and factors, including earthquake and slide hazards, and the Olympic Pipeline. Additionally a complete Mitigation and Remediation Plan should be provided, as well as a Hazardous Materials Removal Plan, which includes the City's proposed budget for remediation. All findings should be included in a typical and customary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and offered for sufficient public review before finalization. 2. Documentation and due diligence. Rezone boundaries, densities, and other ancillary definitions have not remained stable for any duration sufficient to assess impacts of any kind, or to determine non -significance with certainty; for example, certain areas variously included, or not included, such as areas north of NE 16th Street. Not including an area on a given plot map does not necessarily mean the area won't be subject to similar and concurrent higher density development, so unstudied environmental impacts are just as important in these areas. This constant shifting of Rezone requirements should negate any DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE until such time as the specifications are proposed with certainty and reliability. Attachment B, dated March 20, 2006 and revised by hand on April 19, 2006, was distributed for the first time at the Planning Commission of April 19,2006_ It was adopted by the Planning Commission at that meeting. Such an important document as this is not up to the standards customary for a SETA document. But this document did not exist when the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE was made and it is NOT in the SEPA file for LUA-06-030, nor is it the plot map shown on the City's website today, April 24, 2006. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 3 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 In addition, the ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST included in LUA-06-030, particularly, Part B, ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS, contains numerous determinations of 'N/A non project action.' Also, the ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEETS contain numerous determinations of "NIA" with only the Fire Department providing input which did not relate to environmental impacts. Such determinations are not up to the customary standards for a SEPA document. The HCA maintains these are "determinations of expediency" and that only a lawfully executed EIS process would ensure that the areas of earth, water, ground water, energy and natural resources, environmental health, housing, recreation, historic and cultural preservation, and utilities are properly assessed and documented. The resulting DRAFT EIS when then be offered for public review prior to finalization. Please compare the comments on the ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEETS contained in LUA-06-030 with comments contained on Attachment C. Based upon the lack of specific environmental documentation in the ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and the ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEETS, the HCA maintains there is no basis to make the statement that "The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code requirements." Reference Page 2 of NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS). 3. Environmental Impact Study (EIS) . The DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE is not applied correctly in this case and is being used to avoid the requirement to prepare an EIS as required by State Law; and this is being done in order to meet an expedited schedule for project implementation. See Attachment D, excerpt from City website, for verification of schedule. The DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the applicable laws, which were conveniently interpreted and/or minimized in order to render this determination. The HCA asserts that the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE by the ERC is procedurally and legally noncompliant because it is based not upon sound environmental data but upon a project schedule which allows no time for analysis of environmental impacts. The time for adequate and professional environmental analysis is BEFORE any proposed rezoning is adopted by the City Council. Approval of the Rezone proposal without adequate environmental review opens the door to high density redevelopment that may endanger the water that the Public drinks and the air that the Public breathes. The revitalized vision for the Highlands Subarea must come secondary to SEPA "best practices" so that adequate review of environmental impacts occurs and comprehensive planning for remediation and hazardous waste management also occurs. 4. Public Comment. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED TO DATE: The Renton City Council has held public hearing on the Rezone proposal on April 3"� and April 17 rt. The published subject of these pubic comment hearings was rezoning, not environmental concerns. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 4 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 But, as the record shows, the mayor went even further by emphatically forbidding any discussion of environmental impacts during the city council meeting of April 17, 2006.. In addition, the scope of the Rezone proposal as delineated on materials presented by the Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department (EDNSP) and distributed at each of the meetings has changed from one meeting to the next. The changing scope of the program affects environmental concems. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission held a public comment period to address the Highlands Rezone proposal during its April 19th meeting, but this comment period did not address environmental impacts, nor was it published as such__ The Planning Commission met the first, second, and third Wednesdays during April (normal schedule 1s' and V Wednesdays). The extra meeting covered the Rezone proposal, as did the pre and post meetings in April. However, environmental impacts were not reviewed at these meetings; and the Planning Commission voted to adopt the Rezone proposal on April 19th without being adequately briefed regarding environmental impacts_ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC): The ERC met on April 4th to render its DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, but there was inadequate public notice of this meeting, which was announced to a restricted audience just days prior to convening. In addition, there were no minutes taken during this meeting, and the Public was not allowed to attend as silent observers. Because the Rezone proposal is still so variable, and the plans are yet uncertain and unstable, the ERC met far too early in the process to make any DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. In addition, the scope of the Rezone proposal as delineated on plot map reviewed by the ERC on April 4th is different from plot map shown at the previous Planning Commission meetings and at City Council meetings. Again, the changing scope of the program affects environmental concerns_ AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING: A third city council public comment meeting is scheduled for Mon, May 8, 2006, to address the rezoning proposal, but this public comment is not specifically intended to address environmental concems, although the city council president indicated any subject may be discussed. PUBLIC COMMENT — OVERALL NON COMPLIANCE: In addition to not following processes appropriate to the scale, scope, and potential impacts of the Rezoning and Redevelopment Proposal: • The public notification and involvement have been insufficient or non-existent as to environmental impacts. • There were no public comment meetings specifically addressing environmental impacts prior to the DETERMINATIONOF NON -SIGNIFICANCE by the ERC on April 4, 2006, nor were any held after the ERG's determination. In addition, the Planning Commission adopted the Highlands Rezone proposal as of April 19th without ever receiving a specific briefing as to environmental impacts. • No public meetings are currently scheduled to specifically address environmental impacts. Such meetings should be required and conducted in accordance with an EIS. MORATORIUM -DRIVEN MEETINGS: The record of public meetings shows that meetings regarding the Highlands Rezone proposal were driven and are still being drivers by the Highlands Moratorium which will end on May 14tn As stated in city council and planning commission meetings, the mayor's vision is to have the City Council formally adopt the Highlands Rezone proposal before the Moratorium ends so she can proceed with Highlands Redevelopment as shown on Attachment D . An EIS done to professional standards would make the mayor's schedule impossible to maintain. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 5 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 5. Applicable Statutes: RCW 4321C.030 Guidelines for local governments RCW 36.70A Growth management RCW 36.70A.030 Definitions RCW 36.70A.035 Public participation RCW 36.70A.040 Who must plan RCW 36.70A.300 Final orders RCW 36.70A_330 Noncompliance RCW 36.70A.390 Moratoria _ _ . Public hearing RCW 43.21A Department of Ecology RCW 43.21.020 Purpose RCW 43.21C State environmental policy RCW 43.21C.030 Guidelines RCW 43.21C_031 Significant impacts RCW 43.21C.074 Appeals RCW 43.21C.110 Content of state environmental policy act rules RCW 4321 C240 Project review RCW 90.03 Water code RCW 90.44 Regulation of public ground waters RMC 1-6 Code of Ethics DECLARATION of SUBMITTAL: I, Inez Somerville Petersen, Secretary of the Highlands Community Association (HCA), declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington that this APPEAL is the official position of the Board of the HCA regarding (1) insufficient processes and proof that there are no environmental impacts as a result of the Rezone proposal covered by LUA-06-030 and (2) that an EIS should be required and performed by an independent and unbiased party before the Highlands Rezone proposal is officially adopted. I certify that I delivered this APPEAL to the City Clerk of the City of Renton prior to the deadline of 5 p-m_, on Mon, April 24, 2006. Signed: Inez�o ill rsen Date and time: p HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 6 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 Appeal - Attachment A CC Distribution List AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Uept. Of Ecology " lydJF'P; - Slesvad Reinwo ' Environmer-tai Review SeLIKKI cir, Department of Ecology PO 13ax47733 3190 1&a" Ave SF Ol 111pia, WA 98504-7703 Hellr-. ij-2 LVA 9S0_ 6 r5ovami,,3 Tllbel Of5cc' WSD(3T NoittrAeYt Region Afro: Raman Pazcoki 47' 7 "' Mavjinel VVuV SW King Area Oev. Serv., MS-240 Sertlle, V A 98106.1514 PO so- 3303110 Seattle,'NA 98133-9710 KO - Wastewater Tfeatm, nt Division ' US Army Corp. of EApirieef5' Sea ie MSbiet Office E i Planning Supervisor Altn,. SEPA Reviewer M5. Shiiey Marro9uin PO 8M "755 20 t S Jackson ST. MS KSC-aR-0 Seattle, WA 98124 Sealtin,-W A 981)4 ,3P55 Jamey Tayior' Dpparl. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 OI r�nlpiia, WA 98504-7015 C:ty of New^.esl; KC Uev. S Envlrvnmeotal Serv. Attn- SEPASeclion 1 Alin: W Michnil E. NIrJ SOD 900 f]akesdale Ave. SW piredcr pf Community Development Renlon, WA gaD55-1219 I'M 0 SE 72id Plana Newcastle, WA 9b059 _ MelruTransit Puget Saurd Eoeryv Senior Ermronmental Planner Mimiripnl f�asan M inager Gary KiroOl Ice Samga 2A South Jackson Siretl KSC•TR-0431 PO sox 4OW W S XRD-01 W Seattle. WA W104-3$58 $ellw re.'o'JA 9y{!U' L668 SeaAle PUbliC Utildies — Rea! Estate Services Title Examiner 7riU Fifth Avenue, Suffe 4yJW PO flax 34018 Seattle. WA 98124-4018 - hluckleshool Ind;an'Tribe Fisher6m l7ept. Alin: Karen Walter or SEPA Renewer 39015 - 1720 Avenue SE - -Auburn, WA 99092-._� tuluciiie3hoot CufturaI Resources Program' Aun- W klelissa Calvert 39015 172"J Avenue SE ( Auburn. WA 90092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic i Preservation' Attu Stephanie Kramer SQ PO Box 48343 j Olympia. WA90504 83341 _------- i GUY of Kent j Akin- k4r. Fred Satterstrorn, ACP AcLkV Cornmuruty 0ev Oiraetm 1i 720 Fourth Avenue South Kent. WA 98032-5895 ^,ily of TUkwiia- Sieve Lancaster, Responsibie Official f 6300 5nulhcenlef Blvd. Tekwia, WA 98188 Note' If the Nonce of Application thz t it i} an' Opfio.181 DNS'. the marked agencies and cities will nood to be sent a Copy of the checklist. P1`.17s. and the notice of applicuhun. ' Also note, do not mail Jamey Tavb: r any cr the notices she gets hers from the weh- Only send her the ERC Dcl:=inatton papenva>-k. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 7 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 APPEAL - Attachmert B Last rrknute remne mp reworked from a rrep dated 20 March 2006; c*r pencil zones marked by hand and ftib.Red at the 4119106 Ptanrrrtg Comr fission meeting. mz0q1t,_ -TO �1 w i ro 1 ., eu A3 r - ; I� ! i i'1,4Kj rJu fit; riAac 'voduIs: ' - _ + yj"1 MT'1i t `I NfJ�lif1 ;:Ax -6o du/a I G4,.iru-� �rkS. St , -- .. cd L1J 1 � Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones r:urnuni Lk,0oprr,nni, N�irlih'ir�anii k 5'i .rrc�_i, !'l.u.n:ng RezonO {f"}hl GiV SO GV e, Adnini.i�a'u HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 8 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 ATTACHMENT C SPECIFIC COMMENTS regarding STAFF REPORT, Paragraph D, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following comments are offered regarding the "STAFF REPORT." The HCA does not believe that reviewing parties have complied with State Law with regard to identifying and addressing environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Comments with regard to Paragraph D, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of the Staff Report, are addressed in the same order as subheadings are presented in the Staff Report. Earth: (1) There is no proof provided to substantiate the assertion that "The rezone would not result in an increase in the standards for impervious land cover from buildings, driveways, parking lots, or sidewalks _ . , (2) In general, City of Renton streets and parking lots routinely flood with it rains. If city engineers cannot deal with the City's current storm runoff problems, there is no guarantee that the finding on "no impact' is reliable here. (3) And there is no guarantee that the Jefferson Greenway will mitigate the runoff problem. (4) Questioning the "no impact" position by the ERC is further backed up by the statement from the Staff Report which says: "Existing regulations require mitigation in the form of storm water control systems and landscaping of pervious areas and these measures are unchanged." If mitigation is required on something this important, then that indicates that an EIS is required. (4) Mitigation needs to be defined, and it is not here. Air: (1) According to the impact statement itself, air quality relates to the amount of traffic, the Rezone will create more traffic, and the resulting change in air quality cannot be quantified until the development is proposed. (2) This impact statement is very plain. The zoning drives the development; therefore, time should be given to prepare an EIS so air impacts can be more adequately reviewed. An EIS is needed before the Rezone is adopted so that adequate study of air quality can be done. • Water: In an EIS, we would see solid data and comprehensive analysis of the entire water system, not merely the pipes. • Plants and Animals: How can the land be covered with buildings and parking lots and plants and wildlife not be affected? In an EIS, we would see solid data. • Energy and Natural Resources: This section indicates that the area is not a location for coal mining activity. But where is the proof of that? In an EIS, proof would be required_ • Environmental Health: Rodents are mentioned but there is no proof that this population is any worse than in any other equally populated area. Asbestos and lead, Mold and mildew are mentioned and there again is no proof or assessment of amounts, or impacts from demolition. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 9 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 ATTACHMENT C SPECIFIC COMMENTS regarding STAFF REPORT, Paragraph D, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • Land Use: This is a good example of minimizing impacts to speed the project along. This section has a lot of words to describe the many changes on the planning board and nothing to substantial to backup the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. This would not be the case in an EIS, proof would be required. • Housing: Now we see that there are 607 housing units to which 1623 more will be added. And nothing to substantiate this build out warrants a DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE- This would not be the case in an EIS, solid analysis would be required. • Aesthetics: This relates to the design regulations; and these too have been fluctuating as often as the Rezone maps to determine any impacts. • Recreation: With the 607 residences plus another 1623, this section admits that there are not enough parks for the area_ But this is NON SIGNIFICANT according to the ERC? • Transportation: (1) The ERC agrees there will be increased traffic, but it indicates that these can be addressed with existing services. Over 1600 new residences just might generate 3600 more cars on the road. (2) We already know from The Landing project, that the intersection at Garden/Park and Lake Wash Blvd North is the weak link in that project, only to made worse by the increased volume from the Highlands rezone. • Public Services: The crime statistics must be called into question. There are only two gas stations in this area, and the manager of one of the stations told me had had never been robbed. The HCA has not been able to verify any of the crime statistics used by the City Council, though the attempt has been made to do so using police and fire records. • Utilities: (1) This section admits impacts from the increased densities of up to 80 units per acre- (2) The ERC indicates that needs will be evaluated as development occurs. HCA asserts that is no acceptable for a redevelopment effort of this size and scale. • Water system/Sanitary system/storm water system: Some solid analysis is needed here to backup the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. Without it, how can the ERC make a valid determination either way? An EIS would prevent the kind of subjective comments included throughout the Staff Report. Common sense indicates that many of these items are SIGNIFICANT and that an EIS is called for to evaluate this proposal comprehensively and then offered for public comment prior to finalization. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 10 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 ATTACHMENT D - SCHEDULE from City of Renton website - April 13, 2006 HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE Description: Comprehensive, strategic approach based on public/private partnerships to make dramatic improvements within a few yqars. Outline of implementation Timing and Steps: 1st Quarter (Jan -Mar) 2006 . $150,000 set aside in 2006 Budget for planning and public outreach (completed). . Analyze the real estate market to guide new zoning and density incentives (completed)- . Develop conceptual land use plan identifying land uses, densities and growth assumptions. (nearly complete) . Collect and analyze data needed to support a dedaration of blight under the Community Renewal Act (nearly complete) . Continue public outreach (four property owner, one developer, and one institutional owner (school and church) focus groups, and one open house completed). . Mayor outlines the City's Initiative in the State of the City Address. At Council Retreat, Mayor and Council determine direction of initiative and request additional $1 million of unallocated fund balance to Highlands Redevelopment Fund ($2.5 million total) . Based on Mayor and City Council's direction, develop expanded public outreach program. 2nd Quarter (April - June) 2006 . City Council committee and Planning Commission hold meetings on proposed implementation legislation including interim zoning, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Sub -area Plan. . City meets again with expanded focus groups of properly owners to discuss plan. . City meets with residents of the Highlands and adjacent neighborhoods in community open house and other meetings as part of larger communications and outreach strategy. . Engage Renton Housing Authority (RHA) and other non-profit housing organizations to develop affordable housing replacement plan. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 11 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 . By May 14th, expiration of the Highlands Building Moratorium, City Council adopts a package of new, interim zoning to attract new investment to the Highlands residential and commercial areas. • Complete DRAFT Sub -area Plan, which includes a package of Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezones, development standards, and capital facilities plan. . By June 30, complete DRAFT Declaration of Blight and North Harrington Community Renewal Plan (NHCRP), which includes plans for redevelopment, infrastructure and facility improvements, and housing relocation and replacement_ 3rd Quarter (July -Sept.) 2006 • City encourages redevelopment of area outside of targeted Community Renewal Area by connected willing sellers with developers of smaller scale. • City continues to work with existing commercial property owner to identify new commercial development with emphasis on leveraging adjacent new mixed income residential development. • By July 31 st, submit Sub -area Plan, Declaration of Blight and NHCRP to City Council for consideration and subsequent adoption. • City launches media outreach to explain the NHCRP. . City issues RFP and selects development partner(s) for master planning and redevelopment envisioned in NHCRP. 4th Quarter (Oct. -Dec.) 2006 • RHA identifies new housing locations for existing Section 8 voucher holders displaced by redevelopment. • RHA partners with non-profit housing developers to identify and build new affordable housing in smaller, scattered developments around the City. • City and development partner complete Development Agreement. • Development partner begins to purchase property from willing sellers. • City offers Community Renewal purchases for willing sellers seeking tax advantages of "friendly condemnation." • City explores with Development Partner and commercial property owner possible joint redevelopment of both the residential and commercial areas. • RHA partners with non-profit housing developers and Development Partner to develop mixed -income housing on existing, new, and/or swapped property within the NHCRP area. 2007 • Development Partner initiates first redevelopment project(s)_ HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 12 of 12. Kathy Keolker, Mayor 11, 2006 Highlands Community Association PO Box 2041 Renton, WA 98056 Inez Petersen 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N., #3 Renton, WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of Issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA-06-030 Dear Appellants: Please be advised that the appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKlnt cc: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 /Tl T'ik nRn--t-, �.rA�-rrr-..N Amatcim 74no, n trnncii RENTON AHEAD OF THE: CURVE. APPEAL by HIGHLANDS CviviMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 APPLICANT: City of Renton APPEAL BY: Highlands Community Association PO Box 2041, Renton, WA 98056 Telephone 425-228-5848 TO: HEARING EXAMINER — City of Renton CC: As shown on Attachment A LOCATION: Text amendments would generally be citywide. Map amendments would be applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located I northeast Renton, between NE 5th and 23rd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: As stated in LUA-06-030, the City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R1-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones -Center Village — Core (CV-C) and Center Village — Residential (CV-R). HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 1 of 12 4 T APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approvals by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full build out and to raise maximum densities in certain areas to as much as 80 units per acre. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. The ERC's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE was made on April 4, 2006. POINTS of DISAGREEMENT: The ERC's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE allows the City to bypass the typical and customary Environmental Impact Study (EIS) process for a slip -streamed and reduced standard, in order to facilitate faster redevelopment in the area. The Highlands Community Association (HCA) Board of Directors DOES NOT AGREE with the ERC's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. The HCA appeals on the basis that the Applicant has not complied with the rule and intent of the law, or with processes that are typical and customary for a proposal of this scope and scale. Further, that the proposed development is of such significance, scope, and scale as to require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study. 1. Applicant has not adequately identified and addressed Environmental Impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development, 2. With regard to Environmental Impacts, the Applicant's Documentation and Due Diligence are inadequate to satisfy what is typical and customary for SEPA reviews, and 3. The Applicant's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE is being applied to avoid an Environment Impact Study (EIS) and the time and cost associated with both an EIS, as well as the resulting remediation that may be required in order (this would cause a schedule delay). 4. Lastly, the Applicant has held no Public Comment specific to Environmental Impacts and concerns. 1. Environmental Impacts. There are potentially serious and significant environmental impacts which must be studied; and planning for such an enormous undertaking, involving hundreds of acres of land and thousands of residents is SIGNIFICANT. Features to be rebuilt include and may not be limited to: streets, alleys, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities. The area under question also overlays the fragile aquifer supplying water to all Renton's residents. Of specific concern is the presence of asbestos, lead, and mold in the existing structures (mainly built in 1943 as Boeing housing), and the affect of demolition of these structures on the water, soil, and air quality. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 2 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 The affects of redevelopment on the water, soil, and air quality of thousands of people must not be summarily dismissed with a DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. And this would also include "bleed over impacts to areas adjoining the City of Renton, because city water and storm services extend beyond the designation of city limits in some areas. Due to the vast scope and scale of the proposed redevelopment, the HCA appeals the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE and requests that a complete and comprehensive Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be done by an independent and unbiased party with expertise in this field. This study should include but not be limited to a) Complete mapping of the area and environmental features, including topographical maps, aquifer maps, any underground or daylight streams and wetlands, mapping of mature significant trees, etc., must be conducted. b) The level of contaminants actually present in existing buildings must be assessed. c) Potential for contamination of the aquifer under laying the site must be assessed. d) Potential for contamination of contiguous aquifers and the Cedar River watershed must be assessed. e) Ability for the aquifer to recharge as a result of high density development, and the increased pavement in the proposed street and alley network. f) Contamination of the air and the number of families that would be exposed to toxic lead and asbestos during the demolition and construction process. g) Pollution from petroleum products to the Cedar River and the aquifer, from the increase in cars and traffic through the area. h) Additional items that should be considered on maps and in the analysis are the geologic features and factors, including earthquake and slide hazards, and the Olympic Pipeline. Additionally a complete Mitigation and Remediation Plan should be provided, as well as a Hazardous Materials Removal Plan, which includes the City's proposed budget for remediation. All findings should be included in a typical and customary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and offered for sufficient public review before finalization. 2. Documentation and due diligence. Rezone boundaries, densities, and other ancillary definitions have not remained stable for any duration sufficient to assess impacts of any kind. or to determine non -significance with certainty; for example, certain areas variously included, or not included, such as areas north of NE 16th Street_ Not including an area on a given plot map does not necessarily mean the area won't be subject to similar and concurrent higher density development, so unstudied environmental impacts are just as important in these areas. This constant shifting of Rezone requirements should negate any DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE until such time as the specifications are proposed with certainty and reliability. Attachment B, dated March 20, 2006 and revised by hand on April 19, 2006, was distributed for the first time at the Planning Commission of April 19,2006. It was adopted by the Planning Commission at that meeting. Such an important document as this is not up to the standards customary for a SEPA document, But this document did not exist when the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE was made and it is NOT in the SEPA file for LUA-06-030, nor is it the plot map shown on the City's website today, April 24, 2006. HCA APPEAL DNSI Page 3 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 In addition, the ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST included in LUA-06-030, particularly, Part B, ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS, contains numerous determinations of "N/A non project action." Also, the ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEETS contain numerous determinations of "N/A" with only the Fire Department providing input which did not relate to environmental impacts. Such determinations are not up to the customary standards for a SEPA document. The HCA maintains these are "determinations of expediency" and that only a lawfully executed EIS process would ensure that the areas of earth, water, ground water, energy and natural resources, environmental health, housing, recreation, historic and cultural preservation, and utilities are properly assessed and documented. The resulting DRAFT EIS when them be offered for public review prior to finalization. Please compare the comments on the ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEETS contained in LUA-06-030 with comments contained on Attachment C. Based upon the lack of specific environmental documentation in the ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and the ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEETS, the HCA maintains there is no basis to make the statement that "The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code requirements." Reference Page 2 of NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS). 3. Environmental Impact Study (EIS) . The DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE is not applied correctly in this case and is being used to avoid the requirement to prepare an EIS as required by State Law; and this is being done in order to meet an expedited schedule for project implementation. See Attachment D, excerpt from City website, for verification of schedule. The DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the applicable laws, which were conveniently interpreted and/or minimized in order to render this determination. The HCA asserts that the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE by the ERC is procedurally and legally noncompliant because it is based not upon sound environmental data but upon a project schedule which allows no time for analysis of environmental impacts. The time for adequate and professional environmental analysis is BEFORE any proposed rezoning is adopted by the City Council. Approval of the Rezone proposal without adequate environmental review opens the door to high density redevelopment that may endanger the water that the Public drinks and the air that the Public breathes. The revitalized vision for the Highlands Subarea must come secondary to SEPA "best practices" so that adequate review of environmental impacts occurs and comprehensive planning for remediation and hazardous waste management also occurs. 4. Public Comment. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED TO DATE: The Renton City Council has held public hearing on the Rezone proposal on April P and April 17*'. The published subject of these pubic comment hearings was rezoning, not environmental concerns_ HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 4 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS CvIvIMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 But, as the record shows, the mayor went even further by emphatically_ forbidding any discussion of environmental impacts during the city council meeting of April 17, 2006.. In addition, the scope of the Rezone proposal as Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning meetings has changed from one meeting to the environmental concerns_ delineated on materials presented by the Economic Department (EDNSP) and distributed at each of the next. The changing scope of the program affects PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission held a public comment period to address the Highlands Rezone proposal during its April 19th meeting, but this comment period did not address environmental impacts, nor was it published as such_ The Planning Commission met the first, second, and third Wednesdays during April (normal schedule I and 3`d Wednesdays). The extra meeting covered the Rezone proposal, as did the pre and post meetings in April. However, environmental impacts were not reviewed at these meetings; and the Planning Commission voted to adopt the Rezone proposal on April 19th without being adequately briefed regarding environmental impacts_ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC): The ERC met on April 4th to render its DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, but there was inadequate public notice of this meeting, which was announced to a restricted audience just days prior to convening. In addition, there were no minutes taken during this meeting, and the Public was not allowed to attend as silent observers. Because the Rezone proposal is still so variable, and the plans are yet uncertain and unstable, the ERC met far too early in the process to make any DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. In addition, the scope of the Rezone proposal as delineated on plot map reviewed by the ERC on April 4th is different from plot map shown at the previous Planning Commission meetings and at City Council meetings. Again, the changing scope of the program affects environmental concerns. AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING: A third city council public comment meeting is scheduled for Mon, May 8, 2006, to address the rezoning proposal, but this public comment is not specifically intended to address environmental concerns, although the city council president indicated any subject may be discussed. PUBLIC COMMENT — OVERALL NON COMPLIANCE: In addition to not following processes appropriate to the scale, scope, and potential impacts of the Rezoning and Redevelopment Proposal: • The public notification and involvement have been insufficient or non-existent as to environmental impacts. • There were no public comment meetings specifically addressing environmental impacts prior to the DETERMINATIONOF NON -SIGNIFICANCE by the ERC on April 4, 2006, nor were any held after the ERC's determination. In addition. the Planning Commission adopted the Highlands Rezone proposal as of April 19th without ever receiving a specific briefing as to environmental impacts_ • No public meetings are currently scheduled to specifically address environmental impacts. Such meetings should be required and conducted in accordance with an EIS. MORATORIUM -DRIVEN MEETINGS: The record of public meetings shows that meetings regarding the Highlands Rezone proposal were driven and are still being driven by the Highlands Moratorium which will end on May 14th. As stated in city council and planning commission meetings, the mayor's vision is to have the City Council formally adopt the Highlands Rezone proposal before the Moratorium ends so she can proceed with Highlands Redevelopment as shown on Attachment D . An EIS done to professional standards would make the mayor's schedule impossible to maintain HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 5 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 5. Applicable Statutes: RCW 43.21 C.030 Guidelines for local governments RCW 36.70A Growth management RCW 36.70A.030 Definitions RCW 36.70A_035 Public participation RCW 36.70A.040 Who must plan RCW 36.70A.300 Final orders RCW 36.70A_330 Noncompliance RCW 36.70A.390 Moratoria ... Public hearing RCW 43.21A Department of Ecology RCW 43.21.020 Purpose RCW 43.21 C State environmental policy RCW 43.21C.030 Guidelines RCW 43.21 C.031 Significant impacts RCW43.21C_074 Appeals RCW 43.21C.110 Content of state environmental policy act rules RCW 43.21 C.240 Project review RCW 90.03 Water code RCW 90.44 Regulation of public ground waters RMC 1-6 Code of Ethics DECLARATION of SUBMITTAL: i, Inez Somerville Petersen, Secretary of the Highlands Community Association (HCA), declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington that this APPEAL is the official position of the Board of the HCA regarding (1) insufficient processes and proof that there are no environmental impacts as a result of the Rezone proposal covered by LUA-06-030 and (2) that an EIS should be required and performed by an independent and unbiased party before the Highlands Rezone proposal is officially adopted. I certify that I delivered this APPEAL to the City Clerk of the City of Renton prior to the deadline of 5 p.m., on Mon, April 24, 2006, Signed: Inezo ill rsen Date and time: HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 6 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 i Appeal - Attachrmnt A CC distribution List AGENCY ;DOE) LETTER MAILING i, :K(, DHEPNIINATIQNS) p'_ f Ec fOtjy - K,buid ' 'f f f JI Kee Sil[IlJ1 1&m Trlhe FIShf_ms nigh , n:irCl 1'1C'r- fit" IFN-erclrv] 1 clogy All, I .Ten t4aliE'r or SE tl. Ruy.ev ,r FU f3 a4r U, ' I v. ;t 39iJ 15-17 'Avenue SE Ofy2rpt3. leM 9b.504770 . -. -i ; - r'rour t, WA M09� . . V. SfDk )7 Na riwer r'c �•:- r .:� ! i rrnl 'azoof, .. v wJ .,a Cal fi is N5 hicis'it Kinr? Frei ar v- Sr rv., MS 240 I I�'I .- Ave'tue SE l PO Sox 530310 i Auharn, WA 93UV E , 63 Seatoe. 'J 5p133-9ItU { US Army Com of Engireers' 4 . , v aurerli Drn ocn ' ? �Offic� of tirchac�oingy 8 Hst:srir. SEaiI ufs.I:cl Off.:e Il I r.. iing Supervisor Presmiv ion' Alto' SE.1'A N.ev:ewer i AltnStephapi=. Kramer PO Sax GV55 : f MS KSC NP 050 ! PO Mx 4A343 Sea:11e, t1+A 98-'. 7c _ ::,.!'. '` 8`z5 _ _ i Olympa, HdA 9d504->;343 GrgmrE.Of NaWral {iecUu€aLS r'C' 1: ax -1701,5 - Qripn, WA 3t7504-7015 _ KC i c,, 6to uon lenta! Se:;. _... .... _.... .. _.--. Cit f KmT - µlvi ffEPA Seclion I - r,a - W'1)0lson AM. Mn Fred Solters!rom- AiCT - 990 O:+z r,Sd21e A,e S'J'! " ..i DavPiapmen; ''. Actiog Ccmnitn ,y {Nev r7lrac;a' f♦BnEct. YR 0JU�0'2f�3 i. '" 220 f"purth Avenue 5nutr' !. 1 .,;.-, I l _ rt J59 _ L. !; y I Kenr. WA 9b0_37 5895 - ; Cily ur Tukwila - ... I Seuu,or r"avimmrlPrltal P-{if nrwl I. -..-, . -nager 51evv. Lancaster, Raspans,biu Official - GBnnetr 6't?P fin sittc:enter €!v#. I ?,iT South Iac son 51ree! KSC-7Fd-0431 XRD 01'!J _- Tr!kMlz). VVA 9818ft .�iCJIC rz,:J 104-3b5fi SS,a�4 Ft hE!C illllu r+s - ' ; :trh' Cs4:;c Snnires ', WA 90124401,3 r -Opuonal LENS'. tne, n-r,rked a_cncies and cipes v 1 I:ead -u be sent a c 'i. .. II I P617s. and the nulice of snr:i rel nn AJs� note, uu 110 I €Tw..#,3mE; . •;.I .. --:OfICC5 She per5 hpr5 from Ihq Web Only send hartr. ER; L)r_t�r€n�naUsnf HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 7 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 APPEAL - Atactmiert B Last rinute rezone map reworked from a map dated 20 March 20K color pencil nines marked try hand and distributed at the 411WOE Planning Commission meeting. I i I a F 10 TO FL— Rl✓�CC�lA4 a� ' a3.; a� jp 7; z r, n &TAK7j MULTI W IL-YTD F L -` TERV1U;C ,E .800 v4a +4}►ya'' NTe*- VIU.A.G-e > All►�l - cry! dC _ t'aq . bo du a . . pPJ f J.LTI t-�r' VI l f� �J L rl"L.14 I t` t-1Ml l iieS1� . fir,, � r✓�J f��lr ._ , �- �4.daCD _ Q Ui Cis C€]CD Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones M Rezone from CiV [a CV MCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 8 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 ATTACHMENT C SPECIFIC COMMENTS regarding STAFF REPORT, Paragraph D, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following comments are offered regarding the "STAFF REPORT." The HCA does not believe that reviewing parties have complied with State Law with regard to identifying and addressing environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Comments with regard to Paragraph D, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of the Staff Report, are addressed in the same order as subheadings are presented in the Staff Report_ Earth: (1) There is no proof provided to substantiate the assertion that "The rezone would not result in an increase in the standards for impervious land cover from buildings, driveways, parking lots, or sidewalks ... " (2) In general, City of Renton streets and parking lots routinely flood with it rains, if city engineers cannot deal with the City's current storm runoff problems, there is no guarantee that the finding on "no impact" is reliable here. (3) And there is no guarantee that the Jefferson Greenway will mitigate the runoff problem- (4) Questioning the "no impact' position by the ERC is further backed up by the statement from the Staff Report which says: "Existing regulations require mitigation in the form of storm water control systems and landscaping of pervious areas and these measures are unchanged." If mitigation is required on something this important, then that indicates that an EIS is required- (4) Mitigation needs to be defined, and it is not here. Air: (1) According to the impact statement itself, air quality relates to the amount of traffic, the Rezone will create more traffic, and the resulting change in air quality cannot be quantified until the development is proposed. (2) This impact statement is very plain. The zoning drives the development; therefore, time should be given to prepare an EIS so air impacts can be more adequately reviewed. An EIS is needed before the Rezone is adopted so that adequate study of air quality can be done. • Water: In an EIS, we would see solid data and comprehensive analysis of the entire water system, not merely the pipes. • Plants and Animals: How can the land be covered with buildings and parking lots and plants and wildlife not be affected? In an EIS, we would see solid data. • Energy and Natural Resources: This section indicates that the area is not a location for coal mining activity. But where is the proof of that? In an EIS, proof would be required. • Environmental Health: Rodents are mentioned but there is no proof that this population is any worse than in any other equally populated area. Asbestos and lead, Mold and mildew are mentioned and there again is no proof or assessment of amounts, or impacts from demolition_ HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 9 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 ATTACHMENT C SPECIFIC COMMENTS regarding STAFF REPORT, Paragraph D, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • Land Use: This is a good example of minimizing impacts to speed the project along. This section has a lot of words to describe the many changes on the planning board and nothing to substantial to backup the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE- This would not be the case in an EIS, proof would be required. • Housing: Now we see that there are 607 housing units to which 1623 more will be added. And nothing to substantiate this build out warrants a DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. This would not be the case in an EIS, solid analysis would be required. • Aesthetics: This relates to the design regulations; and these too have been fluctuating as often as the Rezone maps to determine any impacts. • Recreation: With the 607 residences plus another 1623, this section admits that there are not enough parks for the area_ But this is NON SIGNIFICANT according to the ERC? • Transportation: (1) The ERC agrees there will be increased traffic, but it indicates that these can be addressed with existing services. Over 1600 new residences just might generate 3600 more cars on the road. (2) We already know from The Landing project, that the intersection at Garden/Park and Lake Wash Blvd North is the weak link in that project, only to made worse by the increased volume from the Highlands rezone. • Public Services: The crime statistics must be called into question. There are only two gas stations in this area, and the manager of one of the stations told me had had never been robbed. The HCA has not been able to verify any of the crime statistics used by the City Council, though the attempt has been made to do so using police and fire records. • Utilities: (1) This section admits impacts from the increased densities of up to 80 units per acre- (2) The ERG indicates that needs will be evaluated as development occurs_ HCA asserts that is no acceptable for a redevelopment effort of this size and scale. • Water system/Sanitary system/storm water system: Some solid analysis is needed here to backup the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. Without it, how can the ERC make a valid determination either way? An EIS would prevent the kind of subjective comments included throughout the Staff Report. Common sense indicates that many of these items are SIGNIFICANT and that an EIS is called for to evaluate this proposal comprehensively and then offered for public comment prior to finalization. HCA APPEAL DNS! Page 10 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COmMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 ATTACHMENT D - SCHEDULE from City of Renton website - April 13, 2006 HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE Description: Comprehensive, strategic approach based on public/private partnerships to make dramatic improvements within a few years. Outline of Implementation Timing and Steps: ist Quarter (.Ian -Mar) 2006 . $150,000 set aside in 2006 Budget for planning and public outreach (completed). . Analyze the real estate market to guide new zoning and density incentives (completed)- . Develop conceptual land use plan identifying land uses, densities and growth assumptions. (nearly complete) . Collect and analyze data needed to support a declaration of blight under the Community Renewal Act (nearly complete) . Continue public outreach (four property owner, one developer, and one institutional owner (school and church) focus groups, and one open house completed). . Mayor outlines the City's Initiative in the State of the City Address. . At Council Retreat, Mayor and Council determine direction of initiative and request additional $1 million of unallocated fund balance to Highlands Redevelopment Fund ($2.5 million total) . Based on Mayor and City Council's direction, develop expanded public outreach program. 2nd Quarter (April - .dune) 2006 . City Council committee and Planning Commission hold meetings on proposed implementation legislation including interim zoning, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Sub -area Plan. . City meets again with expanded focus groups of property owners to discuss plan. . City meets with residents of the Highlands and adjacent neighborhoods in community open house and other meetings as part of larger communications and outreach strategy. . Engage Renton Housing Authority (RHA) and other non-profit housing organizations to develop affordable housing replacement plan. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 11 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 . By May 14th, expiration of the Highlands Building Moratorium, City Council adopts a package of new, interim zoning to attract new investment to the Highlands residential and commercial areas. . Complete DRAFT Sub -area Plan, which includes a package of Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezones, development standards, and capital facilities plan. . By June 30, complete DRAFT Declaration of Blight and North Harrington Community Renewal Plan (NHCRP), which includes plans for redevelopment, infrastructure and facility improvements, and housing relocation and replacement. 3rd Quarter (.duly -Sept.) 2006 . City encourages redevelopment of area outside of targeted Community Renewal Area by connected willing sellers with developers of smaller scale. . City continues to work with existing commercial property owner to identify new commercial development with emphasis on leveraging adjacent new mixed income residential development. . By July 31 st, submit Sub -area Plan, Declaration of Blight and NHCRP to City Council for consideration and subsequent adoption. . City launches media outreach to explain the NHCRP. . City issues RFP and selects development partner(s) for master planning and redevelopment envisioned in NHCRP_ 4th Quarter (Oct. -Dec.) 2006 . RHA identifies new housing locations for existing Section 8 voucher holders displaced by redevelopment. . RHA partners with non-profit housing developers to identify and build new affordable housing in smaller, scattered developments around the City. . Ciiy and development partner complete Development Agreement. e Development partner begins to purchase property from willing sellers. . City offers Community Renewal purchases for willing sellers seeking tax advantages of "friendly condemnation." . City explores with Development Partner and commercial property owner possible joint redevelopment of both the residential and commercial areas. . RHA partners with non-profit housing developers and Development Partner to develop mixed -income housing on existing, new, and/or swapped property within the NHCRP area_ 2007 . Development Partner initiates first redevelopment project(s). HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 12 of 12 CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 wo 425-430-6510 El Cash El Copy Fee C2<heckNo. 0 Appeal Fee Description: v'w ..- 69& - t..'. Receipt i'.' 0551 L Date --- T-7-7 El Notary Service M Funds Received From: Amount Name Address Z'i A City/zip 06, Staff gignature STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the 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 May 26, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $16&00. -- rton Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this 26°i day of May, 2006. B D Cantelon Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Ke Pa Number: nt, Washingtorri 1': NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,'WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on June 6, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Highlands Sub -Area Rezone Appeal LUA06-030, R, ECF Location: Thu proposal is located in the Highlands Subarea in the NW 1/4 of Section 4 and the Stiff' 1/4 of Section 9 in Township 243 N. ]Lange 5 I:. The area to he rezoned is south of NE 16th Strtwt, North of NE 9th Street, East of Edmonds Ave, and West of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and NE 12th Street. See attached map. Description: The Highlands Community Association (HCA) Board of Directors does not agree with the ERC's Determination of Non - Significance. The HCA appeals on the basis that the Applicant has not complied with the rule and intent of the law, or with processes that are typical and customary for a proposal of this scope and scale. Further, that the proposed development is of such significance, scope, and scale as to require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study. 1) Applicant has not adequately identified and addressed Environmental Impacts anti- cipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed develop- ment, 2) With regard to Environmental Impacts, the Applicant's Documentation and Due Diligence are inadequate to satisfy what is typical and customary for SEPA reviews, and 31 The Applicant's Determin- ation of Nnn-Significance is heing applied to avoid au Environmental lrnpact Study ?EISi and the time and cost associated with both an EIS, as well as the resulting remediation that may be required in order (this would cause a schedule delay). 4) Lastly, the Applicant has held no Public Comment specific to Environmental Impacts and concerns-. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions, Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Publication Date: May 26, 2006 Published in the King County Journal May 26, 2006. #860613 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,'WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on June 6, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Highlands Sub -Area Rezone Appeal LUA06-030, R, ECF Location: Thu proposal is located in the Highlands Subarea in the NW 1/4 of Section 4 and the Stiff' 1/4 of Section 9 in Township 243 N. ]Lange 5 I:. The area to he rezoned is south of NE 16th Strtwt, North of NE 9th Street, East of Edmonds Ave, and West of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and NE 12th Street. See attached map. Description: The Highlands Community Association (HCA) Board of Directors does not agree with the ERC's Determination of Non - Significance. The HCA appeals on the basis that the Applicant has not complied with the rule and intent of the law, or with processes that are typical and customary for a proposal of this scope and scale. Further, that the proposed development is of such significance, scope, and scale as to require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study. 1) Applicant has not adequately identified and addressed Environmental Impacts anti- cipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed develop- ment, 2) With regard to Environmental Impacts, the Applicant's Documentation and Due Diligence are inadequate to satisfy what is typical and customary for SEPA reviews, and 31 The Applicant's Determin- ation of Nnn-Significance is heing applied to avoid au Environmental lrnpact Study ?EISi and the time and cost associated with both an EIS, as well as the resulting remediation that may be required in order (this would cause a schedule delay). 4) Lastly, the Applicant has held no Public Comment specific to Environmental Impacts and concerns-. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions, Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Publication Date: May 26, 2006 Published in the King County Journal May 26, 2006. #860613 Kathy Keolker, Mayor June 12, 2006 Ann Nielsen Asst. City Attorney PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Highlands Sub -Area Rezone Appeal LUA 06-030 Dear Ms. Nielsen: CITY IF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This office has received your letter regarding the above appeal. September 19, 2006 hearing date is open on our schedule. We have also requested the Council Chambers for September 21, 2006 should the hearing require an additional day. If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, t' i Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKJnt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Mark Barber, Sr. Asst. City Attorney Brent Carson 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 MThis paper contains 50% rrcvrJnd mak-nal 30% nnst rmsumer - ; � 7 RENTQN AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY IF RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor June 9, 2006 VIA INTEROFFICE MAIL Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Highlands Sub -Area Rezone Appeal, LUA 06-030 Dear Mr. Examiner: Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren Senior Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber Zanetta L. Fontes Assistant City Attorneys Ann S. Nielsen Garmon Newsom II Shawn E. Arthur The above -referenced appeal was previously scheduled for June 6, 2006. Appellant recently retained an attorney, Brent Carson, of Buck & Gordon. Mr. Carson indicated that he would need a continuance of the June 6, 2006 date and the date was stricken from the Hearing Examiner's Calendar. The City Attorney's Office and Mr. Carson discussed possible dates to reschedule that hearing. Both parties are now requesting September 19, 200G. Please let us know if this date is available. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Ann Nielsen Asst. City Attorney cc: Brent Carson Lawrence I Warren Mark Barber Post Office Box 626 - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 / FAX (425) 255-5474 ® This paper contains K'Y' recycled material, 30°! postwnsumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Bu ko Gordon LLP -'l t to rn �n y., a1 La%% May 25, 2 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 r 7 � 0 30 , yddd C�TYQFhc,y Re: Highlands Community Association Appeal of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance for City of Renton Highlands Subarea Rezone Project Number LUA-06-030 Dear Mr. Kaufman: 2025 Fist AVenLe, Suite 500 Battle, WA 98121-3140 06 382-9540 06-626-0675 Fax wv✓od buckgordon Corr I have just been retained by the Highlands Community Association (HCA) to assist HCA in its presentation of the subject SEPA appeal. HCA appealed the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) that the City issued to itself for the enormous redevelopment project known as the Highlands Subarea Plan Redevelopment Initiative (the "Plan"). I am writing to request a continuance of the proposed June 6th hearing in this Appeal, due to the significant work that HCA must do in preparation for this Appeal. According to information distributed at public meetings and posted on the City's website by the City's Economic Development Manager, the Plan proposed by the City of Renton is intended to "transform" an entire neighborhood, more than 100 acres in size, into a "redeveloped community ... with a mix of single-family Douses, townhouses, carriage houses, condominiums, and apartment Domes." "A new street and alley network" is proposed. "New stormwater systems" are proposed. The plan includes the "revitalization of the Hi -lands Shopping Center" that is intended to attract "new shops, restaurants and services." The Plan "combines in a comprehensive strategy new, higher -density zoning, key public sector investments in infrastructure, parks, library, and North Highlands Community Center, partnerships with private and non-profit homebuilders, and the Renton Housing Authority." The Plan proposes use of the Community Renewal Act to force residents in this neighborhood to sell their homes to the City or face condemnation. The Plan further provides for the sale of the publicly acquired property to private development interests - According to the Environmental Review Committee's own analysis, the Plan will result in increased impervious surfaces, additional air pollution, impacts to the City of Renton aquifer, impacts to eagles and herons, nearly 1,000 additional dwelling units, nearly 100,000 addition square feet of retail development, a shortage of parks, thousands of additional vehicular trips, Y:WVPIHCML05246, B. BC. HOC Mr. Fred Kaufman - 2 - May 25, 2006 at least one failing intersection, and the need to upgrade sewer and water utilities. Despite these significant adverse environmental impacts which should have been analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement, the City issued itself a DNS in clear violation of the State Environmental Policy Act. HCA, without any assistance from legal counsel, prepared a detailed twelve page SEPA appeal, listing numerous procedural and substantive errors. The procedural errors include: 1) illegal phasing by failing to disclose and evaluate adverse impacts under the guise of a non - project rezone action; 2) relying on incorrect documents; 3) inadequate public notice and comment opportunities; 4) Planning Commission approval of zoning requirements prior to finalization of zoning requirements; 5) failure to evaluate cumulative and indirect impacts; and 6) failure to consider alternatives. Our presentation of these procedural claims will require detailed analysis of City and State SEPA regulations, applicable case law and preparation of a significant legal brief. Regarding substantive errors, the Appeal identifies numerous errors for every element of the environment including earth, air, water, plants and animals, energy, environmental health, land use, housing, aesthetics, recreation, transportation, public services and utilities. Our firm has only just begun to understand these factual and code issues. We expect the need to retain several expert witnesses and to interview several City employees before we can present our case. Given the magnitude and significance of this project, there should be no rush to hearing on this appeal. The City had many months to evaluate these issues and present its analyses. HCA has just begun to understand these issues and should be given adequate time to prepare for what we expect will be at least a five day hearing. I request a continuation of at least three months. I am available to confer on the setting of a specific hearing date or to further discuss this request. Very truly yours, BUCK & GORDON LLP Brent Carson BC:BC cc: Highlands Community Association Larry Warren Y:%W P%HCA\L05246. B, BC. DOC 05/25/06 09:04 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP Q001/003 Bucrko Gordon LLF Attorne" at law FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL May 25, 2006 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 2D6-382-9540 206-626-0675 Fax www.buckgordon.com To: Com an Ft. Telephone: Fax: Mr. Fred Kaufman City of Renton (425) 430-6515 (425) 430-6523 CC: Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Warren, Barber, & Fontes (425) 255-8678 (425) 255-5474 From: Brent Carson Number of Pages: 3 If you did not receive all copies, or if any are not legible, please call Linda Lightfoot at (206) 382-9540 Regarding: DNS Appeal We are transmitting the following: Letter dated 5/25/06 Comments: Hard copy will be mailed. THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT THE ADDRESSEE, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS FACSIMILE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE CALL IMMEDIATELY AT {206} 382-9540 AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO SUCK & GORDON AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY MAIL. THANK YOU. 05/25/06 09:04 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP IA002/003 Bk @ Go"r6onLLP Attorneys at Law May 25, 2006 ViA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAiL Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Re; Highlands Community Association Appeal of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance for City of Renton Highlands Subarea Rezone Project Number LUA-06-030 Dear Mr. Kaufman: 2025 First Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 206-382-9540 206-626-0675 Fax www.buckgordon,com I have just been retained by the Highlands Community Association (FICA) to assist HCA in its presentation of the subject SEPA appeal. HCA appealed the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) that the City issued to itself for the enormous redevelopment project known as the Highlands Subarea Plan Redevelopment Initiative (the "Plan"). I am writing to request a continuance of the proposed June 6th hearing in this Appeal, due to the significant work that HCA must do in preparation for this Appeal. According to information distributed at pubic meetings and posted on the City's website by the City's Economic Development Manager, the Plan proposed by the City of Renton is intended to "transform" an entire neighborhood, more than 100 acres in size, into a "redeveloped community. . . with a mix of single-family houses, townhouses, carriage houses, condominiums, and apartment homes." "A new street and alley network" is proposed. "New stormwater systems" are proposed. The plan includes the "revitalization of the Hi -lands Shopping Center" that is intended to attract "new shops, restaurants and services." The Plan "combines in a comprehensive strategy new, higher -density zoning, key public sector investments in infrastructure, parks, library, and North Highlands Community Center, partnerships with private and non-profit homebuilders, and the Renton Housing Authority," The Plan proposes use of the Community Renewal Act to force residents in this neighborhood to sell their homes to the City or face condemnation. The Plan further provides for the sale of the publicly acquired property to private development interests. According to the Environmental Review Committee's own analysis, the Plan will result in Increased impervious surfaces, additional air pollution, impacts to the City of Renton aquifer, impacts to eagles and herons, nearly 1,000 additional dwelling units, nearly 100,000 addition square feet of retail development, a shortage of parks, thousands of additional vehicular trips, YAW PIHCA%L95246.B.$CAOC 05/25/06 09:05 FAX 206 626 0675 }SUCH & GORDON LLP lA 003/003 Mr, Fred Kaufman - 2 - May 25, 2006 at least one failing intersection, and the need to upgrade sewer and water utilities. Despite these significant adverse environmental impacts which should have been analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement, the City issued "tself a DNS in clear violation of the State Environmental Policy Act. FICA, without any assistance from legal counsel, prepared a detailed twelve page SEPA appeal, listing numerous procedural and substantive errors. The procedural errors include: 1) illegal phasing by failing to disclose and evaluate adverse impacts under the guise of a non - project rezone action; 2) relying on incorrect documents; 3) inadequate public notice and comment opportunities; 4) Planning Commission approval of zoning requirements prior to finalization of zoning requirements; 5) failure to evaluate cumulative and indirect impacts; and 6) failure to consider alternatives. Our presentation of these procedural claims will require detailed analysis of City and State SEPA regulations, applicable case law and preparation of a significant legal brief. Regarding substantive errors, the Appeal identifies numerous errors for every element of the environment including earth, air, water, plants and animals, energy, environmental health, land use, housing, aesthetics, recreation, transportation, public services and utilities. Our firm has only just begun to understand these factual and code issues. We expect the need to retain several expert witnesses and to interview several City employees before we can present our case. Given the magnitude and significance of this project, there should be no rush to hearing on this appeal. The City had many months to evaluate these issues and present its analyses. HCA has just begun to understand these issues and should be given adequate time to prepare for what we expect will be at least a five day hearing. I request a continuation of at least three months. I am available to confer on the setting of a specific hearing date or to further discuss this request, Very truly yours, BUCK & GORDON LLP Brent Carson BC:BC cc: Highlands Community Association LarryWarren Y:\ W %H C A%LO5 246. 8. B C. H O C CITY.. of RENTON sm + bA ♦ Hearing Examiner ,, Kathy Keolker, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman N 11, 2006 Highlands Community Association PO Box 2041 Renton, WA 98056 Inez Petersen 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N., #3 Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA-06-030 Dear Appellants: Please be advised that the appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2006 at 9,00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in. Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Parties of Record 1(155 South Urady Way - Rerte:: Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 RENTON AHEAD of THE CURVE f P APPEAL by HIGHLANDS CG..rMUNITYASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 CITY OF AEmTON x APR 2 4 2W6 RI;CEIVf=D CITY CLEWS OFFICE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-W-030 APPLICANT: City of Renton APPEAL BY. Highlands Community Association PO Box 2041, Renton, WA 98056 Telephone 425-228-5848 TO: HEARING EXAMINER — City of Renton CC: As shown on Attachment A LOCATION: Text amendments would generally be citywide. Map amendments would be applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located I northeast Renton, between NE 5t' and 23'd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE DESCRIPTION. As stated in LUA-06-030, the City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan_ Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (RI-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is tieing converted into two new zones -Center Village — Core (CV-C) and Center Village — Residential (CV-R)_ e 1 1 ,, � c ILI_ HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 1 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: WA-06-030 Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a neWlzone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approvals by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at fulf;build out and to raise maximum densities in certain areas to as much as 80 units per acre. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. The ERC's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE was made on April 4, 2006. POINTS of DISAGREEMENT: The ERC's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE allows the City to bypass the typical and customary Environmental Impact Study (EIS) process for a slipstreamed and reduced standard, in order to facilitate faster redevelopment in the area. The Highlands Community Association (HCA) Board of Directors DOES NOT AGREE with the ERC's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. The HGA appeals on the basis that the Applicant has not complied with the rule and intent of the law, or with processes that are typical and customary for a proposal of this scope and scale. Further, that the proposed development is of such significance, scope, and scale as to require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study. 1. Applicant has not adequately identified and addressed Environmental Impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development, 2. With regard to Environmental impacts, the Applicant's Documentation and Dud Diligence are inadequate to satisfy what is typical and customary for SEPA reviews, and 3. The Applicant's DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE is being applied to avoid an Environment Impact Study (EIS) and the time and cost associated with both an EIS, as well as the resulting remediation that may be required in order (this would cause a schedule delay). 4. Lastly, the Applicant has held no Public Comment specific to Environmental Impacts and ooncems. 1. Environmental Impacts. There are potentially serious and significant environmental impacts which must be studied; and planning for such an enormous undertaking, involving hundreds of acres of land and thousands of residents is SIGNIFICANT. Features to be rebuilt include and may not be limited to: streets, alleys, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities. The area under question also overlays the fragile aquifer supplying water to all Renton's residents,.. . Of specific concern is the presence of asbestos, lead, and mold in the existing structures (mainly built in 1943 as Boeing housing), and the affect of demolition of these structures on the water, soil, and air quality. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 2 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNiTY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 The affects of redevelopment on the water, soil, and air quality of thousands of people must not be summarily dismissed with a DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. And this would also include "bleed over impacts to areas adjoining the City of Renton, because city water and storm services extend beyond the designation of city limits in some areas. Due to the vast scope and scale of the proposed redevel�ent_the HCA appeals the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE and requests that a complete and comprehensive Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be done by an independent and unbiased party with expertise in this held. This study should include but not be limited to: a) Complete mapping of the area and environmental features, including topographical maps, aquifer) maps, any underground or daylight streams and wetlands, mapping of mature significant trees, etc., must be conducted_ b) The level of contaminants actually present in existing buildings must be assessed. c) Potential for contamination of the aquifer underlaying the site must be assessed. d) Potential for contamination of contiguous aquifers and the Cedar River watershed must be assessed. e) Ability for the aquifer to recharge as a result of high density development, and the increased pavement in the proposed street and alley network. f) Contamination of the air and the number of families that would be exposed to toxic lead and asbestos during the demolition and construction process. g) Pollution from petroleum products to the Cedar River and the aquifer, from the increase in cars and traffic through the area. h) Additional items that should be considered on maps and in the analysis are the geologic features and factors, including earthquake and slide hazards, and the Olympic Pipeline. Additionally a complete Mitigation and Remediation Plan should be provided, as well as a Hazardous Materials Removal Plan, which includes the City's proposed budget for remediation. All findings should be included in a typical and customary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and offered for sufficient public review before finalization. 2.'Documentation and due diligence. Rezone boundaries, densities, and other ancillary definitions have not remained stable for any duration sufficient to assess impacts of any kind, or to determine non -significance with certainty; for example, certain areas variously included, or not included, such as areas north of NE 16th Street. Not including an area on a given plot map does not necessarily mean the area won't be subject to similar and concurrent higher density development, so unstudied environmental impacts are just as important in these areas. This constant shifting of Rezone requirements should negate any DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE until such time as the specifications are proposed with certainty and reliability. Attachment B, dated March 20, 2006 and revised by hand on April 19, 2006, was distributed for the first time at the Planning Commission of April 19,2006. it was adopted by the Planning Commission at that meeting. Such an important document as this is not up to the standards customary for a SEPA document. But this document did not exist when the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE was made and it is NOT in the SEPA file for LUA-06-030, nor is it the plot map shown on the City's website today, April 24, 2006. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 3 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 In addition, the ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST included in LUA-06-030, particularly, Part B, ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS, contains numerous determinations of "N/A non project action." Also, the ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEETS contain numerous determinations of 'N/A' with only the Fire Department providing input which did not relate to environmental impacts. Such determinations are not up to the customary standards For a SEPA document. The HCA maintains these are "determinations of expediency" and that only a lawfully executed EIS process would ensure that the areas of earth, water, ground water, energy and natural resources, environmental health, housing, recreation, historic and cultural preservation, and utilities are properly assessed and documented. The resulting DRAFT EIS when then be offered for public review prior to finalization. Please compare the comments on the ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEETS contained in LUA-06-030 with comments contained on Attachment C. Based upon the lack of specific environmental documentation in the ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and the ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEETS, the HCA maintains there is no basis to make the statement that aThe analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code requirements." Reference Page 2 of NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS). 3. Environmental Impact Study (EIS) . The DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE is not applied correctly in this case and is being used to avoid the requirement to prepare an EIS as required by State Law; and this is being done in order to meet an expedited schedule for project implementation. See Attachment D, excerpt from City website, for verification of schedule. The DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the applicable laws, which were conveniently interpreted and/or minimized in order to render this determination. The HCA asserts that the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE by the ERC is procedurally and legally noncompliant because it is based not upon sound environmental data but upon a project schedule which allows no time for analysis of environmental impacts. The time for adequate and professional environmental analysis is BEFORE any proposed rezoning is adopted by the City Council. Approval of the Rezone proposal without adequate environmental review opens the door to high density redevelopment that may endanger the water that the Public drinks and the air that the Public breathes. The revitalized vision for the Highlands Subarea must come secondary to SEPA "best practices" so that adequate review of environmental impacts occurs and comprehensive planning for remediation and hazardous waste management also occurs. 4. Public Comment. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED TO DATE: The Renton City Council has held public hearing on the Rezone proposal on April 3`d and April 17th. The published subject of these pubic comment hearings was rezoning, not environm ntal concerns. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 4 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS CO.. .UNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 But, as the record shows, the mayor went even further by emphatically forbidding any discussion of environmental impacts during the city council meeting of April 17, 2006__ In addition, the scope of the Rezone proposal as delineated on materials presented by the Economic Development, Neighborfsoods & Strategic Planning Department (EDNSP) and distributed at each of the meetings has changed from one meeting to the next. The changing scope of the program affects environmental concems. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission held a public comment period to address the Highlands Rezone proposal during its April le meeting, but this comment period did not address environmental impacts, nor was it published as such. The Planning Commission met the first, second, and third Wednesdays during April (normal schedule 18' and 3`d Wednesdays). The extra meeting covered the Rezone proposal, as did the pre and post meetings in April. However, environmental impacts were not reviewed at these meetings; and the Planning Commission voted to adapt the Rezone proposal on April 19t' without being adequately briefed regarding environmental impacts_ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERG); The ERC met on April 4th to render its DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, but there was inadequate public notice of this meeting, which was announced to a restricted audience just days prior to convening. In addition, there were no minutes taken during this meeting, and the Public was not allowed to attend as silent observers. Because the Rezone proposal is still so variable, and the plans are yet uncertain and unstable, the ERC met far too early in the pmamw to make any DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. In addition, the scope of the Rezone proposal as delineated on plot map reviewed by the ERC on April 4th is different from plot map shown at the previous Planning Commission meetings and at City Council meetings. Again, the r-hannina scope of the prograrn affects environmental concerns. AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING: A third city council public comment meeting is scheduled for Mon, May 8, 2006, to address the rezoning proposal, but this public comment is not specifically intended to address environmental concernsalthough the city council president indicated any subject may be discussed. PUBLIC COMMENT — OVERALL NON COMPLIANCE: In addition to not following processes appropriate to the scale, scope, and potential impacts of the Rezoning and Redevelopment Proposal: The public notification and involvement have been insufficient or non-existent as to environmental impacts. There were no public comment meetings specifically addressing environmental impactspnor to the DETERMINATIONOF NON -SIGNIFICANCE by the ERC on April 4, 2006, nor were any held after the ERC's determination. In addition, the Planning Commission adopted the Highlands Rezone proposal as of April 19th without ever receiving a specific briefing as to environmental impacts. • No public meetings are currently scheduled to specifically address environmental impacts. Such meetings should be required and conducted in accordance with an EIS. MORATORIUM -DRIVEN MEETINGS: The record of public meetings shows that meetings regarding the Highlands Rezone proposal were driven and are still being driven by the Highlands Moratorium which will end on May 14tn As stated in city council and planning commission meetings, the mayor's vision is to have the City Council formally adopt the Highlands Rezone proposal before the Moratorium ends so she can proceed with Highlands Redevelopment as shown on Attachment D _ An EIS done to professional standards would make the mayor's schedule impossible to maintain. HCA APPEAL DNSi rage 5 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 5. Applicable Statutes: RCW 43.21C.030 Guidelines for local governments RCW 36.70A Growth management RCW 36.70A.030 Definitions RCW 36.70A.035 Public participation RCW 36.70A.040 Who must plan RCW 36.70A.300 Final orders RCW 36.70A.330 Noncompliance RCW 36.70A.390 Moratoria ... Public hearing RCW 43.21A Department of Ecology RCW 43.21.020 Purpose RCW 43.21 C State environmental policy RCW 43.21C.030 Guidelines RCW 43.21C.031 Significant impacts RCW 43.21C.074 Appeals RCW 43.21 C.110 Content of state environmental policy act rules RCW 43.21 C.240 Project review RCW 90.03 Water code RCW 90.44 Regulation of public ground waters RMC 1-6 Code of Ethics DECLARATION of SUBMITTAL: I, Inez Somerville Petersen, Secretary of the Highlands Community Association (HCA), declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington that this APPEAL is the official position of the Board of the HCA regarding (1) insufficient processes and proof that there are no environmental impacts as a result of the Rezone proposal covered by LUA-06-030 and (2) that an EIS should be required and performed by an independent and unbiased party before the Highlands Rezone proposal is officially adopted. I certify that I delivered this APPEAL to the City Cleric of the City of Renton prior to the deadline of 5 p.m., on Mon, April 24, 2006. 5� "J6 *A4L"t' y- -2- (/�- 6 Signed. Inez o ill rsen Date and time: HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 6 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 Aural - A chmart A CC Distribution Li9t AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERG DETERMINAMNS) Oept, W ID-rStwarot RE Muckteah a ldian Tribe F*lierit Dept. ' ooSecon Envirmenae' ;ew odd gy Attn: Karen Walter or SL+A Reviewer 1 PO Sax 47703 3190 160'r Ave SE 39015 - 172q° Avenue SE OlwmiAa,WA %504-7703 9ellevtm, WA 98Wa � Auburn WA 96092 W5130T Northwest Region Ornaamist3 Triha. Dffice' lwluckioehoot Cilrtral Resources Progrom' Altn: Ramin Pazooki 47i 7 W Marginal Way SW Attn_ Ms Melissa Calvert j King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98100-1514 39015 172rd Avenue SE P013=3 llo Auburn. WA 9W92.9783 Seafee. VYA 98133-9710 U9 Army Corp, of Engmem " KC Wastewater Treatnuxti Dhftbn' Ofte ofArciiae010gy & W!;t0(k i $Gaul@ Dil; wt 0€Rw Enwonmenwi Planning Superviw Premrvalion* j Attn: SEPA Reviewer Mt. Shirley Mwroc�uin Attn; Stephartla Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S 3ackson ST, MS KSG-NR-050 PO Box 48343 I Seattle, WA98124 Seattle, VNA901U4-0655 O WA985&"U3 Jamey Taylor' Deperl. of Natural Resources PO Box 4701 S ' OI la, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. B Envtrnnmertial Serv. City pf Newcastie City of Ke01 Aft SEPA Section Attn, Mr. Mil heal E Nh2K sao AUw )i-. Fred Satterstrwn AIGP— 900 Oatesdale Ave- SW LXrec,or of Cwruriunily Development Acting Canwrci'y De+. Director RerNort WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72ntl Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Nfewcasile. WA 9BO59 Kent. WA 98032-W5 MelroTransif PugotSour-dFuw,gy City ofTukmla Senior Envkmff entel Planner Lkinicipal L*sm Manager Steve Lancaster. Responsib a of mial Gary K"di Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 SoulhJackson Slrc" KSGTR4W1 PO 90x 90868, MS' XRD-01W Tukwila, WA98188 Seattle WA 98104-3858 9eflevue, t^1A 9WU1J-u868 e Public Uti5lies _. Real Esla Services TRIe Examiner 7DD FiUh Averwe, Suite 49DU PO Box 34018 Seatlle, WA98124-4018 _ _.__-,.­--------.- - Note: €f the Notice of Application slates f '. it is an-Opflonal DNS', the marked agefMies and ot;es will need to be sent a copy of the checklist. PMT's, and the naliee of application_ ' Also rwte, do nal rrrai} Jarney Taylor ary of the notices she gels bm fmm the web. Only send her the ERC Defemmnabon paperwork. "ate- - by marvng HCA APPEAL. DNS/ Page 7 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 APPEAL - ftchmert S Last rime mmne map rewofked from a map dated 20 March N06, color pemd nines marked b/ hand and distriix Watthe d119106PlarxxrgCommission meating. I Qj Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones as room ik, l< pll �nl, ail was a S �r�K Pwooins ® Rezone from CN to CV I�11�1'w4.14 wdn�n�.uaW P� G. U kvr.u: �U Muci ;11w F HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 8 of 12 HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 8 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COmMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-430 ATTACHMENT C SPECIFIC COMMENTS regarding STAFF REPORT, Paragraph D, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following comments are offered regarding the "STAFF REPORT." The HCA does not believe that reviewing parties have complied with State Law with regard to identifying and addressing environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Comments with regard to Paragraph D, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of the Staff Report, are addressed in the same order as subheadings are presented in the Staff Report. Earth: (1) There is no proof provided to substantiate the assertion that °`The rezone would not result in an increase in the standards for impervious land cover from buildings, driveways, parking lots, or sidewalks .. . (2) In general, City of Renton streets and parking lots routinely flood with if rains. If city engineers cannot deal with the City's current storm runoff problems, there is no guarantee that the Ending on "no impact' is reliable here. (3) And there is no guarantee that the Jefferson Greenway will mitigate the runoff problem. (4) Questioning the "no impact' position by the ERC is further backed up by the statement from the Staff Report which says: "Existing regulations require mitigation in the form of storm water control systems and landscaping of pervious areas and these measures are unchanged." tf mitigation is required on something this important, then that indicates that an EfS is required. (4) Mitigation needs to be defined, and it is not here. Air: (1) According to the impact statement itself, air quality relates to the amount of traffic, the Rezone will create more traffic, and the resulting change in air quality cannot be quantified until the development is proposed. (2) This impact statement is very plain. The zoning drives the development, therefore, time should be given to prepare an EIS so air impacts can be more adequately reviewed. An EIS is needed before the Rezone is adopted so that adequate study of air quality can be done. • Water: In an EIS, we would see solid data and comprehensive analysis of the entire water system, not merely the pipes. • Plants and Animals: How can the land be covered with buildings and parking lots and plants and wildlife not be affected? in an EIS, we would see solid data. • Energy and Natural Resources: This section indicates that the area is not a location for coal mining activity. But where is the proof of that? In an EIS, proof would be required. • Environmental Health: Rodents are mentioned but there is no proof that this population is any worse than in any other equally populated area. Asbestos and lead, Mold and mildew are mentioned and there again is no proof or assessment of amounts, or impacts from demolition. HCA APPEAL DNS! Page 9 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONaGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 ATTACHMENT C SPECIFIC COMMENTS regarding STAFF REPORT, Paragraph D, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • Land Use: This is a good example of minimizing impacts to speed the project along. This section has a lot of words to describe the many changes on the planning board and nothing to substantial to backup the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. This would not be the case in an EIS, proof would be required. • Housing: Now we see that there are 607 housing units to which 1623 more will be added. And nothing to substantiate this build out warrants a DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. This would not be the case in an EIS, solid analysis would be required. • Aesthetics: This relates to the design regulations; and these too have been fluctuating as often as the Rezone maps to determine any impacts. • Recreation: With the 607 residences plus another 1623, this section admits that there are not enough parks forthe area. But this is NON SIGNIFICANT according to the ERC? • Transportation: (1) The ERC agrees there will be increased traffic, but it indicates that these can be addressed with existing services. Over 1600 new residences just might generate 3600 more cars on the road. (2) We already know from The Landing project, that the intersection at GardenfPark and Lake Wash Blvd North is the weak link in that project, only to made worse by the increased volume from the Highlands rezone. • Public Services: The crime statistics must be called into question. There are only two gas stations in this area, and the manager of one of the stations told me had had never been robbed. The HCA has not been able to verify any of the crime statistics used by the City Council, though the attempt has been made to do so using police and fire records. • utilities: (1) This section admits impacts from the increased densities of up to 80 units per acre. (2) The ERC indicates that needs will be evaluated as development occurs. HCA asserts that is no acceptable for a redevelopment effort of this size and scale. • Water systemlSanitary system/stonm water system: Some solid analysis is needed here to backup the DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE. Without it, how can the ERC make a valid determination either way? An EIS would prevent the kind of subjective comments included throughout the Staff Report. Common sense indicates that many of these items are SIGNIFICANT and that an EIS is called for to evaluate this proposal comprehensively and then offered for public comment prior to finalization. HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 1.0 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 ATTACHMENT D - SCHEDULE from City of Renton website - April 13, 2006 r HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE Description Comprehensive, strategic approach based on publiciprivate partnerships to make dramatic improvements within a few year's. Outline of Implementation Timing and Steps: 1 st Quarter (Jan -Mar) 2006 . $150,000 set aside in 2006 Budget for planning and public outreach (completed)- . Analyze the real estate market to guide new zoning and density incentives (completed). . Develop conceptual land use plan identifying land uses, densities and growth assumptions. (nearly complete) Collect and analyze data needed to support a declaration of blight under the Community Renewal Act (nearly complete) . Continue public outreach (four property owner, one developer, and one institutional owner (school and church) focus groups, and one open Douse completed). e Mayor outlines the City's Initiative in the State of the City Address. . At Council Retreat, Mayor and Council determine direction of initiative and request additional $1 million of unallocated fund balance to Highlands Redevelopment Fund ($2.5 million total) . Based on Mayor and City Council's direction, develop expanded public outreach program. 2nd Quarter (April - June) 2006 . City Council committee and Planning Commission hold meetings on proposed implementation legislation including interim zoning, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Sub -area Plan. . City meets again with expanded focus groups of property owners to discuss plan. . City meets with residents of the Highlands and adjacent neighborhoods in community open house and other meetings as part of larger communications and outreach strategy. . Engage Renton Housing Authority (RHA) and other non-profit housing organizations to develop affordable housing replacement plan. HCA -APPEAL DNS/ Page 11 of 12 APPEAL by HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-030 . By May 'loth, expiration of the Highlands Building Moratorium, City Council adopts a package of new, interim zoning to attract new investment to the Highlands residential and commercial areas. . Complete DRAFT Sub -area Plan, which includes a package of Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezones, development standards, and capital facilities plan. . By June 30, complete DRAFT Declaration of Blight and North Harrington Community Renewal Plan (NHCRP), which includes plans for redevelopment, infrastructure and facility improvements, and housing relocation and replacement. 3rd Quarter (July -Sept.) 2006 . City encourages redevelopment of area outside of targeted Community Renewal Area by connected willing sellers with developers of smaller scale. . City continues to work with existing commercial property owner to identify new commercial development with emphasis on leveraging adjacent new mixed income residential development. • By July 31st, submit Sub -area Plan, Declaration of Blight and NHCRP to City Council for consideration and subsequent adoption. . City launches media outreach to explain the NHCRP. . City issues RFP and selects development partner(s) for master planning and redevelopment envisioned in NHCRP. 4th Quarter (Oct. -Dec.) 2006 . RHA identifies new housing locations for existing Section 8 voucher holders displaced by redevelopment. . RHA partners with non-profit housing developers to identify and build new affordable housing in smatter, scattered developments around the City. . City and development partner complete Development Agreement. . Development partner begins to purchase property from willing sellers. . City offers Community Renewal purchases for willing sellers seeking tax advantages of "friendly condemnation." . City explores with Development Partner and commercial property owner possible joint redevelopment of both the residential and commercial areas. . RHA partners with non-profit housing developers and Development Partner to develop mixed -income housing on existing, new, and/or swapped property within the NHCRP area. 2007 . Development Partner initiates first redevelopment project(s). HCA APPEAL DNS/ Page 12 of 17-: STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL changes would change the base PUBLIC NOTICE DETERMINATION density from 20 to 60 dwelling ENVIRONMENTAL units per acre and would allow Jody Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising REVIEW COMMITPEE the bonus density in the entire Representative of the RENTON, WASHINGTON zone. The Environmental Review Com- The text amendment for CV-R mittee has issued a Determination of creates a new zone (Center King County Journal Nan -Significance for the following Village -Residential). The CV-R project under the authority of the would require a minimum Renton Municipal Code, residential density of ten (10) a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general highlands Subarea Rezone LUA06-030, R, ECF dwelling units per net acre, a base density of fourteen (14) circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date Location: Text amendments dwelling units per acre, and a of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language would generally apply to land bonus density of eighty (80) continuouslyas a doll newspaper in Kin County, Washington. The Kin Yg Y g g in the Center Village land use designation. Regulations estab- dwelling units per acre. Multi- family development in the CV - County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the lishing development standards R would be limited to the area Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. for cottage housing could east of Kirkland Avenue NE, eventually apply citywide. The between NE 13th and NE 16th The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the proposal is to divide the Streets. Existing attached de - King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly existing Center Village zone velopment that is not town - distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed (CV) into two zones that better implement the Center Village house development would be legal non -conforming. notice, a Comprehensive Plan land use The Center Village- Residential Public Notice designation. These two zones Bunus District would be would be Centcr Villagc- Core amended establishing new iCV-C; . replacing the existing regulations for a Center was published on April 10, 2006. CV zone. and Center Village- Residential (C\'-Rl. Text Village- Flex Bonus District and apply only to the CV-R. It. amendments change standards currently applies in portions of The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of in the existing CV zone and the CV zone- The. hones would rename the zone to CV -Core allow density bonuses and $361.20. (CV-C), additional uses including single a The CV-C would allow a mix of family detached for projects one residential and commercial acre or larger in size that l l l l i l► J uses with a minimum density provide affordable housing. Amendments to the Planned of twenty (20) dwelling units dy on �N� Ci a fe // -- �'0 �i�` per net acre, base density of (60) dwelling Unit Development (PUD) regulations are proposed with . Le a] Advertising Representative, King P43 Po ) � � - �" ;c •, .� sixty units per acre, and a bonus density of applicability limited to the ubscribed and sworn to me this 10 daS+:,6f A17F}R, 2006. �p •• eighty (80) dwelling units per bonus district. acre. The current CV zone The proposed regulations r= _ allows stand alone residential amend the Urban Design Reg- Z uses at 20 dwelling units per ulations (4-3-100) to establish } acre, and a bonus density two new design districts in the mixed use residential corn Highlands Subarea corres- B D Cantelon mercial at 80 dwelling units pending to the CV-C and CV-R Notary Public for the State of Washington;-"�tog in Keii6aWing ton per acre within a limited area areas, and amend both min - PO Number: f, `. ' �ti'` 200 feet from the arterial on Sunset Blvd. The �1 proposed imum standards and guidelines Village -Core (CV-C) and Center to enact these regulations for Village -Residential (CV-R). The the areas included in these proposed rezone is estimated to districts. increase residential capacity in A citywide zoning text amend- the area by 945 units compared ment would establish de- to the capacity allowed under velopment standards for cot- existing zoning regulations. tage housing development. Appeals of the environmental These standards limit the size determination must be filed in writing of the units to 1,200 sq. ft. and on or before 5:00 PM on April 24, provide for shared parking and 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing common amenity features with together with the required $75.00 in the development. Cottages application fee with: Hearing are limited to clusters of 4 to 12 Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South units. The cottage use is Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. permitted only in the CV' R and Appeals to the Examiner are governed R-10 zones at this time. by City of Renton Municipal Code Further zoning text amend- Section 4-8-110.13. Additional infor- ments would be required to mation regarding the appeal process allow this form of development may be obtained from the Renton City in other zones. Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. The proposed amendments also Publication Date: April 10, 2006 include a provision in the I1-10 Published in the King; County Journal zone and CVR-zone that would April 10, 2006. #860186 limit single family detached housing in the Highlands Subarea to cottages. Exisliag single family detached units in the R-10 portion and CV R of the Subarca would become legal non -conforming uses. Map amendments wnuld he applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton, between NE 9th and 16th Streets, between Edmonds Ave NE and Kirkland Ave NE. The area proposed for rezone is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Exist- ing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (C`V), and Residential Multi -Family (R.MF) zoned property in this area is being re -zoned into Center -14t _' Livaro Ira j N XJW " ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone PROJECT NUMBER LUA06-030, R, ECF LOCATION; Text amendments would generally be ckywide. Map amendmenta would be applicable In the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton, between NE 6th and 23rd Streets, between Camas Avenue HE and Queen Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: Tre he City of Renton Is mning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village 1CV) land use In the Comprehensive Plan. Evlsting Commercial Neighborhood (ON), Reslden11s1-10 (R-101, Center Village jCV), and Residental Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted Into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV�C) and Center Village- Residential 1CV-RI. Two new muse are being eraated with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone Is a hew mat that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone Is a new zone that allows rnsdhrm dansky residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Prepnfles thal participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District am subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density In this area Is likely to Increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full bulldout. 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 6:00 FM on April 24, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $76.00 application fee whh: Hearing Examiner, City or Renton. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 94055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-841D.B. Additlonal Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (476) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL 13E SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. --_. NE )7tn.� i -o: 5t. NE 17th St }fith '" NF. � . b ` ` WE NE 10th P€ NE 10n St. N$ ft PL NE '9tlrSt. W 81h 'Pf. i Ith - ..N�- El f fi' PF ma,. Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones r ��.•� ---d•k s�sa n^.m MtOremCenwr vkfte _1"V ) �4 r<e+�wmcmvmrvlwaaReria.nax lcv-a: NE of i -NE $th S NE 7th S FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200- DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATION i, Derek Jere , hereby certify that 6 copies of the above document were posted by me in .. conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: �Z IZ 62,6 _ SIGNED:_DP. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before rue, a Notary Public. in and for the State of Washington residing in On the _-�--- dI ay Of ) tii� �_ �' t% t`yT11 �i r [VOTARY PUB. IC SIGN. A 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-030, R, ECF LOCATION: Text amendments would generally be citywide. Map amendments would be applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton, between NE 5th and 23rd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV-C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. 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 April 24, 2006. 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) 430-6610. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. �. 4 . :NE f7th, 16t hNE mIQJ [116 17th -,<' th St. LLJ S t Pt lit ,r ......_. .. NE I 1. t} _ ' N ate . . E fiNZ .��.jj �} # ..... ; 4 E 4 NE 1 , 1 �h r1 l4 • NE : St N 8f .. • �,. E , N �, - i 0 S� NE -_ Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones F�=Dcvelopnxnl, NcjWftfoo& & Str"ic FManning ® Rezone to Center Village -Core (CV-C) ' E' ° d "°d"m c ad reaonr+n Rezone to Center Villa ) � gR-R9Sid9titi8f (CV-R 2Y Mxc� 2DOfi FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION * + Kathy Keolker, Mayor Apnl 6, 2006 TO: parties of Records FROM: Environmental Review Committee SUBJECT: Highlands Subarea Rezone LUA-06-030, R, ECV CITY F RENTON PlanningBuilding/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above -referenced project. The Committee, on April 4, 2006, decided that the project will be issued a Determination of Non -Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that the proposed project will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 24, 2006. 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. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6588. For the Environmental Review Committee, Rebecca Lind Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 0This paper contains5oe%,recyclnc. material.30%post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE STAFF REPORT A. BACKGROUND City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ERC MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2006 Project Name: Highlands Subarea Rezone and Zoning Text Amendments Project Number: LUA06-030, R, and ECF Project Manager: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Project Description: Changes are proposed to both the City of Renton zoning text and zoning map. Zoninq Text Amendments The proposal is to divide the existing Center Village zone (CV) into two zones that better implement the Center Village Comprehensive Plan land use designation. These two zones would be Center Village- Core (CV-C), replacing the existing CV zone, and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Properties currently in the R-10 zone and RM-F zone would be rezoned into the new CV-R. The CV-C would allow a mix of residential and commercial uses with a minimum density of twenty (20) dwelling units per net acre, base density of sixty (60) dwelling units per acre, and a bonus density of eighty (80) dwelling units per acre. The current CV zone allows stand alone residential uses at 20 dwelling units per acre, and a bonus density mixed use residential commercial at 80 dwelling units per acre within a limited area 200 feet from the arterial on Sunset Blvd. The proposed changes would change the base density from 20 to 60 dwelling units per acre and would allow the bonus density in the entire zone. The CV-R would require a minimum residential density of ten (10) dwelling units per net acre, a base density of fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre, and a bonus density of eighty (80) dwelling units per acre. Multi -family development in the CV-R would be limited to the area east of Kirkland Avenue NE, between NE 13th and NE 161h Streets. Existing attached development that is not townhouse development would be legal non -conforming. The Center Village- Residential Bonus District would be amended establishing new regulations for a Center Village - Flex Bonus District and apply only to the CV-R. It currently applies in portions of the CV zone. The bonus would allow density bonuses and additional uses including single family detached for projects one acre or larger in size that provide affordable housing. Amendments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations are proposed with applicability limited to the bonus district. The proposed regulations amend the Urban Design Regulations (RMC 4-3-100) to establish two new design districts in the Highlands Subarea corresponding to the CV-C and CV-R areas, District D and E on Highlands Subarea Design Districts (map, Attachment 1), and amend both minimum standards and guidelines to enact these regulations for the areas included in these districts. A citywide zoning text amendment would establish development standards for cottage housing development. These standards limit the size of the units to 1,200 sq. ft. and provide for shared parking and common amenity features within the development. Cottages are limited to clusters of 4 to 12 units. The cottage use is permitted only in the CV-R and R-10 zones at this time. Further zoning text amendments would be required to allow this form of development in other zones. The proposed amendments also include a provision in the R-10 zone and CV-R zone that would limit single-family detached housing in the Highlands Subarea to cottages. Existing single-family detached units in the R-10 and CV-R zones of the Subarea would become legal non -conforming uses. Zoning text amendments include definitions of cottage housing and affordable housing. City of Renton EDNSP Department Er nmental Review Committee Staff Report HIGHLANDS SUBAREA REZONES AA INING TEX T A.NEh'DMENT.S L UA06-030, R ECF REPORT AN) DECISION OF APRIL 4, 2006 Page 2 of 10 Rezoning of Property Properties within the existing CV Comprehensive Plan Designation would be rezoned from CV, R-10, and Residential Multi -Family (RM-F) to either CV-C or CV-R, see Land Use Concept El (map, Attachment 2). A change to the zoning of a small piece of property improperly zoned Commercial Neighborhood (CN) that is within the Center Village Land Use Designation is also proposed. It would be zoned CV-C (map amendment). Project Location: Text amendments would generally apply only to the Highlands area because the zones affected are only mapped in the Highlands study area. The cottage development standards could be citywide in the future, but are only applied to the CV-R and R-10 zones in this package of amendments. Map amendments would be applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton, between NE 51h and 23`� Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE. Exist. Bldg. Area gsf. NIA B. RECOMMENDATION Site Area: 110.26 acres Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE X I Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES None required for this non -project action. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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. 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? 9. Earth Impact: That portion of the Highlands Subarea proposed for rezone is generally level, with minimal changes in topography. The entire area slopes very gradually down from the northeast to the southwest. It is not prone to damage from erosion or landslides. When development projects are proposed, geotechnical reports may be required. The rezone would not result in an increase in the standards for impervious land cover from buildings, driveways, parking lots, or sidewalks in the areas currently zoned R-10 or CV. The proposed regulations also do not change standards for land coverage in the areas proposed for rezone from R-10 to CV-R or from CV to CV-C. Both the current CV and the proposed CV-C zone use the same building coverage standard of 75 percent. Currently the R-10 coverage requirement is 70 percent. In the proposed CV-R zone, building coverage is 50 percent, or 65 percent if parking is underground. City of Renton EDNSP Department E nmental Review Commitlee Staff Report HIGHLANDS SUBAREA REZONES Alb WING TEXT A±IIEhDMENTS L UA06-030, R, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 4. 2006 Page 3 of 10 The current CV and RM-F zones have a maximum impervious surface requirement of 75 percent. There is no impervious standard in the R-10 zone_ The proposed CV-C impervious standard is 75 percent and the CV-R standard is 60 percent, or 75 percent if parking is provided underground or under a building. The only change in coverage standards is in the areas proposed for rezoning from RM-F zone to the CV-R zone_ The existing RM-F zone limits building coverage to 45 percent while the proposed CV-R would allow 60 percent coverage. However, the impervious surface standard in the RM-F zone is still 75 percent. This means that while building coverage is less, the standard encourages low Floor Area Ratio development with surface parking. As a result, the coverage of land with impervious surface could occur despite the lower building coverage standard. Existing regulations require mitigation in the form of storm water control systems and landscaping of pervious areas and these measures are unchanged. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: NIA 2. Air Impact: In urban areas, air quality is primarily related to the amount of traffic generated by a use. Although the additional land capacity created by the new zoning regulations will lead to higher traffic volumes, the resulting change in air quality cannot be quantified until development is proposed. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: N/A 3. Water Impact: There are no known streams or other open water within} the Highlands Subarea as defined for the purposes of this rezone. The area does overlie the City of Renton aquifer and, therefore, is subject to the restrictions imposed on Aquifer Protection Area Two. Proposed amendments do not amend Aquifer Protection standards or surface water regulations. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: NIA 4. Plants Impact: The Highlands Subarea rezone area does not feature significant vegetation, although there are mature trees within some residential landscape areas. The proposed regulations do not change landscape retention standards or impervious standards. City of Renton tree retention measures would continue to be applicable. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: NIA 5. Animals Impact: Wildlife in the Renton Highlands Subarea consists of small mammals that are easily adapted to urban environments, such as raccoon, opossum, rats, mice, and squirrels. Birds consist of songbirds and small raptors such as hawks. Eagles and herons are known to nest in the South Lake Washington area and may be seen flying over the Subarea. The City of Renton is within the flyway for a major Pacific avian migratory route. The proposed regulations do not change tree retention or landscape standards that would impact these habitats. Mitigation Measures: None City of Renton EDNSP Department E► xmental Review Committee StafReport HIGHLANDS SUBAREA REZONES AA PNING TEXT AMENDMENTS L UA06-030, R, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFAPRIL 4, 2006 Page 4 of 10 Nexus: NIA 6. Energy and Natural Resources Impact: Energy is currently provided by natural gas and electric power. It is anticipated that future development will be powered by the same means. There are no known natural resources present in the rezone area. Unlike several other areas within Renton, the Highlands was not a site of nineteenth and twentieth century coal mining activity. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: N/A 7. Environmental Health Impact: The proposed regulations do not create new environmental health standards_ There are several environmental health issues related to current development in the rezone area. There is a known problem throughout the area with improperly stored garbage and abandoned vehicles, which are known to attract and provide habitat for rodents. The lack of proper building foundations and insulation has the probable result of mildew and poor interior air quality. Asbestos was used in construction materials and lead -based paint was used both for interior and exterior finishes. Removal of these potentially hazardous materials has largely not occurred in the area. The current zoning does not create an incentive for redevelopment of this area to occur. To the extent that increased density and new standards created by these amendments stimulate redevelopment, elimination of these adverse environmental health conditions is anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: N/A 8. Land Use Impact: The existing R-10, RM-F, CN, and CV zones provide for single family, duplex and multi -family residential units, commercial, and retail businesses; churches, recreational uses, and community centers; schools; and administration and maintenance facilities. Although new density standards create additional land capacity in this area, and the potential for more development, the range and mix of uses would not change significantly. The most prominent change would be an increase in cottage and townhouse development in the CV-R zone compared to the R- 10 and RM-F zone. Single-family detached units would only be allowed as either cottage development or as part of a bonus development project and consequently no single-family use is included in the land use model. The existing CV zone already allows for mixed -use commercial and multifamily development. The current zoning for the area creates the potential for an additional 678 dwelling units for a total of 1,285 dwelling units, including 607 existing units. The methodology used in this analysis assumes development at 80 percent of maximum density allowed in the zone, including bonus density. The bonus density of 80 dwelling units per acre is currently allowed within 200 feet of the Sunset Blvd corridor. The Table Current Zoning- Focus Area (Attachment 3) shows the distribution of possible units in the existing CV, RM-F, and R-10 zones. The proposed re -zone would create additional land capacity over existing zoning resulting in 945 residential units. In the proposed zoning analysis, the methodology used to analyze the proposed zoning assumes the same set of assumptions: 80 percent of the maximum density in the zone. Assuming that the existing 607 units would either be retained or replaced, the proposed zoning represents an increase of 945 units over the existing zoning capacity of 1,285 units. Total residential capacity with rezoning is 2,230 units, including the 607 existing residential units. Existing zoning would allow 193,340 sq. ft of retail development. The proposed rezoning regulations would allow 280,967 sq. feet of retail development. City of Renton EDNSP Department Er nmental Review Committee Staff Report HIGHLANDS SUBAREA REZONES AA ONING TEXT AMENDMENTS LUA06-030, R, ECF REPORTAND DECISION OF APRIL 4, 1006 Page 5 of 10 Summary of Change in Capacity from Existing Zoning to Proposed Zoning: Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Existing Units 607 units 607 units New Residential Capacity 678 units 1623 units Total Residential Capacity including existing 1285 units 2230 units Commercial 193,340 square feet 280, 967 square feet Change from Existing Zoning to New Zoning 945 Units Change for Existing Zoning to New Zoning Commercial 87,627s . ft_ The estimates for future residential capacity by proposed zone and use type zone with the rezones is as outlined below. For a more detailed summary, see Current Zoning -Focus Area (Attachment 3) and Concept El -Focus Area (Attachment 4). Land Use Type Gross Acreage Net Acreage DensitylF.A.R.* Units Retail (s.f.) Cottage in CV-R 9.25 8.33 12 dulna** 100 NIA Townhouse in CV-R 21.59 19.43 21 du/na 404 NIA Multi -family in CV-C 14.45 13.00 64 du/na 832 NIA Residential medium density 18.70 16.83 14 du/na 242 NIA Mixed -use residential in CV-C 10.84 10.18 64 du/na 651 NIA Mixed -use commercial in CV-C 3.61 3.39 0.30 F.A.R. NIA 44,329 Retail in CV-C 19.26 18.11 0.30 F.A.R. N/A 236,637 School 7.18 0.00 NIA NIA NIA Parks/Public Open Space 5.98 3.34 NIA NIA NIA Totals 110.86 95.25 2,230-- 280,967 * F.A.R. "Floor Area Ratio" is the relationship, expressed in a ratio, between the amount of gross floor area (total area) permitted in a structure and the area of the lot on which the structure is located. ** Dwelling units per net acre includes approximately 607 residential units to remain The proposed land use changes are consistent with and implement the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation, which was adopted originally as "Center Suburban" in 1993, and amended subsequently in 1999 and 2003. The Comprehensive Plan specifically directs analysis of the existing zoning to better implement the Center Village Land Use Designation. The existing CV zoning was modified in 1999 and 2003 to incorporate a density bonus district allowing the current 80 dwelling units per acre within a defined district within 200 feet of Sunset Blvd. The RM- F and R-10 zoning have not been analyzed or modified to increase consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan policies for this area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following direction on the consistency of zoning with the objectives of the Center Village Land Use designation. CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close -in urban mixed -use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian -oriented _ These areas are anticipated to provide medium to high -density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub -regional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. Objective LU-CCC: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provides a pedestrian scale environment. City of Renton EDNSP Department E nmental Review Committee Staff Report HIGHLANDS SUBAREA REZONES AA WING TEXT AMENDMENTS LUA06-030, R, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 4, 2006 Page 6 of I0 Policy LU-317. Apply the Center Village Designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto -oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed -use type of development. Policy LU-318. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning designations including Residential 10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multi -family (RM-F). Strategy 319.1. Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village and replace zoning designations or re -zone with the vision for a Center Village designation. Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub -area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the Highlands Redevelopment Plan is expected to occur over a 2 — 5- year period. Strategy 319.3. Areas east of Edmonds and north of Sunset currently zoned RM-F are to remain in residential use. The area north of 12'" St. currently zoned R-10 is to remain in residential use. Policy LU-320. Allow residential density ranging from 10 to 80 dwelling units per acre in the Center Village Designation. The Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning currently adopted in the affected area were reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with prior environmental actions as follows: LUA-03-064, ECF Determination of Non Significance issued July 2003 for Amendments to Title IV Residential Bonus District, 80 du per net acre for mixed -use projects, urban parking standards, and minimum common open space standards within the Residential Bonus District. LUA-099-008, ECF Determination of Non Significance issued February 1999 for Amendments to Title IV for attached dwellings at 20 dwelling units per acre and bonus density up to 60 dwelling units per acre in the CS (became CV) zone. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SE1S), City of Renton Final Comprehensive Plan Draft, December 1994, Final SEIS February 1995. Environmental Impact Statement, Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan February 1993 (Center Suburban Land Use established). The proposed zoning text amendments and rezones will make the land under consideration more in compliance with the Growth Management Act and the adopted Renton Comprehensive Plan Center Village Land Use designation by providing zoning that can implement the mixed -use urban development envisioned for this area. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: N/A 9. Housing Impact: There are now 607 units of housing in the proposed rezone area consisting of condominium multi -family units, apartments in buildings of 5 or more units, fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes, and single-family units. The majority of housing in the area is assumed to be affordable housing serving households having less than 80 percent of median income. The majority of this housing is market rate and current and accurate rental data is not available. Generally, the physical condition of the housing, its size and age, and lack of amenities support the conclusion that this is affordable housing stock. An informal survey of units available for rent in the last six months showed rents ranged from $600 to $1200 per month. With the proposed rezone, the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) will be able to redevelop and replace housing on land it now owns at greater densities providing both replacement and additional affordable units in the rezone area. The Housing Authority currently owns and manages 100 housing units on 7.3 acres within the rezone area. The Housing Authority units are the only permanent affordable housing in the area and serve households having less than 30 City of Renton EDNSP Department E nmental Review Committee Staff Report HIGHLANDS SUBAREA REZONES AA WING TEXT AAIEI4DMENTS LUA06430 R ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 4, 2006 Page 7 of 10 percent of the median income. The Housing Authority will be required under federal requirements and funding stipulations, to replace all RHA units that might be redeveloped as a result of the proposed zoning actions. In addition, the Housing Authority controls 4.6 acres of undeveloped land, one lot with proposed CV-C zoning, and 3 lots with CV- R zoning that will be available for replacement housing. Twenty-two Section 8 vouchers are used in this area and provide subsidized rents to qualified households, although the housing units themselves are not secure, permanent affordable housing. As Section 8 vouchers are portable, it is expected that they would remain available to the households either in or outside of the rezone area. Many existing lots are larger than the minimum lot area required for the lower density single-family and duplex units currently allowed under the R-10 standards. The proposed rezoning is intended to create an economic incentive to stimulate reinvestment resulting in additional housing, and potentially, replacement of existing units. The proposed rezone may result in 1,623 additional housing units in the rezone area_ Some new housing will occur in what are now exclusively commercial use areas in the proposed CV-C zone. While the CV zone has allowed this mixed -use housing since 1999, the density and standards allowed have not been sufficient to stimulate redevelopment. The limitations within the existing Residential Bonus Overlay applicable to the existing CV zone restricted the location and density of development. These restrictions are removed in the proposed CV-C zone: an additional base density of 40 dwelling units per acre is proposed in addition to the existing 20 dwelling units per acre, and the bonus of another 20 dwelling units per acre is extended to the entire zone. The proposed zoning text amendments provide for inclusionary housing requirements for private sector affordable housing. The proposed standards provide a bonus for affordability that is required in order to realize density above the base density in the proposed zones. In the CV-R zone, affordable units are required at the rate of 2 units per acre for each acre developed above the minimum density (10 du/ac) in the zone. In the CV-C zone, affordable units are required at the rate of 5 units per acre for each acre developed above 20 dwelling units per acre. A zone -wide bonus of up to 80 dwelling units per acre is provided to allow replacement affordable housing to be provided through private sector development. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: NIA 10. Aesthetics Impact: Design regulations applicable to redevelopment in the Highlands Districts D and E will be adopted as part of the zoning text amendments. In addition, cottage housing standards provide specific open space, design, setback, and building limitations for cottage development that will provide for higher quality design in these projects than is now achieved through the small lot single-family development standards and multi -family standards for lot size and setbacks allowed in the R-10 zone. Presently, the R-10 and RM-F zones have no design guidelines. Building height standards are not changed from the CV to the proposed CV-C zone. The maximum height allowed is still 50 feet, with a stipulation that 45 feet is the maximum allowed adjacent to R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F zoned property. The proposed CV-R zone replaces properties zoned either R-10 or RM-F. Height/stories limitation in the R- 10 zone is 2 stories and 30 feet. Height/stories limitation in the proposed CV-R is the same for all development except cottages. Height for cottage housing is more restrictive and is limited to 18 feet except that buildings with pitched roofs may go to 25 feet. Landscape standards will be equal to or improve upon existing zone standards. The R-10 zone requires no landscaping. The RM-F zone requires all setback areas to be landscaped. The CV standard is 10 feet of landscaping except where adjacent to residential development, and then 15 feet of landscaping is required. The proposed CV-C and CV-R zones are consistent with the current CV standard. Landscaping requirements in the Design Regulations increase requirements for quality of landscaping. Citywide parking lot landscaping standards are not changed by this proposal; however, the Design Regulations increase the requirements for quality. Cottage housing design standards also include specific landscape provisions for setbacks and pedestrian connections_ Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: N/A City of Renton EDNSP Department E nmental Review Committee Staff Report HIGHLANDS SUBAREA REZONES All WING TEXTA AIENDMENTS LUA06-030, R, ECF REPORTA AD DECISION OFAPRIL 4, 2006 Page 8 of 10 11. Light and Glare Impact: The proposed amendments will result in stricter implementation of the light and glare standards now required for all development in RMC 4-6-0601 due to the adoption of design guidelines compared to existing requirements in the RM-F, R-10, and CV zones Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: N/A 12. Recreation Impact: The Highlands Subarea features existing school playfields, community center grounds, and a system of largely unused public walkways and open spaces dating from the original development of the area. The proposed regulations do not change standards for the open space and parks, as these are citywide standards. The land use capacity model assumes a theoretical set aside for parks and open space and deducts land area from the net developable area considered in the land use capacity mode. Housing or commercial capacity is not assigned to all the land in the rezone proposal. This technique serves as a proxy for land that will eventually be purchased for parks or open space, or dedicated as part of a development. The model currently assigns 5.98 acres or 260,489 sq. ft. to park use. However, the possible population resulting from proposed development of 2230 units is 3,974 persons. Based on existing parks standards, this population has a need for 298,040 sq ft of parks land for a shortage of 37,557 sq. ft. of land. Additional park needs in this area will be addressed through a combination of possible actions. 1) This discrepancy can be addressed by increasing the net park area assumption in the density model and slightly reducing the total projected housing units and population. 2) Actual park land need can be evaluated at the time development occurs. The city requires park mitigation fees at the time of project development that are used to fund park improvements. As development occurs, an impact fee of $530.76 per single-family unit (applied to cottages) and $354,51 per multi -family unit will be collected. 3) The Renton School District currently has 7.18 acres of land in the area that is developed with school facilities, including playing fields_ This school land is also included in the land capacity model and housing or commercial capacity is not assigned to it. One site, the Hillcrest School borders the City of Renton North Highlands Community Center. In the future, joint use recreation and park facilities agreements can be pursued between the City and the School District to better address park and recreation needs in the community. The proposed design regulations include private open space standards for all forms of housing. Mixed -use residential and attached housing of 10 or more dwelling units must provide a minimum area of common space of 50 square feet in Design District D (largely the CV-C district). In District E (corresponding to CV-R), attached housing must provide minimum area of private usable open space equal to 150 square feet per unit. Such space may include porches, balconies, yard, and decks. Cottage development standards also include common open space requirements. The current CV, RM-F and R-10 zones do not have these requirements. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: NIA 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impact: There are no sites with designated historic or cultural significance in the Highlands Subarea. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: NIA City of Renton EDNSP Department E nmental Review Committee Staff Report HIGHLANDS SUBAREA REZONES AA WING TEXT AMEVDMENTS LUA06-030, R, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 4, 2006 Page 9 of 10 14. Transportation Impact: The higher density development that would result from adoption of the proposed zoning would result in an increase in traffic volumes throughout the area. The transportation impact analysis draft "Land Use Concept E-9 Transportation Analysts, March 29, 2006," indicates that the additional trips generated by the increased housing capacity from proposed zoning can be accommodated without significant reductions in level of service. In fact, streets are anticipated to accommodate the increased number of vehicle trips from future additional housing even if the density is not increased through rezoning. The single exception is the intersection of NE 12tn Street and Edmonds Avenue NE. This intersection would be at Level of Service `F' (level 'A' is the highest in terms of service provided measured by short wait times). The transportation analysis recommends that a westbound right -turn lane (on NE 12tn St) and a southbound left turn lane (on Edmonds Ave NE) would bring the level of service up to an acceptable level. The Transportation analysis also recommends that bicycle lanes and raised sidewalks be reconstructed or added throughout the Subarea. The proposed zoning amendment does not change parking standards within the proposed zone area from the citywide standard for residential uses. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: NIA 15. Public Services Impact: The Highlands Study Area represents 12.5 percent of the population, but represents 40 percent of citywide gas station robberies, 24 percent of vehicle thefts, 18 percent of public nuisance cases, 15 percent of armed robberies, see Selected Police Cases 2000-2004 (Attachment 5), and 205 of fire calls, see Fire Cases between 2000-2004 (Attachment 6). The socio-economic conditions of the present population that influence demand for service in this area are not affected by the change in regulations. However, the higher density residential and commercial uses would result in an increase in population of an estimated 3,974 persons_ This will impact public services and may result in increased demand. It is hoped, however, that redevelopment will lead to improved safety and health conditions and result in a lowering of per capita public services need. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: NIA 16. Utilities Impact: All utilities are currently available to the proposed rezone area. Provision of utility services is currently planned to implement the density planned for in the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element that currently allows up to 80 dwelling units per acre throughout this area. The sewer utility and water utility are currently planning their capital programs to accommodate growth at this level over a twenty year planning horizon, through their long range implementation plans. Capital projects in addition to developers' extensions of City utilities reflecting more specific needs would be evaluated as development occurs within the rezone area. Water System Development and redevelopment in the proposed Highlands rezone area are within the City's 435 and 565 pressure - zone areas. Water for fire flow storage for standby storage is currently provided by the existing Highlands 435-zone reservoirs (3.5 Million -Gallon) and 565-zone elevated tank (0.75 Million -Gallon). The City is planning to construct a new 3.7 Million -Gallon "Hazen" reservoir in the Highlands 565 - zone in 2007-2008. A new 12-inch water main that will provide water from the City's 565-pressure-zone to a portion of the proposed Highlands rezone area is scheduled for construction in 2006 - 2007 in conjunction with the utilities improvements for the Harrington Square multi -family development project. The Harrington Square development has been already approved for land use entitlements, but has not yet proceeded with building permits. City of Renton EDNSP Department E nmental Review Committee Stuff Report HIGHI ANDS SUBAREA REZONES AA ONING TF_ l T A MFNDMENTS L UA06-030, R, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 4, 2006 Page 10 of 10 The new 12-inch water main will be installed in NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 12th Street, in Harrington Avenue NE from NE Sunset Blvd. to NE 9th St, and in NE 91h Street from Harrington Ave NE to Kirkland Avenue NE. It is anticipated that new water main extensions connecting to the above 12-inch water line in NE Sunset Boulevard will be required to provide fire protection to new development or redevelopment in the proposed rezone area. Sanitary Sewer System Interceptor capacity is sufficient utilizing the Sunset Interceptor. The minor collection system in Harrington Avenue NE however, is near capacity and would need to be upgraded, although not considered necessary for the "first phase of [rejdevelopment." Two segments of the Harrington minor collector are over capacity at peak conditions, a twenty-year event. Replacement of older sewer mains in the area may be necessary, but had not been prioritized. This work is now underway as part of the update of the tong Range Waste Management Plan. Improvements would eventually be required at the larger interceptor facility of N 6th Street, Garden Avenue N and N 8ch Street, but these issues will be resolved during work done for the Landing project. The North and South Highlands Sewer Study resulted a prioritization of replacement of sewer mains, with a focus on the area with wartime housing. The City has developed a sewer hydraulic model that allows for real time evaluation of the system to better define when improvements are required and this system is intended for use at the time of project development. Stormwater System The proposed zoning does not change the percentage of impervious surface requirements compared to the existing zoning. The current CV and RM-F zones have a maximum impervious surface requirement of 75 percent. There is no impervious standard in the R-10 zone. The proposed CV-C impervious standard is 75 percent and the CV-R standard is 60 percent, or 75 percent if parking is provided underground or under a building. The Highlands area lacks local collector systems for surface water runoff. In spite of this, there are no or few flooding problems. New development or redevelopment would require the construction of local collectors and the upsizing of some existing 12-inch collectors due to increased impervious area. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: N/A 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. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 24, 2006. 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. City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Examiner_ Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. Land Use Concept E- Focus Area CN ® CV-0 (20-80 dulacre with reslcom mix) � CV-R (10-18 dulacre {to Bo with CV-X rezone)) �� i �I � !� �� `•� � ��',,� � T, _ RS 4-8 dulacre - 0 RMD (4-18 du acres -,-7 - 5 i',— ® RMF (10-20 dulacre) --L Public Open Space7Parks Interim zoning in Core with existing zoning outside core (existing comp !an throughout)2B Fehmary 2006 / r F � � � ✓^ I � W� -%:� FTT I -- ---- - __ 1 i= _L r s 4,I - --J —j ... J l lI /�r1 ^ h� —t 1 c7 � sar�oa I — 1 C - i i Cnxnf L t_1 ` T. nyll_ Pox I Nell � SrM2 , I I 1 L: I - Fj_ {-r y / T-1 v F5J�— MENT 2 ATTACHMENT Current Zoning - Focus Area Multifamily Residential Development Caoacity Zoning Gross Land Area Net Land Area (Adjusted) Assumed Future Density iMaximum) Assumed Future Density (80% of Develop ment Capacity From Tables 14 and 20 80% of max Units C"D RMF 21.31 19.18 20 16 307 CV -BONUS -MULTIFAMILY 4.11 3.70 60'_:,..:. 64 237 CV -MULTIFAMILY 5.83 5.25 20 16 84 R-10 56.42 50.78 10 8 406 CV-MIXEDUSE 4.37 4.11 20 16 66 CV-BONUS-MIXEDUSE 3.08 2.89 80 64 185 95,13 85.91 1,285 Commercial Development Capacity Zoning Gross Land Area Net Land Area Adjusted Assumed Future FAR Development Capacity From Tables 16 and 20 S . Ft. C*D CV-MIXEDUSE 1.46 1.37 0.30 17,894 CV-BONUS-MIXEDUSE 1.03 0.96 0.30 '` 12,610 CV -RETAIL 7.78 7.31 0.30 95,520 CV -BONUS -RETAIL 5.48 5.15 0.30 < 67,316 15.74 14.79 193,340 Land Totals 4/4/06 ATTACHMENT 4 Concept E1 - Focus Area Land Use Type Grass Acreage Net Acreage Density/ FAR Units Retail SgFt Population factor Estimated Population Estimated Elem. Pupils (0.2761unit) Estimated Middle School Pupils (0.0791unit) Estimated High School Pupils (0.0701unit) Total Estimated Pupils Required Amount of Neighborhood Parks (75 sgftlpp) Estimated Trip Ends (per unit or per 1,000 sgft) Trip Generation in Vehicle Trip Ends CVR-Cottage 9,25 8.33 12 100 n/a 1.4 140 W 0' 0' 0 10,492 5186 586 CVR-Tournhouse 21.59 19.43 21 404 n/a 1.8 727 201 57 51 309.2 54,557 10.71 4,328 CVR-Multi-Family0.00 0.00 64 0 n/a Us 0 0 0 b 0 0 6.63 0 CVC-Multi-Family14.45 13.00 64 832 n/a 1.8 1,498 413 118 105 637 112,348 6.63 5,518 RMD 18.70 16.83 14 242 n/a 1.8 436 120 34 31 185 32,718 10.71 2,596 CVC-Mixeduse Housing 10.84 10.18 64 651 n!a 1.8 1,172 324 93 82 498 87,926 6.63 4,318 CVC-Mixeduse Commercial 3.61 3.39 0.30 n/a 44,329 n/a n1a n1a n1a n1a n/a n/a 40,67 1,803 CVC-Retail 19.261 18.11 0.30 n/a 236,637 rVa n1a n/a n1a n1a n1a n1a 40,67 9,624 School 7.18 0.00 nla n!a rda rVa nla rda I n/a I n1a I n1a I n1a Parks/Public Open Space 5.981 5.98 n/a rVa Na rVa nla rVa n1a n1a n1a I n/a rva nta Totals 110.86 95.25 2,230 280,967 3,974 1,058 303 268 1,629 298,040 28,772 "Predominantly singles, childless couples and "emptynesters" Existing Park 1 3321 1 1 1 1 150.780 Existing Retail 1 1 223.019 Existing Residential 1 6071 2,2 1.3351 167.51 48.01 42.5 45,525 Net Change 2.661 1 1 1,6231 1 12,6381 891 2551 226 Commercial Existing plus future capacity under current zoning 720 Summary 2128106 MENT 5 30% 25% 20! 15% 1D% 5% Highlands Police Cases as a P age of Citywide Cases 2000-2004 rtw. b Np l :,non 0% yw w w. w3. w,,'op w . In w w w w w w.. m ,�d"�i.. aim F'h°-p �� � •t`i' � 'l� d' o�.Cd � r t= o,i L Lk`P#Efltr -- 1 3 L_I- r+'## -=1 ,, 1 7- ---"' _ I i ist St TI Highlands Sub -Area Plan Selected Police Cases 2000-2004 F.amomie beve.htpmem, NeighK)rN is 3r. Strategic Planning ALminisva„g U D Ia1 R". c. 2, 9 Nnvcmhcr 2IN75 Study Area 0 1 Police Cases O 2 - 5 Police Cases 6 - 19 Police Cases ® 20 - 39 Police Cases 40+ Police Cases A TA MENT fi Highlands Fire Calls as a PI tage of - , '" _I Citywide Calls 2000-2004- ,{� L 24, 254; 25r7'I -7i-I �- LINS 1st St i r 7, ` kp,_� ' -- Y�L TT ` --r- _ ` ' I� jV � �__L 7 ---_1 L 1 III` 11 I J fdEl I �oltlr�i 1.5,. r 1 L [71.r._,_-.�.._.. c"-_ _ L I .._I I i -�--'� �IC� 1. thi St. f L� 7 17- 7 IF 71 LT,-7 . fl 1I �1 44 I ,{✓I _1' t_+� l_'1'tiL•�T� /S �V I •i ,� r � y_r � i�El. � � fA.', I ��. � •� �L�1 j��.-'fix � I Q � __. '---- }� I o AlE 511. CF.- r, ` �', I� t � rzn ru r•-1 F �' \V�d ' f i Pr.I Highlands Sub -Area Plan Study Area Fire Cases between 2000-2004 , Fire Call Lconee mic Development. 1'eighhorhty& & Strategic Planning 2 - 5 Fire Calls e♦�+ Alcr fhctx h, AJmmnv:aor 7_1 6 - 50 FII'6 Calls U. CI ® 50 - 100 Fire Calls � �4�+Fire Calls O ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ♦, + PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 3, 2006 TO: Gregg Zrmerman, Terry Higashiyama, Larry Rude, Alex Pietsch,WBen Wolters, Neil Watts, Jennifer Henning, Stan Engler, Larry Warren FROM: Elizabeth Higgins SUBJECT: Highlands Subarea Rezone The Highlands Subarea Rezone is scheduled for Environmental Review Committee consideration on April 4, 2006. Included herewith are relevant documents, as follows: Concept E I Transportation Analysis (Draft) * Comment letters received following posting of the Notice of Application document-3 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Land Use Concept E1 Transportation Analysis Draft for Client Review March 29, 2006 Prepared for: City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 95055 Prepared by: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Transportation Engineering/Operations ♦ Impact Studies ♦ Design Services ♦ Transportation Planning/Forecasting Seattle Office: PO Box 65254 ♦ Seattle, WA 98155 • Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 ♦ Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Eastside Office: 816 - 6th Avenue S ♦ Kirkland, WA 98033 ♦ Office (425) 531-0567 ♦ Fax (425) 889-8369 r DRAFT , , tU NT KEVIEW City of Renton Land Use Concept El Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription................................................................................................................ ProjectApproach.........................................................................................................................5 EXISTINGCONDITIONS..................................................................................................................6 Existing Roadway Conditions......................................................................................................6 KeyIntersections.........................................................................................................................8 TrafficVolumes..........................................................................................................................11 Intersection Level of Service.....................................................................................................11 Existing NE Park Ddve/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity............................................................13 Public Transportation Services and Facilities............................................................................15 Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities.....................................................................................17 Parking and Street Illumination Characteristics.........................................................................17 Planned Transportation Improvements......................................................................................17 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS......................................................................................22 2030 Future Travel Demand Forecasts.....................................................................................22 Intersection Level of Service Impacts........................................................................................24 NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity Impacts ................................................ ..30 PublicTransportation Impacts.... ............................................................................................... 30 NonmotorizedImpacts...............................................................................................................31 ParkingImpacts.........................................................................................................................31 StreetIllumination Impacts........................................................................................................31 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A - intersection LOS Analysis Results Appendix B - 2030 Future Year Traffic Volume Estimates °Fratar Forecasts" Page i Transportation engineering IliathWest, LLC March 29, 2006 bRAFTFOR CLIENT REVIEW City of Renton Land Use Concept E1 Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Highlands Subarea Boundary and Vicinity.....................................................................................2 Figure 2. Land Use Concept E1 Site Plan....................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Roadway Characteristics...............................................................................................................7 Figure 4: Study Intersection Locations... .... ........ .................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Existing Channelization and Traffic Control... . ............................................................................. 10 Figure 6: 2006 Existing P.M, Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...........................................................................12 Figure 7: 2006 Existing Intersection Level of Service.................................................................................14 Figure 8: Existing Public Transportation Stop Locations.............................................................................16 Figure 9: Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities........................................................................................18 Figure 10: Existing On -Street Parking.........................................................................................................19 Figure 11: Existing Street Light Locations...................................................................................................20 Figure 12: 2030 Baseline P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................................25 Figure 13: 2030 With Concept E1 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...........................................................26 Figure 14: 2030 Baseline Intersection Level of Service..............................................................................28 Figure 15: 2030 With Concept E1 Intersection Level of Service.................................................................29 Table 1: Land Use Concept E1 —2030 Conditions.......................................................................................1 Table 2: LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections..........................................................1 i Table 3: 2006 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service........................................................13 Table 4: Existing NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity................................................................15 Table 5: Existing Public Transportation Services.. ..................................................................... ................ 15 Table 6: 2030 P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Impacts........................................................27 Table 7: 2030 Baseline NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity.....................................................30 Table 8: 2030 With Concept E9 NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity ........................................30 Page ii Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29, 2006 City or Renton RRAFT FOR CLIEN. T REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan _-_ Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 INTRODUCTION The City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan will address a Vision and comprehensive planning policies for an area with commiemial, multi -family, and single-family residential redevelopment in northeast Renton. This transportation analysis was conducted to evaluate transportation needs of potential redevelopment of the Highlands Subarea Plan and recommend suitable mitigation for environmental impacts of the proposed Land Use Concept E 1. Project Description The Highlands Subarea is located on both sides of NE Sunset Boulevard between NE 23rd Street to the north and NE 5th Street to the south, and from Camas Avenue NE to the west and Olympia Avenue NE to the east. The study area boundary is shown in Figure t This report analyzes future transportation conditions under Land Use Concept E 1 (shown in Figure 2). Land Use Concept E1 is proposed under the City of Renton highlands Subarea Plan for zoning/density that would be allowed within the asrrvrt comprehensive plan land use designations (no changes to the comprehensive plan map), but with different zoning. Table 1 summarizes available land use capacity at densities allowed by the current comprehensive plan designation, but with different allowed zoning, as well as resultant land use increases and resulting daily vehicle trip generation. As shown, the net increase in future land uses is estimated at approximately 1,623 residential units and 58,OW square -feet of conunercial retail over current land use assumptions by the City in the FEghlands Subarea. Table 1: Land Use Concept E1 -- 2030 Conditions Land Use Type Gross Acreage Net Acreage Density/ FAR Residential Units Retail (Sq Ft) Estimated Population Trip Generation in Vehicle Trip Ends CVR-Cottage 9.25 8.33 12 100 n/a 140 586 CVR-Townhouse 21.59 19.43 1 21 404 n/a 727 4,328 CVR-Multi-Famil 0.00 0.00 64 0 rt/a 0 0 CVC-Multi-Family14.45 13.00 64 832 n/a 1,498 5,518 RMD 18.70 16.83 14 242 n/a 436 2,596 CVC-Mixeduse Housing 10-84 10.18 64 651 n/a 1,172 4,318 CVC-Mixeduse Commercial 3.61 1 3.39 0.30 n/a 44,329 n/a 1,803 CVC-Retail 19.26 18.11 0.30 n/a 236,637 n/a 9,624 School 7.18 0.00 n/a n/a rn/a n/a Parks/Public Open Space 5.98 5.98 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Future Total 110.86 95.25 - 2,230 280,967 3,974 28,772 Existing Park 3.32 - - - Existing Retail - - 223,019 Existinu Residential 607 - i,335 Net Change 2.66 - 1,623 67,948 1 2,638 - Source: Ckyof Renton Economic Developmeq, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Depaament, March 2406. Page 1 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LtC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFTfOQR.CLIEiNT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Anal is - Land Use Concept E1 1 9 Page 2 ; Transportation Engineering Northi+ilest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DFt#AFT-T 7F W—J ENl' OEVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Anal is -Land Use Concept E1 �1 Page 3 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT FOR WENT REVIEW Hi hlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis -Land Use Concept E1 Land Use Concept E1 MCR CW��(1b1Sa✓aey�pedG+��4Y�C l as yFs d�s-nl RAPiL�-A9duhml. WS pwft Sp.�Reks ow ftw*�A � (Not to Scale) Transportation Highlands Subarea Figure Z Plan Engineering l�lorthWest, L4C Concept Land Use Ct El Site Plan Renon, WA 11r4 � concept I 1 TmtcspprPat3on AnalYSs Page 4 Transportation Engineering Northwest LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton t)RAf't F'QR:'CUEtV`i'REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Project Approach The transportation analysis addresses the following elements associated with the Highlands Subarea Plan under Land Use Concept E 1: Inventoried existing roadway/intersection conditions and reviewed existing planning documents; ➢ Described and assessed existing transportation conditions in the area; ➢ Discussed planned transportation improvements; ➢ Documented future without -project "baseline" and with Land Use Concept E 1 traffic forecasts and assumptions; ➢ Evaluated intersection level of service needs at 13 study intersections; ➢ Analyzed roadway level of service on NE Park Drive and NE Sunset Boulevard; ➢ Assessed impacts to public transportation, nonnwtorized transportation facilities and services, parking, and street lights; and ➢ Recommended transportation improvements measures to facilitate redevelopment of Land Use Concept E I for the Highlands Subarea Plan. Page 5 19 Transportation Engineering North West, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT FOR':CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section includes an inventory of existing roadway conditions, intersection channelization and traffic control, traffic volumes, intersection levels of service, public transportation services and facilities, nonmotorized transportation facilities, and planned roadway improvements. Existing Roadway Conditions The following paragraphs describe general existing roadway conditions affecting site access. Roadway characteristics are also shown in Figure 3. Aberdeen Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. South of NE 27th Street, the roadway consists of 10-foot travel lanes with a 1- to 2-foot fog line shoulder width and 4- to 5-foot paved shoulders signed as a "walkway." The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Edmonds Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 5 to 6 feet wide and/or 4-foot concrete pathways are located on one or both sides of the street. Parking is located along various part of the roadway. The pavement width varies from 44 feet between NE 16th Street and NE Sunset Boulevard to 33 feet just north of NE Th Street. The posted speed limit is 30 mph north of and 25 mph south of NE Sunset Boulevard. Harrington Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 5 to 8 feet wide and/or 4-foot concrete pathways are located on one or both sides of the street. Parking is located along various part of the roadway. The pavement width varies from approximately 27 feet at its northern section to 44 feet in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph Jefferson Avenue NE is a two-lane unchannelized north -south roadway. Between NE 16th Street and NE 12th Street, the roadway consists of 4- to 5-foot concrete pathways and parking on both sides of the street. The total pavement width is 32 feet. In the vicinity of NE 9th Street, the roadway provides paring on both sides of the street with a 4-foot concrete pathway on the east side of the street. The total pavement width varies from 23 to 31 feet. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph - Kirkland Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 4 to 10 feet wide, 4-foot concrete pathways and/or 13-foot gravel shoulders are located on one or both sides of the street. Packing is located along various part of the roadway. The pavement width varies from approximately 30 feet in the vicinity of NE 16th Street to 40 feet near NE loth Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Monroe Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. South of NE 126 Street, the roadway consists of 5- to 6-foot raised sidewalks and parking on both sides of the street. Travel lanes are approximately 11 to 12 feet. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph North of NE 12th Street, the roadway provides parking on both sides of the street with 4- to 8-foot gravel shoulders. The total pavement width along this section is 28 feet. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. Olympia Avenue NE is a two-lane unchannelized north -south roadway, Parking is located on both sides of the roadway. Travel lanes are 11 to 12 feet. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. Page 6 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Anal is - Land Use Concept E1 Page 7 Transportation Engineering NortnWest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton WF,,T,fOR UIENT;REVICW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Anat is - Land Use Concept E1 Union Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 5 to 6 feet wide are provided on both sides of the street in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard. The curb -to - curb pavement width is approximately43 to 44 feet. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. NE 27th Street is a two-lane east -west roadway. Raised sidewalks about 5 to 6 feet in width and parking are provided on both sides of the street. Travel lanes are generally 11 to 12 feet. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph NE Lnh Street is a two-lane east -west roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 5 to 7 feet wide are provided on one or both sides of the street. The pavement width varies from 23 feet in the vicinity of Dayton Avenue to 40 feet in the vicinity of Edmonds Avenue NE. In the vicinity of Monroe Avenue NE, the roadway consists of 3- to 5-foot paved shoulders. The south side of the street east of Monroe Avenue NE is signed as a "walkway." The speed limit is posted at 25 mph SK 900 (NE Paris Drive and NE Sunset Boulevard) is an east -west roadway. The roadway consists of 4 to 5 traveI lanes. A two-way, center left-tum lane is provided along various sections of this roadway. Travel lanes are 12 feet with 5- to 6-foot wide raised sidewalks on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. NE 106, Street is a two-lane east -west roadway. liaised sidewalks approximately 4 to 10 feet wide are provided on both sides of the street. The curb -to -curb pavement width varies from approximately 30 feet in the vicinity of Sunset Lane to 40 feet near Index Avenue. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. NE 7th Street is a two-lane cast -west roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 4 to 7 feet wide and/or 4-foot concrete pathways are provided on one or both sides of the street. The pavement width is generally 32 to 33 feet and provides for parking along various parts of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. NE 5th Street is a two-lane east -west roadway with 4- to 5-foot concrete pathways on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Key Intersections The following 13 study intersections were chosen to analyze existing levels of service (locations are shown in Figure 4 with existing channelization and traffic control summarized in Figure 5): 1. NE 27th Street / Aberdeen Avenue NE 2. NE 12th Street / Edmonds Avenue NE 3. NE Park Drive / I-405 SB Ramps 4. NE Park Drive / 1-405 NB Ramps 5. NE Park Drive and NE Sunset Boulevard / Sunset Boulevard NE 6. NE Sunset Boulevard / Edmonds Avenue NE 7. NE Sunset Boulevard / Harrington Avenue NE 8. NE Sunset Boulevard / NE 106 Street 9. NE Sunset Boulevard / NE 12�h Street 10. NE Sunset Boulevard / Union Avenue NE 11. NE 1011, Street / Monroe Avenue NE 12. NE 7th Street / Monroe Avenue NE 13. NE 76 Street / Sunset Boulevard NE 19 Page 8 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton CI AF , {312 4WNT E-VIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Page 9 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC March 29, age 9 City of Renton DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 NE 27th SVAberdem Ave NE I2th St/Edntonds Ave 7NI Park DrA-405 SB R"ps WE Park Dr/1-405 NB Rumps NF2i'A4Sr NE JN SI NEA LY NE NE Park Dr/Sunset Bfvd NE 1+IE Suntei BIvdJUnion Ave NE Sttt�ti Bfvd/Edmonds NE Sunset Bfvd/;•larringwn NE'Sttttset Btv"t 10th St •E— But 6YFtl NE Beg NE tum Sf NEPgNLrE Sulop NE. WOW 12th St NE 1 oth Sr/Monroe Ave NE ]th 5 ,41 AVMsf NemmSIfw NE hh SVSunset Legend TraffJc Signal W6 Stop SlEn ® AfE Wap Stop (Not to Scale) Transportation Figure 5 Highland Subarea Plan Engineering Existing Channelization Renwn, WA Northwest, LLC and Traffic Control Lamd Use Concept E i Tansptrrtativm Analysis • BHd'NE ' VP4atrtoe Ave NE F Page 10 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29, 2006 BHd'NE ' VP4atrtoe Ave NE F Page 10 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29, 2006 VP4atrtoe Ave NE F Page 10 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29, 2006 Page 10 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton GHAT, 60 CUMT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Traffic Volumes Figure 6 highlights existing 2006 p.m peak period turning movements at the 13 study intersections. P.M. peak hour traffic volumes typically represent the highest hourly volume of vehicles passing through an intersection during the 4-6 p.rrL peak period. Since the p.m peak period volumes usually represent the highest volumes of the average day, existing volumes were collected in the study area for use in evaluating traffic impacts. The Gty of Renton provided traffic counts at all study intersections. Based on historical traffic volumes indicating an average growth rate of 5 percent per year between 2004 and 2005 in the study area, all traffic counts not counted in the ytar 2006 were factored by 5 percent per year to estimate year 2006 existing conditions. Intersection level of Service Level of service (LOS) serves as an indicator of the quality of traffic flow at an intersection or road segment. The LOS grading ranges from A to F, such that LOS A is assigned when no delays are present and low volumes are experienced. LOS F indicates long delays and/or forced flow. Table 2 summarizes the delay range for each level of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 2: LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay Range (sec) Unsignalized Intersection Dela Ran (sec) A S 10 <_ 10 B > 10to:920 > 10to515 C > 20to:�35 > 15to<25 D > 35tos55 > 25to:535 E > 55to580 > 35to:550 F >_ 80 1 >_ 50 Soup "I &Hay CaPwity ManuaP', Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000, Updaee. The methods used to calculate the levels of service are described in the updated 2000 Higf uV crtyMxwd (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board). Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made of up a number of factors that relate to traffic control, geometries, traffic demand, and incidents. Total control delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions (i.e., the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, or as a result other vehicles). LOS F at signalized intersections is often considered unacceptable to most drivers, but does not automatically imply that the intersection is over capacity. Jammed conditions could occur on one or all approaches, with periods of long delays and drivers waiting for multiple signal cycles to progress through the intersection. � + Page 11 �" Transportation Engineering 1WathiMett, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept El NE 27th St/Aberdeen live �2 4 1 7 �202 12 4 256 --0, 54 1 87--!A ME P;* Dr/Sunset Slwd NE E- 928 �-153 NE Surisat t3P�G &PNkDr 996 --b- r,,r 200 GIB - 1 f Sunso 1&4 NE 12th St 32 131 821 34 E- 109 ) r a4 7 ME T 57 1$0 t 18.9 - 23 873 51 IBA NE 7111 SUSunset Blvd NE � 13 -67 NE iS'r 82 T 400 106 NE 12th SI/Edtttonds Ave 197 10 il*1- 108 263 -4-57 1� 3 Ne 12n St 43 -A- 17 49 93 15 --* NE Sonset Blvd/Edmonds — 19 96 40 18 - -998 /t NE 5urtset 81W NES 136- ) f 1,279--)r 42 32 25 73� NE Sunset Wd/1lnion Ave 4 k 76 771!127 64 1 4-924 *NE SYnrSB(&hm' 853 44 92 151 43 NE Park Orll 405 SB Ramps 378 4 227 --K- 639 3 03 i�Prrrer 255-�k NE Sunset Bh*Nan kvm R- 10 2(3 21 B 41 - 913 62 14� 1,020-0- Y4 20 69 S7 -* ME 1 Oth SC/Momve Ave I *-3 6 79 4 f 77 r 2llRE IQERyS/f 116.0- S6 78 22 101-%k - NE Park D,/1-405 NB Ramps E- 779 147 NEPWkDa 6925 464 S01 UMM RMIME 10th St *-39 7NE 10 872 64 F 37 i aNE 19-4 ``:fEth�/ _I 1 55-* 36 1,0.54 80 20 NE,7th U/Monroe Ave NE 13 11 E 10 44-- 11 io iYEWr 20 18 -+- 46 129 10 44 (Not to scale) Transportation Figure 6 Highlands Subarea EngineeiiPlanng 2�06 Existing P.M. Peak Ref:tit�nf WANorthWtst, LLC Hour Traffic Volumes Lar*dthe. CanceptE.I 7'nnspi,"flc>t1.Aw1A Page 12 Transportation Engineering North{liitst, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT FOR CLIENT'REVfEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Anal is - Land Use Co t E1 For unsignalized intersections, a level of service and estimate of average control delay is determined for each minor or controlled movement based upon a sequential analysis of gaps in the major traffic streams and conflicting traffic movements. In addition, given that unsignalized intersections create different driver expectations and congestion Ievels than signalized intersections, their delay criteria are lower. Control delay at unsignalized intersections include deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay in waiting for an adequate gap in flows through the intersection, and final acceleration delay. Intersection LOS were calculated using the methodology and procedures outlined in the 2000 Higllirzrry Opacity Maruu, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board using the software program of SS)nhm for signalized intersections and H' , for unsignalized intersections. Existing p.m peak hour levels of service at study intersections are summarized in Table 3 and further illustrated in Figure 7. As shown, all signalized intersections and controlled movernents at unsignalized intersections operate at LOS B or better under existing conditions. Detailed level of service surnrnaryworksheets are provided in Appendix A. Table 3: 2006 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service ID # Signalized Intersections Traffic Control LOS' Delay' V/C3 3 NE Park Dr / 1-405 SB Rams Si nal B 14 0.71 4 NE Park Dr / 1-405 NB Rams Signal B 17 0.48 5 NE Park Dr / NE Sunset Blvd / Sunset Blvd NE Signal B 11 0.68 6 NE Sunset Blvd / Edmonds Ave NE Signal A 9 0.55 7 NE Sunset Blvd -/- Harrington Ave NE Signal A 5 0.47 8 NE Sunset Blvd / NE 1 Oth St Signal B 13 0.55 9 NE Sunset Blvd / NE 12th St Signal B 15 0.60 10 NE Sunset Blvd / Union Ave NE Signal B 19 0.64 13 NE 7th St / Sunset Blvd NE Signal A 5 0.40 ID # Unsignalized Intersections' Traffic Control LOS' Dela z V/C3 1 NE 27th Street / Aberdeen Ave NE All -Way Stop B 11 0.07 2 NE 12th Street / Edmonds Ave NE All -Way Stop B 15 0.45 11 NE i Oth Street ! Monroe Ave NE All -Way Stop A 9 0.39 12 NE 7th Street / Monroe Ave NE Eastbound B 11 0.16 Westbound B 12 0.07 Northbound Left A 8 0.04 Southbound Left I A 8 0.01 L LOS analyses are based on methodobgrs established in the 2OW HYnsay CAtdtyMwmE 2. Delay- Average concur! delayper vehicle in seconds. 3. V/C — Volume to capacity ratio. Existing NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity Existing critical traffic volumes on NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard were compared to directional capacity thresholds used by King County during the p.m peak hour under 2006 existing conditions. Peak hour directional capacity assumptions from the Krug Cavity RawmmW Lvh Type Capaaty Values (King County Department of Transportation, Transportation System Planning Section) were used as thresholds. Page 13 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29. 2006 City of Renton DRAgTFI O t CLIENTREVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis Land Use Concept El v Transportation Engineering Northwest, t LG Page 14 March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT:FOR GLICNT,REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Anal ps - Land Use Concept E1 Table 4 summarizes travel demand on NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard from west of I-405 to west of Union Avenue NE. As shown, NE Sunset Boulevard currently operates under capacity. Table 4: Existing NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity Location Geometric Assumptions Two -Way Peak Volumes' One -Way Peak Volumes' Capacity Threshold' Difference West of 1-405 5 2,254 1,236 2,160 924 East of1-405 4 2.083 1,157 1,930 773 East of Sunset Blvd NE & NE Park Dr 4 2,267 1,185 1,930 745 West of Edmonds Ave NE 4 2,623 1,487 1,930 443 East of Edmonds Ave NE 4 2,267 1,322 1,930 608 East of Harrington Ave NE 5 2,082 1,097 2,160 1,063 North of NE 10th St 5 2,057 1,111 2,160 1,049 of NE 12th St 5 1,862 947 2,160 1,213 [South North of NE 12th St 5 2,072 1,085 2,160 1,075 West of Union Ave NE 5 2,232 1,131 2,160 1,029 1. Source: Ku CbumyKecommendedLmkTypeCapaca),Values. Public Transportation Services and Facilities King Count�­Metro provides public transportation services in the project study area. King County Metro transit stops are located on NE 16th Street, NE 12th Street, NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, NE 7th Street, Edmonds Avenue NE, Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Avenue NE. King County Metro Routes 105, 111, 240, 908, and 909 serve the project site vicinity. Table 5 summarizes the existing public transportation service routes that are provided within the study area. Transit stop locations along with those that provide shekers are shown in Figure 8. Table 5: Exi ing Public Transportation Services Metro Transit I service Weekday Service Route # Service Locations Days service Times' F uenc ' 105 Downtown Renton and Neighborhoods Daily 4:30 AM- 30-60 12:15 AM 111 Renton, Newcastle, Bellevue, Downtown Seattle Weekdays 5:30 AM- 15-30 9:00 AM 3:30 PM- 7:15 PM 240 Renton, Newcastle, Bellevue Daily 5; 15 AM- 30-60 12:30 AM 908 Downtown Renton and Neighborhoods Weekdays, 7:15 AM- 60 Saturda 7:00 PM 909 Downtown Renton and Neighborhoods Weekdays, 5:45 AM- 60 Saturdays 7.45 PM 1. King County l4letro Transit Rennes. 2. service Times approximate every 15 minutes and are during weekdays only. 3. Service Fm prwy shown m minutes and during weekdays only. Page 15 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFTFOR CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis • Land Use Concept E1 Page 16 Transportation Engineering Northwest, lLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT F R ENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Anal - Land Use Concept E1 Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities Nonmotorized transportation facilities are abundant within the study area and consist of raised sidewalks, paved walkways, paved or gravel shoulders, and concrete pathways. Nonmotorized facility dimensions are summanzed in the Perry Coz&xm section of this report. Mid -block crosswalks arse located in the vicinity of schools within the study area, most notably on Edmonds Avenue NE south of NE 16th Street, and on Harrington Avenue NE south of Index Avenue and between NE 8th Street and NE 91h Street. Existing nonmotorized facility types are illustrated in Figure 9. Parking and Street Illumination Characteristics On -street parldng and street luminaries are abundant within the study area and are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11. Planned Transportation Improvements A review of the following planning documents was conducted to determine planned transportation improvements in the study area: The City of Renton's Six -Year Tmmpo?=m lVwwrtit Prr7gr-am's (TIP), 2006-2011, King County's Six-Yezr Capital Irrprl?wnE? t Pngrmns (UP), 2006-2011, Sound Transit Projects and Plans, WSDOT Project List, and King County Metro's Six -Year Plan 2002- 2007. King GDunty's 6-3pear CIP identified no transportation improvements in the project site vicinity. Vehicular Transportation Improvements There are 3 planned transportation -related improvement projects identified in the project vicinity for the six -year period between 2006 and 2011 based on the information provided in the City of Renton's &-yaxr TIP.• ➢ # 14:1-405 Improvements in Renton. Disacsse= bdowumr r WSDM I-lr* List ➢ # 23: Sound Transit HOV Direct Access. Dismsed bdowwzkrSaod Tmrrsit Ids. ➢ # 43: Park -Sunset Corridor. This planning project would develop a long-range transportation plan for this corridor. The results of this Highlands Subarea Plan will likely feed into this proposed corridor study. Sound Transit identified the following transportation improvement: ➢ I-405/N Sh Street HOV Direct Access. Construct direct access ramps on 1-405 for HOV and transit at N 81h Street to improve transit speed, reliability and access to the North Renton area. The Sound Transit budget for this project is $86,960,000. Page 17 Transportation Engineering iliortnWest iiLC March 29, 2005 City of Renton €3RAFi,I'bkinIENT REVlbN Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 %9 Page 18 Transportation Engineering NarthWest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton � tO. " RE1/it Highlands Subarea Plan Tramportation Analysis - Land Use Corwept E1 to Page 19 Transportation engineering Northihiest LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton t)RAFT'kY3R CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E9 (i Page 20 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLG March 29, 2006 City of Renton [ Rf1F1.FC t c1itN,'T W,-)/WW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 The following transportation improvement project was identified on WSDOT's Project List: ➢ I-405: Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to I-90. Construct 2 additional general- purpose lanes in each direction. Install ramp meters at 1121h Avenue SE northbound on - ramp to I-405. Mahe necessary interchange modifications to accommodate mainline widening. Provide general-purpose direct ramp connections between SR 169 and I-405 to/from the north, and improve interchanges at NE 44th Street, NE Vh Street, NE Park Drive, and SR 169 as part of the widening. Direct ramp junctions currently provided at Sunset Boulevard to/from North I-405 would be replaced at the redeveloped SR 169 split diamond interchange with NE 3�d Street. It sbwU Ir wd dut at dx NE Park L)?iw vrmeati n a rew mnh kgfir wdiuozi wranp uhmz s n assamrd L'Mmzd 9f i�be nmdhwid o*rzarap zr>liams aaderirg at the so uh kg cf tie irdmaxron Total funding from all sources is currently at $170,000,000. Public Transportation Service Improvements Sound Transit identified the following public transportation -related improvement: ➢ Express Bus: Parking Garage and Extension of N"Street. Construct a park -and -ride with up to 700 parking stalls for transit riders and construct a segment of new roadway from the proposed park and -ride (Logan Avenue) to the proposed N Sth street direct access ramps at Garden Avenue. This project would provide access to transit service operating along the I-405 corridor and in Renton. The Sound Transit budget for this project is estimated to be between $60,200,000 and $65,000,000. King County Metro's Six -Year Plan 2002-2007 proposes the following service improvements: ➢ Renton to Bellevue. The target service frequency in 2007 Is 15 minutes during the weekday am. and p.m. peak hour and 30 minutes during weekday midday hours, weekend hours, and evening hours. ➢ Renton to Seattle CBD. The 2007 target service frequency is 5 to 10 minutes during the weekday am. and p.m. peak hour, 15 minutes during weekday midday hours and weekend hours, and 30 minutes during evening hours. For traffic analysis purposes in 2030, all transportation improvements identified above were assumed to be complete under future baseline conditions. �+ Transportation engineering ll�orthViiest, LLC Page 21 March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFIF FOR CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS This section documents transportation needs of the proposed Highlands Subarea Plan under Land Use Concept E1 on the surrounding arterial network and study intersections that serve the study area. The discussion includes a summary of the future travel demand forecasts, peak hour traffic volume impacts, impacts on intersection and roadway levels of service at study intersections, public transportation services, nonmotorized facilities, parking, and street illumination. 2030 Future Travel Demand Forecasts Travel demand forecasts were prepared in 2030 under Baseline "without the project" and Land Use Concept E1 conditions using a combination of regional land use forecasting information from the Puget Sound Regional Council refined by the City of Renton. City of Renton 2030 Model The City of Renton's 2030 EMME/2 travel model was used to estimate future 2030 forecasts with and without the Highlands Subarea Plan. In 1999, Rao Associates and RST International were retained by the City of Renton to further develop and update the model that had originally been established in 1990. The 1999 model update was comprehensive in nature. The baseyear land use data and network were updated to 1998 conditions, consistent with regional PSRC land use assumptions and model components, while the forecast year was established as 2030. Local 2030 land use forecasts were refined in 1998 and input into the model to determine trip generation. Network revisions were then implemented to complete the 2030 model consistent with regional forecasts. Within the city limits, all principal arterials, minor arterials, and collector arterials are included within the Gty's 1998 model. A few local streets are including in cases where they provide important network connectivity. Street configurations within the city (direction, lanes, speed limit) were verified by field observation. The baseyear network includes all facilities existing by 1998, while the forecast network includes additional facilities as outlined in Renton's Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Because Renton's comprehensive plan places significant emphasis on multimodal transportation options, HOV facilities proximate to the City were modeled with addition detail compared to the PSRC's modeling convention. The PSRC models freeway HOV lanes by adding a single, two-way link parallel to the general-purpose links and ramps are treated as single intersection nodes. In the Renton model however, freeway HOV facilities were modeled as unique, one-way links parallel to the general-purpose freeway links. On I-405 for instance, a southbound link and a northbound link were added to the network, replacing the two-way HOV link included in the PSRC model. Additionally, HOV direct access rumps were created in detail with unique links for each ramp, rather than just as intersection nodes. Finally, "dummy links" were added prior to and after each ramp location to allow for access and egress between the HOV and general-purpose system -- — Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 22 March 29, 2006 City of Renton 1)RArr1roR:CL1WTXV1Ew Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land .Else Concept E1 Intersection -Level Forecasts At the intersection level, a Fratar growth factoring process using successive approximations was used to forecast future interchange intersection turning movements'. First published in the 1954 Hz#mq I?ffwda Bow Pam, by Thomas J. Fratar, this forecasting distribution method has been applied successfully on many transportation planning and engineering projects. Originally developed to distribute interzonal vehicular trips at a regional or subarea level, the process was later adapted for use in forecasting intersection turning movements. The objective of the successive approximation method is to determine the most logical distribution of vehicle trips expected through an intersection given future conditions of regional development or redistribution of traffic related to infrastructure investment (e.g., widening the I-405 freeway}. The procedure is not concerned with the specific techniques and processes used in regional land use and travel demand estimation, which must be prepared regardless of the method used for estimating future trip distributions through an intersection. The procedure does require that arterial. -level regional or local forecasts be available to factor the relative changes in traffic entering and leaving a particular intersection or interchange system in a future forecast year. Steps in the estimate the distribution of forecast trips include the following: 1. Identify relative growth factors between existing and future year conditions for all entering and exiting approaches of an intersection. 2. Distribute the total trips from each entering/exiting approach among the various movements in proportion to the attractiveness of each movement as indicated by variations if growth factors of each intersection leg. 3. The first distribution step produces two tentative results for each intersection turning movement. These tentative pairs are then averaged to obtain the first approximation of the movement. 4. For each intersection approach, the sum of the fast approximation volume is divided into the total volume of each intersection leg to obtain a first approximation growth factor, which will be used in the computation of a second approximation process. 5. The original movements for each intersection leg are then distributed into turning movements again in proportion to the turning movements and growth factors obtained in the first approximation process. These volumes are then averaged again, and the process is repeated until conformity or an intersection balance is reached, often around 3 or 4 successive distribution estimations are completed. However, to ensure uniformity, the spreadsheet model developed to forecast turning movements uses 10 successive distribution runs prior to generation of a final turning movement estimate. 1 Forum T Dzsmbwm cFlrmxa wl Vdxadar Tip by SrwsizeApprco wutw s, Hghway Research Board Proceedings, Thomas 1, Fratar,1954, pages 376-354. Page 3 Transportation Engineering Nortr,West, LLC March 28. 2006 City of Renton DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Under the 2030 Baseline and Land Use Concept E 1 conditions, existing tum g movement counts at all 13 study intersections during the p.m. peak hours were used as "existing 2006 conditions". Comparing the 1998 and 2030 assignments from the City's E11iIl1M/2 model, Fratar approximation factors were developed, applied, and calibrated into a Fratar spreadsheet model. An interpolation adjustment was applied to each Fratar approximation factor in order to "backout" traffic from a 2030 estimated to 2006. Estimates of 2030 p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts are provided in Attachment A under Baseline and Land Use Concept E 1 conditions. WSDOT 1-405/NE Park Drive Interchange Forecasts & Geometric Assumptions The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) provided 2030 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes and roadway geometric assumptions at the I-405/NE Park Drive interchange. Intersection # 3 — NE Park Drive at I-405 5B Ramps and Intersection # 4 - NE Park Drive at I-405 NB Ramps were the only two intersections that did not use the Fratar growth factoring process to estimate future 2030 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes with and without Land Use Concept E 1. Baseline 2030 forecasts at these ramp junctions were obtained from WSDOT to ensure consistency with the regional planning and design of 1-405 interchange systems. However, forecasts from the City of Renton's 2030 Emme/2 model were used to calculate the growth rate at the two intersections between the Baseline and Land Use Concept El in 2030, which was estimated at 1 percent or less. Therefore, at the I-405/NE Park Drive interchange, 2030 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes under Baseline conditions were factored by 1 percent to estimate volumes under Land Use Concept E 1. The following geometric assumptions at the I-405/NE Park Drive interchange were provided by WSDOT- Intersection # 3 — NE Park Drive at I-405 SB Ramps: This intersection would include four through lanes and one right -turn only lane for eastbound movements, double left -turn lanes and two through lanes in the westbound direction, and one left -turn only lane, one shared left -through lane, and one right -turn only lane in the southbound direction. Intersection # 4 - NE Paris Drive at I-405 NB Ramps: This intersection would provide double left-tum lanes and two through lanes for eastbound movements, four through lanes and one right -turn only lane in the westbound direction, and one left -turn only lane, one shared left -through lane, and one right-tum only lane in the northbound direction. Intersection Level of Service Impacts Future traffic volumes under Baseline and Land Use Concept E 1 conditions were estimated for p.m peak hour conditions in the year 2030. The weekday p.m. peak hour "baseline" traffic volumes for year 2030 without Concept E1 are shown on Figure 12. Future traffic volumes with Concept E1 traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 13. Future year 2030 traffic volume estimates are provided m Appendix B. �C�+ Page 24 �riJ: Transportation Ersgineering North`iirest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT FOR CVE.Nl" R { w,, Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept El 19 Page 25 Transportation engineering Northwest, LLC Marcie 29, 2006 City of Renton ORAPT FOR PUENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 �G Page 26 Transportation Engineering North West, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton 0"-MWCtIl5NT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Anal is - Land Use Conte E1 The intersection LOS analysis results for the weekday p.m peak hour under 2030 conditions .with and without the proposed Concept E 1 are summarized in Table 6 at all study intersections (LOS also shown in Figures 14 and 15). Table 6: 2030 P-M. Peak Hour Intprspriinn I Pvpl of SPrvir_P Immrtc ID ITraffic 2030 Without Conte t E1 2030 With Conte t E1 # Signalized Intersections Control LOS' Delay' V/C3 LOS' Dela V/C3 3 NE Park Dr / Signal B 12 0.65 B 12 0.66 1-405 SB Ramps 4 NE Park Dr / Signal C 23 0.74 C 23 0.75 1-405 NB Ram 5 NE Park Dr / NE Sunset Blvd / Signal B 11 0.76 B 11 0.76 Sunset Blvd NE 6 NE Sunset Blvd / Signal C 27 0.93 C 27 0.94 Edmonds Ave NE 7 NE Sunset Blvd / Signal A 7 0.47 A 7 0.47 Harrin ton Ave NE 8 NE Sunset Blvd / Signal B 15 0.77 B 15 0.77 NE 10th St 9 NE Sunset Blvd / Signal C 32 0.88 C 31 0.87 NE 12th St 10 NE Sunset Blvd / Signal C 26 0.79 C 26 0.78 Union Ave NE 13 NE 7th St / Signal A 7 0.52 A 5 0.44 Sunset Blvd NE ID Traffic 2030 Without Conce t E1 2030 With Conte t E1 # Unsi nalixed Intersections3 Control LOS' Dela V/C3 LOS' Delay2 V/C3 1 NE 27th Street / All -Way Stop B 13 0.48 B 14 0.49 Aberdeen Ave NE 2 NE l2th Street / Edmonds Ave NE 11 NE 10th Street / Monroe Ave NE All -Way Stop All -Way Stop B 14 0.52 C 20 0.61 12 NE 7th Street / Monroe Ave NE EB C 20 0.42 C 18 0.41 WB C 20 0.19 C 19 0.21 NB Left A 8 0.07 A 8 0.07 SB Left A 8 0.02 A 8 0.02 1. LOS analyses are based on methodologies established in the 2000 H*uay GP%dryM0Vd. 2. Delay- Average control delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. V/C- Vohame to capacity ratio. As shown above, all signalized intersections and stop controlled movements at unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS C or better except for the NE 12'S Street at Edmonds Avenue NE intersection, which would operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with and without Land Use Concept El. For this intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS, a westbound right -turn lane and southbound left -turn lane would need to be provided for the intersection to operate at LOS C under both with and without Concept El conditions. Detailed LOS analysis worksheets at all study intersections are provided in Appendix A- 7 + Traruportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 27 March 29, 2006 City of Renton 13RAFT,,,`P ).R CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 P Transportation Engineering NortnW«Page 28 t, LLC March 29, 2005 City of Renton DRAFT fOR--C-LJENrMV(EW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land- Use Concept 6 19 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 29 TMarch 29, 2006 City of Renton D ;1F1 QR,CL1ENT RE~Vil vit Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept El NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity Impacts Tables 7 and S summarize travel demand on NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard from west of I- 405 to west of Union Avenue NE in 2030 without "baseline" and with the proposed Concept E 1 of the F�ghlands Subarea Plan. As shown below, under future 2030 conditions with and without Concept E 1, all roadway sections analyzed along NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard would operate below capacity. The section located west of Edmonds Avenue NE would operate at capacity, but all other roadway sections would operate well within their relative capacity levels in 2030 with and without Concept EL Table 7: 2030 Baseline NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Caoacitv Location Geometric Assumptions Two -Way Peak Volumes' One -Way Peak Volumes' Capacity Threshold' Difference West of 1-405 6/turn channel 3,060 1,640 3,060 1,420 East of 1.405 6 2,780 1,630 2,850 1,220 East of Sunset Blvd NE & NE Park Dr 4/turn channel 3,320 1,780 2,160 380 West of1drnrrtds Ave NZ. 4/tum channel 1610 East of Edmonds Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,995 1,685 2,160 475 East of Harrinqton Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,415 1,220 2,160 940 North of NE 10th St 4/turn channel 2,470 1,340 2,160 820 South of NE 12th St 4/turn channel 2,235 1,130 1 2,160 1 1,030 North of NE 12th St 4/turn channel 2,720 1,440 2,160 720 West of Union Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,825 1,425 2,160 735 2 Source: King County Recommended Link Type Qpacity vahms. Table 8: 2030 With Concept El NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity Location Geometric Assumptions Two -Way Peak Volumes' One -Way Peak Volumes' Capacity Threshold' Difference est of 1-405 6/turn channel 3,090 1,655 3,060 1,405 ast of 1-405 6 2,815 1,650 2,850 1,200 ast of Sunset Blvd NE & NE Park Dr [East 4/turn channel 3,340 1,795 2,160 365 'est.t�f< ...._rids Ave.NE 4AUT171; i0annel 3�6 2,1.3Q 2 761v1;';., - ,. . 30 ast of Edmonds Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,985 1,685 2,160 475 of Harrin ton Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,400 1,215 2,160 945 orth of NE 10th St 4/turn channel 2,455 1,330 2,160 830 South of NE 12th St 4/turn channel 2,215 1,120 2,160 1,040 North of NE 12th St 4/turn channel 2,715 1,440 2,160 720 West of Union Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,800 1,415 2,160 745 3. Source; King County Recommended Link Type Capacity Values. Public Transportation Impacts Given the numerous existing transit stops, routes/services, and shelters located throughout the Highlands Subarea, no additional public transit services or facilities are necessary to support Land Use Concept El. %9 Page 30 Transportation Engineering North West, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT FOR CV,ENT':(t VIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept El Nonmotorized Impacts Raised sidewalks, paved walkways, concrete pathways, and/or paved/gravel shoulders are provided throughout the Highlands Subarea. The concrete pathways are however, in poor condition along some roadway sections (most notably on Edmonds Avenue NE south of NE 9th Place and Kirkland Avenue near its most northern section within the study site). The reconstruction of these to improve them as concrete pathways or change to raised sidewalks should be considered No bicycle lanes are known to be located within the Highlands Subarea. To promote a variety of transportation alternatives, consideration for bicycle lanes, facilities, or routes is recommended on appropriate routes within the Highlands Subarea, including but not limited to Edmonds Avenue NE, Harrington Avenue NE, Kirkland Avenue NE, NE 16th Street, NE 12th Street, NE 9th Street, and NE 7th Street. These bicycle facilities should be coordinated with other existing and future trails or bikeway systems in the vicinity of the Highlands Subarea. No additional nonmotorized measures are anticipated as part of Land Use Concept E 1. Parking Impacts Given the abundance of on -street parking within the Highlands Subarea, no additional on -street parking stalls are expected to be required as part of Land Use Concept E 1. However, if bicycle lanes are to be provided within the study area as previously identified, on -street parting may be impacted by installation of on -street bicycle facilities. Additionally, although there is an abundance of on -street parking, parking stalls and sections are not always distinguishable from travel lanes (Le., parking at times becomes a "free for all") or it is simply not clear if on -street parking is acceptable or allowed 'Therefore, as part of redevelopment and future transportation improvements, on -street parking allowances throughout the Highlands Subarea should be better defined whether by the use of street signs, painted areas, or fog lines. Street Illumination Impacts Given the abundance of street luminaries located within the Highlands Subarea, no additional suet illumination are anticipated to be required as part of Land Use Concept E L As redevelopment is allowed, consideration for street illumination per City design standards should be continued Page 31 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC March 29, 2006 City of Renton DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept EI RECOMMENDATIONS For the proposed ffghlands Subarea Plan, an inventory and summary of existing transportation conditions was performed. Additionally, future 2030 transportation needs under Land Use Concept E1 were analyzed for peak hour traffic volume impacts, impacts on levels of service at study intersections, arterial roadway thresholds serving the site area, public transportation services, nonmotorized facilities, parking, and street illumination. As a result of the transportation analysis, the following recommendations are proposed as part of implementation of Land Use Concept E 1: ➢ The NE 12th Street at Edmonds Avenue NE intersection would require a westbound right - turn lane and southbound left -turn lane for the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS with and without Land Use Concept E 1 in 2030. ➢ There are certain existing concrete pathway sections that are currently in poor condition and should be considered for reconstruction or be improved to raised sidewalks. ➢ To promote a variety of transportation alternatives, consideration for bicycle lanes, facilities, or routes is recommended on appropriate routes within the Hghlands Subarea ➢ If bicycle lanes are to be provided within the study area as discussed above, on -street parking may impacted As such, before on -street bicycle facilities are considered, evaluation of on - street parking impacts should be conducted. ➢ Existing on -street parking sections along roadways within the TTWhl?nds Subarea Plan should be better defined and distinguishable from travel lanes, whether by the use of street signs, painted areas, or fog lines. ➢ As redevelopment is approved, consideration for street illumination per City design standards should be continued. %9 Transportation Engineering i`lorthesi, LLC Page 32 March 29, 2006 s y> + E ,t Kathy Keolker, Mayor April 6, 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/PubIicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on April 4, 2006: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-030, R, ECF LOCATION: Text amendments would generally be citywide. Map amendments would be applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton, between NE 5th and 23rd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV-C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 24, 2006. 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 4-8-11D.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6575. For the Environmental Review Committee, Rebecca Lind Principal Planner Enclosure 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 RE N T O N AiTRAD OF THE CURVE This paperoontains50°/nrecycledmaterial,30%postconsumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-030, R, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone and Zoning Text Amendments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV-C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout, LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Text amendments would generally be citywide. Map amendments would be applicable in the Highlands Subarea, defined as an area generally located in northeast Renton, between NE 5th and 23rd Streets, between Camas Avenue NE and Queen Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: The 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 or before 5:00 PM on April 24, 2006. 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: APRIL 10, 2006 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 4, 2006 SIGNATURES: Gr g Zim exm Admi is ra or Dane Larry Rude, Interim Fire Chief to PlanninglBuildin !Public Works Fire Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date lex Pietsch, AdrTX6istrator Date Community Services DNSP City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Pub,lc, Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: t {'' , COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 31, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-030, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 17, 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Subarea Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick/Jennifer He SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: see attached map WORK ORDER NO: 7756E MAR 2 FM SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is c8td&MJNkQQ'd Nbr Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV- C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreiine Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistorialCultural Preservation Airport Ernvironmeni 10. 000 Feet 14. 000 Feet N G C. C M k g(O-�r )+7 -r l S Z ! 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 whe dit o�� rnformationeeded to properly assess this proposal. / P Z Signature df l�'irectbr or Aulhbrized'Repq*entative ' date CITY )F RENTON �¢- Economic Development, Neighborhoods and .� � Strategic Plannine March 31, 2006 Ms. Moira MacLean 1100 Harrington Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Re: Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA06-030, R, ECF Dear Ms. MacLean Thank you very much for your response to the Notice of Application for the Highlands Subarea Rezone. Your letter has been added to the project file. If you are not already a "Party of Record," your name will be placed on the Iist for future mailings related to this proposed action. It is not anticipated that the multi -unit apartment and condominium buildings will be redeveloped as a result of the Highlands Subarea planning. The City's concern is with the single-family and duplex structures, many of which have been poorly maintained over the decades since their construction in the early 1940s. Our research indicates that many of these buildings were referred to as "demountable" (temporary) when they were built to house World War 11 defense workers and their families. Their deteriorated condition contributes to a neighborhood environment that is increasingly considered unsafe and unhealthy. Thank you again for your interest in Renton. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 430-6588. Sincerely, I lle(�1,7d Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 MThis paper contains 51Y/o recycled material. 30 % post consumer RENTON "Hk.-AD OF THE CURVE Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Economic Development Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning Department ' ` " " j 1055 S. Grady Way MAR Renton, WA 98055 N L IG,H8AND STRA tiy^ March 28, 2006 Dear Ms. Lind: I am a resident at the Olympic Condominium, located at 1100 Harrington Ave. NE, right in the middle of the study area that is the subject of the Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezone. 1 strongly urge the City of Renton to allow our property to retrain undisturbed. We are thirty units of mostly owner -occupied property, limited to nine units rented at any given point, and allowing many individuals (such as myself) to buy property and own a home for the first time, Other owners here have purchased units for elderly relatives, allowing them a safe, convenient, and congenial atmosphere that should not be disrupted. As a multi -unit building, we already satisfy many of the desired attributes of properties you intend to see developed for the area in question. Therefore we are already on the City's trajectory toward higher density in the Highlands. We tape pride in our homes and have recently voted to accept an annual budget that includes a special assessment for painting, landscaping and exterior repairs_ This will add to our "curb appeal" and invite surrounding neighbors to step up and do likewise. I urge the City to consider all these matters when planning for the project. Whatever the problems in our neighborhood, we at the Olympic are victims, not perpetrators. Please go after the wrongdoers here- don't throw the baby out with the bath water! Sincerely yours, Moira MacLean l 100 Harrington Ave. NE #301 Renton 98056 (425)793-6350 Page 1 of 4 From: Inez Somerville Petersen <webgirl@seanet.com> To: Larry Warren <ljwarren@scanet.com>, <mayorkathy@ci.renton.wa.us>, CityCouncil President <rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us>, Terri Briere <tbriere@ci.renton.wa.us>, Denis Law <dlaw@ci.renton.wa.us>, Daniel Clawson <Dclawson@ci.renton.wa.us>, Don Persson <dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us>, MarciePalmer <MPalmer@ci.renton.wa.us>, Toni Nelson <Tnelson@ci.renton.wa.us>, Planning Commission Chairman Ray Giornetti <raygiometti@hotmail.com> Date: 3/30/2006 9:12 PM Subject: OBJECTION TO DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE LUA-06-030 and Compliance with SEPA Regulations CC: Jay Covington Ucovington@ci.renton.wa.us>, Terry Persson <terrypersson@seanet.com>, HOWARDMCOMBER <HOWARDMCOMBER@HOTMAIL.COM>, SeniorPlanner Rebecca Lind <rlind@ci.rcnton.wa.us>, APietsch <Apietsch@ci.renton.wa.us>, HCA President Terry Persson <tenypersson@msn.com>, HOWARDMCOMBER <HOWARDMCOMBER@HOTMAIL.COM>, RPAN <Renton-Political-Action-Network@yahoogroups.com>, <Kmcchncy@ci.renton.wa.us>, Kevin Milosevich <Kmilosevich@ci.renton.wa.us> Dear City Attorney Larry Warren, mayor, council members, and Planning Commission Chairman: Reference: http r/www.ecy.wa.go�/programs/sea/sepalcitizensguidefcitizensguide.htm SEPA Regulations - Request for City of Renton reconsider its determination of NON SIGNIFICANCE with regard to LUA- 06-030 • The following three citizens take exception to LUA-06-030, a NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)_ Inez Somerville Petersen, Terry Persson, and Howard McOmber • We believe what the lead agency, which is the City of Renton, is proposing with regard to rezoning has a SIGNIFICANT Environmental IMPACT on the Highlands. To say otherwise, when such a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in zoning is in play and use of the Community Renewal Act is on the table, flies in the face of logic. • We refer you to RCW 43.21C.031 Significant impacts and other laws which provide guidance on the proper use of a DETERMINATION of NON -SIGNIFICANCE. • Inez Somerville Petersen sent an email to Rebecca Lind on 3/30/06 asking how citizens protest when they do not agree with the lead agency's determination of "non significance." We await those instructions and will follow them immediately. • We ask that the city attorney protect the citizens of the Highlands by requiring the lead agency, which is the City of Renton, to adequately coordinate with the citizens, owners and tenants alike, who will be affected by the proposed rezoning. The wishes of the People should be given substantial weight. • We ask that the city attorney require the lead agency, which is the City of Renton, to verify the statistics it is using to justify rezoning with the intent to use the Community Renewal Act. • We ask that the city attorney prevent the lead agency, which is the City of Renton, from moving dates mentioned in LUA-06-030 to the left. This would speed the process and make citizen input more difficult, if not impossible. • The published dates of April 12 for PIanning Commission and April 17 for city council review shown in LUA-06-030 should not be changed without adequate notification to all affected parties and parties of record. And if changed, these dates should only be allowed to be moved further into the future. • We understand that there is a Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for 5 pm., tomorrow, Mar 31st, at the same time as the period expires in which to protest LUA-06-030, and this looks suspicious to us, since the Planning Comm normally meets on the 1 st and 3rd Wednesday. Page 2 of 4 This is our official protest; and, as we are unfamiliar with SEPA procedures, if we need to notarize this statement or send it to a third party before 5 pm tomorrow, then please advise us immediately so that we may do this before that 5 pm cutoff. We ask that a new environmental 'impact statement (EIS) be performed as required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c) to mitigate the concerns reiterated in this email. These concerns are credible and should not be ignored. Basis to question NON SIGNIFICANCE: • Holding a Planning Commission Meeting at an irregular time; i.e., at 5 p.m., on March 31 st at exactly the same time that comment period ends for LUA-06-030, smacks of an attempt to eliminate public dissent and to enable the city council to vote and adopt zoning before the People can mount an effective dissent. • Focus Group coordination was inadequate, Twenty citizens? • City leaders met with the developers and had plans in work before holding an open house for the citizens of the Highlands. • The Nov 15th open house mainly showed what the developers envisioned for the area in the way of high density housing. One page of citizen comments hardly shows community support for the mayor's vision. • Plot maps distributed by city leaders had picture insets from the developers of the locations and type of high density housing planned according to the mayor's vision --not the People's vision. • Council members agreed, unanimously, at the March 8th city council retreat to support Option A (copy attached); this is like a jury deciding the verdict before the trial takes place. • To make Option A work, rezoning must go forward without dissent. Calling it NON SIGNIFICANT when it isn't, is a way to accomplish this. • From the city's website, http:/lwww.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/highland.htm I quote: " As the largest landowner in the Highlands study area, coordination and partnership with the Renton Housing Authority is essential." The impact of crime arising from the tenants of the Renton Housing Authority and Section 8 housing should be investigated more fully, so that it is not erroneously used as a justification to rezone and subsequently "blight" an entire neighborhood based on the people living in the units owned by the Renton Housing Authority (federal). The statistics used by the Dan Clawson and the mayor to justify rezoning and the follow on "blighting" action are erroneous or used improperly. Time must be given to gather correct statistics which are then used in a correct context. See further comment below. . It is a SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT to change the nature of the streets, build a greenway which does not currently exist, bulldoze the existing homes, build new ones of an entirely different configuration with a much higher density, address the increased need for utilities brought about by the higher density housing, and provide for the ancillary services required by this new higher density. This is what the rezoning does, and this is what makes LUA-06-030 SIGNIFICANT. LUA-06-030 does not include environmental impacts caused by moving tenants of the Renton Housing Authority on a one-to-one basis. This important environmental consideration was totally skipped. This environmental impact should not be overlooked, as the Renton Housing Authority, according to the city's website at b=://www.ci.renton.wa.us/edasp/hig_hland.htm is the largest land owner in the study area. Questionable statistics used by Dan Clawson Dan Clawson said at the 3/27/06 council meeting, "As I remember the numbers, we've got about 3% of our property using about 20% of those resources today, so we could go up to adding or putting 40 or 50% of the police resources on that 3% of the property, but it's just not just efficient." Page 3 of 4 Questionable statistics used by the mayor The mayor said in her State of City Address: "As you might expect, this neglect and physical dilapidation has resulted in a concentration of crime and poverty. Let me give you a flavor of what residents of today's Highlands neighborhood are dealing with. The 360-acrc Highlands sULdy area is just 2.4% of Renton's total land mass. But over the past five years this area has suffered a vastly disproportionate share of the City's criminal activity: - 40% of citywide gas station robberies, - 24% of all vehicle thefts, - 18% of public nuisance cases, and - 15% of all the armed robberies, murders and drug- and alcohol -related crimes in the City, plus fully - 20% of all the fire tails, aid calls, and code enforcement complaints. All of this in just 2 %a°10 of the City s land area. These figures are staggering! This is unacceptable in Renton. No one in our community, no matter how old or how poor, should be living in conditions like these." What is the truth? My sources are Assistant Police Chief Kevin Melosovich and Commander Katie McClincy, plus a quarterly Excel spreadsheet I get under Public Disclosure. There are 95 police officers available "for the beat." At any given time, three of these officers are assigned to the Highlands. These officers are on duty 24x7, with some exceptions for transporting due to warrants, attending court, training, etc. Also, Commander McClincy will sometimes send a motorcycle policeman or the bike officers up to the Highlands. So let's do the math, and let's say that the occasional extra support Commander McClincy mentioned accounts for one more officer full time. Four officers out of 95 officer is 4 percent, not 20% as Dan Clawson asserted. Four percent of the police officers are working the Highlands. So let's now consider that in the context of the Heartland Study population information. Population - from the City's Heartland Study "A total of 5,592 persons live within one-half mile radius of Hi -lands Shopping Center. Population grows to more than 19,000 within a mile and over 77,000 within 3 miles. There are 2,509 households within a radius of one-half mile, 8,433 within a one -mile radius and more than 32,000 within a three-mile radius." Well, isn't that interesting. About 60% of Renton's population lives in the Highlands area. So what can we deduce from that? Conclusion from the facts: 60% of the population has 4% of the police resources dedicated to fighting crime. No wonder there is crime in the Highlands. When the mayor says: "Over the past five years this area has suffered a vastly disproportionate share of the City's criminal activity," it is evident why. And another thought ... Could the perpetrators of the crimes be coming from the largest landower in the Highlands study area, the Renton Housing Authority? Low class tenants with criminal tendencies living in low -rent housing do not justify rezoning an area to facilitate subsequent blighting and use of the Community Renewal Act. This is not right; and it is not fair to the other law abiding tenants and property owners who will be affected by the rezoning and subsequent blighting and use of the Community Renewal Act. But there is another important conclusion from the facts: The mayor said in her State of the City address that the Highlands constitutes 2-1/2 percent of the City's land area. And the Heartland Study indicates that 60% of Renton's populartion lives in the Highlands, so why can't city leaders assign police resources based on population? 60% of the police resources working in the Highlands would make crime a non -issue in a hurry, wouldn't it? And what if the Highlands had 20% of the police resources, which Dan Clawson thinks are already there? That would be 19 officers, and could they make a difference? I think 600% more police protection could make a difference, don't you? BUT all this leads to the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION of all ... Why would any mayor want to increase the population in an area that is only 2.5% of the cty's land mass if it alreadycontained60"/oof_its ..population? Somewhere during Mayor Tanner's reign and now Kathy's, city leaders have lost all touch with reality To partially quote the mayor, "These figures are staggering! This is unacceptable in Renton. No one in our community, no matter how old or how poor" should be subjected to city government like this. Page 4 of 4 i Closing Please revisit your Environmental Impact Statement. Don't just answer the checklist questions in a way that validates what you want to do. Revisit Option B. involve the citizens, use accurate facts in their proper context, and do what is right for the citizens of the Highlands —tenants and property owners alike. Everyone wants to improve the Highlands, but the mayor's current path is the wrong one_ Sincerely, Inez Somerville Petersen Terry Persson Howard MCOmber highlands Redevelopment Inifia— , e Problem TMay, where there were once well kept hoards and higb homeownership, the North Harrington neighborhood has become one plagued by absentee laiadlords; poorly maintained aging duplexes, increasing ca7rnc and growing pKoverty. The orea is dominated by deteriorating WW it -era duplexes, originally built to temporarily house wartime workers at the Boeing and PACC.AR punts. 'ibos+e are the saute duplexes the Seattle and King County Housing Authorities have been, demolishing around the region because of their poor condition. The Health Department has cited the area for lead paint exposure and hazardous indoor air quality duce to mold and mildew. Less than 3 pe-reent of Rerton's land mass and 12.5% of the population, the area draws 2(l"la of first aid calls, 19% of- ire calls, 20% of code er4re.etnent complaints, 24% of auto thgffs and i 5% each of the City's murders and armed robberic:, . This blighted ricighborbood rewires dratriatic action to again be the great neighborhood it once was and to right the disproportionate demand for City services. Existing market forces threaten to peFpctuate and deepen the decline of thl; r7 eighborboo€I. As social problems Worsen , ltortaeowriers have left the neighborhood. Abe eixtw laridlords have little incentive to redevelop. Their duplexes are leased and rented, +creating positive cash flow without high marrying oasts. Replacing and upgrading structures is not cost ctTective given the current below -market land values in the area and thQ low density ofd+eveiopmm. allowed under existing regulationa. The Vision Our vision is to transform the North %riington neighborhood into a retie wed, redeveloped community that is safe, waikable and attractive to people of all income lLwels with a mix of single-family houses, townhomes, card.age hoix cs. condominiums,:and apartment houic:s. A new street and allot neM ark will snake better use of the land. Pedestri connections and a greenwa,y will link homes to nearby new ,shops, parks, libraiy, the community' centers, and Renton Technical College_ lrutovative storms water systems and landscaping will add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood and reducc the environmental impacts of redevelopment. New bousing will help stimulate revitalization of'tlie Hi -Lands Shopping Center, attracting new shops, restaurants and strvices to serve reside t_s of the greater Highlands, The Highlands Rodevelopmcnt Initiative will improve the quality of life in the North Harrington neighborhood, malting it a place that people of all walks offife want to be- --no longer a place where people have to he because they have no cagier option. 'Fo achieve Ili -is vision, the ,goal of the lli glands itedeveloprnent initiative is to Improve duality of life by attracting new residential and -.ca11 mercial investment to the area_, . Concentrating on the North Harring4on neighborhood, the area with the worst problems and the greatest opportunity for change, the initiative seeks to spur nil private and public investment for redeveloping blight, OncQ this initial area is cleaned up, the market tiY ll take: the reins ---revitalizing the rernrii.ning portions of the Highlands sub -area without significant additional City involvement. To achieve fliese ;goals, EDNSP is developing a Sub -Area Plata that combines in a coinpre;llensivstrategy new, higher density zoning, key public sector investments in new irifrastrcicture, parks, library and North 1-li ghl.aatcls Community Center; partnerships with private and non-profit hornebuilders and the Renton )`lousing Authority; and potential use: of the State C:ora inunity Renewal Act, which allows c.itios to accumulate properties as part of a community redevelopment plan. EDI' F - E pmcnting two optionsiit`or impl, ntati€ n. 1) Incremental market -based development, ,,,.mbined with Housing Authott(yfn,,.-profit housing pup partnerships; and 2) These actions aforementioned, plus a redevelopment plan using the Community Renewal Act targeted at the worst blighted area in the Highlands. The latter option, our Option A, .is preferred as it. has the greater chance ofbringing about more meaning investment in a timelier manner, allows the City to make comprehensive infrastructure improvements (e.g., stonnVater detention and street/alley network) and will hilt the deterioration of the. neighborhood. th Highlands Subarea Proposed 16r# f J� y-01 ♦� ' t St. w. E! t ..1 i i ,If Rezones ?", ' Aso 10 CwW w"JWdwiai (W-F } *lands Redevelopment Str ,gy Option A Description.- Comprehensive, strategic approach based, on publietpriv,a.te partnerships to make drarnatic improvements within a few years Elements: + Develop a North Harrington Community Renewal Plan: Develop a detailed, comprehensive stmte-gy combinirte, new land use policies and zoning, investments in infi-astructure and community facilities, partnerships with one or more private hointbuilders, the 11 nton .Housi leg Authority mid non-profit homebuilders, a plan for proper(y acquisition and assembly; property owner and community engagcnient,and where needed, resident relocation assistanw. • bake Blight Declaration: City would declare targeted arm in the Hiihlands blighted based on analysis of deteriorating conditions in the neighborhood to trigger provisions of the Community Renewal Act. * ifse Communiq, Renewal Act: Implement the State Community Renewal Act to create a partnership with a pilvate developer io create a redevelopment master plan and acquire an assemblage of property large encwgh to justify higher value new homes and investment, • Invest in new public infrastructure and f'aeilides, such as low -impact storm water systems, streets and alleys, the literary and Nord=; Highlands wmmututy renter. • Select a private hornebuRder to partner in a master plan redevelopment. Develop partnership vvi.th R.e,nton Housing Authority and non-profit homebuilders to assist with relo atioza and replace and increase a wider range of duality affordable homes, * Create opportunities for existing property owners to o-tim and occupy new homes in the redevelopment. + Extensive conimunity engaenment strategy. + Reserve the right to compel properq� owners to sell on, a limited basis as a last resort, after all other tools and incentives have been exhausted. Results: • faster, more comprehensive retie-velopment of the North Harrington portion of tine sub -area, the area with the wono t coji litiowi, + Caarge�scale lanai asscnibly justifying higher duality development and investment in the are -a.. + Comprehensive approach to public iitfr. astructure investment to stimulate private rcdevelopment, Larger public investment in affordable housing, increasing the overall availability of new, quality affordable housing in Renlon, + Attractive, mixed -Income nclighborhood with a wider range of'new quality h tries serving existing and ne,�N, residents, • Increased redevelopment prospects for the. adjacent Hi -Lands shopping center. Highlands Redevelopment Strategy !T= Description. lacremental market based approach that is reactive and small scale Elements: • Develop a set of zoning changes, code amendments and policies to encourage redevelopment of many smaller parcels over longer period of time. • Continue aggressive code enforcement strati tD get private property ownem to carrot hazards at their properties within the limits of the lave. +� Work with Renton Housiag Authority to implement their play, to replace their aging housing stock. in the Highlands with new homes and apartments to meet the. changing needs of existing clients and parer with non -pro fit homebuilders to build new housing for new and future clients. • react to opportunities by connecting willing sell.ers ofpmper r to buyers interested in redevelopment on a smaller scale. City would still make new investments in library and mrnmunity enter. Results: • Slower, piecemeal redevelopment over mania yeskrs with existing s i,AlLeonditions and drain on, City services continuiDg until sometime, in the future when inc:ren ental new invL-stYment reaches critical mass to -Draw a wider r ige of market intent and family incomes. +� Existing duplexes would remain an.d allowed to expanded and/or improved. +► Below market proper values would likely continue for some time and attract lower value projects reflecting the poor condition of many individual properties next door. An exception is her happenstwice, a landoWner is able to acquire large enough property to attract higher vakie development. 0 ReAtali;ratlon or redevelopment of the MI -Lands Shopping Center is unlikely. W"„•,� �, ,r,,� JO_HNSON,CLAUDIA r�� r-t r��il.0 ���. art�warD+u1-'Yi�IV I UN AU I IV POLICE SVC SPECIALIST P2 POLICE SVC SPECIALIST P2 !t€UHLEY1P&X4A&1" & TRAINING _ POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,045.00 4,045.00 THOMAS,JACQUELINE rft 4,045.00 4,045.00 TRADER,HOLLY OLSON,KARIN KAUWELOA,LINDA - WADKINS,BARBARA HAWKINS,BRETTA HYETT,JENNIFER - rFt rft rft - rft rft POLICE SVC SPECIALIST P2 _ POLICE SVC SPECIALIST P2 _ POLICE SERVICE SPECIALIST -- POLICE SERVICE SPECIALIST POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC &TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 2,948.00 _ 4,045.00 4,045.00 i 3,854.00 - 2,948.00 POLICE SERVICE SPECIALIST POLICE SERVICE SPECIALIST POLICE -ADM SVC &TRAINING rft r-t _ rft POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING CLINE,PAUL POLICE SERGEANT _ POLICE SERGEANT -- , POLICE -ADM SVC &TRAINING _ _ _ 6,292.00 POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 6,212.00 POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 6,212.00 POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 6,212.00 POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 6,212.00 POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING _6,212.00 ;POLICE -ADM SVC _& TRAINING 6,212.00 POLICE -ADM SVC &TRAINING 6,212.00 POLICE_ -ADM SVC & TRAINING 6,212.00 POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING _ 6,212.00 POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 POLICE -ADM SVC &TIN RAING 5,402.00 SVC &TRAINING - _ 5,402.00 POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402,00 - _ - - - POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 POLICE -ADM SVC &TRAINING 5,402.00 -- DAY,MARK FRAZIER,TODD KARLEWICZ,CHARLES LEIBMAN,DAVID LUTHER,MICHAEL MERRILL,TRACY rft rft rft rft rft POLICE SERGEANT POLICE SERGEANT POLICE SERGEANT POLICE SERGEANT - POLICE SERGEANT SUMMERS,PAUL WILCOX,CLARK WILKINSON,TRACY ADAM,DAVID BOWLER,KURTIS DEERIN-_ - _ EDDY,JEFFREY EDWARDS,CHRISTOPHER- -- _ FIGARO,DANIEL GOULD,JAMES rft_ rft rft rft rft rrft rft Irft rft rft POLICE SERGEANT POLICE SERGEANT POLICE SERGEANT POLICE OFFICER P2 POLICE OFFICER P2 jPOLICE OFFICER P2 -�- - - -POLICE-ADM POLICE OFFICER P2 POLICE OFFICER P2 - --. POLICE OFFICER P2 POLICE OFFICER P2 _ POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402,00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402,00 5,402.00 5,402.00 GRAY,DAVID GRIGSBY,ROBIE HARDIN,JEFFERY _ rft _ POLICE OFFICER P2 rft POLICE OFFICER P2 rft POLICE OFFICER P2 rft POLICE OFFICER P2 rft POLICE OFFICER P2 rft POLICE OFFICER_ P2 rft POLICE OFFICER P2 rft -POLICE OFFICER P2 rft POLICE OFFICER P2 rft ,POLICE OFFICER P2 HUNTER,EUGENE JARRATT,TRACIE MACKECHNIE,KRISTIN M ONTEMAYOR, PETER PAGET,CHRISTINE SCHULDT,JON CLARK,DARYL POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING - _- - POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,722.00 4,379.00 _ - MORGAN,PATRICK rft POLICE OFFICER P2 RUTLEDGE,RYAN rft POLICE OFFICER P2 �P2 _ POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING _ POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING - 4,379.00 CITRON,CATHERINE rft !POLICE OFFICER - 4,036.00 AWAI,JOHN BARRELD,GREGORY rft_ (POLICE OFFICER rft POLICE OFFICER 5,402.00 5,402.00 BODY,RANDALL rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 RA_MER,KENNETH CROSS,RICK rft rft rft rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE OFFICER POLICE OFFICER POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING _ POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING DREHER,ROBERT _ FERGUSON,BRETT 1 of 3 4/3f2006 vrir`uryrvnr�, If1ry I Fit f t-UL ll t UrT-lL tK l:l i Y Ur KcftN I UN AU I lVR.FHUfLE)*EEAJHVU OFFICER & TRAINING GOODMAN,EDDIE rft 1POLICE POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING GUSTINE,DONALD rft POLICE OFFICER _ POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING HANSEN,KEITH _ rft POLICE OFFICER PDLECE-ADM SVC & TRAINING HEERSPINK,FRANKLIN rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING HUDSON,JASON rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING HYETT,RALPH III rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING JACOBS,COREY rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING JENSEN,RANDY rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING JUDD,BILL rft — POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING KEYES,KEVIN rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING KLINKE,MARK rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING KORDEL,PETER rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING MARTIN,BRAD rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING MATHEWS,CHRISTINE rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING MORRIS,STEVEN rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING ONISHI.ROBERT rft POLI(:F C)FFIC:FR ❑rni irP-nr)en clir k ToeiniiKUr_ 5,402.00 5,402.00 6.402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5,402.00 5.402.00 PHIPPS,SCOTT rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 RADKE,RUSSELL rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 RENGGLI,JASON rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 REYNOLDS,JEFFREY rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 RITCHIE,STEV_EN rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 RYAN,NORMAN rft POLICE OFFICER _ POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 SHAVERS,BRETT SJOLIN,CRAIG rft !POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 5,402.00 rft POLICE OFFICER SKELTON,DAVID rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 SMITH,THOMAS rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 STEED,CASSIDY rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 STRAUSS,LAWRENCE rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 TIBEAU,GtUWT ;rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 TRADER,JASON rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 VANVALEY,KEITH rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 ' WEISZ,MICHAEL rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 YOHANN,FREDRICK rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,402.00 JOHNSON,CRAIG rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,061.00 LEVERTON,ROBERT rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,061.00 SWAIN,CHANDLER rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 5,061.00 ELLIOTT,BRYAN rft POLICE OFFICER _ POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,722.00 HUMPHREYS,MICHAEL rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,722.00 THURLOW,JEFFREY rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,722.00 COLEMAN,MARK rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4.379.00 METZGER,ANDIE rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4.379.00 MUELLER,DAWN rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,379.00 TEBBETS,TYLER rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,379.00 ASHBAUGH,MEGHAN rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,036.00 BRECHT,JESS rft POLICE OFFICER POLICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,036.00 2 of 3 4/3/2006 i rw i t-UKI1,rAUL THOMAS,DELSIN TRAN.MY nri FUuL;t Ur -IULK Ul I Y UF- KEN7 ON ACT777 rft POLICE OFFICER - rft POLICE OFFICER MEMMC & TRAINING j 4,036.00 -- E-ADM SVC & TRAINING - LICE -ADM SVC & TRAINING 4,036.00 4.036.00 3 of 3 4/3/2006 p CITY JF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and ♦ Strategic Planning Kathy Keolker, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 30, 2006 Mr. Lloyd Hoshide 833 Kirkland Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056-3810 Re: Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA06-030, R, ECF Dear Mr. Hoshide Thank you very much for your thoughtful response to the Notice of Application for the Highlands Subarea Rezone. If you are not already a "Party of Record," your name will be placed on the list for future mailings related to this proposed action. As part of the preliminary study of the proposed rezone, the City of Renton has retained the services of transportation consulting engineers to analyze the potential impacts of higher density uses on the Highlands (both within the Subarea and beyond it). Trip generation by the additional housing units is a key element of their work. We appreciate your suggestions regarding traffic on Kirkland Avenue NE and other streets in the Highlands. We assure you that they will be considered as the rehabilitation plan for the Highlands Subarea moves forward. Thank you again for your interest in Renton. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 430-6588. Sincerely, r � Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 MThis vaoercontains 50 % recvcled rnatenal. 30 % cost consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE From: Lloyd Hoshide MAR 3 0 2006 833 Kirkland Ave NE Ec Renton, WA 98056-3810 March 30, 2006; Voice Phone: 425-226-5891' To: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Plannning Dept. 1066 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: LUA 06-030 R,ECF Application Name: Highlands Subarea Zoning Dear Ms. Lind: Subject application states that the proposed rezones have the potential to add 1623 housing units. The planned higher density land use can be seen as impacting the traffic volume on Kirkland Ave NE, a residential street. Kirkland Ave NE runs north and south in front of my house. The added housing units as well as the magnetic attraction of the added new big box retailers cannot help but add to the traffic volume on Kirkland Ave NE. Certain things should be done by the City of Renton to mitigate this increased traffic volume. While much of the traffic is not controllable, certain traffic running on Kirkland Ave NE is controllable: For instance, the nuisance of having large articulating transit buses running on a residential street can be mitigated by telling Metro to route their number 111 bus on Monroe Ave NE, an arterial, to NE10th Street rather than making a dogleg at NE7th Street (where virtually no one boards the 111 bus) to run north and south on Kirkland Ave NE, a residential street, (where there are no bus stops) to NE 1& Street. A second instance of controllable traffic that could be mitigated would be to have the Renton School District instruct their school bus drivers to route their empty buses over arterial streets to access the Highlands Elementary School. Certain drivers run empty buses over Kirkland Ave NE to NE a Street and hence to Harrington Ave NE to access Highlands Elementary School. It maybe that speed bumps should be considered to slow down the uncontrollable traffic. Fast north/south traffic is being currently experienced from drivers diverting off of NE 4 h Street to get to NE Sunset Blvd over Kirkland Ave NE. Fast north/south traffic is also being experienced on weekends from drivers going to/leaving from the Highlands Community Church. The above comments are submitted by a owner/resident who expects to'be impacted by the proposed rezones and subsequentdevelopment. Thanks, 6-ler--. Lloyd Hoshide PS: The above is being transmitted as attachments to email on March 3.0, 2006 to meet the March 31, 2006 by 5:00 PM deadline for comments. The o0girvat is'to follow by mail cc. Bob Gevers Y f S yy a� a� Kathy Keolkef, Mayor N March 31, 2006 Ms. Marian R. McCready 2318 NE 10"' Street Renton, WA 98056 CITY, OF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch, Administrator Re: Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA06-030, R, ECF Dear Ms. McCready Thank you very much for your response to the Notice of Application for the Highlands Subarea Rezone. Your Ietter has been added to the project file. If you are not already a "Party of Record," your name will be placed on the list for future mailings related to this proposed action. You asked questions related to property owned by your family in the Highlands area. You are correct in that your home on NE 10"' Street and your son's on NE 9`h Street are outside of the Highlands Subarea as designated for the current planning by the City. Your son's home at 626 Index Avenue NE is within the larger study area, but outside of the "core" development area. Although the plan being considered raises density in the Subarea to encourage redevelopment, the southern part of the study area, where the Index Avenue house is located, is being studied to consider a lower density alternative. The zoning that has been in place allows ten dwelling units per net acre (why the property on the north side of your son's home was able to be subdivided a few years ago). This further study will take place in June and July as part of the City's review of the Comprehensive Plan in this area. You will receive notification when that review process begins. The City's concern is with the single-family and multiplex structures that have been poorly maintained over the decades since their construction in the early 1940s. Our research indicates that many of these buildings were referred to as "demountable" (temporary) when they were built to house World War R defense workers and their families. Their deteriorated condition contributes to a neighborhood environment that is increasingly considered unsafe and unhealthy. Thank you again for your interest in Renton. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 430-6588. Sincerely, r "Gf Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 R E LV 1 O N AHEAD OF THE CURVE This papercentains50�� recycled material.304�opostconsumer Marian R. McCready 2318 N. E. I0`h Street Renton, WA. 98056 Rebecca Lind Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA. 98055 March 27, 2006 Dear Rebecca Lind R i . :, 4 MAR 2 Z006 � rcor�ouic �=v=u�u!�t�NT. Who decides which homes in the Renton Highlands neighborhood are in poor condition? If you change the zoning to Center Village Residential (CV-R) zone, does this mean the homes that are there are to be condemned? I took a drive through the proposed location in the Highlands, the area to be rezoned south of NE 16" Street, north of NE 9' Street, east of Edmonds Ave. and west of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and NA' 12" Street. Some of these houses are new. What happens to them? I live at 2318 N.E. 10' Street and don't think my house will be affected. I am concerned very much about my son who lives at 626 Index Ave. Can you tell me if his house will have he replaced?' / F- r I also have a son who lives at 2304 V' St. and don `t think his house will be affected. So, you can see why this is so disturbing to me. Sincerely, Marian R McCready y p CITY OF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and + ♦ Strategic Planning Kathy Keolker, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 31, 2006 Ms. Lennice A. Dalrymple 1209 Jefferson Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056-3119 Re: Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA06-030, R, ECF Dear Ms. Dalrymple Thank you very much for your letter sent in response to the Notice of Application for the Highlands Subarea Rezone. If you are not already a "Party of Record," your name will be placed on the list for future mailings related to this proposed action. This letter is being sent to reassure you that the planning for the Highlands Subarea is still in the early stages. No decisions have been made regarding exactly where redevelopment will occur. There have been no determinations made as to value of properties. What is known, is that many owners of property in the Highlands Subarea have not reinvested in their property the way you have. Conditions in the Highlands Subarea have continued to decline markedly over past decades with no significant area -wide reinvestment nor upgrading of what was, in many cases, intended to be temporary housing built in the early 1940s. Police and fire statistics indicate that there is widespread lack of safety and security in the area, far more so than in other Renton neighborhoods. It is not the intention of the city of Renton to "take property." If property owners do not respond to worsening conditions, however, the City of Renton may step in to make corrections in this regard so that the safety of seniors and families can be increased. Thank you again for. your interest in Renton. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 430-6588, Sincerely, Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 ANIniph,M,n, t-1 znoi RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Rebecca find Planning Manager Economic Dev. Neighborhood Strategic Dept 1055 S Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 To whom it may concern. RE Zoning Changes March 28, 2005 AJAR 3 0 2006 r. I have owned my property since 1964 and it is now still owner occupied. My husband purchased This particular piece of propertyso in case anything happened to him I would have an Income.. I have worked for27 years until I retired from Seattle First National Bank. I withdrew my Retirement money in one lump sum and put it Into an IRA. When I was old enough I took out my Funds and have remodeled my home so that I can live in comfortably. My home has a forced alr furnace with a air conditioner because when I had to remove my tree so the City could fix the sidewalk in front of my house it left me no shade and I could not Take the heat. I have had a kidney transplant and the medicines require me to stay out of the Heat So my Brother paid to install air conditioning with an air r purification system to Be paid when the propertyls sold. I also have to have dean air as I have bronchial problems Which turn Into bronchial pneumonia. There Is now, no place drat I could buy with what you want to pay me for my home as I have had to Refinance my home In order to cover my medical expenses and to sell it now and pay off my Pills would leave me without enough for a down payment on some other less desirable home. Much less not having the extra income from the rental. I realize that the outer part of my property is run down as I have not been able to do the work. I Now have Tenants in the Rental that are taking care of the yard and have already hauled 5 loads of Garbage left by previous tenants. And my Nephew has agreed to paint my duplex this Spring. am disabled because of diabetes. I have had surgery on my eyes so I have given up driving as I have no peripheral vision. I take the Access Bus because I can't get my legs high enough to get Into a regular bus and sometimes I need to use a walkier. When I applied for assistance from the organization that is suppose to help elderly low income people they would not even consider me because I have rental property. All other organizations I have tried to get help from are the same. Can you explain to me how you are going to compensate for the loss of my beautiful and comfortable home and forthe loss of my rental income and still let me live in the City of Renton that has been my home for 42 years? The loss of my association with myfamily, friends and Church Family who reside in Renton and who look after me and take me to my many Doctors, pick up my Medicines, and take me shopping, or if I'm underthe weather, do my shopping for me? This is what I will lose if you rezone the area in which I live and let the City of Renton forces me out of my home. i don't see how a Government Agency can rezone and then take the property of a hard working and now disabled American Citizen and put them out on the street with no place to go except on welfare and other public assistance. I was raised to believe in our Country and the rights of our people to own property. It doesn't say anything in the Constitution that when you get old and disabled and can't maintain it as others would like, thatthe Government can come along and take everything you have worked so hard for. Therefore I am totally againstthis rezoning project of the City of Renton. Since ly, Lennice A Dalrymple 1209 Jefferson Ave NE Renton, Washington 98056-3119 o� CITY )F RENTON P) �y Economic Development, Neighborhoods and + Strategic Planning March 31, 2006 Ms. Bonnie L. Lewis 1520 Harrington Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Re: Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA06-030, R, ECF Dear Ms. Lewis Thank you very much for your response to the Notice of Application for the Highlands Subarea Rezone. Your letter has been added to the project file. The notification you received was an announcement of proposed rezoning of portions of the Highlands designated as a Subarea. The proposed plan is to increase the housing density allowed in the area so that property owners will have incentive to redevelop their property with new housing. The City's concern is with the single-family and multiplex structures that have been poorly maintained over the decades since their construction in the early 1940s. Our research indicates that many of these buildings were referred to as "demountable" (temporary) when they were built to house World War H defense workers and their families. Their deteriorated condition contributes to a neighborhood environment that is increasingly considered unsafe and unhealthy. As the Mayor indicated in her response to your earlier correspondence, the City has made no decision to use eminent domain as part of the redevelopment of the Highlands. Thank you again for your interest in Renton. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 430-6588. Sincerely, k&4J, Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 RE��NTON AHEIAU OF THE CURVE :in nn.Or n.mmar ������� s���,��� _ _ _ .._ ~ fl e �JJ f 1 � 1� � -" ���� �� _ � .�� �� ����r� �`� �� '� R� MpR � � � o s �EUpP 9;. N 1 , City o..,znton Department of Planning / Building / Pub _ _ Norks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT; / ` �E ` ; ' �bc , .: COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 31, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-030, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 17, 2006 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind MAR PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Subarea Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick/Jennifer Hen SITE AREA: UTILITY SYSTEMS BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION; see attached map I WORK ORDER NO, 77564 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV- C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmeotai Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htfGlare Recreation Utilities Trans orlation Public Services Histanc/Cuitural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet '�T-F�i 1 cal-- SV IC.>✓ � � �-1 c� � �-t M�� . B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed Ibis application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Ren..,.. Department of Planning / Building / Public V ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: `�o COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 31, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-030, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 17, 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Subarea Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren KittricklJennife " SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: see attached map WORK ORDER NO: 77564 a�6 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea whicH3W1Ll*2lJt ft0SqDNked for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV- C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/ShoreNne Use Animals Environmental Health Enorgyl Natural Resources IQ4 B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS KA C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS �0'4-- Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistoridCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal or Authorized Representative . �? Z., �) Date City of Re...—n Department of Pianning / Building / Public 1. As ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 31, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-030, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MA 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT MANAGE . Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Subarea Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Ka Je nnin SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA oo LOCATION: see attached map WORK ORDER NO: 77564 _ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV- C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at fuli buildout. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major impacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health r=nerrgy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housin Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistonalCulturai Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposai. Signature of Director or Representative Date City of Re,..—n Department of Planning / Building / Public l . ns ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 31, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-030, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MA APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT MANA : Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Subarea Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Ka Fen i rcklJennifer Hennin SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA ~� LOCATION: see attached map WORK ORDER NO: 77564 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV- C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Wale( Plants LandfShorefine Use Animals Eaviranmentat Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utitifies Transportation Public Services Historic/cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 where additional informoon is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Ren.on Department of Planning I Building I Public L. u, xs ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �(� %V .. COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 31, 2006 R E E ! V F APPLICATION NO: LUA06-030, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 17, 2006 MAR APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Subarea Rezone BUILDING i PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick/Jennifer Henning SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: see attached map I WORK ORDER NO: 77564 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV- C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources I V LU B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Fh ION Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htlGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Hislorio'Cutturai Preservation Airport Environment IQ 000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to these areas irr which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sign ui of Directoi or Au i d Representative Date FIRE DEPARTMENT .(7" �� ) M E M O R A N D U M DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MITIGATION ITEMS: 1. N/A March 20, 2006 Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager James Gray, Assistant Fire Marsha Highlands Subarea Rezone FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The minimum 20 foot paved fire department access roadways shall be provided throughout all proposed new developments. The turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside shall be provided per the adopted Fire Code. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. i:leresite.doc City of Ren.—n Depar anent of Planning / Building / Public l . ",Ks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIQ_N--RE-V:-FE;W-SffEET-- REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: t"�''_ COMMENTS DUE: MARCH �,'l 06 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-030, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARPH 1 20 APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Re ' cca Bind PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Subarea Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kitt ick/Jennifef'HO�rin' `V ^',i :~ a SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): Ni4 LOCATION: see attached map WORK ORDER NO: 77564 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV- C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Nor? -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major impacts More Informafion Necessary Earth Air Water Piants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS 0 Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet C. CODE -RELATED COIVMEN� tot We have reviewe this application particular attention to these areas in which we have expertise and have identy red areas of probable impact or areas where ad lit nal information i eeded to properly assess this proposal. Signature d� Vector or Authorized Re entative Date City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public VYw Ks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: � � L�+j �_,;,t, t COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 31, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-030, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 17, 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton, EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Subarea Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick/Jennifer Henn in U, SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA I V E D LOCATION: see attached map WORK ORDER NO: 77564 MAR 2 D SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which i cUrrgr tJx¢ fgig_n� t dnfor Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Res l�rit� ���9'(�t �i[ Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV- C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources fQk- S. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS KA_ C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS �jA- Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hUGlare Recreation utifities Transportation Public Services HistoriclCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet 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 where additional infprmation is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1 si n t r of irector or Authorized Representative Date Uti�X �� � � 4 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: March 17, 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-06.030 R, ECF APPLICATION NAME: HIGHLANDS SUBAREA ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of Inn highlands Subarea which ;s currently desgnatad for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercal Ne.ghhnnccod {CNj, Residential-10 (R-15). Center 'Allege (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being convened into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV-C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a net zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allow medium density res-denlial uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate In the Center Wlage Flck Banns ❑ismct am subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The mange rr allowed denSlty In this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposal is located in the Highlands Subarea in the NW Y. of Section 4 and Me SW 7 of Section 9 in Township 23 N, Range 5 E. The area to be rezored is south of NE 16a Street, North of NE 9"' SireeL East of Edmonds Ave, and West of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and NE le Sbee:. See attached map - OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE IDNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that signii environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed zoning. Therefore, as perni under the RCW 43.21C.I 10. the Chy of Fill is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. m Coment 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 paned will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 16, 2006 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 17, 2006 PenmitarRevlew Requested: Environmental (Sl Review and Rezone Other Permits which may be requlred: NIA Requested Studies: Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed capacity increase of "..623 units at full buildout. Location wham application may be mvlewed: Pianning/BuildinglPubGe Works Division, Development Services Deparment, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on the proposed mining changes is scheduled to be he before the City of Renton Planning Commission on April 12. 2008. and before In. Renton Crty Council on April 17, 2006. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is located wthin the Center Village (CV) Cornxeheoswe Plan Land Use Map designations. The proposed rezones are consistent . i:h tr'.is lava use designator, as well as relevant land use policies adopted -n the Cuv of Renton Comprehensive Plan, adopted November 1, 2DD4. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Miligation: NOA 0i Environmental Checklist prepared March 16. 7006 Proposed MiHgardon Measum: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. Howii mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed at the time of a site speak development proposal on the subject 610- Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 0055, by 5:00 PM on March 31. 2DD6. li you have questions about this proposal, a MSh to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mall, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments wih aulomallrally became a party of record and will be notified of any decision or, this pmjecL CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND t425t 430-65a13 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPF? FILE IDENTIFICATION iiiiifj -11 4 NE loth PI NE Loth St. NE I7th py. NE17th S1 � � s t7jhPt_ tlth W"Fifth SI St y� I ;31h -S NF 8H1 ` E 7th J highland& Sublarea PwpOsed Relzmes r.,w.,,awwwr..w„w.asa...r n..r. t�a.enirss+rwM�nr�'A�w � tea". �ri nmr. Y o.a..•'ara.wrrwuGwC f you would like to be made a party of record to receive Further information on this proposed project, complete his form and return to: City of Renton, Development Services, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 95055 ^Ile NoJName: LUA-06ON, R, ECF f Highlands Subarea Rezone This non -project action will be subject to the Crty's SLPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and repulatior:s as 4AMIE: appropriate- ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NO., t0A 06-030 CERTIFICATION I, !r \t u -i , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me in liconspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: / r' SIGNED: �� 4; 4 !LL, ; �: '� ~� t,� +tu `++, r' A4i ATTEST; Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary I'Liblic, in and for the State of Washington residing in = s� � � ip • :tS j�tIr I j1c;: =or on the �� day of �r. f 1.., �� U�t- O �, l NOTARY P BLIC SIG A + f NlMr"Viek 't!a`� Y �+htt OF cop �f' . CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 171" day of March, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing NOA, Environmental Checklist & PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Surrounding Property Owners — NOA only See Attached Parties of Record — NOA only See Attached Agencies — NOA, Env. Checklist & PMT's See Attached (Signature of Sende STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS COUNTY OF KING } twt I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Judith Subia 1 Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated:'.3�a 41���� Notary Public in and for We State of Washington EX = `'-,.tom s C a"���04o%,(F�nt): .o mem- �pointfnent Ofres: i Project Name% s Subarea Rezone f Project Number: f LUA06-030, R, ECF I AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. ' Environmental Review Section c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or $EPA Reviewer PO Sox 47703 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 — 172"d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region ` Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"d Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp_ of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn. Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72d Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: KRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork, template - affidavit of service by mailing WONG D & C 1 LLC CCSIRENTON HOUSING LIMITED HUME INVESTMENTS LTD 6311 SEWARD PARK AV S 100 23RD AV S 401 1124 LONSDALE AV SEATTLE WA 98118 SEATTLE WA 98144 NORTH VANCOUVER BC V7M2H1 RICHARDS EUGENE M+CATHERINE 1402 22ND NE #440 AUBURN WA 98002 RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 970 HARRINGTON NE RENTON WA 98056 THRIFTY PAYLESS INC NO 5203 PO BOX 3165 HARRISBURG PA 17105 RICHARDS EUGENE M+CATHERINE 1402 22ND NE #440 AUBURN WA 98002 FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON WA 98055 FERRELLI DANIEL J+HELEN J 10115 214TH AV N E REDMOND WA 98053 SUNSET PLAZA SHOPPING CNTR ZAG LLC CIO HALLISSEY R J CO INC 9010 SE 40TH ST 12835 BELLEVUE-REDMOND RD 140 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 BELLEVUE WA 98005 JAFFE STEVEN L+SANDRA L 4575 SOMERSET PL SE BELLEVUE WA 98006 CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH 1032 EDMONDS AV NE RENTON WA 98055 LUKOWSKI DAVID G+JACKIE L 1164 CAMAS AV NE RENTON WA 98056 FRIENDLY FUELS INC 1190 SUNSET BL NE STE F RENTON WA 98056 RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 970 HARRINGTON NE RENTON WA 98056 SMITH RICHARD J+CHERI MAGER 1007 EDMONDS AV NE RENTON WA 98056 VAN DUINE DAVID W 2335 NE 12TH ST RENTON WA 98056 AGABIAN NINA 1417 HEARST AV BERKELEY CA 94702 RICHARDS MICHAEL W PO BOX 179 RENTON WA 98057 SUNSET PLAZA SHOPPING TR CIO R J HALLISEY CO INC 12835 BEL-RED RD SUITE 140 BELLEVUE WA 98005 LOONEY WILLIAM A PO BOX 1435 TACOMA WA 98401 BRIAN WOOD CORPORATION P 0 BOX 503 RENTON WA 98057 RIC21 LTD CIO CSK AUTO INC-PROP MGMT PO BOX 19063 PHOENIX AZ 85005 CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH 1032 EDMONDS AV NE RENTON WA 98055 FRIENDLY FUELS INC 1190 SUNSET BL NE STE F RENTON WA 98056 AGABIAN NINA 1417 HEARST AV BERKELEY CA 94702 CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH PUGET SOUND ENERGYIELEC WONG BINH KHUONG TATHA 1032 EDMONDS AV NE 611 NW 3RD ST 2755 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98009 RENTON WA 98056 SHANE MICHAEL C ARCARIUS HOMES LLC CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH 513 CEDAR AV S 6947 COAL CREEK PW #257 1032 NE EDMONDS AV RENTON WA 98055 NEWCASTLE WA 98059 RENTON WA 98056 MATHIESON FLORENCE B NASS IVAN L & BEATRICE M TRI C & L LTD PTSHP PO BOX 2025 960 EDMONDS AV NE 5444 E MERCER WY RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 CHURCH OF CHRIST RENTON RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH C/O ALLEN RICHARD S PO BOX 2316 1032 EDMONDS AV NE 13411 163RD AV SE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 CHURCH OF CHRIST RENTON B F TURNBULL INC B F TURNBULL INC CIO ALLEN RICHARD S 17035 12TH AV NE 17035 12TH AV NE 13411 163RD AV SE SHORELINE WA 98155 SHORELINE WA 98155 RENTON WA 98059 TRAN TIMOTHY GUR TOWN HOME LLC FREEMAN JEFFREY R+ELEANOR H 16217 205TH PL SE 24323 119TH AV SE CIO CURTIS WEST REALTY INC RENTON WA 98059 KENT WA 98030 222 QUEEN ANNE AV N SEATTLE WA 98109 J & D ADVENTURES DANG FRANK P ROOMES DAVID M 608 GRANT AV S 968 EDMONDS AV NE 964 EDMONDS AV NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NASS IVAN L+BEATRICE HINTZ LORI RUIZ FRANCISCO J+LOPES-RUIZ 960 EDMONDS AV NE 1194 EDMONDS PL NE 1190 EDMONDS PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 ARGOSINO ANDREW WOEHRLE TODD HANAN KEVIN A+LEA R 1186 EDMONDS PL NE 1182 EDMONDS PL NE 1178 EDMONDS PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 CHAKRA 1 LLC REED KEVIN TURNER MATTHEW A 6947 COAL CREEK PKWY SE #228 1170 EDMONDS PL NE 1166 EDMONDS PL NE NEWCASTLE WA 98059 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MOSQUEDA RICARDO D STILES JOHN C+MARGARET E GOZZIP PAUL SR + ANELITA 1162 EDMONDS PL NE 1158 EDMONDS PL NE 1154 EDMONDS PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 TANG EDWARD H+YVES DOLLEMAN RICHARD L GATCHALIAN DELFIN E+DAISY W 2412 NE 11TH CT 2406 NE 11TH CT 2403 NE 11TH CT RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 DE ROJAS PATRICIA SANCHEZ ET AL 8515 NE 135TH ST KIRKLAND WA 98034 TRAN TOAN THANH 2435 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 WONG CONNIE+YIM HUNG P O BOX 214 RENTON WA 98057 PHIPPS PATRICIA J 1213 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER D 2412 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 TRELOGGEN LAURIE L 2424 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 PATULOT SILVINO P 2436 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 SAID MOHAMMED+MEKOYET,BERIT 2822 NE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98056 PEREZ JOSE+FABIOLA HERNANDEZ 2415 NE 11TH CT RENTON WA 98056 LEWISON CHRISTIAN L+ANNA J 1222 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 PRIDDLE MATTHEW+JENNIFER 1204 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WELLING S LUKE 1223 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WONG YIN HA 2416 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 MAYFIELD NIVEA PRIETO MAYFIELD STEPHEN RUSSELL JR 2428 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 ELIZABETH PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSN 2412 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 LAMBERT CRAIG J 821 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98056 SINAMBAN RICARDO+LEONETTE 2430 NE 12TH ST RENTON WA 98056 GREEN PATRICIA A 1218 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 PARKER NICHOLAS R 1209 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 LEWIS DESI D 2408 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 LELAND PAUL 1205 N 27TH PL RENTON WA 98056 MAYI DIEUDONNE+BIBIANE 2432 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 ST MATTHEW LUTHERAN CHURCH 1700 EDMONDS AV NE RENTON WA 98056 GATEWOOD VOYLHACELLA 825 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98122 LAMBERT KATHRYN L+DARYL M DEOSKEY ANITA PENA BERNARDO P 829 INDEX CT NE PO BOX 2962 837 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 POZA EDGAR B+ELBA DE SARGENT JOHN+DINSMORE DRON ANDREY+DRON FEDORA 841 INDEX CT NE MARTHAJEAN MARTI 840 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98056 845 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 VEITCH DONALD CHANEY GREGORY A+MADELINE W BOYD WILLIAM H 836 INDEX CT NE 832 INDEX CT NE 17107 2ND AV SW RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 NORMANDY PARK WA 98166 STAPLETON TIMOTHY MICHAEL MONTAGUE ROBERT G+CHERYL S STEVENSON MARLENE A 824 INDEX CT NE 820 INDEX CT NE 2902 NE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BURGESS RONALD G & DORIS A JONES JOHN RICHE JOAN Y 2908 NE 8TH PL 2914 NE 8TH PL 2920 NE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LONG MELANIE J+CHRISTOPHER JARAMILLO LARRY ET AL KIM SUNNY A+HUANG ZUTAO 839 JEFFERSON AV NE 845 JEFFERSON AVE NE 851 JEFFERSON AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LY VY LONG+NGA THI NGUYEN THAN VANANH+DUC VAN BURROWS DAVID W+SUSAN T 857 JEFFERSON AV NE 15509 SE 179TH ST 1620 ROLLING HILLS AV S RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 CHAU LINH M HARRIS JOHN F & LINDA L LOPEZ RUBEN F 850 HARRINGTON AV NE 1115 N 35TH ST 8920 5TH AV S RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98108 SMITH SUSAN LOUISE+FISCHER KRISHNAN PALGHAT V CHEN CECIL Y+SUE J PETER ALLAN 1048 LYNNWOOD AV NE 13417 SE 330TH PL 14321 148TH PL SE RENTON WA 98055 AUBURN WA 98092 RENTON WA 98059 7TH DAY ADVENTIST 7TH DAY ADVENTIST WEST CURTIS A+HEDY E RENTON 03445-064 RENTON 03445-064 222 QUEEN ANNE AV N 20015 BOTHELL WY SE 20015 BOTHELL WY SE SEATTLE WA 98109 BOTHELL WA 98012 BOTHELL WA 98012 WEST CURTIS+HEDY E TISHA LLC TISHA LLC 222 QUEEN ANNE AV N 6167 NE 195TH CT 6167 NE 195TH CT SEATTLE WA 98109 KENMORE WA 98028 KENMORE WA 98028 HUME INVESTMENTS LTD POLLEY L R PILLON HELEN B STE 401 1124 LONSDALE AV 1058 KIRKLAND AVE N E 1054 KIRKLAND AV NE N VANCOUVER BC V7M2H1 0 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 ZEIGER ALAN F REARDON STEPHEN K KNIGHT LENA B LIVING TRUST 1034 KIRKLAND AV NE 1028 KIRKLAND AV NE 1022 KIRKLAND AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 NOLAND ROBERT L & LEROY M LOTTO MYRTLE BRAND MITCHELL ALAN 1016 KIRKLAND AV NE 1023 LYNNWOOD NE 1029 LYNNWOOD AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 WEAVER JOHN & CHERIE BENBOE CLINTON J+BARRETT,CH RAUENHORST DEAN A 1035 LYNNWOOD AV NE 1041 LYNWOOD AV NE 1047 LYNNWOOD AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MASCHO MARVIN M+DIANA L SASIN BOGDAN HARDY ROBERT E+MARY A 1053 LYNNWOOD AV NE 1061 LYNNWOOD AV NE 1065 LYNNWOOD AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PETROV ANATOLY SHARPSTEEN W C D WHITE L L C 1069 LYNNWOOD AV NE 1075 LYNNWOOD AV NE 1081 LYNNWOOD AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SINDAYEN ESTER ROBERTS JALYN L SCAPPINI RICHARD J & TERRE 1212 DAYTON AV NE 1208 DAYTON AV NE 2400 NE 12TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 WOODS MICHAEL G JR KIMBALL MARK D LAI DAVID W+LAI CHRISTINA Y 1301 EDMONDS AV NE 10900 NE 4TH #2300 8933 SE 54TH ST RENTON WA 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98004 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 NGUYEN LUYEN V STERLINGTON K W DUNN CONSTANCE F 923 FERNDALE CIR NE PATTON G 514 LOBOS AV RENTON WA 98056 PO BOX 2186 PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950 RENTON WA 98056 SEELEY FRANK S+SEELEY GAMUNDI GUILLERMO GORMLEY OWEN C+KATHLEEN M DOROTHY W 939 FERNDALE CIR NE 2820 NE 23 PL 935 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MEDRANO BALTAZAR JOHNSON DONALD L &TRISTIE L SVIDENKO VLADIMIR+ELVIRA 947 FERNDALE CIR NE 951 FERNDALE CIR 955 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 ZULAS DIANE J FREED ALFRED B+ SONG Y WONG KIN YIP+KUEN-WONG 4238 189TH AV SE 2511 NE 9TH PL JEANNE CHILI ET AL ISSAQUAH WA 98027 RENTON WA 98056 2600 W BIG BEAVER RD TROY MI 48084 TIMMONS DARRELL K SKYWIRE PROPERTIES LLC MARTINEZ GILBERTO+ANDRES 912 FERNDALE CIR NE 227 BELLEVUE WAY NE 227 BELLEVUE WY NE PMB 154 920 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98004 ROSS SIMON & YULIYA BRICKSHIRE MANOR APTS FIELDS TOMMY M+BRENNA M 904 FERNDALE CIR NE C10 JOHNSON SCOTT L 2611 NE SUNSET BL RENTON WA 98056 5164 150TH PL SE RENTON WA 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98006 BUFFALO SAM & HAZEL TROXEL JON E OBERMEIT RICHARD THOMAS JAMES W & SHIRLEY PO BOX 383 28707 13TH AV S 15439 SE JONES RD SHAW ISLAND WA 98286 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 RENTON WA 98058 SMITH GREGG GLENWOOD 906 L L C FLOTH KEVIN 6811 RIPLEY LN N 3437 60TH AV SW 24700 214TH AV SE RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98116 MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 WALKER W L HAYWOOD ERIC & JIE MALESIS ENTERPRISES 1517 UNION AV NE 4008 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N #3 12865 SE 223RD PL RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98056 KENT WA 98031 CW HOLDINGS LLC CW HOLDINGS LLC VUKOV S J PO BOX 1433 PO BOX 1433 5641 PLEASURE PT ISSAQUAH WA 98027 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 BELLEVUE WA 98006 VUKOV S JOHN+JEAN M DE DIOS JESUS+DE DIOS MARICELA AGULTO ERLINDA B 5641 PLEASURE PT LN 2615 NE 9TH ST 2619 NE 9TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR CITY OF RENTON FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR 1055 S GRADY WY OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON WA 98055 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF RENTON PERSSON TERRY+BILLIE 970 HARRINGTON NE 1055 S GRADY WY 2821 NE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 KACHEL RICHARD 7940 BEN HOGAN DR LA VEGAS NV 89149 HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF RENTON P O BOX 2316 RENTON WA 98056 FISHER KENNETH L+CATHERINE L PO BOX 22636 SEATTLE WA 98122 SOHAL ARVINDER S 1428 KIRKLAND AV NE RENTON WA 98056 DALPAY JAMES W JR+JULIE A PO BOX 2436 RENTON WA 98059 THUERINGER DARVIN G 3100 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 GREENLUND JAMES R PO BOX 4261 KENT WA 98032 HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ATTN R W RALSTON 3031 NE 10TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 2900 NE 10TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 2900 NE 10TH ST RENTON WA 98056 LIMING LOREN D 3102 NE 15TH PL RENTON WA 98056 THUERINGER DARVIN G 9601 S 248TH ST KENT WA 98031 GILLETTE KIMBERLEY D 1324 KIRKLAND AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HALLESY HAROLD W 830 SW CHANNON DR SEATTLE WA 98166 KAYO OIL ATTN MARKETING PO BOX 1539 PASO ROBLES CA 93447 HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH 3031 NE 10TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON HOUSING AUTH 3017 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98056 VANBUREN ERIC M+CAMILLE G 1204 PIERCE PL NE RENTON WA 98056 ZIMMERMAN MARK E 4600 NE 12TH ST APT 4 RENTON WA 98059 ALDER REBECCA 3112 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 THUERINGER DARVIN G 405 WILLIAMS AV N RENTON WA 98055 FAWCETT GREG+SABRA P 0 BOX 402 FALL CITY WA 98024 HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH 3031 NE 10TH ST RENTON WA 98055 HARRINGTON SQUARE ASSOCIATE CIO REIS GROUP 1020 108TH AV NE #215 BELLEVUE WA 98004 HARRINGTON SQUARE ASSOCIATE SAFEWAY INC STORE 0366 HOUSING AUTHORITY CIO REIS GROUP CIO COMPREHENSIVE PROP TAX CITY OF RENTON 1020 108TH AV NE #215 1371 OAKLAND BL STE 200 P 0 BOX 2316 BELLEVUE WA 98004 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 RENTON WA 98056 LAI DAVID W+LAI CHRISTINA Y SAFEWAY INC STORE 0366 8933 SE 54TH ST CIO COMPREHENSIVE PROP TAX UNITED STATES MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 1371 OAKLAND BL STE 200 2605 SUNSET LN NE 98056 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY YADAV & GILL LLC GRETER HIGHLANDS LTD PRTSHP 970 HARRINGTON NE 2800 NE SUNSET BL C10 MORRIS PIHA MGMT GROUP P O BOX 53290 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98015 U S BANK CORPORATE PROPS GREATER HILANDS LTD PTNRSHP ALEXANDERSEN E 2800 E LAKE ST CIO MORRIS PIHA MGMT GROUP PO BOX 441 LAKE0012 PO BOX 53290 MILTON WA 98354 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406 BELLEVUE WA 98015 SADO MASAMI ST PETER MARK P MURPH FRANCES M 1143 HARRINGTON AV NE 1135 HARRINGTON AV NE 1053 SHELTON AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 DAO EMILIE COLE LETTY E SALAVEA MALU+BERNADETTE PO BOX 40462 1073 HARRINGTON AV NE PO BOX 2694 BELLEVUE WA 98005 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 COLE LETTY LAITILA WILLIAM P+JENNIFER A DAO EMILIE 1073 HARRINGTON AV NE 5609 S SHERIDAN AVE PO BOX 40462 RENTON WA 98056 TACOMA, WA 98408 BELLEVUE WA 98005 PETERSON JOHN S MCPHERSON DOROTHEY R BARKER SHARON A 1007 N 36TH 1140 GLENWOOD AV NE 15718 SE 143RD ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 NGUYEN TRI MINH MALETTA DONALD M & M J MALETTA DONALD 2601 NE 12TH ST 1509 N 24TH ST 1509 N 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 CARLTON VISTA LLC UNSDERFER BRIAN+GLORIA CHEUNG KARSON+SANDY B VUONG 2103 LAKESHORE DR RAMIREZ 1159 GLENNWOOD AV NE MANSON WA 98831 1165 GLENNWOOD AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PERRINE LINDA C RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY DALPAY PROPERTIES L L C 1155 GLENWOOD AV NE PO BOX 2316 PO BOX 2436 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 VISSER JAN H LALANGAN IRENEO V+SUSAN M BARKER SHARON A 19404 102ND AV SE 1150 MONROE AV NE 15718 SE 143RD ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY GREATER HILANDS LTD PTNRSHP GREATER HILANDS 970 HARRINGTON NE CIO MORRIS PIHA MGMT GROUP PO BOX 53290 RENTON WA 98056 PO BOX 53290 BELLEVUE WA 98015 BELLEVUE WA 98015 SMITH JOHN+SHARON L CURLEY PAMELA ANNE RENTON CITY OF 12216 164TH AV SE 1808 COUNTRY MANOR RD 1055 S GRADY WY RENTON WA 98059 FORT WORTH TX 76134 RENTON WA 98055 WILLIAMS GERALDINE WILSON PETERSON JOHN S STEWART MARY C 617 CAMAS AV NW 1007 N 36TH PO BOX 1552 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 WINTERHAVEN CA 92283 BALDRIDGE HOWARD L ZIMMERMAN MARK E ZIMMERMAN MARK E 1526 JEFFERSON AV NE 4600 NE 12TH ST APT 4 4600 NE 12TH ST #4 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 GUARINO ANTHONY+MICHELLE CARTER DEAN E ERICKSON ROBERT E & MARIE P 1429 KIRKLAND AV NE 42918 SE CEDAR FALLS WY 1407 G ST SE RENTON WA 98056 NORTH BEND WA 98045 AUBURN WA 98002 SIENKIEWICZ WLADYSLAW PETERSON CHARLES A+DIANE C MCMILIAN SHERRY 1401 KIRKLAND AV NE 16954 151 ST AV SE KELLY SANDRA RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 37307 ENCHANTED PKWY S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SMITH JEANETTE GIBBONS NONA M PACECCA VINCENZO A 15714 SE 25TH ST PO BOX 2767 3870 80TH AV SE BELLEVUE wa 98008 RENTON WA 98056 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 NGUYEN DAVID SMITH DANIELSON LESTER I SZULKOWSKI KINGA B 1422 JEFFERSON AV NE 2204 NE 24TH ST 11729 SE 93RD ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NEWCASTLE WA 98056 GELASHVILLI TSIURI BALDRIDGE H L NESSELRODT RALPH C SR 1518 JEFFERSON AV NE 1526 JEFFERSON AV NE PO BOX 3059 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 WIDELL JOHN RICHARD SEWELL BERT WEG LLC 2733 NE 16TH ST 22539 SE 47TH PL PO BOX 2701 RENTON WA 98055 SAMMAMISH WA 98075 RENTON WA 98056 KHALSA JAGJIT SINGH & TARUI KHALSA JAGJIT SINGH PAULUS GERALD J & EUNICE B 2817 NE 16TH ST & TARVINDO 1617 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 2817 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BAILEY LOLA M+BAILEY LOLA M PAULUS GERALD J & EUNICE B COLLODI FLORIO+PATRICIA 2911 NE 116TH ST 1617 JONES AV NE 3709 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 COLLODI FLORIO+PATRICIA COLLODI FLORIO+PATRICIA COLLODI FLORIO+PATRICIA A 3709 JONES AV NE 3709 JONES AV NE 3709 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SECREST ROBERT G CALL RODNEY FAKHARZADEH M HADI 3106 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N 3609 NE 10TH ST PO BOX 78404 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98178 ODREN JERRY+SHAREN YUEH LYDIA RUSSO PAUL A+CATHERINE 1 11625 SE 88TH ST 16545 41 AV NE 1217 JEFFERSON AV NE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98155 RENTON WA 98056 DALRYMPLE LENNICE A DALRYMPLE LENNICE A COLLODI FLORIO & PATRICIA 1209 JEFFERSON AV NE 1209 JEFFERSON AV NE 3709 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 COLLODI FLORIO+PATRICIA A BOWERS SANDRA GOODMAN RONALD J & SHARON 3709 JONES AV NE 1135 HARRINGTON AV NE 2916 91ST AV E RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PUYALLUP WA 98371 CHIN PROPERTY COMPANY INC FINCH SCOTT + SAVITHA SORENSON RODNEY H $T 20029 HW 99 #202 6457 LK WA BL SE 2800 NE 13TH LYNNWOOD WA 98036 NEWCASTLE WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SORENSON RODNEY H $T PUREWAL BALBIR S GELINAS DANIEL R+JENNIFER M 2800 NE 12TH 10905 167TH AV NE 2821 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 REDMOND WA 98052 RENTON WA 98056 KELLER RUSSELL L CALLAHAN P PEPIN KENNETH W 18711 EDGECLIFF DR SW 3708 NE 10TH ST 32002 88TH AV NW SEATTLE WA 98166 RENTON WA 98056 STANWOOD WA 98292 WALKER WILLIAM L & JOYCE M CROTHAMEL FREDICK DELGADO MARTIN+VERDUZZO HER 1517 UNION AV NE 2951 74T" AVE SE 1418 INDEX AV NE #B RENTON WA 98059 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 RENTON WA 98058 KUMAR SUBHASHNI B LEUNG SUN WING ET AL LONEY BRUCE A+JAYEE R 2102 NE 23RD ST 3010 171 ST AV S 1520 INDEX AV NE RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98144 RENTON WA 98056 BESAW PHYLLIS J PEDERSEN FLORENCE J NORIEGA JOSE ANTONIO BESAW LAWRENCE E 17016 27TH ST E 1544 INDEX AV NE 15907 NE 65TH ST SUMNER WA 98390 RENTON WA 98056 REDMOND WA 98052 LEWIS BONNIE J MJS L L C GREATER HILANDS LTD PTNRSHP 1520 HARRINGTON AVE N E ATTN: OFFICE C10 MORRIS PIHA MGMT GROUP RENTON WA 98056 15015 15TH AV NE PO BOX 53290 SEATTLE WA 98155 BELLEVUE WA 98015 CITY OF RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY POWERS PATRICK H 1055 S GRADY WY OF RENTON 1523 INDEX AV NE RENTON WA 98055 P 0 BOX 2316 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 DAO EMILIE MILLER RICKIE J+DEBRA K CONRAD KEVIN PO BOX 40462 16637 ISSAQUAH HOBART RD SE 1427 INDEX AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98005 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 RENTON WA 98056 STAHLECKER ALICE MAE DEXPRO LLC BERGMAN CLAUDETTE C 1419 INDEX AVE N E PO BOX 25926 2208 NE 12TH ST RENTON WA 98055 FEDERAL WAY WA 98093 RENTON WA 98056 FLETCHER KATIE G STIMACH JANET L HAWTON JENNIFER 4711 84TH AV SE 1920 S SPOKANE ST 1308 HARRINGTON AV NE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 SEATTLE WA 98144 RENTON WA 98056 CROTHAMEL FREDERICK+CHERIE CROTHAMEL FREDERICK W CROTHAMEL FREDERICK+CHERIE 14205 SE 36TH 5T SUITE 100 JR+CHERIE A2951 74TH AV SE 14205 SE 36TH ST SUITE 100 BELLEVUE WA 98006 BELLEVUE WA 98006 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 CROTHAMEL FREDERICK W PACECCA ROCCO FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR JR+CROTHAMEL CHERIE A 3870 80TH AV SE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR 2951 74TH AV SE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 300 SW 7TH ST MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 RENTON WA 98055 GUSTMAN WALLY H KELLER RUSSELL L GAROT EUGENE O+GAROT JOAN L 1719 INDEX AV NE 18711 EDGECLIFF DR SW TRUST RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98166 PO BOX 5001 KENT WA 98064 PACECCA ROCCO LALANGAN IRENEO INA R SPARKS FAMILY LLC 3870 80TH AV SE 1150 MONROE AV NE 1633 HARRINGTON AV NE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 THORESEN ALAN W GAROT EUGENE O+JOAN L TRUST CITY OF RENTON 17805 SE 259TH ST PO BOX 5001 1055 S GRADY WY COVINGTON WA 98042 KENT WA 98064 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY WALGREEN CO LE PETER K 2900 NE 10TH ST MS #3301 PHAM MARTHA T RENTON WA 98056 300 WILMOT RD 712 GRANT AV S DEERFIELD IL 60015 RENTON WA 98055 YANG STEVEN C+SOPHIA BALDRIDGE-RENTON L L C WALGREEN CO 1128 KIRKLAND AV NE 11825 MANCHESTER RD MS #3301 RENTON WA 98056 ST LOUIS MO 63131 300 WILMOT RD DEERFIELD IL 60015 WALGREEN CO WALGREEN CO RENTON CITY OF MS #3301 MS #3301 HOUSING AUTHORITY 300 WILMOT RD 300 WILMOT RD PO BOX 2316 DEERFIELD IL 60015 DEERFIELD IL 60015 RENTON WA 98056 PIACENTINI LOUISE WONG D & C 1 LLC MALUNE DONALD M CIO BELMAR PROPERTIES INC 6311 SEWARD PARK AV S PO BOX 66294 2001 6TH AV #2300 SEATTLE WA 98118 SEATTLE WA 98166 SEATTLE WA 98121 KIN PROPERTIES PACIFIC NUT COMPANY INC WONG D & C 1 LLC 185 NW SPANISH RIVER BLVD 15732 TUSTIN VILLAGE WY 6311 SEWARD PARK AV S SUITE 100 TUSTIN CA 92780 SEATTLE WA 98118 BOCA RATON FL 33431 WOOD DARREL & SHIRLEY E LYNCH MICHAEL D TRINH KHIEM PO BOX 4314 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #101 1175 HARRINGTON PL UNIT 103 SOUTH COLBY WA 98384 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 KARANJA KENNEDY DEVITO RHONDA L LUO XIAO LING+YUFEI HOU 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #105 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #107 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #109 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BLYTH WILLIAM T 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #111 RENTON WA 98056 THIRAPHANH VIENGKEO 1175 HARRINGTON PL SE #202 RENTON WA 98056 AMBROSE LAURA L 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #205 RENTON WA 98056 SHIVELY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #208 RENTON WA 98056 LEWIS JULIE A 1175 HARRRINGTON PL NE #211 RENTON WA 98056 VU STEVEN+HOANG AMANDA 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE UNIT 214 RENTON WA 98056 COOK JUNE C 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #303 RENTON WA 98056 MAXWELL STEVEN A+MARCIE E P 0 BOX 2048 RENTON WA 98056 VICTORIO JOVENAL S+MARIA NORMA S 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #E-113 RENTON WA 98056 SYLVIA STEPHEN E 16167 139TH PL SE RENTON WA 98059 CHANDLER LORETTA N 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #206 RENTON WA 98056 JILEK BAMBI 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #209 RENTON WA 98056 ESCUDERO VRIL A 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #212 RENTON WA 98056 GREEN PAUL K 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE UNIT 301 RENTON WA 98056 GAMELIN MICHELLE LOUISE 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #312 RENTON WA 98056 HART BRIDENNA M 1175 HARRINGTON PL #307 RENTON WA 98056 CHARLEBOIS SANDRA G 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #201 RENTON WA 98056 DESOUZA KEVIN 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #204 RENTON WA 98056 GRASS CHARLES D P 0 BOX 2563 RENTON WA 98056 SITUM VLADO SR 1175 HARRINGTON PL SE #210 RENTON WA 98056 APARICIO LETICIA 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE APT 213 RENTON WA 98056 ALKSNIN INARA 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #302 RENTON WA 98056 TOKHEIM SUSAN G 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #305 RENTON WA 98056 FREDELL MICHELLE L 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 MILLIGAN KERRY I+LUZ R HUDSON CHARLOTTE PETERSON JUNE T 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #309 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE $310 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #311 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 TERAMOTO MICHAEL S FRERICKS SHEILA A+TENNERT T DICKEY RAFAEL 14634 SE 195TH PL 571 PEASE RD 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE UNIT 314 RENTON WA 98058 CLE ELUM WA 98922 RENTON WA 98056 DINSMORE MARTHAJEAN 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #101 RENTON WA 98056 WALTER GARY J 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #104 RENTON WA 98056 CARNEY ROBERT F+SHIRLEY A+LISA M 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #201 RENTON WA 98056 BANASKY KARL V 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #204 RENTON WA 98056 KARSCHNIA KATHLEEN A 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #207 RENTON WA 98056 MCWILLIAMS DONALD E+DORIS L 2820 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 MACLEAN MOIRA E 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #301 RENTON WA 98056 UNDERWOOD BARBARA J 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE APT304 RENTON WA 98056 BLAINE CHRISTINA 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE UNIT 102 RENTON WA 98056 DEAN LARRY JOEL 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #105 RENTON WA 98056 NIEMEYER VELMA O 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #202 RENTON WA 98056 MULLER GERHARD+SABINE G 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #205 RENTON WA 98056 COWAN JOHN L 1100 HARRINGTON AV N #208 RENTON WA 98056 BRAUN ERIKA 5716 108TH ST SW LAKEWOOD WA 98499 MACE JAN ET C 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #302 RENTON WA 98056 HILL JAY PO BOX 507 RENTON WA 98057 WEBB FRANCIS & MARGARET PO BOX 3011 RENTON WA 98056 BANASKY HOWARD V 600 ANDOVER PARK E TUKWILA WA 98188 BOSTON DEBORAH 1 1555 UNION AV NE #16 RENTON WA 98059 BELCHER CHARLES JR 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE UNIT 206 RENTON WA 98056 MILES ROGER S 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE UNIT 209 RENTON WA 98056 MCWILLIAMS DONALD E+DORIS L 2820 LAKE WASHINGTON BL NORTH RENTON WA 98055 JOHNSON DARLENE 608 GRANT AV S RENTON WA 98055 MCWILLIAMS DONALD E+DORIS L 2820 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 YOUNG JOHN H DRINKWINE KAREN J CRAVEN LARRY D 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #307 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #308 P 0 BOX 251 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98057 VAUGHN DAVID W & MARCELLE A SCHUTZ_CORALEE K AKLILU GEBREYESUS 1400 ABERDEEN AV NE 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #311 1100 HARRINGTON AV NE #312 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 JENKINS WILLIAM C 3233 NE 12TH ST #101 RENTON WA 98056 ANDERSON ALAN F 3233 NE 12TH ST #104 RENTON WA 98056 PAGE MICHELLE M 3233 N E 12TH #107 RENTON WA 96805 FRANCIS JASON L+LINDA B 3233 NE 12TH ST #110 RENTON WA 98056 PALMER MARCUS L 3233 NE 12TH ST #113 RENTON WA 98056 DUBOSE EDGAR L+LINDA 3233 NE 112TH ST #201 RENTON WA 98056 MEARS CHRISTOPHER M 3233 NE 12TH ST #204 RENTON WA 98056 ROSSI RONALD 3233 NE 12TH ST RENTON WA 98056 HART AARON 3233 NE 12TH ST #102 RENTON WA 98056 FENKNER TINA LEA 3233 NE 12TH ST #105 RENTON WA 98056 GILLESPIE RUBY A 3233 NE 12TH ST #108 RENTON WA 98056 HENSLEY TERESA L 3233 NE 12TH ST UNIT 111 RENTON WA 98056 PADERES GALEN 3233 NE 12TH ST #114 RENTON WA 98056 PETROV ANATOLY 1069 LYNNWOOD AV NE RENTON WA 98056 BOLIN RICHARD N J DASHTY MAHIN D BOLIN 512 130TH AV NE BELLEVUE WA 98005 MELLON TRUST OF NEW ENGLAND % REAL ESTATE DEPT 024-0074 PO BOX 55865 BOSTON MA 02205 SANDERS JEWEL M 3233 NE 12TH ST 103 RENTON WA 98056 CHESAK DAVID+ROXANNE 3233 NE 12TH ST #106 RENTON WA 98056 TUCKER LETANA E+LEON+MARILY 3233 NE 12TH ST #109 RENTON WA 98056 PFEIFLE DONALD D+SHARON 3233 NE 12TH ST UNIT 112 RENTON WA 98056 NORDSTROM TERESA ANN 3233 NE 12TH ST #115 RENTON WA 98056 CLEMENTZ KYLE B 3233 NE 12TH ST #203 RENTON WA 98056 BROWNE MICHAEL L 12604 2ND AV S SEATTLE WA 98068 DUNCAN DONALD L & MARY J 2303 QUEEN AV NE RENTON WA 98056 TOWNSEND MARCEE MCCAUGHAN MAUREEN M MUTCHIE WILMA C 3233 NE 12TH ST #210 3233 NE 12TH ST #211 3233 NE 12TH #212 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MECHAM RICHARD L BOURASLAN JINAN ANRIG SHELLI G+EASLEY JOSEPH 3233 NE 12TH ST 3233 NE 12TH ST #214 3233 NE 12TH #215 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SAVALA KRISTEN M APPELL HOPE M STEINLE JESSICA M 3233 NE 12TH ST UNIT 301 3233 NE 12TH ST #302 3233 NE 12TH ST #303 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SANCRAIAN PAUL A FITZHUGH WILLIAM A LE NHUAH THI 3233 NE 12TH ST #304 3233 NORTHEAST 12TH ST #305 3233 NE 12TH ST UNIT 306 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NELSON STEPHEN A WEIGEL DENNIS BENITEZ IVETTE 3233 NE 12TH ST #307 3233 NE 12TH ST #308 3233 NE 12TH ST UNIT 309 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MORTIER KELLEY M WILBER ROBERT HARRIS NYCHOLLE M 3233 NE 12TH ST #310 3233 NE 12TH ST #311 3233 NE 12TH ST #312 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PONSLER SUSAN L SMITH BRUCE L+CINDY L BLANCO GODOFREDO V AVELINA 3233 NE 12TH ST #313 3233 NE 12TH ST #314 3733 221ST PL SE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SAMMAMISH WA 98075 KHAMMIXAY SANDY S COCHRANE LINDA K WAYNE BRIAN E 1150 SUNSET BL NE #101 1150 SUNSET BL NE #102 1002 NEWPORT CT NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 CHMIELEWSKI JESSICA GARRETSON CHERYL HAYES SHAREECE S 1150 SUNSET BLVD NE #104 1150 SUNSET BL NE #105 1150 SUNSET BL NW #106 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SUNSET HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM EDWARDS JAMES CHAN-WONG KAM Y C/O YATES WOOD-MCDONALD INC 1150 SUNSET BL NE #108 801 RAINIER AV N #212 PO BOX 19320 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98109 TRAM HO KIM+HIEP THI NGUYEN WALSH KEVIN F SNYDER DONNA A 1150 SUNSET BL NE #202 1150 SUNSET BL NE #B203 1150 SUNSET BL NE #204 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 WALTERS GEORGIA JANE PHILLIPS VALERIE E DUNGEY PHILIP A+WINNIE W 1150 SUNSET BL NE #205 1150 SUNSET BVLD NE #206 2312 SE 2ND PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SEABERRY GAYLAND 1425 E DESERT COVE #11 PHOENIX AZ 85020 RAMIREZ NORMA 0 1150 SUNSET BL NE UNIT 303 RENTON WA 98056 VANDOORN BEN M+SUSAN J+YVO 14241 SE 180TH PL RENTON WA 98058 SZABO LUBOS 1150 SUNSET BL NE 109 RENTON WA 98056 AYERS LAUREL J 1150 SUNSET BL NE #112 RENTON WA 98056 TAKAHASHI SHIG S+IKUKO 12014 67TH AV S SEATTLE WA 98178 CASTANEDA CARLOS E ACRE 1150 SUNSET BL NE #210 RENTON WA 98056 BENTSON JOSEPH L 1150 SUNSET BL NE #213 RENTON WA 98056 OSTLUND MARIANNE R 1150 SUNSET BL NE UNIT 301 RENTON WA 98055 ACKLEY MARJORY E 1150 SUNSET BL NE #304 RENTON WA 98056 BUSTOS MARIO ALBERTO ARANA 1150 SUNSET BLVD NE UNIT 307 RENTON WA 98056 BALDWIN LINDA R 1150 SUNSET BLVD NE #110 RENTON WA 98056 MIYAMURA REGAN 1150 SUNSET BL NE #113 RENTON WA 98056 HERNANDEZ LUIS E 1150 SUNSET BL NE #116 RENTON WA 98056 RYAN DAVID S 1150 SUNSET BL NE UNIT 211 RENTON WA 98056 BUI DONNY X+CARRIE A 3851 SE MONROE ST MILWAUKIE OR 97222 THIBODEAUX AIMEE H 1150 SUNSET BL #302 RENTON WA 98056 MESSIAH FA'IZAH A 1150 SUNSET BL NE #305 RENTON WA 98055 PURVIS JAY G 1150 SUNSET BL NE #308 RENTON WA 98056 MAYO TERI K 1150 SUNSET BL NE #111 RENTON WA 98056 KWONG SO-YING 5511 S BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA 98178 TARLI THERESA M 1150 SUNSET BL NE #209 RENTON WA 98056 GARMAN GREG & SHANNON 2436 SW 149TH ST SURIEN WA 98166 TAYLOR RUBY D 1150 SUNSET BL #215 RENTON WA 98056 SECRETARY OF HOUSING & URBAN WYCKOFI= ANDREA BEDON RAQUEL DEVELOPMENT 7811 NE 205TH ST 1150 SUNSET BL NE #310 909 FIRST AV #STE 200 KENMORE WA 98028 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98104 HARRIS SHAUNDA L PHAM MIN H-NGUYET THI SEXTON MICHAEL J 1150 SUNSET BL NE 2-311 1150 SUNSET BL NE #312 1150 SUNSET BL NE #313 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RUSSO MICHAEL A WEYAND THEODORE P+NATALIE L DUKE PAULINE ANN 1150 SUNSET BLVD NE #314 1150 SUNSET BL NE #315 1150 SUNSET BL NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MUNRO ROBERT W JONES PATRICIA M TAYLOR EDMOND 1150 SUNSET BL NE #121 1150 SUNSET BL NE #122 1150 SUNSET BL NE #123 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PETERSON KATHRYN L STERN ROBERT LINDLEY RICHARD A+SHARON W 1150 SUNSET BV NE #124 1150 SUNSET BL NE #125 2015 212TH PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SAMMAMISH WA 98074 CRIPPEN EARL FORTUNE JOAN M FERN JOHN 1150 SUNSET BL NE #B3-127 1150 SUNSET BOULEVARD #128 1150 SUNSET BL UNIT 221 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 WEBER RYAN B MAPLE -WORKMAN CAMPBELL WAYNE E 1150 SUNSET BL NE #222 DONA+WORKMAN 14620 SE 213TH RENTON WA 98056 15529 SE 176TH ST KENT WA 98042 RENTON WA 98058 HUGGINS ROBERT WALTERS KIMBERLY C LOOMER SCOTT A 1150 SUNSET BL NE 225 1150 SUNSET BLVD NE 226 1150 SUNSET BL NE #227 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 HOU SOMERA S JOHNSON JOANN K PARKVIEW HOMES/ EXCEPTIONAL 1150 SUNSET BL NE #228 1150 SUNSET BL NE #321 CHILDREN RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 P 0 BOX 65157 SHORELINE WA 98155 GULCA VADIM D+GEMMA C OGDEN ROSEMARI A OGDEN ROSEMARI 1150 SUNSET BL #323 1815 14TH AV 46 1815 14TH AV #6 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98122 SEATTLE WA 98122 JORGENSEN STEVEN & LINDA BLANKSTON JULIAN WALKER LORNA 4504 S VAN GORDON WY 1150 SUNSET BV NE #327 5414 S ORCAS ST MORRISON CO 80465 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98118-2539 NEWMAN ERIC EDWARDS BOBBY G BRITTON WILLIAM 1150 SUNSET BL NE #117 14311 124TH AV NE B 19 1150 SUNSET BL NE UNIT 119 RENTON WA 98056 KIRKLAND WA 98034 RENTON WA 98056 GLEASON DALE & ANN 10408 MEADOWLARK CT E BONNEY LAKE WA 98390 CHU PHILIP 4247 S EDDY ST SEATTLE WA 98118 ENG LORENA E 1150 SUNSET BL NE #217 RENTON WA 98055 DICKEY RAFAEL 1150 SUNSET BL NE #220 RENTON WA 98056 BALDWIN RAMONA D 1150 SUNSET BL #218 RENTON WA 98056 BRAN ROSA MARIA 3059 E SHOREWOOD DR #683 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 DEMEKE DEREJE+TEKIU ELSA FRANCUM LUIS R WIESEN JAMES P 1153 HARRINGTON AV NE 1157 HARRINGTON AV NE #3 1159 HARRINGTON AV NE #4 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 Jay Ravenscraft Priscilla Turner Mark Bezanson 16812 NE 11th PI 2300 Jefferson NE A204 2301 Jefferson NE A204 Bellevue, WA 98008 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98057 Jose Gonzalez Joe Merrell Kristin Clingan 964 Aberdeen Ave NE 2300 Jefferson NE J140 2300 Jefferson NE 1138 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Art Long Marian R. McCready Terence J. Agnew 12201 Shorewood Dr SW 2318 NE 10th St 1551Hillside Dr SE Burien, WA 98146-2411 Renton, WA 98056 Issaquah, WA 98027 Aaron Tarlyn Janice Brad Kim Howard 2300 Jefferson Ave NE D118 2335 NE 12th St 2300 NE 10th PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Bob Hunt Doris Jean Powers Tim McClincy 2210 NE 10th St 2804 NE 7th St 4604 NE 4th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Charis L. Baack Elizabeth A. Rogers Julia B. Franz Box 2798 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #6108 1721 Harrington Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Keith Thompson Deena Schouder Patricia Chakravarty 660 Index Ave NE 2300 Jefferson Ave NE D218 6947 Coal Ck Pkwy SE #228 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98059 Ron Bautista Glenda L. Johnson Malcom Feser 8911 Inverness Ct NE 1216 Monroe Ave NE 2301 NE 10th PI Seattle, WA 98115 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mario Kundzins Wilma Dallosto, Madelene Zanatta, Kirk & Linda Moore 1150 Sunset Blvd NE and Joan Zanatta 1901 Harrington Cir NE Renton, WA 98056 Estate of American "Mary" Zanatta Renton, WA 98056 1020 Sunset Blvd NE Renton, WA 98056 H. W_ Hallesy M. Michael Khatibi Fred L. Wendling 830 SW Channon Dr PO Box 2115 2331 NE 12st St Seattle, WA 98166 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Tina M. Gutierrez Gary Brown John Kernie 3130 NE 20th PI 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #A203 PMB 376, 330 SW 43rd St #K Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98055 Joann Johnson Lan Do Diann Deary PO Box 2933 1925 Kirkland PI -NE 401 - 1124 Hongdale Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 North Vancouver, BC V7M 21-11 Joseph L. Bentson Marge Scofield Marie Engeland 1150 Sunset Blvd NE #213 2300 Jefferson Ave NE C-110 2914 NE 6th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Sherri Reid Rhonda Hedington Marc Nelson 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #D115 2021 S 244th PI 2308 NE 10th PI Renton, WA 98056 Des Moines, WA 98198 Renton, WA 98056 Laurits & Lily Alvestad Dan Schlegelmilch Kristin M. Falkner PO Box 485 3143 NE 20th PI 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #I-136 Grapeview, WA 98546 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 JoAnn Rodger Jessica Kupferer Joseph Hansard 2300 Jefferson Ave B109 2016 Harrington PI Ne 3142 NE 20th PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jason & Linda Farris Fred Harbor Edwin & Patricia Rasmussen 3233 NE 12th St #110 12011 NE 1 st St #201 1300 Monroe Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98005 Renton, WA 98056 Henry Guillen Steve Bech Mark St. Peter P. a_ Box 3284 4735 NE 4th 407 Lyons Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer Gladney Beth Whitman Michael O'Laughlin 2300 Jefferson Ave NE #A104 4041 37th Ave SW P. O. Box 2686 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98126 Renton, WA 98056 Otto Bauer Vivian Ferguson David Williams 17211 190th Ave SE 1162 Harrington Ave NE Seattle -King Co Public Health Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98056 999 3rd Ave, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Mary Ryan Sam Cyrbu Tony Norieiga P. O. Box 336 1917 Jones Ave NE 1542 Index Ave NE Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jonathan Fletcher Robert & Rosemary Key Judy Yuen 2500 81st Ave SE #104 1008 Anacortes Ave NE 1606 Dayton Ave NE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Jim Lyons Mamie Thirion Bob Gevers 2806 NE Sunset Blvd, #A 932 Lynnwood Ave NE 900 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mary Hart Thomas Burton Ruth & Encarnacion Tajon Richard Akesson 2508 NE 7th St 2033 Harrington Pl NE 14225 SE 144th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Sylvia Matthews George Chvoj Greg & Stephanie Varnadore 3609 Meadows Ave N 4800A NE 18th PI 3317 NE 8th Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Patricia Lemley Laurel Tomchick Kristin Craig 4426 NE 17th St 1900 Jones Ave NE 1180 Monterey Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Dale Gerring Kim Browne Elizabeth Hurdle 2834 Sunset Ln NE 1003 N 28th PI 5211 NE 16th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Michael O'Halloran Shelly Larson Rommel Buenafe 4420 SE 4th St 1832 NE 25th PI 4406 NE 6th PI Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Morrey & Penny Eskenazi Doug & Shannon Lvedtke Kathleen & Dennis Ossenkop 951 Lynnwood Ave NE 14018 SE 135th St 3316 NE 12th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Mary Emery Norman Luedke Terri Zura 2606 Sunset Ln NE #B 3408 NE 7th St 4507 E 4th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Delores Ray Sandel DeMastus Alice Stahlecker 2606 NE 9th St 1137 Harrington Ave NE 1419 Index Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Indru & Mary Jo Primlani Barbara Porter Jim & Barbara Sather 201 Union Ave E #186 1015 Tacoma Ave NE 3112 NE 10th St Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Veronica Oipinski Gregg Vukelic Donald Morrow Marie McPeak 2704 Williams Ave NE 724 Bremerton PI NE 409 Jefferson Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 John & Marie Petit Paul Watt Kim Van Buskirk 2516 NE 19th St 2826 NE Sunset Ln 18709 SE 44th PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Issaquah, WA 98027 Lawrence Wood Josh Graves Gerry Marsh 1155 Shelton Ave NE 5335 NE 4th St #3 437 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98055 John Malgarini Mary Hesting Stacy Hendrickson 1059 Union Ave NE 2832 NE Sunset Blvd 1420 Maple Ave SW #201 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98055 Timothy Zuhkle Denise Harris Inez Petersen 1215 Dayton Ave NE 5641 Pleasure Pt Ln 3306 Lake Washington Blvd #3 Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98006 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Community Association Rhonda Kent Bob Tillman P. O_ Box 2041 804 Dayton Ave NE 905 Ferndale Cir NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Judi Halvorson Breck Scott Liz Cunningham 819 Jefferson Ave NE P.O. Box 2752 8502 S 119th St Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98178 Arianne Af fleck Martha Hsuek Ashley Saunders 560 Index PI NE P. O. Box 675 23921 SE 160th St Renton, WA 98056 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Issaquah, WA 98027 Hayes & Velma Evans Pat Sado James McNeil 2805 NE 8th St 9902 126th Ave SE 1700 Harrington Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Charles Sorenson Linda Sorenson Bette Filley 2108 NE 13th 10930 Forest Ave S 19801 SE 123rd St Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98198 Issaquah, WA 98027 Theresa Elmer Dordeen Mitzel Cristin Mandaville 3101 NE 13th St #A 650 Jefferson Ave NE 6035 SE 2nd Ct Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Robert Cavalli Howard McOmber Gary Williamson 16202 64th St E, Ste B-1 475 Olympia Ave NE 2011 Harrington Ave NE Sumner, WA 98390 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jeanette McCready Adam Dyer 2304 NE 9th St 275 Index PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON'SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPLICATION NAME: March 17, 2006 LUA-U-030 R, ECF HIGHLANDS SUBAREA ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton is rezoning that part of the Highlands Subarea which is currently designated for Center Village (CV) land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multifamily (RMF) zoning in this area is being converted into two new zones- Center Village- Core (CV-C) and Center Village- Residential (CV-R). Two new zones are being created with a full complement of zoning and development regulations. The CV-C zone is a new zone that allows commercial and high density residential uses. The CV-R zone is a new zone that allows medium density residential uses, but does allow high density residential uses through a bonus system. Properties that participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District are subject to master plan development approval by the Renton City Council. The change in allowed density in this area is likely to increase the number of housing units by 1,623 units at full buildout. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposal is located in the Highlands Subarea in the NW % of Section 4 and the SW Ya of Section 9 in Township 23 N, Range 5 E. The area to be rezoned is south of NE 16'" Street, North of NE 91' Street, East of Edmonds Ave, and West of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and NE 12" Street. See attached map. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (Il As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed zoning. 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 perlod. 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: March 16, 2006 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 17, 2006 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review and Rezone Other Permits which may be required: NIA Requested Studies: Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed capacity increase of 1,623 units at full buildout. Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on the proposed zoning changes is scheduled to be held before the City of Renton Planning Commission on April 12, 2006, and before the Renton City Council on April 17, 2006. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is located within the Center Village (CV) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations The proposed rezones are consistent with this land use designation, as well as relevant land use policies adopted in the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, adopted November 1, 2004. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist prepared March 16, 2006 Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: This non -project action will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. NQA 06-030 Proposed Mitigation Meas The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject site. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on March 31, 2006, if you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND (425) 430-6688 . PAP Vr�. eX M , d NE 101h Pl. I NE 1Oth 5t, 3 Ft' Ac4 . AL u* � ry+MS'S fthla'lds SlUbOree . . ieS A,My1�1jWiI&D"1.o- a.UUMM� Ok1ed ]N! M ftt0!{{ M DOOM Mftp4;WW, 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 Services, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 96055. File No./Name: LUA-06-030, R, ECF I Highlands Subarea Rezone NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: NOA M030 UIA-6&-o3o City of Renton �°,� PL LAND USE PERMIT Nw 6�M� MASTER APPLICATION AECE„ � PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Various ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: City of Renton COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way, 6th fir CITY: .ZIP: Renton 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-430-6588 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Rebecca Lind, Land Planning Manager COMPANY (if applicable): City of Renton ADDRESS: Same as above CITY: Same as above ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: rlind@ci.renton.wa.us Q:weblpw/devsm/formslplaniiingr mastempp.doc PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Highlands Subarea Rezone 00o 02*Q40= - t!4 PROJECTIADDRESS(SuLOCATION AND ZIP CODE: Seel attached,, IVY KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Attached EXISTING LAND USE(S): Residential, commercial, public use PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Same EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Center Village PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): NIA EXISTING ZONING: Residential Multi -family (RM-F), Center Village (CV), Residential --10 (R-10) PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): Center Village — Residential (CV-R) and Center Village — Core (CV-C) SITE AREA (in square feet): 130 Acres +/- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): To 80 dwelling units per acre l(7 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NIA 03/16/06 P IJECT INFORMATION cont' red NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA I PROJECT VALUE: NIA NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable). NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable). NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq, ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE 5, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE 5, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Rezone 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) , 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_ 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that &11!A/ "V signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/mastempp.doc 2 03/16/06 hind rezone pids.txt 7227801360 7227801365 7227801370 7227801375 7227801380 7227801385 7227801390 7227801395 7227801400 7227801405 7227801406 7227801435 7227801440 722780145❑ 7227801475 7227801480 7227801481 7227801485 7227801490 7227801495 7227801500 7227801505 7227801510 7227801515 7227801520 7227801525 7227801526 7227801530 7227801535 7227801540 7227801545 7227801550 7227801555 7227801560 7227801565 7227801570 7227801575 7227801580 7227801585 7227801586 7227801590 7227801595 7227801600 7227801605 7227801610 7227801615 7227301620 7227801625 7227801630 7227801635 7227801640 7227801645 7227801651 7227801655 7227801660 7227801665 7227801670 7227801675 7227801680 7227801685 7227801690 7227801695 7227801700 7227801705 03/16/2006 hlnd rezone pids.txt 0089000010 081200 0923059058 0923059061 0923059062 0923059080 0923059102 0923059161 312200 637730 7227500550 7227500610 7227500615 7227500620 7227500625 7227500630 7227500635 7227800185 7227800190 7227800195 7227800200 7227800205 7227800210 7227800215 7227800220 7227800225 7227800230 7227800235 7227800240 7227800245 7227800250 7227800255 7227800260 7227800265 7227800266 7227800285 7227801024 7227801025 7227801026 7227801028 7227801029 7227801055 7227801085 7227801201 7227601205 7227801206 7227801235 7227601265 7227801275 7227801280 7227801285 7227801290 7227801295 7227801300 7227801305 7227801310 7227801315 7227801320 7227801325 7227801330 7227801335 7227801340 7227801345 7227801355 03/16/2006 hind rezone pids.txt 7227801710 7227801715 7227801720 7227801725 7227801730 7227801735 7227801740 7227801745 7227801750 7227801755 7227801760 7227801765 7227801770 7227801776 7227801780 7227801781 7227801785 7227801790 7227801795 7227801800 7227801805 7227801810 7227801815 7227801820 7227801825 7227801830 7227801831 7227801835 7227801840 7227801845 7227801850 7227801855 7227802040 7227802045 7227900090 7227900091 7227900093 7227900094 7227900095 7227900096 814345 03/16/2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section PROJECT NAME: DATE: 0:1WE81PMDEVSERV1FormslPlanninglwaiver.xls 07/29/2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS c�'r t��i Oly Ift MAR 16 2006 DECEIVED This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: a604A. mr --.few ml e 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 4. Development Planning Section 4:1WEB%PWIDEVSERV\Forms\Planninglwaiver.xls 07/29/2005 Ory()p A pt'4NN! �NTON NG MAR 16 20OR Highlands Subarea interim Zoning Project Narrative rECE1 V& Proposal The proposed project makes changes to several existing zones. It makes a small change in the Residential-10 zone (R-10), to disallow detached residential uses in the Highlands Subarea. It also changes the zoning of a small piece of property improperly zoned Commercial Neighborhood (CN) that is within the Center Village Land Use Designation. The existing Center Village zone (CV) is divided into two zones that better implement the Center Village Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. Properties within the existing CV Comprehensive Plan Designation are then rezoned from CV, R-10, and Residential Multi -Family (RMF) to either Center Village- Core (CV-C) or Center Village- Residential (CV-R). For consistency, one parcel, zoned Neighborhood Commercial, is rezoned to Center Village- Core (CV-C). Rezone Areas The following areas are proposed for rezones: Rezone from Residential 10 (R10) to Center Village — Residential (CV-R) An area located south of NE 16`1' Street, cast of Harrington Avenue NE and north of parcels fronting on NE 12'h Street. The area is bounded on the cast by Renton Housing Authority facilities (Houser Terrace and Evergreen Terrace). The rezone area excludes the Highlands Branch of the Renton Public Library and Renton Fire Station Number 12. Rezone from Residential 10 (R10) to Center Village -- Core (CV-C) An area primarily fronting on NE 4t1' Street and including the Highlands Branch of the Renton Public Library and the public right-of-way property on which it is situated. Rezone from Residential Multi -family (RM-F) to Center Village — Core (CV-C) An area located between NE 12`h Street (north) and NE Sunset Boulevard. The west boundary is Edmonds Avenue NE. The east edge of the rezone area is irregular, but generally lies in the vicinity Harrington Avenue NE. Rezone from Residential Multi -family (RNI-F) to Center Village -- Residential (CV- R) An area consisting of approximately 22 parcels, lying on both sides of Glenwood Avenue NE south of NE 12`' Street. Rezone from Center Village (CV) to Center Village — Core (CV-C) An area located primarily on both sides of NE Sunset Boulevard, between NE 9ch and 12th Streets. The rezone area includes Renton Fire Station Number 12 on the north side of NE 12" Street. Rezone from Center Village (CV) to Center Village — Residential (CV-R) An area consisting of approximately four residential lots fronting on the south side of NE 131h Street and extending from Jefferson Avenue NE to one block east of Kirkland Avenue NE. Rezone from Commercial Neighborhood (CN) to Center Village — Core (CV-C) One parcel fronting on the south side o f' NE Sunset Boulevard, one parcel east of Harrington Avenue NE CV Zones The Subarea is divided into two zones meant to implement the Center Village land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. CV-C is the heart of the neighborhood, a business district with retail, office, residential, and recreational uses in the center of the Subarea. CV-R is a residential area that allows a wide range of housing types to encourage economic diversity and the ability to respond to changing market conditions. Uses Uses in the CV-C zone are essentially the same as in the previous CV zone, with a few changes. The changes primarily removed uses that are incompatible with high density, mixed use environments, or were uses associated with automobile oriented development. Uses in the CV-R zone are limited to residential uses, and those uses that support residential uses. Zone Permitted Accessory Conditional Use Detached dwellings* Household pets New K-12 Semi -attached dwellings* Home occupations Education Attached dwellings# Adult day care I New regional parks Cottages Home day care Religious Accessory Dwelling Units institutions Adult Family Home Service and social Congregate residence organizations Group homes City government Retirement residences offices Existing K-12 Education Bed and Breakfast Neighborhood Parks Adult day care II CV-R Indoor recreation facilities Day care centers Outdoor recreation facilities Communication Park and ride- shared use broadcast tower Utilities- small Electrical power Some types of wireless generation communication facilities Utilities- medium Model homes, sales trailers and large Temporary construction uses Some types of wireless communication facilities 2 Zone Permitted Accessory Conditional Use Attached dwellings Household pets K-12 education Adult family home Home occupations (new) Congregate residence Drive in or drive Regional parks Group homes through retail Cemeteries Retirement residence Home day care Religious Existing K-12 education Indoor storage Institutions Neighborhood parks Social and service Medical and dental offices organizations Offices, general City government Veterinary offices/clinics offices Adult retail use Conference centers Eating/drinking establishment Taverns Retail sales Cultural facilities Indoor recreation facilities Dance halls and Hotel and Motel clubs CV-C On -site services Movie theatres Adult day care Medical Institutions Day care centers Vehicle repair, Convalescent Centers small Structured parking garage Laboratories for Park and Ride- dedicated or light shared manufacturing Taxi stand Laboratories for Transit Center research and Vehicle Fueling Station development Recycling collection Communication Utilities- small broadcast tower Some types of wireless Electrical power communication facilities generation Model homes, sales trailers Utilities- medium Temporary construction uses and large Some types of wireless communication facilities * Use limited to those properties that participate in the Flex Bonus District # Dwelling type limited to townhouses and carriage units. Flats also allowed in the Flex Bonus District if located east of Kirkland Ave. Garden Style Apartments prohibited. CV-C Development Standards Development Standards for the CV-C zone are based on the existing standards in the CV zone, with a few changes. The CV-C is an area of high density residential development on top of, and surrounding, commercial development. Minimum density is 20 du/acre. Densities of up to 60 du/acre may be built without any special requirements being met. However, development at densities over 60 du/acre require the provision of affordable housing at a minimum of 25% of the minimum density, or 5 units per net acre. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be initiated raising the maximum density for this zone to 150 du/acre, but at the present time only 80 du/acre is allowed. Parking is required to be located underground or under building for residential uses, and for commercial uses parking may not be located in the front setback unless it is structured. There are minimum standards for lot size, setbacks/yard sizes, and landscaping. There are maximum standards for building height, lot coverage, and front yard setbacks. CV-R Development Standards Development Standards for the CV-R zone are based on those standards established for the R-14 zone, with some changes. Separate standards for the development of cottage housing were written, since cottage development often requires a much different configuration and arrangement. Cottage housing standards are located in their own section. Overall, however, there are minimum restrictions on lot size, width and depth, and setbacks/yard size. There are maximum restrictions on height, building length, building coverage, impervious surface, and accessory structures. Alley access is required.. Densities range from a minimum of 10 du/acre to 14 du/acre. Flex Bonus District Properties greater than one acre in size in the CV-R zone have the opportunity to participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District. In order to participate in the Flex District, the development must provide affordable housing at a minimum of 25% of the minimum density (or 2 units per net acre), and it must go through a master planning process with final approval by the City Council. City Council approval of the Master Plan is determined by compliance with both the general criteria for Master Plan approval, as well as criteria developed for the Highlands Subarea. General criteria includes a laundry list of typical requirements and safeguards: the project must comply with regulations and adopted policies, impacts to surrounding properties shall be mitigated, the project must be safe for pedestrians and vehicles, there must be adequate public facilities, the project must not create a nuisance or unhealthy conditions, adequate light and air are provided, the design is internally consistent, etc. These standards have not been altered. Specific criteria for approval of a master plan in the Highlands area includes: the creation of compact urban development, compliance with the Highlands Subarea Plan, the incorporation of public and private open spaces, the provision of a distinctive focal point such as a public plaza, prominent architecture, or other item, street layout complies with the vision for the Highlands Subarea, promotion of transit and pedestrian orientation, a detailed sequencing plan to phasing and implementation, and that the plan replaces at least 50% of the existing housing. There are several advantages to participation in the Flex District. A wider range of residential uses are allowed. Essentially only medium density townhouses, carriage units, and cottage projects are allowed in the CV-R. Properties that qualify for the Flex District are allowed to develop single family homes, semi -attached dwellings, flats, and accessory 4 dwelling units also. The Flex District also offers a density bonus as high as 80 du/acre, which allows the construction of higher density residential projects, but the projects are limited to the area east of Kirkland Avenue. However, the biggest advantage to participation in the Flex District is that all of the minimum and maximum development standards are flexible. Established CV-R standards are a guideline for reviewing projects, but the standard itself is flexible to allow for innovation in housing design. Flexible standards would be negotiated and determined in a series of pre -application meetings held with the Planning Building Public Works and Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department. Design Guidelines Design Regulations, based upon the Urban Center Design Guidelines, have been established for the Subarea. All development in the Highlands is subject to development according to these principles of good design. There are required standards, which must be met to obtain project approval, and guidelines, which provide direction for the Reviewing Official in approving building and site design projects. Standards for the CV- C are a mix of the standards set for Renton's downtown core and those set for the Urban Center North area. Standards for the CV-R are essentially the same as the standards established for the South Renton Neighborhood Plan. Standards address issues of: site design and street pattern, building location and orientation, building entries, transition to surrounding development, gateways, parking location, surface parking design, structured parking garages, vehicular access, pathways through parking lots, pedestrian circulation, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, recreation areas and open space, building character and massing, ground level building details, roof lines, building materials, and signage, lighting. Compliance with the design regulations is required of all development in the subarea, regardless of zone or participation in the Flex District. Capacity The proposed zoning changes create an up -zone for the Highlands Subarea. Capacity calculations show that at full buildout there will be a likely increase of an additional 1,623 new units to the subarea. See attached pages for additional detail. 5 U Cn 7 L 0 1 _jI 116 h, SU. 7 0 M F E, T — 0 P ,, 1 L N E Highlands Sdbarea Proposed Rezones * Lconumic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Rezone to Center Village -Commercial (CV-C) Alex Picisch, Administrator G. DO RII�no Rezone to Center Village -Residential {CV-R) 16 March 2006 El 7th 'S Concept E1 - Highlands Rezoning Land Use Type Gross Acreage Net Acreage Density/ FAR Units Retail SgFt Population factor Estimated Population Estimated Elem. Pupils (0,276/unit) Estimated Middle School Pupils (0.079/unit) Estimated High School Pupils (0.0701unit) Total Estimated Pupils Required Amount of Neighborhood Parks (75 sgftlpp) Estimated Tnp Ends (per unit or per 1,000 sgft) Trip Generation in Vehicle Trip Ends CVR-Cotta 9.25 8.33 12 100 n/a 1.4 140 0" 01 0 10,492 5.861 586 CVR-Townhouse 21,59 19.43 21 404 nla 1.8 727 201 57 51 309.2 54,557 10.71 4,328 CVR-Multi-Family0.00 0,00 64 0 n/a 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.63 0 CVC-Multi-Family14.45 13.00 64 832 n!a 1.6 1,498 413 118 105 637 112,348 6.63 5,518 RMD 18.70 16.83 14 242 rda 1.8 436 120 34 31 165 32,718 10.71 2,596 CVC-Mixeduse Housing 10.84 10.18 64 651 n/a 1.8 1,172 324 93 82 498 87.926 6.63 4,318 CVC-Mixeduse Commercial 3,61 3.39 0,30 n/a 44,329 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nla 40.67 1,803 CVC-Retail 19.26 16.11 0.30 n/a 236,637 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n!a 40.67 9,624 School 7.18 a.ao n!a n!a nla nla n/a nla n/a nla n/a n!a Parks/Public Open Space 5.98 5.981 n/a I n/a I n/a n/a I n/a n/a I n/a I n/a I n/a I nda I n/a I n/a Totals 1 110.86 95.251 1 2,230 280,9671 1 3,9741 1,0581 3031 2681 1,6291 298,040 28,772 'Predominantly singles, childless couples and 'emptynesters" Existing Park 3 321 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 150,780 ExIslinq Retail 1 1 223,019 Existing Residential 1 607 2-21 1,3351 167.51 46.01 42.51 1 45,525 Net Change 2.661 11,623 1 1 2,6381 8911 255 226 Commercial Existing plus future capacity under current zoning --720 Summary 2/28106 Concept F1 - Highlands Rezoning Landuse Acreage Totals CN 0.00 CV 0.00 CV-C 48.16 CV-R 30.84 PARK 5.98 RMD .<1830 RMF 0.00 RS 0.00 SCHOOL ..7.18 Factors CVR 70% Townhouse 30% Cottage 0% MF CVC 40% Retail 30% MF 30% Mixed -Use RMD 100% Inputs 2/28/06 Concept E1 - Highlands Rezoning Multifamily Residential Land SUDDIV Zoning Gross Acres Deductions Net Acres Market Factor Adjusted Net Acres Critical Areas ROWS Public Purposes % or Acres % % (C-D)*(1-(E+F)) or G`(1-H) (C"(1-D))"(1-(E+F)) CVR-TOWNHOUSE 21.588 0% 5% 5% 19.43 100% 19.43 CVR-COTTAGE 9.252 0% 5% 5% 8.33 100% 8.33 CVR-MULTIFAMILY 0 0% 5% 5% 0.00 100% 0.00 CVC-MULTIFAMILY 14.448 0% 5% 5% 13.00 100% 13,00 RMD 18.70 0% 5% 5% 16.83 1 100% 16.83 Sums: 63.991 1 1 57.591 1 57.59 Multifamily Residential 2/28/06 Concept E1 - Highlands Rezoning Commercial Land Sum* Zoning Grass Acres Deductions Net Acres Market Factor Adjusted Net Acres Critical Areas ROWS Public Purposes % or Acres % % % (C-D) *(1-(E+F)) or G *(1-H) (C*(1-D))*(1-(E+F)) CVC-RETAIL 19.26 0% 1 % 5% 18.11 100% 18.11 Sums: 1 19.261 1 1 1 18.111 1 18.11 Commercial 2128/06 Concept Ell - Highlands Rezoning Mixt-d-ljsP Land Sudnly Zoning Gross Acres Deductions Net Acres Market Factor Adjusted Net Acres Residential Split Commercial Land with Residential Capacity' Land with Commercial Capacity" Critical Areas ROWs Public Purposes % or Acres % % % %R/%C Acres Acres (C-D)'°(l-(E+F)) or G'(1-H) 1'J(°I.RJ /W%C) (C'(1-D))'(1- (E+F)) CVC-MIXEDUSE 14.45 0% 1% 5% 13.57 100% 13.57 75% 25% 10.18 3.39 Sums: 14.45 13.57 13.57 10.18 3.39 Mixed Use 2128/06 Concept E1 - Highlands Rezoning Multifamily Residential Development Capacity Zoning Gross Land Area Net Land Area (Adjusted) Assumed Future Density (Maxim MI Assumed Future Density (80% of Maximum) Develop ment Capacity From Tables 14 and 20 80% of max Units C*D CVR-TOWNHOUSE 21.59 19.43 26 21 404 CVR-COTTAGE 9.25 8.33 15 12 100 CVR-MULTIFAMILY 0.00 0.00 80 64 0 CVC-MULTIFAMILY 14.45 13.00 80 '' 64 832 RMD 18.70 16.83 18 14 242 CVC-MIXEDUSE 10.84 10.18 80 64 651 74.82 67.77 2,230 Commercial Development Capacity Zoning Gross Land Area Net Land Area Adjusted Assumed Future FAR Development Capacity From Tables 16 and 20 S . Ft. C*D CVC-MIXEDUSE 3.61 3.39 0.30 . ;: 44,329 CVC-RETAIL 19.26 18.11 0:30 236,637 22.88 21.50 44,329 Total Park Grand Total 97.70 89.27 6 6 103.70 95.27 Land Totals 2/28/06 "PIr /~ I 1 6th ON i s✓ `V--� NI- itis Highlands Subarea Proposed Rezones ti Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Rezone to Center Village -Commercial (CV-C) Alex Piclsch, Administrator ', ,$ a I�e1 Hose 0 ® Rezone to Center Village -Residential (CV-R) iNTD 16 Ma.2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division waOP0 f055 South Grady Way, Reton, WA Phone: 425-430 T 00 Fax: 425-430-7239 b rf 0 � ON�� PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: A* 16 2006 The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governme � a 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 FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject 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. H;IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area Plans%Highlands%EnvironmentallInterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklistdoc A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Highlands Subarea Rezoning. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Renton City Hall, 6tn Floor 1055 South Grad Way Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Phone: (425) 430-6588 4. Date checklist prepared: March 16, 2006 Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): N/A non -project action. This change is altering zoning within the policies and boundaries of the existing Center Village (CV) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Phase 11 will include some rezones associated with adoption of the Highlands Subarea Plan and other Comprehensive Plan changes later in the year. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. N/A non -project action. This new zoning for the Highlands Subarea is scheduled to be in effect by mid May 2006. There will be additional zoning changes in this area associated with Comprehensive Plan amendments and the adoption of the Highlands Subarea Plan that are scheduled to be adopted in Summer 2006. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. FE1S for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, February 1, 1993, Draft Comprehensive Plan SETS, December 1994; Final Comprehensive Plan SE1S, February 1995; Environmental Checklist July 19, 1999 for Revisions to Multi -Family Development Standards in H:TDNSPIComp PlanlSub Area PlanslHighlandslEnvironmentallInterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklist.doc Suburban Center, Neighborhood Center, and Commercial Arterial Zoning Designations; Environmental Checklist June 25, 2003 for Title 1V Code Amendments Relating to Highlands Area Residential -Oriented Development. There will also be a transportation analysis prepared for this proposal. 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. Yes. The area is currently under a development moratorium that is scheduled to be lifted in May, 2006. A Subarea plan, addressing strategies for redevelopment of this area will be forthcoming. The Subarea plan will address land use in this area, consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, and will also address land use in the immediate vicinity of this area. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Public hearings on this proposal will be held and the final decision to rezone and change the development regulations for the CV zone will need to be approved by the City Council. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Please see attached document "Highlands Subarea Plan Zoning Summary" 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this Checklist. The proposal is located in the Highlands subarea. The Subarea is in the NW % of Section 9 and the SW % of Section 4 of Township 23N, Range 5E The area is between NE 9rh Street to the South, and NE 16'h Street to the North,- it is between Edmonds Ave to the West, and Monroe Avenue to the East. Please see attached map. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); fiat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other This site is rolling. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Approximately 15-25% in very limited areas. H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anlSub Area P1anslHighlandslEnvironmental\interim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklist.doc 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. N/A non project action d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N/A- non project action. Maps show there are some small, isolated areas of steep slope and landslide hazard, these are best assessed at a project specific level of analysis. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A non project action f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A non project action g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A non project action. Currently the area is developed with streets, homes, business, etc. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A non -project action 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. N/A non -project action b. Are there any off -site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A non -project action H:IEDNSPIComp P1anlSub Area PlanslHighlandslEnvironmental\lnterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklist.doc 4 3. WATER 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. NIA non project action. No known water bodies. 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. NIA non -project action. 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. NIA non -project action 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NIA non project action 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? if so, note location on the site plan. No. 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. NIA non -project action 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. NIA non -project action. Ground water is already withdrawn as patf of the City of Renton Water System to serve the existing homes and businesses in this area. 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. H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area Plans\HighlandslEnviroruiientallInterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checldist.doc N/A non -project action C. Water Runoff (including storm water)- 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. N/A non project action. There is currently no major storm water system in this area. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: N/A non project action. Proposed measures are best addressed at a project specific Level. 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 pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N/A non -project action C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A non -project action 5. ANIMALS H:IEDNSPIComp PlanlSub Area PIanslHighlands\Envirom=ntal\lnterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checkliscdoc 6 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: Birds'ea le son ther Mammals; deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A non -project action 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. N/A non -project action b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action 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: N/A non -project action 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. N/A non project action 9) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A non -project action H:IED1N1SP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Enviro=entallinterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checidist.doc 7 8. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NIA non -project action b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NIA non -project action 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. NIA non project action. Rezoning may lead to redevelopment of the area, which would bring in potential construction related noise impacts. These are best assessed at the project specific level. Increased density may also mean increase automobile trips in this area. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NIA non project action LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of this area is as a low density suburban -style residential neighborhood with automobile oriented shopping center. The residential area is comprised of single family detached homes and duplexes, with some multifamily development. The commercial area is comprised of strip shopping centers with large asphalt parking areas. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. Describe any structures on the site. There are a variety of commercial and residential buildings in the area. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? This is a non -project action. Some structures may be demolished as the result of rebuilding and redevelopment associated with this zoning action. Those impacts are better addressed at the project specific level. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? H:IEDNSPIComp PlanlSub Area PlanslHighlandslEnvironmentatllnterim Zoning SEPALSEPA Checklist.doc Portions of the site are currently zoned Residential-10 (R-10), Center Village (CV), Residential Multifamily (RMF), and Commercial Neighborhood (CN). Note: the CN zone is not an implementing zone of the CV designation. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Center Village (CV). Note: the existing CN zoning is in the CV land use designation, even though it is not supposed to be. Rezoning this area will result in better compliance with existing regulations and plans. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NIA h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. NIA non project action. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is a non project action. The action (rezone) does not directly affect the population of this area. However, It is expected that at full build out this area could contain approximately 1623 additional units (over the existing condition), or add an additional 2, 638 people. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NIA non -project action. Rezoning does not affect displacement, but there may be displacement impacts in further actions related to the rezoning, for example, the forthcoming Subarea Plan. The Subarea Plan will contain policies that could affect displacement in this area. Displacement review should occur at the time of review of the Subarea Plan. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NIA non -project action. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, it any: The proposal is compatible with the existing land use for the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. H.\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\F,nvirottttlental\Interim Zoning SEPA\SEPA Checklist,doc 9 This is a non -project action. The rezone itself does not affect the provision of housing units in the study area. Estimated build out at the proposed densities would yield approximately 1623 additional units in this area. There are provisions to provide affordable housing written into the development standards of both the CV-C and CV R zone. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NIA non -project action. The rezone action itself does not affect the number of units. With the increase in density, there will be the potential for the provision of an additional 1,623 units in this area. c_ Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NIA non project action. Rezoning does not direction affect housing impacts. Policies to control housing impacts will be addressed, however, as part of the work on the Highlands Subarea Plan. 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. NIA non project action. Regulations would allow a structure as high as 50' in the CV-C zone. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NIA non -project action. Views may be impacted through the application of the development regulations in this proposal. Impacts would best be addressed on project specific basis. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NIA non -project action 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NIA non project action b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NIA non -project action H:IEDNSPIComp P1anlSub Area PlanslHighlandslEnvironmentallInterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklist.doc 10 C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A non -project action d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A non -project action. However, the design guidelines proposed contain standards to reduce light and glare impacts. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This is a non -project action. The immediate vicinity contains some school playfields, two community centers, and a series of trails and pathways (which are currently in disuse as recreational facilities). b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N/A non -project action. The proposal itself does not affect recreational uses. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A non -project action. Future development would be required to pay Renton's Parks Mitigation Fee. 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. N/A non -project action b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A non -project action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any, N/A non -project action 14. TRANSPORTATION H:IEDNSPICoznp PlanlSub Area Plans\HighlandslEnviroomentallInterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklist.doc 11 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by Sunset Blvd, and several major streets including Edmonds, Harrington and Kirkland Avenues. This is a non -project proposal. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. There are several bus routes serving this area. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A non project action. 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? NIA non -project action. Future development must comply with Renton's Development Regulations. Rezoning does not affect roads or streets, however, the forthcoming Subarea Plan will ultimately address any improvements to the roads and streets in the Subarea. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. NIA non project action. Rezoning does not create more taps, but there could potentially be additional trips related to the increased capacity created by the zoning changes. Assuming a full buildout would add 1,623 units to the area, there is the potential for an additional 16,230 trips. A transportation analysis is being prepared to address these impacts. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: NIA non -project action_ Mitigation measures may be proposed upon completion of the traffic analysis. 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. H:IEDNSPIComp P1anlSub Area PlanslHigMandslEnvironmenta111nterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklist.doc 12 N/A non project action. The additional capacity created by the rezone may result in additional housing units and population in the Highlands subarea. Increased population may lead to increased demand for public services in the area. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A non project action 16. UTILITIES Circle utilities available at the site. electric natural gas ate refuse service elephon anitary sews septic syste othe . N/A non -project action 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. N/A non -project action C. SIGNATURE 1, 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. Proponent: %L LI �A 14 41 Name Printed. _Rebecca Lind for City of Renton_ Date: G� I� (4 HAMNSMomp PianlSub Area P1aaMighlandslLnvironmentalllnterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklist.doc 13 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS {These sheets should only be used for actions; involvirig ':decisions" on policies,.:plans ' in programs. You "do not need to fill out'tnese sheets for prolee#"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. 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? It is unlikely that the proposal would have any affect on the above environmental issues. The construction of new housing and demolition of existing housing may have an affect on these issues. Such impacts are best addressed at a project specific level. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: New development resulting as a consequence of these proposed amendments would be required to comply with the City's development regulations, including the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. 2_ How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? There would be no affect on plants, animals, hsh, or marine life as a direct consequence of this non -project, preroning proposal, There may be some displacement of existing vegetation to clear lots for development, but such impacts are best addressed at a project specific level. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: None at this non project level. Development of additional dwelling units under this proposal must comply with City of Renton regulations and with Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance. Any measures needed in this regard will be implemented at the project level review. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed non -project action will not deplete energy or natural resources. Future project level development may impact energy or natural resources slightly but will not deplete them. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None are proposed at this non project action stage. 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? H:IEDNSPICornp P1anlSub Area Plans\HighlandslEnvironmenta111nterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklist.doc 14 This proposal would likely not use or affect environmentally sensitive areas. At such time that additional dwelling units are developed on this site, they will be subject to City of Renton critical area regulations and development standards that are designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: NIA. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal will make the land use of the Subarea more compatible with the existing CV land Use designation. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? There will be increased demand on the transportation, public services, and utilities if more people are living in this area due to the rezone increasing capacity. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Demand changes are best dealt with at a project specific level. Transportation analysis is being done to address transportation impacts specifically_ 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 will not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for protection of the environment. 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. Proponent: f!14Q�,t&4i I� Name Printed: Rebecca Lind for City of Renton Date: H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area PlanslHighlands',nvironmentalltnterim Zoning SEPAISEPA Checklist.doc 15 INTERIM ZONING REGULATIONS HIGHLANDS SUBAREA 4-2-01OZONES AND MAP DESIGNATIONS ESTABLISHED: D ZONES IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Designations are implemented by certain zones: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION IMPLEMENTING ZONES Residential Low Density (RLD) Resource Conservation (RC)Residential — 1 DU/AC (R-1)Residential — 4 DUTAC (R-4) Residential Single Family (RS) Residential — 8 DUTAC (R-$)Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential Medium Density (RMD) Residential — 10 DU/AC (R-10)Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH)Residential — 14 DU/AC (R-14) Residential Multi -Family (RM) Residential Multi -Family (RM-V, RM-I, RM-F) Urban Center Downtown (UC-D)Center Downtown (CD)Residential Multi -Family Urban Center (RM-U)Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) Urban Center North (UC-N) Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1)Urban Center -North 2 (UC-N2) Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR) Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR) Center Village (CV) Residential — 10 DU/AC (R-10) Residential Multi -Family (RM-F)Center Village -Core (CV-C), and Center Village- Residential (CV-R) Commercial Corridor (CC) Commercial Arterial (CA)Commercial Office (CO)Light Industrial (IL) Employment Area Industrial (EAI) Light Industrial (IL)Medium Industrial (IM)Heavy Industrial (IH) Employment Area Valley (EAV) Commercial Arterial (CA)Commercial Office (CO)Light industrial (IL)Medium Industrial (IM)Heavy Industrial (IH)Resource Conservation (RC) Commercial Neighborhood (CN)Commercial Neighborhood (CN) 4-2-020 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS: K CENTER VILLAGE ZONES (CV-C, CV-R): 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Center Village Zone (CV) is to provide an opportunity for concentrated mixed -use residential and commercial redevelopment designed to urban rather than suburban development standards that supports transit -oriented development and pedestrian activity. Use allowances promote commercial and retail development opportunities for residents to shop locally. Uses and standards allow complementary, high -density residential development, and discourage garden -style, multi -family development. The Center Village zones t—ideRtW H:IEDNSP%Comp Plan\Sub Area P1anslHighlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docH:IEDNSP\C0mp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoningIntcrim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docPage 1 of 80 tlonu+s District -supports superior residential projects that complement commercial uses, provide ground floor commercial activity along arterials, and provide transition between intensive commercial areas and surrounding single family and multi -family neighborhoods_ Incentives for affordable housing are provided to encourage economic diversity. 2. Scale and Character: The Center Village Zone (CV) is intended to provide suitable environments for district - scaled retail and commercial development serving more than one neighborhood, but not providing City-wide services. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statement, objectives and policy direction established in the Center Village land use designation, Objective LU-CCC, Policies LU-317 through LU-332, Residential Medium -Density land use designation, Objectives LU-GG through LU-II, Policies LU-157 through LU-181, or the Residential Multi -Family land use designation, Objectives LU-JJ through LU-LL, Policies LU-182 through LU- 192, and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Classifications: The Center Village is implemented by three zones: a. CV-C (Core): Geographically located in the center of the Center Village, the Core _zone provides a concentration of goods, services, and amenities for the Center Village as a whole and for surrounding neighborhoods. The Core serves as the primary hub for transit service, with pedestrian connection connecting the Core to the rest of the Center Village. Commercial uses, office and professional uses, recreational uses, and community services are located in this community Core. High density residential uses are allowed to support the concentration of business uses in the Core zone. Mixed uses are encouraged to provide vitality in the core. b. CV-R (Residential): This zone provides for medium to high density urban development in the Center Village. Development in this district should be compact and urban in size, scale, and intensity. A variety of residential land uses will be allowed to encourage economic diversity. Low density suburban uses will be disallowed. An interconnected system of pedestrian pathways in this zone will link uses in the Center Village and provide connection to the Center Village- Core. The Center Village Flex Bonus District within the Center Village Residential Zone provides an opportunity for innovation and a way to respond to changing market conditions, while still resulting in a high quality environment. H:IEDNSP%Comp PIan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoningVnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docH:1EDNSPIComp Plan\Sub Area Plans\H ighlandslDeveiopment Reg Drafts\Zoningllnter nn Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docPage 2 of 80 4-2-060 ZONING USE TABLE — USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS: ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R- R- R- R- CV RM IL IM IH CN CV- CA CD CO COR UC- UC-N2 _R C- N1 A. AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Agriculture P P H Natural resource H H H H H H H H H59 H H H H H H H extraction/recovery B. ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Animal husbandry (20 or fewer small animals per P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 acre) Animal husbandry (4 or fewer medium animals P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 per acre) Animal husbandry (maximum of 1 large P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 animal per acre) Greater number of animals H36 H36 H36 H36 H36 than allowed above AC 37 Beekeeping P35 P35 P35 P35 Kennels AD3 P37 P37 P37 Kennels, hobo y AC3 7 AC3 7 AC3 7 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AG37 AC37 AC37 AC37 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC or business establishment Stables, commercial A7 7 A7 7 C. RESIDENTIAL Detached dwelling P19 P19 P19 P19 1P-'q1P'q1E-11d 211 H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anlSub Area P1ans\Highlands\Development Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docH:IEDNSPIComp PlanlSub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Rcg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docPage 3 of 80 P19 P50 3 11 F'� 11 P Detached dwelling (existing legal) p P P Semi -attached dwelling P � Attached dwellings P50 P19 P18 P73 P18 P16 P19 P74 P87 Flats or townhouses (existing legal) P p �7 Flats or townhouses, no greater than 2 units total per building (existing legal) P P P P P P Cottages C. RESIDENTIAL (Continued) Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes P19 Manufactured homes, designated P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 Mobile homes P19 (Amd. Ord_ 5018, 9-22-2603) D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Accessory dwelling unit AD7 P AD P H 6 P P P P — P — 6C P Adult family home P P P P P P P P P3 Caretaker's residence AC AC AC AC - AC AC AC AC Congregate residence P P3 Group homes I - H H3 Group homes II for 6 or less P P P P pig P P P P3 P Group homes 11 for 7 or more P H H H H H H P H H3 AD Home occupations AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC AC Retirement residences H H AD P P P3 pig P P75 P88 E. SCHOOLS H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Developmcnt Rcg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions 1V(3-06).docH:1EDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area P1ans\Highlands\Development Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions 1V(3-06).docPage 4 of 80 K-12 educational institution H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 Hg H9 H9 H H H H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H76 H89 (public or private) K-12 educational institution (public or private), P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 existing Other higher education P38 P38 P38 P P P P21 P H88 institution Schools/studios, arts and P P38 P38 P2-2 P P P crafts Trade or vocational P P H H H77 school F. PARKS Parks, neighborhood P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parks, regional/community, P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P existing Parks, regionallcommunity, AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P P new G. OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Religious institutions H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 Service and social H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H12 H21 H78 H90 organizations — Public Facilities City government offices AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD A❑ AD AD AD P AD AD AD90 City government facilities H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 Jails, existing municipal P Secure community H71 H71 transition facilities Other government offices H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 and facilities H. OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference centers P38 P38 I P38 H P38 P P P21 P P91 H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans%"ighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoning\1nterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docHAEDNSP1Comp P1an\Sub Area P1anslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docPage 5 of 80 Medical and dental offices P42 P38 P38 P38 AD17 P22 P P P P P P92 Offices, general P42 P13 P13 P13 AD17 P2-2 P P P P P P93 Veterinary offices/clinics P P42 P38 P38 P38 P22 P P P38 P P78 I. RETAIL Adult retail use P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 Big -box retail P P P - P20 P72 P79 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AG AG AG AG AG28 AG AG2$ AG78 AC80 Eating and drinking establishments P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 H33 P42 P P P P22 P22 P P P12 P27 P81 P94 Horticultural nurseries, existing H H H H H H H H H H H H 9 H H H H H Horticultural nurseries, new H Retail sales H33 AD P34 P34 P34 P60 P22 P68 P P54 P21 P82 P95 Retail sales, outdoor P30 P30 P30 P15 P15 P15 Taverns AD P20 AD P21 P82 P99 Vehicle sales, large P P P P41 Vehicle sales, small P I P P P20 (Amd. Ord. 5001, 2-10-2003) J. ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 Card room P52 P52 P52 P52 Cultural facilities H H H H H H H H AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD90 Dance clubs P38 P38 P38 ADS P20 H P38 H Dance halls P38 P38 P38 AD22 P20 H P38 H Gaming/gambling facilities, not -for -profit H38 H29 H38 - H2O H38 Movie theaters P38 P38 P38 PAD P20 I P P12 P83 P94 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, indoor P38 P38 P38 P20 P H84 H96 H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anlSub Area Plans\ ighlands0evelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docH:IEDNSPIComp PlanlSub Area PlanslHighlands0evelopment Reg Drafts\Zoningllntcrim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docPage 6 of 80 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, outdoor P P38 P38 AD20 H84 H96 Recreation Golf courses (existing) P P P P P Golf courses, new H P H H H H Marinas P P21 H97 Recreational facilities, indoor, existing P33 P33 P38 P38 P38 P22 P P P65 P21 P78 P94 Recreational facilities, indoor, new H P33 P Recreational facilities, outdoor P33 P33 P32 P32 P32 H2O H38 K. SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, accessory AD AD AD AD AD AD A❑ AD AD P Bed and breakfast house, professional AD AD A05 AD P Hotel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 P P38 P P P98 Motel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 Off -site services P42 P38 P38 P38 P38 On -site services H33 P42 P38 P38 P38 P63 P22 P69 P P54 P21 P78 P99 K. SERVICES (Continued) Drive-in/drive-through service AC62 AC62 AC62 AC AC28 AC AC70 AC61 AC61 AC78 AC80 Vehicle rental, small P P P AD P20 Vehicle and equipment rental, large Pia P29 P29 Day Care Services Adult day care I AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC P55 P55 P55 P22 P2-2 P22 P P P P78 P100 Adult day care II H H H H H H H33 H33 H AD AD H P22 PQ P22 P P12 P21 P78 P100 Day care centers H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H33 H25 P54 P54 P54 P22 P22 P22 P P P21 P78 P100 Family day care home AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC3 AC AC AC AC Healthcare Services WEDNSP1Comp P1an\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg DraftslZoning\lnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docH:1EDNSMComp Plan\Sub Area Plans\HighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06)AocPage 7 of 80 Convalescent centers H H H H Ft I P22 H P3 I P39 I AD AD85 AD101 Medical institutions H H H H H H H H H56 H56 H56 H H H H P40 I H I H H93 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops P31 P31 P31 H31 Car washes P P P AD2 P22 P22 Express transportation services AD P A P22 AD20 Fuel dealers H59 P Industrial engine or transmission rebuild P31 P31 P31 Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P P P P22 P20 P3 P P P P102 Parking, surface, commercial or public P38 P38 P38 P P20 P3 AD Park and ride, dedicated I P105 P105 P105 P106 P105 P107 P105 P107 Park and ride, shared -use P108 P108 P108 P108 pl0 P10 P108 P P P P108 P109 P107 P P107 Railroad yards P Taxi stand P AD AD Tow truck operationlauto impoundment yard H59 P Transit centers H38 H38 H38 P H2O P H38 P P103 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES (Continued) Truck terminals P Vehicle fueling stations P P P P P P38 Vehicle fueling stations, existing legal p P p AD110 P P P38 Vehicle service and repair, large AD P P Vehicle service and repair, small p P P AD2 PAD2 P Wrecking yard, auto H59 H Air Transportation Uses Airplane manufacturing H59 P H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area PianslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions 1V(3-06).docH:1EDNSP1Comp P1an\Sub Area Pians111ighlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docPage 9 of 90 Airplane manufacturing, AC AC accessory functions Airplane sales and repair P Helipads, accessory to H H38 H38 H2O H H H97 primary use Helipads, commercial H H97 Municipal airports H M.STORAGE Hazardous material Storage, on -site or off- H24 H24 H24 site, including treatment Indoor storage P P P AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 Outdoor storage P57 P57 P57 AD64 P64 Self-service storage P8 P58 P59 P H26 H26 H26 Vehicle storage AD38 Warehousing P P P N. INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Assembly and/or P P P P86 P104 packaging operations Commercial laundries, P38 P38 P38 P4 existing Commercial laundries, P38 P38 P38 new Construction/contractor' P14 P P s office N. INDUSTRIAL (CONTINUED) Laboratories: light P38 P38 P38 AD P20 P3 AD54 P P104 manufacturing Laboratories: research, development and P31 P P H P20 A03 AD H P P104 testing Manufacturing and H59 P67 P23 fabrication, heavy H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\1nterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docHAEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Interim Zoning Revisions 1V(3-06).docPage 9 of 80 Manufacturing and fabrication, medium P67 P67 P23 Manufacturing and fabrication, light P P P P Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection and P processing center P14 P38 P38 P38 Recycling collection station P P P P P P P P P Sewage disposal and treatment plants H59 H Waste recycling and transfer facilities I LL. H59 P �T O. UTILITIES Communication broadcast and relay H H H H H H H H H H38 H29 H38 H H H H H H towers Electrical power generation and H H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 cogeneration Utilities, small P P P P P P P33 P P P P P P P P P P P P P Utilities, medium AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD Utilities, large H H H H H H H H H L H H H H H H H H H H H P. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H4$ AD47 AD47 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H4$ Macro facility antennas AN AN AN AD46 A046 AD46 AD AD P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 H H 6 6 6 46 — Micro facility antennas P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P AD AD Mini facility antennas P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P P Minor modifications to existing wireless communication P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P P facilities Monopole I support structures H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 AD46 P44 P44 P44 AD46 P44 P44 AD46 P44 AD46 Monopole II support H48 AD47 AD47 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 HAEDNSPIComp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands0evelopment Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docHAE1DNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06),docPage 10 of 80 structures Q. GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AG AC AC AC AC AC AC AG AC where not otherwise listed in Use Table R. TEMPORARY USES Model homes in an approved residential development. one P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 model home on an existing lot Sales/marketing trailers, oil -site P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P10 P10 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 construction Temporary uses P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 Blank=Not Allowed P#=Permitted AD=Administrative Conditional Use AC=Accessory provided condition can be met Use P=Permitted Use H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use #=Condition(s) Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020, Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement District; RMG 4- 3-050C, Aquifer Protection Regulations; RMG 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations (Ord. 4736, 8-24-1998; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999; Ord. 4786, 7-12-1999; Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4803, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4827, 1-24- 2000; Ord. 4840, 5-8-2000; Ord_ 4857, 8-21-2000; Ord_ 4915, 8-27-2001; Ord. 4917, 9-17-2001; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 4982 9-23-2002; Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003; Ord. 5027, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5080, 6-14-2004; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) H:1EDN5P1Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\HighlandsUDevelopment Reg DraftslZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions 1V(3-06)_docHAEDN5P1Comp PlanlSub Area PlanslHighlands0evelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docPage I 1 of 80 4-2-07OF Uses are allowed in the R-10 zone as follows: USES: I TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Animal husbandry (20 or fewer small animals per acre P #51 i Animal husbandry (4 or fewer medium animals per acre P #51 Animal husbandry (maximum of 1 large animal per acre P #51 Greater number of animals than allowed above H #36 Beekeeping P #35 Kennels,hobby AC #37 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Detached dwelling P #1-9112 Semi Attached dwelling P #191I12 Attached dwelling P #50 Flats or Townhouses(existing legal) P Flats or Townhouses, no greater than 2 units per building (existing le al P Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes, designated 1p#19 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home P Group homes II for 6 or less P Group homes II for 7 or more H Home occupations AC #6 Retirement Residence AD SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution(public orprivate) H 99 K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P #9 PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, re ionallcommunit , existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities USES: TYPE: City government offices AD H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an%Sub Area Plans\HighlandslDevelopmcnt Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docH:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area P1ans\HighlandslDevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoning\1ntcrim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docPage 12 of 80 City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H RETAIL Horticultural nurseries(existing) P #1 Horticultural nurseries new H ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural facilities H SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, accessory AD Day Care Services Adult day care I AC Adult day care II H Day care centers H #25 Family day care AC Healthcare Services Convalescent Centers H Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Park and Ride, shared use P #108 UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD 946 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P #44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P #49 Monopole I support structures H #45 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES USES: TYPE: Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter RMC 4-11, where not otherwise listed in the Use Table AC TEMPORARYUSE Model homes in an approved residential development: one model home on an existing lot P #53 Sales/marketing trailers, on -site P #53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P #10 Temporary uses P #53 H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopnient Reg DraftslZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docH;1EDNSPICornp P1anlSub Area P1anMighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoning"Interim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doePage 13 of 80 4-2-070J CENTER VILLAGE -CORE (CV-C) Uses allowed in the CV-C Zone are as follows; USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES NatUFal reSOWrrve H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Ken nel6, hob4 A4_-4437- Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Attached dwelling P73 Flats E)F to eas­ 1—isting legal) P73 ec no greater than 2 units total per F u g l � teg ) --Qufldi+� \a�cisti+�7."7af OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home P Congregate residence P Group homes II for 6 or less P Group homes II for 7 or more P Home occupations AC #6 Retirement residences P SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) H #9 K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P#s School slstudios, arts and crafts P 922 PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regionallcommunity, existing P Parks, regionallcommunity, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Gemetar-y H Religious institutions H USES: TYPE. Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD w 4y-geverrrnant4acilit+es H hies P OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Medical and dental offices P 922 Offices, general P #22 Veterinary offices/clinics P #22 Conference Center -H RETAIL Adult retail use P#43 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC#28 Eating and drinking establishments P 922 Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P #22 Retail sales, outdoor P #15 Taverns AD ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P.#,'3 Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs AD #2-2 Dance halls AD #22 Movie Theatres AD Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor existin P#22 Recreation facilities, indoor new P SERVICES Services, General Hotel P 922 Motel P #22 On -site services P #22 Drive-inldrive-through service AC #28 Day Care Services Adult day care I P #22 Adult day care II P #22 Day care centers P #22 USES: TYPE: Family day care AC Healthcare Services HAEDNSP%Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands0evelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docH:IEDNSPIComp Plan\Sub Area PlanslHighlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoningilnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doePage 14 of 80 Convalescent centers P #22 Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Car was f #22 EXpFess tFaRSPOFtatieR SeFV;Gee AD#22 Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P 422 Parking, surface, commercial or public P Park and ride, shared use P #_108 Park and rides, dedicated P #106 Vehicle fueling stations P Vehicle service and repair, small PAD #2 Taxi Stand P -Transit Centers P STORAGE Indoor storage AC #11 oer 6kwagB AD-#64 Self ser'ViGe-r'� € #2_6 INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Laboratories: light manufacturing AD #22 Laboratories: Research, Development H — and Testing Solid WasielRecycling Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H USES: TYPE: Electrical power generation and cogeneration H #66 Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H #48 Macro facility antennas P #44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P #44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P #49 Monopole I support structures P #44 Monopole II support structures H #48 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter RMC 4-11, where not otherwise listed in the Use Table AC TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential development: one model home on an existing lot P #53 Sales/marketing trailers, on -site P #53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P #10 Temporary uses P #53 HAEDNSPIComp PlanlSub Area P1anslHighlandslDcvelopmcnt Reg DraftslZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).docHaEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area PlanslHighlandslDeveloprnent Reg DraftslZoning'\Intcrim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06),docPage 15 of 80 (Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999; Ord. 4786, 7-12-1999; Ord. 4803, 10-25- 1999; Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003; Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003) 4-2-070T CENTER VILLAGE -RESIDENTIAL CV-R Uses allowed in the CV-R Zone are as follows: USES: ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Pets common household up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Attached dwellings P #111 Detached dwellings P #113 Semi -attached dwellings P #113 Cotta es P OTHER RESIDENTIAL LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Accessary dwellin unit P Adult family home P residence P -Congregate glqpp homes II for 6 or less P homes II for 7 or more P -Group Home accu ations AC #6 Retirement residences P SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution(public or rivate H #9 K-12 educational. institution ublic orprivate), existin P #9 PARKS Parks neighborhood P Parks re ional/communit existin P Parks regional/community,regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Religious institutions H Service and social or anizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Recreation Recreational facilities indoor existin P #33 Recreational facilities indoor, new P #33 Recreational facilities outdoor P #33 SERVICES Services General Bed and breakfast house accessory AD -Day Care Services Adult day care I AC Adult day care 11 H #33 -Day care centers H #33 H:IEDNSP1Comp P1an\Sub Area P1ans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafls\Zoning\Interim Zoning Revisions N(3-06).doe Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:28.00 AM?��� �':��:�'�'� � Page 16 of 80 FpMi da care home AC VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES garage,structured commercial or public -Parking surface commercial or public -Parking, Park and ride, shared -use P #108 INDUSTRIAL Solid Waste/Recycling collection station P -Recycling UTILITIES Communication broadcast and relay towers H Utilities small P Utilities medium AD Utilities lar e H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD#44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facilitv antennas P#44 Minor modifications to exist[p_q wireless communication facilities P#49 Mono ole I support structures H#45 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, where_ not otherwise listed AC in Use Table R. TEMPORARY USES Model homes in an approved residential develo menk. one model home on an existinglot P#53 Saleslmarketin trailers on -site P#53 or manufactured buildings used for construction P#10 -TemUorary uses P#53 -Temporary 4-2-080 CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ZONING USE TABLES: 33. silities-ardlo marts, lauRdFomats, day GaF8s,-oadttr#��, owe 11 11-tee Use permitted only in conjunction with and -or if intended to serve residential development in thp- R1.4 4-the Zone. Project size limitations as listed in the development standards chart for the zone at e# RMC 4-2-110€ apply, A preschool or day care center, when accessory to public or community facilities listed in RMC 4-2-060J, is considered a permitted use. 73_ Within the Center Village -Core Zone, Residential Bonus District, 'residential only uses" are limited to townhouse development in the range of seven (7)ten 10 to twenty (20) dwelling units per net acre. Garden style apartments are prohibited. Flats or townhouses, when in a mixed -use structure that combine residential with first floor commercial uses, have a maximum density of eighty (80) dwelling units per net acre. Projects within the Center Village- Core are also subject to the provisions and development standards in RMC 4-3- 095C and D, Center Village- Core Residential Bonus District and the Highlands Subarea Design Guidelines in RMC 4-3-130.. Aitact} e4 -64:4s-per- net-asr . H:TDNSPIComp Plan\Sub Area PlanslHighlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\lnterim Zoning Revisions 1V(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16,�2006 1 1:28:00 AM34r 006 n;c7;nn nM Page 17 of 80 111. Garden Style Apartments are prohibited. Flats are only allowed east of Kirkland. 112. Detached and Semi -attached dwellings are not permitted with the bounds of the Highlands Subarea, as defined in RMC 4-3-100 B6. 113. Only allowed as part of the Center Village Flex Bonus District. 4-2-11OF NOTE: PLEASE ADD THE CV-R COLUMN TO THE TABLE "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS" CV-R Minimum Housing Density 413 10 dwelling units per net acre Maximum Housing Density 14 dwellingper net acre Center Village Flex Bonus District: 80 dwelling units per net acre if: a. Affordable housing is provided at a minimum of 25% of the minimum density (2 affordable units per net acre), and b. The project complies with the requirements in RMC 4-3-095, Center Village Flex Bonus District (PLATS AND SHADOW PLATS) General All Uses: Uses may be developed on either: a) properties which are platted through the subdivision process; or b) properties which are to remain un latted. For properties which are to remain unplatted, the development application shall be accom anied by a shadow plat and if, applicable, phasing or land reserve plan. For purposes of this zone, "lot" shall mean legal platted lot and/or equivalent shadow platted land area.'a Covenants shall be filed as part of a final plat in order to address the density and unit mix requirements of the zone. (DWELLING UNIT MIX) General (NUMBER OF UNITS PER LOT)_General Only 1 residential building (e.g., cottage, townhouse, flat, etc.) with a maximum of 4 residential units and associated accessory H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area P1anslHighlands�Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\lnterim Zoning Revisions 1V(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16,2006 11:28:00 AMA "6J200 9.57.00 AM page 18 of 80 Minimum Lot Size for lots created after July 11, 1993 Minimum Lot Width far lots created after July 11, 1993 loc7ment is in accordance with I Bonus District and the Master Plannina process in RMC 4-9-200. ar through anoth, m which creates reauirements shall minimum lot size standards. Cottages: 1,600 sq. ft. Townhouse Units: Attached exterior/end townhouse unit: 2,500 sq.ft. Attached interior/middle townhouse unit: 2,000 sq. ft. Proiects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in_RMC_4-9-200: subiect to the Master Planning Process. Townhouse Units: develoDed in Villaae Flex Bonus H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area Plans\HighiandsTevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 11:28:00 AM Page 19 of 80 Minimum Lot Depth for lots created after July 11, 1993 Proiects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4-9-200: subiect to the Master Planning Process_ Other Projects: 80 ft. Minimum Front Yard Cottage Housing: See Cottage Housing Regulations in RMC 4-3- 120, Proiects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4.9-200: subiect to the Master Planning Process. All other: 10 ft_, unless the lot is adiacent14 to a property zoned RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, or R-10, then setback must be 15 ft.20 Minimum Side Yard Along a Street 10 ft. Minimum Side Yard Cottage Housing: See Cottage Housinq Regulations in RMC 4-3- 120, Projects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4-9-200: subiect to the Master Planning Process. All other: 5 ft. on both sides. 10 ft. when the lot is adiacent14 to a lower intensity residentially zoned property. Minimum Rear Yard Cottage Housing: See Cottage Housing Regulations in RMC 4-3- 120, Projects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4-9-200: subject to the Master Planning Process. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\HighlandsTevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3i16/2006 1 1:28:00 AM3/16200 9!57:00 AAA Page 20 of 80 All other: 3 ft. provided that the ,garage. must be set back a sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft, of back -out room, counting alley surface. If there is occupiable space above the garage, the minimum setback for the occupiable space shall also be 3 ft. Clear Vision Area In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. Minimum Freeway Frontage Setback 10 ft. landscaped setback from the street property line. Maximum Number of Stories and Maximum Building Height, except for Public uses having a "Public Suffix" (P) designation. 7'21 Cottage Housing: See Cottage Housing Regulations in RMC 4-3- 120, Projects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4-9-200: subject to the Master Planning Process. All other: 2 stories and 30 ft. Maximum Height for Wireless Communication Facilities See RMC 4-4-140G. Building Orientation and location Dwellings shall be arranged in a manner, _which creates a neighborhood environment. Residential units and an associated commercial development within an overall development shall be connected through organization of roads, blocks, yards, central places, pedestrian linkage and amenity_ features. Front facades of structures shall address the public street, private street or court by providing: — a landscaped pedestrian connection; and — an entr feature facin the front Building Design Building Design shall comply with the Design Guidelines in RMC 4- HAMNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area Plans\HighlandslDevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoning\Interim Zoning Revisions N(3-06)Am Last printed 3/1612006 1 1:28:00 AM=r1W200 , 9.57,00 AM Page 21 of 80 3-100. Project Size Limitations NA Maximum Building Length Up to 3 Consecutively Attached Townhouses: Building length shall not exceed 85 ft. Over 3 Consecutively Attached Townhouses Flats; TownhouseslFlats in One Structure: Shall not exceed 115 ft. in length Protects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4-9-200: subject to the Master Planning Process. All other: none Maximum Building Coverage Projects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4-9-200: subiec# to the Master Planning Process. All other: 50%, or 65% if the parking is provided underground or under building_ Maximum Impervious Surface Area Projects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4-9-200: subieck to the Master Planning Process. All other: 60% or 75% if the parking is provided underground or under building (LANDSCAPING) General The entire front setback, excluding the entry walkway, shall be H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\HighlandslDevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoning\Interim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/l6/-NO6 11:28:00 AM'�� n,c�_nn n � Page 22 of 80 landscaped. Surface Mounted or Roof Top Equipment, or Outdoor Storage See RMC 4-4-095. Recyclables and Refuse See RMC 4-4-090. Minimum Size and Location Requirements See RMC 4-4-090. (PARKING) General See RMC 4-4-080. Required Location for Parking Projects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4-9-200: subject to the Master Planning Process. All other: Required Parking may be located underground or under building (on the first floor of the residential structure), or in an attached or detached structure. All parking must be accessed from a rear alley. (SIGNS) General See RMC 4-4-080. (CRITICAL AREAS) General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. (DESIGN GUIDELINES) General Properties within the Highlands Subarea are subject to the Design Guidelines in RMC 4-3-100 Pre -Existing Legal Lots NA 4-2.100 G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Detached Accessory Structures) MAXIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE C V-R General For Cottages: See Cottage Housing regulations in RMC 4-3- 120. Projects developed in accordance with RMC 4-3-095 Center Village Flex Bonus H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doe Last printed 3J16/2006 1 1:2S:00 AMM &2006. 9:57:00 AN! page 23 of 80 District and the Master Planning process in RMC 4-9- 204: subject to the Master Planning Process. For all other Units: 1 per residential unit. Maximum of 400 sg. ft. and less than the floor area of the principal unit._ The lot coverage of the primary residential structure along with all accessory building shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage of this Zoning District. Accessory structures shalloff( be allowed on lots in conmunction with a pli use. LOCATION General NA HEIGHT Maximum Number of Stories and Maximum Building Heightzl 15 ft., but may be 25' .if the structure includes an Accessory Dwelling Unit. SETBACKSB Minimum Front Yard Not allowed within the re aired front yards or side Vards along the streets. Minimum Side Yard Side Yard: 5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard 3 ft. Garages and carporis must provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out room, either_ on -site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right -of -way - surface. Special Setbacks of Animal Husbandry Related Structures NA Clear Vision Area In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft, clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030, CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area P1ansTighlands\Development Reg DraftslZoninglinterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doe Last printed 3/ 161"2006 1.1:28:00 AM _ . . . Page 24 of 80 4-2-120A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL. ZONING DESIGNATIONS NOTE: MAKE CHANGES TO CV COLUMN AS SHOWN CV-C Minimum Lot Size 26,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width/Depth None 65% of total lot area or 75% if parking is provided within the Maximum Lot Coverage for Buildings building or within an on -site parking garage. Minimum Net Residential Densityg 4-0-20 dwelling units per net acre. 244w$I4Rg U mi4c nor Ret @GFe 60 dwelling units per acre Bonus: up to 80 dwelling units per acre with the provision of affordable housing at a minimum of 25% of the minimum net residential density per acre (5 affordable units per net acre). Maximum Net Residential Densityg CENTER STRICT: Ass acf-& fnay-be-granted for prouisioR-Gf� minirn„m depth of 39 ft, and a minimum length of 60 structure; and b.a. enclosed under or w'th.n the first -Park'ng enGlosed F1 , 10 ft. The minimum setback may be reduced to 0 ft. through Minimum Front Yard18 the site plan development review process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. Maximum Front Yard18 15 ft.5 10 ft. The minimum setback may be reduced to 0 ft. through Minimum Side Yard Along a Streetl8 the site plan development review process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. Minimum Freeway Frontage Setback 10 ft. landscaped setback form the property line_ None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential Minimum Rear Yard18 zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F. None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential Minimum Side Yard18 zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F. In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into Clear Vision Area the 20 ft, clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. Maximum Gross Floor Area on Any Single None Commercial Use on a Site H:IEDNSPIComp P1an\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Draft s\Zoning\Interim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:28:00 AM3A6 1200 9:57•I10 AM. Page 25 of 80 Maximum Gross Floor Area on Any Single None Office Use on a Site Buildings shall be oriented toward the street and arranged within an overall develo ment to be connected through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, central places, Building Orientation and Location pedestrian linkage and amenity features. Commercial and Civic uses shall provide entry features on all sides facing a public right of way or parkinq lot. -NA Minimum On -site Landscape Width 10 ft. except where reduced through the site plan Required Along the Street Frontage development review process. Minimum On -site Landscape Width Along 15 ft. wide landscape buffer is required3 unless otherwise the Street Frontage Required When Lot is determined by the Reviewing Official through the site plan Adjacent8 to Property Zoned Residential, development review process. RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM Minimum Landscape Width Required When 15 ft. wide landscaped visual barrier consistent with the Lot is Abutting? to Property Zoned definition in RMC 4-11-120. A 10 ft. sight -obscuring Residential, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-145 landscape strip may be allowed through the site plan or RM development review process.3,4 Maximum Building Height,14,16 except for 50 ft. except when abutting lots zoned R-8, RMH, R-10, R- Public uses with a "Public Suffix" (P) 14, or RM-F, then 45 ft, designation20 Maximum Height for Wireless See RMC 4-4-140G. Communication Facilities Outdoor, Loading, Repair, Maintenance, Work, or Storage Areas; Surface -Mounted Utility and Mechanical Equipment; Roof See RMC 4-4-095, Top Equipment (Except for Telecommunication Equipment) Refuse or Recyclables See RMC 4-4-090, Parking General See RMC 10-10-13 and RMC 4-4-080. Residential Uses: Required parking may be located underground or under building (on the first floor of the residential structure), or in an attached or detached structure. All parking must be accessed from a rear alley. Re uired Location for Parking Commercial Uses: Parking may not be located between the buildinq and the public street unless located within a structured parking act rage - A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street, in order to provide direct, clear and Pedestrian Circulation General separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and internally from buildings to abutting retail properties. Signs General See RMC 44-100. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doe Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:28:00 AM_;! —W06 9.57_00 AM Page 26 of 80 See RMC 4-4-080. Shall not be permitted on the side of the lot adjacent to or Loading Docks Location within Site abutting a residential zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM.3 Size and Location of Refuse or Recycling See RMC 4-4-090. Areas Critical Areas General See RMC 4-3-050. Design Guidelines Subject to the Design Guidelines in RMC 4-3-100 4-3-095CENTER VILLAGE RES1—DENT'n' FLEX BONUS DISTRICT: A PURPOSE: These regulations are intended to ensure high -quality residential developments within the Center Village Residential Zening-Mstrist.-Zone The intent is to require rnmmorrial i rsoc nrnVirtn first flnnr rnm moFial-aGivity -644e4am+ty-neighberhae allow maximum flexibility in the the redevelopment of property in the Center Village Residential zone through the use of a Master Plan. The Flex Bonus District will allow the redevglo ment of the Center village according to prevailing market forces which change over time. The Flex Bonus District also allows new and innovative projects to be built. B APPLICABILITY: This section applies to all residential development and mixad-guar-ciaVresider► ' within the Center Village Residential Bo ist-r-istZone. 1. Center Village R-eSideRtial-Flex Bonus District: That area depicted 'R subseGt OR C of this SeGti,u,_withiR Any area zoned CV-R is eligible to participate in the Center Village Flex Bonus District if all of the following conditions are met: a. The property for redevelopment shall be at least one acre in size. b. The proposal shall include provision for the develo ment of affordable housing at the minimum rate of 25% of the minimum residential density for the zone (or two dwelling units per net acre). c. The proposal is Master Planned, subject to the requirements of RMC 4-9-200 •- r This map is a nraphiG rnnrflcoRtatinR r A0t n 1�{,a F4ae4_t0- C USES PERMITTED IN CENTER VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL BONUS DISTRICT: H:IEDNSP1Cornp Plan\Sub Area PlanslHighlands\Developrnent Reg DraftslZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doe Last printed 3/16'2006 ] 1:28:00 AM" 116Q00r 9:57,:00 AM page 27 of 80 The following residential uses are permitted in addition to all othOFses; eistiflg flatsitownhomes, and he uses permitted in the underlying zoning. Uses are subject to the underlying density requirements of the zone. 1. Flats 2 Adult family homes Detached dwellings 3. Semi -attached dwellings D SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL.IC-0- 'IAI Us- I O ATED -WITHIN THE CENTER VILLAGE FLEX BONUS DISTRICT: In order to maintain maximum flexibility to provide for innovation and respond to market forces few development standards have been specified for the Center Village Flex Bonus District. It is expected that the applicant will negotiate the details of the development standards for the project in a series of pre -application meetings held jointly with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and the Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department. In negotiating development standards, the following criteria shall apply: 1, Underlying Zoning: Unless special development standards are specified for the Center Village Flex_ Bonus District, protects shall comply with underlying zoning standards for the CV-R zone, as listed in the development standards table at RMC 4-2-110. A variance is re uired to deviate from underlying zoning standards. 2, General CV-R Development Standards: Where special standards are s ecified for the Center Village Flex Bonus District as "subject to Master Plan" the underlying standard for the zone shall be used as a guideline. 3. Design Guidelines: All development is subject to the design guidelines in RMC 4-3-100. A variance is required to deviate from these Design Guidelines_ 4. Subarea Plan: All development shall comply with the adopted goals and policies of the Highlands Subarea Plan. Unless speGial development StandaFds are Specified below in this subseGt'OR, the develepmefl-t standards 1i are applicable.request a,...Yaan-.&4od ._'V -tP.- �It�I-� veloprne,at..Stan r4-.4 ,rd-& . r4-1-'nn ZnRiner 6t@RdaFd6 OF iho nn de i G€ ERAL H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Snb Area Plans\HighlandslDevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:28:00 AM Page 28 of 80 -Garages -Only the alleyw +tied �+v+t Bu+if ng D& Bsign Standar 4) VaFiatinn_ar.modul atlOf3"[af trrr+innl nnrl hnrirynn4Al frsnr�r[oc is rani rirnd-at minim z„ r,# 2 t _ at__2 - of .41.t.. ft.,. on . -is requ+red:3)street-and-have-t apg tha street�rut..riearfy v &ible from the access to abutting uses, Garage Str,irWrn Entry a;;d Exit Not pew*t d-,tp,..operl..d. , Maximum ,.o ir-Height-__p T 50 �j�-+-tri-pr..I Warty R t'�e�4jht w+t $0-feet-Bf �c R—S or-f'4line-i.in4ss-a"'i'�'�'difiration through Site PlaR Parking LOG2tmOR Parking fnr the rocirlent±ai-GeMP pNo parking shall be IeGated l3E'�3 aen-r t'tfRg-4-pubk+mil" 4ng-wa es shall be rem ed E„ th„y de -net omjfiate-the"faGade of the res'dential,duilding. Parking garage eRtrme6 s!#atl he des; ,ne to mir 'm the apparentirl #�n.�.fr.urr uo�n. on#rinc cn #ho,i iin not cy. ..ithmn the b iilrtinn shall be Gr scfeefled-th ugh any GOMbiHatiOR 9f e-gfllles;--of , trellis work with IandGGapmHg.Parking garage,-; shall be designed to r similaw forrn materialsand 694- l&-Gf th,e-rasideR+ia� nnr+inn Of the hUiiding. Wit"RGGiaWeVelopmefit-&ta-ridards PR the Center Village Residential BORUS �Iar;n;ng/BuAdl ' #e �--Wt on des+gn , Nemghb8Fheqds and fr—Planning-Adm nistrator-or-d -OPe shall ant all la,. PrAiOrt nriontc resi },-deve op menls-to-the street and ha6 nrimaFy b iildiRg eRtriar .Rg4Ke irl stFee+ ERtrme are nntifi8d with a pFomientt-featurf & - -ordetail. � �a7 � �-" H:IEDNSPIComp PianlSub Area P1ansTighlandslDevelopment Reg DraflslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3J16/2006 1 1:2S:00 AM'"{'?""' :c�:nn ""r Page 29 of 80 — i r}-.a-wary t hGt-d 0e s-fae# 4GM t-� : r-2cce1,s+ they a stepped beef 0M. the fnr.nrle of +11r,,}�uflt�ir-tg- 4 —Oriented to minimire their-visual-irnpaGt on the site and are designed so that the size areas. w ♦ w _ j a4kwa,ys-4hrG♦Jg4--p,a.rkingarea&-ar$.w6defined and provide access from public sir ewalkc into the see- 4�,,�lk m width is a minimuof fire feet (5')Da err ChaRges ele , teXtUF8 OF .-.ni+iEN4 of r..�.ring Pedestrian r, ertions are nrGyklerl &-the ssurrou d ng F;eighber�ortiooeed 6taAdaFdiZ8d is-disGoura fed: 9._-- Zxterfor-fnaterials are attractive even .a. wen said . s have .Pattem, ef-riend-thei a high level of quality Qd-4etai4f -q Of bWdiRgS that Gan he Sean by he-ganer-a4i b4--.. 44-.--At-teast-orfe-of-4he following features-ls-ifncorporated i StFU..+ Fes .+. Ht8iniAg thFee (3) nr me Fee eilir limit, p ale at leasteae architectural projection not less than twe fFern the wall plane and RGt less than ibur feet (4 wide; or b_ I,,,.,,,rn©rnrnnrate building modulation_ to red r+e, r an interval orr.ial of minimum o4y_�r-an-84q ii.ralont Stanrlarrl whit h adds inter%Stand n�ulmtyi to }gym Center Villaga sti s a aa variance to • 2004-) 4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: A PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to: H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopment Reg Draft slZoning\lnterim Zoning Revisions IV{3-06}.doc Last printed 3/16i2006 1 1.28.00 AM3 4r»nn�.nr,� is page 30 of 80 a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; C. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. 2. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District 'A' (the Downtown Core) that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center — Downtown. This Vision is of a downtown that will continue to develop into an efficient and attractive urban city. The Vision of the Downtown Core is of mixed uses with high -density residential living supported by multi -modal transit opportunities. Redevelopment will be based on the pattern and scale of established streets and buildings. 3. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District 'B' (the South Renton Neighborhood) that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City's South Renton Neighborhood Plan. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan, for a residential area located within the Urban Center— Downtown, maintains the existing, traditional grid street plan and respects the scale of the neighborhood, while providing new housing at urban densities. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan supports a residential area that is positioned to capitalize on the employment and retail opportunities increasingly available in the Downtown Core. 4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center — North (District 'C') that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center — North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks. The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. 5. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of "big -box retail" as defined in RMC 4- 11-180, Definitions. 6. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Hi hlands Subarea commercial core District D' that ensure desi n unlit of structure and site development that implements the Cityof Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for the Center Village and Commercial Neighborhood designations and the Highlands Subarea Plan_ Uses within this district include business and professional offices, services, retail, restaurants, recreational businesses, mixed -use commercial and residential buildings, and multi -family residential. This portion of the Highlands Subarea is intended to provide a vital business district.s.erving the local neighborhood and beyond. 7. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the residential portion of the Highlands Subarea District `E' that ensure desi n quality of structure and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for the Center Village designation and the Highlands Subarea Plan. Areas si ect to these regulations maybe. designated Center Village, Residential Medium Density,or Residential Single..Family in the Comprehensive Plan. A variety in housin a tions allows for economic and lifestyle diversity in the.Hiclhlands Subarea with desic n quid6ines to tie the range of styles and types together. 8. Establish two categories of regulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. ,Set H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area P1anslHighlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\lnterim Zoning Revisions N(3-06).doc Last printed 3i 16i?006 1 1:28:00 AM Page 31 of 80 specific minimum standards and guidelines that may apply to all three districts, or certain districts only (Districts 'A', 'B', or 'C'), as indicated herein. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) B APPLICABILITY: 1. This Section shall apply to all development in the Urban Center — Downtown and Urban Center — North. For the purposes of the design regulations, the Center Downtown is District 'A', South Renton is District 'B', and the Urban Center — North is District 'C.' Districts A through C are depicted on the Urban Center Design Overlay District Map, shown in subsection B4 of this Section. 2. This Section shall also apply to big -box retail use where allowed in the Commercial Arterial (CA), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM), and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones, except when those zones are located in the Employment Area — Valley south of Interstate 405. Big -box retail uses within these zones, except in the Employment Area — Valley, must comply with design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center -- North (District 'C'). 3. Where conflicts may be construed between the design regulations of this Section and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this Section shall prevail. 4. Urban Center Design Overlay District Map: 5. _ This section shall apply to all development in the Highlands Subarea as shown on the Highlands Subarea Design Districts map in subsection B6 of this Section.. For the purposes of the Design Regulations, areas within the Highlands Subarea zoned as Commercial Neighborhood CN and Center Village- Core CV-C shall comprise District "D". Areas within the Hi hlands Subarea zoned Center Village- Residential (CV-R), Residential Multi -family (RMF), Residential-14 (R-14), area Residential-10 (R-10) shall be in District "E". 6. Highlands Subarea District Map: H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoninglInterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 11 Q8:00 AM3" 02-0 ❑. �.nn nre page 32 of 80 .11 . ........ .. Highlands Subarea Design Districts District D District E r, H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\lnten'm Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doe Last printed 3/16/2006 11 :28:00 AMPage 33 of 80 (Amd. Ord. 4991, 12-9-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord, 5124, 2-7-2005) C EXEMPTIONS: The design regulations shall not apply to: 1. Interior Remodels: Interior remodels of existing buildings or structures provided the alterations do not modify the building facade. 2. Aircraft Manufacturing: Structures related to the existing use of aircraft manufacturing in District 'C'. (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) D ADMINISTRATION: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to design regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. 2. Authority; The i e€af ery ses-BiviP,io Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the Director Official will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations. (Amd. Ord. 4991, 12-9-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) E SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high -density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights -of -way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' and 'B': Maintain existing grid street pattern b. Minimum Standards for District'C': Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. ii. Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. H:IEDNSP1Comp P1an\Sub Area Plans\ ighlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16, 006 11:25:00 AMA"{'?nnr. n:c�.nn n nx page 34 of 80 (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). (e) Drive aisles. C. Minimum Standards for Districts 'D' and 'E': Maintain street and alley pattern consistent with the adopted Road Network Plan in the Highlands Subarea Plan. 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' and,-'B', `D', and 'E': Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. b. Minimum Standards for District'C': i. Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian -oriented streets is prohibited. Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. iii. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. iv. Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single -purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10') and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7b). V. If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). C. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': i. Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). 4. Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. H:IEDNSPIComp P1an\Sub Area P1anslH1gh1ands\Devc1opment Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16"2006 1 1:28:00 AM2 1 6/2006 ❑.s-7.nn nr . Page 35 of 80 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' and -B': Entrance Location: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street. Such entrances shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human scale elements. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. On pedestrian -oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. ii. On non -pedestrian -oriented streets, entrances shall be prominent, visible from surrounding streets, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. iii. All building entries adjacent to a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping_ Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings with frontage on designated pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 1OOE7d). iv. Weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide and proportional to the distance above ground level shall be provided over the primary entry of all buildings and over any entry adjacent to a street. V. Pedestrian pathways from public sidewalks to primary entrances or from parking lots to primary entrances shall be clearly delineated. C. Minimum Standards Applicable to Districts'D' and 'E': i. Entrance Location: A primary entrance of each buildincl shall be located on the facade facing a street. Such entrances shall be prominent, visible from the street connected b a walkwa to the ublic sidewalk, and include human scale elements. ii. Multi le buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of edestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. iii. Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open_ space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. iv. Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. V. Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections crosswalks and transit stops. vi. Features such as entries lobbies and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrianw oriented s acem otherwise,..screening or decorative features such as trellises artwork murals landsca in or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. H:IEDNSPIComp P1an\Sub Area P1ans\f ighlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doe Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:28:00 AM Page 36 of 80 d. Guidelines Applicable to U Districts 'A', 'B', and 'C': i_ Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. ii. Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. iii. Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1I2') wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. iv. Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. V. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian - oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. de. Guidelines Applicable to Districts Wand 'D': i. For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. H. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. iii. Entries from the street should be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings within District W. ef. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and 'E': Front yards should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, or similar feature. fg. Guideline Applicable to District 'C': For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. H:IEDNSPIComp P1an\Sub Area P1ansTighlands\Development Reg Drafls\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 t 1:28:00 AM3 ti ri22nnr. e.c7.nn n M page 37 of 80 a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and 'D': Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: i. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; iii. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or iv. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. b. Minimum Standards for Districts'B' and 'E': i. Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk, and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: (a) Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; or (b) Building articulation provided to divide a larger architectural element into smaller pieces; or (c) Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development- H. In areas with older style, steeply pitched, single family homes, similar roof styles are encouraged to achieve more harmonious relationships between new and old buildings. C. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. For properties along North 6th Street and Logan Avenue North (between North 4th Street and North 6th Street), applicants shall demonstrate how their project provides an appropriate transition to the long established, existing neighborhood south of North 6th Street known as the North Renton Neighborhood. ii. For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue North, applicants must demonstrate how their project appropriately provides transitions to existing industrial uses. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high -volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e). H:IEDNSPIComp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafls\ZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16;'2006 1 1:28:00 AM346/2 0 9:57:00 AN4 Page 38 of 80 ii. Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. iii. In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self -closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-1 NEW). iv. The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. v_ If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum three feet (3') wide, shall be located on three (3) sides of such facility. b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'C' and `D': i. Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection E7g of this Section). ii. Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection Eft of this Section). iii. Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two (2) or more of the following: (a) Public art; (b) Monuments; (c) Special landscape treatment; (d) Open space/plaza; (e) Identifying building form; (f) Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; (g) Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); (h) Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). 7. Illustrations. H:TDNSP\Comp PlanlSub Area PlansTlighlandsTevelopment Reg Drafts\ZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2 06 1 1:28:00 AM—7:00 N 4 Page 39 of80 No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': On Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking. No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) On -street, parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street, ii. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. iii. Surface Parking Lots: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200% unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection F5a of this Section). C. Minimum Standards for Districts 'D' and `E': i. No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line or -the buildinq and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. ii. In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is required. d. Minimum Standards for District 'E': Parking shall be alley loaded unless the development is subject to a Master Plan under RMC 4-9-200. e. Guideline Applicable to Att-Districts 'A', 'B', and `C': In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. df. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': i. If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building facade. ii. When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. q. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'E' and `I=': i. Parking should be alley loaded, H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area P1ans\H1gh1andslDeve1opment Reg Drafts\Zoning\lnterim Zoning Revisions N(3-06).doc Last printed 3/161!1006 11:28,00 AM '! &200f 9.57:00 = ;4 Page 41 of 80 a. Pedestrian -oriented facades (see subsection E2b(i) of this Section). b. Street -level residential (see subsection E2b(iv) of this Section). C. Buildings without pedestrian -oriented uses (see subsection E2b(v) of this Section). d. Building entries (see subsection E3b(iii) of this Section). e. Service elements located to minimize the impact on the pedestrian environment (see subsection E5a(i) of this Section). Service enclosure (see subsection E5a(iii) of this Section). g. Distinguishable building form appropriate for gateway locations (see subsection E6a(i) of this Section). h. Gateway landscaping, open space, pedestrian amenities and signage that identifies the commercial area (see subsection E6a(ii) of this Section). (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) F PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Highlands Subarea; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and `B': H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area Plans\highlandslDevelopment Reg Drafls\ZoninglInterim Zoning Revisions W(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:28:00 AM3/1.6/ 00 9;57.00 AM page 40 of80 ii. Parking should be located in a structured parking facility. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible_ Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' -ands, 'C'. and `D': i. Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection F5b of this Section). ii. All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: i. Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on -site buffering from visual impacts_ ii. Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles, iii. Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Highlands subarea; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standards for District 'C': Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground -floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection F5c of this Section). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. ii. Parking Structures Fronting Nan -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at least six feet (6') from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to ten feet (10') adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible H:IEDNSPIComp Plan\Sub Area P1anslHighlands \Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Interim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16;2006 11:28:00 AM311.612006 19157:00 A�! page 42 of 80 treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection F5d of this Section). b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' and . 'C', and 'D': Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. iL The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. iii. Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. iv. Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. Residential garage parking should be secured with electronic entries. vi. Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and 'E': i. Attached personal parking garages at -grade should be individualized and not enclose more than two (2) cars per enclosed space. Such garages should be architecturally integrated into the whole development. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area P1ans\H1gh1ands\Deve1opment Reg Drafts\ZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions N(3-06).doc Last printed 3i 16"2006 1 1:?S:00 AM3/ . Page 43 of 80 ii. Multiple -user parking garages at -grade should be enclosed or screened from view through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. iii. All garage parking in this district should be secured with decorative doors. iv. Personal parking garages should be individualized whenever possible with separate entries and architectural detailing in character with the lower density district. V. Large multi-user parking garages are discouraged in this lower density district and, if provided, should be located below grade whenever possible. vi. Service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'B' and `E': Parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available. b. Minimum Standards for District'C': L Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian -oriented streets. iii. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' and 'D': Parking lots and garages should be accessed from alleys or side streets. ii. Driveways should be located to be visible from the right-of-way, but not impede pedestrian circulation on -site or to adjoining properties. Where possible, minimize the number of driveways and curb cuts. d. Guidelines Applicable to Area `B' and `E': i. Garage entryways and/or driveways accessible only from a street should not impede pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk. Curb cuts should be minimized whenever possible through the use of shared driveways. Illustrations. Parking and vehicular access in District 'C' (see subsection F1b(iii) of this Section). H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area PlanMighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 11:28:00 AM316 006 9,57.00 AN,r Page 44 of 80 b. Parking lot lighting (see subsection F2a(i) of this Section). C. Parking structure fronting on pedestrian -oriented street with pedestrian -oriented uses and facades along the ground floor (see subsection F3a(i)(a) of this Section). d. Parking structure designed to enhance streetscape (see subsection F3a(ii)(c) of this Section). (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) G PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'C' and 'D': Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. H. Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of one hundred and fifty feet (150') apart (see illustration, subsection G4a of this Section). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'A' and,.'C' and'D': i. Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection G4b of this Section). Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. iii. Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection G4c of this Section). H:TDNSP\Comp PlanlSub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/1.6/ 006 11:28:00 AM Page 45 of 80 iv. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings one hundred (100) or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least twelve feet (12') in width. The walkway shall include an eight foot (8') minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection G4d of this Section). (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A ten to twelve foot (10' — 12') pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four (4) abreast, or two (2) couples passing one another. An eight foot (8') pathway will accommodate three (3) individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller five to six foot (5' — 6') pathway will accommodate two (2) individuals. V. Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. vi. All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: i. Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. iii. Fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. C. Guidelines Applicable to District'C' Only: i. Through -block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection G4e of this Section). ii. Between buildings of up to and including two (2) stories in height, through -block connections should be at least six feet (6') in width. iii. Between buildings three (3) stories in height or greater, through -block connections should be at least twelve feet (12') in width. iv. Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum of one -quarter (0,25) mile apart. V. As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than fourteen feet (14') in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per sixty (60) lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided. H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area PlanslHighlands\Development Reg Drafis\ZoninglInterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 31lfi/2006 1 1:28:00 AM =A W200 , n. c7:nn n N,r Page 46 of 80 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions_ a. Minimum Standards for District-'C': i. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide along at least seventy five percent (75%) of the length of the building facade facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street, a maximum height of fifteen feet (15') above the ground elevation, and no lower than eight feet (8') above ground level. ii. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. iii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. b. Minimum Standards for District 'D': i. Provide pedestrian overhead weather r� otection in the form of awnin s mar uees cano ies or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet (4 %2') wide alongat_least seventy five percent (75%) of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of fifteen feet (15') above_ the ground elevation, and no lower than eight feet (8') above ground level. iL Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. iii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'C', Vand i. Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. iii. Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade -mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection G4f of this Section). d. Guidelines Applicable to District'E' only: i. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonablv maintained over an extended period of time. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg DraffslZoning\Interim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3,1O.�2006 1 1:2 S.00 AMA" rr?r�n� °:��:�'n e�� Page 47 of 80 ii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. 4. Illustrations. a. Pedestrian walkways within parking lots (see subsection G1a(ii) of this Section). b. Integrated pedestrian access system (pathways are shown in solid black lines) (see subsection G2a(i) of this Section). C. Parking lot pedestrian interior walkway (see subsection G2a(iii) of this Section). d. Sidewalks along retail building facade (see subsection G2a(iv)(a) of this Section). e. Through -block pedestrian connections (see subsection G2c of this Section). f. Pedestrian amenities incorporated into development (see subsection G3b(iii) of this Section), (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) H LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREASICOMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area PlansTighlands\Development Reg Drafls\ZoninglInterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 11:25:00 AMA" -200 . 9:57.00 AM Page 48 of 80 a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). ii. Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. iii. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection H3a of this Section), iv. The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. V. The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and non -vegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. vi. Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscaping Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection H3b of this Section). Standards for planting shall be as follows: (a) Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty five feet (35'). Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet (8') or two inch (2") caliper (as measured four feet (4') from the top of the root ball) respectively. (b) Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least twelve inches (12") tall at planting and have a mature height between three feet (3') and four feet (4'). (c) Groundcover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent (90%) coverage of the landscaped area within three (3) years of installation. (d) The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three (3) years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. (e) Surface parking with more than fourteen (14) stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number of SpacesMinimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space HAMNSMomp P1an\Sub Area PlanslHighlands\Developmcnt Reg Drafts\Zoning\lnterim Zoning Revisions W(3-06).doc Last printed 1116/'M6 1 1:28:00 AMA" W200 . o: c7:nn AM page 49 of 80 Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. (3) Plant at least one tree for every six (6) parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty five feet (35'). Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet (8') or two inch (2") caliper (as measured four feet (4') from the top of the root ball) respectively. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five (5) per one hundred (100) square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least sixteen inches (16") tall at planting and have a mature height between three feet (3') and four feet (4'). (5) Up to fifty percent (50%) of shrubs may be deciduous. (6) Select and plant groundcover so as to provide ninety percent (90%) coverage within three (3) years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than fifty feet (50') from a landscape area. vii. Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. viii. Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas- b. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. ii. Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. iii. Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is encouraged. iv. Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. V. Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. vi. Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. vii. Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and `E': Front yards should be visible from the street and visually contribute to the streetscape. Decorative walls and fencing are encouraged when architecturally integrated into the project. H:TDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area P1ans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\Interim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doe Last printed 3/16.'2006 11 :28:00 AM31'V-2nnr. rti.�n. page 50 of 80 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street comers. a. Minimum Standards for Districts W, an t-'C' and and `D': 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 Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director 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; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are 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. iii. 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. iv. 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 (see illustration, subsection H3c of this Section). V. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. vi. 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. vii. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection H3d of this Section) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1 % of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space viii. To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/1.6,'2006 I 1 :28:00 AMIA.6/200 9:5 7:00 AM page 51 of 80 (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including 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; (c) On -site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground; and (d) At least three feet (T) of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space. ix. The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection H3e of this Section) and may be required by the Director: (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. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. X. The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space; (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. A. The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian - oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space. b. Minimum Standards for Districts `B' and `E': Attached housing developments shall provide a minimum area of private usable open space equal to one hundred fifty (150) square feet per unit of which one hundred (100) square feet are contiguous. Such space may include porches, balconies, yards, and decks. C. Minimum Standards for District 'C': The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' land-'C' and 'D': 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. H:IEDNSPIComp P1an\Sub Area PlanslHighlands\Development Reg Drafls\Zoning\Interim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3116/1-006 l l :25:00 AM-1 6/200. 967.00 AM page 52 of 80 ii. Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique 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. e. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C': Developments located at street intersection corners on designated pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection H3f of this Section). 3. Illustrations. a. Street tree installed with tree grate (see subsection H1a(iii) of this Section). b. Parking lot landscaped buffer (see subsection H1a(vi) of this Section). C. Visible and accessible common area featuring landscaping and other amenities (see subsection H2a(iv) of this Section). d. Pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building (see subsection H2a(vii) of this Section). e. Pedestrian -oriented spaces, visible from the street, including ample seating areas, movable furniture, special paving, landscaping components and pedestrian -oriented uses (see subsection H2a(ix) of this Section). f. Building setbacks increased at street corners along pedestrian -oriented streets to encourage provisions for pedestrian -oriented spaces (see subsection H2e of this Section). (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. Building Character and Massing: H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area P1ansTighlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoninglInterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/1 fi,'2006 1 1:28:00 AM3 ri 6/2006 9,57.00 n n,r page 53 of 80 Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' and 'D': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). b. Minimum Standard for Districts 'B' and 'E': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than twenty feet (20'). Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, subsection 15a of this Section). All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; (d) Roofline features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director. iii. Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection 15b of this Section): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be forty feet (40'). (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be fifteen feet (15'). (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet (6') or not less than two tenths (0.2) multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' arad �'B', 'D', and `E': i. Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. iii. A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects. e. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' and `D': Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet (2') in depth and four feet (4') in width. H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area P1ans\BighlandsTevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/10/200.0__l.1_28:00 AM36/2006 9;57:00 AN4 Page 54 of 80 Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and `E': i. Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet (2') deep, sixteen feet (16') in height, and eight feet (8') in width. ii. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, off -set planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered; provided, that the intent of this Section is met. g. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C': i. Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Style: Buildings should be urban in character. iii. Buildings greater than one hundred and sixty feet (t 60') in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection 15c of this Section). 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet (6') in height, has a horizontal length greater than fifteen feet (15% and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of four hundred (400) square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. ii. Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection 15d of this Section): (a) A planting bed at least five feet (5') in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; H:IEDNSPIComp PlanlSub Area P1anslHighlandslDevelopment Reg Draft slZoninglinterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 1 l :28:00 AMA" rnnr_ 1.57:00 A h= Page 55 of80 (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. iii. Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. iv. Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. V. Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. vi. Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be fifty percent (50%). (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. b. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' a+id-,_'C' and `p': i. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection lye of this Section): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions N(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16,C)Q06 1 l :25:00 AM2" 6Q00 , 9.57.00 AAA page 56 of 80 (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). ii. Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail. iii. Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and `E': Use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood siding is encouraged. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and 'C', and 'D': Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection 15f of this Section): i. Extended parapets; ii. Feature elements projecting above parapets; iii. Projected cornices; iv. Pitched or sloped roofs. (a) Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the structure when viewed from ground level. (b) Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4- 095E, Roof -Top Equipment. (c) Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area P1ans\H1gh1ands\Developrnent Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 11:28:00 AM,'r r_ 200 9,57.00 AM Page 57 of 80 b. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and 'E': i. Buildings containing predominantly residential uses should have pitched roofs with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4). Such roofs should have dormers or intersecting roof forms that break up the massiveness of a continuous, uninterrupted sloping roof. ii. Roof colors should be dark. C. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C': Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building. 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standards for all Districts: i. All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. ii. Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. iii. Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. b. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and-,-'C', and `D': Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. C. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: i. Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and east -in -place concrete. ii. Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. iii. Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. iv. Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents_ They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. d. Guideline Applicable to Districts 'B' and 'E': Use of material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding or patterns, or textural changes is encouraged. Illustrations. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions W(3-06).doc Last printed 3i 1b/2006 l 1:?8:00 AM3'j 6/2006 9,57.00 AM page 58 of 80 a. Building modulation and articulation (see subsection 11c(i) of this Section). b. Single purpose residential building featuring building modulation to reduce the scale of the building and add visual interest (see subsection 11c(iii) of this Section). C. Reducing scale of long buildings (see subsection 11g(iii) of this Section). d. Acceptable blank wall treatments (see subsection 12a(ii) of this Section). Building facade features (see subsection 12b(i) of this Section). f. Preferred roof forms (see subsection 13a of this Section). (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7- 2005) J SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center; and create color and interest. 1. Minimum Standards for Districts 'C' and 'D': a_ Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. b. Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. C. Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection J3a of this Section): i. Pole signs. ii. Roof signs. iii. Hack -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. In mixed use and multi -use buildings, Signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area P1ans\Highland s\Development Reg Drafls\Zoning\Interim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 11:28:00 AM," 6/200 . 9:57:00 A N4 Page 59 of 80 e, Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet (5) above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (groundcover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. 2. Guidelines Applicable to Districts -'C' and `D': a. Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. C. Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets. 3. Illustrations. a. Acceptable and unacceptable signs (see subsection J1c of this Section). (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) K LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. 1. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' act L'C', and 'D': a. Lighting shall conform to on -site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. b. Lighting shall be provided on -site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off - site. C. Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. 2. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'C' and 'D': a. Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. b. Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7- 2005) H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:28:00 AW/W2006 9.57:00 nr4 Page 60 of 80 L. MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS: 1, The niH9_Gt„r n4 the DeV8lGPH4e At SeFViue Reviewing Official Division shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the design regulations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts A and B: Modifications to the requirements in subsections Eta and E3a of this Section are limited to the following circumstances: a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or C. In complexes with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) M VARIANCE: (Reserved). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) N APPEALS: For appeals of administrative decisions made pursuant to the design regulations, see RMC 4-8-110, Appeals, (Ord. 4821, 12-20-1999; Amd. Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) 4-3-120 COTTAGE HOUSING REGULATIONS A. PURPOSE: The_purpose of this Section is to establish design and development regulations for Cottage Housing projects. Cottage Housing provides ownership opportunities for a wide range of household types, including: small families singles, and retirees. The intent is to provide flexible site planning requirements to ensure the best use of open space for residents and maximum compatibility with surrounding land uses. B. APPLICABILITY: This Section shall.apply to all Cottage Housing in any zone in which it is a permitted use. H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area P1ans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoning\lnterim Zoning Revisions TV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 11:28:00 AM3/ ' Page 61 of 80 C. ADMINISTRATION: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to Urban Center „Design ,Overlay _District regulations shall be processed as a component of the governinq land use process. 2. Authority: The Reviewing Official shad have the authority -to approve, approve with conditions or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the Official will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards andguldelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of this Section. D. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Unless special development standards are specified below in this subsection, the development standards listed in the underlying zoning are applicable. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GENERAL Site Layout Cottages must be oriented toward the common space with covered porches as the main entry. All units must be within a 60 ft. walking distance of the common space. There shall be units abutting the commons ace on at least two sides. Pedestrian pathways shall connect individual dwelling units to the common space. Clusterinp All housing shall be clustered. There shall be a minimum of 4 units and a maximum of 12 units per cluster. There may be more than one cluster per development. OPEN SPACE Private Open Space .Requirement Each unit shall have a rninimum of 200 sq.ft. private, ground related, outdoor space, with a minimum dimension of 10 ft. The space should be for the exclusive use of the occupant and dwelling unit must have direct access to this space. Private open space should be oriented toward the common space whenever possible. Common Open Space The development shall contain a common space owned residents in common „by_the and protected by covenant. Common spaces may consist of open space, or one or more structures. A minimum of 200 sp, ft. of common open space is required per Requirement dwelling unit, with a minimum dimension of 20 ft. and a maximum slope of 5%. Critical areas shall not be counted as open sace but critical area buffers may be. SETBACKS Front setbacks from 10 ft. unless ad'acent to a lower intensity residential zone then 15 ft, property lines Side setback from property lines 5 ft. If adjacent to a lower intensity residential zone or a public street then 10 ft. If there is garage or parking access from the side yard or side street, then 18 ft. Rear setback from property lines If the development has alley access there is none provided that the garage must be set back a sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out room counting alley surface. If there is occupiable space above an attached garage with alle access the minimum setback for the occupiable space shall be 10 ft_ If there H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area P1anslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doe Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1-.28:00 AM=1W2006 9:57.00 AM page 62 of 80 is no alley access, the minimum rear setback is 10 ft. unless adjacent to a lower intensity residential zone. then 15 ft. Interior setbacks between buildings 10 ft. but proiections (e.g. eaves, gutters, and any fixture not exceeding 3 sq. ft) may extend into the setback a maximum of 12"_ BUILDING LIMITATIONS Floor Area Maximum floor area 1,200 s . ft. with a maximum of 800 s . ft. on the first floor. Building Design Standards Covered porches shall provide the main entry to the unit and shall be a minimum of 60 sg.ft.. with a minimum dimension of 6 ft. HEIGHT Maximum Height Maximum height is 18 fit, but buildings with pitched roofs may extend up to 25 ft. at roof ridge line with a pitched roof. All parts of the roof over 18 ft. must be pitched. PARKING Parking Location For lots abutting.a.n..aje.V,. allparking shall be provided in the rear portion of the and and access taken from the alley. For lots without alley access, parking is prohibited in the front yard setback or side yard setback if adjacent to a public right of way. Parking shall be located on the same property as the development and shall be screened from public streets and adjacent residential uses by either landscaping_or architecture, There shall be a maximum of 5 adjoining spaces in a_ parking. cluster. Pitched roof design is required for detached parkin q structures. E. ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COTTAGE HOUSING: In evaluating compliance with special development standards for Cottage Housing,the-Reviewing Official shall rely on the recommendations contained within the report on design criteria prepared by the Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator or designee. Cottage Housing Projects shall meet all of the following criteria: 1. Proiect is oriented around an internal courtyard or common space, which provides an amenity to residents and is intended to foster a sense of community. 2. Proiect orients residential developments to the common space with primary building entries facing the common space. Entries are identified with a prominent feature or detail. 3. Parking garages are designed to ensure minimal visual impact and maintain neighborhood character. Unless determined to be infeasible due to h sical constraints rear access and parking is required. 4. Landscaping shall be required in all setbacks from the exterior property lines. 5. Walkways through parking areas are well-defined and provide access from public sidewalks into the site. Walkway width is a minimum of five feet (5'). Pavers, changes in color, texture or composition of paving are used. 6. Landscaped pedestrian connections are provided to the surrounding neighborhood. 7. Distinctive building design is provided. No single architectural style is required, however, reliance on standardized "corporate" or "franchise" style is discouraged. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area PlanslHighlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions lV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16,'2(.)06 l 1:2S:00 AM3/ r 2OO6 9:C7:nn n NA Page 63 of 80 8. Exterior materials are attractive even when viewed up close. These materials have texturepattern, or lend themselves to a high level of quality and detailing 10. A consistent visual identity is applied to all sides of the buildings. 11. Cottages adjacent to a public stree#shad rovide a covered entr feature with a minimum dimension of 6 ft. facin_q the street. This should be a second ar entrance as the primary entrance shall face the common space. F. VARIANCE PROCEDURE: Cottage Housing projects must request a variance to deviate from these code provisions, RMC 4-9-250B. Ord. 4777 4-19-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963 5-13-2002; Ord. 5018 9-22-2003� Ord. 5100 11-1-2004 4-3-1-20130 0 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) A ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: The Development Services Administrator or his or her designated representative shall be responsible for investigation of violation and citation of the violating parties. B VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: Unless otherwise specified, violations of this Chapter are misdemeanors subject to RMC 1-3-1. (Ord. 4856, 8-21-2000; Ord. 5159, 10-17-2005) C TESTS: 1. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, or evidence that any action does not conform to the requirements of RMC 4-3- 050, the Department Director may require tests as proof of compliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction. 2. Test methods shall be as specified by RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, or by other recognized and accepted test standards. If there are no recognized or accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, the Department Director shall determine test procedures. (Ord. 4856, 8-21-2000) 4-8-070 AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES I. CITY COUNCIL The City Council shall review and act on the following: 1. Annexations, 2, Appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions (any appeal from a Hearing Examiner's decision, whether an appeal from an administrative determination or an original decision, shall be appealable to the City Council pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E8. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoning\Inten'm Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3i G-2006 1 1:28:00 AM3/16,12006 9:57:00 A nI Page 64 of 80 3. Appeals of staff determination of whether or not a proposal is considered a bulk storage facility, 4. Comprehensive Plan map or text amendment, 5. Dedications of property for public purposes, 6. Development and zoning regulations text amendment, 7. Final Plats, 8_ Preliminary plats, 9. Planned urban developments, preliminary, 10. Release of easements, 11. Rezones associated with Comprehensive Plan amendment, 12. Rezones associated with Comprehensive Plan map or text amendment, 12. Street vacations, 14. Variances from the provisions of subdivision regulations relating to a full subdivision. (Ord 5153, 9-26- 2005) 45. Master Plans associated with participation in the Center Village Flex Bonus District in RMC 4-3-095. (Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Amd. Ord. 4985, 10-14-2002) 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: A PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of site development plan review shall be to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the policies outlined in any applicable Subarea Plan, and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review may be used to analyze plans at varying levels of detail to ensure continuity of project concept and consistent implementation. Elements subject to this Section include, but are not limited to, site layout, building orientation and design, pedestrian and vehicular environment, signage, landscaping, natural features of the site, screening and buffering, parking and loading facilities, and illumination. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. 1. Master Plan: The purpose of the Master Plan process is to guide phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site. The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. Master Plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. H:IEDNSPIComp P1an\Sub Area P1ans\High1ands\Deve1opment Reg Drafts\ZoninglInterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2.006 1 :28:00 AM4A4100 n;{7.40 M Page 65 of 80 2. Site Plan Review: The purpose of the Site Plan process is the detailed arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. For those developments that do not require Master Plan first, Site Plan Review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. The intent of the tiered site development plan review process is to provide an opportunity to review projects at broad levels for the Master Plan and with increased specificity as development plans becomes refined to the level of Site Plan. Intent statements below shall guide review of the plans at a specificity appropriate to the level of review. 1. To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on- and off -site; 2. To promote high quality design meeting criteria set forth in the Design Guidelines at RMC 4-3-100 for the City's Urban Center Design Overlay or the Highlands Subarea, where applicable; 3. To protect and enhance the desirable aspects of the natural landscape and environmental features of the City; 4. To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas, and ensure that road and pedestrian circulation systems implement land use objectives for the zone in which the project occurs; 5_ To promote coordination of public or quasi -public elements, such as walkways, driveways, paths, and landscaping within segments of larger developments and between individual developments; 6. To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses; 7. To minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of uses within allowed zones; 8. To provide for quality, multiple family or clustered housing while minimizing the impacts of high density, heavy traffic generation, and intense demands on City utilities and recreational facilities; 9. To provide a mechanism to more effectively meet the purposes and intent of the State Environmental Policy Act; 10. To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to avoid violation of the purpose and intent of those codes. (Ord. 3981, 4-7- 1986; Amd. Ord, 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) B APPLICABILITY: Master Plan Review - Applicability: a. UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones: Master Plan review is required for all development within the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones that is not specifically exempted in subsections C 1 a and b of this Section. All Master Plans within these zones must be consistent with the conceptual plan required by development agreement(s) applicable to the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones for the specific districts) where they are located. When existing H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area P1ansTighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16'2006 1 1:28:00 AM3 /16Q00 , n.c-r.nn AN4 page 66 of 80 parcels are twenty five (25) acres or smaller, a master plan incorporating all abutting lots in common ownership as of December 1, 2003, is required. No Site Plan Review within an area shall be approved until such a time as a Master Plan is approved for the same area. Master Plan and Site Plan Review for the same area may occur concurrently. b. COR Zones: Master Plan review is required for all development within the COR Zones that is not specifically exempted by subsection C of this Section. C. CV Zones: Master Plan review is required for all development that participates in the Center Village Flex Bonus District under RMC 4-3-095. d. All Other Zones: Master Plans are optional. 2. Site Plan Review: No building permit shall be issued for any use requiring Site Plan Review pursuant to this Section until the Reviewing Official has approved, or approved with conditions, the Site Plan application. All building permits issued shall be in compliance with the approved Site Plan. Site Plan Review is required for: a. All development in the IL, CO, CN, CD, CA, CV-C, CV-R, COR, UC-N1, UC-N2, R-10, RMH, RM, and R-14 Zones. b. K-12 educational institutions. C. Parks. d. Outdoor recreation facilities. e. Rental services with outdoor storage. f. Hazardous Waste Facilities: All hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities. g_ Development within the Employment Area Valley: All development within the Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designation. See EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B. (Ord. 4404, 6-7-1993; Ord. 4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) C EXEMPTIONS: 1. Development Exempt from Master Plan Review: a. UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones Only: i. Airplane Manufacturing and Airplane Manufacturing Accessory Functions: New structures, rehabilitation of existing structures, or lot line adjustments for airplane manufacturing and airplane manufacturing accessory functions within the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones. ii_ Other Uses: Subdivision, lot line adjustment or other method of adjusting lot configurations that result in lots larger than twenty five (25) acres in size. H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area P1anslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraflslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 l 1 :28M AM? J1 '200 9:57:00 AM Page 67 of 80 iii. Other Exemptions in the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones: Other exemptions are listed in subsection Cib of this Section. b. COR, UC-N1, and UC-N2 Zones: Interior remodels. ii. Facade Modifications: Facade modifications such as the location of entrances/exits, the location of windows, changes in signage, or aesthetic alterations. iii. Exterior remodeling or expansion of an existing detached or semi -attached home and/or primary residence, excluding the addition of a new dwelling unit(s). iv. All development categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (chapters 43.21 C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC) and under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. V. Utilities: Underground utility projects. vi. Additional exemptions for the R-10 Zone are listed in subsections C2c and C2d of this Section. vii. Additional exemptions for the R-14 Zone are listed in subsection C2c of this Section. Development Exempt from Site Plan Review: a. In the RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, RMH, RM, CO, CA, CN, CV, CD, IL, IM, and IH Zones: In all zones, the following types of development shall be exempt from the requirements of site plan review: Interior remodel of existing buildings or structures. ii. Facade modifications such as the location of entrances/exits; the location of windows; changes in signage; or aesthetic alterations. iii. Planned unit developments. iv. All development categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (chapter 4321C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC) and under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. Underground utility projects. b. In the R-10, R-14, COR, and UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones: In the R-10, R-14, COR, UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones, the following types of development shall be exempt from the requirements of site plan review: Interior remodel of existing buildings or structures. ii. Facade modifications such as the location of entrances/exits, the location of windows, changes in signage, or aesthetic alterations_ iii. Exterior remodeling or expansion of an existing detached or semi -attached home and/or primary residence, excluding the addition of a new dwelling unit(s). H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraflslZoninglinterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/1611'2006 11 :28:00 AWA 6/2006 9.5 7:00 AM page 68 of 80 iv_ All development categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (chapter 43.21 C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC) and under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. V. Underground utility projects- C. In the R-10 and R-14 Zones, the following types of development shall be exempt from the requirements of Site Plan Review: New or replacement detached or semi -attached homes on a single previously platted lot. Planned unit developments. iii. Development of detached or semi -attached dwelling units on legal lots where part of a subdivision application_ d. In the R-10 Zone, the following types of development shall be exempt from the requirements of site plan review: All development categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (chapter 43.21 C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC) and under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures, excluding shadow platting of two (2) or more units per RMC 4-2-11 OF. (Ord. 3981, 4-7-1986; Ord. 4008, 7-14-1986; Ord. 4614, 6-17-1996; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4802, 10-25- 1999, Amd, Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) D CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: In all cases, the public hearing for Master Plan or Site Plan Review should be conducted concurrently with any other required hearing, such as rezone or subdivision, if the details of the development are sufficiently defined to permit adequate review_ A_public hearing before the City Council shall be required for all Master Plans in the Center Village Flex Bonus District under F2MC 4-3-095. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be required in the following cases: Master Plans: a. All Master Plans proposed or required per subsection B of this Section, Master Plan Review, Applicability_ Where a Master Plan is approved, subsequent Site Plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing. b. Exception for Planned Actions: A hearing before the Hearing Examiner is not required if both of the following criteria are met: i. One or more public hearings were held where public comment was solicited on the proposed Planned Action Ordinance, and ii. The environmental impact statement for the planned action reviewed preliminary conceptual plans for the site which provided the public and decision -makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of the proposed improvements, the quantity of the various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structure will be put, and the bulk and general form of the improvements. Site Plan Review: H:IEDNSP1Comp P1an\Sub Area P1ans\Highland s\Development Reg DraftslZoninglInterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3!16i`2006 1 l :29:00 AM346/2 0 9.57:00 AM Page 69 of 80 a. Significant Environmental Concerns Remain: The Environmental Review Committee determines that based on departmental comments or public input there are significant unresolved concerns that are raised by the proposal; or Large Project Scale: The proposed project is more than: One hundred (100) semi -attached or attached residential units; or ii. One hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the IL or CO Zones or other zones in the Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2- 080B); or iii. Twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the CN, CD, CA, CV, or CO Zones outside the Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4- 2-080B); or iv. Four (4) stories or sixty feet (60') in height; or V. Three hundred (300) parking stalls; or vi. Ten (10) acres in size of project area. C. Commercial or industrial property lies adjacent to or abutting the RC, R-1, R-4, R-8 and R-10 Zones. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord_ 5028, 11-24-2003) E DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLANS: The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation. Review criteria include the following: 1. General Review Criteria for Both Master Plans and Site Plan Review: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation or adopted Subarea Plan shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; C. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; e. Conservation of areawide property values; f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; H:IEDNSP\Comp PlanlSub Area P1anslHighland sTevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3r 16i2006 l l :2 :0{) AM�'� r lnnr. o:c�.nn n r page 70 of $0 g, Provision of adequate light and air; h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. 2. Additional Special Review Criteria for COR, UC-N1, and UC-N2 Zones Only: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable; b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial/Office/Residential or Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designations; C. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent, and provides quality development; d. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems; e. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable; Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; g. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items; h. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; and i. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. Additional Criteria for the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones Only: a. The plan conforms to the approved conceptual plan required by development agreement for the subarea in question, if applicable. b. The plan conforms with the intent and the mandatory elements of the design guidelines located in RMC 4-3-100. The Master Plan clearly identifies the urban design concept for each district enunciated in the Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan policies. C. The proposed interconnected circulation network must demonstrate the function and location of required circulation elements required in RMC 4-3-100. Internal or local roads shall provide adequate edges and buffers to parking lots. A sufficient number of pedestrian -oriented streets are designated to implement the vision for each district in the Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designation. H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area PlansTighlandslDevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3l16/2006 1 ] ;2S:00 AM3A6Q00 ":«:"O AN! Page 71 of 80 d. Gateways are designated consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and conceptual plans for the gateway demonstrate the design concept for gateway treatment and identify significant gateway features to be provided. e. The Master Plan includes a sequencing element that explains what phases of the Master Plan will be built -out first, and in what order the phases will be built, and an estimated time frame. 4. Additional Criteria for the Airport Influence Area: The plan conforms to RMC 4-3-020: Airport Compatible Land Use Restrictions. 5. Additional Criteria for the Hi hlands Subarea: a. For properties participating in the Center Village Flex Bonus District, the plan shall address an area a minimum of 1 acre in size. b. The Ian creates.a compact, urban development that includes a com atible mix of residential uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and POliGY statements Center Village and for the Highlands Subarea Plan; c. The Ian rovides an overall urban design. conce t that is internally consistent and.provides quality development; d. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems; e. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items; f. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; The plan accommodates and promotes transit pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. h. The plan conforms with the intent and the mandatory elements of the design guidelines for the Highlands Subarea in RMC 4-3-100. i. The Master Plan includes a sequencing) element that explains what phases of the Master Plan will be built -out first and in what order the phases will be built and an estimated time frame. k. The Master Plan replaces at least 50% of the existing_ housing located on the site. I. Provision of affordable units at a minimum of 25% of the minimum density requirement for the zone (2 dwelling units per net acre). These units may not be counted toward the requirements for bonus density H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area P1ans\HighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:28:00 AM3A 62006 9,57.00 AM page 72 of 80 6. Waiver of Further Consideration of Site Plan Criteria: Approval of a Master Plan that was not combined with a Site Plan application may have satisfied portions of subsection F of this Section. The Reviewing Official or his or her designee has discretion to waive those portions of the requirements that have been satisfied by the Master Plan approval. Whenever the Zoning Administrator or his or her designee has discretion to note those portions of the requirements as having been satisfied by the Master Plan approval, such sections of the Code shall be detailed and that portion of the approved Master Plan wherein the requirements were satisfied shall be cited by the Reviewing Official or his or her designee in the approval of subsequent phases and further consideration of them waived. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) F ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: The interpretation of the following criteria, particularly references to the "intent of the zoning code," shall consider the purpose and intent of the applicable land use designation of the Land Use Element and the Objectives and Policies of the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Design Element is specifically intended to guide the interpretation of issues concerning the site planning, architectural fit, landscaping, and the context of the project relative to the existing neighborhood. Approval of plans subject to these criteria requires the additional finding that the project complies with the intent and policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Review of Impacts to Surrounding Properties and Uses: a. Mitigation of undesirable impacts of proposed structures and site layouts that could impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the community; b. Mitigation of undesirable impacts when an overscale structure, in terms of size, bulk, height, and intensity, or site layout is permitted that violates Zoning Code standards and the policy direction adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and impairs the use, enjoyment or potential use of surrounding properties; C. Provision of a desirable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility, walkway, and trail systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of landscaping, fencing and/or other buffering techniques, in order to prevent conflicts and to promote coordinated and planned benefit from, and access to, such elements; d. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid overconcentration of structures on a particular portion of a site such that they create a perception of greater height or bulk than intended under the spirit of the Zoning Code; e. Promotion of the efficient function of parking and service areas by effective location, design and screening, to provide integrated facilities between uses when beneficial, to promote urban layouts in appropriate zones, and to prevent unnecessary repetition and conflict between uses and service areas or facilities; f. Mitigation of the unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings and future developable sites, recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features and of promoting urban settings in appropriate zones; g. Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted outdoor storage areas (except auto and truck sales), for surface -mounted utility equipment, for rooftop equipment, H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area P1ans\HighiandslDevelopment Reg Drafts\ZoninglInterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3i 16i2006 ,11:28:00 AM Page 73 of 80 and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to promote an urban setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the Zoning Code; and h. Consideration of placement and design of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. Review of Impacts of a Proposed Site Plan to the Site: a. Provision for privacy and noise reduction by building placement and spacing; orientation to views and vistas and to site amenities, to sunlight and prevailing winds, and to pedestrian and vehicle needs; b. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the openness and natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid overconcentration or the impression of oversized structures; C. Preservation of the desirable natural landscape through retention of existing vegetation and limited soil removal, insofar as the natural characteristics will enhance the proposed development; d. Use of existing topography to reduce undue cutting, filling and retaining walls in order to prevent erosion and unnecessary stormwater runoff, and to preserve stable natural slopes and desirable natural vegetation; e. Limitation of paved or impervious surfaces, where feasible, to reduce runoff and increase natural infiltration; f. Design and protection of planting areas so that they are not susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements; g. Consideration of building form and placement and landscaping to enhance year-round conditions of sun and shade both on -site and on adjacent properties and to promote energy conservation. 3. Review of Circulation and Access: Provision of adequate and safe vehicular access to and from all properties; b. Arrangement of the circulation pattern so that all ingress and egress movements may occur at as few points as possible along the public street, the points being capable of channelization for turning movements; Consolidation of access points with adjacent properties, when feasible; d. Coordination of access points on a superblock basis so that vehicle conflicts and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts are minimized; e. Orientation of access points to side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets, when feasible; f. Promotion of the safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; g. Separation of loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; H:IEDNSPIComp P1an\Sub Area P1ans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions iV{3-06}.doc Last printed 3116/2006 1 1:28:00 AMA -�r. o:c�.nn n � page 74 of 80 Provisions for transit and carpool facilities and access where appropriate; and i. Provision for safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 4. Review of Signage: Employment of signs primarily for the purpose of identification; b_ Management of sign elements, such as size, location and arrangement so that signs complement the visual character of the surrounding area and appear in proportion to the building and site to which they pertain; Limitation of the number of signs to avoid visual clutter and distraction; Moderation of surface brightness or lighting intensity except for that necessary for sign visibility; and e. Provision of an identification system to allow for quick location of buildings and addresses. Special Review Criteria for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities: a. Above -ground hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be constructed with containment controls which will prevent the escape of hazardous wastes in the event of an accidental release from the facility. Such controls shall conform with all adopted Federal, State and local design and construction standards; b. Underground hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with RMC 4-5-120, Underground Storage Tank Secondary Containment Regulations; G. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by ordinance by the City of Renton; d. A hazardous waste spill contingency plan for immediate implementation in the event of a release of hazardous wastes at the facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Renton Fire Department prior to issuance of any permits; and e. The location of all on -site and off -site facilities must comply with the State siting criteria as adopted in accordance with RCW 70.105.210. 6. Review of Street Frontage Landscape: A mix of hard surfaces, structured planters, and terraces may be incorporated into street frontage landscape buffers where such features would enhance the desired streetscape character for that particular neighborhood. 7. Review of Compliance to Design Guidelines for Development in CD, CV-R, CV-C, RM-U, RM-T, UC- N1, and UC-N2 Zones: Development proposed in the zones where design guidelines are in effect must show how they comply with the intent and the mandatory elements of the design guidelines located in RMC 4-3- 100 and RMC 4-3-130. (Ord. 3981, 4-7-1986; Ord. 4186, 11-14-1988; Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Ord.4854, 8-14-2000; Ord_ 5028, 11-24-2003; Ord_ 5100, 11-1-2004) HAMNSMomp P1anlSub Area Plans\HighlandsTevelopment Reg Drafls\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/1612006 1 I :?8:00 AMA r, 200 9.57.00 A n4 page 75 of 80 G SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES: 1, General; All site development plan applications shall be reviewed in the manner described below and in accordance with the purposes and criteria of this Section. The Development Services Division may develop additional review procedures to supplement those required in this subsection. 2. Preapplication Conference: Applicants are encouraged to consult early and informally with representatives of the Development Services Division and other affected departments. This consultation should include a general explanation of the requirements and criteria of site development review, as well as the types of concerns that might be anticipated for the proposed use at the proposed site. 3. Submittal Requirements and Application Fees: Submittal requirements and application fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications, and 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. Consistent with subsection B of this Section, an applicant may submit: a. A Master Plan; or b. A Site Plan; or C. A combined Master Plan and Site Plan for the entire site; or d. A Master Plan addressing the entire site, and a Site Plan(s) for one or more phases of the site that address(es) less than the entire site. 4. Public Notice and Comment Period Required: Whenever a completed site development plan review application is received, the Development Services Division shall be responsible for providing public notice of the pending site plan application, pursuant to RMC 4-8-090, Public Notice Requirements. 5. Circulation and Review of Application: Upon receipt of a completed application, the Development Services Division shall route the application for review and comment to various City departments and other jurisdictions or agencies with an interest in the application. This routing should be combined with circulation of environmental information under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. Comments from the reviewing departments shall be made in writing within fourteen (14) days. Unless a proposed master plan or site plan is subsequently modified, the recommendations of the reviewing departments shall constitute the final comments of the respective departments with regard to the proposed master plan or site plan. Lack of comment from a department shall be considered a recommendation for approval of the proposed plan. However, all departments reserve the right to make later comments of a code compliance nature during building permit review. This includes such requirements as exact dimensions, specifications or any other requirement specifically detailed in the City Code. 6. City Notification of Applicant: After the departmental comment period, the Development Services Division shall notify the applicant of any negative comments or conditions recommended by the departments_ When significant issues are raised, this notification should also normally involve a meeting between the applicant and appropriate City representatives. The applicant shall have the opportunity to respond to the notification either by submitting a revised site plan application, by submitting additional information, or by stating in writing why the recommendations are considered unreasonable or not acceptable. 7. Revisions or Modifications to Site Development Review Application: Whenever a revised site development plan or new information is received from an applicant, the Development Services Division may recirculate the application to concerned departments. Consulted departments shall respond in writing within ten (10) days with any additional comments. In general, the City's environmental determination of H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Sub Area Plans\BighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoninglinterim Zoning Revisions fV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/1.6/ 006 i l :N:00 A.M3 1W2006. 9.:57.00 n N4 page 76 of 80 significance or nonsignificance pursuant to RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures, will not be issued until after final departmental comments on the site development plan or revised site development plan are received. a. Special Review for Planned Actions: A consistency review shall be conducted by the Zoning Administrator for proposals submitted under the authority of an adopted Planned Action Ordinance. If found consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance, including required conditions and mitigation measures, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant of the departmental comments and the consistency analysis consistent with subsection G6 of this Section. Revisions or modifications may be made in accordance with subsection G7 of this Section. If found inconsistent with the Planned Action Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant of the departmental comments and the consistency analysis consistent with subsection G6 of this Section. Revisions or modifications may be made in accordance with subsection G7 of this Section. If the application is still found to be inconsistent once these steps have been completed, the zoning Administrator shall forward the findings to the Environmental Review Committee to determine if additional environmental review is required. The application shall then follow the process, in subsection D of this Section, to determine if a public hearing is necessary. 9. Environmental Review Committee to Determine Necessity for Public Hearing: Upon receipt of final departmental comments and after the close of the public comment period, the Environmental Review Committee shall determine the necessity for a public hearing pursuant to subsection D2a of this Section. 10. Environmental Review Committee Decision Appealable to Hearing Examiner: The final decision by the Environmental Review Committee on whether a site development review application requires a public hearing may be appealed within fourteen (14) days to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E, Appeals. 11, Administrative Approval of Site Development Plan: For projects not requiring a public hearing, the Reviewing Official shall take action on the proposed site development plan. Approval of a site development plan shall be subject to any environmental mitigating measures that may be a part of the City's declaration of significance or nonsignificance. 12. Hearing Examiner Approval of Site Development Plan: For projects requiring a public hearing pursuant to subsection D of this Section, the Hearing Examiner shall take action on the proposed site development plan following the hearing process in subsection G13 of this Section. 13. Hearing Process and Examiner Authority for Modification of Plans: a. Date of Hearing: Whenever a public hearing is required, the Development Services Division shall coordinate with the Hearing Examiner in setting a hearing date for the site development review application. b. Examiner's Decision: After conducting at least one public hearing on the site development plan application, the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision. The time limits for a Type VI review process in RMC 4-8-080H shall apply. The Hearing Examiner shall approve a site development plan if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed site development plan is consistent with the general purposes of this Section and with the review criteria. C. Authority for Conditions and Plan Modifications: The Hearing Examiner shall have the power to place reasonable conditions on or modify a site development plan in order to satisfy the general purposes of this H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlSub Area PlanslHighland slDevelopment Reg Draf'rslZoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/1 Ei%')006 1 I_ Z8:00 AM3.'1 W2006 9:57:00 AM Page 77 of 80 Section and to achieve consistency with the review criteria. However, strict compliance with any one or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. Such conditions or modifications may include, but are not limited to, screening, buffering, building location and orientation, paving, landscaping, vegetation removal, grading and contouring. The Hearing Examiner shall also have the power to fix the location and configuration of driveways, walkways, parking and loading areas, emergency access, curbs, planting areas, and signs. When only a portion of a site is proposed for development, such power to condition, modify or fix shall be exercised only for that area which is directly related to or may be impacted by the actual proposed development. To the extent necessary to meet the site review criteria and to the extent necessary to compensate for the impacts attributable to the proposed development, the Hearing Examiner may impose additional requirements, including: Preparation of a landscape plan by a licensed landscape architect; Preparation of a grading, drainage and erosion control plan; iii. Preparation of a vegetation preservation plan; iv. Improvements to identified or planned public rights -of -way, including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting, turn lanes, signalization, bikeways or pedestrian paths; and V. Provision of or improvements to public facilities and utilities. d. Modification of Site Development Plan Subsequent to Public Hearing and Prior to Decision: In all cases, if an applicant can demonstrate that a site development plan can be made consistent with the review criteria and general purposes by alternative modifications to the site development plan, the Hearing Examiner shall accept the alternative modifications as conditions of approval and approve the site development plan. It a public hearing on the site development plan application has already been closed, the modifications proposed by the applicant shall be administered according to subsection J of this Section. e, Denial of Site Development Plan: if the Hearing Examiner finds that the site development plan application cannot be made consistent with the general purposes and review criteria of this Section by requiring reasonable conditions, then the site development plan shall be denied. (Ord. 3981, 4-7-1986; Ord. 4008, 7-14-1986; Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003 ) H MERGER WITH BINDING SITE PLAN: 1. The applicant may request that the site development plan submitted for site plan review under this Chapter constitute a binding site plan pursuant to chapter 58.17 RCW, subject to the requirements of this subsection. 2, In order to constitute a binding site plan, a site development plan submitted for site development plan review shall comply with all applicable requirements and standards set forth in RMC 4-7-230. 3. All approved site development plans, including those constituting a binding site plan, shall comply with the applicable requirements, procedures, and review criteria for site development plan review set forth in this Section, H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area P1anslHighland slDevelopment Reg Drafts\Zoningllnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3!16 _')006 1 l :?8:00 AM346/20n6 M 7.nn AM page 78 of 80 4. An approved site development plan that constitutes a binding site plan shall be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections and shall be subject to all other approval conditions included in RMC 4-7-230. 5. Upon the approval and recording of an approved site development plan that constitutes a binding site plan, the applicant may develop the property in conformance with that binding site plan and may sell or lease parcels subject to that binding site plan. (Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Amd. Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd, Ord. 4954, 2-11- 2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) J MAJOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Major adjustments to an approved site development plan require a new application pursuant to subsection G of this Section. The review and approval shall rest with the approval body which approved the original site development plan. Major adjustments involve a substantial change in the basic site design plan, intensity, density, use and the like generally involving more than a ten percent (10%) change in area or scale. (Ord. 4008, 7-4-1986; Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) K TIMING OF BUILDING PERMITS: Building permits shall not be issued until the appeal period for an approved site development plan has expired. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) L EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL: 1. Master Plan: For a nonphased Master Plan or a nonphased Master/Site Plan combined approval the Hea€iag-ExaminerReviewing Official shall determine an appropriate expiration date for the Master Plan which may exceed two (2) years, but shall not exceed five (5) years, and shall document in writing. An applicant shall submit a complete Site Plan application for the development within the specified time frame if a Site Plan was not combined with the Master Plan application. The Zoning Administrator may grant a one-year extension for good cause; provided, the applicant submits a request forty five (45) days in advance of the original expiration date. 2, Site Plan: The final approval of a Site Plan shall expire within two (2) years of the date of approval. A single two (2) year extension may be granted for good cause by the approval body that approved the original Site Plan. The approval body may, however, determine at its discretion that a public hearing may be required for such extension. (Ord. 4008, 7-14-1986; Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003 ) M EXCEPTION TO TIME LIMIT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECTS THAT ARE PHASED: H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoninglInterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:28:00 AM' f 402-0 . �:c�.nn �� page 79 of 80 1. Phasing Permitted: For development proposed on only a portion of a particular site, an applicant may choose to submit a site development plan application for either the entire site or the portion of the site, In the latter case, the application shad state clearly the area of the site and the proposed development, including phases, for which site development plan approval is being requested. In every case, the site development plan application and review shall cover at least that portion of the site which is directly related to or may be impacted by the actual proposed development, as determined by the Environmental Review Committee. 2. Authority for Extension of Time: The Reviewing Official may grant site development plan approval for large projects planned to be developed or redeveloped in phases over a period of years exceeding the normal time limits of subsection L of this Section. Such approval shall include clearly defined phases and specific time limits for each phase. 3. Expiration of Phase(s): if the time limits of a particular phase are not satisfied, then site development plan approval for that phase and subsequent phases shall expire. The Hearing Examiner shall also determine if such a phased project will be eligible for any extensions of the time limits. 4. Vested for the Purposes of Zoning; As long as the development of a phased project conforms to the approved phasing plan, the zoning regulations in effect at the time of the original approval shall continue to apply. However, all construction shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations in force at the time of building permit application. (Ord. 3981, 4-7-1986; Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25- 1999; Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) N APPEALS: Any decision on an administrative site development plan approval shall be appealed as an administrative decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. Any appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Section, must allege an injury in fact, and that injury must be real and present rather than speculative. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Amd. Ord. 4802, 10- 25-1999; Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) 4-11-040 DWELLING, SINGLE FAMILY: A. Dwelling, Detached: A building containing one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means except fences, has a permanent foundation, and is surrounded by open space or yards. B. Dwelling, Semi -Attached: A one -family dwelling attached to only one other one -family dwelling at secondary or ancillary building parts such as garages, carports, trellises, porches, covered decks, or other secondary connection approved by the City, and not conncected at building parts containing living areas. C. Dwelling,Cottage: A one -family dwellin unit which is not attached to any other dwellina by an means except fences has a permanent foundation and is limited in size and scale. Cotta e dwellings are clustered around a common open space and share common parking facilities. DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: An independent subordinate dwelling unit contained within a single family detached dwelling or its accessory detached garage. Ar+-ac.Gessery dwelling unit houses farnWy Fnernbers to the property ownE)F oF an employee of the pmperty owne+-, An accessory dwelling unit may be used to house family members or employees of the property owner and occupant of the primary residential structure, or it may be leased. H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\ ighlands\Development Reg Drafts\ZoningUnterim Zoning Revisions IV(3-06).doc Last printed 3/16/2006 1 1:29.00 AM346Q006 9.57:00 AM page 80 of 80