The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/02/2011 - Minutes RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 2, 2011 Renton City Hall 6:00 p.m. Conferencing Center Planning Commissioners Present: Michael Chen, Michael Drollinger, Ray Giometti, Gwendolyn High, Michael O’Halloran, Nancy Osborn, Kevin Poole, Ed Prince, Martin Regge City Staff Present: Planning Director Absent; Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager; Angie Mathias, Senior Planner; Erika Conkling, Senior Planner; Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner; Judith Subia, Administrative Secretary; Laila McClinton, Administrative Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair Prince called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Commission Secretary O’Halloran called roll. Commissioners Chen and Regge arrived late. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of February 16, 2011 were approved as written. 4. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: None 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Debi Eberly of Renton, WA is Vice President of the Organization CARE Community Alliance. They attempted to annex the east plateau in 2007 and were not successful. Ms. Eberly was glad to see the region is represented by Chip Vincent and Terry Briere on the Growth Management Planning Council, and excited about the updates to the Countywide Planning Policies; to renew and implement policies that have been on the books since the original Growth Management Act and first Comprehensive Plan. CARE Community Alliance has been working for the last year on a specific County rezone application that was incompatible with Renton rules and the community’s future vision therefore the rezone was denied. There have been continuous appeals on the applications. CARE Community Alliance recommendation is to have an interlocal agreement in place. Erika responded and identified that we have received notice from King County that it was considering changes to the Countywide Planning Policies and their Comprehensive Plan. King County gave cities the opportunity to provide input for policy changes that we would like to see. Renton would like to have a joint planning through an interlocal agreement for potential annexation areas. Staff did write a letter of support for the CARE organization and a letter directly to the project manager expressing that the proposed use under King County was not in the rezone and consistent in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None 7. DIRECTOR’S REPORT: Jennifer Henning gave the report on behalf of the Director.  Jennifer introduced Laila McClinton who is replacing Judith Subia recording secretary for next few months. Judith will be returning in May.  The latest population numbers for the City of Renton is 90,791 based on the latest census. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 March 2, 2011  The Quendall Terminal’s Briefing with the Committee of the Whole will be on March 14th. The Committee of the Whole will be briefed on the EIS Status. There has been over 70 letters submitted with 500+ individual comments. The City will be working on responding to those questions with our EIS consultant.  The Boeing Project will be adding another 1,200 jobs for the production of the 737, and subsequent production of 43 737 planes per month by the year 2014. Six hundred jobs to be added in 2011 and 2012. 8. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (TITLE IV) AMENDMENTS DOCKET #6 BRIEFING: #D‐55: Animal Provisions for Annexed Areas Angie presented this docket item. This item proposed to amend the Code to clearly state that residents in areas that annex to the City are allowed to continue to keep animals that would be considered non‐ conforming in Renton, but were legal in King County, after the area annexes; and are not allowed to transfer the allowance to a future owner of the property. The recommendation is to amend Title IV to expressly state that people who annex to the City are allowed to continue to keep animals that conform to King County Code and that those animals can be replaced, and the non‐conformity is not transferable. Audience Comment Tom Carpenter of Renton, WA was previously on the Task Force and provides opportunity to ask questions. He noted changes that have been made to the Renton Animal Code need to be reviewed. He mentioned that immediately outside the urban growth boundary area of the plateau are very large parcels with large animals, i.e. horses and llamas etc. May Valley is currently going through a citizen‐based exercise identifying itself as an equine community. They are looking at an analysis of the soft trail system to walk their horses. Mr. Carpenter will review the Animals Code and make written comment on the details of the Animal Ordinance, referring to the task force that was previously in place specifically for large animals only (horses and cattle). He stated that the plateau sub area is different than any other area within Renton in that it is not quite urban or rural. Kris Hill of Renton, WA agrees with Mr. Carpenter. Ms. Hill is concerned that the annexed area will be identified as nonconforming implying that residents will have to conform at some point and lose some quality of life. She does not want a one‐size‐fits all neighborhood because of losing what is special about the neighborhood. Dale Fisher of Renton, WA living in Renton for 15 years owns an acre of rural land with many chickens. She lives in an area that has a rural feel where her neighbors have either turkeys, geese, goats, sheep, ducks and/or chickens. Her concern is that if she sells her property she would like to give the next buyer the opportunity to be able to continue having animals. Dale Fisher has pets (18 chickens) and would like to have a rooster. She has a problem not being able to have a rooster. Planning COMMISSION COMMENT Roosters are prohibited under the new City of Renton regulations. Future property owners will not be allowed to keep a rooster, but chickens are allowed and conform to the Code. Non conforming uses and non conforming structures were discussed; there are different rules for both non conforming uses and structures. This item is referring to non conforming uses. There would be an annual $50.00 fee per animal, and the permit would be reissued annually after review. Commission O’Halloran would like to see a comparison between King County and Renton Code, and limitation of animals based on lot size. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 March 2, 2011 #D‐57: Political Signs Rocale presented this item. The proposal is to amend Title IV to include that each sign be removed within 10 (ten) days following an election. The recommendation is to make consistent the 32 square foot sign size limitation on all temporary political signage. In the past candidates did not remove signs and/or left them after elections. Violation or failure to remove the sign after 10 (ten) days would be subject to a penalty up to $250.00. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Recommendation is to look at other cities codes and identify what other jurisdictions are doing. The preference is a 14‐day allowance and provision in the Code to allow the City to remove campaign signage and $250.00 per violation. #D‐59: Inactive Land Use Applications Jennifer presented this item. This item proposes to allow inactive land use applications to expire after the applicant and property owner are notified by registered notice, and given ample opportunity to re‐activate the project. Staff recommendation is to provide expiration regulations for inactive land use applications, after official notice and ample time has been provided to the project applicant and property owner. #D‐60: Hearing Examiner Site Visits Kris presented this docket. This item is to officially allow Hearing Examiner site visits as part of the evaluation process for permits or appeals that the Examiner makes decisions on. Renton does not currently prohibit the Hearing Examiner from making site visits, but there should be a formal decision by Council or Code clarification that allows such visitations as it has not been historical practice. Staff recommends that clarification be made to allow the Hearing Examiner the ability to go on site visits as part of the review of projects, appeals, and other situations that would add value to the Examiner’s decision. #D‐61: Construction and Security Fencing Kris presented this docket. The proposal is that the City would create screening that can be moved from site to site, to be located along public streets in highly traveled areas of the City. The proposal is to create screens to block negative visual impacts of construction and security fences along public streets with City funds. Staff recommends funding a program developed by staff, the Planning Commission, and Arts Commission to create screening options to visually improve Renton's neighborhoods while private and public properties are either being developed or sitting (inactive) for future improvement. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Recommendation is that the Commission is not interested in funding screening and/or fencing inactive properties. #D‐62: Extension Approvals Jennifer presented this docket. The extension approval provision expired on December 31, 2010 and was not extended. The City Clerk asked for this docket request revising the extension of land use applications. The staff recommendation is to delete RMC 4‐1‐080.F and taken out of City Code. #D‐63: Center Downtown Zone Erika presented this docket. In 2007, the City reviewed and amended the number of regulatory overlays in place that affected the downtown. One of the outcomes of this change was to replace the term Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 March 2, 2011 “Downtown Core” with the term “Center Downtown Zone” throughout the Code. There is some use of the term “Downtown Core” still in the RMC that needs to be replaced. Replacement will ensure consistency of terminology within the Code. Staff recommendation is to replace the term “Downtown Core” with the term “Center Downtown Zone.” #D‐64: Land Use Applications and SEPA Mitigation Conditions Jennifer presented this item. The City Attorney has requested this docket item to ensure that the Revised Code of Washington is referenced within the Renton Municipal Code, such that it is clear that an appeal of a SEPA mitigation condition must be combined with the appeal of a specific governmental action. Staff recommends to revise RMC 4‐8‐110C.8 to add a reference RCW 43.21C.075. 10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: The next Commission meeting will be on March 16, 2011. 11. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Ed Prince, Chair Michael O’Halloran, Secretary