Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is Vice Chair Plants calling to order the Rent and Planning Commission for Wednesday, July 15th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Our first order of business will be roll call. Commissioner Bayan, will you please call the roll?

Chair Artsy?

Here.

Commissioner Bayan is here. Commissioner Fixdahl?

Here.

Commissioner Kelly?

Here.

Commissioner Matson. Commissioner Patek. Did I pronounce your name correctly? Vice Chair Plants. Commissioner Poole. And Secretary Roche. Here. We have a quorum chair.

Wonderful. Thank you. And chairs, I wasn't aware you were here. Were you wanting to facilitate the meeting this evening?

Oh, I can. I wasn't sure I was actually able to make it until just now. I think it'd be easier for you to handle it since you're in person today, if that works for you.

I'm happy to. I just wanted to ask out of politeness and respect.

Okay. Gotcha. Appreciate it.

All right. Well, we have enough commissioners in attendance. We have quorum to hold this meeting. So there was no correspondence that's been received since the last planning commission meeting held on July 1st, 2026. We will move on to audience comments. First, for those attending virtually, we will be offered an opportunity to speak after the in-person comments are completed. Each speaker will be provided three minutes to address an item. Interested parties may also provide written comments to planningcommission at writtenlaw.gov. Groups, organizations, organizational spokespeople to speak on group's behalf. As of today, no one signed up to speak on, that's not correct. As of today, we have one person who has signed up to speak on non-agenda items, I believe. That is Laura Lowe, Advocacy and Policy Manager for Habitat for Humanity, Seattle, Kittitas County.

Good evening. chair and vice chair and members of the Renton Planning Commission. My name is Laura Lowe and I'm here with Habitat for Humanity, Seattle, King and Kittitas counties. My office, as some of you know, is here in Renton. We're excited to continue strengthening our partnership with the city. Some of you probably were involved in the La Fortuna community and that demonstrates what is possible when local government, community partners, volunteers and families all work together We created 12 permanently affordable homes together. And these homes are permanent, permanent affordable housing for future generations. That affordability is part of our land trust model. And we're really proud of how that continues to help communities stay in place. pass on generational wealth and other wonderful things that we need in our communities. We also provide home repair services. And there's a lot of eligible rented homeowners that can benefit from that to address health and safety needs, preserve their homes and remain in the communities they know and love. Across King County, Habitat has shown that permanently affordable homeownership can work on many different types of sites. We've built stacked flats, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottages, condominiums, lots of housing types. And we really want to emphasize right now that we can be really creative with small parcels, unusually shaped lots that might not be suitable for larger traditional developments. And we're quite interested in emphasizing publicly owned surplus land as another powerful tool. When cities, counties, transit agencies and other public entities make surplus property available for affordable housing, organizations like Habitat can turn underused land into that critical, on the housing continuum, that critical piece of permanently affordable homes. We encourage Renton to identify suitable public land and prioritize partnerships that create those opportunities. Thank you so much for all that you do support your comp plan, your housing laws, implementing all of the changes that have happened. And we definitely want to emphasize to anyone that's listening that housing choices are critical. Zoning capacity alone will not guarantee affordability. We have to reduce development barriers, support incentives, allowing flexibility on small lots, and invest directly in permanently affordable homeownership. Thank you for your service to Renton and thank you for having a lovely pre-meeting party. I've been to a few of these planning meetings and yours was the most fun yet. So thank you so much.

I think I did see one virtual public attendee. We have a couple. You can raise your hand if anyone else would like to make public comment. We will keep moving forward. Moving on to approval of the meeting minutes for July 1, 2026. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes for July 1, 2026?

I approve the meeting minutes. I second the motion.

There's a motion and a second to approve the meeting minutes. Is there any objection or any discussion? All right. Hearing none, those who are in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those who are not, please say nay. The motion passes and minutes are approved. And I believe we are on to the wonderful director's report. Matt, I believe we're hearing from you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Plants, Chair Artsy and Planning Commission. It's good to be back. Been out for a couple of weeks. I just wanted to thank our current planning manager, Clark Close, covering me while I was out. I think he was here yesterday. I believe he was here the last meeting and updated the commission on some of the ongoing projects that we have going on in the city. Clark manages our development review program, does a great job, and I believe he updated the commission on several of our projects. pipeline projects, as well as updates on our Legacy Square. And if folks haven't been able to make it to Legacy Square yet, we have our final two matches this weekend, Saturday and Sunday. If you haven't been there yet, I recommend you go check out Legacy Square. It's super fun, family friendly, just really proud of the work that our folks in the community and economic development team did putting that place together. Second, just wanted to... say that it looks like since we have a quorum tonight, I have great news. That means we are able to cancel our two planning commission meetings in August. So we'll give the commission about a month and a half off, and we'll see you back here on Wednesday, September 2nd, where we should have at least three new items ready to go for you. And I believe we have enough Wednesdays left in the year to get maybe two more darkened cycles. but we'll give you a month and a half off. We also have our city council taking the last part of August off, so it works well for everybody to get some summertime evenings back. And then finally, oh, I just wanted to thank Ms. Lowe for coming in tonight from Habitat for Humanity. She mentioned the La Fortuna project in Renton. We were able to tour this project a couple of years ago. It's a great example of affordable home ownership. Not a Habitat for Humanity project, but we have another project, the Willa Crest Townhome project up in the Sunset area. The phase two of that project will be coming online. That is 19 additional affordable townhome ownership project. We expect them to break ground later this year. And I believe, I just, I'm sorry. I did a terrible job of writing down notes today. So it's a bit discombobulated, but I believe that's it for tonight. Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments from the commissioners?

I just wanted to say that Clark did a really, really good job. And I don't know if he shared what he said with you, but it was pretty great. It was very sports oriented and it was clever and quite wonderful.

Commissioner Fixdahl, can I ask you how many puns he used in this presentation?

It was all puns.

Okay, that's good. That's the clerk I know.

Excellent. Wonderful. All right. We will move on now to deliberations and recommendations. First up is arts and culture master plan update. And Jesse, I believe you are presenting.

On behalf of our Arts Commission and the update to the Arts and Culture Master Plan. I know we talked about this at the last meeting, so I'll try and keep this brief. Just want to kind of highlight what's changed, sharing how community feedback shaped the plan, and reviewing the implementation framework, and then I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. So the previous arts and culture plan was adopted in 2010 and provided an important foundation for arts and culture in Renton by supporting visibility, programming, and early public art efforts. Over the past 15 years, Renton has grown and evolved, creating new opportunities to integrate arts and culture into placemaking, community connection, economic vitality, and city investments. This update reflects input from artists, cultural partners, city departments and the community and shifts the plan from a framework for arts programming to a strategy for intentionally incorporating arts and culture into the future of Renton. A key component of this update was ensuring the plan was informed by the communities intended to serve. The planning process included engagement with artists, cultural organizations, city staff, community members, and other stakeholders through conversations, workshops, and opportunities for feedback. The goal was to understand not only what types of arts programming the community values but also how arts and culture contribute to broader goals such as belonging, access, economic opportunity, and creating a stronger sense of place. That input helped shape both the priorities of the plan and the implementation strategies moving forward. More importantly, it reinforced that arts and culture efforts are most successful when they are built through ongoing partnerships and continued community collaboration. The updated master plan is intended to be a practical roadmap for implementation, not simply a document that sits on a shelf. The vision recognizes that arts and culture contribute to a vibrant, connected, and economically healthy community. The priorities provide direction for how the city can continue building on existing efforts while creating new opportunities. These priorities include public art and capital projects, private investment and partnerships, community engagement and innovation, sustainable arts funding, and implementation and accountability. Together, these priorities move the plan from a statement of vision into a framework of action. While this update builds on the foundations created in 2010, it also reflects a broader understanding of how arts and culture can support Renton's future. Some of the most significant shifts include moving from a focus primarily on programs and public art projects toward a more integrated approach that connects arts and culture with city operations, economic development, and community investment. The updated plan places greater emphasis on integrating public art into city projects and development, supporting artists and Renton's creative economy, expanding partnerships and collaboration, increasing access to arts organizations across the community, establishing clear actions to guide implementation and measure progress. The plan is designed as a flexible implementation framework that can involve with the community. Early efforts will focus on establishing priorities and integrating arts and culture into existing city work, while longer term efforts will focus on partnerships, sustainable investment and expanding opportunities. Ultimately, the goals for arts and culture become an ongoing part of Renton's community development, economic vitality, and quality of life. This update represents the next chapter in Renton's commitment to arts and culture. The foundation created in 2010 provided an important starting point, and this plan builds on that work by creating a more intentional, collaborative, and sustainable approach for the future. We appreciate the support from the commission and the continued engagement as we move through the process and look forward to your recommendation as we shifted on to council.

Thank you for the presentation. We'll go ahead and open up the floor for commissioners' comments and discussion.

I have no comments.

I'll share a quick story. I was with a friend from Seattle a few weeks ago and we were down here in south town and we were coming downtown to go run along the river. And as we drove down to downtown, her comment was, oh, I love this part of town. This is where the fire hydrants and everything is. This is where all the art is. And so it's really neat to see this next piece coming along where it starts to get built into more of the fabric of how the city works. Because, I mean, I had no idea that those comments were about to come from this person. And so it just shows that even with just what's happened in downtown in the last 10 to 15 years, it's starting to become a known thing for people who visit Renton. So love this.

are no other comments or discussion. Is there a motion to accept the staff recommendation? accept the staff recommendation? Second, the motion made and seconded to accept the staff recommendation. Those who are in favor of the motion, please say aye. Those who are not in favor, please say nay. The motion passes. Thank you very much. All right. We will move on to docket 21, group B, D251, child care centers. Maya, feel free to go ahead and start presenting.

Thank you, Myas. I'm an associate planner for the record. All right. Back to talk about child care centers for the last time. We'll jump right into it. So I've already established this is a very high need. A lot of Washington families live in childcare deserts. The state has recently increased subsidies for childcare and has adopted a law in 2025 requiring cities to allow childcare centers outright. So we're really trying to expand access for those in Renton. So in our current code, we have two different uses. We have family home daycares, and that is for up to 12 children as an accessory use to a residence. So that's someone who lives in a home and is providing childcare out of their home. And then we have daycare centers, which is 13 to 100, 200 kids, more than that if they can fit them. And this is more of a commercial use, and it's currently permitted outright in commercial zones and industrial zones. and as a hearing examiner conditional use in residential zones. So our proposed changes are to update the definitions. The state recently changed their licensing requirements to allow family home daycares to have up to 16 children with a waiver. So we want to make sure that our definitions align with that. Then we would permit daycare centers outright in all residential zones and get rid of that hearing examiner conditional use they would remain permitted outright in industrial and commercial zones, as they are now. We would also update conditions in commercial office residential for daycare centers and that's just to remove a requirement that they be co located with certain uses. And then state law also allows us to impose reasonable restrictions on daycare centers. So we looked at what other cities do. We looked at what aspects are already regulated by state licensing and what restrictions we might want to anticipate the impacts of having these more commercial daycare centers in residential areas and just permit outright. So some of the impacts that we looked at are the safety of children, and that's really fencing around outdoor play areas and safe pedestrian access to the site. For this first one, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families already requires fencing around outdoor play areas, so we didn't feel it was necessary to add regulations for that. And then our design regulations already ensure safe pedestrian access to the site. We also got a question a couple weeks ago about frontage improvements and sidewalks. So I just wanted to update you that those frontage improvements are only triggered by new development. So if they're taking an existing house and turning it into a commercial daycare center, they wouldn't be required to install a sidewalk. But if they're building, tearing it down and building a new building, they would be required to do frontage improvements. So since both of these kind of concerns are addressed by our existing regulations, we're not proposing any changes regarding these. The noise in the residential area is another big concern that we anticipate. Just imagine how loud a commercial daycare center with 30, 50, 100 kids would be if they came and went outside every day next to your backyard. And we did have a proposal for a 20-foot separation of play areas from residential properties with an opportunity to administratively reduce that with landscaping. But upon further review and just my knowledge of our code, it turns out we already have base regulations that require all non-residential uses to install a 15-foot partial landscaping buffer or a 10-foot fully screened landscaping buffer abutting residential properties. Therefore, we propose no additional regulations since they already have that 15-foot landscaping buffer. And then traffic is a major concern with child care pickup and drop-off, especially as these expand onto residential areas and residential streets. And our current code has a minimum and maximum requirement of two spaces per 25 children for daycare centers, which is already twice as many as many other jurisdictions that I looked at. But we're proposing to remove that maximum so that providers can have more pickup and drop off spaces if they feel that's necessary for a residential area. So just to summarize, we want to update the definitions to align with that new state waiver. We want to allow daycare centers outright in all zones and then allow providers to have more pickup and drop off parking spaces on their properties. And the goal here is really to balance reducing barriers for child care with protecting the residential character of our neighborhoods. Staff recommend adopting the amendments as proposed, and the next step after you all deliberate and recommend is the P&D committee recommendations on July 27th. Happy to answer your questions.

Questions? I have a question about the fencing. dual incomes. When I had small children, I saw a wide variety of fencing around day care centers. Generally, we went to family ones because they were more affordable than the kinder cares.

They were like $4,000.

There are specific regulations for those fences. As a parent, it makes you feel a little bit more comfortable. It feels more secure than just a wood fence that's three feet tall that anyone could crawl through. There are specific regulations that you're going to enforce when it comes to fencing off the areas to keep the kids safe and keep the wrong people out.

The state requirements for fencing is where that comes from, so it wouldn't be us enforcing it. It would be the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. But I believe there were height requirements in there. I didn't. read it in detail as far as if they require a certain type or separation distance or anything like that. I just noted that they had it and that they would kind of be enforcing that.

Two questions and or comments. About the neighborhood feedback will be when the first one Spend some time thinking about what we actually think that feedback will be and what, if that trade-off is acceptable.

Do you mean the large child care? Because it says only 10 maximum for a family, the one that's in a residential district.

I'm thinking of the commercial version, not the family version, because this is allowing a commercial version now as well in residential.

All these requirements and regulations would apply to commercial. daycare centers, that 13 or more children, 50, 100 kids, if they, again, have space on the lot. Yeah, that's where I was trying to get at with the safety of children, the noise to neighbor. I think noise and traffic are going to be the big ones. And that's what we've heard through the hearing examiner conditional use ones that we've permitted. And the state code that passed in 2025 takes away that conditional use permit. We can't do it on a case by case basis anymore. and review the specific site. So we have to be thinking about these regulations. Any site in the city, what might the issues be and how do we want to regulate that? So I think that's where we landed on the landscaping buffer to kind of mitigate that noise and the removing maximum parking to mitigate the traffic.

An add on thought to that would be this might be another opportunity for the city to communicate ahead of the change there was some other was it parking we started communicating ahead about this might be yeah we've done a lot of outreach this summer both long-ranging current planning um and we have a good one for some social media posts to say look what's coming isn't this exciting that we have child care coming into uh our neighborhoods uh and then my other uh my other question was also about fencing um Do we know if Chainlink is acceptable fencing for a commercial location in a residential zone? Because I believe Chainlink would not be allowed for a residential property in a residential zone. Is that correct?

Yes, I believe that our design regulations do not allow Chainlink fencing. So it would be.

Okay, yeah. So if residential allows Chainlink now, then I do not have a concern.

Yes, we do have standards for the chain link. It has to be vinyl coated. There is one district within the city, I believe it's downtown, that we do not allow chain link. But in a residential zone, if you wanted to start a commercial daycare, you could utilize chain link as far as I know.

There's no separate fencing allowed for a commercial versus what else would be in the zone? Correct.

The only difference is, and Maya alluded to it, any non-residential use in a residential zone is required to put up that landscaping screen in addition to fencing if they want to reduce the width of that landscaping screen. So it could be a combination of chain link fencing and 10 foot wide of landscaping.

Um, it's all the same. It addresses my concern. My concern was that, you know, now this commercial thing is going in and they can do chain link and the whole rest of the place can't. And right. I mean, I was thinking about that experience. It's all the same.

It's not a city ordinance could be an HOA requirement.

Right. Right.

Right.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much.

Oh, yeah. Um, just, uh, first thanks for answering the question for about the, uh, my sidewalks question. Um, so I was wondering, so I guess I still have some concerns about, um, not requiring updating the sidewalk, uh, to match it in case of a, um, I believe it was for a, um, for a, uh, sorry, could you, could you go back to the previous slide that sort of discussed that with the, uh, the two different, um, Child care types, I think it was like 12 or more or 12 or less or 13 or more.

Because the idea of having.

Yeah. So for the family, I believe what you mentioned before was for family home daycare. If it's a addition, it wouldn't be required to update the sidewalk. Is that correct?

Our sidewalk requirements trigger at the building permit. And they trigger if you're doing. A new building, if you're doing an addition, if you're doing over $175,000 worth of improvements. So if any of those three apply, whether it's a new house or whether it's an in-home daycare or a commercial daycare center, they would have to install sidewalks.

Gotcha. Okay. I think that should work fine then. Thank you.

I have a question. So in the picture you showed with the fence, it's an interesting picture, I'll say. There's a surveillance camera in there. And I'm curious, you know, I imagine, you know, for the most part, like it's left up to the individual business. But given that we're kind of putting these commercial businesses down next to residential, are there any regulations in regards to the surveillance and what they can do in relation to the properties next to them?

Yeah, it would be up to the individual providers. I'm sure there are state laws regarding privacy and kind of like the ring cameras capturing private property. I don't think that there would be any zoning regulations regarding that.

Because those... protections of video for ring cameras and such apply as long as you're looking, you're on or looking through a right of way. But if it's in a backyard to a backyard, I think there is an expectation. That's interesting.

Yeah. And I didn't, I honestly, I really didn't even think about this as a question until I literally saw the camera and the picture and it's like, I don't want that pointed at my apartment window. Um, and yeah. Um, And I realize we're at the point of voting for staff, we're voting for the recommendation here, but is there any way potentially like we could find out about that?

I don't think this would be a zoning thing, though. Okay. Yeah, I was just going to say that, Commissioner Kelly.

I think this is outside the purview of zoning and development regulations, unfortunately. So I'm not aware of any... zoning regulation on the books right now that regulates cameras.

So if I was a resident and I needed to bring something up, I would just have to start asking for help throughout the city to figure out where that went. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Good one.

Thank you.

I'm sorry. Maybe I've missed the last meeting and maybe I wasn't quite as aligned about what this is. So are we saying that this regulation would allow commercial daycare centers globally in any residential zoning? Why? Why would we want to allow commercial zoning in our four And R2 and like, like, why, why are we globally allowing it to happen? Because that doesn't seem like that. If you want an infinity, like you put on there, an infinity amount of people that are, that are attending a commercial zone, you don't want that in a traditional development to be allowed.

It was brought on by a state code change that requires us to allow it in all zones outright. We don't have a choice.

It's not a city decision. It's so not. It should be based on the residential zoning. It shouldn't be. I mean, how can you globally say this is fine? Like my neighbor has a house. they decide I'm gonna redevelop and I'm gonna put in a 200 person childcare because they have a half an acre. That should just be allowed. So there's gonna be an infinity amount of cars and children and completely uncontrollable at that point. Like, is that what we want in our community? Because I mean, we're a small diverse community of people Why would we want that? I mean, yes, I know it's a state law, but it's like logic. Like, sure, we could put food processing centers if the state says it's allowed next to our houses. But why? Like, why would we want that? I mean, is it if we if we enact this, then that means that it's accepted if they comply with the regulations of it. Right. So it's like that's where it's next to your house going in.

We have the chance to add the regulations that we can if we want more separation or more landscaping or if we want some other requirement that kind of...

There has to be more to this. I know that's a state thing, but I mean, we are the city of Renton. I think we have the ability to focus. We can't?

With this function similar to the comp plan where if the city was out of compliance with this, then the city would not be eligible to apply for state funding. So I hear you, I do hear you.

The global hand waving, you know, I think that that's a state problem is that like you need to put uses properly, not just globally. There's a difference because people are going to abuse that.

We've had a few other things like that come through where I think the planning department has brought things to us like this that are like, this is coming from the state. Let's see what we can do to at least mitigate what we can. And yeah, it's not great. I think when the parking stuff we talked about ad nauseum for quite some time, I think before you were on the commission that it was coming from the state and we Just I didn't like that at all.

I mean, I would hope that the Planning Commission and the building department would look at some of these applications and try to vet them. Just it just seems like there should be some way to go to raise your hand and say, is this right?

It does run the risk, though, of the inability to apply for state funding is really what we're up against.

I get we're kind of hint, but I just wish at the state level that things like this would be considered because I don't think globally applying anything in any case is the correct response. I think it has to be logic based, not anyways, getting off my podium. I keep getting a head shake back there from And I get it. And I get it. I'm just saying that I just, I guess we begrudgingly have to accept this because it's a state requirement. But I think it's like, until it's next to your house, what is our feeling? You know, it's really easy to be like nimby, right? Until it's like in your backyard. And then you're like, wow, that was great. I used to love when I used to go sit in my backyard, you know?

You're getting a strong taste of how we feel as staff. I totally understand and completely get it. And, um, This is one of the sources of our frustrations with what the legislature has been doing for the last several years is they're in Olympia. The average person is not paying attention to what they're doing. They read headlines. They don't know what's going on. These little ones like this, they just slip through. There's never any big reporting about it. They just slip through and then they leave us as local jurisdictions to implement it. There's no choice in this for us. We absolutely have to permit it. And not only would we lose grants, but I think this is one where if we don't do it, they have laws that will supersede ours. So it could be better that we have some control over it or we could have their version of it. So it's very frustrating and we've been very frustrated for several years. And so I apologize that you're sharing in that frustration. It's the worst case, right? I mean, it's probably not going to happen.

Yes, I would agree with you. Likely it's not going to happen.

But it's very frustrating. But I would encourage you to be more involved in Olympia and watching what's going on during that cycle and commenting. Because they have hearings, and they're like, well, nobody testified against this, so I guess everybody loves it. And they'll get key constituents that do come and submit comment that they're supportive. So it's hard to do, and stuff moves fast. But I really would encourage folks, because we're hearing from people how upsetting all of this stuff is. But that's where it has to change. We can't change it here anymore. They took that away from us. So I'm sorry. It's not fun. Mr. Roshni.

Yeah, sorry. I was wondering, you know, there are like and excuse me, like was just stated about how there's many of these sort of laws that are kind of being forced on us. What's our mechanism if, you know, the state comes back around and says, you know, we we really don't think we need this. How quickly can we kind of. eliminate these or can that be written into our code like if into these like if it you know say the state law goes away and it's no longer mandatory can it just instantly drop off the books and go back to the way it was or what what's the process for that so uh commissioner roche i would just start by saying the probability of that would be

Slim to none. I had a feeling you'd say that.

Yes.

Yeah, they pass these laws and they don't really claw them back. Just to share Angie's frustration, this all comes back to just the constant amendments we've been seeing to the Growth Management Act over the last five years, which has really preempted local jurisdictions' ability to To regulate, I would say, you know, as staff, every year when the legislature, the sessions begin, we work with our city lobbyists to ensure that we do what we can to voice our concerns and to really showcase, I think, what Renton has done very well. And we try to use Renton as an example, especially with middle housing. When middle housing went through, you know, I thought that, and I think Angie probably, you know, maybe thought, we had our own, we had two middle housing zones. We were doing middle housing, you know, before a lot of other suburban cities were doing it. So just to say, you know, I just, Commissioner Rosha, I don't think that this is going to be unwound. If we adopt these standards and say that 0.5% chance that it does get unwound in five years and we see that this really isn't working, we could obviously come back and amend the regulations. I guess that's my long-winded answer of saying, probably not going to happen, but there is an ability for us always to come back and also tweak the regulations too. You know, just like Commissioner Kelly said, you know, what's going to happen when the first one comes out? You know, we're going to see issues. We're going to see problems. Just like with middle housing, too. We took a very incremental approach to that. We didn't want to open up the barn door and let everybody come in. We wanted to see what was going to happen and then make tweaks as we saw fit. So, yeah. My suggestion is, you know, we move forward with what we need to do. If we get a couple of these applications in and we see if there are issues, we can always come back to the commission and talk about what we've seen, talk about pinch points, talk about things that we can improve, issues. So we can obviously offer that.

Can I ask? And realizing I've already at one point asked the question, I was trying to color outside the lines. But during legislative session, I mean, to Angie's point about like, you know, some of these things, because other bills are getting major media attention, is it would it be allowable to have an update at the planning commission during legislative session tracking the land use and housing bills that are And the changes, because that's part of the challenge too, is you think a bill is something because you read it in January and then two weeks later it's literally like, worse. And is that- Yeah, absolutely.

And I've been trying to do that a bit at the beginning of each year, letting the commission know some of the bills that we've been looking at. And I can certainly make that more of a priority and also let the commission know what the city's priorities are and how we are advocating for the city as well. So absolutely, we can let you know what's coming down the pipe because with a lot of these bills, you're going to see them a year or two later. And we've got bills that were passed in the last session that are giving us two and three years. So we've got a couple of big bills that we're going to be working on next year that are going to be implemented in 2028 that were passed last year. We're not done yet. One of the big asks that we're trying to get through to the legislature is you've passed so many bills this past five years, we're trying to catch up. And we actually can't do local community planning as well as we should be because we're trying to implement all these state mandated items. We're hoping to get a breather over the next couple of years. We'll see how that goes. But yeah, absolutely. Vice Chair Plants, we can come in as the session begins next year and give updates on the legislature. And you know what I'll do too is I'll get our government relations person that helps us advocate for the city to come in and provide a comprehensive report as well.

I know it's more work, but I mean, I know personally, I would appreciate that because then I wouldn't be ranting and raving about this. Just because like, we should be more educated, right? It's like, we don't know what we don't know.

Sure. And I think testifying, you can testify remote.

At many of these hearings. You can't testify. I mean, I'm not on the state of Washington.

No, I understand. And if you were updated, I think, on some of the bills and you wanted to testify, I think testifying as a planning commissioner on some of these bills in Olympia would go a long way.

I know it's more work, but I appreciate it.

Thank you so much for the flexibility in the conversation. Are there any other questions in relation to the matter before us? All right. I believe a motion would be in order to accept the staff recommendation if someone wanted to make that motion. I'm moved. Motion, is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second to accept the staff recommendation. Those who are in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those who are not, please say nay. The motion passes. Thank you very much. We will move now to Docket 21, Group B, D252, Urban Design Regulation Updates. And Angelia, I believe you're presenting for this one.

Thank you for your patience. All right, Angelia Weiss with Long Range Planning for the record. I have taken the liberty of just, I'm gonna breeze real quick through the slides that you have already been introduced to and focus on the meat of the request that you had in the last session there. But this presentation is regarding D252 related to urban design regulations. And I will admit, I was super confident until about 10 minutes ago when I realized there was an architect among us I don't think you were in the last presentation. So I was like, you know what? I have them all covered. I heard the questions before. This should be golden. And then I realized, oh, you might have more questions. So we'll see. We'll see. But that being said, this is another example of one of those amendments that is required. in response to state law. This one is specifically ESHB 1293, and we are required to streamline our design review and development regulations. And that covers essentially two main points. Our design regulations must be clear and objective rather than subjective. And also, we cannot have any urban design regulations that result in reductions in density, in reductions in height, bulk, scale that is otherwise allowed by the underlying zone. So this is the new slide. In the previous public hearing, you requested that I provide some examples of draft language. Just to be clear, I have not gotten any AOKs or approval for any of this draft language. So I did select the easiest ones or the ones that I would recommend be the most likely to not get in trouble for. So that's exactly what I did. So the first example, it says primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a sidewalk to the public sidewalk and include human scale elements. But it's really hard to say what a human scale element is. And so that is the revision that I made. I also, it says human scale elements, plural, So I'm assuming that means two or more. So as a result, that language was drafted to say at least two human scale elements, including but not limited to pedestrian scale lighting planters or landscape planting areas, decorative paving, public art or seating. So that is just a possibility for how that could be redrafted. The next one is related to service elements. I kind of already talked about this in the last time, but it says that service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and or adjacent abutting uses. And so that was some potential revision may include service elements shall be located to the rear of buildings whenever such locations can maintain accessibility to service vehicles where rear locations are not practical service elements shall be located as far from the public street sidewalks and pedestrian only courtyards as practical while maintaining accessibility to service vehicles. The next one was developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features. But what is a visually prominent feature? We do have illustrations, which kind of help with that, but we decided to be more specific. So such as incorporate distinctive building materials and at least one visually prominent gateway feature, including but not limited to turret corner, accentuating roofline, canopy, bay window, balconies, or similar architectural features. Laura Monje- features that should be features, so that is one example of how that can be written, and then the last one, the location layout and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to. Laura Monje- approval by the administrators that is very discretionary and that's exactly the type of language that the bill does not allow. That being said, anytime we propose to strike design regulations or standards like that, we're always shaken in our boots, especially when we're required to by state law. So if there was a way to jerry-rig that or creative writing that in order to keep something along those lines, we would probably attempt to do so. But at this time, it does not appear to comply with state law. And then the next request that you had in the last public hearing was regarding what the citizens request was. So the particular standard that the requester wanted us to look at was as follows. And this is applicable to design district C. So it says for properties along North Sixth 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 residential neighborhood south of North 6th Street known as the North Renton neighborhood. So that is very vague. It's essentially saying, give us a proposal that we'll like. And so we're not allowed to do that based on the state law. So we decided to include an option, potentially, this has not been approved, that provides more guideline. So actually, this one is applicable to the urban design district A, B, and I think D. So we're suggesting that this also be applied to Design District D and just strike that to the existing design standard. And so the proposal is where a proposed development abuts a lower intensity use or zone, at least one of the following design elements shall be used to promote a transition to the surrounding uses. So they don't have to do all three, they only have to do one. So one is building proportions, including step backs on upper levels. Number two is building articulation to divide larger architectural elements into smaller increments, so pretty much modulation. And then three, roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes that provide variation in building form and roof profile. And I know that to that, sounds like a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo. So I attempted to create an illustration using the AI. So I know I only had to do one rendering. Usually I have to do 10 or 20, but I got it in the first try. So this picture is showing all three examples in one. So you can see on the left-hand side, the upper levels are stepped back. So that is one way that they could comply with that requirement. The second one in the middle building articulation, you can see those, uh, balconies are kind of modulated out to create a smaller element. And so that is the second way that they could comply with that. And the last one, probably one of the easier examples that a developer could comply with would be option number three, which is a variation of roof lines, pitches and shapes. So just to summarize, staff proposes amendments to the Renton Urban Design Regulations to remove and replace objective design language, remove and replace discretionary standards, and ensure standards do not reduce building scale beyond zoning development standards, all to ensure compliance with state law. And our staff recommendation is therefore to amend the Renton urban design regulations as described. And the next steps include planning and development committee recommendations on July 27th.

Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions?

Okay, architect here. I've gone through this about a million times, both on the architect side of this. So this is urban design, meaning housing?

Not necessarily. So our resident, different housing types. So we have two design sections. One applies to residential. So those are our residential design regulations. And this one specifically is for urban design regulations. So you're looking at mixed use developments, commercial buildings, and so forth.

Okay, mixed use, which generally includes residential and commercial, and then residential. And so I used architectural elements two different ways, I noticed, is that what I found in my history is it's better to have what an architectural element is defined elsewhere, and like the definitions, and then rather than saying, use architectural elements such as then me as a person who goes through zoning and planning and building codes all the time as part of my job, then I know that I can just go to a definition and the definition might provide more clarity to what it is. So I mean, to me, it seems like rather than saying architectural elements such as that the architecture element should be something that's identified in the definitions, because I'm sure that is a term that's used throughout the code, not just If you clarify it in one spot and then it doesn't align with the definition. I go to the definitions because a lot of times the definitions is the thing that gives you the tactile information, allows you to determine what your design is going to be.

A gotcha I think I yep I understand so you're talking about the example of the human scale elements like why don't we just put that in a definition um yep that's a good point and in the future, we will be. Changing our code of framework, so that people can hover over the definitions. And it'll automatically show what the definition is. That is certainly something I could consider is providing a definition for human scale element. I think at this point, it's not really intuitive that that would be something that is defined. And so sometimes it's easier for them to have the information all there. And we would not have that word used in any other code section. But you make a valid point.

Mm-hmm.

architectural design elements are all over planning.

And so I meant, what I meant was, it'll only live in the urban design regulations, it will not live in the commercial development standards and the fencing regulations. No, but you make you make a good point. That would be a meaning I would just need to make a definition of human scale elements and put it in our definitions.

human scale and architectural elements. If we're going to have, if those are different, human scale is one thing because it helps bring down the size of things and you were listing lights and seating and planting that different than variations in building form so that it doesn't look like a big flat mass. I mean, I've done a lot of mixed use and that's one of the biggest things when I come to planning commissions and planning hearings is this can't look like a gigantic soulless building. This needs to have masonry it needs to have metal it needs to have trellises it needs to have windows needs to have projections you can't you can't go more than 10 feet this way but you have to go 12 feet on center this way on your elements i mean if we're going to say architectural elements it should be defined somewhere and it shouldn't be the definition of architectural elements shouldn't be including such things as in the definition because the definition is the definition which is at the front of the code

I think I understand what you're talking about. I will say that having subjective language isn't always a bad thing. One of the benefits to subjective language is that it provides a ton of flexibility. Not all design elements are going to be appropriate or even be able to fit on all sites. That's why we're very partial sometimes to subjective language. When I put in including but not limited to, that was very intentional. That was on purpose. Otherwise, they are locked into one option, and if they want to propose an alternative to that, then it either needs a modification or They need to do further analysis. But so let me just rephrase so that I understand what you're requesting or what you're suggesting. You're suggesting that it be located in a definition because there's no point in... defining it in the code. Is that what you're saying?

That's just my feeling. I mean, that's just the way I've looked. When I just go through these type of ordinances, that's the first thing I look at is that you could easily overlook some requirement here or it could be misstated in one spot and then stated differently in a different spot. If you start using the term and then adding to it in other sections, then... I'm probably beating a dead horse, but I'm just saying that the thing I like about codes is I like the definition because it makes it very clear. If you say human-skilled element, you go to the definition part of the code and you can see what that means. If it says architectural element, you can go to the definitions or somewhere that you identify that identifies what it is so that it is applied every time that phrase is used or that word is used.

Yep, I hear you.

Sorry, architect. Okay.

Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Roushey?

Yeah, I actually kind of am in favor of the more lenient definitions, giving the architect or designer a little bit more creativity to solve solutions versus like, no, it has to be X, Y, or Z. So sorry, Kevin, I'm going to kind of go on the side of where Angelina's at right now. Yeah, I don't like being locked in.

I wasn't saying that the definition, you have to have 10 different things you can do. I was just saying rather than having... Nevermind.

I just, well, that wasn't clear to me. So thank you for clarifying. Cause it sounded like you wanted like a specific list.

Believe me, I want to go to understand what the expectation is for the elements, not have to have a change from paragraph to paragraph as you go through multiple sections of the code.

Yeah, true. I think I understand where like, cause I, you know, I, I look up code too. And like, if I look up section, see this and it's a one word definition, but the definitions actually appear in section four or five, like I can see.

Yeah. If you know, and I want all the flexibility in the world as an architect to do fancy shit on my buildings. Right. But I mean,

If there are no other questions or comments, I believe a motion would be in order to accept the staff recommendation if someone wanted to make that motion.

I'll make a motion to accept the staff recommendation as read.

Motion, is there a second?

I second.

There's a motion and a second to accept the staff recommendation. Those who are in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Those who are not in favor, please say nay. All right, the motion has passed. And we will move on now to docket 21, group B, D253, RMF2 rezone with comp plan amendment. And you are still on the hot seat.

Wonderful. Yes, this presentation is reverting D253 related to the RMF2 rezone for two sites and the corresponding comprehensive plan amendment. And Commissioner Jeff Kelly, you have an eagle eye. You mentioned that the address looked incorrect and you were correct about that. That being said, I did right click on the parcel and it does not have an address. So for whatever reason, it took the address from across the street instead of a button. And I have no idea why it did that, but I was in a hurry just copy and pasting. And but you caught it. So that is excellent. But that being said, as a refresher, there are two sites proposed for a rezone and proposed for a corresponding comprehensive plan amendments. One is located in the city center and one is located in the highlands. They're both in pretty close proximity to transit. and they are both currently zoned CA zoning, so commercial arterial, and we're proposing the RMF2, and that has a density of 20 to 40 dwelling units per net acre. And the primary reason is because these particular sites are challenging either with visibility or with the lot size or lot depth, and it makes it impractical for commercial uses. So that's why we're proposing to rezone these two sites And the property owners have been notified and one particular property site one is based on a request from the property owner. So the one on the left is a site one and the one on the right is a site two. Oh, okay, so this is a new slide based on a commissioner request. So you previously had questions about what commercial uses are allowed in the RMF2. Commissioner Artsy, I think that was yours. So I pulled the uses that are permitted either conditionally or outright permitted in the RMF2 zone. So one is eating and drinking establishments that would require an administrative conditional use permit. Mobile food vending, that is permitted provided it complies with the temporary use permit requirements. So that would require a temporary use permit. The retail sales, that is permitted with an administrative conditional use permit. But keep in mind that pretty much any large development is going to require land use permits anyways. So this is all reviewed concurrently. So there's probably already going to be site plan review required. The next one was retail sales outdoors. That one is permitted provided the outdoor retail sales are limited to vending machines and retail product lockers. That one's kind of weird. And then a walk-up window that requires an administrative conditional use, and it says commercial uses shall not be greater than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. So as I previously stated, we'll probably be going through this in the future and not only evaluating whether we should change the building height or setbacks here, in the RMF2 zone, since currently they have twice the density, but they're the exact same development standards as the RMF1. But we'll also be looking and seeing if there's any changes that we should make to the permissibility of the commercial uses. And I do see some errors in here that haven't been caught previously. For example, we don't really have an RMF zone anymore. It's RMF1 or RMF2, so we probably need to update that. So this one is in site one. There were questions previously about, is this even large enough to allow for a residential or a townhome development? I do have the dimensions here. So I know at the deepest, the dimension isn't there, but it's 179 feet at that deepest point, but it averages in depth from 113 feet to 179 feet. And then I didn't get the full length dimension, but the narrowest lot is about 50 feet in width. And the largest lot is about 168 or 107 feet in width. And for the RMF2 zone, The minimum lot size is not applicable, so it can be as small as they want it to be as long as it complies with the minimum lot width and lot depth dimensions. The minimum lot width for townhomes is 25 feet, so that means on that narrow lot that is 50 feet wide, they could potentially get two lots out of that using a unit lot subdivision. And then the minimum lot depth is 65 feet. So it's one of those things where if they can fit it, they can build it as long as they comply with all of our development regulations. And I think I got through the most of that, so we'll just move on. And then the next one is Site 2, 450 Bremerton Avenue Northeast. This property is also in the CA zone. I do not have any follow-up questions related to that one. But the reason why we're proposing to rezone this one is simply because the remaining parcel that is vacant that is proposed for redevelopment does not have any visibility from the public street. Also, you can see from the picture there that there's a retaining wall, so it makes visibility challenging. And so staff recommends approval of the zoning and map amendments and corresponding comprehensive plan amendments for those two sites. And the next step is Planning and Development Committee recommendations on July 27th.

Thank you. Any discussion or questions? A motion would be in order. If someone wants just to make it to accept the staff recommendation.

I move we accept the staff recommendations.

Is there a second? I heard Chair Artsy second it. Alright, we have a motion and a second to accept the staff recommendation. Those who are in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those who are not in favor, please say nay. Alright, the motion passes. Alright, we will move on now to Commissioner comments. Do any of the commissioners have any comments? It's still sunny outside. All right. Moving forward to our final item, would someone wish to make a motion to adjourn the meeting and go out into the sun?

Vice Chairman, I ask a question. Do we need to take an action up here to cancel the next couple of meetings? Or is that a scheduling activity by the team? Thank you.

I move we adjourn. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion to second. Those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone say nay? All right. Thank you. Have a wonderful evening.

Aye.

Thanks. Have a good one.