A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the procedures (if different than the standard review type) and the decision criteria for each development application or special procedure. With the exception of Criteria Applicable to all Land Use Permits in RZC 21.76.070.B below, the actions are listed in alphabetical order.
B. Criteria Applicable to All Land Use Permits.
A. The type of land use;
B. The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density;
C. The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) if not otherwise satisfied;
E. Both within and outside Transition Overlays, decision makers authorized by the RZC to decide upon discretionary approvals may condition such approvals and development permits, including but not limited to site plan approvals, to minimize adverse impacts on other properties and uses, and to carry out the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Limitations on Review. During project review, the City shall not reexamine alternatives to or hear appeals on the items identified in subsection B.3.a.i of this section, except for issues of code interpretation.
c. Burden and Nature of Proof. The burden of proof for demonstrating that the application is consistent with the applicable regulations is on the proponent. The project application must be supported by proof that it conforms to the applicable elements of the City’s development regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, and that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately addressed.
C. Administrative Design Flexibility.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote creativity in site design, allow flexibility in the application of standards in certain zones, and to achieve the creation of sites and uses that may benefit the public by the application of flexible standards not otherwise possible under conventional development regulations.
2. Scope. Administrative design flexibility shall only be considered for adjusting standards in the categories listed below for each type of land use. Requests for adjustment to standards not listed shall be processed as a variance as set forth in RZC 21.76.070.AB, Variances.
3. Process Type. Requests for administrative design flexibility shall be processed and decided as part of the decision on the underlying permit.
4. Decision Criteria.
a. Criteria for Projects Other Than in Downtown, Overlake, or Marymoor Design District zones.
i. Criteria for Non-Single-Family Projects.
A. Superiority in achieving the Comprehensive Plan neighborhood goals and policies, and superior design in terms of architecture, building materials, site design, landscaping, and open space. Projects shall seek to create greater amounts of privacy, maintenance of views, preservation of trees, preservation of historic resources, vegetation and habitat, and provide for adequate security.
B. The applicant must prove that the project meets the criteria outlined above, based on:
2. Objective improvements, such as increased solar access or increased privacy; and
3. Conceptual architectural sketches, showing two sketches (with and without administrative design flexibility), indicating the improvement gained by application of the administrative design flexibility.
ii. The modification will not have a significant adverse impact on adjoining property owners;
b. The modification shall not be unduly injurious to property owners in the vicinity or their enjoyment of their property;
c. The request is due to special physical circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property;
d. The project otherwise complies with the requirements of the RZC.
5. Residential Flexible Standards. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following development standards:
a. Setbacks. Front, side, and rear setbacks may be reduced up to 20 percent in all residential zones, provided that setbacks from Lake Sammamish shall not be eligible for design flexibility. A minimum of 18 feet of driveway shall be provided between the garage, carport, or other fenced parking area and the street property line except when alleys are used for vehicular access.
b. Impervious Surface. In the R-8 through R-20 zones, the impervious surface area can be increased an additional five percent.
6. Commercial Flexible Standards. Administrative design flexibility is limited to the Neighborhood Commercial zones (NC-1 and NC-2) and General Commercial (GC) zoning districts. Administrative design flexibility is further limited to the following standards:
7. Business and Manufacturing Park Flexible Standards. Administrative design flexibility is limited to the Business Park (BP), Manufacturing (MP) and Industrial (I) zones. Administrative design flexibility is further limited to the following standards:
8. Decision Criteria for Downtown, Overlake, and the Marymoor Design District.
i. Better meets the intent of the goals and policies for the zone in which the site is located;
iii. Provides benefit in terms of desired use and activity.
b. Standards that may be modified by application of administrative design flexibility are as follows:
i. Parking Lot Location. Requirements for the location of on-site parking may be modified within the development (except for parking within residential yard areas) to provide for greater joint-use and quasi-public parking opportunities and uses which are highly desirable in the subject design area.
ii. For Downtown, mid-block pedestrian walkways and vehicular lanes, per RZC 21.10.150, Pedestrian System, may be modified to allow variations in locations and minimum widths for these items to provide superiority in site design and function which benefits both the property owner and public.
iv. Other Site Requirements and Standards. All other site requirements and standards except density, number of stories, and FAR may be modified within the development to provide superiority in site design; i.e., greater amounts of privacy, maintenance of views, greater environmental benefit, distinctive and high quality of design, improved pedestrian access, preservation of vegetation, provision of usable open space, and adequate light, air, and security.
D. Administrative Interpretation.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the interpretation of the Zoning Code. The primary objective of administrative interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the code provision at issue and to give effect to that intent. Administrative interpretation shall not be used to amend or change the code.
2. Scope. The RZC shall be interpreted whenever any of its provisions, or the application of such provisions to any specific set of circumstances, is ambiguous; i.e., where the Code is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations.
3. Procedures. The Code Administrator shall be responsible for interpreting the provisions of this code, except where expressly provided otherwise. Any interested person may apply for an interpretation of this code. Applications for administrative interpretation are processed as Type I reviews.
4. Decision Criteria.
a. The provisions of the RZC shall be considered to be the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion and protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and all administrative interpretations shall be made in this context.
b. The RZC is not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any easements, covenants, or other agreements between parties, except where the agreements may conflict with the enforcement of the RZC.
c. In the case of conflicts between parts of the RZC or between the RZC and other rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances, or statutes lawfully adopted by other authority having jurisdiction within the City, the most restrictive shall govern. In the case of conflicts between the text, maps, and charts of the RZC, the text shall govern unless otherwise stated.
e. Interpretation of the Redmond Comprehensive Plan is to be made recognizing that the boundaries of the plan categories are not exact but illustrate general relationships and locations.
5. Administrative interpretation shall utilize generally recognized principles of statutory and ordinance interpretation adopted by the courts of this state.
E. Alteration of Geologic Hazard Areas.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the construction of streets and/or utilities that are identified on an adopted City plan, where no reasonable alternative to locating in a Landslide Hazard Area exists.
2. Scope. An Alteration of Geologic Hazard Areas is an exception for streets and utilities identified in an adopted plan as of October 1, 1997, such as the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facility Plan, Transportation Improvement Plan, or Utility Facility Plan, from strict adherence to RZC 21.64, Critical Areas Regulations, as the chapter relates to Landslide Hazard Areas.
3. Decision Criteria.
a. There must be no reasonable alternative to locating in a Landslide Hazard Area. Alternative locations which would avoid impact to the Landslide Hazard Area must be shown to be economically or functionally infeasible.
b. A geotechnical evaluation must be conducted to identify the risks of damage from the proposal, both on-site and off-site, and to identify measures to eliminate or reduce risks. The proposal must not increase the risk of occurrence of the potential geologic hazard.
c. Impacts shall be minimized by limiting the magnitude of the proposed construction to the extent possible, Any impacts must be eliminated or mitigated by repairing, rehabilitating, restoring, replacing, or providing substitute resources consistent with the mitigation and performance standards set forth in RZC 21.64.010.L and 21.64.010.M.
I. Certificate of Appropriateness. The decision criteria for certificate of appropriateness are found in RZC 21.30, Historic and Archeological Resources.
J. Comprehensive Plan Map and/or Policy Amendment.
a. The Annual Comprehensive Amendment Review Docket (“Annual Review Docket”) will establish the annual list of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and related development regulations that the City Council determines, after review and consultation with the Planning Commission, to be included for review and consideration for any given year.
b. Placement of an amendment request on the Annual Review Docket does not mean the amendment request will be approved by the City Council.
2. Review Process and Approving Authority.
i. Changes in the organization, format, appearance, profiles, narrative, illustrations, examples or other nonmaterial changes to the Comprehensive Plan may be made by the Department of Planning and Community Development and are exempt from this section. Amendments to facility plans for City-managed utilities shall follow those procedures described in the Capital Facilities Element of the Redmond Comprehensive Plan.
e. For any given year, the City establishes an application process with due date, as shown in Figure 21.76.070A. Applications received after the due date may be considered as part of the following year’s Comprehensive Plan docketing process.
f. Sequence for Establishing the Annual Docket. Figure 21.76.070A identifies major steps involved in establishing the annual Comprehensive Plan docket.
3. Who May Apply.
a. Unless initiated by City Council, no Comprehensive Plan amendment application may be reinitiated for two years after its denial by Council, either as a proposal for further consideration on the docket or as a docketed proposal.
b. Members of the Public. Persons or entities other than the City Council, the City Planning Commission and City staff (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the public”) may initiate Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals subject to the provisions of this chapter. A property owner or authorized agent of the property owner may propose a site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
c. City Council.
i. Initiation. Proposals to be considered for inclusion on the Annual Review Docket may be made by the City Council at any time. An affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total members of the Council is required to initiate consideration of an amendment.
ii. Review. Amendment proposals initiated by City Council will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and acted upon by Council as set forth in this section.
d. Planning Commission.
i. Initiation. Proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan may be made by the Planning Commission at any time and submitted to the City Council for consideration for inclusion in the Annual Review Docket. An affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total members of the Commission is required to initiate consideration of an amendment.
ii. Review. The Council will review the Planning Commission proposals and determine which will be included in the Annual Review Docket in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in this section.
4. Minimum Application Requirements.
b. Applicants must schedule and attend a pre-application meeting with Planning staff before submitting an application. The meeting is designed to provide early feedback and direction on the applicant’s proposal.
c. Applications must provide sufficient information or adequate detail to review and assess whether or not the proposal meets the applicable threshold criteria identified in this section.
d. The City may request additional information as part of the application review process. A determination that the proposal contains sufficient information and adequate detail for the purpose of docketing does not preclude the City from requesting additional information at a later time.
e. Fee. The applicable application fee is listed on the current Development Services fee schedule. Payment of the fee is required when the application is submitted.
5. Annual Review Docket Application Procedures.
a. Schedule. The Annual Review Docket application schedule will occur pursuant to the approximate schedule below.
By March 15
Applicants are required to initiate and attend a pre-proposal meeting with Planning staff.
Jan – April 1
Application acceptance period.
By July 1
Planning Commission reviews proposed amendments, holds public hearing(s), and makes recommendation to Council.
By August 31
Council determines proposed amendment outcomes (include, exclude, or defer) and approves the Annual Review Docket.
No later than August 31 of the following year
Council evaluates and takes final action on each docketed item.
b. Frequency. The Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, provides that Comprehensive Plan amendments can occur no more than once a year with limited exceptions. The City Council may exercise its discretion to not open an annual docket and may choose to exercise that discretion in years in which a periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan is required under RCW 36.70A. The public participation component of a periodic Comprehensive Plan update will provide early and continuous opportunities for the public to participate in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans.
6. Threshold Criteria. The following threshold decision criteria will be used in determining which proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments will receive further consideration in a given docket cycle. Applications not included in an Annual Review Docket may be submitted in subsequent annual docketing processes and would be evaluated again for consistency with criteria.
a. Amending the Comprehensive Plan is the most appropriate mechanism available, as the desired outcome cannot be addressed as a regulatory or budgetary process, or by a work program approved by City Council;
b. The proposed amendment is best addressed as an individually docketed item, instead of evaluated as part of a periodic update to Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plan update, or other planning processes such as those led by regional or state agencies;
c. The proposed amendment is consistent with policy implementation in the King County Countywide Planning Policies, the Growth Management Act, other state or federal law, and the Washington Administrative Code;
d. The proposed amendment can be reasonably reviewed within the staffing resources and operational budget allocated to the Department. In making this determination the following shall be considered:
i. The amount of research and analysis needed to develop the proposal;
ii. The potential for the proposal to impact multiple sections of the Comprehensive Plan and/or zoning code;
iii. The amount of public engagement needed to fully develop the amendments; and
iv. If consultant support would be needed to fully develop the proposal.
e. The proposed amendment addresses the interests and changed conditions of the entire City as identified in its long-range planning and policy documents and is compatible with the overall vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; and
f. The proposed amendment or similar amendment has not been considered or rejected within the last two years.
7. Council Review. The City Council shall review the recommendation of the Planning Commission and consider whether any proposed amendment should be included in or excluded from the annual review, or should be deferred.
a. Include. The City Council’s decision to include an application in the Annual Review Docket is procedural only and does not constitute a decision by the City Council as to whether the proposed amendment will ultimately be approved.
b. Exclude. The City Council’s decision to exclude an application from the docket terminates the application. Proposals excluded from the annual review docket may not be considered again for a period of two years.
c. Defer. The City Council’s decision to defer an application means the application may be considered, as specified by the Council, for the next annual docket cycle, neighborhood plan review and update, a previously established work program, or the next periodic review cycle.
8. Final Review of Docketed Proposals. The final review process will evaluate the proposed amendments included in the Annual Review Docket and culminate in Council action on the proposed amendments.
a. Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission will review the proposed amendments included in the Annual Review Docket, hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation to the City Council as to each proposed amendment, using the criteria set forth below in subsection J.9 of this section.
b. City Council Action. The City Council will review the Planning Commission recommendations and the criteria set forth below and take action on each proposed amendment in the Annual Review Docket. Council can reject or accept in whole or part the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
9. Criteria for Evaluation and Action. Each docketed proposal shall be reviewed with consideration to the criteria below. The review process shall follow Type VI (legislative) permit procedures as described in RZC 21.76.050.
a. Consistency with the Growth Management Act (GMA), the State of Washington Department of Commerce Procedural Criteria, and the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs);
b. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan policies and the designation criteria;
c. If the purpose of the amendment is to change the allowed use in an area, the need for the land uses that would be allowed by the Comprehensive Plan amendment and whether the amendment would result in the loss of the capacity to meet other needed land uses, especially whether the proposed amendment complies with the policy on no net loss of housing capacity;
e. The capability of the land, including the prevalence of critical areas;
f. The capacity of public facilities and whether public facilities and services can be provided cost-effectively at the intensity allowed by the designation;
g. The proposed amendment addresses significantly changed conditions. In making this determination the following shall be considered:
i. Unanticipated consequences of an adopted policy; or
ii. Changed conditions on the subject property or its surrounding area; or
iii. Changes related to the pertinent plan map or text; and
11. Proposed Amendments for a Neighborhood Commercial Designation. The following additional procedures apply for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map for a Neighborhood Commercial designation:
a. Conceptual Site Plan. The applicant shall include with the application a conceptual site plan, indicating proposed land uses, vehicular and nonmotorized access and parking, building height, building entrances, landscaping, open space, and community gathering areas. Architectural design, exact building shapes, and other detailed information required in a site plan shall not be required. The plan shall demonstrate feasibility of compliance with Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan policies and Redmond Zoning Code regulations associated with Neighborhood Commercial land use and zoning designation, RZC 21.14.010, Neighborhood Commercial (NC-1) or RZC 21.14.015, Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2).
b. Neighborhood Meeting. Applicants are required to hold a neighborhood meeting between two and eight weeks following submittal of the application. City staff shall be invited to attend the meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be mailed at least 21 days prior to the meeting to all property owners and residents within the respective neighborhood boundaries of the proposed project and to any other person known to the City to have expressed an interest in the individual amendment. The notice shall include the conceptual site plan. Neighborhood meeting purpose and requirements shall also apply, RZC 21.76.060.C, Neighborhood Meetings.
c. Availability of Application. The application, including the conceptual site plan, shall be available for public review at the Development Services Center for a minimum of fourteen days prior to the neighborhood meeting.
d. Comments from Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant shall consider the comments received at the neighborhood meeting and shall consider recommendations from City staff, if any, regarding potential revisions to the conceptual site plan to address neighborhood concerns. The applicant shall either (a) submit a revised conceptual site plan incorporating any such revisions, or (b) advise the City that no revisions will be made, within 60 days from the date of the neighborhood meeting. If the applicant does not resubmit or notify the City within the 60-day period, the City will process the application as submitted without revisions.
e. Neighborhood Commercial Review Panel.
i. After receipt of the revised conceptual site plan or after 60 days has passed from the date of the neighborhood meeting, the City shall schedule the application for review by a Neighborhood Commercial Review Panel consisting of the following representatives to be appointed by the Mayor:
A. One member of the Redmond Planning Commission;
B. Two members of the Redmond Design Review Board;
C. One member of the Redmond Technical Committee;
D. Three community representatives, to be selected according to the following order of priority:
1. Members of any active Community Advisory Committee (CAC) for the neighborhood in which the proposal is located; or
2. Members of any former CAC for the neighborhood in which the proposal is located;
E. In instances where there is no representative who meets the criteria set forth in subsection J.11.e.i.D of this section, the Mayor may appoint a member of a Redmond board, commission, or committee, or an active civic leader from the neighborhood in which the project is located;
F. In addition to the seven representatives identified above, a Youth Advocate member is encouraged to participate on the review panel as a nonvoting member.
ii. The Neighborhood Commercial Review Panel shall provide a recommendation to the Technical Committee regarding whether the application for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment should be approved, modified, or denied, and shall include any recommended conditions for approval.
iii. The Neighborhood Commercial Review Panel’s recommendation shall be included as an attachment to the Technical Committee Report and to the Planning Commission Report and referenced in the findings of fact.
K. Conditional Use Permit.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish the criteria that the City will use in making a decision upon an application for a Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use is a use which may be appropriate on a specific parcel of land within a given zoning district under certain conditions, but which is not appropriate on all parcels within the same zoning district. A Conditional Use Permit allows the City to consider the appropriateness of the use on a specific parcel in terms of compatibility with other uses in the same zone and vicinity and to impose conditions to ensure such compatibility.
2. Scope. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any land use designated as requiring a Conditional Use Permit in the applicable permitted use chart, unless otherwise noted in the chart.
a. The conditional use is consistent with the RZC and the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The conditional use is designed in a manner which is compatible with and responds to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the subject property and immediate vicinity;
c. The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and screening vegetation for the conditional use shall not hinder neighborhood circulation or discourage the permitted development or use of neighboring properties;
d. The type of use, hours of operation, and appropriateness of the use in relation to adjacent uses minimize unusual hazards or characteristics of the use that would have adverse impacts;
e. The conditional use is such that pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the use will not be hazardous or conflict with existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood;
f. The conditional use will be supported by adequate public facilities or services, and will not adversely affect public services to the surrounding area or conditions are established to mitigate adverse impacts on such facilities.
L. Development Agreement.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a mechanism whereby developers and the City can be certain that upon approval a project may proceed in accordance with existing policies and regulations, and that public facilities and services will be adequate to serve existing and new development at such time as development occurs. Development agreements are authorized by RCW 36.70B.170, et seq.
2. Scope. Any person having ownership or control of real property within the City desiring to enter may apply for a development agreement in order to set forth the development standards and other provisions that will apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement.
a. The agreement must be consistent with the applicable development regulations for the property;
b. All impacts of the development must be mitigated by the measures set forth in the agreement or the agreement must provide a mechanism for analyzing and mitigating such impacts as they occur;
c. The agreement must reserve the City’s authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety;
e. The agreement must be in the public interest and provide a public benefit.
4. Approving Deviations. The City Council may approve deviations from development standards through a development agreement when the agreement concerns the design, construction, or operation of high-capacity transit facilities constructed by or for a regional transit authority established by Chapter 81.112 RCW, except for surface parking lots outside of the high-capacity transit right-of-way and identified station sites. In approving such deviations, the City Council must find that the deviations facilitate the design, construction, or operation of high-capacity transit facilities in Redmond, and that the development agreement meets the provisions of subsection (3)(b) through (3)(e) of this section.
M. Essential Public Facilities.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is, as required by state law, to provide a process to site necessary public uses that may otherwise be difficult to site. This process also provides for greater involvement of the community and identifies and minimizes adverse impacts. Essential public facilities are defined in RZC 21.78, Definitions.
2. Scope. This section establishes the criteria that the City will use in making a decision upon an application for an essential public facility. This section provides an alternative process for permitting those uses which qualify as essential public facilities under the criteria set forth below. A proposal may be reviewed as an essential public facility under this section when the applicant makes a written request for such review to the Administrator, or when the Administrator requires that a proposal be reviewed as an essential public facility. A proposal qualifies as an essential public facility when:
a. The facility meets the definition of Essential Public Facility.
b. The facility is a type difficult to site because of one of the following:
ii. The facility can locate only near another public facility,
iii. The facility has or is generally perceived by the public to have significant adverse impacts that make it difficult to site, or
iv. The facility is of a type that has been difficult to site in the past;
c. There is need for the facility, and Redmond is in the facility service area.
3. Procedure. Applications that seek approval for an essential public facility shall follow the procedures established in RZC 21.76.050.I for a Type IV permit process. In addition to the decision criteria described in subsection M.5 below, Secure Community Transition Facilities shall also be consistent with subsection M.7 below.
4. Review Process - Alternative Sites/Public Involvement.
b. The Administrator has the authority to require the consideration of sites outside the City of Redmond, except where the facility is a state or regional facility for which a siting decision has already been made.
c. A public involvement process shall be required. The purpose of the public involvement process is to involve the persons within the zone of likely and foreseeable impacts, and to assist in the development of potential incentives or modifications which would make siting of that facility more acceptable.
d. The Administrator may require a multi-jurisdictional review process if the facility serves a regional, countywide, statewide, or national need, if such a process has not been conducted prior to submittal of the application. If this process is required, the applicant shall design an acceptable process to be reviewed and approved by the Administrator. If such a process has already been conducted, no additional multi-jurisdictional process will be required. Applicants shall be required to pay for any process conducted. This requirement is not applicable to Secure Community Transition Facilities.
5. Decision Criteria.
a. Except where the facility is a state or regional facility for which a siting decision has already been made, alternative sites covering the service area of the proposed facility must be considered, and the site proposed must be the most appropriate site taking into consideration the requirements of the facility and the impacts on surrounding uses and the environment;
b. A determination must be made that there is a public need for the facility, unless the facility is a state or regional facility for which need has already been established;
c. The impact of the facility on the surrounding uses and environment, the City, and the region must be minimized;
d. Conditions and/or mitigation measures relative to the design and/or operation of the facility must be identified and imposed to make the facility compatible with the surrounding uses and the environment to the extent practicable;
e. A package of incentives must be developed that would make siting the facility within the community more acceptable;
f. A determination must be made as to whether the factors that make the facility difficult to site can be modified to increase the range of available sites or to minimize impacts on affected areas and the environment, except where the facility is a state or regional facility for which a siting decision has already been made;
g. The proposal shall comply with any applicable mitigation measures identified in the financial impact analysis;
i. The facility must comply with any applicable state siting and permitting requirements; and
6. The City shall not deny or condition an essential public facility in such a manner as to preclude the siting or expansion of any state or regional essential public facility in the City. In the event that a state or regional essential public facility cannot, by the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval, be made to meet the decision criteria in subsection M.5 above, the City shall approve the siting or expansion of the state or regional essential public facility with such reasonable conditions of approval as may allow the essential public facility to meet the decision criteria to the maximum extent practicable.
7. Secure Community Transition Facilities.
a. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of requiring standards for Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs) is to comply with RCW Chapter 71.09, while maintaining compatibility with other land use and services permitted within the City.
b. Applicability. The standards in this section apply to all SCTFs, and are not subject to variance. These standards are in addition to the general standards applicable to essential public facilities found elsewhere in this subsection RZC 21.76.070.M.
c. Siting Criteria.
i. SCTFs should be located near transit facilities, where practical.
ii. SCTFs are only permitted in the areas designated on Map 76.1, Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTF) Permitted Locations, adopted by this reference and set forth as paragraph M.7.f of this subsection.
iii. No SCTF shall be permitted to locate within one mile, as measured nearest property line to nearest property line, from any existing SCTF, work release, pre-release, or similar facility, as defined in RCW 71.09.250(8).
e. Application materials. In addition to the regular application materials required for land use review, an application for an SCTF shall also include:
i. A description of the siting process used for the SCTF, including alternative locations considered;
ii. An analysis showing that consideration was given to potential sites such that the siting of the facility will not result in a concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction, or region;
iii. Proposed mitigation measures, including the use of buffering from adjoining uses;
iv. A general overview of planned security for the facility;
v. A schedule and analysis of all public input solicited or to be solicited during the siting process; and
f. Map 76.1, Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTF) Permitted Locations.
Note: Online users may click the map for a full-size version in PDF format.
P. Master Planned Development (MPD).
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a mechanism to allow the master planning of sites where development is proposed to occur in phases, where coordination of public facilities is needed, when a master plan is needed to determine how best to develop the area, when a master plan is needed to integrate various uses, or when multiple ownerships are to be coordinated into a unified development. The MPD process establishes conditions of approval for all concurrent and subsequent development applications; and thereby ensures that infrastructure, public services, and open space and recreation areas will be provided in a timely manner and be tailored to the MPD site. The MPD process also provides long-term guidance for a large area so that the continuity of development is maintained.
2. Applicability. MPDs are:
b. Required in the Overlake Village Subarea, Marymoor Design District, and Northeast Design District for all projects encompassing at least three acres;
c. Optional in the Overlake Village Subarea and in Downtown zones for projects encompassing less than three acres; and
d. Required in the East Sammamish Valley area pursuant to RZC 21.08.190.B, East Sammamish Valley Master Plan Requirement.
a. MPD Term. Development plans may include multiple phases to be developed successively over a period of no more than five years (10 years for MPDs located in Overlake Village, the Marymoor Design District, and the Northeast Design District and MPDs greater than 10 acres in Downtown). If after this time period uncompleted phases remain, the applicant may request of the Technical Committee one extension of no more than five years. The Technical Committee may grant the extension if the applicant demonstrates economic hardship, change of ownership, unanticipated construction and/or site design problems, or other circumstances beyond his/her control determined acceptable by the Technical Committee. The MPD approval shall expire no more than 10 years from the original approval (15 years for MPDs located in Overlake Village, Marymoor Design District, and the Northeast Design District and MPDS greater than 10 acres in Downtown). If an MPD is accompanied by a development agreement, the applicant shall have the option of having the term of the MPD coincide with that of the development agreement, even if the term of the development agreement exceeds the ordinarily allowable MPD timeframe.
c. Approval Process. The approval process includes the City’s review and consideration of the general project concept, including its intensity and overall design. Each land use permit associated with the MPD would then relate to specific site and development requirements as defined by the approval and the RZC.
4. Procedures. MPDs shall be processed using the following procedures:
a. MPDs in the Overlake Village Subarea, Marymoor Design District, and Northeast Design District that are larger than three acres in size and MPDs in the Downtown that are larger than ten acres in size shall follow a Type V process as set forth in RZC 21.76.050.J.
i. A recommendation from the Design Review Board shall be required.
ii. The applicant shall host two neighborhood meetings: one early in the PREP process if PREP is used, and a second pursuant to RZC 21.76.060.C. The second neighborhood meeting shall be held no later than 60 days before the public hearing.
c. A Master Plan shall be completed prior to approval of any subdivision, binding site plan, or issuance of land use permit approval for any development. The following actions are exempt from this requirement:
iv. Relocation of structures displaced by public projects.
b. MPDs proposed in the Overlake Village Subarea shall be consistent with the Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy, and shall include the items listed in 5.d below in addition to the following:
ii. An analysis of shading effects of taller buildings (for sites smaller than three acres, only required if the Technical Committee or Design Review Board determine based upon the height and bulk study that analysis of shading effects is needed); and
iii. Phasing plan for bonus features and affordable housing component showing that the completion of improvements of bonus features and affordable housing shall be commensurate with the progress on the construction of the development (for sites smaller than three acres, only required if the Technical Committee determines necessary).
c. MPDs proposed in the Marymoor Design District shall include a phasing plan for bonus features and affordable housing as described in 5.b.iii above in addition to the items listed in 5.d below.
d. All MPDs shall include the items listed below:
iii. Transportation and circulation plan indicating the layout and conceptual design of all streets, pedestrian pathways, parking, and location of transit facilities (as available), in plan view and cross section for streets (cross sections only required for projects in the Downtown);
iv. Location of proposed space for parks, open space, and any cultural facilities;
vi. Location of any environmentally critical areas;
ix. Overall approach to sustainable design, including consideration of the use of environmentally sustainable materials such as permeable pavement, where possible; and
f. Property included in an MPD must be under the same ownership, or there must be a signed agreement establishing control over multiple ownerships.
6. Vesting. Where MPDs are required, they must be completed in conjunction with a development agreement, as described in RCW Chapter 36.70B, in order to vest to development regulations in place at the time of the agreement. Where MPDs are optional, applicants wishing to vest may pursue a development agreement as described in RCW Chapter 36.70B.
T. Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to comply with the requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing Act Amendments. The Federal Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing Act Amendments require that reasonable accommodations be made in the rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The rights created by the statutes are requirements of federal law, and shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with federal case law.
2. Scope. The Administrator or his/her designee is therefore authorized to make reasonable accommodations in the provisions of the RZC as such provisions apply to dwellings occupied or to be occupied by disabled persons as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing Act Amendments.
a. Request. A request for a reasonable accommodation in the form of a modification of the State Building Code, including but not limited to, the Group LI requirements may be made to the Administrator or his/her designee. Such accommodation shall be reasonable, personal to the applicant, and granted pursuant to the definitions and requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing Act Amendments as the same exists or is hereafter amended.
b. Decision. The written decision of the Administrator or his/her designee shall be provided to the applicant and copies of the decision posted at the post office, city hall, library, and on or near the subject site, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site.
c. Recording of Decision. Notice of the decision of the Administrator or his/her designee shall be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections to apprise prospective purchasers of the reasonable accommodation granted hereunder. All such notices shall conspicuously state that all accommodations granted under this section are personal to the applicant and that they expire when the applicant terminates his/her occupancy at the subject site.
d. Appeals. The decision of the Administrator or his/her designee shall be appealable only to King County Superior Court as provided in RCW Chapter 36.70C. The petition for review must be filed and served upon all necessary parties as set forth in state law and within the 21-day time period set forth in RCW 36.70C.040.
4. Criteria. The Administrator or his/her designee may determine that such reasonable accommodations may be necessary in order to comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing Act Amendments. All such accommodations shall be personal to the applicant and shall expire immediately if the disabled applicant terminates occupancy at the subject site.
U. Reasonable Use Exception (Critical Areas/Hazardous Liquid Pipelines and High Capacity Transit Corridor Preservation.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a mechanism to allow relief from RZC 21.64, Critical Areas Regulations; RZC 21.26, Hazardous Liquid Pipelines; or RZC 21.28, High Capacity Transit Corridor Preservation, when strict adherence to such regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of private property, or in the case of a public project, where application of the Critical Areas regulations would prohibit construction of the public project. In such cases, the applicant may seek a Reasonable Use Exception from the standards listed above.
2. Scope. Any person seeking relief from strict adherence to the standards and regulations as provided in RZC 21.64, Critical Areas Regulations; or the strict application of setback requirements provided in RZC 21.26, Hazardous Liquid Pipelines; or RZC 21.28, High Capacity Transit Corridor Preservation, may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception. If an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the approval authority that strict application of these standards would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, or in the case of public projects, where the Critical Areas regulations would prohibit construction of the public project, development may be permitted subject to appropriate conditions.
3. Decision Criteria - Critical Areas Reasonable Economic Use (Private). An applicant for a private project seeking relief from the strict application of RZC 21.64, Critical Areas Regulations, shall demonstrate the following:
b. There is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the activities proposed, considering possible changes in site layout, reductions in density, and similar factors. The application for an exception shall include an analysis of whether there is any practicable on-site alternative to the proposed development with less impact, including other allowed uses, reduction in density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing of activities, revision of lot layout, or related site planning considerations that would allow a reasonable use with less adverse impacts to the critical area; and
c. The proposed activities, as conditioned, will result in the minimum possible impacts to affected critical areas; and
e. All reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented or assured; and
g. The inability to derive reasonable economic use is not the result of the applicant’s actions.
4. Decision Criteria - Critical Areas Reasonable Use (Public Project). A public agency proposing a public project, where strict application of RZC 21.64, Critical Areas Regulations, would prohibit construction of the public project, may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception. Requests for relief from RZC 21.64.060.A.1.b, Landslide Hazard Areas, shall apply for an Alteration of Geologic Hazard Areas as noted in RZC 21.76.070.E, Alteration of Geologic Hazard Areas. If the public agency or City department demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Technical Committee that strict application of these standards would deny construction of a public project, the project may be permitted subject to following criteria.
a. There is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the activities proposed. The application for an exception shall include an analysis of whether there is any practicable on-site alternative to the proposed development with less impact, including reduction or revision of project scope, phasing of project implementation, change in timing of activities, or related site planning considerations that would allow a project design with less adverse impacts to the critical area; and
b. The proposed public project, as conditioned, will result in the minimum possible impacts to affected critical areas; and
c. The proposed public project does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the project site, and is consistent with the public interest; and
d. All reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented or assured; and
g. If a public project cannot be constructed without modification of required setbacks, building height, and/or lot coverage limits, buffers, and landscape widths, the public agency or City department shall modify the fixed regulations only to the extent necessary to allow construction of the public project, while providing as much critical area protection as is possible under the circumstances and while maintaining appropriate public health and safety standards. Such modifications shall only be allowed upon obtaining the applicable land use permit, such as a variance or administrative design flexibility.
h. Adequate mitigation and monitoring shall be required to address the adverse impacts on critical areas and their ecological functions and values of any modification of the required regulations under this provision.
i. Any public project requiring a reduction of the standards applicable within a critical area in order to provide the necessary public project shall be located as far from the critical area as practical. Total building coverage and all other impervious surfaces shall be minimized, as appropriate, to limit intrusion into the critical area.
j. The public project shall use, to the maximum extent possible, the best available construction, design, and development techniques that result in the least impact to ecological functions and values of the critical area.
k. Any net loss of function of the critical area on the site and adverse impacts to wetland or riparian stream corridor functions upstream or downstream from the site shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
5. Decision Criteria - Reasonable Economic Use-Hazardous Liquid Pipelines. The required setback from the hazardous liquid pipeline corridor shall not deny all reasonable economic use of property. If an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Hearing Examiner that strict application of the required setback would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, the setback may be lessened subject to appropriate conditions. An applicant for relief from strict application of the required setback shall demonstrate the following:
c. All reasonable mitigation measures have or will be implemented or assured;
e. The pipeline location has been definitively determined.
f. As a condition of any relief granted under this section, the applicant shall be required to record an instrument against the title of the property notifying all subsequent purchasers of the fact that a lesser setback from the pipeline has been approved and of any and all conditions placed on the grant of relief.
6. Decision Criteria - Reasonable Economic Use-High Capacity Transit Corridor Preservation. The application of regulations outlined in RZC 21.28, High Capacity Transit Corridor Preservation, shall not deny all reasonable economic use of private property. If an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the decision-making body for the underlying land use permit that strict application of the regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, the requirements may be lessened subject to appropriate conditions. An applicant for relief from strict application of the standards shall demonstrate the following:
a. Strict application of these regulations would prevent all reasonable economic use of the property;
b. There is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the activities proposed; the applicant shall include an analysis of whether there is any practicable on-site alternative to the proposed development with less impact to these regulations, including other allowed uses, reduction in density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing of activities, or related site planning considerations that would allow a reasonable use in conjunction with the application of these regulations; and
c. The inability to derive reasonable economic use is not the result of the applicant’s actions.
d. If a reasonable economic use of a site cannot exist without modification of required setbacks, the City shall modify the fixed regulations only to the extent necessary to provide for reasonable use of the property while providing as much setback area for transit as is possible under the circumstances.
V. Shoreline Exemption, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance. See RZC 21.68, Shoreline Master Program.
X. Sign Permit/Program.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a mechanism for reviewing sign permits and sign programs in order to ensure that signs are constructed and maintained in a safe manner and that signs are located so as to provide effective communication while avoiding visual clutter that is potentially harmful to traffic and pedestrian safety, property values, business opportunities, and community appearance.
2. Scope. All signs require a building permit before being erected, altered, or relocated. All signs and sign programs for new development shall be reviewed as part of the land use permit process required in this chapter and shall be subject to environmental review unless categorically exempt under SEPA. The Administrator shall review all building permits for signs that do not require another land use permit in order to determine compliance with the criteria set forth in this section.
Y. Site Plan Entitlement.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that site plans reviewed individually or collectively by the Technical Committee, Design Review Board, Landmarks and Heritage Commission, and Code Administrator achieve the following purposes:
a. Compliance with the provisions of the RZC and all other applicable law;
b. Coordination, as is reasonable and appropriate, with other known or anticipated development on private properties in the area and with known or anticipated right-of-way and other public projects within the area;
c. The encouragement of proposals that embody good design principles that will result in high-quality development on the subject property;
2. Scope. Review and approval of a Site Plan Entitlement is required for any public, semi-public, or private proposal for new construction or exterior modification to a building or site, including multifamily, attached dwelling units in non-single-family zones, commercial, industrial, utility construction, expansion, or exterior remodeling of structures, parking, or landscaping, where the proposed use is shown as permitted in the applicable permitted use chart. All of the above projects require the review and approval of a Site Plan Entitlement except for:
b. Tenant improvements not encompassing or requiring modification to the exterior of an existing building;
c. Light rail transit system elements between stations such as track and guideway; and
d. Any action noted above which meets the criteria to be reviewed as an Administrative Modification as provided in RZC 21.76.090.D.
3. Decision Criteria.
b. The Landmarks and Heritage Commission will review all Certificates of Appropriateness for compliance with the RZC.
Z. Temporary Use Permit. See RZC 21.46, Temporary Uses.
AA. Tree Removal Permit. See RZC 21.72.020, Tree Removal Permits Required.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a mechanism by which the City may grant relief from certain regulations, where practical difficulty renders compliance with the provisions of that code an unnecessary hardship, where the hardship is a result of the physical characteristics of the subject property, and where the purpose of that code and of the Comprehensive Plan can be fulfilled.
2. Scope. This section is to provide for the consideration of variances from the strict application requirements of RZC Article I, Zone-Based Regulations, and RZC Article II, Citywide Regulations, when unique specified circumstances occur.
3. Decision Criteria. Variances may be approved only upon a finding that:
a. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and land use district of the subject property; and
b. Such variance is reasonably necessary, only because of special physical circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the land use district of the subject property; and
c. The conditions or situations giving rise to the variance application have not been created or caused by the applicant or recent prior owner of the subject property; and
d. Strict adherence to the regulation from which the variance is requested would create unnecessary hardship for the property owner; and
e. The variance is the minimum necessary to grant relief to the applicant; and
f. The variance does not relieve an applicant from conditions established during prior permit review; and
g. All approved variances otherwise comply with the requirements of the RZC and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Limitation. The variance procedures shall not be used to deviate from the permitted uses requirements of the permitted land use charts contained in RZC Article I, Zone-Based Regulations. Instead, the procedures for amending the text of the RZC and the Zoning Map, pursuant to RZC 21.76.070.AE, Zoning Code Amendment – Text, and RZC21.76.070.AF, Zoning Code Amendment – Zoning Map shall be utilized.
5. Recording. Variances shall be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections.
AC. Willows Rose Hill Demonstration Project.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide the procedures and requirements for the Willows Rose Hill Demonstration Project provided for in Comprehensive Plan Policy N-WR-E-4 and RZC 21.08.290.F.4.
3. Decision Criteria. The proposed demonstration project shall comply with the following criterion:
a. The applicant has sought input from the neighborhood in developing the project design using such methods as neighborhood meetings (a minimum of two) and/or design charrettes that take place prior to application submittal, as well as a minimum of one neighborhood meeting after the application is submitted;
d. A neighborhood park is included in the proposal;
e. The proposal maintains the traditional character and quality of detached single-family dwellings, such as visible single-entries, pitched roofs, window frames, and porches; and
f. The proposal offers a range of ownership housing choices, including cottages and triplexes and/or fourplexes;
g. Only one Demonstration Project shall be permitted.
AD. Wireless Communication Facilities.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a mechanism to address issues of safety and appearance associated with Wireless Communication Facilities and to provide adequate siting opportunities at appropriate locations within the City to support existing communications technologies as needed for Redmond businesses and institutions to stay competitive. See (RZC 21.56.030(C) and (D) for siting hierarchy.
2. Collocation requirements. All new Antenna Support Structures built for the purpose of siting a macro cell facility shall be constructed in a manner that would provide sufficient structural strength to allow the collocation of additional antennas from other service providers.
4. Time frame for Review. Refer to RZC 21.76.040.F.
Land Use Permit Type
Small satellite dish antenna
Large satellite dish antenna
Temporary Wireless Communication Facility
See definition of Temporary WCF
Collocation of new antennas; removal or replacement of existing antennas and/or associated ground mounted equipment enclosures on previously approved Structure
Collocation of new antennas; removal or replacement of existing antennas and/or associated ground mounted equipment enclosures on existing Antenna Support Structures that are not an Eligible Facilities Request and comply with height limits established in RZC 21.56.
All nonresidential zones
R-20 and R-30
All residential zones except
All residential zones
Type II if located
All non-residential zones
Type II if located
6. Decision Criteria. All proposed wireless communication facilities shall not be approved unless the development regulations and design standards provided in RZC 21.56, Wireless Communication Facilities, are met.
AE. Zoning Code Amendment - Text.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide the procedures and requirements for amending the text, maps and charts of the RZC, exclusive of the Zoning Map, and to ensure that such amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Scope. Amendments to the RZC include amendments, additions and deletions to the text, maps, or charts of the RZC, except amendments to the Zoning Map as set forth in RZC 21.76.070.AF below.
5. Exemptions. Non-substantive changes in the organization, format, appearance, profiles, narrative, illustrations, examples, or other nonmaterial changes to the RZC may be made by the Department of Planning and Community Development and are exempt from this section. Amendments to facility plans for City-managed utilities shall follow those procedures described in Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
AF. Zoning Code Amendment - Zoning Map.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish the procedures and amendment criteria for amending the Official Zoning Map, adopted pursuant to RZC 21.04.020.A, Establishment of Zoning Map.
3. Conditions to Amendment. The City Council may require the applicant to submit a conceptual site plan prior to final approval being granted on an amendment to the Zoning Map. The City may require the applicant to enter into a development agreement with the City as a condition of the Zoning Map amendment and may, through that agreement, impose development conditions designed to mitigate potential impacts of the amendment and development pursuant thereto.
4. Special Application Requirements. No application shall be filed nor accepted for filing which on its face will not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, unless an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is submitted and the two applications are processed concurrently. A Zoning Map Amendment application shall require signatures of owners representing 75 percent of the subject area and signatures representing 75 percent of the owners of property in the subject area if the area of the amendment comprises only contiguous parcels under common ownership, or meets two or more of the following criteria: it contains up to five property owners, it consists of a small portion of a zone or neighborhood planning area, or it contains only land area with related physical characteristics. In no case shall the signature requirement apply to Zoning Map amendments that are proposed and processed concurrently with enabling Comprehensive Plan map or text amendments or Zoning Code text amendments.
5. Amendment Criteria. The following factors are to be taken into account by the Planning Commission and the City Council when considering a map amendment:
a. The amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, policies, and provisions;
b. The amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health and safety;
c. The amendment is warranted because of changed circumstances, a mistake, or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning district;
d. The subject property is suitable for development in general conformance with zoning standards under the proposed zoning district;
e. The amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property;
f. Adequate public facilities and services are likely to be available to serve the development allowed by the proposed zone;
g. The probable adverse environmental impacts of the types of development allowed by the proposed zone can be mitigated, taking into account all applicable regulations or the unmitigated impacts are acceptable; and
h. The amendment complies with all other applicable criteria and standards in the RZC.
1. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property or to the intended use such as shape, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply generally to other properties and which support the granting of a variance from the buffer width requirements; and
2. Such buffer width variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use possessed by other similarly situated property but which because of special circumstances is denied to the property in question; and
3. The granting of such buffer width variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvement;
5. The decision to grant the variance includes the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation and protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat; and
6. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted development regulations. (Ord. 2614; Ord. 2652; Ord. 2709; Ord. 2740; Ord. 2753; Ord. 2803; Ord. 2883; Ord. 2919; Ord. 2931; Ord. 2958; Ord. 2964; Ord. 2978; Ord. 3010)