HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 02/11/1999 February 11, 1999
FOR THE AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 2/17/99
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
• TITLE OF ITEM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT HOUSING TARGETS
ITEM Information Item Only
BACKUP MATERIAL: Memorandum from Fred Satterstrom "Revised Household Targets Under
Review by Growth Management Council
PRESENTER: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
TIME: 10 minutes
If you should have any questions,please contact Pam Mottram at ext 3390. Thank you.
•
U:I USERDATA Public Works-PlanningCommitteel99021.ipwpc-cvrsht.doe
Item 3
Public Works/Planning Committee
2/17/99
- _ Growth Management Housing Targets
INFORMATION ONLY
x
:t Axys��,df'` f� k ~ y .
•��' j�.��YY � tr 4:, ? ��,mM-r( �1 -4 w� } 5 � ' ,�'� { �: � �.M.P k.�fi Yy+` � 1 1 �� � .},
k9
•
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HOUSING TARGETS
INFORMATION ITEM ONLY
ITCITY OF J \,L[21 J
Jim White, Mayor
V
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2533
James P.Harris,Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
February 17, 1999
TO: TIM CLARK, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING &
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: REVISED HOUSEHOLD TARGETS UNDER REVIEW BY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) of King County is currently in the process of
considering changes to household targets for all cities in King County. These targets were originally
adopted by the GMPC in 1994 and ratified by cities in the same year. These targets have remained
unchanged over the past five years. However, several new cities have incorporated during this period
and several cities (including the City of Kent) have annexed large, formerly unincorporated areas. This
has resulted in new cities having no household target at all, and some cities that have grown larger, such
. as Kent, with the identical growth target it had as a much smaller city. King County, on the other hand,
has ended up with a much larger household target than warranted due to its shrinking size.
Over the past year, King County and its jurisdictions have held discussions about the appropriate manner
in which to adjust targets in order to alleviate imbalances. A methodology was developed by staff based
upon size of incorporation/annexation and a "proportionate share" of housing target in the King County
planning area. A proposal has been forged for consideration by the GMPC. This proposal is attached
and is presently being considered by the GMPC.
As you can see, the target for the City of Kent has been "adjusted" from a range of 6120-7500
households to 8397-9777, an increase of 2277 households. Bear in mind that during the period of 1994-
1998, Kent annexed the Meridian, Meridian Valley, Del Mar, Ramstead, and a host of other smaller
areas. Approximately ten (10) square miles and 20,000+ persons were added to the City through these
annexations. Kent's household target of 6120-7500 remained the same during this time.
The proposed adjustment to Kent's household target seems reasonable given the increase in the size and
character of Kent. Planning Department staff has monitored this growth during this time period, and we
have developed de facto estimates of targeted household growth based on the size of an annexation and
its proportionate share of the King County community planning area. The proposed adjustments being
considered by the GMPC seem reasonable in light of the City's growth during the period 1994-1998.
This item is placed on your agenda for information only. Following action by the GMPC, Kent will be
asked to approve/disapprove the adjustments though the ratification process of the County-wide
•Planning Policies.
KO`mw IP: 4 DMIMHHTAR GETS.DOC
enc
cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
2204th AN ENUE SO[Ili / KENI.WASH IVOTON 98032-5895
,..� Item IV
October 28, 1998
Sponsored By: Executive committee
/kg
1 MOTION NO. 98.8
2 A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies to adjust targets
3 for new housing units to reflect annexations and incorporations from April
4 1994 through January 1998.
5
6 WHEREAS, the I994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for each
7 city and for King County, and annexations and incorporations have occurred since that time; and
8
9 WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be revised to establish target ranges for the new incorporated
10 areas and to increase the target range for cities which have annexed formerly unincorporated areas,
11 and to correspondingly decrease the target range for unincorporated areas.
12
13 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
14 MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
15
16 The attached Table 2A is hereby adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies to
17 revise housing growth targets to reflect annexations and incorporations from April
18 1994 through January 1998,
UGMPC/98GMPCwt008.3.doc — —
GPP2A
PP Appendix 2A
ousehold Growth Ter et Re-Allocation Based on Annexations 3 Incof orations between 4/94& 1/96
Ray 10113/98
Column A Column B1 Column B2 Column C
Adopted Household Target Added Through Target Added Through New Target Effective 1 198
Growth Target Incorporation Annexation A+BY+82)
hs Jud(ctlon Low. High: 4194 to 1190 4/94 to 1198 Low: Hr A;
Algona _ 346 462 0 0 348 4B2
Auburn 6553 OB10 0 2 5555 9612
Beaux Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bellevue 768C 9660 D 110 7790 9560
Black Diamond 947 1119 D 299 1246 1418
Bothell 1448 2413 D 20 1468 2433
Burton 1596 1995 D 0 1596 1995
Camaticn 404 404 0 0 404 404
C'yda HIII 12 12 0 0 12 12
Covington nlal nls 1444 0 1300 1588
b�elnes 1437 2155 0 355 1793 2511
1563 1759 0 0 1563 1759
2162 2867 0 0 2182 2667
_. :.�',:'ay 13425 15568 0 247 13672 15813
�r.unls Pcinl 4 4 0 0 4 4
issacaah 1879 3508 0 678 2557 4189
IKen! _ 6120 750C 0 2277 8397 9777
�K!rKa-.d 5328I 634fi C 0 5328 6346
LaKe `Ores: P rk 101I 168 0 314 415 482
Mao e yal�ey _ nla n/a 1355 0 1220 1492
M.ed!,.-a 17 17 0 0 17 17
Mererlsland _ 1056 11..88 0 0 1056 1'88
!cn 18 18 C 10 28 28
wcastta n/a n/a 821 0 739 903
Orrrandy Park 135 135 0 0 135 .35
Nc-n Bend 12601 1787 C 0 1266 1767
Pacfc 1818 C 0 60B 1815
IRecn-no 9637BCBi 1278C C 327 99641 13087
Renton 773C1 10049 0 84 7814i 3
Seatlle _ 482331 59520 0 0 482331 59520
�Ssa7ac _ 3548 7500 0 C 3546 750D
Sno*ine n/al n1a 2463 75 2284 2702
'�x,komish 27 27 0 0 27 27
;!^ a 1942 3625 0 0 1942 3625
_ 4751 6014 C 0 4761 6014
wdinv Ile 1750 1842 0 1 1751 1843
ivarrcw Point 18 18 0 0 18 1A
City Total: 131,767 172.566 6,084 4,200 142 038 184,066
Unincorporated County: 40,048 50,000 -6 004 -4 80o 29,780 36,600
-urban 34,248 41,8DO -6,084 -4 800 23,980 3D,300
-rural 5,800 8,200 0 0 5 80D 6,200
Total King County Target: 171,616 222,566 0 0 171,B15 222 366
All columns are household rowlh tar sls,ex `eased 9a numbers of households to accommodate during the 20-year Growth Management period.
Coiumn A represents adopted household targets from Appendix 2 of the Countywids Planning Policies,
Column B1 represents household tar3els associated With incorporated areas between 4194 and 1198.
Column B2 represents household targets associated witn annexed arras between 4/94 and 1198.
Column C raprasenls sum of adopted household to els, incorporated,and annexed tar ets,including ranges for new titles.
Methodology: Column A prowtn targets were based on city boundaries as of A ill 1994. Columns B1 and 82 are additional households to be
accommodated due to into` oraton 81 Or annexation(B2)betwoan A r"1994 and Ja600 "" These addihonal households constitute a
d atiidnal share of the urban unmoor Grated to elb by CommuNl Plannin Area. The adtlilional households are based on the land-area
Opdnien 0f urban uni0cor oraled area less designated parks and in
ed water too
ies. Thal pro onion Is a lied to the Planning Aran's urban
tar at,the midrange of the tabta an page 30 of the Kin Coun C 0 m
reheno"e Plan.
CPP2A_ Is
Page 1
• January 28, 1999
FOR THE AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 2/1/99
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
• TITLE OF ITEM: #CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1 REVISIONS TO THE KENT SHORELINE
MASTER PROGRAM
ACTION: Proposed Motion:
Recommend to the Full City Council to approve/disapprove/modify the
Land Use and Planning Board's proposal to adopt the revised Shoreline
Master Program dated December 14, 1998.
BACKUP MATERIAL: February 1, 1999 "Memorandum to City Council PW/PC Members"
Revised "Draft Shoreline Master Program"
December 14— "Memorandum to Land Use and Planning Board" from
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
• December 14, 1998 Minutes of the Land Use and Planning Board
PRESENTER: Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
TIME: 10 minutes
If you should have any questions,please contact Pam Mottram at ext 3390. Thank you.
U:I Userdata1990201pwpc-cvrsht.doc
•
#CPA=98=4/#SMP=98=1
KENT SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM
•
Proposed Motion:
Recommend to the Full City Council to
approve/disapprove/modify the Land Use
and Planning Board's proposal to adopt
the revised Shoreline Master Program
dated December 14, 1998.
•
C ITV OF ,21
• Jim White, Mayor
rNVICTA
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/Fax (253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
FEBRUARY 1, 1999
MEMO TO: TIM CLARK, CHAIR, AND CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC WORKS AND
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1 REVISIONS TO THE KENT SHORELINE
MASTER PROGRAM
• SUMMARY
Attached for your review and consideration is a draft of the revised Kent Shoreline Master
Program (SMP). The revision to the SMP, dated December 14, 1998, was considered by the
Land Use and Planning Board at a public hearing on December 14, and the Board recommended
adoption of the revised SMP with amendments, which will be discussed below. The minutes of
the December 14 public hearing are attached for your reference. At the January 19 City Council
meeting, this item was referred by the City Council to the Public Works and Planning Committee
for action at the Committee's February 1 meeting. At the February 1 committee meeting, staff
and consultants will present the revised SMP document, outline the process to date, and answer
questions from the committee. If the committee makes a recommendation at your meeting on
February 1st the item will be referred back to the full City Council for action on February 2na
BACKGROUND
The update to the SMP is being done under the provisions of the Washington State Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58) with the assistance from a grant from the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE). The City has hired a consulting firm, Berryman and Henigar, to
assist us with the update of the SMP. City staff and consultants worked over the spring and
summer with a Citizens Advisory Committee, who provided a great deal of assistance in
providing policy direction for the revised document. Open houses were also held over the
summer relating to shoreline issues on Lake Meridian and the Green River.
•
220 41h AVENUE SOCTH J KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-589-
#CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1 Revisions to the Kent Shoreline Master Program
February 1, 1999
Page 2
. The SMP is being revised to reflect the City's annexation of Lake Meridian and a portion of Big
Soos Creek, which are both considered "shorelines of the state", and are currently being
regulated under King County's Shoreline Master Program. Portions of the Green River, which is
a shoreline of statewide significance, have also been annexed in recent years. In addition, the
Regulatory Reform Act (ESHB 1724) adopted in 1995, states that the goals and policies of
shoreline master programs are part of a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Since staff and the
Land Use Board are proposing revisions to the goals and policies of the SMP (found in Section 4
of the document), this revision will also result in an amendment to the City's comprehensive
plan, and has been advertised as such.
It is important to note that under the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the City's
grant with the Department of Ecology, once the draft SMP is locally adopted by the City
Council, it will be forwarded to DOE for their review. Based on their review, DOE may
recommend that amendments be made to the locally adopted version. If this is the case, these
will be brought back to the City Council for your deliberation at a future date prior to adoption of
the final ordinance.
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
As stated above, the Land Use and Planning Board is recommending that the City Council adopt
a revised Shoreline Master Program dated December 14, 1998, with the following amendments:
• 1. Section 6.9 of the draft master program lays out development standards for overwater
structures, such as docks and piers. The staff proposal recommended that piers, floats, etc,
would need to be placed at least 15 feet from the side property line, which is consistent with
the King County SMP (see page 10 of Section 6). The Board is recommending that this
setback be reduced to five (5) feet.
2. With regard to covered moorage, the draft SMP contains two alternatives on pages 10 and 11
of Section 6. When Lake Meridian was annexed to the City; the King County SMP did not
permit any covered moorages, as outlined in the alternative shown as subsection (fl on the
top of page 11. In late 1997, the County amended their master program to allow mechanical
boat lift covers as shown in the alternative outlined in subsection (g) on page 11. After
considering public testimony, the Land Use Board is recommending adoption of subsection
69,which would not allow covered moorage.
3. There was much testimony at the Land Use Board hearing relating to nonconforming uses
and structures. For purposes of shoreline management, the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) allows nonconforming development to be maintained and repaired. With regard to
replacement of damaged nonconforming development, the WACs state that damaged
nonconforming development can be reconstructed if it is damaged up to 75 percent of the
replacement cost of the original development. The Land Use Board is recommending that
this threshold be increased from 75 percent to 100 percent. Staff from DOE has noted that
• the nonconforming threshold of 75 percent is a guideline that can be changed locally, thus
this recommendation would be permissible.
#CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1 Revisions to the Kent Shoreline Master Program
February 1, 1999
Page 3
4. The Land Use Board recommended that staff look at definitions for overwater structures, in
that there was some confusion as to the terminology relating to some terms, particularly
"docks" and "piers". The WACs provide a definition of"dock", which is shown on page 5
of Section 2 of the draft SMP. However, much of the existing King County SMP language
that is found in Section 6 uses the term "pier". It is intended that these terms be
interchangeable for purposes of shoreline administration. Therefore, staff recommends that
the definitions of"dock" and "pier" be combined to make this clear. It should be noted that
these terms are defined jointly in King County's SMP.
5. Section 3 of the draft SMP outlines environmental designations for the three shoreline
environments in Kent. The Green River is proposed to be designated as "Urban-River
Resource". This designation is proposed to apply to the portion of the river that is within the
present city limits and also to the portion within the City's potential annexation area (PAA).
The Board recommended that the map of the Green River shoreline environment shown in
Exhibit A be amended to shown the shoreline environmental designation of "Urban-River
Resource" applying to the entire portion of the river within the PAA.
In addition to these amendments proposed by the Land Use and Planning Board, the Department
of Ecology has raised concerns about the way which the draft SMP references wetlands in
Section 5.6 of the draft SMP. This section is proposed for revision based on the City's adoption
. of a wetlands ordinance, pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Act, in 1993. The
intent is that the City's existing wetlands provisions should be used for purposes of administering
wetlands protection in the shoreline environment as well. In order to clarify this intent, staff is
recommending that the following statement be put in Section 5.6, replacing the proposed
language:
In 1993, the City adopted a wetlands management ordinance, pursuant to the requirements
of RCW 36.70A.060 as adopted in the Growth Management Act (GMA). In so doing, the
City established a new Chapter 11.05, which outlines delineation methodologies for
wetlands and regulations to protect them. The definition of"wetland" in Section 11.05.020
is consistent with the definition of wetland found in the GMA (RCW.36.70A.030(20)). For
purposes of shoreline management, the definition of "wetland" found in WAC 173-22-
030(19) is consistent with the GMA definition. Therefore, the City's definition of
"wetlands" and regulations found in Chapter 11.05 are consistent with the definitions of
wetlands in the SMA and GMA, will be used to manage and regulate wetlands in the
shoreline jurisdiction, as well as the rest of the city.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, what is before the Public Works and Planning Committee is the draft revised
shoreline master program dated December 14, 1998, with the following amendments
recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board and, with regard to wetlands, Planning
Department staff:
#CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1 Revisions to the Kent Shoreline Master Program
February 1, 1999
Page 4
. • Amend the side yard setback for overwater structures from fifteen(15) feet to five (5) feet
• Do not allow covered piers, floats, or moorages waterward of the ordinary high water mark
of Lake Meridian
• Amend the threshold for replacing damaged nonconforming development from seventy five
(75) percent of the cost of the replacement value to one hundred (100) percent of the
replacement value
• Amend the definition of"dock"in Section 2 to include the term"pier"
• Amend the map of the Green River in Appendix A to include the environmental designation
of"Urban-River Resource" for the entire Potential Annexation Area
• Amend the language in the wetlands section(Section 5.6)
Staff and consultants will be available at the February 1st committee meeting to present the
revised SMP and answer questions. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please call
me at 850-4799.
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Nancy Eklund, Berryman and Henigar
•
CITY OF ZEMB JS
• Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX (253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(253) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
DECEMBER 14, 1998
MEMO TO: BRAD BELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND
PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1 REVISIONS TO THE KENT SHORELINE
MASTER PROGRAM
•
Attached for your review is a draft of the revised Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The
revision to the SMP was discussed with the Land Use and Planning Board at workshops
conducted on October 12 and October 26, 1998, and at the latter meeting the Board elected to
conduct a public hearing on December 14.
The update to the SMP is being done under the provisions of the Washington State Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58) with the assistance of a grant from the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE). The City has hired a consulting firm, Berryman and Henigar, to
assist us with the update of the SMP. City staff and consultants worked over the spring and
summer with a Citizens Advisory Committee, who provided a great deal of assistance in policy
direction for the revised document. Open houses were also held over the summer relating to
shoreline issues on Lake Meridian and the Green River.
The SMP is being revised to reflect the City's annexation of Lake Meridian and a portion of Big
Soos Creek, which are both considered "shorelines of the state", and are currently being
regulated under King County's Shoreline Master Program. Portions of the Green River, which is
a shoreline of statewide significance, have also been annexed in recent years. In addition, the
Regulatory Reform Act (ESHB 1724), adopted in 1995, states that the goals and policies of
shoreline master programs are part of a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Since we are
. proposing revisions to the goals and policies of the SMP (found in Section 4 of the document),
this revision will also result in an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, and is being
advertised as such.
221)4th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT,WASHING TON 98031_-i895/TELEPHONE ('_53)859-3 i00
Shoreline Master Program Revision Memo
#CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1
December 14, 1998
Page 2
It should be noted that in November, late in the process of amending the shoreline master
program, the City was notified by the Department of Ecology that a small portion of Springbrook
Creek in the north end of Kent was a shoreline of the state, based on the mean annual flow of
water which had been recently measured for the creek. The Washington Administrative Code
has not at this point been updated to reflect this portion of Springbrook Creek as a shoreline.
Given the late notice of this, and that an update to include Springbrook Creek was not part of any
of the public process that has occurred to date on the project, the City and DOE have agreed to
not reflect this in this update of the SMP, but will instead incorporate Springbrook in a
subsequent update to the document.
The draft revised shoreline master program consists of the following sections:
1.0Introduction: This section outlines the purpose of the SMP, and describes the
water bodies that are regulated under the SMP
2.0 Definitions This section defines terms which are used throughout the SMP.
Many of the definitions used in shoreline master programs are
provided by the Washington Administration Code (WACs)
• 3.0 Environments This section outlines broad environmental designations for the
applicable shoreline areas in Kent. Given that Kent is an
incorporated city and is part of King County's urban growth area
under the Growth Management Act, all of Kent's proposed
shoreline designations are urban
4.0 Shoreline Elements This section contains goals and policies that relate to how shoreline
areas will be protected in Kent. These goals and policies, once
adopted, will become part of the City's comprehensive plan. The
goals and policies are organized into different sections, called
elements, which are outlined in the Shoreline Management Act.
5.0 General Standards This section outlines performance standards that are regulatory in
nature, and apply to all activities and uses within the shoreline
areas of Kent. This section includes a new set of standards that
relate to protection of salmon habitats, which has been drafted in
anticipation of a listing of the Chinook salmon under the
Endangered Species Act
6.0 Specific Use Standards This section regulates specific uses along the shoreline, such as
agricultural uses, commercial and industrial uses, and residential
. uses. This section contains many provisions from the King County
SMP relating to the regulation of overwater structures such as
docks, piers, floats, etc.
Shoreline Master Program Revision Memo
#CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1
December 14, 1998
Page 3
7.0 Administration This section outlines how the shoreline master program is
administered at the local level. Administration of shoreline master
programs must follow the requirements of the both the Regulatory
Reform Act and the Shoreline Management Act
8.0 Enforcement This section outlines enforcement procedures when violations to
the SNP occur. Again, most of these enforcement provisions are
mandated by the state Shoreline Management Act.
Staff and consultants will be available at the December 14 public hearing to present the revised
SMP and answer questions. If you have any questions prior to the hearing, please call me at 850-
4799.
KO1mw1P:\PUBLICISMPLUBME.DOC
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager
Nancy Eklund, Berryman and Henigar
i