HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/03/2000 , I%
CITY OF 211
is
Jim White, Mayor
1N V ICTA
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA
July 3, 2000
This is to inform you that the City Council Planning Committee will meet in Council Chambers East,
Kent City Hall, 220 4' Ave. S., at 4:00 PM on Monday, July 3, 2000.
Committee Members: Tom Brotherton, Chair Judy Woods Tim Clark
Action Speaker Time
101. Approval of Minutes of June 5, 2000 YES
2. Ratification of County-Wide Planning Policy Amendments YES Matthews Jackson 10 minutes
3. Potential Code Amendment—Minimum Lot Size (MRD) YES Fred Satterstrom 10 minutes
4. King County Comprehensive Plan - Residential Land NO Fred Satterstrom 10 minutes
Use Amendments
The Planning Committee meets the first Monday of each month at 4:00 PM in Chambers East, Kent City
flail, 220 4' Ave. South, unless otherwise noted. For agenda information please call Jackie Bicknell at
(253) 856-5712.
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE AT(253)856-5725 IN ADVANCE. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE CALL THE WASHINGTON
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388.
2^_0 pith.AVE.SO., /KENT,W.ASHINGTON 98032-5805 1 TELEPHONE, (253)856-5200
KENT MEMORANDUM
WAS MI N GTON
June 27, 2000
PLA4040 SERVICES s+
Fred Batters#rciit;-
Manager
TO: Tom Brotherton, Chair&Planning Committee Members
Phone:253-856-5454,_
Fax:253-856.6454-,
FROM: Fred N. S atterstrom,Planning Manager
224 Fourth Me.-S.,"y
Kertf,WA's$o3z RE: Proposed King County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
� p
The Metropolitan King County Council is now considering the Executive
Proposed amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of
these amendments is expected sometime this fall.
As you know, much of the area to the east of Kent City limits is within our
Potential Annexation Area (PAA) but is in unincorporated King County.
Therefore, land use and zoning controls are under the jurisdiction of the
County. The current County Comprehensive Plan Map maintains three
residential plan densities: 1) Urban Residential — 1 unit per acre, 2) Urban
Residential —4 to 12 units per acre, and 3) Urban Residential — 12+ units per
acre. As a result of these three classifications, lower, largely single family
residential areas are distinct from higher density, multiple family areas. As
depicted on the plan map, higher density, multiple family areas are located
exclusively near or around commercial and activity centers.
' Proposed amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan Map include
consolidation of the Urban Residential (4-12 units/ae) and Urban Residential
(12+ units/ae) designations into a single classification called Urban
Residential — General. This classification would not require a plan
amendment for zone changes up to a maximum density of 48 units per acre.
Rezone requests would be evaluated against a set of criteria related to
neighborhood character, concurrency requirements, environmental suitability,
and street access. The effect of this policy change is to blur the distinction
between low and high-density areas; this distinction may only be clarified
through a long process of individual rezones.
This matter is being brought to the Committee's attention for information
xi purposes only. However, implementation of this policy change by King
-reaching effects on land use in the PAA and, hence, on County could have far
the future land use planning efforts of the City of Kent.
T_
FNS\pm PIADMIMcounty.amd.doc
cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director
AL
i,-5d
ee
B. RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
Housing is the major use of urban land in King County, occupying well over half of
the County's developed land area. Effective residential development promotes good
design, a quality living environment and protects public health and safety.
A home is one of the most important elements in our lives. Once we are properly
housed, the opportunity to find a job and to create a sense of place and neighborhood
are possible. This Plan supports the creation of a full range of housing choices for
County residents.
U-113 New residential development in the Urban Growth Area should occur where
facilities and services can be provided at the lowest public cost and in a timely
fashion. Neighborhoods within the Urban Growth Area should have a variety
of housing types and prices, including mobile home parks, multi-family devel-
opment, townhouses and small-lot, single-
family development.
1. RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
The overall density of eight homes per acre
expressed in Policy U-114 is a long-term goal
and would be an average density of single-fam-
ily and multifamily developments. Single-fam-
ily homes will continue to account for most of the land area used for new development
in the County. This plan proposes ways to develop single-family homes more effi-
ciently so that urban land is used more efficiently,homes are affordable, more housing
choices are available and densities are adequate to allow for transit services.
In accordance with Countywide Planning Policy LU-66(b), King County has includ-
ed a minimum density requirement in its zoning regulations for all new urban resi-
dential development with a zoned density of four or more homes per acre.
Development in the Urban Growth Area at a higher density than normally permitted
by zoning will be allowed in exchange for public amenities such as low-income
housing, preservation of designated historic features or extra energy conservation
measures, or through the transfer of density credits from other parts of the County.
U-114 An average density of at least eight homes per acre should be achieved in new
development throughout the unincorporated Urban Growth Area through a
mix of densities and housing types.
U-115 In the Urban Growth Area, King County should use regulations, incentives, or
open space acquisition to protect floodplains, critical aquifer recharge areas,
Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Areas, high function wetlands and
• unstable slopes from degradation, and to encourage linking these environmen-
tal features into a network of open space, fish and wildlife habitat and Urban
Separators. If these measures are not adequate or feasible, King County should
2-6
z > �
• apply an Urban Residential, Low land use designation of one dwelling unit
per acre to protect these features.
U-116 All new residential developments within the Urban Residential,General land use
designation shall be subject to minimum density requirements except in limited
circumstances where properties are constrained by unique site characteristics.
As King County continues to grow, the larger parcels of buildable vacant land in the
Urban Growth Area will be developed. Attention will turn to smaller vacant lots in
built neighborhoods and to redevelopment. Infill development and redevelopment are
important tools to achieve growth management objectives such as more efficient use
of land, increased variety of housing choices and prices, and increased densities.
While King County supports higher densities in the urban areas, very high densities
that would be incompatible with existing neighborhoods or cause significant impacts
on roads,services and the environment are discouraged.Therefore,the following poli-
cies have been developed to guide King County's decisions on application of densi-
ties and proposed rezones. In this Comprehensive Plan, all zoned densities of four
dwelling units per acre to 48 dwelling units per acre are included within the Urban
Residential, General land use designation. Zoning changes within this designation
would not require a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment, unless they are
• found to be inconsistent with the policies of this plan.
U-117 Requests for increases in density of urban residential property zoned for one
dwelling unit per acre must include a demonstration that the property does
not meet the criteria of Policy U-115. Property with a density of one dwelling
unit per acre would also need a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amend-
ment to be rezoned to a higher density.
U-11 g King County may approve proposed zoning changes to increase density with-
in the Urban Residential, General land use designation when the resulting
higher density development will meet the criteria listed below. Rezones with-
in the Urban Residential, General land use designation will not require a
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment.
a. The development will be compatible with the character and scale
of the surrounding neighborhood;
b. Public facilities and services are adequate and meet GMA
concurrency requirements;
c. The proposed density change will not increase adverse impacts on
environmentally sensitive areas, either on site or in the vicinity of
the proposed development; and
d. The proposed density increase will be consistent with or contribute
• to achieving the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan, and
subarea plan, if applicable.
U-119 Attached housing shall be allowed in all urban residential zones, except that
2-7
sowN
y�c sE "7E;y�`2•i"�f t 9<�.{:L'A`�.�9fid"� G�S.c...<G:...�.F..
apartments shall be allowed in the R-1 zone only if at least half the site is envi-
ronmentally constrained.
U-120 Within the Urban Growth Area, residential densities should be related to street
access as follows:
a. Residential development at four to eight dwelling units per acre
should be within one-quarter mile of a neighborhood collector or
higher functional street classification;
b. Residential development at twelve dwelling units per acre should be
within one-quarter mile of a collector arterial or higher functional
street classification;
c. Residential development at twenty-four dwelling units per acre
should be within one-quarter mile of a minor arterial or higher
functional street classification; and
d. Residential development at forty-eight dwelling units per acre should
be within one-quarter mile of a principal arterial or higher
functional class street, unless it is within the White Center
Unincorporated Activity Center,or a Community Business Center or
Neighborhood Business Center where the area-wide pattern of roads
and transit service provides adequate access.
. U-121 King County should not approve rezone requests to increase urban residential
density if the primary access to the site is through an existing neighborhood
served by a local access street (subaccess or minor access street, residential).
U-122 Residential densities of twelve dwelling units per acre up to forty-eight dwelling
units per acre in the Urban Growth Area should be applied as follows:
a. In or adjacent to the White Center Unincorporated Activity Center
or adjacent to Community or Neighborhood Business Centers;
b. In mixed use developments in centers; and
c. On small,scattered parcels integrated into existing urban residential
areas. Infill residential development should be compatible with the
scale and design of the existing community or neighborhood, while
contributing to an areawide density that supports transit and allows
for a range of housing choices. Multifamily housing should be
located on small scattered sites rather than on large sites.
U-123 Density incentives should encourage private developers to provide innovative
affordable housing, significant open space, trails and parks; to locate close to
transit; to participate in historic preservation; and to include energy conserva-
tion measures exceeding state requirements.
U-124 King County encourages innovative, quality infill development and redevelop-
ment in existing urban areas through a variety of regulatory, incentive and pro-
gram strategies.
U-125 King County supports increases in urban residential density through a rezone
2-8
or a proposal to increase density through the density transfer or density
incentive programs when the proposal will help resolve traffic, sewer, water,
parks or open space deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood.
2+ MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
Mixed use development combines higher density residential units with retail or
office uses in the same building or within an integrated development on the same
lot. Quality mixed use developments can provide convenient shopping and servic-
es to both residents of the development and those who live near by. They can help
to build a sense of community, as neighboring merchants and residents get to know
each other. Mixed use is traditional in older downtowns and commercial areas,
where offices and retail typically occupy the first floor and residences are upstairs.
U-126 King County supports Mixed Use Developments in Community and
Neighborhood Business Centers, the White Center Unincorporated Activity
Center,and in areas designated Commercial outside of Centers.
U-127 Design features of Mixed Use Developments should include the following:
a. Integration of the retail and/or office uses and residential units
within the same building or on the same parcel;
b. Ground level spaces built to accommodate retail and office uses;
c. Off-street parking behind or to the side of
• buildings, or enclosed within buildings;
d. Public gathering spaces; and
e. Public art.
U-128 Residential uses in a Mixed Use Development shall be con-
structed concurrently with or following the construction
of the non-residential uses.
3- URBAN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN
King County residents can enjoy their urban neighborhoods
both for their unique character and for the amenities they provide. Outdoor spaces
need to be usable,attractive,comfortable,and enjoyable. The design of urban streets,
including features such as parking strips, street trees, alleys and off-street parking all
contribute to the character of urban neighborhoods. Careful site planning can incor-
porate neighborhood features,contribute to aesthetic value,minimize site disturbance,
conserve energy and, in some cases, reduce development costs. Neighborhood shop-
ping,libraries,larger parks,high schools and public golf courses are examples of uses
that provide amenities for nearby residents.Small retail establishments integrated into
residential development(e.g. a laundromat or video rental store) can provide conven-
ient services and help residents reduce automobile trips.
• U-129 Urban residential neighborhood design should preserve historic and natural
characteristics and neighborhood identity, while providing privacy, commu-
nity space, and safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists.
2-9
• June 26, 2000
THE AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 7/3/00
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING— 4:00 pm
0 TITLE OF ITEM: KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AMENDMENTS
ACTION: Information Item Only
BACKUP MATERIAL: Staff memo and copies from pages 2-6 through 2-9, Chapter 2 B.
Residential Land Use of"Shaping Tomorrow,King County
Comprehensive Plan 2000.
PRESENTER: Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager
TIME: 10 minutes
i
i
•
KING COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN =
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
AMENDMENTS
INFORMATION ITEM
KENT MEMORANDUM
W A S H I N G T O N
June 27, 2000
PLANNING SERVICES
Fred Satterstrom, .'
Manager
TO: Tom Brotherton, Chair&Planning Committee Members
Phone 253 856 5454
'Fax:253-856 8454 �
FROM: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
220 Fourth AVe S
Kent,WA 98032 58s5 Proposed King County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
The Metropolitan King County Council is now considering the Executive
Proposed amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of
these amendments is expected sometime this fall.
As you know, much of the area to the east of Kent City limits is within our
Potential Annexation Area (PAA) but is in unincorporated King County.
Therefore, land use and zoning controls are under the jurisdiction of the
County. The current County Comprehensive Plan Map maintains three
residential plan densities: 1) Urban Residential — 1 unit per acre, 2) Urban
Residential— 4 to 12 units per acre, and 3) Urban Residential— 12+ units per
acre. As a result of these three classifications, lower, largely single family
residential areas are distinct from higher density, multiple family areas. As
depicted on the plan map, higher density, multiple family areas are located
exclusively near or around commercial and activity centers.
4
Proposed amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan Map include
consolidation of the Urban Residential (4-12 units/ac) and Urban Residential
(12+ units/ac) designations into a single classification called Urban
Residential — General. This classification would not require a plan
amendment for zone changes up to a maximum density of 48 units per acre.
Rezone requests would be evaluated against a set of criteria related to
neighborhood character, concurrency requirements, environmental suitability,
and street access. The effect of this policy change is to blur the distinction
between low and high-density areas; this distinction may only be clarified
through a long process of individual rezones.
This matter is being brought to the Committee's attention for information
purposes only. However, implementation of this policy change by King
County could have far-reaching effects on land use in the PAA and, hence, on
the future land use planning efforts of the City of Kent.
FNS\pm PA4DMIMcounty.amd.doc
cc: James P.Harris, Planning Director
• B. RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
Housing is the major use of urban land in King County, occupying well over half of
the County's developed land area. Effective residential development promotes good
design, a quality living environment and protects public health and safety.
A home is one of the most important elements in our lives. Once we are properly
housed,the opportunity to find a job and to create a sense of place and neighborhood
are possible. This Plan supports the creation of a full range of housing choices for
County residents.
U-113 New residential development in the Urban Growth Area should occur where
facilities and services can be provided at the lowest public cost and in a timely
fashion. Neighborhoods within the Urban Growth Area should have a variety
of housing types and prices, including mobile home parks, multi-family devel-
opment, townhouses and small-lot, single-
family development. `f
..,E
w N
1. RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
The overall density of eight homes per acre
expressed in Policy U-114 is a long-term goal
and would be an average density of single-fam-
ily and multifamily developments. Single-fam-
ily homes will continue to account for most of the land area used for new development
in the County. This plan proposes ways to develop single-family homes more effi-
ciently so that urban land is used more efficiently, homes are affordable, more housing
choices are available and densities are adequate to allow for transit services.
In accordance with Countywide Planning Policy LU-66(b), King County has includ-
ed a minimum density requirement in its zoning regulations for all new urban resi-
dential development with a zoned density of four or more homes per acre.
Development in the Urban Growth Area at a higher density than normally permitted
by zoning will be allowed in exchange for public amenities such as low-income
housing, preservation of designated historic features or extra energy conservation
measures, or through the transfer of density credits from other parts of the County.
U-114 An average density of at least eight homes per acre should be achieved in new
development throughout the unincorporated Urban Growth Area through a
mix of densities and housing types.
U-1 IS In the Urban Growth Area, King County should use regulations, incentives, or
open space acquisition to protect floodplains, critical aquifer recharge areas,
Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Areas, high function wetlands and
unstable slopes from degradation,and to encourage linking these environmen-
tal features into a network of open space, fish and wildlife habitat and Urban
Separators. If these measures are not adequate or feasible, King County should
2-6
xp. \"C row\'i
apply an Urban Residential, Low land use designation of one dwelling unit
per acre to protect these features.
U-116 All new residential developments within the Urban Residential,General land use
designation shall be subject to minimum density requirements except in limited
circumstances where properties are constrained by unique site characteristics.
As King County continues to grow, the larger parcels of buildable vacant land in the
Urban Growth Area will be developed. Attention will turn to smaller vacant lots in
built neighborhoods and to redevelopment. Infill development and redevelopment are
important tools to achieve growth management objectives such as more efficient use
sing choices and prices, and increased densities.
of land, increased variety of hou
While King County supports higher densities in the urban areas, very high densities
that would be incompatible with existing neighborhoods or cause significant impacts
on roads,services and the environment are discouraged.Therefore,the following poli-
cies have been developed to guide King County's decisions on application of densi-
ties and proposed rezones. In this Comprehensive Plan, all zoned densities of four
dwelling units per acre to 48 dwelling units per acre are included within the Urban
Residential, General land use designation. Zoning changes within this designation
would not require a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment,unless they are
found to be inconsistent with the policies of this plan.
U-117 Requests for increases in density of urban residential property zoned for one
dwelling unit per acre must include a demonstration that the property does
not meet the criteria of Policy U-115. Property with a density of one dwelling
unit per acre would also need a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amend-
ment to be rezoned to a higher density.
U-118 King County may approve proposed zoning changes to increase density with-
in the Urban Residential, General land use designation when the resulting
higher density development will meet the criteria listed below. Rezones with-
in the Urban Residential, General land use designation will not require a
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment.
a. The development will be compatible with the character and scale
of the surrounding neighborhood;
b. Public facilities and services are adequate and meet GMA
concurrency requirements;
c. The proposed density change will not increase adverse impacts on
environmentally sensitive areas, either on site or in the vicinity of
the proposed development; and
d. The proposed density increase will be consistent with or contribute
to achieving the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan, and
subarea plan, if applicable.
U-119 Attached housing shall be allowed in all urban residential zones, except that
2-1
S5-
B.oY:.'w'Yw�l'
. apartments shall be allowed in the R-1 zone only if at least half the site is envi-
ronmentally constrained.
U-120 Within the Urban Growth Area, residential densities should be related to street
access as follows:
a. Residential development at four to eight dwelling units per acre
should be within one-quarter mile of a neighborhood collector or
higher functional street classification;
b. Residential development at twelve dwelling units per acre should be
within one-quarter mile of a collector arterial or higher functional
street classification;
c. Residential development at twenty-four dwelling units per acre
should be within one-quarter mile of a minor arterial or higher
functional street classification; and
d. Residential development at forty-eight dwelling units per acre should
be within one-quarter mile of a principal arterial or higher
functional class street, unless it is within the White Center
Unincorporated Activity Center,or a Community Business Center or
Neighborhood Business Center where the area-wide pattern of roads
and transit service provides adequate access.
• U-121 King County should not approve rezone requests to increase urban residential
density if the primary access to the site is through an existing neighborhood
served by a local access street (subaccess or Honor access street, residential).
U-122 Residential densities of twelve dwelling units per acre up to forty-eight dwelling
units per acre in the Urban Growth Area should be applied as follows:
a. In or adjacent to the White Center Unincorporated Activity Center
or adjacent to Community or Neighborhood Business Centers;
b. In mixed use developments in centers; and
c. On small,scattered parcels integrated into existing urban residential
areas. Infill residential development should be compatible with the
scale and design of the existing community or neighborhood, while
contributing to an areawide density that supports transit and allows
for a range of housing choices. Multifamily housing should be
located on small scattered sites rather than on large sites.
U-123 Density incentives should encourage private developers to provide innovative
affordable housing, significant open space, trails and parks; to locate close to
transit; to participate in historic preservation; and to include energy conserva-
tion measures exceeding state requirements.
U-124 King County encourages innovative, quality infill development and redevelop-
ment in existing urban areas through a variety of regulatory,incentive and pro-
gram strategies.
U-125 King County supports increases in urban residential density through a rezone
2-B
• or a proposal to increase density through the density transfer or density
incentive programs when the proposal will help resolve traffic, sewer, water,
parks or open space deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood.
2. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
Mixed use development combines higher density residential units with retail or
office uses in the same building or within an integrated development on the same
lot. Quality mixed use developments can provide convenient shopping and servic-
es to both residents of the development and those who live near by. They can help
to build a sense of community,as neighboring merchants and residents get to know
each other. Mixed use is traditional in older downtowns and commercial areas,
where offices and retail typically occupy the first floor and residences are upstairs.
U-126 King County supports Mixed Use Developments in Community and
Neighborhood Business Centers, the White Center Unincorporated Activity
Center,and in areas designated Commercial outside of Centers.
U-127 Design features of Mixed Use Developments should include the following:
a. Integration of the retail and/or office uses and residential units
within the same building or on the same parcel;
b. Ground level spaces built to accommodate retail and office uses;
c. Off-street parking behind or to the side of
• buildings, or enclosed within buildings; ,
d. Public gathering spaces; and
e. Public art.
t.
U-128 Residential uses in a Mixed Use Development shall be con-
structed concurrently with or following the construction
of the non-residential uses. g
3. URBAN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN
King County residents can enjoy their urban neighborhoods
both for their unique character and for the amenities they provide. Outdoor spaces
need to be usable,attractive,comfortable,and enjoyable. The design of urban streets,
including features such as parking strips, street trees, alleys and off-street parking all
contribute to the character of urban neighborhoods. Careful site planning can incor-
porate neighborhood features,contribute to aesthetic value,minimize site disturbance,
conserve energy and, in some cases, reduce development costs. Neighborhood shop-
ping,libraries,larger parks,high schools and public golf courses are examples of uses
that provide amenities for nearby residents.Small retail establishments integrated into
residential development(e.g. a laundromat or video rental store)can provide conven-
ient services and help residents reduce automobile trips.
• U-129 Urban residential neighborhood design should preserve historic and natural
characteristics and neighborhood identity, while providing privacy, commu-
nity space, and safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists.
2-9
wu
40
KEN T MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
July 3, 2000
PLANNING Sf=R1t1C�S TO: Tom Brotherton, Chair and Planning Committee Members
Fred Satterstinm,r
" P�tar;ager
FROM: Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Manager
Phone 23 856z5454
Fex5 856 6454 SUBJ: Minimum Lot Size in Duplex Multifamily Zoning District
220 Fsruith}Eve S ,;.
1Zent,WA$8(I32 $95 `:
Kent's Duplex Multifamily zoning district (MR D) does not specify a maximum
allowable density, but rather specifies a minimum lot size for both a duplex and a
single family development within the MR-D district. The minimum lot size for a
s duplex is simply twice the minimum lot size for Kent's highest density single family
district (see attached code section). Given the minimum lot size, the density in the
MR-D zoning district in effect becomes 10.89 dwelling units per acre.
The Planning Department received the attached letter from Bart Schram requesting
the City Council's assistance in amending the minimum lot size for a duplex
development to 7,200 square feet. In the MR-D zoning district south of Willis
Street, there are many lots with a lot size of 7,200 square feet. Using existing
development standards, none of these lots would be allowed a duplex development.
Furthermore, Kent's zoning code would allow on the 7,200 square foot lots
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) within or detached from a single family
structure. For purposes of zoning, the difference between a duplex and a single
family structure with an attached ADU is basically one of owner occupancy.
The policy questions are:
1. Does the Planning Committee want the Land Use & Planning Board to
consider reducing the minimum lot size for a duplex in the MR-D zoning district?
2. As an alternative, should the Land Use & Planning Board consider
amending the nonconforming section of the zoning code for residential districts to
allow duplexes (in addition to the single family dwellings already allowed) on
nonconforming lots of record, and not change the minimum lot size for a duplex in
the MR-D district?
3. Should consideration be given to reducing the minimum lot size far
duplexes in all multifamily zoning districts?
4. Should consideration be given to eliminating minimum lot sizes for any
development in residential zoning districts and establishing only a density provision?
(This wouldn't necessarily help Mr. Schram.)?
Ic
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Committee refers this matter to the Land Use and
Planning Board for consideration of reducing the minimum lot size for duplexes in
the MR-D zoning district. At the same time, the Land Use and Planning Board may
also consider said modification for duplex development in all multifamily zoning
.; districts.
FNS:CA:\mp\EARTH_FS\SDATA\Permit\Plan\zoning code amdments\2000\mrdlotsize.doc
Attachments
t,
iec. 15.04.170. Agricultural and Residential Zone Development Standards.
Zoning Districts
is
N N C
c
O O u s
s
d
C =
_ m r 7a E 5
v m 3 eci m cc y y > j E c
m ¢Ni m C m m q 4 <
z z z z R r A
61 Q T T T T C 61 CI
N LL m A A C O
CD � E
3 c LL u_ R u,. u_ = c E m s
n g
s s R d g a
� z in 9) in CO
17 d
SF Duplex SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF I SF Duplex I MF
Maximum 1 1 2.18 163 4.53 6.05 8.71 8.71 L3'i 120 L;4 164 Lit 16 LFs 23 Lit 40
density:dwelling dWac dWx cast uil call cast cast sl cast i6� cast f� us! 40.0 dudu
units per acre us! usl us! &Woc duslu
Minimum lot 34,700 I ac 34.700 16,000 9,500 7.600 5,T00 4,000 4,000 3.000 4,= 8,000 N.. 4,044 1.000 ,500( 4,000 8,000 8,5001 4,M 8,000 0,5001 4,W0 8,000 8,5001
area:square feet NIt sq ft Nit Nft NIt Nft N ft N ft N ft sqk Nit 3,500 4e'k N It 3.500 '� Nft Z500 e4-4 ft R 1,600 "A s
or acres,as none N ft none se 11 none N It. none 11 ft none ft P)
noted 127) (1) (2)
Minimum lot soft 60 ft 50 it 50 It 5o It So It 40 It 40 It 80 It 40 It 80 it 60 It 40 It 40 ft 80 ft 40 It 60 it 60 ft 4o ft wit bD ft 401 so ft so ft
width:feet(4)
Maximum site 20% 50% 30% 30% 45% 437.1 SOY. 5511 51%1 411% 557e 1016 45%1 55% 40% 45% SS% 40% 45X 5S% 40% 45% SS% 40% 50%
coverage: (5) (5) In (5) P) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (51 l51 111 (5) (51
percent of site
P, ' 1u and
fee. �.
Frontyard loft 30 ft 20 ft 14 It loft loft loft I loft toff loft loft loft 20ft 10it IQ It 20 It loft loft 20 It loft loft 20 It toff 10If 204
(6) (7) (6) (6) (6) (6) (61 16) (6) 16) 16) (6) (6) (5) (6) (6) (6) (61 (6) (6)
141 (a) is) (a) is) (8) (a) (a) (a) (8) (8) (a) (a) (8) (81 (a) (e)
19) 19) (9) hl (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (91 (9) (91 (9) 19) 19) (9) (9)
Side yard 15ft (131 IS it 5It 5It 5ft 5ft 5ft 5ft 5It 5ft 5ft (11) 5ft SIt (ill 5ft 5ft (11) 51t Sit ill) 5ft 5ft (Ill
Side yard on 20ft 20 It loft loft loft 10It loft 10ft loft 10B to it 15ft loft 10It 15ft 10ft to It 15ft IQ ft loft 151t loft loft 15ft
flanking street (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (91 tgl
of a comer lot
Rear yard 20 ft 15It 5ft 5ft 5ft 5It 5ft 5ft aft 5ft Eft 201t 5ft bit 20 It Sft bft Z0ft 5It aft 20 It 5ft aft 20 ft
Additional (12) (13) (121 (141 (14) 04) (14) (14)
setbacksldista (tst (75) (251 115) 115)
nces between
buildings
Height limitation: 73 2 stryl 25 2.5 25 ZS Z5 25 Z5 2.5 i 2.5 2 stryl 3 stryl 2.5 2 stryl 3 stryf 2.5 2A stryl 3 sty 7 5 stryl Z5 Two 3 tuyf u JZI;�Wj4wy!in stories(not to 35 ft stry! SW stryl stryl stryl stryl stryl 15 Itsuyl 36 It 30 It MY 30 it 30 it stryl 35 ft 40 ft 30 R 35 R 40 k sttyl 50 k
exceed in feet 35 ft (177 35 It 25 ft 35 It 35 ft 35 It 30 ft 30 It 30 ft 30 it 30 It 1p ft
its) 113)
Maximum 43X 40% 40Y. 5f 60% 70% 75% 75% 70% 75% 70% 70% 75% 70% 10% 75% 70% 75% 70% TS% 70%
impervious (19) (19) 123) I ) (23) (23) (23) (19) (19) 09) (191 (191 (191 119) (19) 119) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19)
surface:percent
of total parcel
area
Zero lot line and The provisions in Sections 15.06.314,310,320.and 330 shoo apply.
clustering (24)
Slgns The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shad apply.
Offstreet parking The off-street parking requirements of Chapter ISA5 shad apply.
Landscaping rho landscaping r"WremMs of Chapter 13.07 shall apply.
Muld4amihr (251 (25) (25) (25) (Z51
Transition Area
(26) (261 125) (26J (261
ew
Additional Additional standads for specific uses are contained in Chapter 15.04 and Chapter 15.09.
standards (20) (201 (231 (23)
(21i 1291 1291
S w
Bart J Schram
535 4' Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
(206)271-0240
RECEIVED
June 20, 2000 JUN 2 t 2Gf.
CITYOF
PLANNING DEP ENS
Fred Satterstrom
Director, Kent Planing Dept.
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Re: MR-D Zone codes amendment
Dear Mr. Satterstrom:
• In reference to my letter to Mayor Jim White requesting guidance through
building permitting process I am now asking your assistance. As you know I have
recently purchased a piece of property in the city of Kent that is zoned MR-D.
Current zoning in the City of Kent, Title 15 Zoning, Chapter 15.04 District
Regulations, 15.04.170 Agriculture and Residential Zone Development Standards,
requires a lot of 8000 sq. ft for the building of a duplex. My property is lot 7 in Crows
first Addition to Kent. The lot size in this area is 7200 sq. ft. I intent to use the property
just as adjoining properties are being used. Other than the subject property the entire
block is comprised of 4 and 5-plex buildings on equal lot sizes.
After speaking with both you and Mayor White I would like your assistance in
asking the city Counsel to amending the minimum lot size for a duplex in a MR-D zone
to 7200 sq. ft.
Thank you for your time and consideration, Mr. Saterstrom. Your swift response
is greatly appreciated
Sincerely,
Bart Schram
KEN T MEMORANDUM
W A S H I N G T O N
July 3, 2000
PLANNING SERVIdES TO: Tom Brotherton, Chair and Planning Committee Members
Fred Satter$ftom,
tNan�ger
FROM: Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator
Phone:253-856-5454
Fax:253-856-6454
SUBJ: King County Countywide Planning Policy Amendments
220 Fourth Ave.S-
Kent.WA 98032--5E365
BACKGROUND
On May 22, 2000, the King County Council approved and ratified
amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), as
developed by the Growth Management Planning Council, on behalf of
unincorporated King County. The adoption of countywide planning policies
is required under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.210. The Countywide Planning Policies provide a framework
for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the
requirements of GMA. The City of Kent ratified the original CPPs on
September 15, 1992, with Resolution No. 1326. Phase II amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies were ratified by King County on August 15,
1994.
Amendments
King County Ordinance No. 13858 (see attached) ratified three motions as
proposed by the Growth Management Planning Council:
• Motion 99-1: recommends amending the CPPs to adjust targets for new
housing to reflect annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through
January 1998.
• Substitute Motion 99-2: recommends amending the CPPs to reassign
new housing targets for potential annexation areas (PAAs) and adoption of an
Interim Potential Annexation Areas map which will remain interim until all
unincorporated urban areas are included in city PAAs without gaps or
overlaps.
• Motion 99-4: recommends amending the CPPs to remove the 6 year
development capacity work item and to incorporate the review and evaluation
(`Buildable Lands") program as required by the State Growth Management
Act under RCW 36.70A.215.
Impacts on Kent
Several annexations have taken place in the City of Kent in the period of
April 1994 to January 1998. The Ramstead/East Hill, Jones/Hobbs, Beck,
1
Planning Committee
July 3, 2000
Page 2
Meridian, Meridian Valley, and Del Mar annexations all occurred during this period,
significantly changing the size and population of the city. These annexations all occurred
within the boundaries of Kent's Potential Annexation Area, as reflected in the newly
adopted Interim Potential Annexation Areas map attached to this document. Staffs review
of the proposed changes to targets for housing units in the City of Kent and the Potential
Annexation Area shows them to be consistent with established targets approved by the
City Council. The Kent Comprehensive Plan established targets for new housing units
based on Kent proposed zoning and population estimates provided by the Office of
Financial Management.
With the adoption of the original Countywide Planning Policies, the Growth Management
Planning Council established the Land Capacity Task Force to establish a program to
monitor land capacity and a set of estimates to ensure adequate urban area capacity (both
residential and commercial/industrial). This process was initiated in order to calculate six-
year development capacity. In 1997 the Growth Management Act was amended and a
Buildable Lands program established. This program duplicates the work of the six year
capacity analysis, therefore, Motion 99-4 moves to remove the six year development
capacity work item. The City of Kent is an active participant in the Buildable Lands effort.
Approval process
The Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or
resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70
percent of the population of King County according to the established Interlocal
Agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes
legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Based upon the King County Council
approval date of May 22,2000,the 90 day deadline for action will be August 21,2000.
Staff Recommendation
Based upon the review of the provided documents, staff recommends ratification of the
amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies. If you have any questions about the
amendments or approval process prior to the July 3rd meeting, please contact Fred
Satterstrom or Matt Jackson at (253) 856-5454.
M.Ilpm S:IPUBLICIPlanninglcpp5.doc
Enc: Letter to City of Kent and King County Ordinance No. 13858
Interim Potential Annexation Areas map
cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director
Fred N. Satterstrom,Planning Manager
Matthews Jackson,Planner/GIS Coordinator
PLANNING COMMITTEE RECEIVED
JULY 3, 2000 QUN 0 9 2000
ATTACHMENT 1 Offcity Of ice of ,N`t, yo
King County
June 8, 2000
The Honorable Jim White
Mayor, City of Kent
220 - 4th Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear M e:
We are ased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to
the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) met on June 16`h and July 28`h 1999 and
approved the following motions:
• • Motion 99-1: recommends amending the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units to
reflect annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
• Substitute Motion 99-2: recommends amending the CPPs to reassign new housing
targets for potential annexation areas (PAAs) and adoption of an Interim Potential
Annexation Areas map which will remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are
included in city PAAs without gaps or overlaps.
• Motion 99-4: recommends amending the CPPs to remove the 6 year development
capacity work item and to incorporate the review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands")
program as required by the State Growth Management Act under RCW 36.70A.215.
On May 22, 2000, the King County Council approved and ratified these amendments on behalf
of unincorporated King County. A copy of King County Ordinance 13858 is enclosed to assist
you in your review of these amendments, along with the council staff report.
As you know, amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified
by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing
70 percent of the population of King County according to the Interlocal Agreement. A city will
be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies unless, within
90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the
amendments. Please be aware that the 90-day deadline in this instance is August 21, 2000. if
you have any questions about these amendments or the ratification process, please feel free to
contact Carol Chan, Policy Analyst for the Office of Regional Policy and Planning at 205-0772,
or Laurie Smith, Legislative Analyst for the Metropolitan King County Council at 296-0352.
�c4
The Honorable Jim White
June 8, 2000
Page 2
If you adopt any legislation relative to this action,please submit one certified copy to Carol
Chan, Policy Analyst with the King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning at 516 3`d
Avenue, Room 402, Seattle, WA 98104. If no action is taken please submit a letter to the
above address stating the same.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerel ,
Pete von Reichbauer, Chair Ron Sims
King County Council King County Executive
• Enclosures: King County Ordinance 13858 and Attachments
May 22, 2000 Staff Report
cc: Laurie Smith, Legislative Analyst, Metropolitan King County Council
Stephanie Warden,Director, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Carol Chan, Policy Analyst, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle,WA 98104
Signature Report
May 31, 2000
Ordinance 13858
Proposed No. 2000-0212.2 Sponsors Sullivan
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies under RCW 36.70A.210;
ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
4 unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance
5 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
• Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C.
. 7 20.10.040.
s
9
10
11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the GMPC
14 recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies (Phase I) in July, 1992,
15 under Ordinance 10450.
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase H
amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
18 11446.
1
.t1
Ordinance 13858
19 C. The GMPC met on July 29, 1999, and voted to pass amendments to the King
20 County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies [5/25/94], to accomplish the following:
21 1. Amend Appendix 2A to revise the housing growth targets to reflect
22 annexations and incorporations from April 1994 to January 1998;
23 2. Adopt Appendix 2B and the Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map to
24 include the estimated housing targets for the potential annexation areas as shown on the
25 Interim Potential Annexation Area(PAA)Map. The Interim PAA Map describes the
26 areas receiving target allocations in Table CPP Appendix 2B;
27 3. Amend Framework Policy FW-1 (Step 5a) to reflect the completion of the
28 work charged to the land capacity task force;
29 4. Amend Framework Policy FW-1 (Step 5b) to establish a review and
30 evaluation program in compliance with RCW.36.70A.215; and
31 5. Delete Appendix 4, the April 1994 Land Capacity Work Program.
32 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
33 each hereby amended to read as follows:
34 Phase II. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide
35 Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
36 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
33 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
40 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
40 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
2
Ordinance 13858
410 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
44 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance.
46 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
47 each hereby amended to read as follows:
48 Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning
49 Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on
50 behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 B: The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
54 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County,
55 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
56 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
57 unincorporated King County.
58 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
59 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60 population of unincorporated King County.
61 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
62 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
63 population of unincorporated King County.
G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
3
Ordinance 13858
6 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
66 population of unincorporated King County.
67 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
'68 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
69 the population of unincorporated King County.
70 I The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
71 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this Ordinance are hereby ratified on behalf of the
72 population of unincorporated King County.
73
74
75
Ordinance 13858 was introduced on 3/13/00 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on
5/22100,by the following vote:
Yes: 12 -Mr.von Reichbauer,Ms.Miller,Ms.Firma,Mr.Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,
Ms. Sullivan,Mr.Nickels,Mr.Pullen,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague and Mr.Vance
No: 0
Excused: 1 -Mr.Irons
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
Anne Noris
ATTEST:
Anne Noris
4
Ordinance 13858
APPROVED this day of
Anne Noris
Attachments A. GMPC Motion 99-1,dated 5/26/99, with attachments,B. GMPC Substitute Motion 99-
2,dated 6/15/99,with attachments, C. GMPC Motion 99-4,dated 7/16/99
5
May 26, 1999
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
I MOTION NO. 99-1
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 1994 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
103 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
14 MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
15
16 The attached Table CPT Appendix 2A is hereby adopted in the Countywide
17 Planning Policies to revise housing growth targets to reflect annexations and
18 incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
UGMPG99GMPGMot99-1.doc - 1
• I ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
2 7��-9� and signed by the members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on
3 �� — 7— in open sessi Qauten
on of its doption.
4
5
6
7 air, Growth Management Planning Council
1
8
9 auegonalson, City of Seattle Representative
10 "✓
11 Bo Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
13 Uzuise Nfiller, King County Representative
14 Attachment:
15 1. Table CPP Appendix 2A—Household Growth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annextions
16 and Incorporations between 4/94 and 1/98.
UGMPC/99GMPC/Mot99-1.doc — 2
CPP2A
CPP Appendix 2A 14128199 draft
Hous,glgQld Growth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annexations & Incorporations between 4194 & 1198
Rev 99 I
(Column A ( (r4to
1 Column B2 Column C �—
Adopted Household ed Through Target Added Through New Target Effective 1 /98
Growth Target on Annexation (A+B1+82)
Jurisdiction Low:I Ni h: 8 4/94 to 1/98 Low:I High:
Algona 346 462 0 0 346 462
Auburn6553 9610 0 6 6559 9616
Beaux Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bellevue 7680 9550 0 112 7792 9662
Black Diamond 947 1119 0 591 1538 1710
Bothell 1448 2413 0 20 1468 2433
Burien 1596 1995 0 0 1596 1995
Carnation 404 404 0 0 404 404
Clyde Hill 12 12 0 0 12 12
Covington n/a n/a 1493 0 1343 1642
Des Moines 1437 2155 0 358 1795 2513
Duvall 1563 1759 0 0 1563 1759
Enumclaw 2182 2667 0 0 2182 2667
Federal Way 13425 16566 0 243 13668 16809
Hunts Point 4 4 0 0 4 4
Issaquah 1879 3508 0 686 2565 4194
Kent 6120 7500 0 2265 8385 9765
Kirkland 5328 6346 0 0 5328 6346
Lake Forest Park 101 168 0 316 417 484
Mapte Valley n/a n/a 1539 0 1385 1692
Medina 17 17 0 0 17 17
Merce and 1056 1188 0 0 1056 1188
Milto 18 18 0 11 29 29
NewcaTlre n/a n/a 833 0 749 916
Normandy Park 135 135 0 0 135 135
North Bend 1266 1787 0 0 1266 1787
Pacific 606 1818 0 0 606 1818
Redmond 9637 12760 0 418 10055 13178
Renton 7730 10049 0 70 7800 10119
Seattle 48233 59520 0 0 48233 59520
SeaTac 3546 7500 0 2 3548 7502
Shoreline n/a n/a 2484 75 2303 2814
Skykomish 27 27 0 0 27 27
Snoqualmie 1942 3625 0 0 1942 3625
Tukwila 4761 6014 0 0 4761 6014
Woodinville 1750 1842 0 1 1751 1843
Yarrow Point 18 18 0 0 18 18
City Total: 131,767 172,556 6,349 5,174 142,646 184,719
Unincorporated County: 40,048 50,000 -6,349 .5,174 28,525 38,477
-urban 34,248 41,800 -6,349 -5,174 22,725 30,277
-rural 5.800 8,200 0 0 5,800 8,200
Total King County Target: 171,815 222,556 0 0 171,171 223,196
All columns are household growth targets,expressed as numbers of households to accommodate during the 20-year Growth Management period.
Column A represents adopted household targets from Appendix 2 of the Countywide Planning Policies.
Column B1 represents household targets associated with incorporated areas between 4/94 and 1/98.
Columrl B2 represents household targets associated with annexed areas between 4/94 and 1198.
ColuM represents sum of adopted household targets,incorporated,and annexed targets,including ranges for new cities.
Methodology: Column A growth targets were based on city boundaries as of April 1994. Columns B1 and B2 are additional households to be
accommodated due to incorporation 151)or annexation (B2)between April 1994 and January 1998. These additional households constitute a
proportional share of the urban unincorporated targets by Community Planning Area. The additional households are based on the land-area
proportion of urban unincorporated area less designated parks and mapped water bodies. That proportion is applied to the Planning Area's urban
target,the midrange of the table on page 30 of the King County Comprehensive Plan.
CPP2A.xfs
May 26 u e 15, 1999
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
Apr
I Substitute MOTION NO. 99-2
2 A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies to assign new
3 housing targets for potential annexation areas.
4
5 WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for each
6 city and for King County, and annexations and incorporations have occurred since that time;
7
8 WHEREAS, the housing targets have been revised to reflect annexation and incorporation that
9 have occurred between April 1994 and January 1998; and
10
11 WHEREAS, there is a need to establish household target ranges for the remaining potential
12 annexation areas in order to correspondingly 4e4Gseaseidgn1&the target range for King County in
� 13 the urban area outside current potential annexation areas•:
14
15 WHEREAS there is a need to advice cities about how their respective housing targets would
16 increase if the existing agreed upon potential annexation areas were now annexed• and
17
18 WHEREAS housing targets will change over time as the re-i receives new census data.
19
20 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
21 MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
22
23 The attached Table CPP Appendix 2B and Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map
24 are hereby adopted in the C-eunt5=Aide PI&w9ag Pepe:es to _e, se the, a'asi
25 b to estimate housing targets for the
26 Potential Annexation Areas as shown on the Interim Potential Annexation Area
27 (FAA) Map. The Interim PAA Mat}•describes the areas receiving target allocations
28 in Table CPP Appendix 2B. This map is considered interim until all
29 unincorporated urban areas are included in city PAAs without gaps or overlaps
30 This map may also be amended to reflect other CPP policy direction
31
IIGMPG99GMPCJMot99-2.doc — 1 —
I ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
2 ' ��J and signed by the members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on
3 7-11 in open sessio au en i`ation of its adoption.
4
5
6
7 .'Ron Sims, air, Growth Management Planning Council
8 [� L
9 ue ona son, City of Seattle Representative
10 -
11 Bob Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
12 '
13 L,01ise ftiller, King County Representative
14 Attachments:
15 1. CPP Appendix 2B-Household Growth Target Re-Allocation based on Annexations and
16 Incorporations after l/l/98 and Potential Annexation Areas.
17 2. Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map
L/GMPG99GMPGMot99-2.doc — 2 —
CPP Appendix 2B DRAFT 4/28/99
These are draft estimates of growth targets associated with recent
incorporations and potential annexation areas (PAAs).
ousehold Growth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annexations and Incorporations after 1/1/98
& Potential Annexation Areas
Column A Column B-1 Column B-2 Column C
H'hold Growth Target to 1198 Target from Completed Target Remaining Total Target(A+B)
Jurisdiction Low., High: Annexation or IncorD in PAAs Low: High:
Algona 346 462 0 15 361 477
Auburn 6559 9616 1 1977 8537 11594
Beaux Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bellevue 7792 9662 6 515 8313 10183
Black Diamond 1538 1710 0 353 1891 2063
Bothell 1468 2433 4 309 1781 2746
Burien 1596 1995 71 0 1667 2066
Carnation 404 404 0 0 404 404
Clyde Hill 12 12 0 0 12 12
1642
Covington 1343 1642 0 0 1833 2551
Des Moines 1795 2513 38 0 1833 2551
Duvall 1563 1759 0 0 1563 1759
Enumclaw 2182 2667 0 0 2182 2667
Federal Way
13668 16809 45 1606 15319 18460
Hunts Point 4 4 0 0 4 4
Issaquah 2565 4194 11 1538 4114 5743
Kenmore% 0 0 1082 0 974 1190
Kent 8385 9765 0 1980 10365 11745
Kirkland 5328 6346 0 1248 6576 7594
Lake Forest Park 417 484 18 38 473 540
Maple Valley 1385 1692 0 0 1385 1692
edina 17 17 0 0 17 17
Mercer Island 1056 1188 0 0 1056 1188
Milton 29 29 11 59 99 99
Newcastle 749 916 3 2 754 921
Normandy Park 135 135 0 0 135 13.5
North Bend 1266 1787 0 0 1266 1787
Pacific 606 1818 0 73 679 1891
Redmond 10055 13178 0 293 10348 13471
Renton 7800 10119 60 4260 12120 14439
Sammamish% 0 0 5465 0 4919 6012
Seattle 48233 59520 0 33 48266 59553
SeaTac 3548 7502 0 5 3553 7507
Shoreline 2303 2814 0 108 2411 2922
Skykomish 27 27 0 0 27 27
Snoqualmie 12 3625 0 0 1942 3625
94
Tukwila 4761 6014 0 36 4797 6050
Woodinville 1751 1843 0 0 1751 1843
Yarrow Point 18 18 0 0 18 18
City Total: M171,171223,196
9 fi,815 13,973^ 162,779 206,162
Unincorp.County -6,815 -13,973 7737- 17,689
-urban -6,815 -13,973 1,937 9,489
-rural 0 Of
0 5,800 8,200
Total Target: PI 6 of o,516 223,581
Column A represents household growth targets adjusted for annexation and incorporation through 1198.
Column 8 represents household targets associated with recent annexations, two new cities and potential annexation areas.
Column C represents sum of adopted targets,annexed/incorporated targets,and targets in PAAs.
A Due to overlapping PAAs,some duplication occurs in PAA targets.This total eliminates duplicate targets.
Represents areas of King County not covered by potential annexation areas.
%Target for Kenmore and Sammamish,incorporated after January 1998,is draft for discussion purposes. 4/99 dra
- - -' n
_ _
LAKE ',
FORESTS 'B TH 'L
4NOREL N� PARK Ci: I ILL
lk J 7ENMOREI e -
VA
Juan fogs } .JJ
j 1
` SEA LE KIRK' r: ` UPO
ti �R MOVD
HUNTS YA R •y
• POI .111
a YOE
I y � V"" a
s HLLU :.�._
t M 1 P
-So SAMMAMISH p
EREJg
� �+Ham"'". �, •~� 'r 1 LAN �� ,n / _ /1'i�j,
SEA TT, Cougfkr
•. 'ptgata/
NEWQASTLEAQUA
- J
\;NortlhHI Kline �.r, ,Hill
W?St
r
B�1RIE —� � �tp East Renton fl �
4 l t �l r Frwn ONwere laaa69sctler l.V `"
/ / .la's caugaewayaawah ae+uu e9 amtlaielom Dnreaq .
/ �. �// aaaeWrcrq}Nxp�mbDeM+ry�tl MwMrq MMeeN
NORMAN• SE TACK•; :, / //:,/ , () •�,,,, enwsagwaaswca 1M ue.ova wymmepawplr.
I, Fal OOf1I �`c rar m+mlbn Mw cyo
PAR f m.zan ozmzlawzoyrp`ereYq wm sear eahw�
F rt :'wra.Pe+esw+a.. yi reel M7zt
Clee
naaa ..
r OWES �/ ,a•% z
KI
care
COV TON
VALL y a
1 .t
- , Cv
if t5o
�' �,W
DE PC Sou_ Q o
= N
\\ t `WA BLA,
Jri� I[k,I BURN' D iynIAMOND n
w !{ Q
NA hl
iz
7,7777
+
OI
.i ..• �FYI � vS#'� � .y /
Internm
Annexation Areas`" ENtiMCL
Urban Areas which are within '..`"„�•,:.-`� —
9re designated PAA of hw a mare
dI1W—*OVERLAPS'—OR OTHERWISE Potential Annexation Areas
CONTESTED AREAS
QUrban Areas which are not city— Cfly Cdnpreugust 1 Pima:
the designated PM d arry city— Algons,So".August 1995
GAPS' Botlhell,Deoamber 1994
® Pending Annexatlm Federal Way,November 1995
Issaquah,Saphmnbw 1997
PotentialAnnexationArea Kor.L April 1995 2 O 2 4
RewpnlzA by Clly-County - Mllum,December 1995
Iced.p t m.1 eM Comprehmalve Plan Amendment CounWde Planning Polfcy Map
edadm Po Are November 1987
Amesatlm Areas Rural CRY Urban Growth/nd D Mlles
New®sw, 109 1997 Cematlm.Black Diamond,Duvall Enlendaw, -
LowoCities Pad9s,d,December
m s res lurch Bend joint
planal Ame®tlm Area
•s;t� Lower Organ duc Redmond,December1997 rewclar 12535 eaJoint0),Srlgarea,see
Agricultural Produldim Asada Rmhm,Delxmber 1997 Ordinance 14535 Section 1.D),Skykonash(red
Perim SeaTeo.December lg95 shown),grad Smqualmle, King County
Seetw Irdedf f Agreement ti w.a UrbanGrowth Area Ek,"drY r i TukaBe,oeaember 1995 Auburn March 1999
- - f' r7 !i*I�rlf6 it'"�awv mr"�•.a.��.