HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/20/2002 •
40
4 KENT 0000
wAs"'"GTO" PLANNING COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT August 20, ZOOZ
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP
Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP
Manager The City Council Planning Committee will meet in Council Chambers East, Kent
Mailing Address: City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South, at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, August 20, 2002.
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Location Address
400 West Gowe
Kent,WA 98032 Committee Members: Leona Orr, Chair Tim Clark Bruce White
Phone:253-856-5454
Fax:253-856-6454
Action Speaker Time
1. Approval of the Minutes of July 9, YES
2002 and July 16, 2002
2. King County Countywide Planning YES Charlene Anderson 30 min
Policy Amendments
The Planning Committee meets the third Tuesday of each month at 3:00 PM in Chambers
East, Kent City Hall, 220 41h Ave. South, unless otherwise noted. For agenda
information please contact 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.
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
K E N T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
WASNINGTON
Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
August 13, 2002
TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: KING COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY AMENDMENTS
FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2002
BACKGROUND
• On June 17, 2002, 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 RC W
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. This framework ensures
that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. The City of Kent ratified the original
CPPs on September 15, 1992, with Resolution No. 1326 and ratified Phase 11 amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies on November 16, 1994.
Amendments
King County Ordinances No. 2002-0131, 2002-0132, and 2002-0133 (see attached) ratified three
motions as proposed by the Growth Management Planning Council:
• Substitute Motion 00-3: recommends amending the Urban Growth Boundary map to reflect
land use map amendments adopted during the 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan
Update. None of the map amendments affect areas within the City of Kent or its Potential
Annexation Area.
• Motion 01-3: recommends amending the CPPs and the Urban Growth Area to reflect the
• resolution of the City of Snoqualmie's joint planning area in support of the Snoqualmie
Preservation Initiative.
As
Planning Committee Meeting 8120/02
Page 2 Of 2
• Substitute Motion 00-1: recommends adding maps of existing Urban Separators to the
Countywide Planning Policies. The maps reflect the Urban Separator designations approved
by the City in March, 2001. Staff first presented the County's proposal for a map at the July
2, 2001 Planning Committee meeting.
Approval process
The Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution of
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 the city takes
legislative action to disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by King County.
Based upon the King County Council approval date of June 17, 2002, the 90-day deadline for
action will be September 16, 2002. (Note: This date falls before the Council meeting of
September 17th. Therefore, staff anticipates this item will be on the full Council agenda for the
September 3rd meeting.)
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 August 20th meeting, please contact me at (253)
856-5431.
C A:S:1Permit\PlaniC ompPlanAmdmen ts12002 kpp-pc.doc
Enc: Letter to City of Kent and King County Ordinances No.2002-0131,0132&0133
•
1 ' RECEI':'ED
King County
June 28, 2002
The Honorable Jim White
Mayor, City of Kent
220—4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 99032
Dear Mayor White:
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to
the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) approved the following Motions:
• Substitute Motion 00-3 recommending amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary map
to reflect land use map amendments adopted during the 2000 King County
Comprehensive Plan update.
• Motion 01-3 recommending amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies and the
Urban Growth Area to reflect the resolution of the City of Snoqualmie's joint planning
area in support of the Snoqualmie Preservation Initiative.
• Substitute Motion 00-1 recommending maps of existing Urban Separators be added to
the Countywide Planning Policies.
On June 17, 2002, the King County Council approved and also ratified these amendments
on behalf of unincorporated King County. Copies of King County Ordinances 2002-0131,
2002-0132 and 2002-0133 are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments,
along with Council Staff Reports.
•
The Honorable Jim White
June 28, 2002
Page 2
In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW-1 Step 9, amendments 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 note that the 90-day deadline for these proposed
amendments is September 16, 2002. If you have questions about the amendments or the
ratification process, please contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Regional
Policy and Planning, at(206) 205-0701, or Cynthia Moffitt, Policy Analyst, Office of Regional
Policy and Planning at(206) 205-0709 or Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County
Council, at(206)296-0352.
If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please submit by close of business,
September 16, 2002, one copy of the legislation to Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst,
King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 516 Third Avenue, Room 402,
Seattle, WA 98104. If your city chooses to take no action, please submit a letter to the
above address stating that your jurisidiction took no action on the amendments.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
( q
Cynthia Sullivan, Chair Ron Sims
King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures: King County Ordinances 2002-0131, 2002-0132 and 2002-0133 with attachments
cc: Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council
Stephanie Warden, Director, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Cynthia Moffitt, Policy Analyst, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
•
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: 2 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2002-0131 Date: April 16, 2002
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Kevin Wright, Prosecuting Attorney's Office
SUBJECT:
An Ordinance adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies amending the Urban Growth
Area of King County to reflect site specific land use map amendments adopted during the 2000 King
County Comprehensive Plan update.
BACKGROUND:
On September 27, 2000 the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) adopted the following motion
recommending amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs):
GMPC Substitute Motion o0-3 Amending theaJrban Growth Area of King County:
GMPC Recommendation: Amend the Urban Growth Area map In the.Countywide Planning policies as
• recommended by King County in the King County Comprehensive Plan 200o:
Issaquah'Highlands (Kmg County Map Amendment#1)
Maple Valley Lbrary (King County Map Amendment.#3)`
Jenkins Creek Park(Covington) (King County Map Amendment 94)
✓ Mahler Park(Enumclaw) : (King County Map Amendment#6)
Split Parcels(Enumclaw) (King County Map Amendment#7)
Carnation Urban Growth Area:, (King County Map Amendment#8)
Maple Valley Urban Growth Area (King County Map Amendment#11)
Discussion:
In 1999, prior to adoption of the 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP 2000) and as required by
Countywide Planning Policy(CPP) FW-1, Step 8, the King County Executive submitted the above land use
amendments affecting the Urban Growth Area (UGA)to the GMPC for their consideration. The GMPC
recommended their adoption to the King County Council via GMPC Motion 00-3 (see Attachment 1 to
Proposed Ordinance 2002-0131). The amendments were incorporated into the KCCP 2000 by the King
County Council in February, 2001. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the KCCP must be
consistent with the CPPs. Proposed Ordinance 2002-0131 would accomplish that, with respect to these
land use amendments.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2002-0131 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
• Amending the urban growth area boundary as adopted by the King County Council on February 12,
2001 (King County Comprehensive Plan 2000) and as shown on Attachment 1 to Proposed Ordinance
2002-0131, and
• Amending the Potential Annexation Areas map by including additional unincorporated urban land
• created by these UGA amendments in the Potential Annexation Area of the appropriate city.
C.ITEMP1200 2-0 1 3 1 (CPPAmendment-Site Specific land use map amendments).doc 06/25/02 2.59 PM
Additionally,Proposed Ordinance 2002-0131 would ratify the changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9 (with the exception
of the Issaquah Highlands amendment,which is not subject to ratification). Amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of
the city and county governments representing 70%of the population of King County according to the
Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within
90 days of adoption by King County, they city by legislative action disapproves the countywide planning
policy.
ANALYSIS:
This action is consistent with the land use map in the King County Comprehensive Plan (the King County
Council adopted the land use amendments as part of the 2000 Amendment to the King County
Comprehensive Plan in February, 2001).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2002-0131,with attachments
2. Policy Direction: Countywide Planning Policies, King County Comprehensive Plan
4
C.JEMP12002-0 1 3 1 (05.07-02).doc D6125102 9.17 AM
KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Beattie,WA 98104
Signature Report
June 24, 2002
Ordinance 14390
Proposed No. 2002-0131.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies amending the urban growth
3 area of King County to reflect site specific land use map
4 amendments adopted during the 2000 comprehensive plan
5 update; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning
6 Policies for unincorporated King County; and amending
7 Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C.
8 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended,
9 and K.C.C. 20.10.040.
10
11
12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
13 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
14 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
15 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 —Countywide Planning
16 Policies (Phase 1) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
1
Ordinance14390
17 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
18 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
19 11446.
20 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 27, 2000, and
21 vole_d_to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
22 Policies[5/25/94], amending the urban growth area boundary to reflect site specific land
23 use map amendments initiated by King County during the 2000 King County
24 comprehensive plan update.
25 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
26 each hereby amended to read as follows:
27 Phase 11. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide
28 Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
029 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
30 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment l to Ordinance 12027.
31 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
32 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
33 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
34 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
35 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
36 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
37 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
38 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
2
Ordinance 14390
39 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
40 Policies are amended as shown by Attachment i to this ordinance.
41 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
42 each hereby amended to read as follows:
--- 43— Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning
44 Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on
45 behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
46 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
47 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
48 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
49 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
50 D. The Phase 11 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
951 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
52 unincorporated King County.
53 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
54 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
55 population of unincorporated King County.
56 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
57 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
58 population of unincorporated King County.
59 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
60 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
61 population of unincorporated King County.
3
Ordinance 14390
62 11. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
63 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
64 the population of unincorporated King County.
65 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
66 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
67 the population of unincorporated King County.
68 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies as
•
4
Ordinance 14390
69 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
70 of unincorporated King County.
71
Ordinance 14390 was introduced on 3/18/2002 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 6/17/2002,by the following vote:
Yes: 11 -Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Pullen, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons
and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 2 -Mr. Phillips and Mr. Pelz
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
APPROVED this day of
Attachments 1.GMPC Substitute Motion No. 003
•
5
• POLICY DIRECTION:
Countywide Planning Policies
FWA, Step 8a The citizens and jurisdictions of King County are committed to maintaining a permanent
Rural Area. The Growth Management Planning Council or its successor shall review all
Urban Growth Areas ten years after the adoption and ratification of Phase II Amendments
to the Countywide Planning Policies. The review shall be conducted utilizing monitoring
reports and benchmark evaluation. As a result of this review the Growth Management
Planning Council or its successor may recommend to the Metropolitan King County
Council amendments to the Urban Growth Area. Alternatively, King County may initiate
consideration of Urban Growth Area amendments. Amendments shall be based on an
evaluation of the following factors:
• The criteria in LU-26 and LU-27;
• The sufficiency of vacant, developable land and redevelopable land to meet projected
needs;
• The actual and projected rate of development and land consumption by category of
land use including both development on vacant land and redevelopment projects;
• The capacity of appropriate jurisdictions to provide infrastructure and service to the
Urban Growth Areas;
• The actual and projected progress of jurisdictions in meeting their adopted 20-year
goals and targets of numbers of households and employees per acre;
• The actual and projected rate of population and employment growth compared to
adopted 20-year goals and target ranges, and compared to revised projections from the
Washington State Office of Financial Management;
• The actual and projected trend of economic development and affordable housing
• indicators, as reported annually through the adopted monitoring and benchmarks
program;
• Indicators of environmental conditions, such as air quality, water quality, wildlife
habitat, and others.
FWA (Step 9) Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies may be developed by the Growth
Management Planning Council or its successor, or by the Metropolitan King County
Council, as provided in this policy. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies, not
including amendments to the Urban Growth Area pursuant to Step 7 and 8 b and c above,
shall be subject to ratification by at least 30 percent of the city and County governments
representing 70 percent of the population of King County. Adoption and ratification of this
policy shall constitute an amendment to the May 27, 1992 interlocal agreement among
King County, the City of Seattle, and the suburban cities and towns in King County for the
Growth Management Planning Council of King County.
King County Comprehensive Plan
RP-304 The Four-Year Cycle shall consider proposed amendments that could be considered in
the Annual Cycle and also those outside the scope of the Annual Cycle, proposed
amendments relating to substantive changes to Comprehensive Plan policies and
development regulations, and proposals to alter the Urban Growth Area Boundary in
accordance with applicable provisions of Countywide Planning Policy FW-1.
CATEMP',2002-0131 (05-07-02).doc 06/24/02 3:53 PM
• 09/27/00 2002 131
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/bc
1 Substitute MOTION NO. 00-3
2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King
3 County.
4
5
6 WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act,RCW 36.70A.I 10 requires
7 counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be
8 encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature;and
9
10 WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 Step 8 recognizes that King County may
I 1 initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area; and
12
13 WHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council
14 requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendments to
• 15 the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council
16 and ratification by the cities; and
17
18 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative
19 designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by
20 cities. The attached amendments are supported by the affected city.
21
22 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL
23 OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
24
25 1. Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map in the
26 Countywide Planning Policies as described by the following attachments:
27
28 Attachment A: Issaquah Highlands/]ssaquah (KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 1)
29 Attachment B: Maple Valley LibraryiMaple Valley UGA (KCCP 2000 Map
30 Amendment 3)
31 Attachment C: Jenkins Creek Park/Covington UGA (KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 4)
32 Attachment D: Mahler Park/Enumclaw UGA (KCCP 2000 Amendment 6)
33 Attachment E: Split Parcels/Enumclaw UGA (KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 7)
34 Attachment F: Carnation UGA(KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 8)
35 Attachment G: Maple Valley (KCCP 2000 Map Amendmcn( 1 1)
i
li
1
2 2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional
3 unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential
4 Annexation Area of the adjoining city.
5
6 3. Per the Countywide Planning Policy FW-1,Attachment A: Issaquah
7 Highlands/Issaquah(KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 1)is not subject to ratification.
8 Attachments B,C, D,E,F and G are recommended to the Metropolitan King County
9 Council and the Cities of King County for adoption and ratification.
10
11
12
13
14 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County the
15 274 4 SeA&wafot 20M and signed bythe chair of the GMPC in open session in
16 authentication of its adoption this o�0 ova
17
18
19
20 Ron Sims,thair,Growth Management Planning Council
21
22
23 .Attachments: September 19, 2000 Background Report describing each proposed UGA
24 change and its rationale
25 Map of each recommended UGA Change
- 2 -
•
September 19,2000
Proposed UGA Cbanges Under Review by King County
Background:
As part of the first major update to the King County Comprehensive Plan(KCCP),a number of
proposed UGA changes are under review by King County. In the Executive Recommended
KCCP 2000 Plan(March 1,2000),there are 7 recommended changes proposed. Of these, five
- - are requests made by the cities of Carnation, Covington,Enumclaw and Maple Valley. The
other two include UGA adjustments to recognize the Grand Ridge Joint Agreement (Issaquah
Highland)and to reconcile two properties that have been split by the UGA just outside of the
City of Enumclaw. The proposed UGA amendments are noted on the attached Locator Map.
The proposed amendments are currently under review by the King County Growth Management
and Unincorporated Areas Committee. The amendments are subject to change and may be
amended by the Committee and by the full Council in September 2000. The purpose of
presenting the proposed UGA changes to the GMPC is to highlight those that will require further
action by the GMPC to amend the Countywide Urban Growth Area boundary.
Below is a matrix that describes the property, the acreage affected and the rationale and policy
basis for the proposed UGA change. Amendment # 1,Issaquah Highlands/Issaquah is consistent
with FW-1 and does not require ratification by GMPC as stated in the policy. The remaining
amendments are being presented to the GMPC for consideration and approval as amendments to
the Countywide Urban Growth Boundary. The rationale statements includes an analysis of the
Prnposed t JGA amendments with the C ounlywide Planning Pnlicies
MAP LOCATOR APPROXIMATE
NUMBER/PROPERTY ACRES RATIONALE
REDESIGNATED
TO 17RE3AN
N 1 Issaquah Highlands/ 40 The parcel is a Waal island surrounded by the
Issaquah UGA. Approximately 33 acres of the parcel are
identified in the Grand Ridge Joint Agreement
as an expansion area for the Issaquah Highlands
development. The remaining 7 acres will be
protected as an urban separator. The proposed
amendment complies with CPP policy FW-1
step 8(b) which recognized the Issaquah Joint
Planning Agreement process. This is an
information item only and no further action is
needed by GMPC on this amendment per CPP
FW-1.
It3 Maple Valley 0.5 This is a technical adjustment to reconcile the
Library/Maple Valley UGA line with the corporate city boundary.
UGA The entire property has been annexed by the
City of Maple Valley, although a portion of the
properly falls within the designated Rural Area.
1'•gmpclnwuons'mnunn00-3-alt�rhmcnit Anc —_—
• rarr I
• MAP LOCATOR APPROXIMATE
NUMBER/PROPERTY ACRES RATIONALE
REDESIGNATED
TO URBAN
#4 Jenkins Creek Park/ 65 The City of Covington has requested amending
Covington UGA the UGA in order to provide urban services to
Jenkins Creek park (20.34 acres) after it is
transferred to the city. The proposed UGA
change includes redesignating the properties
directly north(6.48 acres)and south(38.18
acres)of the park land as Urban. Redesignation
of these properties to Urban would eliminate
the creation of Rural islands after the transfer of
the park.
The City has also expressed an interest in
annexing the Urban island south of the City
boundary(SR 516)but is prevented from doing
so because these lands are not connected to the
UGA. The proposed UGA change for this
portion of the UGA will respond to the request
by the City and will better connect an existing
urban island with The UGA.
The proposed UGA amendments in this subarea
comply with CPPs LU-26(d)and LU-32.
• #6 Mahler Park/ 28 The State of Washington has transferred
Enumclaw UGA ownership of Mahler Park to the City of
Enumclaw. The City has requested an
amendment to the UGA in order to provide
urban services,such as police and maintenance,
to the park.
This amendment complies with CPP LU-32.
Split Parcels/ 7.9 This amendment resolves
En Iwo parcels currently
Enumclaw UGA split by the UGA line. A middle school campus
is being constricted nearby and sewer lines can
be made available to the subject properties.
The urban portion of the Iwo properties are in
the City of Enumclaw's Potential Annexation
Area.
This amendment complies with CPPs LU-26(a)
and (d) and LU-38 (d) and (g).
• 11rn�'clnunnnslmubon(q-3 allacli""I l doc
Parr 2
a
MAP LOCATOR APPROXIMATE
ACRES RATIONALE
NUMBER/PROPERTY
REDESIGNATED
TO URBAN
#8 Carnation UGA 2.5 This is a technical adjustment to the UGA
requested by the City of Carnation to recognize
the 1993 annexaliun of the subject parcel by the
City. State law allows cities to annex city
owned land that is contiguous to the city's
boundary.
#11 Maple Valley 26.5 The County is negotiating with the City of
Maple Valley to sell a parcel of County owned
land,adjacent to the city for use as a park (19.8
acres). The City has requested amending the
UGA boundary in order to provide urban
services to the park.
The UGA boundary is also proposed 10 be
changed for the privately owned parcel (6.7
acres)north of the park land. This property is
split by the current UGA boundary and with the
sale of the land to the south to Maple Valley,
this property would be entirely surrounded by
the City of Maple Valley. It is proposed to be
redesignated Urban to climate creation of a
• rural island.
The proposed UGA boundary amendment in
this subarea complies with CPP LLI-32.
I,F�M''�nulionxMolion[p-J-atlachm l I d(.e
pare
a
Recommended 2V-" UGA Changes
Locator Map 42002
`� 1
• King County 1 issaaahgoiandsltssagldl 7 Spil Palrels/EmndaaruGA
DDFS » m.�e�
tib map h s+enue0 tr PW "pwpoaea"W4 3 Maple Valet'LlLray I Made Valley UGA 8 Canuli GA m U
e aal saanneeU b a a aw meaauemeras.
5 0 5 Mites / k+Jdrs Creek Pali I Coinplm EGA 11 Mapk VaPey
N
Mahb Para/Emndar UCvt
qzgV
I i ris
r l"r
l
• 1 r' R
"3 I
J ♦ i
,
♦ I
♦
I , I
111 , r
Y441 � y •g 1 t r � \ -
Vq�'S
4
K:3S..2m.f"
14
3 gyp'
f6a1 `f'�iR iq'Sr yT_ -�. SN .1
— ([•�•j Pe 4Rr� { I y- x p. .
'19_S.c
r
off
a Y.
Ora
111 :t t.
11 � 11
v -
a
tSnYYrJ� 21�9..�If... J� i<lr��al4':I�Y� .{ -
.10
'se a7e`�m'.�F.v.1.{rb :sYtiia ?G., :yam
VEY
W S� j�I■L7 F �y �a�f a.1. y.�1 -•-
Y r • '
ppj�.,� 45.�. � t• `"r� , Yip. ,�•��ht�34ll�d~f�� 1 r.yf.
4
V'
r T
•t 4Z� _'i r i � _> Y F b y
4 .�"� a N:r �"Tyn f1 sir � a.. n f " fit 1�a y♦-
t •��" •�rb'�IY��{^I. y�
�(.( gLD` f •��a�tlF d.c�� n
Mahler Park / Enumclaw UGA
Executive Rec gqV rp9nded Land Use
Attachment D to Motion 00-3 or# 1999 UGA Bmidary rX R"City UGA
IT Rural Residential
King County N 20M UGA BWAq
MES D"� Dft-kF�WW E ag Aunmum
[II NW Incorporated Areas Op Other Pads
500 0 500 Feel
2002 131
f 7
I r
7 1
rr
-- — is
If
-4
op rr)(
rX
J'
rr
rX
NNE
• Split Parcels ' Enumclaw UGA �-
Executive Recommended Land Use
Attachment E to Motion 00-3 march 2000 2002 131
1999 UGA Boundary rX Rural ob UGA
King County
DDFS a°..,.r o..Y,....e e .e.br 9.... 2M UGA Bourdary rr Rural Rcs&nfd
/� iMs mw r rryre.e ra v�M a+w.w�M w
///\V\ Y nol P.�MnA b•Io/vmu mrw�wnn� ® kICOTOfafEd A122S a9 ry"`."'•`^"
500 0 SOD Feet
rr ----a
l
rX
rX
� i I
— -
rr i
I I SE424th St_L _ X
-- - -- -
ul
rr
N —
i
rx
Xag .., ag
lot 1 1
{
iz
r �
j
'+ � � a•.: 7 •
R`3aw,.y _� •y y At ! 9 1 .y 4S++ 7x� "+.
E�i.(�� -1r t i :-i , '"" h.� ,l',•••> � lr b T' � `t� v�r✓�J
[-.(jJ1� T {�G/ 1�S� �.i• !.'.J.tl' Z N f ! •A r'V N 1I:.Yy Y� ^. +".4z' •
i+.} c—ref 'ht `7.� _.1 !' sY t ' +: .'! E ti F r t iiv3,• r"
J4,V. . +I�"� - �rr-'""� t '�A �- ` 1 .j r.4e6 > 'Ci.'d" t.•;.
�a. -:. /• ,> ", t tK „� � _�t"��'y",n, Rd � '? E� '4Cr"sb p-v''Y}�t�r. � ! � ✓t+ z i � r' f t`>'.+ #', �,2Ys�as tar �' � < ��_�'ws
{t 8<4W, , L rA 4 _ tr ♦ 1' # -'v„y •.11'` a �s.3�� ,fij¢S7l� Y:
• �' q`S st �'.r .r �t�: t��.Px h;,ercyrr:�yE.tpr:
, C 4 _ e ff r i'• s ]s.$4:: rb by �a +ft..[S:'.
. ,,�yr-al-x r �r : J_Y` �•+t"c d �'55 1lrN` ,, ry•
Apr
N9
i $
ly M1e E�E .
l.f`
-,a
I , I I
111
INS
y i y
Ye.
o� r. z>'�r t' � - � •C r r Yl.i i ,.f S° F � } .s -t:
`�.,a. ,i. , ',i - �' r�r M1 �, � � .�ti t ♦;s ��i.a•�bf• 1.1 ot.'1
t!�d 1 -�bd'r~^ 1p� s f 1 - A t ' -t v , xZyL � � -• x� '!rl s n' k^+J r���"� j +:�.[
I5''�� t� ��ra-•'3:�• s "• 1 � . n F , 1 ' h {ti.r1i�4 ,r t�r�.. ���•{cal�-s�z'v�fr S�I r] '(..�i
ti`r . n ;1
I .,.t Y '6 -y i=V � /7 1 t - r -i T ^^ .Z. `^�'SM�i� C�,yj�•r
a 2mi
TA •u GS�N W�.IJ` � ��.rY;. 14 _ \ -4.4K 1y � Ik 1� S i�l Yr T '' t. �Sa I(YY
l�z"�"�.��'�y��i �� � � '�' A e• ��t .,}fi '}t Y YA��a' � ,i��`P §�'��',.,�,?'a`�. �e s rs,�
t.r��T � d a Y+i if _ �yli. S � 'G-��.+ ? 'E��M t�j IIyII' �1 '� sl�•w ��t,
v y W`�YF¢'k'Y r� + / ,� 4 vl �OJ�M1 I l �ttf'Y •M �4 ^�Xya j !'�
S r. dCr� t w
Ip:.•'` d.�.d�.�L^."`_s ii..L..t.1�d1.=L��. d .�^• _ _ � : A3 r�:i
r
1.
♦ M
vA.� �.�A':..y
s,��Yr �; r:k� '� wig`, '�•,
/ l
'. !! ��. t fir � i t cf/Y� 1.+Y.O .�.,�,*t. i� s ��� Nv'�d -•.,.
f J'1 � iv Fi,r� s J r�}L..ry p 7 _• 1 �� a � ! � • ;�
c;'t�/.i
_ fFb zaY � •' __
1
Eli
��
O
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: 3 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2002-0132 Date: April 16, 2002
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Kevin Wright, Prosecuting Attorney's Office
SUBJECT:
An Ordinance adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies in support of the Snoqualmie
Preservation Initiative.
BACKGROUND:
On October 24,2001 the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)adopted the following motion
recommending amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs):
GMPC Substitute Motion 01-3:Amending the Countywide Planning Policies and the Urban Growth Area
to reflect the resolution of the City of Snoqualmie's Joint Planning Area in support of the Snoqualmie
Preservation Initiative.
GMPC Recommendation:
✓ Delete Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 Step 8 to reflect the resolution of the Snoqualmie Joint
Planning Area
✓ Amend the Growth Management Planning Council Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary Map to
delete the Snoqualmie Joint Planning Area, amend the Urban Growth Area by adding 209 acres north
and west of the City of Snoqualmie, and by removing 214 acres south of the City of Snoqualmie.
Discussion:
The Snoqualmie Preservation Initiative (SPI/ Initiative)is a complex land use proposal that is intended to
preserve critical forestlands, viewsheds and trail corridors in and around the City of Snoqualmie,while at
the same time, finalizing planning for the City's future growth. When fully implemented, the Initiative will
result in:
• the permanent preservation of a site near Snoqualmie Falls known as Falls Crossing;
• the addition of 268 dwelling units to the existing development at Snoqualmie Ridge;
• resolution of the Snoqualmie Joint Planning Area (JPA)and Urban Growth Area (UGA);
• enhancements to the King County regional trail system; and
• permanent conservation easements on 2,800 acres of forestland in the Raging River Watershed.'
On March 12, 2001, the King County Council adopted Motion 11128, endorsing a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between King County, the City of Snoqualmie, the Cascade Land Conservancy
(CLC)and the Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company(WRECO). The MOU outlined the components of
the SPI, and stated the Council's intent to complete review and approval of ordinances implementing the
Initiative.
• Separate negotiations with the Fruit Growers Association may result in similar conservation easements on an
additional 6,200 acres within the same watershed.
C:JENIP'2002-0132(OT Amendment-Snoqualmie Presenation Initiamet doc 06.125,'02 3:00 PM
• Implementation Actions Accomplished to Date:
1. Amending the existing Snoqualmie Ridge development agreement to allow up to 268 additional
dwelling units in place of approved business park uses (Snoqualmie City Council, 4123101);
2. Amending Snoqualmie's UGA to include 521 acres of WRECO ownership within the JPA(King County
Council, 6104101);
3. Amending Snoqualmie's UGA to include the 209-acre Northwest Properties, and remove the 214-acre
Rattlesnake Ridge planning area (Growth Management Planning Council, 10124101);
Remaining Implementation Actions:
1. Amending the King County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Growth Management Planning
Council's decision (King County Council, no later than 12131102);
2. Completion of a development agreement between Snoqualmie and WRECO for the 521-acre JPA
(Snoqualmie City Council, no later than 6115103);and
3. Completion of a development agreement between Snoqualmie and WRECO for the 209-acre
Northwest Properties (Snoqualmie City Council, no later than 6115104).
The actions of the GMPC on 10/24101 satisfied the first phase of an important implementation action
required by the Initiative; the second phase will be satisfied upon adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2002-
0132.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2002-0132 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
0 Deleting Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 Step 8 to reflect the resolution of the Snoqualmie Joint
Planning Area.
0 Amend the Growth Management Planning Council Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary Map to
delete the Snoqualmie Joint Planning Area, amend the Urban Growth Area by adding 209 acres north
and west of the City of Snoqualmie, and by removing 214 acres south of the City of Snoqualmie.
. The ordinance would also ratify the changes to the Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County, as required by CPP FW-1, Step 9. (Amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of
the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King County according to the
Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy unless,within
90 days of adoption by King County, they city by legislative action disapproves the countywide planning
policy.)
ANALYSIS:
This action is consistent with the Snoqualmie Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan (adopted 6/4/01),which is
an element of the King County Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2002-0132, with attachments
2. Policy Direction: Countywide Planning Policies, King County Comprehensive Plan
Q:\COMMITTEE GNI 2002�staff reports`2002-0132(CPP Anxndment-Snoqualmie Preservation Initiative).doc 06/24/02 430 PM
KING COUNTY 1.100 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle WA 98104
Signature Report
June 24, 2002
Ordinance 14391
Proposed No. 2002-0132.1 Sponsors Hague and Phillips
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies in support of the Snoqualmie
3 Preservation Initiative; ratifying the amended Countywide
4 Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and
5 amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and
6 K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as
107 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040.
8
9
10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
I 1 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
14 Policies(Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
017 11446.
1
Ordinance 14391
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 24, 2001, and
1019 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
20 Policies [5/25/94], to reflect the resolution of the City of Snoqualmie's joint planning
21 area and amending the urban growth area boundary accordingly.
22 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
23 each hereby amended to read as follows:
24 Phase II. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide
25 Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
26 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
27 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
28 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
1030 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
32 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
34 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
36 G. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 — Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
38 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
39 each hereby amended to read as follows:
2
Ordinance14391
•40 Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning
41 Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on
42 behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
43 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
44 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
45 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
46 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
47 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
48 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
49 unincorporated King County.
50 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
51 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
•
52 population of unincorporated King County.
53 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
54 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
55 population of unincorporated King County.
56 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
57 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
58 population of unincorporated King County.
59 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
60 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
61 the population of unincorporated King County.
•
3
• Ordinance14391
62 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
63 shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
64 the population of unincorporated King County.
65 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
66 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
67 of unincorporated King County.
68
Ordinance 14391 was introduced on 3/18/2002 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 6/17/2002, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 -Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine,Mr. Pullen, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 1 - Mr. Pelz
• KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
APPROVED this day of
4
Ordinance 14391
• Attachments 1.GMPC Motion No.01-3
•
5
i
POLICY DIRECTION:
Countywide Planning Policies
FW-1 (Step 8b)By 1998, all of the joint planning areas identified in the 1994 CPPs have be resolved,
except for the City of Snoqualmie. Joint planning for any potential additional annexation of
land to the City of Snoqualmie shall be conducted consistent with the terms of the 1990
Interlocal Agreement between King County and the City of Snoqualmie. Future
Countywide Planning Policy amendments regarding the Snoqualmie joint planning area
consistent with the 1990 Interlocal Agreement are not subject to ratification.
FW-1 (Step 9) Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies may be developed by the Growth
Management Planning Council or its successor, or by the Metropolitan King County
Council, as provided in this policy. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies, not
including amendments to the Urban Growth Area pursuant to Step 7 and 8 b and c above,
shall be subject to ratification by at least 30 percent of the city and County governments
representing 70 percent of the population of King County. Adoption and ratification of this
policy shall constitute an amendment to the May 27, 1992 interlocal agreement among
King County, the City of Seattle, and the suburban cities and towns in King County for the
Growth Management Planning Council of King County.
•
C:\TEMP`2002-0132(CPP Amendment-Snoqualmie Preservation Initiative)doc 06/24/02 3:48 PM
2002 132
10/24/01
Sponsored By: GMPC
lg
I MOTION NO. 01-3
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council
3 of King County amending the Countywide Planning Policies
4 and the Urban Growth Area to reflect the resolution of the
5 City of Snoqualmie's Joint Planning Area in support of the
6 Snoqualmie Preservation Initiative.
7
8 WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act,RCW 36.70A.I 10 requires
9 counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be
10 encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature; and
11
12 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policy FW-I, Step 8b, adopted in 1994 and amended in
13 1999,recognizes the Snoqualmie Joint Planning Area as the last outstanding Joint Planning
14 Area in King County,and directs King County and the City of Snoqualmie to conduct a
15 joint planning process consistent with the 1990 Interlocal Agreement between King County
16 and the City of Snoqualmie to determine the Urban Growth Area for the City of
17 Snoqualmie; and
18
19 WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 8b further states that within the Joint
20 Planning Area, the agreed upon Urban Growth Area is not subject to ratification by the
21 Growth Management Planning Council;and
22
23 WHEREAS, King County and the City of Snoqualmie completed a joint planning process
24 in May,2001, and the resulting Snoqualmie Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan recommends
25 additions to the City of Snoqualmie's Urban Urowth Area within the designated Joint
26 Planning Area,refinements to the City of Snoqualmie's existing Urban Growth Area,and
27 policies to guide annexation within the areas recommended to be added to the City of
28 Snoqualmie's Urban Growth Area;and
29
30 WHEREAS,consistent with Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 8b and the
31 recommendations of the Snoqualmie Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan,King County
32 adopted Ordinance 14117 on June 4, 2001,adding 525 acres to the City of Snoqualmie's
33 1 Jrhan Growth Area within the designated mint Planning Area; and
34
I i�mprlmniinnsmdllLi dor
- 1 -
•
I WHEREAS,the King County Executive,the Metropolitan King County Council,the
2 Mayor of Snoqualmie and the Snoqualmie City Council requests that the Growth
3 Management Planning Council consider additional refinements to the City of Snoqualmie's
4 Urban Growth Area as recommended by the City of Snoqualmie Urban Growth Area
5 Subarea Plan,resulting in a net reduction in the Urban Growth Area of 5 acres, for
6 eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council and ratification by the cities.
7
8
9 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
10 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
11
12 1) Delete Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 Step 810 reflect the resolution of the
13 Snuqualmie Joint Planning Area.
14
15
16 except f8F lhO City ef Snequalmie. joint plapx�ng fe-F an.,petential additiefial
17
20 8AVq(+a1r»ie jetrtt Plaru, Hg. i5teH; . ."h the l non rleeid Agree+t@nl,UL RD
21 atiTteabiom
22
23 2) Amend the Growth Management Planning Council Proposed Urban Growth
24 Boundary Map in the Countywide Planning Policies as shown on Attachment I to:
25
26 a. Delete the Snoqualmie Joint Planning Area;
27
28 b. Amend the Urban Growth Area by adding 209 acres north and west of the City
29 of Snoqualmie; and
30
31 c. Amend the Urban Growth Area by removing 214 acres south of the City of
32 Snoqualmie.
Vgngahnrnona/nxaDl J.dcc
2 _
I ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County the 24th day of
2 October,2 00 1.
3
4
5 Ron tms,Q64,Growth Management Planning Council
6
7
8
9 Attachments: Urban Growth Boundary Map with boundary changes and Joint Planning
10 Area eliminated
11
1/gmpclmoUnnc/mot01 J Joc
3 -
i
� \ I
+�4`�-• ��'�. l ° i ': 1 it '. � .r J Fl.r I -p ,P
.t 11 � •� � r,(, � � y• }'S�� t4 y l �I'�!
�J
44
i f r_. r
4 �TP ,y.I y4 sj'-1 ' .� �,•.- 11�3 i ,_. l I tt(1 I,
rf
ti
APPW-
i
t �r
x f•.
`i
P
Y
F � 3 •4
y _ 1
fa
♦ �I
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: 4 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2002-0133 Date: April 16,2002
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Kevin Wright, Prosecuting Attorney's Office
SUBJECT:
An Ordinance adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies, adding maps of existing urban
separators.
BACKGROUND:
On December 11, 2001 the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)adopted the following motion
recommending amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs):
GMPC Substitute Motion 00-1:Amending the Countywide Planning Policies by adding maps of existing
urban separators to the Countywide Planning Policies.
GMPC Recommendation:
• ✓ Add a map of existing Urban Separators to the Countywide Planning Policies document.
✓ These maps also identify certain potential Urban Separator areas within Aubum and Renton s
Potential Annexation Areas that are in need of further analysis and refinement. The Interjurisdictlonal
Staff Team (IJT)shall convene a subcommittee comprised of all affected jurisdictions, and shall report
back to the GMPC no later than September 30, 2002 with a recommendation to resolve these
potential Urban Separators. If no consensus is reached,a majority and minority or alternative
recommendation will be made to the GMPC by September 30, 2002.
✓ On an ongoing basis, the IJT shall also review proposed additional Urban Separator designations
identified by cities or the County, and present them for GMPC consideration. As part of this review
process, the IJT may also consider refinements to adopted Urban Separator policy to facilitate,'
designations, provided the new policies are substantively consistent with CPP LU-27 and County
Comprehensive Plan policies P-118 through P-120.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2002-0133 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
0 Adopting a map of existing urban separators, as shown on Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
The ordinance would also ratify the changes to the Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County, as required by CPP FW-1, Step 9. (Amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30%of
the city and county governments representing 70%of the population of King County according to the
Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within
90 days of adoption by King County, they city by legislative action disapproves the countywide planning
policy.)
r
C'TFMP`200'--0133 WIT Amendment-Urban Separators LdoC 1)6.'2>'02 4 00I'M
a
• ANALYSIS:
This action is consistent with King County Comprehensive Plan Policies P-118 through P-120(see
Attachment 2).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2002-0133,with attachments
2. Policy Direction: Countywide Planning Policies, King County Comprehensive Plan
Q:\COMMITTEE GM 20021staff reports\.1002-0133(CPP Amendment-Urban Separators)doc 06/24,'02 4:31 PM
f
POLICY DIRECTION:
Countywide Planning Policies
FW-1 (Step 9) Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies may be developed by the Growth
Management Planning Council or its successor, or by the Metropolitan King County
Council, as provided in this policy. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies, not
including amendments to the Urban Growth Area pursuant to Step 7 and 8 b and c above,
shall be subject to ratification by at least 30 percent of the city and County governments
representing 70 percent of the population of King County. Adoption and ratification of this
policy shall constitute an amendment to the May 27, 1992 interlocal agreement among
King County, the City of Seattle, and the suburban cities and towns in King County for the
Growth Management Planning Council of King County.
LU-27 Urban separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban
Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands which
protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and
create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide
environmental,visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators
shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 20-year planning cycle)to other urban uses
or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a
local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development
regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence.
King County Comprehensive Plan
P-118 Urban Separators are corridors of land that define community or municipal identities and
boundaries, provide visual breaks in the urban landscape, and link parks and open space
within and outside the Urban Growth Area. These urban corridors should include and link
parks and other lands that contain significant environmentally sensitive features, provide
wildlife habitat or critical resource protection, contain defining physical features, or contain
historic resources. The residential density for land so designated should be maintained at
one unit per acre, provided that lands that are sending sites under the Transfer of Density
Program may transfer density at a rate of at least four units per acre.
P-119 King County should actively pursue designating Urban Separators in the unincorporated
area and work with the cities to establish permanent, Urban Separators within the
incorporated area that link with and enhance King County's Urban Separator corridors.
P-120 Designated Urban Separators should be preserved through park, trail and open space
acquisitions, incentive programs such as the Transfer of Development Credit program,
the Public Benefit Rating System program and regulatory measures.
C:ITEMP'Q002-0I33(CPP Amendment-Urban Separators)doe 06-24;02 3 44 PM
t
KING COUNTY 12DO King County Courthouse
516 Third Avcnue
a � Seattle.WA 991(N
Signature Report
41 June 24, 2002
Ordinance 14392
Proposed No. 2002-0133.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies, adding maps of existing
3 urban separators; ratifying the amended Countywide
4 Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and
5 amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and
6 K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as
7 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040.
8
9
10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
11 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
14 Policies (Phase 1) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 11
16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
017 11446.
1
t
Ordinance 14392
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on December 11, 2001, and
19 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
20 Policies [5/25/941, adding maps of existing urban separators.
21 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
22 each hereby amended to read as follows:
23 Phase II. A. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide
24 Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
25 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning
26 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
27 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
28 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
029 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
30 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
31 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
32 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
33 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
34 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13 85 8.
35 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 —Countywide Planning
36 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
37 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
38 each hereby amended to read as follows:
•
2
r
Ordinance14392
39 Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning
40 Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on
41 behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
42 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
43 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
44 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
45 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
46 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
47 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
48 unincorporated King County.
49 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
50 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
51 population of unincorporated King County.
52 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
53 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
54 population of unincorporated King County.
55 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
56 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
57 population of unincorporated King County.
58 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
59 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
60 the population of unincorporated King County.
3
T
Ordinance14392
61 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
062 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
63 the population of unincorporated King County.
64 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies as
65 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
66 of unincomorated King County.
67
Ordinance 14392 was introduced on 3/18/2002 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 6/17/2002, by the following vote:
Yes: 13 -Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine,Mr. Pullen, Mr. Gossett,
Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
APPROVED this day of
•
4
t
a Ordinance14392
Attachments 1. GMPC Substitute Motion 01-1
5
i
2p02 1
November 15,2001
Spnn,nred Ry- Executive Committee
/staff draft v2
1 SUBSTITUTE MOTION NO. 01-1
2 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by adding maps of
3 existing Urban Separators to the Countywide Planning Policies.
4
5 WHEREAS,The Growth Management Act states that each Urban Growth Area shall permit urban
6 densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas;
7
8 WHEREAS, Policy LU-27 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County states that Urban
9 Separators shall not be redesignated in the future, and that maintenance of Urban Separators is a
10 regional as well as local concern;
11
12 WHEREAS, Urban Separators are an adopted regional strategy serving multiple functions
13 and providing environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits to the citizens and
14 communitics of King County;
15
16 WHEREAS, Consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, the King County Comprehensive
17 Plan recognizes that Urban Separators create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to
18 continuous development,and reinforce the unique identities of communities;
19
20 WHEREAS, King County has designated Urban Separators on the Land Use 2000 map in the King
21 County Comprehensive Plan, and King County has provided advance copies of Urban Separator
22 maps to cities that have designated Urban Separators located within their Potential Annexation
23 Areas;
24
25 WHEREAS, affected jurisdictions agree with most of the county Urban Separator designations,
26 but disagree with some of the designations That require finiher analysis and discussion;
27
28 WHEREAS, King County residents have supported efforts to designate and preserve Urban
29 Separators,including preservation of Urban Separators that have been annexed by cities;
30
31 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
32 MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
33
34 1. The attached maps of Urban Separators will be included within the Countywide
35 Planning Policies document. These maps show the locations of adopted Urban
36 Separators and graphically illustrate regional land use Strategy and will serve as an
37 implementation tool for the Countywide Planning Policies.
i/GMPMODIGMN 'Niotiunol.I da
t I
1
2 2. The attached maps of Urban Separators also identify certain potential Urban Separator
3 areas within Auburn and Renton's Potential Annexation Areas that do not reflect a
4 consensus of affected jurisdictions, and are in need of further analysis and possible
5 refinement. The Intedurisdictional Staff Team shall convene a subcommittee
6 comprised of representatives of all affected jurisdictions, and shall report back to the
7 GMPC no later than September 30, 2002 with a recommendation to resolve these
8 potential Urban Separator areas. The subcommittee shall consider refinements to
9 Urban Separator designations in the Potential Annexation Areas for Auburn and
10 Renton. Staff will attempt to generate a consensus recommendation for the areas
1 1 within Auburn and Renton's PAA. If no consensus is reached, a majority and minority
12 or alternative recommendation will be made to GMPC by September 30, 2002.
13
14 3. On an ongoing basis, the Intedurisdictional Staff Team shall also review proposed
15 additional Urban Separator designations identified by cities or the County, and present
16 these proposed Urban Separators for GMPC consideration. As part of this review
17 process, the Intedurisdictional Staff Team may also consider refinements to adopted
18 Urban Separator policy to facilitate designations, provided that the new policies are
19 substantively consistent with CPP LU-27 and County Comprehensive Plan policies P-
20 118through P-120.
21
22 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
23 in open session.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
UGMPCJ2001 GMMNtoimn0I-1 AW
• �.-� Panther LBkif -
A
)nanis�
I
North S Lreek
1, 1. •_1 -. . _...
• i it '
,
g e
""r f Ott L �b'+w SnuthSoos Crank
, 1
I
th r n River
bill",
" 300 acre area for further
I diacueNon M4N Ue ORY of Auburn - r�
HAY
t'
i
E .
t
t
,
4 i
4 s,
a ,.w
•
j .� Green River .. .__.-
r. zx
40 t 3
O DDES Urban Separators: South Overview
Ln.asornerw�muse n rw awa w cell mm"aae
r eaaaa ranrren• wdam arareaaaaaralerx H UGA Boundary O Urban flaa /a damul{-120ue Urban PUn
pa M Oevelopmam
p Grnga. Mrb. Oae maW'Tsar Y
npaa.mwwe r norm aorra r Tw.a,r OM Urban lieparatora Urban Reaidanfu Fenry l>12tlu/ac at
u~..mm.mmN.re.r,omews,or ondolooa i un
m y gononii. eo aM Gaav exe"°i r rr ® Urban SelHratera in Annexed aroaa Urban Reaidenual tdvlac 0 Minirl0
car a^Y P^aN. aMtlM. Mast, WIanW. or
anrWn MWraaF!a na eTIW b.M[
ert olerd rr•Taeaere T.wnram� Anna for Further Diacuaaion O Ruul ReadMliM tduJ2.5-10ac O King Courtly-0wnad Pahe
d e•e Yaannaesn nnwn.a an a•o Tr- rn aala al
sr TwrMnneanaear rnra Mal�tr"rrR _� Ir¢orpomed Arabia Neighborhood Bueinaaa Derdar Other PadeMtitlarneaa
17-1 M aa,tr,onnneran d IOM launr.
Rural Naiphborhood CommunrtV Wnma
Scale 0neinch.D/a Mile Map Produced:N..,rMr 26.2D01
Mvc rma'�I
`�..• ,. - S ',•:...South Spar
If
ek
77
a . � F
lFY May Valley ,.. 1.
� � __f -..—_ l I Ir' a�'.1' 4�o-•
.x
.._.- -
_ 1 ! Me
_ r
411,
If
Benson HX,
■■ R lti..f.e. � L
Tabor Road _ • - \ •�,t 3
PanlhnLake "-r�tlMr`
r
Areo fplfurtNer diteuuion y tu.Ry,e• A4\ ', .
mi the City of Rerdon ......` mom....... _. _ �.•,--{
North S reek - ..
r
d'
_- ,ark
South Soar Creek
1 1 •� ,r
DI DES Urban Separators: North Overview
p rrrr ea.ea.m.eer am. mrmmrgr N UGA Boun ary d O Urban Remtlontml 4-02dun ev e ® Urban Plan Delopnem
I.dr Ch awee wmaa eanq. Rna Wm mal. m
roraer 1 rmrnreW.amrranorrae.rm Urban SeWreron ® Urban Reakemul>12du/ac Fore,try
dre.mah.mmremnu. Iaamen.r rMrm a qa
r a.Nx-ene,rrwr_aa,Wee. rorra.P,
re, ap w^arar, aoadr, mYar, e..war, r ® Urban Sepanlon in Annex"areas � Urban Residential Idulae � Mining
°serr
Amex rs rarrr r'� F Rl R11dW2.5-10 0 King Count -0wned Part,
bar orrm rruW r em uaw mW� Areas for Further 0eecu.m. � uaia.W.nda ac nG Y
r qe Mermiwr mr�gM r WarrW. aM Yre r _
qe arq rHemerbn rem mmardrmW eaoet _...: Incorporated Anaa NeiehbrhoW Busing„center Other PaAc/V/ildnness
w..tmrYrmm.emr mp wne r
Rural Naghbrhood Lommumry bwinwa
Sea1a:one inch--1-Mile Mao Prad...d:November 25,2001