HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/18/2005 Planning & Economic Development
Committee Agenda
KENT Councilmembers: Ron Harmon.Bruce White.Tim Clark,Chair
April 18, 2005
4:00 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Approval of the Minutes of 4/4/05 YES 5 min 1
2. Countywide Planning Policies,Amendments YES Charlene Anderson 10 min 3
3. Cascade Land Conservancy Presentation by NO Guest 20 min 71
Chip Nevins,King County Conservation Director
and Jim Greenfield,Board Member
4. Zoning Code Amendment#ZCA-2005-1 NO Charlene Anderson 10 min 83
Green River Corridor Special Interest District,
Height Limitations
5. Zoning& Subdivision,and Shoreline Master NO Charlene Anderson 5 min 89
Program Amendments#ZCA-2005-2
Correcting code inconsistencies for appeals
and substantial development dollar amount
Unless otherwise noted,the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 3rd Monday of each month
at 4:00 p.m.in Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent,98032-5895.
For information on the above items,the City of Kent's Website can be accessed at
htip://www.ci.kent.wa.tis/CityCouncil/committees/VlanningM or contact Pamela Mottram or the respective project
planner in Planning Services at(253)856-5454.
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 at1-800-833-6388.
This page intentionally jleft blank.
i
1
PLANNING& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
APRIL 4,2005
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tim Clark,Ron Harmon,Bruce White
The special meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4:00 P.M.
Approval of March 21,2005 Minutes
Member White MOVED and Member Harmon SECONDED to approve the minutes with a friendly
amendment changing the word "mitigation"to `litigation". Motion CARRIED as corrected 3-0.
Critical Areas Ordinance#ZCA-2004-4
Principal Planner Kim Marousek reiterated the presentation given at the March 21, 2005 Planning and
Economic Development Committee public hearing with a focus on wetland regulations. Ms. Marousek
summarized four options.
Ms. Marousek stated that staff formerly recommended Option 1. She stated that Option 2 retains existing
wetland buffer regulations. Ms. Marousek stated that Option 3 is a package of elements developed
through the wetland focus group process. She stated that Option 3 offers incentives for voluntary wetland
voluntary buffer increases specifically related to PUD developments. Furthermore, Option 3 includes a
non-regulatory wildlife habitat protection and restoration plan and addresses mitigation and wetland
compensation ratios.
Ms. Marousek stated that Option 4 contains the elements described in Option 3, however, retains larger
buffers.
Ms. Marousek addressed questions raised by the Committee with respect to buffer density bonuses and
development incentives, as well as potential funding options and technical assistance that may be
available to help draft the Wildlife Habitat and Restoration Plan.
Ms. Marousek addressed the Committee's concerns with respect to how they should proceed with a
recommendation to Council. She stated that staff would like to see Council potentially pass a resolution
that along with this ordinance would direct staff to further scope out the Wildlife Habitat Plan,then return
to the Committee with detail on the Plan's elements and options to fund the development of the plan.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a motion to accept correspondence for the
record,received from Greg Wingard on March 25,2005 addressed to Council. Motion PASSED 3-0.
Chair Clark asked Mike Mactutis, City of Kent Environmental Engineer Supervisor to respond to
concerns raised by Becky Stanley at the March 28, 2005 Planning and Economic Development
Committee Hearing with respect to the Department of Fish and Wildlife not being represented in the
Wetland Focus Group and the City's Best Available Science review related to stream buffers. Mr.
Mactutis addressed these concerns as well as elaborated upon the city's investment in the development
and protection of our streams ecosystems.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion to approve the proposed Critical
Area Ordinance, ZCA-2002-4 as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board and as further
amended by Option 3 related to Wetland Regulations and forwards the ordinance to the City Council for
adoption. Motion Carried 3-0.
Adiournment
Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 4:45 pm
Painela Mottram,
Admin Secretary,Planning Services
S:IPermidPlanlPianning Committee 0005 Winntes 1040405min.doe
2
This page intentionally left blank.
3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
K E N T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
w._s"'—"G'O" Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
April 12, 2005
To: Chair Tim Clark and Planning&Economic Development Committee Members
From: Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
Through: Mayor Jim White
Subject: Countywide Planning Policies - Amendment
King County Council Ordinances No. 15121-15123
MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend ratification of amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies approved under GMPC Motion Nos. 04-1 through 04-5 with the
understanding that the King County Council and the GMPC will correct the mapping error on
the Potential Annexation Area map to exclude the area within the City of Kent's Potential
Annexation Area and to adjust Kent's Potential Annexation Area to align with S. 204`h Street,
and to forward to the full City Council for final action.
SUMMARY: 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
(CPPs) 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. On February 14, 2005, the King County Council approved and ratified
amendments that had been approved by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) to
amend the urban growth boundary, potential annexation areas and urban separator maps, to
revise targets for new household and job growth, and to designate Downtown Burien as an Urban
Center. Now the amendments are presented to jurisdictions in King County for ratification.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND: The City of Kent ratified the original CPPs on September 15, 1992, with
Resolution No. 1326 and ratified Phase 11 amendments to the CPPs on November 16, 1994. Over
the years, the City has ratified other proposed amendments. Through the Growth Management
Planning Council (GMPC),jurisdictions within King County work together to plan for economic
and population growth in King County, including consideration of CPPs.
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,
which in this case is May 16, 2005.
4
The following GMPC motions to amend the CPPs were approved and ratified by the full County
Council on February 14, 2005.
GMPC Motion No. 04-1: ;Amends the Urban Growth Area, modifies the Potential Annexation
Area map and designates a new urban separator. Only one of the amendments affects the City of
Kent. That has been determined by King County, Tukwila and Kent staff to be a mapping error
that erroneously included in Tukwila's PAA an area within Kent's Potential Annexation Area at
the southwest corner of the intersection of Orillia Road and S. 204`h Street. It is expected that
this mapping error will be!corrected by the GMPC at their meeting in June 2005. The map also
will be adjusted to follow S. 204m Street.
GMPC Motion No. 04-2: Amends the Urban Growth Area and modifies the Potential
Annexation Area map. These amendments do not affect the City of Kent.
GMPC Motion No 04-3: Designates Downtown Burien as an Urban Center. Included in the
agenda packet are an e-mail and letter from the City of Burien seeking our support of this
designation.
GMPC Motion No. 04-4: ;Amends household and employment targets within Kent's PAA. On
October 18, 2004 staff brought this proposed amendment to the Planning & Economic
Development Committee for information only. As we explained at that meeting, the proposed
amendments to household and employment targets are classified as minor technical adjustments.
The amendments propose a decrease in Kent's PAA household target from 619 to 546 due to an
error in not allocating targets to another portion of unincorporated King County, and an increase
in Kent's PAA employment target from 44 to 287 because of an error in calculating capacity in
Kent's PAA originally.
GMPC Motion No. 04-5.: Amends the Urban Growth Area and modifies the Potential
Annexation Area map for an area known as Covington Park.
CA\pm:S:\Permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\2005\cpppedc041805.doc
Enc: March 4,2005 letter from King County Council including Ordinancesl5121-15123,GMPC Motion Nos.04-1 through 04-5
cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,A1CP,C.D Director
Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager
Project File 1M.
sc."
5
KING COUNTY 1200 King County Cowthouse
516 .W Avenue
auk.WA 96104
Signature Report S
February 14, 2005
Ordinance 15121
Proposed No. 2005-0045.1 Sponsors Constantine
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;amending the urban growth
3 boundary map,the interim potential annexation areas map
4 and the urban separator map;ratifying the amended
5 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
�6 County; and amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as
7 amended, and K.C.C. 20-10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
S Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040.
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 Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
15 Policies(Phase 1)in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
•
1
6
Ordinance 15121
16 B. The metrolbolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
18 11446.
19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September15,2004,and
20 December 7,2004, and voted to recommend amendments to the King County
21 Countywide Planning Policies amending the urban growth boundary map,the interim
22 potential annexation areas map and the urban separator map,as shown in Attachments A,
23 B and C to this ordinance.
24 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
25 each hereby amended to read as follows:
26 Phase 11.
27 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
28 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
29 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
30 Policies are amended,ias shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12027.
31 C. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
32 Policies are amended, its shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 1242L
33 D. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
34 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
35 E. The Phase la Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
36 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
37 F. The Phase IK Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning
38 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
2
7
Ordinance 15121
39 G. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
40 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390.
.41 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
42 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment l to Ordinance 14391.
43 I. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
44 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
45 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
46 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652.
47 K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
48 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653.
49 L. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
�50 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654.
51 M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
52 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14655_
53 N. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
54 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656.
55 O. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
56 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844.
57 P. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
58 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments A. B and C to this ordinance.
59 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
60 each hereby amended to read as follows:
61 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
3
8'
Ordinance 15121
i
62 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
63 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
64 B. The amendments to the Countywide.Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
65 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
66 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
67 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
68 D. The Phaseill amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
69 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
70 unincorporated King County.
71 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
72 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
73 population of unincorporated King County.
74 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
75 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
76 population of unincorporated King County.
77 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
78 shown by Attachments I and 2 to Ordinance 13260,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
79 population of unincorporated King County.
80 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
81 shown by Attachmenti 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
82 the population of unincorporated King County.
4
9
Ordinance 15121
83 1. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
84 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
85 the population of unincorporated King County.
86 J. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
87 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
88 population of unincorporated King County.
89 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
90 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
91 population of unincorporated King County.
92 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies,as.
93 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
94 population of unincorporated King County.
95 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies,as
96 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14652,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
97 population of unincorporated King County.
98 N. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
99 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653,are hereby ratified on behalf of
100 the population of unincorporated King County.
101 O. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
102 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
103 population of unincorporated King County.
5
10
Ordinance 15121
104 P. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
105 shown by Attachment;1 to Ordinance 14655,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
106 population of unincorporated King County.
107 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
108 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
109 population of unincorporated King County.
110 R. The amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning Policies,as
111 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
112 population of unincorporated King County.
113 S. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Plannine Policies.as
6
i
11
Ordinance 15121
114 shown by Attachments A.B and C to this ordinance,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
115 population of unincorporated King County.
116
Ordinance 15121 was introduced on 1/31/2005 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 2/14/2005,by the following vote:
Yes: 12 -Mr.Phillips,Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr. Pelz,Mr.
Dunn,Mr.Ferguson,Mr. Hammond,Mr.Gossett,Ms. Hague,Mr. Irons, Ms.
Patterson and Mr.Constantine
No:0
Excused: I -Ms.Edmonds
4KING CO Y CO
G Y,W GON _
r : 3
Larry Phillips,Chair -1 -U�
ATTEST:
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this / day of 2005.
7
Ron Sims,C my Executive
`%-7 r
o _ �
Attachments A.Motion No.04-I,B.Motion No_04-2,C.Motion No.04-5
Fz Cn
13
i 1.22� 005s0 .45
09/15/04 �. Attachment A
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
1 MOTION NO. 04-1
2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King
3 County. This Motion also modifies the Potential Annexation
4 Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies and
5 designates a new Urban Separator.
6
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
ll
12 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policy FW-I Step 8 recognizes that King County may
13 initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area;and
14
is WHEREAS,the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council
16 requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendments to
17 the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council
18 and ratification by the cities;and
19
20 WHEREAS,the Growth Management Planning Council has directed the intedurisdictional
21 staff team to review additional.Urban Separators and present them for GMPC
22 consideration,and
23
24 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative
25 designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by
26 cities. The attached amendments are supported by the affected city.
27
28 BE 1T RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF
29 KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
30
31 1. Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by.the Urban Growth Areas Map in the
32 Countywide Planning Policies, the Potential Annexation Area map,and the Urban
33 Separator map as depicted on the following attached maps:
34
35
36
- 1 -
14
15121
1 Allachrrtent 1,a map showing the removal of the red"overlap"designation for the
2 unincorporated Urban area between SeaTac and.Tukwila and including this area in
3 TukwiW's PAA;
4
5 Attachment 2,a map showing the redesignation of Perrigo Park from Rural to
6 Urban and including this property within Redmond's PAA;
7
8 Attachmlent 3,a map showing the redesignation of the Enumclaw Golf Course from
9 Rural loUrban and including this property within Enumclaw's PAA; .
10
11 Attachmlent 4,a map showing the redesignation of a.6 of an acre parcel on Cougar
12 Mountaip from Rural to Urban and including this property within Bellevue's PAA;
13
14 Attachment 5,a map,showing the redesignation of 120 acres of the Bear Creek
15 Urban Planned Development from Urban to Rural;
16
17 Attachmeent 6,a map showing the redesignation of approximately 128 acres in the
18 Willows;Road area from Rural to Urban and including this area within Kirkland's
19 PAA. Approximately 70 acres of this area is designated as an Urban Separator.
20
21 2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional
22 unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential
23 Annexation Arta of the adjoining city.
24
25 3. Amend the Urban Separator map by adding the new Urban Separator as shown on
26 attachment 6.
27
28 4. These amendments are recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the
29 Cities of King County for adoption and ratification.
30
31
32
33 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County in open session
34 on September 11,2004 and siDs,
r of the GMPC.
35
36
37
38 r,Gr h Management Planning Council
39
40
2 -
i
15_
1512
Anachrmnl 1
N
Proposed Amendment
Interim PAA Map Amendment
M rr..r r.r wrrw w.rri,M
✓wM Cw.�Pr�a+y I wow�N�r MAr
r.rYl rrr r M.l r•�w�rA+Mw+w.
rrr r�p.r r.........,..,...cr.. Proposed Ales
rtiwwrwe+wa r.w rra rerr
InCorpor
r r�rrMwrw..�w rr -
r�..r
r�ww�+.w+nrW�.brr,ww,rr ated AreaS
1.000 w 0 1,000 000
fen
1 �
it 1
1 +—j
Ei
JI-
gi
Sea7ac 1 1 .�� \\, C / T t'.��nlT• _��..
, •y
'tom ��R�r � dG Tcr' •� ! •-�—
'
IT
= r -jj� 4--, tt, 1�
190
l Ij j jr
= li
J!_.;o ;ice y ji
Add Outlined Area —�—,
.—j;•T_ 1{, —i: '_— ;'._:: r% I to Tukwia's PAA. ! —
:..�,L���� per,=-f I ' --�- `- -_, �---�-----�--.:�� - ty�•
1-�
`. �L�JL_
16
Attachment 2
N
Proposed Amendment
City of Redmond Perrigo Community Park Site -UGA Amendment
rgar�.rr.rM1yr.r...;.yysr r.y.
rrr..rr. .iY try r.r.r.r�rri..
•�.•........wa ....w...- r Urban Growth BmIda
Yrrr r.p.rYr.rrw.r wf� �P
-�t?' ry Other Parks/Wddemess
r.rr...r.rrM..nrq..rrw.+.�r .��.♦ Proposed Urban
Growth Boundary rr Rurat Reside ,
---r
Incorporated areas
I
Q I
i
f rr
i
rr
oft y—�ii ( ?\
! �f O P
I
RE MO D I!
rr I I �
E Cre k
I + i
r
17-
1 5 1 ABacIvnerv3
N
Proposed Amendment
Enumctaw Golf Course - UGA Amendment
A i.rwf-Los.-N.11..L..�Y.MS
y!'ti Ufb3li Growth Boundary
• ... ........-.-+—.+-- fX Rural City UGA
Lr+..t.y.........,..-...wC.-.
w..�.a.rr.........,r L..r wrr.r ♦� � Proposed Urban
-----~^'���^~���•~ Growth Boundary fr RuralResidenlai
I +.w Proposed Forest ProOuclion _
WO zw o. soo i o00 District Boundary f Forest
incorporated Areas
ENUMCLAW
i i 1 i H
I
- ;-i-r r, , - -.
��.
rr
rx
rX f
00
><
Af
— ' lop�
ag 1
i —
18
1 "'rr�+ 1 1 Aftad►merX 4
" Proposed Amendment
Cougar Mountain - UGA Amendment
rra•.rrY..rrrrrrrr�.yrrr�.
-
rrrrr..wr
wrryrrw.wrrrr..r. rr v+.r
fr�MY�rYYr,Y'K r.Wlrra./Yr�r
Urban CareWlh BOUndary rr Rural Residential
rsrrrr rr.y.r.r�.r ♦. ♦ P"VosedUrban ul Urban Residential.law.1 dulac
i 3W 150 a 900 no
♦ ♦ Growth Boundary Study Area
sr.ars.rr+�rr"rr..�ar++w-r��rtir..Wr O
ul
6
r
A
Ai
m
Il L
f
l
1
rr
e
I f
19—
15
Attachment 5
N
Proposed Amendment
I Redmond Ridge - UGA Amendment
�•rra wee r rY-r r wrra..rrwa
r+ra�.wri rr�rrrw..P1rr�r
Urban Growth Boundary rf Rural Residential
ar�,rr www r ra r. r1 rr w M A w -
rrr.rr.ra
`"�"" •• • Proposed Urban Upd Urban Planned Deyelopment
rn s5 o M I.M • ' Growth Boundary
111111111IM mom"c.o Q Change Area
L i
i
It
•`� '----- .—`_--------� � err `'':��'
_`.
-----
c`'�
20
115121
Attachmeid 6
" Proposed Amendment
Willows Road Subarea Plan - UGA Amendment
t1.ir.rr Yrr r w rI r,rr'rMr M
F6r�YH�tiit♦rYrYiw+�r«nM '
...rw�.rr•.r�r.r:+.rn..•rr, Urban Growth Bax(dary gl) GreenbelWrban Separator
r..r rr r..�..r•..r:•.a.arrr.
r.r�•rllr r r
�•" "••"'• '+ r""�• •♦ ♦ Proposed Urban UM Urban residential,medium.4-12 dutac
.i.w. Growth Boundary
.00. no Y p roe ' ff Rural residenial
ON"
s.w - Incorporated Areas QCharW Area
t. --fir♦
i
1—4 i
J
r �
It
� ! r
fit
' rn
-iriy�il� T i' l r � ' 'L } 9
Cam` r�Lt T^ _�gi •� =-
r — _ •fir,_ i ,.. _
r
.� L _
r( y
...._. --( --___. NE 132iq St
71
-1.1U
rOU
to
i
21-
15121
• 2005 = 045
I 09/15/04 Attachment B
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
I MOTION NO. 04-2
2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King
3 County. This Motion also modifies the Potential Annexation
4 Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies.
5
6
7 WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act,RCW 36.70A.I 10 requires
8 counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be
9 encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban.in nature;and
10
1 I WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policy FW-I Step 8 recognizes that King County may
12 initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area;and
13
14 WHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council
15 requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendments to
16 the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council
17 and ratification by the cities;and
18
19 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative
20 designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by
21 cities. The attached amendments are supported by the affected city.
22 .
23 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF
24 KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
25
26 1. Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map in the
27 Countywide Planning Policies and the Potential Annexation Area map as depicted on
28 the following attached maps:
29
30 Attachment 1,a map showing the redesignation of an area adjoining the Issaquah
31 Spar Road from Rural to Urban and including this property within Issaquah's's
32 PAA. There is also a very small (approximately.2 acre)redesignation from Urban
33 to Rural to correct a likely mapping error.
34
35 Attachment 2,a map showing the redesignation of approximately 6 acres from
36 Rural to Urban and including this property within the City of Renton's PAA;
- 1 -
22-
15. 121
2
3 2. Amend the lInterim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional
4 unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential
5 Annexation Area of the adjoining city.
6
7 3. These amendments are recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the
8 Cities of King County for adoption and ratification.
9
10
11
12
13 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County in open session
14 on September 1 5,2004 and signed b the chair of the GMPC
15
16
17
18 Ron air,Growth Management Planning Council
19
20
2
23—
1- C V 1 9ttent 1
N
Proposed Amendment
Issaquah Spar Road UGA Amendment
...a...�..........r..r..r..e... p .. •
♦ ♦ ProposedUrban
Urban Urn Growth Boundary
♦
...,....�.....ra...--...--r+...
Growth Boundary North Fork Issaquah('.leek • •
... ....+�..... .....:... ,�/ (approximate location) • •& MSpar(approximate bcation)
kmgxxated Areas rr Rural Residential
0 75 M 700 450 wo
rear 0 Change Area UI Urban low,1 dulac
�,r•L .JO�Y.ytrr� .
,
SE 56tteS.t
rr
0�
G�
S
Js
N
hF �
24
Altachrwnt
N
Proposed Land Use Amendment'
Rentdn Christian Center- UGA Amendment
rr rYrMY Yr�r w w...r•w w.w}w w
r1.M.yrrr�wYyrrrw.rr.Avrrww -
.a•r ++�err r w w
rr.rr�w.rwti r r•sw r.w.Yra
..�.w..._.......w. ..�w. 4 v Urban Growth Boundary rr Rural Residentu
M.r w rr Y r•Yr+l r.rL F.q W��.
wlwr/ vww Ylyy Y�/W R r
wsrr.YllY r�rY Yrti�wr..rh
r.r�err w r�► w)r r r.�. • ` proposed Urban -
�.:�"""�"""~""—Y"� ♦ •♦ goyyguBoundary Um Urban ResidefWal.nedium.4-12du/ac
I .ao we s .ro 0o $IUdy WM COUMy Owned
Area OS
Open Spar.•dReaeation
•-\ ;-Ji '�S-��::f�.'rI-..'.'.-tom +vi %� F,_
t O$ -
� a I�
Ej
:. �� 1 ..},�,f S `;.•,, Um + 'rv^:st• •. Y/•.v�f7 l ��1�;'.
Um
UM
q
rr
T i -
F � —
yt y r
�r i!
' it it'•i: : 1`'y��ii :'.
25-
15 2
2005 045
i
12/07/04 Attachment C
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
I MOTION NO. 04-5
2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King
3 County. This Motion also modifies the Potential Annexation
4 Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies.
5
6
7 WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act,RCW 36.70A.110 requires
8 counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be
9 encouraged and outside of which growth can.occur only if it is not urban in nature;and
10
I I WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policy FW-I Step 8 recognizes that King County may
12 initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area;and
13
14 WHEREAS,the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council
15 requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendment to
16 the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council
17 and ratification by the cities;and
18
19 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative
20 designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by
21 cities.
22
23 WHEREAS,the attached amendment is supported by the City of Covington,which has
24 taken steps to insure that the area known as Covington Park will remain in park use in
25 perpetuity.
26
27 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF
28 KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
29
30 1. Amend the Urban Growth Area(UGA)as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map
31 in the Countywide Planning Policies to include the 29-acre area known as Covington
32 Park in the UGA,as shown on the map attached to this Motion.
33
34
35
- 1 -
- 26 '
15121
1 2. Amend the�terim Potential Annexation Area Map by including the 29-acre area
2 known as Covington Park in the Potential Annexation Area of the City of Covington_
3
4 3. This amendFnent is recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the
5 Cities of King County for adoption and ratification.
6
7
S
9
10 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
11 December 7,2CO4 in open session and signed by the chair of the GMPC.
12
13
14
15 Ron rms, air, wth Management Planning Council
16
17
2
27-
N
(Proposed Amendment
Covington Park Site - UGA Amendment
-
�..rW Le C.�tsw=NWhGr.N.W
Urban Growth Boundary rr Rural Residential
YW.An,a•Li'fr4 i Y��ry..�t
`: .`�=.: ... =:."..:: ♦ • Pr Urban
,,,�n„e w„nry.,n r r..n.ran+r ♦• � Op Other ParksAANdemess
....-...-• . + +... +..-+. Growth Boundary
5" 250 o Soo 1.000 Q Study Area L..� Incorporated Areas
Feet
r...-.nor. ..t•.•Jnarr
I rtir.y.rml _ _ slyer
—
i1 r
•r
rf
ul
i 3
r i
i
r r
_ _- '
iy...—. —4-h I I + + !
Lij
it
no
! � 1 y• F i �:
29
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Revised Staff Report
Agenda Item: 5 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ord: 2005-0045 Date: February 8, 2005
Attending: Paul Reitenbach,Senior Policy Analyst, DDES
SUBJECT:
Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies,amending the urban growth area
boundary map, the interim potential annexation areas map, and the urban separator map.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected officials
from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was
created in 1992 by intedocal agreement, in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act(GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Planning
Policies(CPPs).
Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's
comprehensive plan,and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts.
As provided for in the intedocal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the Countywide
Planning Policies,which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities.
Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process: recommendation by the GMPC,
adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become
effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30%of the city and county governments
representing at least 70%of the population of King County_ A city shall be deemed to have ratified
an amendment to the CPPs unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative
action disapproves it.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2005-0045 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by making
adjustments to the Urban Growth Area,Potential Annexation Area, and Urban Separator maps.
As part of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update, the King County Council made several changes to
the urban growth area boundary. Because the GMA requires the County's comprehensive plan to be
consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, these amendments necessitate changes to the
Urban Growth Area map in the countywide planning document. The county's redesignation of lands
from rural to urban also requires changes to the Potential Annexation Area map, since urban areas
are to eventually be annexed by cities. In one instance, a County amendment would require a
change to the Urban Separator map.
Because the Council had already made the policy decision(s) to amend the Urban Growth Area in the
2004 Comprehensive Plan Update,a detailed discussion of the individual map amendments is not
included in this staff report. Instead, brief descriptions of each of the proposed changes are included
below:
01COWArME GM•2ODSWOUL Staff Repods%MS-0O45 CPPs.Map Changes REWSEG.Ooc 291M5 3:03 PM
30
Amendments to the count wide Urban Growth Area Boundary map:
. Redesignation of Redmond's Perrigo Park from rural to urban.
. Redesignation of the Enkrmclaw Golf Course from rural to urban.
. Redesignation of a smalM parcel on Cougar Mountain from rural to urban.
. Redesignation of about 120 acres of the Bear Creek Urban Planned Development from urban to
rural.
e Redesignation of appro4mately 128 acres east of Kirkland (described as Willows Road) from
rural to urban.
e Redesignation of Covington Park from rural to urban.
• Redesignation of about 6 acres including the Renton Christian Center and some land owned by
King County from rural 110 urban.
e Redesignation of about$acres adjacent to the Issaquah Spar Road from rural to urban, as well
as the redesignation of small (less than %acre) parcel in the same area from urban to rural.
Amendments to the countywide Potential Annexation Areas map:
Inclusion of Perrigo Park in Redmond's potential annexation area.
. Inclusion of the Enumclaw Goff Course in Enumclaw's potential annexation area.
Inclusion of the Willows Road area in Kirkland's potential annexation area.
Inclusion of Covington Park within Covington's potential annexation area.
. Inclusion of about 6 acres including the Renton Christian Center and some land owned by King
County within Renton's potential annexation area.
. Inclusion of about 9 acres adjacent to the Issaquah Spar Road within Issaquah's potential
annexation area.
. Resolution of a potential;annexation area that was formerly claimed by both Sea Tac and Tukwila;
this area is now within Ttpkwila's potential annexation area .
Amendments to the countjrwide Urban Separator map:
Creation of a new urban Separator in the Willows Road area.
Proposed Ordinance 2005-01D45 would also ratify these changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County; as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
STAFF ANALYSIS-
Council staff, through its participation on the GMPC's intedurisdictional staff team, has had an
opportunity to review the proposed CPP map amendments, and concurs that they are the same map
amendments made by the Kf ng County Council in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. A more
thorough description of the proposed changes is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report.
Additionally, documentation on the use restrictions of the Enumclaw Golf Course, Covington Park and
Perrigo Park is included as Attachment 4. to this staff report, pursuant to King County Comprehensive
Plan Policy U-104.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Documentation of usO restrictions for Enumclaw Golf Course, Covington Park and Perrigo
Park.
This is the only proposed change that was not driven by amendments to the King.County Comprehensive Plan,
but by the actions of cities working to resolve their PAM.
CIACOMMITTEE GM-200W*M Sta11 ReponsQOD5-0045 CPPS.Map Charges REVISEDAm 2M200S 3.103 PM
31
ATTACHMENT 1
Enumclaw Golf Course
Summary of Use Restrictions
Background: King County conveyed the Enumclaw Golf Course, an asset of the County
park system,to the City of Enumclaw in 2003. At that time portions of the golf course
were outside the urban growth boundary. Section 3 of the interlocal agreement
transferring the Golf Course states:
The King County Executive's proposed 2004 Comprehensive Land
Use Plan Amendments will include a proposal to modify the City's
urban growth boundary so that it will encompass the golf course
property in a manner that will enable the City at its discretion to
annex the Property into its municipal boundary.
The 2004 King County Comprehensive Plan amendments,as adopted by the King
County Council,include policy language to facilitate this referenced modification in the
urban growth boundary. Specifically,policy U-104(c)regarding rural park properties
adjacent to the urban growth line facilitates an urban designation of such park properties
where"the property is or was formerly a King County park and is being or has been
• transferred to a city."
Park Use Restrictions on the Enumclaw Golf Course: Section 2.1 of the interlocal
agreement transferring the golf course to the City of Enumclaw places several restrictive
covenants on the property which run with the land, including but not limited to the
following:
"The City covenants that the Property shall continue to be used in
perpetuity for park or recreation purposes unless other equivalent
lands or facilities within the county or the city are received in
exchange therefore and the replacement lands or facilities are used
in perpetuity for park or recreation purposes."
"...the Property shall not be transferred or conveyed except by
agreement providing that such lands shall continue to be used for
the purposes contemplated by[the ordinance authorizing the
Forward Thrust bond program],and that the Property shall not be
converted to a different use than the park and recreation-uses
contemplated...unless other equivalent lands and facilities within
the County or City shall be received in exchange therefore."
32
Perrigo Park
Summary of Use Restrictions
Background: The City of Redmond had its grand opening of Perrigo Park in 2004 after
spending$1.5 million to acquire the park property and $6 million to develop the property
into a city park. The City initially purchased Perrigo Park property in 1994 with funding
provided by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation(IAC).
The City expanded P@rrigo Park upon the acquisition of additional property purchased in
1997. Together,the$our parcels that make up Perrigo Park today are 25.86 acres in size.
At the time Perrigo Park opened the park was located adjacent to the City and urban growth
boundary.
The adopted 2004 Kipg County Comprehensive Plan amendments include policy language to
facilitate modifrcatiotl of the urban growth boundary to include rural park properties adjacent
to a city,with city commitment to use the property in perpetuity for park purposes.
Specifically,policy U-104(a) facilitates an urban designation of such park properties where
"the property is no more than 30 acres in size and was acquired by the city prior to 1994".
With County Councili adoption of these amendments in September 2004, and subsequent
adoption and ratification of the countywide planning policies,the urban growth boundary
will be moved to include Perrigo Park, which will enable the City to annex the property into
its municipal boundary.
Restrictions on Use of Perrigo Park: The initial park property was purchased with funding
provided by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation(IAC).
The grant agreement between the City of Redmond and IAC places several restrictive
covenants on the property which run with the land, including but not limited to the following
contained in Section 15(f):
Deed of Rightito Use Land for Public Recreation Purposes The Public Agency agrees
to execute an instrument or instruments which contain(1)a legal description of the
property acquired under this Project Agreement,(2)a conveyance to the State of
Washington of the right to use the described real property forever for outdoor
recreation pu °ses, and (3)a restriction on conversion of use of the land in the
manner provided in RCW 43.99.100,whether or not the real property covered by the
deed is mariner recreation land..."
Pursuant to this agreement,the City executed two deeds conveying to the State the right to .
use this property for dutdoor recreation purposes and providing restrictions on the conversion
of use of the land; thedeeds also included a legal description of the properties.
The City expanded Pelrrigo Park in 1997 with the acquisition of additional property
purchased with city park bond funding. The Redmond City Council adopted Resolution No.
802 and Ordinance N0. 1585 authorizing bonds for the purpose of"providing money to pay
the capital costs of ac§uiring land for parks, recreation facilities and open spaces, and
renovating existing pArk and recreation facilities"; a proposition authorizing issuance of
bonds for parks, recreation and open space acquisition and renovation was approved by
Redmond voters at th$general election on November 7, 1989. Because the parcels acquired
in 1997 were purchased with park bond funds,they are restricted to park purposes.
33
• Proposed Conservation Easement between the City of
P h/
Covington and the Cascade Land Conservancy
Document dated November 1, 2004
Prepared hy: City of Covington
The City of Covington and the Cascade Land Conservancy have
reached a tentative agreement to execute a Conservation Easement
that will encumber a City-owned 29.8 acre parcel, of property,
purchased by the city in 2003 for park uses. Through the Easement,
the City, as Grantor, would protect the subject property from
residential or commercial development in perpetuity, reserving to the
City the ability to build, own and operate a public park on the site.
The acreage itself would be divided into two sections referred
Ao within the Easement as Section A and Section B (See attached
Map). Section A, which contains some wetland areas and the Little
Soos Creek, will be primarily unimproved open space, and will offer
low impact recreational activities such as hiking and use as a nature
conservancy. This Section will be managed so as to conserve fish and
wildlife habitat, buffer aquifer recharge areas and protect open
space. Some improvements are contemplated such as removal of dirt
bike jumps and the maintenance of a non-commercial City-run tree
nursery for replacing street trees and other plants on public works
projects. Rights are also reserved on Section A to facilitate future
improved trail access to the Soos Creek Park and Regional Trail.
Section B would be used as an improved community park
containing two soccer/multi-use fields, a softball diamond and stands,
tennis courts, playgrounds, picnic shelters, basketball court and a
fieldhouse. There will also be public restroom facilities and parking.
This section of the park is planned for active recreation but will be
blended with the adjacent open space to provide a harmonious buffer
between the urban residential development on the east side of 1801h
Ave SE and the rural residential areas to the west and north.
34 '
Any development rights forfeited by the City would be retained
by the Cascade) Land Conservancy and could be later sold to
developers as part of a Transfer of Development Rights program. The
basement requires; howevef,, that any monies-generated from-the
sale of these development rights be utilized to create new
conservancy zones within the City of Covington's defined Area of
Interest.
Both the Oty and the Cascade Land Conservancy are excited
about this unique approach to conserving the environment and
buffering the ufban/rural boundaries with low impact improvements
that provide needed recreational opportunities to both City and rural
residents. In combination with the new Covington Aquatics Center at
Tahoma, the park and adjacent pool facility will provide a campus-
like recreation zone that will also allow the City to partner with the
Tahoma School District and Tahoma High School on a variety of
recreation and We mmunity projects.- The School District and City are
excited about jpintly utilizing their resources as this will result in
efficient use of!tax dollars, especially in times where the Citizens
have asked their public entities to maintain conservative budgets.
Excerpts of the Easement language are provided in the
attached Exhibit A.
35
The legislative goals of the Growth Management Act include directives to "retain
• open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat,
increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation
facilities" 'RCW 36.70A.020(9). Within the City of Covington (City), additional
recreational opportunities are needed to meet the demand of an increasing population.
I2estri,ting the rases.of Section A to passive recreation,and Section B to passive and
active recreation would advance one of the Growth Management Act's planning goals of
developing parks and recreation facilities.
Grantor intends that the Conservation Values of the Protected Property be
preserved and maintained by permitting the continuation of only those land uses on the
Protected Property that do not significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation
Valuds. Such uses existing at the time of this grant include, without limitation,
activelpassive recreational; natural, scenic, open space and educational uses consistent
with this Easement.
Grantee is a publicly supported, tax-exempt nonprofit organization, ,qualified
under Sections 501(c)(3) and 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
and also qualified as a nonprofit nature conservancy corporation under RCW 64.04.130
and 8434.250, whose primary purpose is to promote the preservation of open space and
• critically important ecological systems in King County and surrounding counties in
Washington State.
The purpose of this Easement is to implement the mutual intentions of Grantor
and Grantee as expressed in the above Recitals,which are incorporated herein by this
reference,and in the provisions that follow,to assure that Section A will be retained
forever predominantly in its natural,scenic,passive recreational and/or open space
condition and,in addition, that Section B will be retained forever predominantly as an
active recreational site,and to prevent any use of,or activity on the Protected Property
that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Protected
Property(the"Purpose"). Grantor intends that this Easement will confine the use of,or
activity on the Protected Property to such uses and activities that are consistent with this
Purpose. Y
Any use of,or activity on the Protected Property inconsistent with the Purpose of
this Easement is prohibited, and Grantor acknowledges and agrees that it will not
conduct,engage in or permit any such use or activity. Without limiting the generality of
this subsection,the following uses of, or activities on the Protected Property, though not
an exhaustive list,are inconsistent with the Purpose of this Easement and shall be
prohibited;except as expressly provided for and authorized in Section V above.
e. 12-13 (A)
37
KING COUNTY 1200KiagCmotycourdio e
•- _ 516 T- W avenue
' Seauule, A9g104
Signature Report
February 14, 2005
Ordinance 15122
Proposed No. 2005-0046.2 Sponsors Constantine
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;revising targets for new
3 household and job growth for the period 2002-2022;
4 ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
5 unincorporated King County,and amending Ordinance
• 6 10450,Section 3,as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
7 Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.
8 20.10.040.
9
10
1 l 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 Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 -Countywide Planning
15 Policies(Phase 1)in July 1992,under Ordinance 10450.
•
1
38
Ordinance IS122
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
18 11446.
19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September45, 2004,and
20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies;
21 revising targets for new household and job growth for the period 2002-2022 by amending
22 Table W-1.
23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
24 each hereby amended to read as follows:
25 Phase II.
26 A. The Phasd H Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
27 Policies attached-to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
28 B. The Phase It Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
30 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended;as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12421.
32 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended;as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
34 E. The Phaseili Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended{as shown by Attachments 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
36 F. The Phase;II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
2
39
Ordinance 15122
• 38 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
40 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. -
42 I. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
44 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652.
46 K. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
47 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 14653.
48 L. The Phase U Amendments to the King County.2012-Countywide Planning
49 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14654.
50 M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning
51 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655.
52 N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
53 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments I and 2 to Ordinance 14656.
54 O. The Phase iI amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
55 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844.
56 P. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
57 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment A to this ordinance.
58 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
59 each hereby amended to read as follows:
60 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
3
40•
Ordinance 15122
61 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
62 specified are hereby datified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
63 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
64 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
65 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
66 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
67 D. The Phasd II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
68 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
69 unincorporated King County.
70 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
71 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
72 population of unincorporated King County.
73 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
74 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
75 population of unincorporated King County.
76 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies,as
.77 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
78 population of unincorporated King County.
79 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies,as
80 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
81 the population of unincorporated King County.
4
41
Ordinance 15122
82 I. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
83 shown by Attachments.I through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
84 the population of unincorporated King County.
85 J. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
86 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
87 population of unincorporated King County.
88 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
89 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
90 population of unincorporated King County.
91 L The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
92 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
93 population of unincorporated King County.
94 M. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
95 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
96 population of unincorporated King County.
97 N. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
98 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653,are hereby ratified on behalf of
99 the population of unincorporated King County.
100 O. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
101 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14654,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
102 population of unincorporated King County.
5
42
Ordinance 15122 -
103 P. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
104 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
105 population of unincoVorated King County.
106 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
107 shown by Attachmenp 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
108 population of uninc000rated King County.
109 R. The amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning Policies,as
110 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
111 population of unincorporated King County.
112 S. The ameraoments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
6
43
Ordinance 15122
113 shown by Attachment A to this ordinance,are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
114 of unincorporated King County.
115
Ordinance 15122 was introduced on 1/31/2005 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 2114/2005,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Mr. Phillips,Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.Pelz, Mr.
Dunn,Mr.Ferguson,Mr. Hammond,Mr.Gossett,Ms. Hague,Mr. Irons, Ms.
Patterson and Mr.Constantine
No:0
Excused: I -Ms.Edmonds
KING COUNTY COUNCI
G CO, Y,WAS ON
Larry Phillips,Chair G++
ATTEST:
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this day 2005.
Ron i County Executive
o
f77
Attachments A.Motion No.044 — r!) r f71
X
0 3 C
r
•
7
45
15122
September 15,2004 Attachment A
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/cf
1 MOTION NO. 044
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies,revising targets for new household and job growth for the
5 period 2001-2022 by amending Table LU-1:2001-2022 Household
6 and Employment Growth Targets which will be located in Section 111.
7 C of the Countywide Planning Policies. .
g .
9 WHEREAS,the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for
10 each city and for King County; and
11
• 12 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted revised household and
13 job growth targets for the period 2001 —2022 on September 25, 2002;and
14
15 WHEREAS, on May 26,2004,the Growth Management Planning Council met and
16 discussed revisions to the adopted household and employment targets for the period 2001-
17 2022.
13 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
19 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
20
21 The attached"Revised Table LU-1:2001-2022 Household and Employment
22 Growth Targets"is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning
23 Policies to revise the household growth targets and potential annexation area targets
24 to reflect the target extension from January 1,2001 through December 31,2022,
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
• 35
36
37
UGMPCV4GMPC/MoM-4.dm - 1 -
46
1 122
2
3 ADOPTED by Oe Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
4 September 15,2004 in open session and signed by_the chair of GMP.C.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 ems,C air,Growth Management Planning Council
12 Attachment:
13 1. Revised fable LU-1:2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets
14 (file LU-I_Rev2004.x1s).
15
16
17
UGMPCJMIGMPCWot04-e.dK - 2 -
47
A * 4�Gchrrun} �„
Housing
Household Housing HH lob Capacity in PAA Job
Subareas Target Cappacci:to Target Job Target PAA• Target
South King County _
Algona 298 Jos
Auburn 2 635 252 252
Black Diamond 1099 2,525
Burien - 1,552 1,712
Covington 900
Des Moines 1,576 5 1695
Federal Way 6,188 3 754 7,491 134 134
Kent 4,284 1.763 11.500
Milton 501 106 1,054
Maple V Bey 3001 1 804
Nomandy Park tool 1 1 67
Pacific 127
Renton 6.1981 5,622 27,597 458 458
SeaTac 4.478 9,288
Tukwila 3,200 16 000
Unincorp King County 4,935 2,582
Total 42,355 15,952 4,935 891500 2,582 2,582
East King County
Beaux Arts Village 3 -
Bellevue 10,117 184 178 40,000 27 27
Bothell 1,751 603 584 2,000 174 174
Clyde Hill 21
Hunts Point 1
issa uah 3,993 827 802 14,000 1 1
Kenmore 2,325 2,800
Kirkland 5,480 770 747 9.800 221 221
ledina 31 - -
crccr Island 1437 80o
Newcastle 863 1 1 500
Redmond 9,083 402 390 21,760 21 21
Sarnmamish 3,842 1.230
Woodinville 1,869 2,000
Yarrow Point 28
Unincorp King County 6,801 -04,222 0•4,099 4,637 •14,193 '•4,193
Total 47,645 7,009 6,801 98,527 4,637 4,637
Sea-Shore
Lake Forest Park 539 455
Seattle 51,510 92,083
Shoreline 2,651 2,618
Unlocorp King Coan - 1,670 1.670 1670 694 1,544 694
Total 56,369 1,670 1,470 95,850 1,544 694
Rural titles•••'
Camalion 246 75
Duvall 1.037 1,125
Enumclaw 1,927 1,125
North Bend 636 1,125
Skykomish 20
Sno ualmie 1,697 1.800
Total 5,S63 5,250
King County Total 151,932 289;1 7
*PAA:Potential Annexation Area in Unincorporated King County Urban Area;•'Hear Creek UPD;-Noah Ilighline
"••Tlu;Rural Cities targets are for the cunent city limits and rural expansion area for each city. Thus the methodology(or adjusting
targets as annexations occur is w applicsble to the moat cities.
EdiiorS Now Source for 2001 bowing and job capacity figures for PAAs is the 2002 King County Buildable Lands evaluation. Subarea
unincorporated targets we¢alkxaud to PAAs based on proportional capacity. Revised per Motion 04-4.Sept 2004
49
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Revised Staff Report
Agenda Item: 4 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ord: 2005-0046 Date: February 14, 2005
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES
COMMITTEE ACTION:The Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
recommended a"DO Pass Substitute" recommendation for Proposed Ordinance 2005-0046.
The committee passed amendment A-1, a technical amendment to replace the current
attachment to the ordinance (GMPC Motion 04-3)with a new attachment(GMPC Motion 04-4).
The transmittal package included the wrong GMPC Motion.
SUBJECT:
Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; revising targets for new household
and job growth for the period 2002-2022.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement, in response to a provision in the -
Washington State Growth Management Act(GMA)requiring cities and counties to work
together to adopt Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual
jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure Fountywide consistency with respect to land use
planning efforts. As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPC developed and
recommended the Countywide Planning Policies,which were adopted by the King County
' Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same
process: recommendation by the GMPC,.adoption by the King County Council, and ratification
by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or
resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the
population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs
unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves it.
SUMMARY:
'Proposed Ordinance 2005-0046 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by making
technical adjustments to the household and employment growth targets. These adjustments
were recommended by the Growth Management Planning Council through their unanimous
approval of Motion 044 on September 15, 2004.
O:ICOMMITTFF GM-20051FINAL SON Report512005-0006 Re-AW SR 2.14-05,00c 219/2005 2.19 PM
a
50
Revisions to the growth targets were discussed by the GMPC at a meeting on May 26 and
again on September 15,i 2004. The proposed changes are as follows:
1. Allocating a 592-household target to the West Hill unincorporated area, which mistakenly
was not assigned a household target during the last round of updates.
2. Adjusting Tukwila's growth targets to include projected new households and jobs in an
area that was formerly claimed by both SeaTac and Tukwila(total change to Tukwila's
growth targets: +8 households, +993 jobs).
3. A correction increasing the job target for the City of Kent's potential annexation area from
44 jobs to 287 jobs` commensurate with the employment capacity of the area.
a. An adjustment of household and job targets for Pacific and Auburn to reflect a de-
annexation by Pacific and annexation by Auburn, and a shift of household targets from
Pacific to Covington.
Proposed Ordinance 2005-0046 would also ratify these changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King Cmnty, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Council staff,through itsj participation on the GMPC's intequrisdictional staff team, has had an
opportunity to review the proposed target adjustments,and concurs that they are technical in
nature and have been approved by the affected jurisdictions via the GMPC action. A complete
description of the proposed changes is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report.
WCOMMITTEEGM.20057ftkL SUMRe0nns12M05-00e6Revised SR2'1e-05.dm 2R2005249CAI
51
KING COUNTY tmotcmgcoyca
• � 516714rd Avenue
Sank,WA98104
Signature Report
February 14, 2005
Ordinance 15123
Proposed No. 2005-0047.2 Sponsors Constantine
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;designating downtown
3 Burien as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended
4 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
5 County; and amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as
6 amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
7 Section 4,as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040.
8
9
10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
I 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_
IS 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
17 11446.
1 _
52
Ordinance 15123
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 15,2004,and
19 voted to recommend lmendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies
20 designating downto-On Burien as an Urban Center.
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 IL
24 A. The Phase H Amendments to the King Canty 2012 Countywide Planning
25 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
26 B. The Phasq 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.
30 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended]as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
32 E. The PhaseII Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended( as shown by Attachments l through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
34 F. The Phase'';H 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 Phases II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended]as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
38 H. The Phase R Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
39 Policies are atnended�as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
2
53
Ordinance 15123
40 1. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14392.
42 1 The Phase lI Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652. -
44 K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments.l through 3 to Ordinance 14653.
46 L. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning
47 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654.
48 M. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
49 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655.
50 N. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
1 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments.I and 2 to Ordinance 14656.
52 O. The Phase II amendment's to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
53 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844.
54 P. The Phase II Amendments to the Mnp,County 2012 -Countywide Planning
55 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment A to this ordinance.
56 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
57 each hereby amended to read as follows:
58 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
59 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
60 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
61 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
62 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
3
54
Ordinance 15123
63 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
64 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
65 D. The Phas$11 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
66 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
67 unincorporated KingjCounty.
68 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
69 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
70 population of unincorporated King County.
71 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies,as
72 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
73 population of unincorporated King County.
74 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
75 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
76 population of unincorporated King County.
77 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
78 shown by Attachment l through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
79 the population of unincorporated King County.
80 1. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
81 shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
82 the population of unincorporated King County.
83 J. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
84 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
85 population of unincorporated King County.
4
55
Ordinance 15123
86 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
87 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
88 population of unincorporated King County.
89 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
90 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
91 population of unincorporated King County.
92 M. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
93 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
94 population of unincorporated King County.
95 N. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
96 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653,are hereby ratified on behalf of
�97 the population of unincorporated King County.
98 O. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
99 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14654,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
100 population of unincorporated King County.
101 P. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
102 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
103 population of unincorporated King County.
104 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
105 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
106 population of unincorporated King County.
5
56
Ordinance 15123
107 R. The amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning Policies,as
108 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
109 population of unincorporated King County..
110 S. The amenoments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
6
57
Ordinance 15123
III shown by Attachment A to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
112 of unincorporated King County.
113
Ordinance 15123 was introduced on 1/31/2005 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 2/14/2005,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Mr. Phillips,Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms. Lambert,Mr.Pelz,Mr.
Dunn,Mr.Ferguson, Mr. Hammond,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague,Mr.Irons,Ms.
Pattersonand Mr.Constantine
No: 0
Excused: I Ms.Edmonds
KING COUNTY COUNC
K C WAS NG N
Larry Phlips,Chair
ATTEST:
Anne Nor is,Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this day of 2005.
Ron Sims, ounty Executive -X c
1 v,
rn
co rn^
C[7 tV
Attachments A. Motion No.04-3 nx 3:,. C
i �o C7
c-3 rs
7
59-
15123
September 15,2004 Attachment A
Sponsored By. Executive Committee.
l MOTION NO. 04-3
2 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by
3 designating Downtown Burien as an Urban Center. Downtown
4 Burien is added to the list of Urban Centers following
5 Countywide Planning Policy LU-39.
6
7
8 WHEREAS,A goal of the Growth Management Act is to encourage development in Urban
9 Areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner,
10
1 i WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
12 the criteria for Urban Center designation; '
13
14 WHEREAS, Policy W-40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
15 standards for plarned land uses within Urban Centers;
16
17 WHEREAS;the City of Burien has demonstrated that Downtown Buiien meets the criteria
18- for designation as an.Urban Center;and
19
20 WHEREAS, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-106 supports the development of
21 Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and
22 recreation-
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32. -
rrr�rcrmo:c�+rcnro��o�oi-�.ao�
60
1512 :8
2
3
4 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
5 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
6
7 Downtown Burien is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following
8 Countywide Pli nning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Downtown Burien.
9
10
11 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
.12 September 15,2004 in open session and signed by the chair of GMPC.
13
14
15
16
17
18 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth.Management Planning Council
LA3MPCJ2002GMPC%od0n02-6.Aoe
61
O
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Revised Staff Report
Agenda Item: 3 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ord: 2005-0047 Date: February 15, 2005
Attending: Scott Greenberg, Community Development
Director, City of Burien
CoMmt7rEE ACTION: The Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee recommended
a"DO Pass Substitute"recommendation for Proposed Ordinance 2005-0047. The committee passed
amendment A-1, a technical amendment to replace the current attachment to the ordinance (GMPC
Motion 044)with a new attachment(GMPC Motion 04-3). The transmittal package included the
wrong GMPC Motion.
SUBJECT:
Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;designating downtown Burien as an
Urban Center.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council and Countywide Planning Policies
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected officials
from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was
created in 1992 by interlocal agreement, in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act(GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Planning
Policies (CPPs).
Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's
comprehensive plan, and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use.planning efforts.
As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the Countywide
Planning Policies,which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities.
Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process: recommendation by the GMPC,
adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become
effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments
representing at least 70%of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified
an amendment to the CPPs unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative
action disapproves it.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2005-0047 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by adding downtown
Burien to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39. The ordinance would also ratify the change on
behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy
FW-1, Step 9.
D:ICOLMITfEE GM.20DWINAL Staff Repon5O05H7 CPPS-Burien Urban Center REVISEDAM 2/92005 2:52 PM
62
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Proposed Designation of Downtown Burien as an Urban Center
The City of Burien requeststhat the King County Council amend the Countywide Planning Policies to
add its downtown core to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39. The city has followed the correct
process for obtaining such 0 designation, starting with amending its own plans, policies and capital
improvement programs, anal also by securing the recommendation of the Growth Management
Planning Council,which indicated its approval through the unanimous adoption of Motion 04-3 on
September 15, 2004. The final steps in the center'designation process are approval by the King
County Council and ratification by the cities (see background section for a detailed explanation of the
ratification process).
Requirements for Urban Center Designation
The Countywide Planning Policies describe Urban Centers as areas of concentrated employment and
housing,with direct service by high-capacity transit and a wide range of other land uses. Collectively,
they are expected to account for up to one half of King County's employment growth and one quarter
of household growth over the next 20 years. The list of Urban Centers in Countywide Planning Policy
LU-39 currently includes:
e Auburn a Federal Way • Renton
. Bellevue - Kirkland a Seattle (5)
e Kent a Redmond (2) • Tukwila
In order to be designated as an Urban Center,jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the
Countywide Planning Polici$s, including having planned land uses to accommodate:
i. A minimum of 10,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center,
2. At a minimum, ao average of 50 employees per gross acre;and
a. At a minimum,arp average of 15 households per acre.
In addition to these requirements, Policy LU-40 states that fully realized Urban Centers shall be
characterized by the folloWng:
a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries;
b. An intensity/densliity of land uses sufficient to support effective and rapid transit;
c. Pedestrian emphasis within the Center;
d. Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community;
e. Limitations on sirigie-occupancy vehicle usage during peak commute hours;
f. A broad array of land uses and choices within those land uses for employees and
residents;
% Sufficient public ppen spaces and recreational opportunities; and
h. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center.
City of Burlen's Existing and Planned Conditions
The Countywide Planning Policies recognize that Urban Centers vary substantially in the number
of households and jobs they contain at the time of their initial designation, and thus the decision to
designate an Urban Center Is based on planned, not existing, densities. A jurisdiction shows its
commitment to realizing these densities through its comprehensive plan policies, a supportive
regulatory environment and a commitment to provide adequate infrastructure.
0=MMITTEE GM•2WSTI AL Staff Rep W sU*5-0Oe7 CPPs-&men Urban Center REVISEDAm 2912005 2:52 PM
63
The table on the next page shows Burien's existing conditions, as well as future growth projections
for the near future(10-20 years, or"mid-range), and beyond (20+years, or"long-range). The
long-range projected capacity envisions an Urban Center that is consistent with the requirements
in the Countywide Planning Policies.
I. Burien Urban Center—Existing and Planned Capacity
Scenario Households Households/Acre Employees Employees/Acre
Exis!!99 Conditions 1,433 4.1 4,025 11.4
Mid-Range Projected Capacity 2.689 7.6 8,692 24.6
Long-Range Pr 'ected Capacity 6,294 17.8 18,028 51.1
GMPC Recommendation
,The GMPC, through the unanimous adoption of Motion 04-3, has declared that the City of Burien
has demonstrated its commitment to developing a fully realized Urban Center as envisioned in the
Countywide Planning Policies. Specific findings include:
• Burien's comprehensive plan and downtown plan establish the policy framework for
achieving a compact, mixed use, transit and pedestrian oriented Urban Center.
• Burien has implemented its plans with supportive land use and development regulations,
including unlimited residential density in the downtown zone, increased height limits,
design guidelines and streamlined permit processing.
• The city has planned for future growth within the Urban Center through recent
investments in utility, street and sidewalk upgrades, and in land assembly and
acquisition. These efforts include plans for a mixed-use Town Square development, and
plans for a transit-oriented development project.
Council staff, through its participation on the GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team, has had an
opportunity to thoroughly review the city's proposal, and concurs that it meets the requirements
in the Countywide Planning Policies for designation as an Urban Center. A complete analysis
of the city's proposal as presented to the GMPC is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report.
O-COK"TTEE GM-2W5%FWL W R[ponSVW54 W 7 CPPS-Boom UrEan C"W REVMED.dw 20W2M 2:52 PM
Ratification of Countywide Planning Policy Amendment for Burien Urban Center Page 1 of _ 65
Anderson, Charlene
From: Scott Greenberg[SCOTTG@ci.burien.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 10,2005 9.44 AM
To: pkrauss@ci.aubum.wa.us;dstroh@ci.bellevue.wa.us;clerk@ci.camation.wa.us;
markh@ci.issaquah.wa.us; bsokol@ci.kenmore.wa.us;Anderson,Charlene; Satterstrom, Fred;
EShields@ci.kirkland.wa.us; richard.hart@ci.mercer-island.wa.us;miken@ci.newcastle.wa.us;
rodle@ci.redmond.wa.us;riind@ci.renton.wa.us;tom.hauger@ci.seattie.wa.us;
tstewart@ci.shoreline.wa.us;nancy@ci.snoqualmie.wa.us;slancaster@ci.tukwila.wa.us;
RayS@ci.woodinville.wa.us;jkilgore@desmoineswa.gov;doreen.booth@cityofduvall.com;
Kathy.McClung@ci.federal-way.wa.us;abrooks@ckyofmilton.net;mitch@olydehill.org;
Istockton@ci.north-bend.wa.us; lesjohnson@ci.enumclaw.wa.us;jackm@ci.hunts-point.wa.us;
bill.wiselogle@ci.bothell.wa.us; sbutler@ci.seatac.wa.us;jgellings@medina-wa.gov;
mgreen@mcandrewsgroup.com; ty.peterson@ci.maple-valley.wa.us; pwiech@ci.pacific.wa.us;
billb&i.camation.wa.us;jtovar@ci.covington.wa.us;sbennett@ci.lake-forest-park.wa.us;
marya@ci.normandy-park.wa.us;scezar@ci.sammamish.wa.us;
psweum@cityofbiackdiamond.com;TomR@cityofalgona.com
Subject: Ratification of Countywide Planning Policy Amendment for Burien Urban Center
On Feb. 14,the King County Council unanimously approved Ordinance 15123 designating downtown Burien as
an urban center. The amendment will take effect when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30%of the
city and county governments representing at least 70%of the county population. Ratification is automatic unless
the city disapproves the amendment by May 16th.
The City of Burien has made or will soon be submitting several funding and policy requests to the State and
Sound Transit related to development of our$120 million Town Square project and related infrastructure and
transit improvements that would greatly benefit from formal ratification of our urban center designation.
Therefore,next week we will be sending letters and a sample resolution to each of your Mayors requesting that
your city ratify Ordinance 15123 as soon as possible. Any cooperation and support you could provide would be
appreciated.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Scott Greenberg,AICP
Community Development Director
City of Burien, Washington
(206) 248-5519 Direct Phone
(206)444-6819 Direct Fax
Please visit our website at www.d.burien.wa.us
3/16/2005
67
City of Burien
415 Southwest 150th Street •Burien, Washington 98 1 66-1 9 73
Phone: (206)241-4647 - Fax: (206)248-5539
www.ci.burien.wa.us
wiaor
Moe]Ctbb March 18,2005
Dcpu4 M 7W
Joan Mcoliton
Coundhoambaw
Jack r. 'fhe Honorable Jim White
Lucy Kmkowlak City of Kent
stePmn Iunphear 220 4th Ave S
ply mcb 1 Kent,WA 98032
Cordon Shaw
RE: City of Burien's Request for Downtown Designation as an Urban Center
Dear Mayor White:
I am writing to request your support and assistance in completing the process to have the city
of Burien's downtown designated as an urban center by the King County Plan. Yoti recently
received notice from King County that the County Council approved the Bnricn I Jrhan
Center designation on February 14,2005. 1 am requesting that your City review runt take
action on the amendment as soon as possible to allow us to pursue urban ccnter designation
by the Puget Sound Regional Council. A formally adopted urban center is critical io our
redevelopment strategy for our Town Square project and transit-related imprnveme nts.
Burien amended its Comprehensive Plan to support urban center designation at:L•c earl of
2003.'fhe Growth Management Policy Committee unanimously voted to recommend
approval at its meeting in September 2004. However,the King County Council was unable
to schedule consideration until February 14,2005.The urban center designation meets or
exceeds all criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies and by the Puget Sound
Regional Council.
I have enclosed a copy of a draft resolution for your use.Our Community Development
Director,Scott Greenberg,will be happy to answer any questions you may have re,_arding
the designation. lie may i,e rca0i,: :.t(206) -351
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Noel Gibb
Mayor
cc: Burien City Council
Enclosure MAR 2 12005
Htice a, P
69
CITY OF , WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF THE CITY
OF RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KING
COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICES TO DESIGNATE
DOWNTOWN BURIEN AS AN URBAN CENTER
WHEREAS,the King County Council adopted the original countywide planning policies in
July 1992;and,
WHEREAS, the City of Burien has demonstrated.that Downtown Buries meets the criteria
for designation as an Urban Center,and,
WHERAS, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) was established by
interlocal agreement in 1991 to provide the collaborative policy development of Countywide
Planning Policies;
WHERAS, on September 15, 2004 the GMPC unanimously approved a motion amending
the King County Countywide Planning Policies to designate Downtown Burien as an Urban Center;
and,
WHERAS on February 14, 2005, the Metropolitan King County Council took action
ratifying the proposed amendment to the King County Countywide Planning Policies designating
Downtown Burien as an urban center on behalf of unincorporated King County; and,
WHEREAS, the 1991 interlocal agreement remains in effect, requiring ratification of
Countywide Planning Policies and amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies by 30%of the
jurisdictions representing at least 70% of the population of King County, within 90 days of
adoption of the King County Council
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF , WASHINGTON,
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.The City Council of the City of ,Washington,hereby ratifies
Amendments to King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies. A copy of said amendments
denominated as Exhibit"A"is attached hereto and made a part hereof as though set forth in full
herein. Exhibit"A"is comprised of King County Ordinance 15123.
Section 2.The City Manager/Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
_ t _
70
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage by
the City Council.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ,WASHINGTON, AT
A REGULAR MEETING}THEREOF THIS DAY OF 92005.
-2-
• 71
ECONOMY, COMMUNITIES AND CONSERVATION
,; ... THECASCADE 100 YEARS FORWARD
100 Years Forward AG E N DA
The Cascade Agenda charts a bold course to
conserve the best of this region for the next �.: �""'tO 1A'^'Nu•'n
century. It builds broad community consensus
around strategies to 1) conserve more than 1.25 1.,,,;•,�
million acres in the four county area and 2) frame a ,
new regional discussion around the thorny issues of
land use, property rights and development.
The Agenda grew out of discussion begun in early
2004 In which we asked ourselves this question: g
How can we preserve the quality of life we have y
today 100 years from now, for our children's r; 4,_- smell
grandchildren? How can we build a region that -y ,.
houses 55% of the state's population, while still
maintaining a strong economy, vibrant ( ;f
communities, and ecological diversity? We found -�
something very telling when we asked those
questions: a 100-year view changes the debate. It
took us beyond the next election cycle or the usual The Cascade Agenda covers a broad four-county area.
20- to 30-year planning horizon used by
government and business.
The Cascade Dialogues has involved literally thousands of participants from King, Kittltas, Pierce and
Snohomish Counties over the past year. A steering committee of more than 40 organizations representing
businesses, developers, government agencies, environmental groups, tribal leaders and others has been
meeting once or twice a month since last spring to pull the Cascade Agenda together. The Agenda will be
published May 19`" at the 2005 Conservation Awards Breakfast, sponsored by Cascade Land Conservancy.
Two major conclusions are emerging: We have the opportunity and the know-how to conserve much of
our forest, farm and public land base and we can build an even better future if we act now. The need to
act soon is driven by the fact that the region will continue to grow with the population roughly doubling in
the next 100 years, perhaps a conservative estimate itself. We need to maintain housing choices for these
new residents and we can do that through increased urban density and by looking at rural lands in a
different light.
The Agenda points toward a possible path through the bramble of land use, property rights and takings
that dominates our region now. The Cascade Agenda advocates a cooperative, market-based, non-
regulatory approach that recognizes that this Is a special part of the world, that we must have new people
and economic growth, and that we can still retain the special quality of life that we all prize so highly.
Cascade Land Conservancy knows land conservation. We know how to do it. By conserving 1.25 million
acres in this region, we will have demonstrated we can achieve results by working with the marketplace
rather than against it. We will have used these strategies to conserve our landscapes for the benefit of all
- the environment, the communities we live in and the jobs and economic growth that will drive It into the
future. Cascade Land Conservancy has conserved more than 110,000 acres of land over the past decade.
CLC has demonstrated that It knows how to make market-oriented transactions work to the benefit of the
land, business, developers and the public. Last September, for example, CLC worked with King County,
the Hancock Timber Co., and others to put the 90,000-acre Snoqualmie Tree Farm into a conserved
working forest status. This means that land can remain working forest, providing jobs and raw material
for the timber industry here, but cannot be developed. A conservation easement means the land remains
a forest forever.
Cascade Land Conservancy ■ www.cascadeland.org ■ The Cascade Dialogues 0 www.cascadedialoques.org
72
In addition to the conservation 0 major landscapes for
future generations, the Agenda provides the pathway to a
better approach for building our Oeighborhoods and
communities. The Cascade Agenda will convene a forum to
begin to create a new broad consensus about the region's
land, one that achieves conservation and property rights at
the same time. It is an aggressive, but doable plan. The
process that has led to the Cascade Agenda and the
regional credibility of the Cascad@ Land Conservancy
provides the catalyst to achieve results.
But that's not all. The Cascade Agenda Is a rolling program
- we will return to the Agenda every two or three years to
see how we are doing, to make a0justments, to fine tune so
that we can succeed.
We also realize that we cannot succeed without cooperation
and the proven ability of Washingtonians to see the big
picture and to innovate to achleve regional goals.
As conservationists we believe we can achieve our goals and
succeed if we develop new revenue sources and new
financing mechanisms such as Forest Conservation Bonds
and Transfer of Development Rights. The entitlement or
"rights"transfer programs can gq a long way toward
compensating land owners for nolt developing their land and
encouraging development in areas where it is most wanted. {
We believe that business and goemment can help us
succeed as well Business and ho sing developers can
create new building technologies land development a. Current land use of the Puget Sound region,
approaches that encourage conservation. We realize that a looking south from Snohomish County;
full menu of housing choices is ri�eded to continue the b. Potential land use in 2100 showing growth
long-term health and vitality of the region. spreading beyond urban growth boundaries.
100 years seems like a long time, Some critics have told us it is too long a time span for people to buy
into it. But Is it really?The very first automobile In the region came from Kittitas across Snoqualmie Pass
in the summer of 1905. It was an 1898 Fryer-Miller driven by Bert Harrison. It took two days to get from
Kittitas Valley to Snoqualmie Past. At the beginning of 2005, there were 3,148,019 registered motor
vehicles in the counties of King, Kittitas, Pierce, and Snohomish. Many of us in our 50s or 60s remember
grandparents who were born In the late 1800s and have children likely to live to 2075 - a 200 year span.
We started with a profound quesdion and came up with a profound answer. Conservation and
development are really two sldes'of the same coin. Conservation plus communities equal a strong
economy.
£ a.Our region's current
conserved lands, shown In
dark green,
b.The 1.25 million acre
conservation goal,
highlighted in light green
.
/ „ </ ,•. , and yellow Includes
) .: conserving working farms
and forests,creating parks
and open space,and
8 ^ < b ° protecting our rivers,
streams and shorelines.
Cascade Land Conservancy 8 *ww.cascadeland.org 0 The Cascade Dialogues ■ www.cescadedialogues.org
73
THE CASCADE
100 Years Forward AGENDA
Today . . .
1 . A little about the CLC
2. Preview of the Cascade Agenda
3. Release May 19th
4. Questions
Chip Nevins and Jim Greenfield
Cascade Land Conservancy
CASCADE.
..... AGENDA
1
Cascade Land Conservancy:
Where we live, work, and raise our families
IK
x4� f• I y
i
A04'Nootl8ervation on are ignal $c
R LC Achiev me 1f. .
• Four countles `
120 projects
} — -- J. 1IA000 acres p�
^a.. • Last year: $26
yy `•'
C 5
75
King County Protected •
a
Kin
' Duwamish Riverbed Hill, Tukwila.,
• County Protected Lands
y
I
Shadow Lake Bog
76
CascadeThe Agenda Approach
Lon
U
—1Wyer
4: A idoubiing i, atI
• I fP I 3 M,E
• Thinking
Sostain a.strong. a economy r r,;,`
— Promote livabi nifies
— Ensure heait erns
Cascade Dialogues Approach:
Public Invpivement
— Con*ersations with 3,500
stakeholders
— Involvement of 460 classrooms
Science a0d Economics
— Assi$lance of over 50 experts
Elected Leadership The Cascade Agenda
— Eng$gement of over 100
mun ipalities and _
governmental entities
Practitioners ®❑
— Involvement of over 100
stakeholders
Steering Committee
50 civic,business,and
e nvi Ionmen tal leaders
4
0
b �t�
USG
� FUTURE ---
� r
� r
A 'x
r u A a:.
I.ERN.ATIYE FUTURE
rma�yy,, 'c
J
g ..c
inp F FUTURE" _ Gl_ ��11(�- — ---�• ? - —
rr
5 -4; x
k
L � a
k ti
79
Cascade Agenda Outcomes
Saving our landscapes for the next century
— 1 million acres private working forests and farms
-265,000 acres park, natural areas and shorelines
Sustaining Communities for the next century
— Maintaining a rural community
• Grow and support local economies
• Conserve our watersheds, habitat and resource lands
• Provide housing choices without sprawl
—Transforming our cities and revitalizing our towns
• Create vibrant compact,livable communities
• Provide plentiful,well-cared for parks
Approach: Thinking 100 years out
Near-Term: Acquire and supW
• Conserve working farm and forest lands
• Enhance economic opportunity on farms and in forests
• Preserve recreation and natural resource lands
Mid-Term:Conne t
• Emphasis on restoration of preserved lands
• Programmatic support for private land stewardship
• Community/economic connection to working land
Long-Term: Sustain
• Deploy new revenue streams for working land
• Enhance stewardship of natural resources
• Establish adequate,consistent maintenance funds
7
so
We know what we don't want. . .
• Dispensed housing and miles
of roads .,:,
• Comptomised watersheds .11
• Fragmlented landscape
• StrainOd public services
And if that were not
enough...
• Climate change
• A post-oil economy A° °F
What !we expect from ourselves, the
community, government and business
• Proactive implementation
• Working lands conservation financing
• Preservation and easement funding
• Coordination and partnerships
• Incentives to Landowners
• InnoNation and investment
- CASCADE
AGENDA
8
81
•
Make our cities and towns vibrant,
attractive places to live and work
• Create incentives for
development and business
• Ensure plentiful parks and
trails
Provide essential
infrastructure
AcervoA
i
Challenging times
but things are happening already
• South Lake Union: an
urban success story
• Snoqualmie Forest Y
preservation
r'
• A forum to talk about r
the issues of rural
clustering
C ASCA(�t
s
9
82
Our Quality of Life Depends On. . .
r
• Strong Economy
• Livable Communities
• Healthy Environment
Save the Date:
Cascade Agenda
Released May 191h
Cascade Land Conservancy
Annual Awards Breakfast
A(i IIJuA
10
83
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
K EN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
WASHINGTOA
Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
April 12, 2005
TO: Chair Tim Clark and Planning& Economic Development Committee Members
FROM: Kurt Hanson, Senior Planner
RE: Zoning Code Amendment#ZCA-2005-1/KIVA 2051082
Green River Corridor Special Interest District, Riverfront Lots
MOTION: None required. For information only.
SUMMARY: Existing regulations limit building height within the Green River Corridor Special
Interest District to 35 feet and provide no means other than a variance to adjust that height. The Green
River Corridor Special Interest District is that area of the City 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water
line of the Green River, provided that the first 200 feet are governed by the City's Shoreline Master
Program. The proposed amendment would apply the 35-foot height limitation only to riverfront lots.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the Green River Corridor Special Interest District is to protect,
conserve, and manage areas generally located on both sides of the Green River, and to ensure that urban
development within the district is compatible with the open natural configuration of the Green River and
its adjacent lands (KCC 15.08.260(A)). A riverfront lot is defined as a lot or land parcel which is
adjacent to the Green River, a scenic and recreational road, a riverfront road, or a riverfront park (KCC
15.02.252).
There are properties in the City of Kent that are located within the Special Interest District but that are
separated from the Green River by privately-owned parcels that may or may not be developed.
Especially when the intervening parcel is developed, the existing code language does not appear to
further the intent of the Special Interest District regulations. A copy of KCC 15.08.260 in its entirety is
included in the agenda packet.
OPTIONS: Staff is proposing the following code amendments to be heard before the Land Use &
Planning Board on April 25, 2005:
KCC 15.02.252: Lot, riverfront. Riverfront lot means any lot or land parcel which is adjacent to the
Green River, a scenic and recreational road, a riverfront road, or-=a riverfront park, or public open
space•
KCC 15.08.260(D)(6): Building height. On riverfront lots, buildings located outside the two hundred
(200)foot shoreline management zone but within the district shall not exceed thirty-five (35)feet in
height
Staff will be available at the April 1811' meeting to further discuss this issue. Because the proposed
amendment appears to be insignificant in scope, staff would like to take the Board's recommendation
directly to the City Council,without further committee review.
CATWH pm S:IPermillPlanIZONECODEAMEND1200511051081-ZCA-2005-1_PEDC 041805_memo.doc
Enclosure: KCC 15.08.260
cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director
Charlene Anderson,A]CP,Planning Mgr
Kim Marousek,Principal Planner
William Osborne,Planner
Gloria Could-Wessen,Planner
Project File
84
This page intentionally left blank.
85
5
• 15.08.260 Green River Corridor special interest district regulations.
A. Purpose. The Green River Corridor special interest district is hereby created to protect, conserve,and
manage areas generally located on both sides of the Green River, and to ensure that urban development
within the district is compatible with the open natural configuration of the Green River and its adjacent lands.
B. Location.
1. The Green River Corridor special interest district is that area of the city one thousand (1,000)feet from the
ordinary high-water line of the Green River; provided that the shoreline master program shall govern
development within the first two hundred (200) feet of the ordinary high-water line of the river. The district is
more particularly described as follows:
Two(2)strips of land each eight hundred (800)feet in width which begin at the north city limit line,on March
4, 1985, and end at the south city limit line, which south line ends in Section 30,Township 22 North, Range 5
East, W.M. Each strip shall be measured from each side of the Green River and the measurement shall be two
hundred (200)feet from the ordinary high-water line of the river, all in King County, Washington; except any
portions thereof lying outside of the city limits.
This district shall also include unique and fragile areas beyond the one thousand (1,000)foot corridor.The
strips of land described in this subsection and the unique and fragile areas are illustrated on the hazard area
development limitations map, attached to the ordinance from which this section is derived as Exhibit A and by
this reference incorporated in this section.
2. Property exemption. Property platted in accordance with the city subdivision code, Ordinance No. 1840,
before March 2, 1981 (adoption of the Valley Studies), shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.
C. Unique and fragile overlay zone.
1. Created. There is hereby created a unique and fragile overlay zone. The location and boundaries of the
zone,to be known as unique and fragile areas, class I, and unique and fragile areas,class II, are more
particularly described on the hazard area development limitations map, referred to in subsection (B)of this
section as Exhibit A.
2. Purpose. The purpose of the overlay zone is to implement the adopted policies of the Valley Studies
Program.
3. Development limitations.
a. Unique and fragile areas, class 1. Uses within the unique and fragile areas,class I, shall be limited to
agricultural uses permitted in the A-10(agricultural)zone, as set out in KCC 15,03.010.
b. Unique and fragile areas, class H. Unique and fragile areas, class II, lie within a flood control district and
are specifically designated floodways or floodway fringe areas.There shall be no disruption or destruction of
areas identified as unique and fragile areas, class II, except new dikes and levees constructed for public safety
86
6
reasons. Such Improvements shall be designed so as not to intrude within unique and fragile areas, class II.
Where class II areas are not surrounded by class I areas, a one hundred (10D)foot buffer shall be provided
between the class II area andl the allowed use.
D. Development standards.
1. Green River access. No building or lot within the district shall be constructed or created without providing
access to the Green River via public sidewalks or a private trail system. Such sidewalks or private trail
systems shall connect to riverside public trails or scenic drives at intervals of one thousand (1,000)feet or
less in industrial developments, and intervals of five hundred (500)feet or less in residential developments.
2. Pedestrian access in residential development. In residential developments, pedestrian access to the Green
River shall be accomplished without crossing streets or roads, except scenic and recreational roads,unless
clearly shown to be infeasible♦
3. Parking facilities. Parking facilities for access to the Green River shall be located as near as practicable to
riverfront parks or historic sites and shall be clustered in lots not exceeding thirty(30) cars. Every public
parking area shall be visible frtom a street accessible to the public and be situated so that the public can
clearly see riverfront open space and gain access to the public portion of that open space.
4. Payment In lieu of parking facilities. The city may accept or require payment in lieu of providing parking
facilities which are required as a condition of the issuance of development permits.
5. Loading dock location. Loading docks shall not be constructed on river-facing sides of buildings unless a
minimum fifty(50)foot buffers of native vegetation is provided to screen the loading docks from the shoreline,
unless otherwise required by tlhe Kent shoreline master program. Other design and landscaping requirements
may be imposed by the planning manager to meet the purpose of the Green River corridor special interest
district.
6. Building height. Buildings located outside the two hundred (200)foot shoreline management zone but
within the district shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height.
7. Exterior walls of buildings. No building on any riverfront lot shall have an exterior wall parallel to,or within
forty-five (45) degrees of parallel to, the river which exceeds two hundred (200) feet in length,except as
follows: buildings on riverfront lots in the MA, M1, MI-C, M2, and M3 zoning districts may have exterior walls
parallel to, or within forty-fivel(45)degrees of parallel to, the river which exceed two hundred (200) feet in
length, provided they are screened by a vegetative buffer per KCC 15,08.26D(D)(9)(c).
8. Lots.
a. Each riverfront lot within a subdivision shall contain area sufficient to comply with minimum lot size
requirements of Ch. 15.04 KC�and provide a public access easement and building setback line as required by
this section.
87
7
• b. No subdivision of professional and office(0),general commercial (GC), industrial agricultural (MA),
industrial park(M1), and limited industrial (M2)zoned land shall be approved unless each lot within the
subdivision has an upland boundary at least five hundred (500)feet from the ordinary high-water line of the
river.
9. Vegetation buffer.
a. A permanent vegetation buffer, in accordance with KCC 15.07.050(C)pertaining to landscaping type I1I,
shall be maintained or established for each building or use within the district.Any materials storage yard,
truck maneuvering area, equipment parking area,junkyard, refuse storage,or similar use within the district
shall Install such a permanent vegetative buffer between the use and the Green River within two(2) years of
the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived.
b. Landscape screening and buffer strips shall be planted in order to be harmonious with those already
planted on adjacent properties and consistent with the city landscaping requirements as set out in Ch. 15.07
KCC.
c. Buildings on riverfront lots in industrial zoning districts which have exterior walls exceeding two hundred
(200) feet in length parallel to, or within forty-five(45)degrees of parallel to, the river, must be screened by
a vegetation buffer. This vegetative buffer shall be located along the length of the property line located
parallel to, or within forty-five(45) degrees of parallel to, the river, for a minimum depth of twenty(20) feet
in accordance with type III, visual buffer landscape standards pursuant to KCC 15.07.050(C). In addition,an
earth berm of a minimum of forty-eight(48) inches in height must be provided for.
10. Rail lines. No rail lines shall be permitted within five hundred (500) feet of the Green River; provided,
however, rail lines shall be permitted to within three hundred (300) feet of the Green River in those locations
specified on Exhibit B attached to the ordinance from which this section is derived and by this reference
incorporated in this section, such locations having been found to be best suited to rail.
11. Road access. All new lots and buildings shall be designed with primary street access to streets other than
scenic and recreational roads, unless no other access is available.
12. Street connections. Development shall include no street connections to scenic and recreational roads,
unless no other access is available.
13. Utilities. Utilities shall be Installed in accordance with Ch. 7.10 KCC.
14. Surface drainage facilities. Surface drainage facilities such as drainage channels and retention areas shall
be designed to applicable city standards and shall be integral parts, if possible, of any common trail and open
space system connections to the riverfront.
E. Performance standards.
88
B
1. Fish and game requirements. The applicant shall comply with applicable requirements of the State
Department of Fisheries and$tate Department of Game for preventing and mitigating adverse impacts on fish
and wildlife resources and enhancing wildlife habitat.
2. Flood control works. If city"funds are used in the construction of flood control works such as dikes, levees,
or floodwalls, public rights of access to such works shall be dedicated prior to construction,where practicable.
(Ord. No. 3338, § 1, 2-18-97; Ord. No. 3600, §6, 5-7-02; Ord. No. 3612, §9,8-6-02)
S.•IPermlAPkmIZONECODEAMEND1200jn2051082-ZCA-2005-1_KCC-15-M-260.doc
89
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
K EN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
April 12, 2005
TO: Chair Jon Johnson and Land Use&Planning Board Members
FROM: Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
RE: Zoning and Subdivision Codes and Shoreline Master Program Amendments
#ZCA-2005-2
Correction to Inconsistent Procedures for Appeals and Dollar Amount for
Shoreline Substantial Development
MOTION: None required. For information only.
SUMMARY: In 2001 when the City updated code provisions relating to the administration of
development regulations, amendments made to procedures for appeals of various applications
did not carry over into other code sections that also addressed appeal procedures. The proposed
amendment changes the other code sections to be consistent with what was approved via
Ordinance No. 3574 passed by the City Council on September 18, 2001. An additional
amendment updates the dollar amount of substantial development to be consistent with state
shoreline regulations.
BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 3574 passed by the City Council on September 18, 2001
amended code provisions relating to the administration of development regulations, in some
cases eliminating local appeal provisions. Appeal procedures addressed in other code sections
for the same application types were not changed, thus creating inconsistent procedures within
Kent City Code. Furthermore, in 2002 the state amended their regulations to raise the dollar
amount for classification under shoreline substantial development. Staff proposes to correct the
inconsistencies with City codes.
OPTIONS: Staff is proposing the following code amendments:
PUD's: KCC 15.08.400(F)(7) Hearing examiner decision. The hearing examiner shall issue a
written decision within ten (10) working days from the date of the hearing. Parties of record will
be notified in writing of the decision. For PUDs which propose a use permitted in the
underlying zoning district, t47he hearing examiner's decision is final
For
PUDs which propose a use which is not typically permitted in the underlying zoning district as
provided in subsection (B)(4) of this section, the hearing examiner shall forward a
recommendation to the city council, which shall have the final authority to approve or deny the
proposed PUD. For a proposed residential PUD that includes condominiums as outlined in
subsection (B)(4) of this section, a condition of approval by the city council shall be that for each
development phase the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of the covenants, conditions, and
restrictions recorded against the property. Within thirty (3) days of receipt of the hearing
examiner's recommendation, the city council shall, at a regular meeting, consider the
application. Any ppeal from the final decision of the hearing examiner and city council shall
be pursuant to the appeal provisions of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
90
CUPS: KCC 15.09.030(F) Appeals. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final; 8
Any appeal of
the hearing examiner's decision shall be pursuant to the appeal provisions of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
Variances: KCC 15.09.040(D) Appeals. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final,
Andappeal of
the hearing examiner's deeision shall be pursuant to the appeal provisions ofCh. 12.01 KCC.
Plats: KCC 12.04.695 City council closed record appeal. The decision of the hearing examiner
shall be final, unless an appeal is made by a party of record to the city council within fourteen
(14) calendar days following the issuance of the notice of decision and in accordance with the
requirements of KCC 12.p1. 40195.
The appeal shall be heard by the city council in a closed record
appeal hearing. No newi evidence may be presented. The decision of the city council shall
represent final action of th,e city and is appealable only to superior court.
Special Home Occupation;Permits: KCC 15.08.040(F)(5) Appeal of decision. The decision of
the hearing examiner on 4 special home occupation permit application
hall be final. Anyappeal of the hearing
examiner's decision shall Pe pursuant to the appeal provisions of Ch. 12.01 KCC.
Shoreline Master Program: Section 7.5 Appeals 1. Local appeals. Any decision made by the
Administrator on a substantial development permit, or by the Hearing Examiner on a conditional
use or variance permit shall be final c:: t .....1.4' '' "Any appeal of the final
decision shall be pursuantito the appeal provisions ofCh 12.01 KCC and 7.5(2) below.
Shoreline Master Program: Section 2.0 Definitions...Substantial Development Any
development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, exceeds
�iveithousand dollars ($9-,-�®@5,000), or any development which materially
interferes with the normalpublic use of the water or shorelines of the state; except for those uses
excepted from the definidion of substantial development by RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(i)-(xi) and
WAC 173-27-040. These exemptions are listed in Section 7.3 of Chapter 7: Administration. See
also Development and Exemption. ...
Shoreline Master Prograi!n: Section 7.3(1) Any development of which the total cost or fair
market value, whichever; is higher, does not exceed rve
thousand dollars, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of
the water or shorelines of the state. For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is
required, the total cost or'.fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is
occurring on shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c). The total cost or fair
market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed
or found labor, equipmenA or materials;
Planning&Economic Development Mketing
April 18,2005
Page 2 of 3
91
The SEPA Responsible Official has determined that these proposed amendments are procedural
. actions that are exempt from SEPA review. Enclosed is a copy of existing KCC 12.01.040(A) &
(B) matrices on which you will note the inconsistencies mentioned above, as well as copies of
Shoreline Master Program Section 7.5 and RCW 90.58.030(3). Staff will be available at the
April 18th meeting to further discuss these issues. Because the proposed amendments are
housekeeping only, staff would like to take the Board's recommendation directly to the City
Council,without further committee review.
CA\KH\\pm S:IPermillPlanIZONECODEAMEND120051ZCA-2005-2_PEDC_041805_memo.doc
Enclosure: KCC 12.01.040(A)and(B),Shoreline Master Program Section z5,RCW 90.58.030(3)
cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Mgr
Kim Marousek,Principal Planner
William Osborne,Planner
Gloria Gould-Wessen,Planner
Project File
•
Planning&Economic Development Meeting
April 18,2005
Page 3 of 3
92
This page intentionally,left blank.
93
Kent City Code 12.01.040
• 12.01.040 Project permit application framework
A. Process types.The following table lists the process types,the corresponding applications,and parenthet-
ically,the corresponding final decision maker and appellate body.
Process 1 Process U Process 111 Process 1V Process V Process VI
Applications: Zoning permit Administrative Conditional use Planned unit Final plat(6)(10) Zoning of newly
review(1)(7) design review(1) permit(5)(10) development(6) annexed lands(6)
(7) (10)with change (10)
of use
Performance Shoreline Sip variance(5) Area-wide rezones
standards substantial (10) to implement new
procedures(1)(7) development city policies(6)
permit(1)(9) (10)
Sign permit(1)(7) Acoeswty Special home Rezone(6)(10) Comprehensive
dwelling unit occupation permit plan amendments
permit(1)(7) (5)(10) (6)(10)
Lot line Administrative Variance(5)(10) Development
4ustmeut(1)(7) variance(1)(7) regulations(6)
(10)
Administrative Downtown design Shoreline Zoning map
interpretation(1) review,all except conditional use amendments(6)
(7) for minor permit(5)(9) (10)
remodels(3)(7)
• Application Downtown design Shoreline variance Zoning text
conditional review,onlyminor (5)(9) amendments(6)
certification remodels(1)(7) (10)
multifamily tax
exemption(1)(8).
in of er
multifamily tax
exemption(1)(7)
Development plan Multifamily Preliminary plat
review(planning design review(1) (5)(8)
manager,buililing (7)
official,or public
worlm director)(7)
Administrative Binding site plan
wwvaYWlF(1) (2)(7)
(7)
Mobile home pant Short subdivision Planned unit
closure(11)() (4)(7) development(5)
(10)without a
change of use
(1)Final decision made by planning manager. (7)Appeal to leering examiner.
(2)Final decision by binding site plan committee. (8)Appeal to city council.
(3)Final decision made by downtown design review committee. (9)Appeal to shoreline hearings board.
(4)Final decision made by short subdivision committee. (10)No administrative appeals.
(5)Final decision made by hearing examiner. (11) Final decision made by manager of housing and
(6)Final decision made by city council. human services.
•
12-5 (Revised 11/02)
94
Kent City Code 12.01.040
12.01.040 Project permit application flramework.
A. Process types.1 Me following table lists the process types,the corresponding applications,and parenthet-
ically,the corresponding final decision maker and appellate body.
Process Process 11 Process III Process N Process V Process VI
Applications: Zoning plgmit Administrative Conditional use Planned unit Final plat(6)(10) Zoning of newly
review(1)(7) design review(1) permit(5)(10) development(6) annexed lands(6)
(7) (10)with change (10)
of use
Perfo rnimce Shoreline Sign variance(5) Area-wide rezones
standanU substantial (10) to imphntent new
Procedures(1)(7) development city policies(6)
permit(1)(9) (10)
Sign peril (1)(7) Accessary Special home Rezone(6)(10) Comprehensive
dwelling unit occupation permit plan amendmems
permit(1)(7) (5)(10) (6)(10)
Lot line Administrative Variance(5)(10) Development
adjustor*(1)(7) variance(1)(7) regulations(6)
(10)
Admimst�auve Downtown design Shoreline Zoning map
interpretabon(1) review,all except conditional use amendments(6)
(7) for minor permit(5)(9) (10)
remodels(3)(7)
ApplicatiOn Downtown design Shorc ine variance Zoning text
conditional review,onlyminor (5)(9) amendments(6)
certificatipn remodels(1)(7) (10)
multifamily tax
exemption(1)(8),
all other
mul"y tax
exemption(1)(7)
Developn�ent plan Multifamily Preliminary plat
review(pin��nin,�g� design review(1) (5)(8)
manager,'^""duing (7)
official,q public
works director)(7)
Admimaagadve Binding site plan
aPp mvaYW F(1) (2)(7)
(7)
Mobile home park Short subdivision Planned unit
closure(1p)(7) (4)(7) development(5)
(10)without a
change of use
(1)Final decision made bylplanniog manager. (7)Appeal to hearing examimx.
(2)Final decision by binding site plan committee. (8)Appeal to city council.
(3)Final decision made byldowntown design review committee. (9)Appeal to shoreline hearings board.
(4)Final decision made bylshort subdivision committee. (10)No administrative appeals.
(5)Final decision made bylbeating examiner. (11) Final decision made by manager of housing and
(6)Final decision made by!city council. human services.
12-5 (Revised 11102)71
95
12.01.040 Kent City Code
• B. Process procedures.The following table lists the process types and the corresponding procedures.
Project Permit Applications(Processes l—V) Legitla6w
Process I Process II Process III Process IV Process V Process VI
Requires pre- Yes,for projects Yes,for projects Yes,for projects Yes No No
application nguinng SEPA requiring SEPA requiring SEPA
conference: review review review
Notice of Yes,for projects Yes,for projects re- Yes Yes No No
application: requiring SEPA quiring SEPA re-
review view,short plats.
and shoreline sub-
stantial develop-
ment permits
Recommendation N/A N/A N/A Hearing examiner N/A Land use and
On by: I planning board
Final decision Planning Planning manage, Hearing examiner City council, City council City council
made by: manage,budding downtown design based upon
official,public review eommiaee, record made
wales director,or binding site plan before hearing
manager of Committee,or Short examiner
housing and subdivision can-
human services as vuuw,as noted m
applicable KCC 12.01.140
Open record Yes,if appealed, Yes,if appealed, No No No No
appeal: then before then before hearing
hearing examiner examiner
Open record No No Yes,before hearing Yes,before No Yes,before land
Wig: examine to make hearing examiner use and planning
Baal decision to make board to make
recommendation recommendation
to council to city council,
andlar before city
council
Reconsideration: No No Yes,of hewing Yes,of hearing No No
examiner's decision ex Is
recommendation
Closed record Only if appeal of Only if appealed. Only if appealed. No No No
appeal: denial of then before the then before the
multifamily shoreline hearings shoreline hearings
conditional board if applicable board if applicable
certificate,rhea
before the city
council
Judicial appeal; Yes I Yes I Yes Yes I Yes Yes
(Ord.No. 3424, § 19, 11-17-98;Ord.No.3574,§3,9-18-01;Ord.No.3614, § 1,9-17-02)
(Ravised 11/02) 12-6
96
This page intentionally;left blank.
97
Kent Shoreline Master Program
• 10. Duration of permits. Construction,or the use or activity, shall commence within two
(2)years after approval of the permits. Authorization to conduct development activities
shall terminate within five(5)years after the effective date of a shoreline permit. The
Administrator may authorize a single extension before the end of either of these time
periods,with prior notice to parties of record and the Department of Ecology, for up to
one (1)year based on reasonable factors.
11. Compliance with permit conditions. When permit approval is based on conditions,such
conditions shall be satisfied prior to occupancy or use of a structure or prior to
commencement of a nonstructural activity.
7.5 APPEALS
l. Local appeals. Any decision made by the Administrator on a substantial development
permit,or by the Hearing Examiner on a conditional use or variance permit shall be
final unless an appeal is made. Decisions may be appealed to the City Council by the
applicant,or a private or public organization or individual. Appeals shall be processed
in accordance with Kent City Code Section 12.01.190. Such appeal must be filed with
the City Clerk and the Administrator within fourteen(14)calendar days of the decision
being appealed,and must be accompanied by the required filing fee.
2. Shoreline Hearings Board. After the local appeals process has been exhausted,persons
• aggrieved by the grant,denial,rescission or modification of a permit may file a request
for review by the Shoreline Hearings Board in accordance with the review process
established by RCW 90.58.180,and with the regulations of the Shoreline Hearings
Board contained in Ch.461-08 WAC. The request for review must be filed with the
Hearings Board within twenty-one(21)days of the date of filing of the local permit
decision with the Department of Ecology.
7.6 VARIANCE PERMITS
1. Purpose. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from
specific bulk,dimensional or performance standards set forth in Kent's Master
Program,and where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the
physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of
Kent's Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart
the Shoreline Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020. Construction
pursuant to a variance permit shall not begin,nor can construction be authorized,except
as provided in WAC 173-27-190. In all instances,extraordinary circumstances shall be
shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
2. Application. Shoreline variances are classified as Process III applications and are
subject to the requirements of the Kent City Code Chapter 12.01, WAC 173-27-180,
and section 7.4 above.
Kent SMP:Section 7.0-Adaftstratlm 107
May, 1999
98
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 90.58.030 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Pagel c. 99
• (3) Procedural terms:
(a) "Guidelines" means those standards adopted to implement the policy of
this chapter for regulation of use of the shorelines of the state prior to adoption of
master programs. Such standards shall also provide criteria to local governments
and the department in developing master programs;
(b) "Master program" shall mean the comprehensive use plan for a described
area, and the use regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other
descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals, and standards
developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020;
(c) "State master program" is the cumulative total of all master programs
approved or adopted by the department of ecology;
(d) "Development" means a use consisting of the construction or exterior
alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand,
gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any
project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal
public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this chapter at
any state of water level;
(e) "Substantial development" shall mean any development of which the total
cost or fair market value exceeds five thousand dollars, or any development which
materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the
state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection (3)(e) must be adjusted
for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning July
11 2007, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period.
"Consumer price index" means, for any calendar year, that year's annual average
consumer price index, Seattle, Washington area, for urban wage earners and
clerical workers, all items, compiled by the bureau of labor and statistics, United
States department of labor. The office of financial management must calculate the
new dollar threshold and transmit it to the office of the code reviser for
publication in the Washington State Register at least one month before the new
dollar threshold is to take effect. The following shall not be considered substantial
developments for the purpose of this chapter:
(i) Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments,
including damage by accident, fire, or elements;
(ii) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single family
residences;
• (iii) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by
the elements;
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=90.58.030&fuseaction=section 4/7/2005
Chapter 90.58.030 RCW - 'The Washington State Legislature Page 2 of '00
(iv) Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and
ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands,
and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including but not
limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any
size, all processing plants,; other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the
contour of the shorelandsiby leveling or filling other than that which results from
normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or
ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of
being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but
shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or
grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations;
(v) Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers
and anchor buoys;
NO Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of
a single family residence for his own use or for the use of his or her family, which
residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level
and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having
jurisdiction thereof, other ithan requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter;
(vii) Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for
pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or
contract purchaser of single and multiple family residences. This exception applies
if either: (A) In salt water$, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two
thousand five hundred dollars; or (B) in fresh waters, the fair market value of the
dock does not exceed tenthousand dollars, but if subsequent construction having
a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars occurs within five
years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be
considered a substantial development for the purpose of this chapter;
(viii) Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains,
reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed
as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system
waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water for the irrigation
of lands;
(ix) The marking of property lines or comers on state owned lands, when such
marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of
the water;
(x) Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or
other facilities existing on;September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or
utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system;
(xi) Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RAW/index.cfm?section=90.58.030&fuseaction=section 4/7/2005
Chapter 90.58.030 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 3 of _ 101
• preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if:
(A) The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface
waters;
(B) The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment
including, but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality,
and aesthetic values;
(C) The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon
completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are
restored to conditions existing before the activity;
(D) A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first
posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to
the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions;
and
(E) The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550;
(xii) The process of removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed, as
defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment
methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final
environmental impact statement published by the department of agriculture or the
department jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW.
i
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=90.58.030&fuseaction=section 4/7/2005
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Planning and Econ. Dev. Committee Notices Sent on 4/13/05
TO: Brenda Jacober, City Clerk
FROM: Pamela Mottram SIGNATURE: ;v4mei544 ' taffwtm
Copies of the 4/18/05 PLANNING & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE Agenda Packets were distributed as follows:
City Council Members- Full Packet`(7) Deliver to City Clerk's Office—(7) Hard Pam Mottram
Tim C,JulieP, BruceW, RonH, LesT,DeborahR,DebbieRaplee Copies) in Cncl Mmbers Mail Boxes
TomB, RobertN, Fre addneA, � GouldWessen, Email Note: Distri to Hard Copies to: Pam Mottram
BrendaJ�er, Bil 5�s 6rne, 'rr0, Rgg41 eC Full Packet—(10) TOP i55 >*(5)—hd copies)
Web Page —Mary Simmons Agenda &Full Packet Email: Front Page Mary Simmons
King County Journal Place in Box @-City Clerks- Full Packet FAX: 9-872-6611 >>Agenda Pam Mottram
Kent Reporter-(Place in Mail slot @ Clerks Ofc Full Packet FAX: Michelle Gisi— 9-437-6026-Agda Pam Mottram
Marcelle Pechler,, Chamber of Commerce Full Packet or Agda Email: Mpechler(a),kentchamber.com Pam Mottram
Garrett Huffman, SKClyMgr 425451-7920EA236 Full PcketorAgda Email: ghuffman(a)_mbaks.com Pam Mottram
Master Blders Assoc, 335 116th Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004
Don Shaffer,Kent CARES,2070North St,Seattle,WA98103 Fu91'acket US Mail (1)
William T. Miller, 827 W.Valley Hwy#95, Kent 98032 Agenda US Mail (KBAB) Pam Mottram
Michael D. Manderville, 11415 SE 196 , Renton 98055 Agenda US Mail (KBAB) Pam Mottram
Ryan Zulauf, 24502 98 Ave. S., Kent 98030 Agenda US Mail Pam Mottram
Jennifer Gorman/Warren Perkins Agenda US Mail Pam Mottram
Qwest Communications,23315 66th Ave S, Kent WA 98032
JStorment„EdCrawford,DMdckstxem,GGill,JHodgson, Email Pam Mottram
6 Lopez,RGivens,KSenecaut, KSprotbery, MayorWhite, MMartin,
BColeman, BHutchinson, NTorgelson, TWhite, JSchneider, S 37
MHubner, SMullen, LFlemm, BBilodeau, CHolden, JMorrow, AGENDA ( )
CBarry, SHeiserman, MGilbert, CHankiggs, KHanson, DHooper
. RKf*4aasen- .9 y1t qkti&512iO
LUPB Members:Jon Johnson, Greg Worthing, Kenneth Wendling, Email
Stere owell,Dav�M�, Elizabeth Watson,Theresa Ferguson AGENDAS (7)
Seattle Post Intelligencer(P.I.) Agenda Email:citvdesk seattleoi.com Pam Mottram
Kelly Snyder, Roth Hill Engineering Agenda Email: ksnvder0rothhill.com Pam Mottram
Pam Cobley, Roth Hill Engineering Agenda Email: pcobley@rothhill.com Pam Mottram
14450 NE 29'h PI, Suite 101, Bellevue,WA 98007
Shaunta Hyde, The Boeing Co., 206-655-3640 Agenda Email: shaunta.r.hvde(a)boeing.com Pam Mottram
Local Gvmt Relations Mgr. POB 3707 MC 14-49, Sea,WA 98124
Ted Nixon, Campbell/Nixon Assoc. Agenda Email:ten@cn-architects.com Pam Mottram
10024 SE 240t", Suite 102, Kent 98031
Doug Corbin, Puget Sound Energy, Agenda Email::douglas.corbin(d)pse.com Pam Mottram
3130 S 38"St.,TAC-ANX,Tacoma,WA 98409 PH: 1-800-321-4123/395-6867
Lobby of City Hall Agenda POST Pam Mottram
Kent.Downtown Partnership PO Box 557,K tWA98035.Agenda Email: kdp(a)kentdowntown.org Pam Mottram
(Jacquie Alexander) Ph:253-813-6976
David Hoffman,25334 45 Ave S, Kent, 98032-4223 Agenda Email: David.W.HOffman(a)BOeing.Com Pam Mottram
(KBAB) Hm:253-852-4683 Wk:253-773-2861
Melvin L. Roberts, 9421 T 241s St., Kent 98031 Agenda Email: Melvin.L.Roberts@Boeing.com Pam Mottram
(KBAB) Hm: 253-854-0952 Wk:425-865-3695
Jacob W. Grob, 5408 S.236 St., Kent 98032-3389 Agenda Email:Jacob.W.GrobaBoeing.com Pam Mottram
(KBAB) Hm:253-813-3809 Wk:425-234-2664
Steven M. Nuss,26220 42no Ave. S, Kent, 98032 Agenda Email: SteveNuss(&RedDOtCorp.COm Pam Mottram
(KBAB) Hm:253-854-7561
Thomas Hale, 23327 115 PI SE, Kent 98031-3426 Agenda Email: sthale2(t comcast.net Pam Mottram
(KBAB) Hm: 253-854-0734
Aaron Renner, (KBAB) Kent,WA 98032 Agenda Email: aaron renner(a)yahoo.com IPam Mottram
13 Full Packets-2 for Mtg(7 Original Letterhead Agenda Covers forCC)4 Hd copy Ag 9 (Revised 4/13/05,S:1P rrn,APlan'Planning Committee'20051DistrlbutlonlPC.distribution041805.doc
:,��� Idl �z�a-awe=r�z��rs �
• . y s
Mottram, Pamela
m: Mottram, Pamela
t: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:00 AM
To: Ted Nixon (ten@cn-architects.com); Corbin, Doug; Puget Sound Energy; Dana Ralph
(Theralphs4@msn.com); David Malik (dpmalik@hotmail.com); Elizabeth Watson; Garrett
Huffman, SKC Mgr; Greg Worthing (gaworthing@yahoo.com); Kent Downtown Partnership
(Jacquie Alexander); Jon Johnson Qonkjohnson@attbi.com); Snyder, Kelly Roth Hill Engr;
Kenneth Wendling; Pam Cobley, Roth Hill Engineering; Renner, Aaron T. , KBAB; Seattle
Post Intelligencer(P.I.); Steve Dowell (dowell16@msn.com); White, Tammy; Pratt, Kim
Adams; Anderson, Charlene; Barry, Cathy, Admin Sec., Planning Services; Bilodeau, Bernie
Admin Secretary, Planning; Brubaker, Tom; Cameron, Renee; City Council; Coleman, Bonnie;
Crawford, Ed; Flemm, Lori; Gilbert, Matt, Planning Services; Gill, Gary; Gillespie, Mike;
Givens, Rosalie; Gould-Wessen, Gloria; Grob, Jacob W. KBAB; Hale, Thomas KBAB;
Hankins, Chris, Planning Services; Hanson, Kurt, Planning Services; Heiserman, Steve Prod.
Assist. Multimedia; Hodgson, John; Hoffman, David KBAB; Holden, Chris, Admin Secretary,
Planning Services; Hooper, Damien, Planning Services; Hubner, Mike; Hutchinson, Robert;
Immacolato, Jocelyn; Jacober, Brenda; Blanchard, Larry; Lopez, Barbara; Marousek, Kim;
Martin, Mike; Simmons, Mary; Michael Hubner, Suburban Cities Consultant, Planning
Services; Morrow, Judy, Admin Sec., Planning Services; Mullen, Steve Transp Engr Mgr;
Nachlinger, Robert; Nuss, Steven M KBAB; Osborne, William; Pechler, Marcelle- Kent
Chamber of Commerce; Peterson, Kelly; Roberts, Melvin L KBAB; Satterstrom, Fred;
Schneider, Jim; Senecaut, Kathleen; Shaunta Hyde, the Boeing Co.; Sprotbery, Kevin;
Storment, Jim; Torgelson, Nathan; White, Jim
Subject: AGENDA PACKET-4/18/05 Planning & Economic Dev. Committee
To All,
Please find attached the AGENDA PACKET for the upcoming Planning & Economic Dev. Committee scheduled
0 Monday,
ril 18, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers East.
PEDC_Packet_041
805.pdf(4 MB)
Please contact myself or Charlene Anderson at canderson@ci.kent.wa.us for further assistance.
Thank you,
aavuela A. Mctt(-Po
Ad v�Lw%strat%ve secvetar�
PLawv�wu� sevvCces
P C/i n vi 8: 253-�Sn-5�64
?-�q%L: puwOt`rGtv�.@ci..i2ev�t.w'Gt.u.S
JJ G �,G• �?20 �SCc=c G LLr�^S �r / zCci-zc��-l�Z�r-ZCcS-z
4/ 3/ 05 8:00 AM
8:00 AM
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } (ITYOFKENT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE Oh'SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING&
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC NOTICE COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS I3ERERY GIVEN that
Luha Hasson,being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising the City' Council Planning and
Economic Development Committee
Representative of the will hold a Special Meeting
gat 4:00
p.m. on Monday,April 4, 2005 in
Council Chambers East, Kent Citv
King COu"ty Journal halt,220 4th Avenue South,Kent.
Agenda item(s)me:
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general 1.Approval D 17ieetin . March 2t,
2005 PiopP&EDCmeeting.
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date 2.(#ZCA 2 Critical t>J m Ordinance
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language consid'200oil, Committee will
continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The consider four proposed options
related to greaten regulations as
Snoqualmie Valley Record has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by part. a c greater Critical Areas
order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King nt . Ordinance update. This may
o C011n[y_ include change,to KCC 15.08.400,
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Planned Unit Development
Snoqualmie Valley Record (and not in supplement form) which was regularly POD).
Any person wishing to submit oral or
distributed to its subscrihers during the below stated period. The annexed written continents on this application
notice, a mac do so prim to the meeting or at
the meeting. Although the public is
Public Notice invited to attend,this is not a public
hearing. Therefore, there will be no
waS published on Tuesday, 3/29/05 public input at this meeting. For fur-
ther information or a copy of the staff
report or the text of the proposed
The full amount of the fee char amendment for the Critical Areas
wed for said foregoing publication is the sum Ordinance, contact Kim Marousek,
of$98.00 of the rate of$16.00 per inch for the first publication and N/A per Planning Services office, ebsi 858-
inch for each subsequent insertion. 545c The City of KenCs PVebsite can
be,ccessed at
_:=r littp://lvww.ci.kriit.%va.us/CitvCouncil/
,0w Mi!N//1, Comittees/plannmg.asp.
— �-
ZUfla 1daSSdn AnI per,soo requiring a disability
acconzm.odation should contact the
Legal`*tl Advertising Representative, Sno ualmie V - ' Cite (lerl;;ti Ojjre tit 253-856 fTLG is
9 alley Record aduaace. For TDD relay scrnece rail
Subsctitled c .d -ern to me this Wli day of March.2005. _
// the Washington Tederontnulni ations
! _ — Relay Semler at 1-800-833-6388.
Published in the King County Journal
'Tom A. Afeagher
t'j'•, All
B'�` March 29,200G1558690
Notary public for the State of Washington.Residing in Redmond. Wasfi figa#ott
r
Ad Number: 858690 p. 0. Number
,�t`,rr
Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge.