HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2004-05-24 Item 3F - Amendment - 2004 Countywide Planning Policy ......................... Initials .................... ITEM NO.
II ]Coan,ilr i '
i MaM~i2n4g, 2£~ote4 SL~..~~ ~review ~_7~. ~, ~,
' ITEM INFORMATION
CAS Number: 04-075 [ Original Agenda Date: May 24, 2004
Agenda Item Title: 2004 Countywide Planning Policy Amendment
Original Sponsor: Council Admin. DCD
Timeline: Action requested by June 7, 2004
Sponsor's Summary: The Growth Management Planning Council and the King County Council have approved an
amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies designating downtown Auburn as an "Urban
Center." The Tukwila City Coucnil may act to ratify or to opose the amendment within 90
days of the County's action (by June 7, 2004). In the event the City Council takes no action
by that date, it will be deemed to have approved the amendment.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Approve the proposed amendment.
Committee: Approve the proposed amendment.
Administration: Approve the proposed amendment.
Cost Impact (if known): None.
Fund Source (if known): N.A.
APPENDICES
Meeting Date Attachments
05-24-04 Memo from Steve Lancaster dated May 18, 2004
" Growth Management Planning Council Motion No. 03-2
" King County Ordinance 14844
" Minutes, Community Affairs and Parks Committee, April 13, 2004
CITY OF TUKWILA
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Steve LanCaster ~ ~
SUBJECT: Ratification of Countywide Planning Policy amendment
Designating Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center
DATE: May 18, 2004
BACKGROUND
The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that King County and the cities within the
county work together to adopt countywide planning policies, which serve to guide and
coordinate the development of local comprehensive plans. The Growth Management Planning
Council (GMPC) comprised of representatives of King County, the cities and special districts
was formed in 1990 to develop such countywide planning policies. The original Countywide
Planning Policies for King County (CPPs) were adopted in July 1992. These policies are
periodically reviewed and revised in response either to changing conditions or requirements of
growth management law.
The GMPC develops proposed countywide planning policies or amendments to the policies, and
recommends them to the King County Council. Policies adopted by the County Council become
effective only if ratified by at least 30% of the city and county governments in King County,
representing at least 70%.. of the county's population. Jurisdictions failing to act within 90 days
of County Council action are deemed to have ratified the policies or amendments. The 90~day
period for the 2004 CPP amendment described below expires on June 7.
PROPOSED CPP AMENDMENT
In 2002, the City of Auburn requested that its downtown core be designated as an Urban Center
in the Countywide Planning Policies. Urban Centers are envisioned in the CPPs as areas of
concentrated employment, housing and a wide range of other uses, with direct service by high-
caPacity transit. They are expected to account for up to one-half of King County's employment
growth and une-quarter of household growth over the next 20 years.
In order to be designated as an Urban Center, jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the
Countywide Planning Policies, including having adopted plans that will accommodate:
· A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center; and
\\TUK2WOL3~IOME\STEVE-L\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CAP 2004 ratification.doc Page
· An average of at least 50 employees per gross acre; and
· An average of at least 15 households per acre.
Existing conditions in Auburn's proposed Urban Center are:
· 6,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center.
· An average of 14 employees per gross acre.
· An average of less than 1 household per acre.
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. 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 providing adequate infrastructure.
The Growth Management Planning Council, through the unanimous adoption of Motion 03-2,
has found that Auburn has demonstrated its commitment to developing a fully realized Urban
Center as envisioned in the Countywide Planning Policies.
King County Ordinance No. 14844 adopts GMPC Motion No. 03-2, amending the Countywide
Planning Policies by designating Downtown Auburn (the Auburn Central Business District) as
an Urban Center. Specifically, the proposed amendment adds Auburn's CBD to the list of urban
centers contained under Countywide Planning Policy LU-39, which currently includes:
i BellevueKent · Kirkland i Seattle(5)
Federal Way ~RentonRedm°nd (2) Tukwila
RECOMMENDATION
Th~ Community Affairs and Parks Committee reviewed the proposed Countywide Planning
Policy Amendment at its April 13, 2004 meeting. The CAP is forwarding the proposed '
amendment to the Committee of the Whole with a recommendation to approve ratification.
\\TUK2\VOL3~-IOME\STEVE-L\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CAP 2004 ratification.doc Page
14844
Attachment A
September 17, 2003
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
1 MOTION NO, 03-2
2 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by
3 designating Downtown Auburn (the Auburn Central Business
4 District) as an Urban Center. Downtown Auburn is added to
5 the list of Urban Centers following Countywide Planning
6 Policy LU-39.
7
8
9 WHEREAS, A goal of the Growth Management Act is to encourage development in Urban
10 Areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
11
12 WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
13 the criteria for Urban Center designation;
1.4
15 WHEREAS, Policy LU40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
16 standards for planned land uses within Urban Centers;
17 . ,
18 WHEREAS, the City of Aubum has demonstrated that .Downtown Auburn meets the
19 criteria for designation as an Urban Center; and
20
21 WHEREAS, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-106 supports the development of'
22 Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and
23 recreation.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
14844
Attachment P~
1
2
3
4 TI-IE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
5 H~REBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
6
7 Downtown Auburn is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following
8 Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Downtown Auburn.
9
10 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
11 September 17, 2003 in open session.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
"~ ~) KING COUNTY ~oo ~.s Co~n~ Co~o~,~~ a'hi~a ^ye..,
· ~ Seattle, WA 98104 .
'"' ~' Signature RelSort
March 8, 2004
Ordinance J4844
Proposed No. 2004-0033.2 Sponsors PaRerson andHammond
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; designating downtown
3 Auburn 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:
1 i SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings:
12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
13 Ma~, agement Planning Council recommended King County 2012-~ Countywide Planning
14 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
17 11446.
1
;~ Ordinance '14844
18 C. The Growth Managemeiat Planning Council met on September 17, 2003, and
19 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Codntywide Planning
20 Policies, designating downtown Auburn 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 II.
24 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
25 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
26 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Plamfing
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 Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
34 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
36 G. The Phase 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 II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended, as shown by'Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. . .
2
'~: Ordinance 14844
40 'I: The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
41 Policies are mended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
42 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended, as ShoWn by A~tachment 1 to Ordinance 14652.
44 K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 20.12 - Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 14653.
46 L: The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Plarming
47 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654.
48 M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
49 Policies are am. ended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655.
50 N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning .
51 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656.
52 O. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Count/wide Planning
53 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to this ordinance.
54 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
55 each hereby amended to read as followS:
56 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
57 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
58 spe.cified are hereby ratified on behalf,of the population of unincorporated King County.
59 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
60 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
61 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
62 11061 are hbreby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
3
'~ Ordinance 14844
63 D. The Phase II amendrp, ents to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
64 Policies adopted by OrdinanCe 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
65 unincorporated King Count~.
66 E. The amendments to the ICing County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
67 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
68 population of unincorporated King County.
69 Fi The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
70 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
7-1 . population of unincorporated King County.
72 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
73 shown by AttaChments ~ and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
74 population of unincorporated King County.
75 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
76 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
77 the population of unincorporated King County.
78 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning Policies, as
79 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
80 'the population ofnnincorporated King County.
81 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
82 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
83 population of unincorporated King County.
4
'~' Ordinance 14844
84 K. The amendments to t...l~ King County 20i2 - Countywide planning Policies, as
85 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
86 population of unincorporated King County.
87 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
88 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
89 population of unincorporated King County.
90 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Plamfing Policies, as
91 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
92 population of unincorporated King County.
93 N. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
94 shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 14653, are hereby ratified on behalf of
95 the population of unincorporated King County.
96 O. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planulng Policies, as
97 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
98 population of unincorporated King County.
99 P. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
100 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655, are hereby }atified on b~halfof the
101 population of unincorporated King County.
102 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
103 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
104 population of tmincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14844
105 Ri The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
106 shown by Attachment A to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
107 of .nlncorporated King County.
108
Ordinance 14844 was introduced on 1/20/2004 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 3/8/2004, by the following vote:
Yes: t2 - Mr. Phillips, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. yon Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
McKenna, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr./tons,
Ms. Patterson and Mr. Constantine
No: 0
Excused: I - Mr. Pelz
KiNG COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASH!rlqGTON
A'I-I~'.O. ST:
Anne Nofis, Clerk of the Council
Run Sims, County Executive
ARaehments A. G~C Motion No. 03-2
6
and Parks Committee
April 13, 2004
Present: Pam Linder, Chair; Joe Duffle, Dave Fenton
Nick Olivas, Don Tomaso, Bob Benedicto, Joyce Trantina, Kathy Stetson, Steve
Lancaster, Bruce Fletcher, Paul Surek, Lucy Lanterbach
1. International Building Code Adoptioo Bob Benedicto is the Building Official, and he
discussed how the City has been using the 1997 Building Code as it was the last one adopted by
the State. The new International Building Code (IBC) was adopted by the State after a
committee the mayor served on recommended it over another version of building code. The
Committee asked why only 44 states were adopting the IBC. Bob said the initial code should be
adopted without amendments, thou'gh later the City can make some changes in local code if they
are more strict than the IBC. He went through with the Committee the effects the new code will
have on our codes.
Kathy and Joyce then went through three other codes that will supplement the IBC. The first was
" the Nuisance and Housing section, relating to trash, weeds, graffiti, and landscaping
requirements. Kathy said the new language will allow her to require private landowners to clean
up graffiti on th~'~r.property. The Committee approved of those additions.
A second new section addressed Junk Vehicles. The provisions in the civil code are vague, and
would be replaced by language that defines what a junk vehicle is, and would deal with the
proliferation of junk vehicles on private property. Joe asked if the City would enforce the
regulation, and Steve said not all, but many cars that need to be removed, would be under these
new provisions. The Committee asked that the definition of a junk vekicle be included when this
issue goes to Council.
A third section addressed where cars and trailers can legally be parked on a property. This
section would prevent cars from parking on front lawns, requiring instead an approved durable
surface, which would be defined. Pam wanted to know what Sea Tac did when they passed a
similar change last year. Kathy said it was likely they would educate people about this
requirement for i~ year bef6re they started charging people with removing vehicles. Pam L
pointed out there is .a house in her neighborhood that does not have a driveway due to the narrow
width of the property (many properties in AllentowrgDuwamish are narrow but deep). This
person carmot park in a driveway and would be subject to removal. She did not support this
portion of tl~e proposed changes as they are now. The Committee wanted to know if there wa
enough interest in this last proposal. If soo, they would send it back to Committee for further
work. Recommend IBC~ Nuisance~ JUnk Cars, and Improper Parking Issues to COW. with
one member not vet aereein~ to support the Improper Parking section.
2. Ratification of Designating Downtown Auburn as a an Urban Center The Growth
Management Policy Committee (GMPC) recommended adoption of Aubum's proposal to add its
downtown as an urban center. Although they don't meet the requirements, they, like Tukwila,
will work to achieve those goals for population, housing and jobs. Recommend Auburn
proposal for an Urban Center designation to COW for aplaroval.