Attachment 4
2016 King County Comprehensive Plan Update
Executive Recommended Plan
DEVELOPMENT CODE STUDIES
March 2016
Development Code Studies
Page 2
List of Studies
Development Code Study #1 - Agricultural Production Districts
Development Code Study #2 - Alternative Temporary Housing
Development Code Study #3 - Alternative Housing Models
Development Code Study #4 - Ingress/egress for plats
Development Code Study #5 - Agricultural Lands, including K.C.C. 20.54
Development Code Study #6 - Extension of plat approvals
Page 1
Scope of Work from King County Council Motion 14351
Consider code amendments and comprehensive plan policies for agriculture supportive and dependent
uses to support viable and sustainable agricultural production districts.
Background
Land suitable for farming is an irreplaceable natural resource. Agricultural lands and farming provide
many benefits to the citizens of King County including a connection to our cultural heritage, fresh local
food and a diverse economy. King County has developed comprehensive planning policies that are
aimed at maintaining and enhancing commercial agriculture. These policies call for King County to:
Protect productive farmland by designation and zoning
Limit development to operations that are needed to support commercial agriculture.
Develop mechanisms to maintain the affordability of farmland; and
Allow necessary infrastructure and services to support commercial agriculture
In 1985, the King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) designated five Agricultural Production Districts.
Subsequent planning efforts established minimum lot sizes and appropriate uses for these districts and
their surrounding areas. When the King County Zoning regulations were rewritten in 1993, agricultural
land uses were included in the Resource land use table in K.C.C. 21A.08.090. These regulations were
determined to be consistent with the requirements of GMA to designate productive agricultural lands
and to plan for adjacent and nearby land uses that are not incompatible long-term commercial
agriculture.
The Resource Lands Comprehensive Planning Policies have evolved significantly since 1994. King County
updated its comprehensive planning policies (KCCPP) and comprehensive plan (KCCP) in 2012
establishing a long- term goal over the next thirty years that resource lands be recognized as valuable
assets of King County and be renowned for their productivity and sustainable management. The relevant
2016 King County Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Code #1
Agricultural Production Districts
Executive Recommended Plan
Department of Permitting and Environmental Review
Development Code #1
Agricultural Production Districts
Page 2
portions of the planning policies in the KCCPP applicable to agricultural lands and establishment of
agricultural supportive and dependent uses to support viable and sustainable agricultural production
districts are summarized below:
DP-52 Promote and support agriculture and other resource-based industries.
DP-53 Conserve commercial agricultural lands primarily for their long-term productive
resource value and for the open space, scenic views, wildlife habitat, and critical area protection
they provide.
DP-54 Encourage best practices in agriculture operations for long term protection of the
natural resources.
DP-55 Prohibit annexation of lands within designated Agricultural Production Districts.
DP-57 Discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to designated agricultural lands to prevent
interference with their continued use for the production of agricultural products.
DP-58 Support local production and processing of food to reduce the need for long-distance
transport and to increase the reliability and security of local food. Promote activities and
infrastructure, such as farmers markets, farm worker housing and agricultural processing
facilities, that benefit both cities and farms, by improving access to locally grown agricultural
products.
The 2012 KCCP policies broadly support the KCCPP vision of establishing a vibrant and sustainable
agricultural economy. The relevant 2012 KCCP policies applicable to agricultural lands and establishment
of agricultural supportive and dependent uses to support viable and sustainable agricultural production
districts are summarized below:
R-606 – Farm lands shall be conserved for productive use through the use of Designated
Agricultural Production Districts where the preferred land uses will be commercial agricultural
activities, and by the designation of appropriate compatible uses on adjacent rural and urban
lands.
R-608 – King County should encourage infrastructure and services that support resource lands
management and resource-based businesses. These should be sited in close proximity to
designated Agricultural Production Districts when adverse impacts and incompatibilities can
effectively be mitigated.
R-649 – Agriculture must remain the predominant use in any Agricultural Production District.
R-651 – Maintaining the viability of farmlands is a high priority for King County.
R-662 – Agricultural processing, packing and direct sales are considered agricultural activities
and should be allowed at a size and scale appropriate to the zone in which they are operating.
The Scope of Work can be rephrased in the following question: Do King County’s existing zoning and
related development regulations promote establishment of agricultural supportive and dependent uses
to support viable and sustainable agricultural production districts?
Development Code #1
Agricultural Production Districts
Page 3
Discussion
Under the 1993 zoning code, agricultural land uses were included in the Resource land use table in
K.C.C. 21A.08.090. These uses were limited to the growing and harvesting of crops and raising livestock
and small animals. Farmworker housing was allowed as an accessory to an agricultural operation in the
A, RA and UR zones but was limited to a maximum of two dwelling units. Food processing was included
in the Manufacturing land use table as an allowed use within the A, RA and UR zones but was limited to
products produced on-site. Agricultural product sales were included in the Retail/Wholesale land use
table as an allowed use in the A, RA and UR zones but were limited to products produced on site and
sales areas were limited to 500 square feet. Food product warehousing, refrigeration and storage were
included in the Business Services land use table as an allowed use in the A, RA and UR zones but were
limited to products produced on site.
Structurally, there has been little change made to the zoning code over the past twenty plus years.
Agriculture, as a Resource land use, is still limited to the growing and harvesting of crops and raising of
livestock and small animals. Farmworker housing is included as a Residential land use and is limited to
agricultural operations located in the A zone. Processing of agricultural products are still allowed as a
Manufacturing land use and are allowed in the A, RA and UR zones but only as an accessory to an
agricultural use and subject to conditions limiting the size of the support structures and requiring that
sixty percent of the products be from the Puget Sound region. The most significant change is that retail
sales and warehousing, refrigeration and storage of food products is allowed in the A, RA and UR zones
and does not require that the products be produced on-site.
The structural make-up of the zoning code and limiting the definition of agriculture to the raising of
livestock and small animals and growing and harvesting of crops can create significant obstacles for
implementing many of the comprehensive planning policies listed above. The best example of this
regards the new shoreline regulations that were adopted in 2012 and became effective in 2013. The
shoreland areas located within the APDS were all assigned the Resource shoreline designation. Within
the Resource shoreline environment, agricultural activities listed in KCC 21A.08.090 (Resource) are
allowed but retail, business service and manufacturing land uses are not. As a result, new processing
operations or retail or agricultural support facilities on existing farms located within the Resource
shoreline environment would not be allowed. This is a significant issue for farms located in the
Snoqualmie, Lower and Upper Green River and Sammamish APDs.
The other problem created by the existing structure of the zoning code is that each time a new type of
agricultural supportive or dependent operation is identified that is not included in the existing use
tables, the code has to be amended. This is a time consuming and labor intensive process that is not
conducive to efficient permitting. By contrast, most of the Puget Sound counties have broadly defined
agriculture and agriculture related activities to include processing, sales, storage, equipment repair,
farm maintenance and all of the other related supportive or dependent activities typically associated
with a farm.
This and other regulatory and permitting issues potentially affecting agriculture have been discussed
extensively with King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Agriculture Program staff and
the King Conservation District for nearly a year. These issues were also presented to the Snoqualmie
Fish, Farm, Flood (FFF) Advisory Committee in November 2014. This group consisted of farmers,
Development Code #1
Agricultural Production Districts
Page 4
representatives of the KCD, Agriculture Commission, Snoqualmie Tilth and several local and state
agencies.
Recommendation
Update the zoning code by redefining agriculture and including all agricultural activities and related
agricultural supportive or dependent uses in the Resource land use table. The code amendments would
include the following:
Amend K.C.C. 21A.06; adding definitions for agriculture, agricultural activities, agricultural
support facilities, and farm.
Amend K.C.C. 21A.08.030; moving farm worker housing to K.C.C. 21A.08.090 as a resource
accessory use.
Amend K.C.C. 21A.08.050.B.33; moving accessory agricultural repair to K.C.C. 21A.08.090 as a
resource accessory use.
Amend K.C.C.21A.08.060.B.15, 36; moving farm product warehousing, refrigeration, and storage
to K.C.C. 21A.08.090 as a resource accessory or supportive use.
Amend K.C.C. 21A.08.070.B.7; moving agricultural product sales to K.C.C.21A.08.090 as an
agricultural accessory use.
Amend K.C.C. 21A.08.080.B.1; moving food and kindred products to K.C.C. 21A.24.090 as a
resource accessory or supportive use.
Amend K.C.C. 21A.08.090; adding agricultural activities and agricultural supportive facilities as
allowed agricultural activities, subject to conditions.
Amend K.C.C. 21A.42; establishing criteria for director approval of expansions of agricultural use
or development beyond the criteria in K.C.C. 21A.08.090 and establishing criteria for director
approval for siting of agricultural support facilities on properties on or adjacent to the
agricultural production districts where agriculture is not the existing primary use of the
property.
Other minor code amendments may be needed to support the amendments proposed above.
DNRP staff have been actively involved in drafting the proposed code amendments. Additional
coordination with the Agriculture Commission, KCD and other stakeholders will be required once a draft
of the ordinance is available.
Scope of Work from King County Council Motion 14351
Consider code flexibility for alternative temporary lodging, such as treehouses and structures associated
with re-creations of historic communities.
Introduction
Both treehouses and re-creations of historic communities deal with alternative methods and materials
of construction from those generally addressed by the State and County building codes. This report is in
three parts: 1) issues dealing with treehouses, 2) issues dealing with re-creations of historic buildings
and 3) conclusions and recommendations that address both.
1. TREEHOUSES
Background
A property owner has built six treehouses (structures built in trees) for use as commercial bed and
breakfast facilities. This is temporary housing in which a person or persons pay to stay overnight in the
structure. There is a distinction between the land uses allowed on a site or in a structure and the
methods and materials of construction for a structure. The use/occupancy regulations are based on
what happens inside the structures. On the other hand, the construction regulations govern how the
structures are built in order to meet life safety requirements. Both of these sets of regulations come
into play in a single structure, such as a structure in a tree being used for commercial purposes.
In this case, a bed and breakfast establishment is an allowed land use; the structure that contains the
allowed land use is a treehouse/structure in a tree and, as a structure, is subject to the State and County
building codes. The property owner is working through a code enforcement action and has obtained a
shoreline development permit and alteration exception permit for the use from the County; he has
applied for and the County is reviewing building permits for the treehouses.
2016 King County Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Code #2
Alternative Temporary Housing
Executive Recommended Plan
Department of Permitting and Environmental Review
Development Code #2
Alternative Temporary Housing
Page 2
Discussion
The consistent intent in the codes regulating the methods and materials of construction for a structure
is “structural integrity.” The structure must be able to resist structural loads imposed by both occupants
and snow, wind and seismic occurrences. Compliance with code intent must be achieved by whatever
method of construction is employed in order to provide a minimum level of safeguard to the public and
to emergency responders.
In most instances, treehouses do not require a building permit as they are considered a play structure
accessory to a residence. However, if the structure is open to the general public or part of a commercial
operation, such as temporary lodging, a building permit is required and compliance with the State
Building Code must be demonstrated. While treehouses do not use standard construction methods and
there is not a specific code for treehouses, the building code does provide a path to meet the code
intent for unusual (alternative) methods of construction.
The 2012 International Building Code (IBC), which is adopted by the State of Washington and King
County and governs non-single-family (commercial and multi-family) construction, contains sections
addressing alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment; research reports;
and tests. (See code references at the end of this report for current language.) Alternative methods of
construction for commercial uses to accommodate the public are allowed by the building codes so long
as the applicant can demonstrate to the County Building Official’s satisfaction that the proposed
alternative method of construction will achieve structural integrity and stability.
King County’s currently adopted versions of the building codes authorize the Building Official to make a
determination of structural integrity when he/she or his/her designee is presented with a structural
engineer’s analysis of the proposed alternative construction method and conclusion of structural
stability. This involves the permit applicant hiring a qualified, licensed, professional third party expert to
complete such an analysis and conclusion.
2. RE-CREATIONS OF HISTORIC COMMUNITIES
Background
Camlann Enterprises was issued a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in 1982 for a “commercial recreational
medieval-cultural center” (File No. 82-51-C). The CUP was appealed to the Zoning and Subdivision
Examiner. The Examiner’s Decision and Order states “the use was property classified as a conditional
use.” However, the matter was remanded to the Zoning Adjustor to adequately condition the use to
limit the scale. Condition 4a. states, in part, “Buildings must conform to building and fire code.” The
Zoning Adjustor’s Order is dated January 9, 1985.
According to a paper produced by Camlann Medieval Association, the Association is a 501(c)(3)
educational nonprofit dedicated to ”presenting the 14
th
Century culture of our English ancestors” and
purchased the property from Camlann Enterprises in 2006. In keeping with its educational mission, the
Association has scaled back the commercial “craft” sales to within the planned gate house and changed
the 24 approved structures to be smaller walled and roofed demonstration booths/villager’s cottages
because these more accurately represent medieval village life. Individual interpreters will demonstrate
Development Code #2
Alternative Temporary Housing
Page 3
to visitors various handcrafts (spinning, weaving, blacksmithing, shoemaking, fletching, basketry, etc.).
Camlann Village is open to the public, sells tickets, sells meals, sells crafts and is a commercial
enterprise.
Three of the 24 small buildings have been constructed (villager’s cottage, blacksmith, and concession).
Wattle & daub has been used for construction. The applicant wishes to have “a procedure for building
historically correct structures.” The applicant agrees that the Camlann Village structures are not historic
structures; rather they are modern structures constructed using historic methods.
Two residential units are permitted onsite by the CUP. Both of these residences have been constructed
and are currently occupied. The other structures onsite are commercial in use to demonstrate to the
public how a medieval village operates.
Discussion
The Camlann Village smaller buildings should not be considered under “historic preservation” provisions
because they are not over 50 years old and do not meet the definition of historic buildings. Wattle &
daub is an alternative method of construction and such construction methods can be accommodated
under current building code language.
The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) which governs commercial construction contains sections
addressing alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment; research reports;
and tests. (See code references at the end of this report for current language.) The consistent intent in
the methods of construction for a structure is “structural integrity.” The structure must be constructed
so that it will not fall down and injure or harm members of the public.
Various methods of construction may achieve structural integrity. The purpose of a building permit is to
demonstrate that the intent of the IBC is met to the satisfaction of the County’s Building Official and that
structural integrity will be achieved by the proposed method of construction. Once this has been
demonstrated, the Building Official or his/her designee may issue a building permit.
Re-creations of historic communities incorporating historic methods of construction differ from current
or “normal” building construction practices. Alternative methods of construction for commercial uses to
accommodate the public are allowed by the building codes so long as the applicant can demonstrate to
the County Building Official’s satisfaction that the proposed alternative method of construction will
achieve structural integrity and stability.
King County’s currently adopted versions of the building codes authorize the Building Official to make a
determination of structural integrity when he/she or his/her designee is presented with a structural
engineer’s analysis of the proposed alternative construction method and conclusion of structural
stability. This involves the permit applicant hiring a qualified, licensed, professional third party expert to
complete such an analysis and conclusion.
At Camlann Village, 21 smaller buildings are proposed for construction over the next several years. At
this point, all buildings are proposed to be constructed in the same manner. The applicant will need to
demonstrate structural integrity for the first smaller building and submit a report with the building
Development Code #2
Alternative Temporary Housing
Page 4
permit application. Building permit applications for the rest of the 21 additional smaller buildings may
include this structural report in situations where the size and construction will be the same.
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR BOTH TREEHOUSES AND RE-CREATIONS OF
HISTORIC BUILDINGS
The International Building Code (IBC), as adopted by both Washington State and King County, provides
for alternative materials and construction methods in accordance with IBC Section 104.11 (see code
reference at the end of this section for more information). This code section is often used by design and
code professionals as new techniques and materials are introduced into the market. There have been
several examples over the recent years when the Department of Permitting and Environmental Review
has authorized alternative construction methods in accordance with IBC Section 104.11. However, the
County may not grant code exceptions or waivers. Code intent, as noted in the International Building
Code, must be achieved:
IBC 101.3 – Intent: the purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide
a reasonable level of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength,
means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy
conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built
environment and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency
responders during emergency operations.
The following provides guidance to assist an applicant in achieving approval of alternative methods of
construction:
Applicants for building permits for treehouses for public use and/or re-creations of historic
buildings must demonstrate the construction meets all State and County Building and Fire Code
regulations to provide for minimum life/safety, public health and energy code standards;
The Department of Permitting and Environmental Review will continue to assist applicants in
identifying code performance requirements and how to provide for alternative construction
techniques;
Applicants may use the ICC International Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities as an
alternative to the standard building code to demonstrate equivalent safety levels for alternative
construction methods;
Applicants should employ a Washington State Licensed Design Professional to assist in preparing
submittal packages for alternative construction methods and materials;
King County may continue to use a third party expert to provide independent reviews of such
structures; and
The building owner may need to engage in a continuing and ongoing level of building
maintenance for the life of the structure.
Recommendation
Amendments or changes to the County codes are not required at this time as the Building Official
already has the authority under IBC 104.11 to approve alternative methods and materials of
construction under the current codes.
Development Code #2
Alternative Temporary Housing
Page 5
Reference Code
The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of
construction and equipment.
The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any
design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such
alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be
approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the
intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose
intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire
resistance, durability and safety.
104.11.1 Research reports.
Supporting data, where necessary to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically
provided for in this code, shall consist of valid research reports from approved sources.
104.11.2 Tests.
Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a
material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims
for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as
evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in
this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods,
the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved
agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for
retention of public records.
Scope of Work from King County Council Motion 14351
Consider code flexibility for alternative housing models, such as micro-housing.
Background
While the item in the scope of work for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, as stated above,
mentions only micro-housing, the Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (DPER) has
received many inquiries about portable/movable tiny houses, or very small houses on wheels; these
inquiries are from people who would like to locate a tiny house on their property as either a full-time or
occasional residence. DPER has also had inquiries about other housing models such as recreational
vehicles as well as apodaments, small, individual living units in a multi-family residential building with
shared bath and kitchen facilities.
King County Code Title 21A, the County’s zoning code, does not define “micro- housing” or “tiny
houses/homes” or any of the other housing models identified above. The chart below compares some
general parameters of these models.
Micro-
housing
Container
Housing
Tiny Houses
Recreational
Vehicles
Apodaments
Manufactured
Home
International
Residential
Code (IRC), if
qualify as
single family
unit;
International
Building Code
(IBC), if qualify
as multi-family
Either by local
jurisdiction’s
IRC if qualify as
single family
unit; by State
Labor &
Industries if
factory built
Either by local
jurisdiction’s
IRC if qualify as
single family
unit; by State
Labor &
Industries if
factory built
Licensed by
State
Department of
Licensing (as
factory built
structures)
International
Residential
Building Code
Licensed by
State Labor &
Industries
Can be shared
(separate
Can be shared
(separate
Individual
Can be shared
(separate
Shared
(separate
Individual
2016 King County Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Code #3
Alternative Housing Models
Executive Recommended Plan
Department of Permitting and Environmental Review
Development Code #3
Alternative Housing Models
Page 2
Micro-
housing
Container
Housing
Tiny Houses
Recreational
Vehicles
Apodaments
Manufactured
Home
building) or
individual
(included)
building) or
individual
(included)
building) or
individual
(included)
location in
building)
Can be shared
(separate
building) or
individual
(included)
Can be shared
(separate
building) or
individual
(included)
Individual
Can be shared
(separate
building) or
individual
(included)
Shared
(separate
location in
building)
Individual
In multi-family
building with
kitchen &
separate toilet
facility,
minimum 220
sf; no
minimum size
if considered
single family
(with kitchen
and toilet); see
notes below
In multi-family
building with
kitchen &
separate toilet
facility,
minimum 220
sf; no
minimum size
if considered
single family
(with kitchen
and toilet); see
notes below
In multi-family
building with
kitchen &
separate toilet
facility,
minimum 220
sf; no
minimum size
if considered
single family
(with kitchen
and toilet); see
notes below
Regulated by
State
In multi-family
building with
kitchen &
separate toilet
facility,
minimum 220
sf; no
minimum size
if considered
single family
(with kitchen
and toilet); see
notes below
Regulated by
State
Either
Probably
permanent
Probably
mobile
Mobile
Permanent
Mobile if
wheels left on
For building construction in unincorporated King County, the County has adopted both the 2012
International Building Code (IBC) and the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) and there are
differences between them regarding minimum size of dwellings.
The IBC applies to three or more dwellings in the same building. An efficiency dwelling unit, where
sleeping, living, dining rooms are combined, must be a minimum of 220 sf. It must contain a kitchen
and a separate toilet facility. At least one room must be a minimum of 120 sf.
The IRC applies to single family dwelling units, ADUs (Accessory dwelling units), and zero lot line
dwelling units. There is no minimum dwelling unit size. It must contain a kitchen and a separate
toilet facility. At least one room must be a minimum of 120 sf and all habitable rooms must be at
least 70 sf each. The 2015 IRC, which is expected to go into effect on July 1, 2016, will eliminate the
120 sf requirement for at least one room. The 70 sf requirement for all habitable rooms will not
change.
Housing for People Experiencing Homelessness
There is a continuum of housing models into which housing for people experiencing homelessness fits.
There are also various ways these housing models may be permitted.
Tent Encampments
Emergency Housing/
Transitional Housing
Affordable Housing
Market Rate Housing
Length of
Residency
Temporary (120 days
maximum in King
County)
Immediate, short term,
temporary
Long term
Long term
Structures
Temporary
Permanent, where use is
allowed;
Permanent
Permanent
Development Code #3
Alternative Housing Models
Page 3
Tent Encampments
Emergency Housing/
Transitional Housing
Affordable Housing
Market Rate Housing
Permanent or
temporary, where use is
allowed only on
temporary basis
Zoning
Approval
Method
Temporary Use Permit
(TUP)
Conditional Use Permit
(CUP); can set
conditions; periodic
renewal of approval of
use;
Building permit or
building life safety
permit
Outright permitted;
building permit
Outright permitted;
building permit
King County Action
In December, 2014, King County Council adopted Ordinance 17950 which renewed the County’s
regulations with respect to homeless encampments in KCC Title 21A.45. Section 8 of this Ordinance
contains requests for three provisos:
Proviso A: describe existing micro-housing communities and options for local replication
Proviso B: identify County-owned properties that could be used for temporary homeless
encampments or micro-housing communities
Proviso C: encampment background checks
In June, 2015, the King County Executive, through the Department of Community and Human Services
(DCHS), submitted reports addressing Proviso A and Proviso C. In October, 2015, a report addressing
Proviso B was submitted, identifying four County-owned parcels that are “possible sites for either micro-
housing or could be considered for redevelopment as traditional affordable housing” and three
“possible sites for homeless encampments.”
1
Of the four potential micro-housing sites, two are located
in unincorporated King County; the other two are within incorporated cities. Also in October, a group of
staff from several County departments toured the sites with the goal of recommending one site for a
homeless encampment (tents) and one site for more permanent micro-housing.
In reading the Proviso B report, the following seem to be the assumptions defining micro-housing:
Permanent housing structure (wood or steel as materials)
Short-term and/or long-term occupancy
Communal/shared kitchen
Communal/shared showers
Some “wet” units: individual toilet and/or sink
Some “dry” units: no toilet or sink in the unit
1
“County Owned Properties for Micro Housing or Encampments – Response to King County Ordinance 17950, Section 8,
Proviso B,” DCHS, September 2015
Development Code #3
Alternative Housing Models
Page 4
Discussion
As a framework to think about zoning code issues related to micro-housing, a “camp” or a “retreat
center” are useful places to start to get at the concepts of overnight accommodations (such as cabins)
and communal amenities for site users (such as food services and equipment and medical/health
stations).
The following concepts are transferable from general zoning to a micro-housing community:
Maximum number of people staying overnight based on design capacity of a water system and
on-site sewage system approved by Seattle/King County Department of Health
Minimum parcel size
Facilities such as food service hall, medical station and activity room sized for number of people
staying overnight
Setbacks from adjacent properties
Landscaping buffer
Access to arterial roadway, if adjacent; options if it isn’t
Access to transit, transportation
Lights for illuminating buildings or areas arranged to reflect light away from adjacent property
Community meeting at least two weeks before an application is submitted
Another issue is the zone in which micro-housing may be located. Since the DCHS assumptions in the
report for Proviso B discuss up to 100 residents in a community, and because most of the sites under
consideration (either incorporated or unincorporated) are relatively small, high-density areas would
seem logical. Urban Residential (R12-48) zones are located where density is appropriate.
Neighborhood, Community and Regional Business zones (NB, CB, RB) and the Office (O) and Industrial (I)
zones anticipate density, activity and adjacent services and would also seem appropriate.
As discussed above, the County has adopted and operates under both the International Building Code
(IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC), depending on the structure involved.
Building code issues that will impact the construction of micro-housing (permanent housing structures)
include the following:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – for multi-units
State energy code and County’s green building goals
Structural life-safety requirements – structural stability for both shelter and site
Permanent foundation
Fire hydrant within 350’ of the site
Fire access to the whole site
Ventilation
Public Health (water, waste disposal)
Other Fire Code issues which might not be met are structure separation and sprinklering of individual
units. Fire detection monitoring could be done by on-site security personnel, if the micro-housing has
24/7 security like many homeless encampments do.
Development Code #3
Alternative Housing Models
Page 5
Public Health will need to determine whether an on-site septic system or an alternative septic (pumping)
system may be used in lieu of sanitary sewer connections.
The County does not have the authority to amend or disregard portions of the State Energy Code; the
code sets a high bar for energy reduction in new construction. The County may need to work with the
State Building Code Council to get reductions enacted for micro-housing and/or adapt the rule changes
made for temporary migrant worker housing in Grant County recently (no year-round occupancy).
Participation by representatives of DPER is important in discussions determining how micro-housing
may be used in addressing the County’s goal to provide housing for all.
Recommendation
Micro-housing:
Definition:
Define micro-housing as small, individual, permanent, non-market rate housing structures for
use on short or long-term basis with communal kitchen facilities, communal showers, and
communal toilet facilities with water and sewage facilities approved by Public Health. Such
housing should be operated by a faith community, not-for-profit organization, government
services unit or similar entity for persons with incomes at _______ level.
Zoning:
Allow micro-housing as a conditional use in Urban Residential (R12-48) and/or
Commercial/Industrial zones at a minimum density of 12 units per acre subject to a
development condition that includes the following:
o Maximum number of people staying overnight based on design capacity of a water
system and on-site sewage system approved by Seattle/King County Department of
Health
o Communal kitchen facilities (not in individual units)
o Setbacks from adjacent properties
o Landscaping buffer
o Within one-quarter mile of transit stop
o Lights for illuminating buildings or areas arranged to reflect light away from adjacent
property
o Community meeting at least two weeks before an application is submitted
o Code of conduct approved as part of permitting process
o Reviewing and addressing site and neighborhood issues
Building:
Develop a template for building construction that can work through the approval process now
and be approved on a site-specific basis quickly
o Work with Public Health for leeway on alternative septic systems
o Work with State Building Code Council on consideration in state energy code for
permanent housing structures as additional capacity to house people without homes
o Work with Fire Code for alternatives on separation and sprinkler requirements
Development Code #3
Alternative Housing Models
Page 6
Other small housing models about which DPER has received inquiries:
Develop definitions for each type of housing, including governing regulations and/or licensing
agency
Identify qualifiers, if any, such as size, bathroom facilities, kitchen facilities
Identify appropriate zones, including appropriate development conditions, if any
Identify appropriate tailored building code conditions, exemptions, and amendments, including
green building requirements, for King County
Scope of Work from King County Council Motion 14351
Consider code changes regarding ingress/egress for new plat proposals, including space needed for
traffic queuing.
Background
This development code review is in response to expressed concerns about traffic coming out of a
subdivision being stopped at the intersection with the adjacent arterial street, backing up because left
turns are difficult and blocking a homeowner from exiting their driveway.
State law gives King County the responsibility to adopt regulations and procedures for approval of
subdivisions and plats.
RCW 58.17.033 - Proposed division of land—Consideration of application for preliminary plat or
short plat approval—Requirements defined by local ordinance.
(1) A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17.020, shall be considered under the
subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect
on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision,
or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted to the appropriate county, city,
or town official.
(2) The requirements for a fully completed application shall be defined by local ordinance.
(3) The limitations imposed by this section shall not restrict conditions imposed under
chapter 43.21C RCW.
The “King County Road Design and Construction Standards – 2007” (known as “County Roads
Standards”) includes a table in “Section 2.10 – Intersections and Low-Speed Curves” as follows:
A.
Intersections
1. Angle of intersection (measured at 10 feet beyond road
classification right-of-way)
Minimum 85 degrees
Maximum 95 degrees
2016 King County Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Code #4
Ingress/egress for plats
Executive Recommended Plan
Department of Permitting and Environmental Review
Development Code #4 – Ingress and Egress for Plats
Page 2
2. Minimum centerline radius (2-lane) (radii are for minor or
subaccess streets)
55 feet
3. Minimum curb radius
a. Arterials and roads classified neighborhood collector or
higher
35 feet
b. Residential access street intersections where the highest
classification involved is subcollector
25 feet
4. Minimum right-of-way line radius
25 feet
B.
Spacing between adjacent intersecting streets, whether crossing or
T-connecting, shall be as follows:
When highest classification involved is:
Minimum centerline
offset shall be:
Principal arterial
1,000 feet
Minor arterial
500 feet
Collector arterial
300 feet
Neighborhood collector
150 feet
Any lesser street classification
100 feet
Additionally, the County Roads Standards includes Figure 3-008 on page 3-18. This Figure shows curb
returns (curb radii) and standards for driveways. It includes the following notes:
NOTES
No portion of any driveway shall encroach in curb return (ADDED for explanation: the
rounded portion of the street intersection).
… AND
Driveways shall be located as far from the intersection as possible…
Driveways must also be setback a minimum of five feet from a residential property line and nine feet
from a commercial property line. A copy of Figure 3-008 and the Notes is reproduced below.
Development Code #4 – Ingress and Egress for Plats
Page 3
Discussion
The specific separation distance between intersecting streets depends on the classification of the streets
as identified in the chart above. The driveway location standards are also identified in the reproduction
of page 3-18 above. The Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (DPER) reviews ingress
and egress to subdivisions and plats during the preliminary subdivision approval process using the
Department of Transportation Roads Division’s “King County Road Design and Construction Standards –
2007” (Roads Standards).
In recent years, subdivision layouts have included one entry/exit point and a looped road network
within the subdivision, such as shown in the diagrams below.
Development Code #4 – Ingress and Egress for Plats
Page 4
Subdivision entry road with no driveways
↙ ↘
The layout on the left brings the residential driveways back to the interior loop street, thereby allowing
capacity for several cars to wait for access onto the existing arterial. The layout on the right also allows
stacking for the length of the lots at the entry point before residential driveways begin.
Generally, lot depths are 80 to 100 feet; vehicles average 20 feet in length and the lot depths along
entry roads allows for stacking of four to five vehicles at an intersection.
Public and private developers use these kinds of layouts to provide some stacking capacity at
intersections and also to maximize the number of lots achievable in a subdivision. They allow greater
flexibility in site design and do not create unbuildable areas. This work is balanced with the other
requirements for preliminary plats such as required open space and setbacks.
Recommendation
Increased traffic makes it hard for drivers to make turns onto a busy arterial streets. Review of existing
specific situations by King County DOT could result in installation of stop signs at intersections.
Controlled intersections could result in better traffic flow from all the streets in an area.
Recommendation: Do not amend either K.C.C. Title 21A or King County DOT’s Roads Standards at this
time.
Scope of Work from King County Council Motion 14351
Update and consolidate code sections related to agricultural lands, including K.C.C. 20.54, while still
maintaining and/or memorializing relevant policy statements and findings.
Background
King County adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1964. While the plan anticipated growth in King
County, it did not foresee, and therefore did not address, the consequences of that growth, including
loss of resource lands to development. In 1985, the County adopted a new comprehensive plan. It was
the first plan in the state to take the revolutionary step of clearly differentiating between rural and
urban areas and delineating different goals and values through specific growth management policies
and approaches for each area. The 1985 plan was also the first to provide for the protection and
preservation of critical habitats and resource lands. This plan established five Agricultural Production
Districts and a policy framework aimed at conserving farmland, encouraging continued agriculture and
encouraging agricultural practices that protect the environment.
Nearly a decade before adoption of the 1985 comprehensive plan, King County adopted a policy
framework in code that provided the basis for the 1985 and subsequent policy and code updates.
Ordinance 3064, codified in King County Code (K.C.C.) Chapter 20.54 was adopted in February 1977 and
called for the County to designate certain areas within King County as agricultural lands and then to
develop an agricultural land protection program based upon both land use regulations and
compensation to protect existing agricultural lands and private property. In 1979, King County adopted
Ordinance 4341, codified in K.C.C. Title 26, which authorized the county to issue its general obligation
bonds to acquire farmlands and open space lands. The ordinance established eligibility criteria and
priorities for acquisition. During the 1980’s King County acquired development rights on 12,600 acres of
high quality farmland under this Farmlands Preservation Program.
After adoption of the 1985 comprehensive plan, K.C.C. Title 26 was amended, adding a new section
requiring the county executive to review all of the previously approved agricultural land acquisition and
2016 King County Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Code #5
Agricultural Lands, including K.C.C. 20.54
Executive Recommended Plan
Department of Permitting and Environmental Review
Development Code 5
Agricultural Lands Policy
Page 2
land use policies to ensure they were consistent with 1985 comprehensive plan. The areas of concern
included the agriculture and open space acquisition policies in K.C.C. 26.04, agriculture current use
assessment policies in K.C.C. 20.36, and agricultural lands policies in K.C.C. 20.54. The report of the
review’s findings was supposed to be submitted to the Council by August 15, 1987.There is no record
that such a review or report was done. After adoption of the 1994 comprehensive plan, K.C.C. 26.08 was
amended to include a review of agricultural zoning classifications in K.C.C. Title 21A. There was no
timeline established for completing this second review nor is there a record that such a review was
completed.
This current review of King County’s agricultural and open space acquisition policies, agricultural current
use expense policies, agricultural lands policies and agricultural zoning classifications is to determine if
they are still relevant and consistent with the current comprehensive plan, and if not, to determine what
changes need to be made to update and consolidate these provisions while still maintaining and/or
memorializing relevant policy statements and findings.
Discussion
Agricultural Lands Policy - K.C.C. Chapter 20.54 was adopted in February 1977 and called for the County
to designate certain areas within King County as agricultural lands and then to develop an agricultural
land protection program based upon both land use regulations and compensation to protect existing
agricultural lands and private property. A section by section review follows:
K.C.C. 20.54.010 – Findings and declaration of purpose – This includes some background
recognizing the importance of agriculture to King County and its residents and providing the
factual basis for why establishing an agricultural land protection program was important. The
findings relative to loss of farmland and the importance of agriculture to the local economy are
out of date and, if retained, should be updated. The agricultural policies and goals are still
relevant but have been replaced by the current agricultural policies in the comprehensive plan.
K.C.C. 20.54.020 – Application of county policies – This section essentially is stating that
agricultural lands are subject to the open space and development policies of the 1964
comprehensive plan. This provision is outdated and has been replaced by the more relevant
provisions of the county’s zoning code.
K.C.C. 20.54.030 – King County agricultural districts and agricultural lands of county significance
– This section gave the county authority to identify agricultural districts and agricultural lands of
county significance. This code provision is outdated and was replaced by the 1985
comprehensive plan that established the Agricultural Production Districts.
K.C.C. 20.54.040 – Designation of King County agricultural districts – This identified seven areas
within King County that were designated as agricultural production districts. The location and
extent of these districts were included in Appendices A through E of Ordinance 3064. This
section is outdated and would have been replaced initially by the APDs that were identified in
the 1985 comprehensive plan update.
K.C.C. 20.54.050 – Application of policies for lands located within King County agricultural
districts - This established criteria for departments reviewing public and private development
proposals and all public projects and programs initiated and/or sponsored by King County to
ensure the agricultural potential of the district not be adversely impacted, to the extent
Development Code 5
Agricultural Lands Policy
Page 3
reasonably feasible. This has been superseded by the permitted use tables in K.C.C. 21A.08 and
the current comprehensive plan policies.
K.C.C. 20.54.060 – Designation of agricultural lands of county significance – This section, in
conjunction with Ordinance 3064, Appendix F, established criteria for when lands within the
agricultural districts identified in Appendices A through E could be designated agricultural lands
of county significance. This provision effectively established that all of the agricultural districts
identified in exhibits A through E met the criteria in appendix F for designation as agricultural
lands of county significance and were designated as such. These code provisions are outdated
and were largely replaced by the Agricultural Production Districts and area zoning that were
identified and adopted in the 1985 comprehensive plan update.
K.C.C. 20.54.070 – Application of policies concerning agricultural lands of county significance -
This section established minimum lot sizes for proposed subdivisions within the designated
agricultural lands of county significance and included a requirement that King County would not
approve rezone applications for more intensive use classification for any of the designated
agricultural lands of county significance. It is not clear if this code provision is still in effect.
K.C.C. 20.54.130 provided that this section would sunset after 18 months unless further council
action was taken and that such action to extend would not occur unless the agricultural lands
and support programs set forth in Attachment G of Ordinance 3064 had been developed,
approved and funded by the council. Development of the agricultural protection program was
direction to develop the Farmland Preservation Program. This was adopted by Ordinance 4341
and codified in K.C.C. 26.04 which satisfied the prerequisite for extension of the policies outlined
in K.C.C. 20.54.070 but the expiration clause in K.C.C. 20.54.130 was not extended. For the most
part, the provisions in this section were superseded by the 1985 comprehensive plan update
and the companion amendments to the zoning code that established the A-10 and A-35 zone
classifications which mirrored the minimum lot sizes mandated by this section. (see Ordinance
7636 (1986))
K.C.C. 20.54.080, .090, .100 – Exemptions and variances from Section 20.54.070 provisions –
Since K.C.C. 20.54.070 sunset in August 1978, these code provisions are no longer relevant.
K.C.C. 20.54.110 – Amendments and appeals to designations of King County agricultural districts
or agricultural lands of county significance – These sections established criteria and procedures
for modifying the boundaries of the agricultural districts and agricultural lands of county
significance and procedures for landowners to appeal the appropriateness of these
designations. Designation of agricultural lands and modification of resource lands mapping is
now done through the comprehensive plan updates which is governed by the current
comprehensive plan policies and the requirements in K.C.C. Chapter 20.18.
K.C.C. 20.54.120 – Development of agricultural protection program – This section established
criteria and provided direction to develop the Farmlands Preservation Program and other
agricultural support programs. This section was partially superseded by K.C.C. Chapter 26.04
which was adopted in 1979. The policy basis for continuing agricultural support programs can be
found in the agricultural lands policies in the comprehensive plan.
Agricultural and Open Space Lands – K.C.C. Title 26
Development Code 5
Agricultural Lands Policy
Page 4
K.C.C. Chapter 26.04 – Acquisition of Interests – This title was adopted in 1979 (Ordinance
4341) and established the funding authorization, policy direction and priorities for acquiring
farmlands through the Farmlands Preservation Program. K.C.C. Chapter 26.04 is still relevant as
it directs the management of the property interests acquired through the 1979 bond funding
authorized by this code section. It is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy R-642.
Protecting agricultural lands through purchase of development rights is still a high priority in
unincorporated King County, and the county continues to protect farmland through the
purchase of development rights using Conservation Futures funding, the Transfer of
Development Rights Program, and grant funds.
DNRP intends to review K.C.C. chapter 26.04 within the next two years to determine if it is
appropriate to propose changes to reflect and facilitate expansion of the Farmland Preservation
Program beyond the description and authorization contained in Ordinance 4341.
K.C.C. Chapter 26.08 – Agricultural Policy - This chapter was adopted in 1986 and amended in
1995 (Ordinances 7889 and 11792, respectively) after adoption of the 1985 and 1994
comprehensive plans. It essentially requires that the county review, and revise as necessary, all
agricultural land acquisition and land use policies and regulations to ensure they are consistent
with the comprehensive plans. The original ordinance required that a report of the review’s
findings accompanied by the necessary code amendments be filed with the council by August
15, 1987. The 1995 amendment did not include a similar provision. To date DPER has not been
able to find if the required report was done. At this point, though, this code provision is neither
relevant nor necessary. The zoning code and relevant development regulations are updated
regularly as comprehensive plan policies change. These code updates are all reviewed for
conformance with the countywide planning policies, the adopted King County Comprehensive
Plan and applicable capital facilities plans. (K.C.C. 20.18.020) These code amendments are also
reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Commerce’s Growth
Management Review Team once they have confirmed the proposed changes are consistent with
the Growth Management Act and approved comprehensive plans.
Agricultural Land Use Regulations
King County regularly updates its land use regulations to maintain consistency with the adopted
King County comprehensive plan. Since publication of the 2009 Farms Report which identified a
number of regulatory impediments to agriculture, six code amendments have been adopted,
each aimed at improving the regulatory framework around agriculture. These included the
following:
Ordinance 16985 (2012) – These amendments included changes to the critical areas and
shoreline regulations to allow for credit for voluntary mitigation and alternative
mitigation strategies within the APD that focused on functional equivalency rather than
strict ratios.
Ordinance 17539 (2013) – These amendments expanded the ag-ditch maintenance
program to include agricultural waterways, established temporary farmworker housing
as an allowed use, expanded allowances for agricultural and livestock best management
practices within critical areas with an approved farm plan. This code also allowed non-
residential farm support structures to be placed on top of farm pads.
Development Code 5
Agricultural Lands Policy
Page 5
Ordinance 17841 (2014) – This ordinance, in conjunction with Ordinance 17539,
substantively addressed all of the other regulatory issues raised in the Farms Report.
Ordinances 17877 and 17878 (2014) – These established a demonstration project to
allow up to ten alluvial fam management projects in the Snoqualmie River watershed.
The purpose of this was to identify ways to protect and preserve existing infrastructure
and agricultural uses on developed alluvial fans and to provide options for farmers
whose existing operations are affected by alluvial fan deposits.
In addition to these zoning code amendments, the building code was amended to eliminate the need for
building permits for agricultural accessory structures less than 200 square feet is size. During the 2016
Comprehensive Plan update, the department will propose additional changes to the zoning code to
improve the alignment of the permitted use tables with the comprehensive plan policies. These
changes will include redefining agriculture and including all agricultural activities and related agricultural
supportive or dependent uses in the Resource land use table.
Recommendation
K.C.C. 20.54 is no longer relevant and has largely been replaced by updated zoning code regulations and
updated comprehensive plan policies. This chapter should be decodified but because of its historic
value, the relevant findings and policies should be recognized in the comprehensive plan and included as
an appendix to the updated plan.
K.C.C. 26.08 is no longer relevant or necessary and should be repealed.
The zoning code (K.C.C. Title 21A) should be amended to make the agricultural use tables more
consistent with the agricultural lands policies.
No other changes are recommended at this time.
Scope of Work from King County Council Motion 14351
Evaluate and consider code changes to expand use of and/or timelines for extension of plat approvals.
Background
State of Washington
From 1981 to 1995, state law contained a provision allowing three years between preliminary plat
approval and final plat approval; from 1995 to 2010, five years was the law. In 2010, state law was
amended to lengthen the period to seven years and in 2012 the period was extended to nine years.
Adopted in 2013, the current state law identifies several time periods between issuance of preliminary
plat approval and approval of final plat (see RCW 58.17.140(3) below):
Five (5) years if date of preliminary plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015
Seven (7) years if date of preliminary plat approval is on or before December 31, 2014
Ten (10) years if date of preliminary plat approval is on or before December 31, 2007 and the
plat is not subject to the Shoreline Management Act
Also, the current state law allows “any city, town or county” to adopt procedures to add or alter
conditions and requirements as part of the extension review and approval. (see RCW 58.17.140(4)
below).
RCW 58.17.140
Time limitation for approval or disapproval of plats — Extensions.
(1) Preliminary plats of any proposed subdivision and dedication shall be approved, disapproved,
or returned to the applicant for modification or correction within ninety days from date of filing
thereof unless the applicant consents to an extension of such time period or the ninety day
limitation is extended to include up to twenty-one days as specified under RCW 58.17.095(3):
PROVIDED, That if an environmental impact statement is required as provided in
2016 King County Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Code #6
Extension of plat approvals
Executive Recommended Plan
Department of Permitting and Environmental Review
Development Code #6
Extension of plat approvals
Page 2
RCW 43.21C.030, the ninety day period shall not include the time spent preparing and circulating
the environmental impact statement by the local government agency.
(2) Final plats and short plats shall be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant
within thirty days from the date of filing thereof, unless the applicant consents to an extension of
such time period.
(3)(a) Except as provided by (b) of this subsection, a final plat meeting all requirements of this
chapter shall be submitted to the legislative body of the city, town, or county for approval within
seven years of the date of preliminary plat approval if the date of preliminary plat approval is on
or before December 31, 2014, and within five years of the date of preliminary plat approval if the
date of preliminary plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015.
(b) A final plat meeting all requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to the legislative
body of the city, town, or county for approval within ten years of the date of preliminary plat
approval if the project is not subject to requirements adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW
(Shoreline Management Act) and the date of preliminary plat approval is on or before December
31, 2007.
(4) Nothing contained in this section shall act to prevent any city, town, or county from
adopting by ordinance procedures which would allow extensions of time that may or may not
contain additional or altered conditions and requirements.
King County
In the current King County Code regulations, preliminary plat approval duration is limited to 5 years,
with two exceptions: when more than 50% of the lots constitute “affordable housing” (6 years) and
when there are more than 400 lots in a plat and it is part of the County’s 4-to-1 open space program (7
years).
The County’s current regulations for the duration of preliminary plat approvals (K.C.C. 19A.12.020) are
as follows:
60 months (5 years)
72 months (6 years) if date of preliminary plat approval is on or after January 1, 1998, the plat
has more than 50 lots and more than 50% of the lots constitute “affordable housing” (80%
median incomes) with a portion of funding from federal, state or county sources
84 months (7 years) if date of preliminary plat approval is on or after January 1, 1998 and the
plat contains more than 400 lots and is part of the County’s 4-to-1 program
Two provisions on preliminary plat duration expired on December 31, 2014:
84 months (7 years) if date of preliminary plat approval is on or after December 1, 2003
(revisions to DPER fee estimates were allowed; this provision was repealed).
108 months (9 years) if date of preliminary plat approval is on or after December 1, 2003 and
the plat includes low-impact or Built Green development pursuant to the Demonstration Project
chapter of the code (revisions to DPER fee estimates were allowed; this provision was repealed).
K.C.C. 19A.12.020 Preliminary approval of subdivision
A. Preliminary subdivision approval shall be effective for a period of sixty months.
…
E. For any plat with more than four hundred lots that is also part of the county's four to
Development Code #6
Extension of plat approvals
Page 3
one program, the preliminary subdivision approval shall be effective for eighty-four months. This
subsection applies to any preliminary plat approved by either the council or the hearing examiner,
or both, on or after January 1, 1998, that relates to a four to one program with proposed plats
containing more than four hundred lots.
F. For any plat with more than fifty lots where fifty percent or more of those lots will
constitute affordable housing which is housing for those that have incomes of less than eighty
percent of median income for King County as periodically published by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development, or its successor agency, and at least a portion of
the funding for the project has been provided by federal, state or county housing funds, the
preliminary subdivision shall be effective for seventy-two months. This subsection applies to any
plat that has received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 1998.
G.1. For any plat that has received preliminary approval on or after December 1, 2003, the
preliminary subdivision approval shall be valid for a period of eighty-four months. The department
may make revisions to the fee estimate issued by the department under K.C.C. 27.02.065*.
2. For any plat that received preliminary approval on or after December 1, 2003, pursuant
to K.C.C. 21A.55.060, the preliminary subdivision approval shall be valid for a period of one hundred
and eight months. The department may make revisions to the fee estimate issued by the
department under K.C.C. 27.02.065*.
3. This subsection shall retroactively apply to any plat that has received preliminary
approval on or after December 1, 2003. This subsection expires December 31, 2014.
*Reviser's note: K.C.C. 27.02.065 was repealed by Ordinance 17682, Section 50.
While the scope of work does not mention short plats, the approval regulations for short plats are very
similar to those for full subdivisions. Short plats (four lots or less) are currently valid for 5 years, with
one exception: the short plat has at least 400 acres of dedicated open space through the 4-to-1
program and is part of an interlocal or development agreement signed on or before January 1, 1996 (7
years).
K.C.C. 19A.12.040 Preliminary short subdivision - approval time. Preliminary approval of a short
subdivision shall be effective for a period of sixty months, except:
A. The approval period shall be eighty-four months for any short plat that was part of a
development agreement or interlocal agreement entered into after January 1, 1996, that included
at least four hundred acres of open space dedications and urban land designations at a four-to-one
ratio; and
B.1. For any short plat that has received preliminary short approval on or after December
1, 2003, the preliminary short subdivision approval shall be valid for a period of eighty-four months.
The department may make revisions to the fee estimate issued by the department under K.C.C.
27.02.065*.
2. This subsection shall retroactively apply to any short plat that has received preliminary
approval on or after December 1, 2003. This subsection expires December 31, 2014.
*Reviser's note: K.C.C. 27.02.065 was repealed by Ordinance 17682, Section 50.
Discussion
The RCW was amended due to the recession that began in 2008 to allow homebuilders extra time to
build plat improvements and to allow the economy to recover so home buyers would have down
payments and the ability to secure mortgages. The end of the recession is recognized by the state
Development Code #6
Extension of plat approvals
Page 4
legislature in the RCW by the return to the maximum five year time period between preliminary plat
approval and final plat approval.
During the recession, the Council approved language in the King County Code permitting an extension
on a preliminary plat approval prior to seeking a final plat approval. Extensions were identified for
specific situations. An expiration clause was adopted for two of the situations. The County’s current
general rule for duration of a preliminary plat approval is consistent with the State’s current rule (i.e.
five years).
Concerns about plat approval extensions focus on changes and upgrades to applicable standards and
codes that are made during the extension period. For example, the international and state building
codes are updated and approved periodically to improve life safety requirements. The development
requirements in the King County Code are amended and adopted periodically to address problems and
undesired situations.
Final plats/short plats are vested to the codes and regulations in place at the time of preliminary
plat/preliminary short plat approval. The longer the time in between preliminary and final approvals,
the older the codes being used; new, significant code improvements adopted in the interim between
preliminary and final approvals would not be implemented in older subdivisions. This would result in
substandard improvements, compared to current standards.
Applying new codes and requirements (i.e. roads, drainage, critical areas, etc.) has the potential to
greatly change the layout, revise construction drawings and potentially result in changes to
infrastructure under construction or construction complete. This could make a project infeasible as well
as potentially conflict with conditions of approval established by the Hearing Examiner and result in a
new application and subsequent public hearing.
For permits with some unfinished construction that are older and/or expired and need finalization, DPER
currently requires applicants to meet current life safety codes rather than the codes in place at the time
the application was submitted. These codes include, but are not limited to, the fire code, the building
codes, landslide hazard requirements and restrictions for flood hazard areas.
DPER has received at least two inquiries about, but no requests for, extension of preliminary plat
approvals in the last several years.
Recommendation
No code amendments are recommended at this time.
If the Council determines a code amendment to allow extensions to the time period between
preliminary plat/preliminary short plat approval and final plat/short plat approval is necessary, the
following provisions are recommended:
Limit the extension to one year
Limit the number of extensions to one per plat