File #: 2000-0185    Version:
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
File created: 3/6/2000 In control: Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
On agenda: 5/15/2000 Final action: 5/15/2000
Enactment date: 5/24/2000 Enactment #: 13851
Title: AN ORDINANCE relating to zoning; outlining phasing requirements relative to mixed (residential/commercial) use developments; and adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 21A.14.
Sponsors: Cynthia Sullivan
Indexes: Zoning
Code sections: 21A.14 -
Attachments: 1. 13851.pdf, 2. 2000-0185Rev Staff Rep.doc, 3. None
title
AN ORDINANCE relating to zoning; outlining phasing requirements relative to mixed (residential/commercial) use developments; and adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 21A.14.
body
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. Before the adoption of the current zoning code, K.C.C. Title 21A, King County had two mixed use zones within the former zoning code, K.C.C. Title 21. The two zones were the business residential - neighborhood scale (BR-N) zone and business residential - community scale zone (BR-C).
2. In the former zoning code, K.C.C. Title 21, these two mixed use zones required both the residential and commercial component to be housed in one structure and to utilize a vertical configuration; that is, the residential component of the project was to be located above the commercial component.
3. The code was silent on the issue of whether commercial had to precede the residential because the required vertical configuration had the de facto effect of making the structure contain both residential and commercial components from the beginning.
4. During the development of the current zoning code, K.C.C. Title 21A, the council considered several factors that made the mixed use zones of the former zoning code unfeasible and that resulted in parcels with mixed use zoning remaining undeveloped.
5. The council determined that while the vertical configuration may be workable in densely developed urban cores, a horizontal configuration, allowing the two components of a mixed use development to be developed separately on the same site, was often more appropriate in less densely developed urban areas.
6. Furthermore, the council determined that the low percentage of residential use worked against providing the critical mass of residential density that is needed for the financial feasibility of such a development. The council recognized that market conditions would dictate which component would be most feasible to developed first and concluded that phasing should not be ...

Click here for full text