|
Holmes Point Summary Report
December 1997
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
|
Introduction
As part of the 1997 Budget, the Metropolitan King County Council requested
that the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) evaluate
the existing zoning in the Holmes Point Planning Area. (Figure1)
This report consists of a brief history of development, land use and zoning
in the Holmes Point Planning Area, a description of the area's natural environment
and other issues, a summary of three options for responding to these issues,
a summary of the public process and community response to the options, and
DDES recommendations. After further public input, these recommendations
will be incorporated into the 1998 Executive Proposed Amendments to the
King County Comprehensive Plan.
Summary of Recommendations
Historical Land Use
Settlement Patterns
The earliest recorded activities of the first settlers were of lumbering,
farming and trade undertaken for half a century starting in the 1860's.
Finn Hill was named for the Finns, such as the Tollber family and John
Reuth who came to that area in 1869. The hill was first logged off in the
early 1900's. Otto Reine bought 10 acres on Finn Hill (for $500), cut cedar
and skidded logs to Juanita on a chute. The Lake Park Land Company constructed
landings north and south of O.O. Denny Park and subsidized steamers to attract
investors and land purchasers. (See Figure 2)
Northshore Community Plan - 1977, 1981, 1993
The Holmes Point Planning Area, located on the northeast shore of Lake
Washington between St. Edwards St. Park and Juanita Bay, is part of the
Northshore Community Plan area, which has been one of the fastest growing
parts of King County (its population grew at an average rate of almost four
percent per year during the 1980's).
The first iteration of the Northshore Community Plan and Area Zoning,
adopted in 1977 zoned most of the Holmes Point area RS-15,000 (one home
per 15,000 square feet, or about three homes per acre), with some RS-7,200
along the waterfront. |
Figure 2
Holmes Point and Vicinity Map
|
|
In 1993 the Area Zoning for Holmes Point as well as other parts of the
Northshore Community Planning Area was amended to include special development
conditions (P-suffix) that imposed requirements in addition to those in
existing County development regulations relating to stormwater retention/detention,
and the retention of significant trees. Residents of Holmes Point requested
that the County consider downzoning the area, but the RS-15,000 and RS-7200
zoning was retained.
King County Comprehensive Plan and Area Zoning - 1994
In response to the mandate of the Washington State Growth Management
Act of 1991 King County undertook a comprehensive planning effort which
culminated in revised zoning classifications throughout the County.
The 1994 KCCP contains written policy guidance for urban residential
development, environmental protection and adequacy of public services, and
a Land Use Map that designates the Holmes Point Planning Area as Residential,
R-4 dwelling units per acre. The new Zoning Code's residential zones are
density based rather than lot size based, and contain zones equivalent to
all those in the old code except RS-15,000.
During the conversion process, DDES applied either R-1 (residential,
one dwelling unit per acre, 50 percent clustering required), or R-4 (residential,
four dwellings per acre) to areas previously zoned RS-15,000. The RS-15,000
zoning in the Holmes Point Planning area was predominately converted to
R-4, the lowest density classification routinely given within within the
Urban Growth Boundary Area. The RS-7,200 zoning was converted to R-6 ( residential,
six dwellings per acre).
In addition newly mapped sensitive areas were delineated, using the King
County Geographic Information System (GIS).
Descriptive Analysis of the Holmes Point
Planning Area
The Holmes Point Planning Area which includes the Champaigne Point district
is the south portion of the Finn Hill premonitory with underlying soils
of highly erosive unconsolidated glacial and non-glacial soils. (Figure
4) From the eastern boundary which is primarily described by Juanita
Drive, the planning area falls west and south to Lake Washington and is
characterized by steep forested slopes and ravines, from which springs and
surface water collect, including the salmonid bearing class two stream,
Denny Creek.
The study area encompasses the largest contiguous natural area on Lake
Washington, most of which is in public ownership. There is a mosaic of second
growth forest types which provide habitat for eagle, heron, owls, pileated
woodpecker, coyote and a host of other wildlife species as well as a regionally
significant recreational amenity. (Figure 3) |
|
Residential development is characterized by three types of development characteristics.
Fed by locally accessible arterials off Juanita Drive, the "crown"
of hill residences lay out on relatively flat land and have a variety of
street types that serve them. The two other characteristic types are served
by the main arterial of Holmes Point Drive and are the "shoreline"
residences, and residences that reach up the "ravines" via fingerling
lanes serving houses on the flanks and flats, with some eventually reaching
the ridges. |
Recent Residential |
|
Historic Character |
|
Crown (Undeveloped) |
|
Ravine (Undeveloped) |
|
Shoreline (Public) |
|
Street Character at Crown Residential |
|
Heavy Disturbance Ravine Residential |
|
Shoreline R-6 at edge of Public Land |
|
Street Character at Crown Residential |
|
Minimum Disturbance Ravine Residential |
|
Street Character at Holmes Point Dr. major loop arterial |
|
|
Community Involvement
Sustainable Development Forum - 1996
In response to constituent concerns over the impacts of the 1994
Comprehensive Plan upzone to R-4, King County Councilwoman Maggi Fimia conducted
a public forum about protections available from existing King County regulations.
(Note: the planning area is now in the council district of Councilwoman
Jane Hague) The April 30 Forum presented county staff who discussed existing
regulations regarding zoning, site planning, and incentive programs. A commitment
was made to continue the dialogue about Holmes Point and the need to initiate
a 1997 planning study which would look at land use issues. There was a discussion
of future funding for the restoration of Denny Creek.
Holmes Point Forums - 1997
In July of 1997 a planning study was initiated to review community land
use issues. Public meetings were conducted on September 17, October 23,
and December 18, 1997.
|
|
Delineated Issues
Here is a summary of issues from the many comments gathered at the September
17 Forum:
Resource Based:
Development Based:
|
|
Zoning and Land Use Issues - Three Planning
Options
The discussion of options focused mostly on possible changes to the R-4
zoning on the slopes above Holmes Point Drive between St. Edwards State
Park and O.O. Denny Park. The southern part of the Holmes Point Planning
Area between O.O. Denny Park and Champaigne Point has environmentally sensitive
areas and would be within the scope of these options, although it has more
R-6 than R-4 zoning. (Figures 5, 6, and 7)
The three options as described to the community are as follows with some
explanatory text:
A. Keep Existing R-4 Zoning with greater community under standing
and access to King County protections and services.
This is essentially the no-action alternative, although it could be combined
with increased code enforcement, field inspections and technical assistance
to applicants subject to the Significant Trees Special District Overlay
(K.C.C.21A.39.220).
B. Keep R-4 Zoning but add an overlay district which provides
more stringent disturbance standards.
This alternative would replace the current Significant Trees Special District
Overlay with a lot by lot limit on site disturbance and impervious surfaces.
The existing special requirements for stormwater retention remain in effect.
In addition the overlay would provide more guidance to King County for
granting variances, to encourage maximum protection of ground cover.
C. Downzone to R-1 in King County mapped sensitive areas, plus
more stringent site disturbance standards.
This alternative would involve reclassifying to R-1 almost all of the R-4,
and much of the R-6 zoning in the portions of the Holmes Point Planning
Area accessed by Holmes Point Drive NE. This alternative would also require
a map amendment to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map,
to redesignate the areas recommended to be downsized from Urban Residential,
4-12 dwelling unit per acre to Urban Residential, 1 dwelling unit per acre.
|
|
Community Response to the Planning Options
The Holmes Point Planning Areas response to the planning options suggested
to them was vigorous and clear in their preferences. There was a community
initiated response which linked Options B and C, which in effect created
another category of response.
A tally of the survey results:
A |
8 |
Keep Existing R-4 Zoning with greater community understanding and access
to King County protections and services. |
B |
36 |
Keep R-4 Zoning but add an overlay district which provides more stringent
disturbance standards. |
B-C |
81 |
Keep R-4 Zoning but add and overlay district which provides more stringent
disturbance standards; Downzone to R-1 in mapped sensitive areas.
"B - This is the right option for the majority of the planning
area; C - this is the right option for a small area considered 'urban sensitive'
meaning steep slopes and stream setbacks" (quote from standard text
reply) |
C |
37 |
Downzone to R-1 in King County mapped sensitive areas, plus more stringent
site disturbance standards. |
|
162 |
Total Citizen Comments Received |
|
|
DDES Recommendation and Analysis
The Department of Development and Environmental Services recommends
that the existing R-4 and R-6 zoning in the Holmes Point Planning Area be
retained, and that site disturbance limits be applied to the King County
mapped sensitive areas in the form of two new overlays which would be suitable
for use in areas with underlying zoning of R-1, R-4, and R-6.
In the Holmes Point Planning Area these overlays would replace the current
Significant Trees Overlay. Use of the recommended overlays in urban residential
areas such as Holmes Point would provide an increased level of protection
for environmentally sensitive areas, including Denny Creek, steep slopes
and the vicinities very active landslide hazard areas (the northern portion
of Holmes Point Drive NE was closed for several months in 1997 due to severe
mudslides following the heavy snow and rain of December 1996 and January
1997).
Limiting site disturbance would help minimize the impacts of infill development
in the area, and encourage retention of tree and other vegetative cover
vital to preserving the areas high value as wildlife habitat. At the same
time the use of overlays while retaining the R-4 and R-6 zoning would preserve
a significant amount of residential growth capacity within the Urban Growth
Area (downzoning the area to R-1 was estimated to reduce theoretical potential
capacity in the area by 700 or more dwelling units). Therefore, their application
to Holmes Point would be consistent with and help implement the following
KCCP policies:
U-501 King County should encourage new residential development
to occur in Urban Growth Areas where facilities and services can be provided
at the lowest public cost and in a timely fashion. The Urban Growth Area
should have a variety of housing types and prices, including mobile home
parks, multifamily development, townhouses, and small-lot, single-family
development.
U-503 In the Urban Growth Area, King County should use regulations,
incentives, open space acquisition, or , where these measures are not adequate,King
County may use low density zoning to protect floodplains, critical aquifer
recharge areas, Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Areas, high value
wetlands and unstable slopes from degradation, and to encourage linking
these environmental features into a network of open space, fish and wildlife
habitat and urban separators. |
|
Comparison of Proposed Overlay Site Disturbance/Impervious Surface
Limits with Existing Code
The recommended overlays would have the following features:
1. Minimum Site Disturbance Overlay
This overlay would "waive/supplant K.C.C. 21A.12's minimum and
maximum density and impervious surface limits" and establish a lot
by lot "site disturbance limit" similar to that in the 1989 Bear
Creek Community Plan (P-suffix condition P-5), with separate requirements
for new development vs. remodeling. Clearing, grading and impervious surfaces
would be limited on a sliding scale based on lot size (see matrix
comparing overlay limits with current impervious surface limits in K.C.C.
21A.12).
This overlay would also replace the "significant tree retention"
requirement now in place in the Holmes Point Planning Area (not for the
rest of Northshore Community Plan Area however); and provide criteria for
flexibility (10 percent increase in impervious surfaces at the Director's
discretion) in granting variances from both the overlay and standard requirements
to encourage minimal site disturbance.
2. Minimum Site Disturbance/Density Transfer Overlay
Same features as the Minimum Site Disturbance Overlay, and would also
limit on-site development to one to three lots and provide for transferring
density credits on larger, more sensitive sites.
|
|
R-1* |
R-4* |
R-6* |
R-8* |
Current Limits KCC 21.A.12.030
Impervious Surface |
16,335 sq. ft. lot*
entire lot can be cleared/graded
4,900 sq. ft. |
8,168 sq. ft. lot
entire lot can be cleared/graded
4,492 sq. ft. |
5,445 sq. ft. lot
entire lot can be cleared/graded
3,811 sq.ft. |
4,084 sq. ft. lot
entire lot can be cleared/graded
3,471 sq. ft. |
Proposed Overlay**
Total Site Disturbance |
4,033 sq. ft. |
3,067 sq. ft. |
2600 sq. ft. |
N/A |
* These zones have no minimum lot sizes: therefore a "typical"
lot size was computed by subtracting 25 percent of a 43,560-sq.ft. site
for roads and drainage facilities, and then dividing by the indicated base
density number; the resulting lot size is given in the cell for each zone.
R-8 is shown because its limits would apply in the other zones if a subdivision
were clustered to produce lots typical of R-8.
** The recommended overlay limits site disturbance based on lot size,
regardless of zone; the "typical" lot size developed for each
zone is used as an example, but the example would apply to any lot of a
given size regardless of underlying zone. |