Rural Towns & Character in King County
Read the full analysis here. (PDF)
Prepared for:
King County Hearing Examiner
King County Council Members
King County Code Review & Comprehensive Plan authors
Summary
King County has a known gap in development code for rural towns. Of recent concern is the rural town of Fall City, where a developer is in active permitting for 8 sub-divisions representing ~150 luxury homes (4-6 bedrooms with prices from +1.5 mil) outside of the urban growth area (UGA) and in an unincorporated rural area with no urban services and a vulnerable groundwater environment. The number of homes surpasses the sum of King County’s yearly targets for rural area growth, undermining the county’s commitment to limiting growth outside of the UGA[2] and undermining decades of consistent progress in controlling sprawl.
Growth outside of the UGA is strictly managed for environmental, public welfare, agricultural and natural resource protections. Small amounts of growth are allowable in rural areas, but only when that growth is shown to be non-detrimental to the area and consistent with rural character. In review of these sub-divisions, the King County Hearing Examiner, an expert on land use and policy, agrees with residents and subject matter experts that the developments are inconsistent with rural character and the county comprehensive plan. This issue is quickly gaining momentum and visibility as an issue of compliance with the GMA, has implications outside of Fall City, and requires quick remedy by the County Council.
26 miles east of Seattle, Fall City is the last remaining unincorporated agricultural “small town” in mainland King County (Snoqualmie Pass and Vashon Island share the rural town designation) and is the archetypal neighborhood the GMA was drafted to protect. Fall City is currently comprised of large, rural lots with generous setbacks, open views, and an actual density of 1.5 DUs. Homes are mostly historic farmhouses, single story ramblers and affordable, modest 2-3 bedroom family dwellings. Community residents depend on an older, shared water system of wells placed in vulnerable, highly permeable and variable soils.
The new sub-divisions are dramatically out of place with maximal designs in both height and footprint, minimum setbacks. These tract style homes are marketed as luxury properties and do not fill a public need for housing. The number, size and density of the homes fundamentally change the identity of the area, known for a farmland, historic landmarks and rural vistas. The rush of development has overwhelmed county staff and Fall City residents and the first permitted and built sub-division has been plagued by engineering shortcuts and limited oversight. Important critical areas and public health issues like groundwater protections and cumulative impacts studies have been lost in the rush to get permits.
Outside of being the end to a way of life for generations of Fall City residents and families, the loss to the King County landscape is significant. Fall City is a bastion of the small-town rural Northwest lifestyle – people from withing the UGA seek respite from urban life by floating the river or finding the perfect pumpkin. Home to more than 15 historic landmarks and roads, conservation of Fall City’s rural character has been a long running commitment for the County. Dozing farmland and barns for high end homes violates more than just regulatory fine print, it’s a permanent loss for all King County residents, current and future.
Call to action for the County Council
King County needs immediate development code updates to ensure that development in Rural Towns complies with the vision set forth in the growth management act (GMA) and King County Comprehensive Plan. The developer is aggressively purchasing lots and preparing applications for the county to review. There are several regulator methods that would be successful in addressing the gap, the easiest being a minimum lot size and limitation of impervious surfaces for new developments.
Background: How did we get here?
King County code is not compliant or consistent with the requirements and intents of the GMA or its own Comprehensive Plan for rural character preservation in rural towns.
