Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners split over proposed limits on new one‑acre lots; planning commission recommends keeping current rules
Summary
After a lengthy public debate about preserving rural character, infrastructure costs and housing affordability, the commission voted to recommend denying ordinance 2025‑14 (the proposed change limiting new R‑1 one‑acre lots), sending the matter to the County Commission with the planning commission’s recommendation to maintain the status quo.
A broad and at times heated debate over whether to restrict new one‑acre (R‑1) lots dominated the King County Planning & Zoning Commission’s June 11 meeting. Commissioners discussed proposals that ranged from eliminating new R‑1 zoning entirely to allowing a capped percentage (examples discussed in the staff draft included 30% or 10%) of a subdivision to consist of one‑acre lots. After extended public comment and internal deliberations, the commission voted to recommend denying ordinance 2025‑14 — effectively asking the County Commission to leave current rules in place.
The ordinance, as noticed, proposed several options including eliminating new R‑1 zones in new subdivisions, allowing less than two‑acre lots in R‑2 through a percentage cap, and increasing notice for zone changes to 500 feet. Sponsor remarks said the proposal intended to protect the county’s rural character: “I would like to change the R‑1 zone where only a percentage of the total acreage of any subdivision can be R‑1…so the rest would have to be 2 or 5 acre lots or more,” the sponsor explained in presenting the idea.
Commissioners and staff raised competing priorities. Supporters of restricting one‑acre lots cited wildfire risk, infrastructure costs for roads and fire protection, and a desire to keep the unincorporated county rural. One commissioner said larger lots reduce the likelihood of fire spreading between adjacent homes. Opponents and a number of commissioners argued the proposal would reduce affordable options for younger families and remove property owners’ ability to use or transfer land; they called specific percentage caps “arbitrary” without clear criteria for how a developer would calculate entitlement under the cap.
Public comment reflected those divisions. Morgan Shakespeare, who identified herself during the public hearing, urged the commission not to eliminate options for young families: “Please consider the kids that do want to come back…they may not have the option to do the 2‑acre lots,” she said.
Commissioners debated alternate approaches, including limiting short‑term rental conversions (VRBO/guest homes), stronger requirements for infrastructure, or setting minimum R‑2 lot sizes rather than eliminating R‑1 entirely. Several commissioners flagged that PUDs (planned unit developments) remain a mechanism that can modify density under negotiated conditions, complicating any blanket prohibition.
Procedurally, a motion to amend the draft (changing a proposed 30% allowance to 10%) failed for lack of a second. The commission then moved to recommend denying ordinance 2025‑14; a roll‑call vote produced a majority in favor of denying the change and forwarding that recommendation to the County Commission. The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the County Commission will make the final determination.
Next steps: The planning commission’s recommendation to deny ordinance 2025‑14 and the staff report will be forwarded to the County Commission for its review and final action.
