The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPRE2008-00001 UDC CONSISTENCY REVIEW Project Planner: Master#PRE08-00001 Review Type Project Description PRE08-00001 I The proposal is to subdivide lot 12 into 2 seperate lots(one upper and one lower).Additionally,the applicant wants to rezone the lower lot to commercial. Primary: KEITH GUISE Site Address: CARLA GUISE 810 DILLS FARM WAY WA, GREER SC 296515571 Project Location: Parcel Number 821 175 005,Port Ludlow No 6, Lot 12, Section 17, Township 28, Range 1E, WM, Located on Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Parcel Number: 821175005 S-T-R: 17-28N-01E Total Acreage: 6 Legal Description PORT LUDLOW NO 6 LOT 12 V9/P40-41 8/17-28N-R1E Land Use: 9100 Flood District: Fire District: 3 Planning Area: 7 Flood Map(FIRM)Panel No: District: 49 Zoning: COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY PLAN: UGA: MPR: WAT SUPPLY UTILITY: Service Area PUD: [ VII, Plot plan states "property line" [ Assessor's Map(Property li ,: 1 ubmitted plot p ust match lie proper lines as identified on the sessor's 1/4 map) [p/� Legal Access to Propel NO C CJ-e- C 1 i - — 71-1 [� Parcel Tags or Scanne• .ocuments YES JO [ yi SA's: Special Reports Nearby YE [ bjDesignated Ag [ vr Shoreline Designation: YES 0 [ t Shoreline Slope Stability: YES NO Stream Type:YES 0 Fish& Wildlife:Y0 Wetlands: YESNO Rare Plants:YES NO tl 0 t Seismic: YESNO Landslide: YEr1O Flood: Y.. Erosion: YESNO Aquifer Recharge Area:YES ict) _— SIPZ: none At Risk High Risk --)a. tal Stormwater site plan submitted: YesNo [b/] Forest Lands: YESNO Adjoining Forest Lands: Commercial/ Rural/ Inholding [ Stormwater:New Impervious Surface Land Disturbing Activity ESA's Stormwater Req's: Min Req#2 Min Req#1 thru#5 Min Req#1 thru#10 Engineering [�/1 Notice Provisions/Disclosure: Airport YES NO MRL YES NO Forest Lands YEs NO [ 'i Landscaping Required: Yes No [ v Parking Spaces Required NO 2 Other [ ] Building Height: 35' UBC Standard _„„,--[t Impervious Surface coverage percentage: I,-0 to Resource Lands&Public: 10% Rural Residential: 25% Rural Industrial: Per UDC Sec 6.7 Rural Commercial: 60% Area of Building Coverage:60%in Rural Industrial Lands only [ ] Total Building(s) Size: � / RVC:20,000 SF CC:5,000 NC:7,500 SF GC: 10,00 All subject to septic r constraispecified VJ [ Setbacks: Front: 1 Left Side: r Ri g ht Side: Rear: Shoreline Setback: LSHA Setback: [ V( Road Classification: STIMMVINIIIIIrald Road Approach:EXISTING Q'II figgil0 p - r„).-c, . l [ 5J SEPA Required:YEs EXFlvitT It [ ty"Flood Certificate: j._/ /r [ Existing Case(s)&Condition(s): 6 (1- Violations: Yes No [ t/1,,---Recorded Date of Subdivision: L ott AFN Over 5yrs=UDC Plat Conditions: <5yrs=Plat Conditions on plat or Old Ordinance Lots/Require Declaration of Restrictive Covenant YES NO, submitted: YES NO [ DI • __Site Visit conducted YES, [ equire Final Zoning Approva YES [ ADMIN: Setbacks entered in Permit Plan case N/A YES New Parcel Tags entered in Permit Plan N/A YES Special Reports Scanned N/A YES No parcel tags found for parcel Associated CASES status issued finaled description 821175005 PRE08-00001 P The proposal is to subdivide lot 12 into 2 seperate lots(one upper and one lower).Additionally,the applicant wants to rezone the lower lot to commercial. Page 1 of 3 Karen Barrows From: Keith Guise [kwguise @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 2:24 PM To: Karen Barrows Subject: Re: Planning Commission field trip Hi Karen, I will be in WA on that date but will not be able to get away. A conference call @ 9:00 am Pacific on Aug. the 9th would work best as will have time to speak on the phone. Please use 360-437-9302. Thanks and I will look forward to hearing from you. Keith Guise Original Message ---- From: Karen Barrows <kbarrows @co.jefferson.wa.us> To: Keith Guise <kwguise @yahoo.com> Cc: Al Scalf<ascalf @co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2008 3:11:53 PM Subject: RE: Planning Commission field trip Hi Keith, I spoke with the Planning Director Al Scalf about our recent email conversation. Given that I will be out of the office the week that the preliminary staff report on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle is published, Al thinks it would be a good idea for the three of us to meet first to discuss both the process and your application. Could you come to the DCD office in Port Townsend on Tuesday, August 12th at 9:00 a.m.? If you will be out of state next week, would it be possible to have a phone conference instead on the same day and at the same time(i.e., noon eastern time)? Please let me know today if possible. (If you are in town, I'll send driving directions; if not, but can make a conference call, please send the best phone number to reach you that day.) Many thanks. Karen Barrows Assistant Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend , WA 98368 (360) 379-4482 From: Keith Guise [mailto:kwguise @ yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:03 PM To: Karen Barrows Subject: Re: Planning Commission field trip Hi Karen, I just wanted to check with you and see if the DCD had produced minutes from the field trip as 8/7/2008 Page2of3 of yet? Additionally, do you know what is the procedure if I decide to withdraw my application?More specifically will I need to pay the application fees and refile with the county again next year? Thank you Keith Guise Original Message ---- From: Karen Barrows <kbarrows @co.jefferson.wa.us> To: Keith Guise <kwguise @yahoo.com> Cc: Jeanie On<jorr @co.jefferson.wa.us>; Al Scalf<ascalf @co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:07:07 PM Subject: RE: Planning Commission field trip Hi Keith, It was very nice to meet you too. Thank you for showing us around and answering so many questions! The participants in yesterday's field trip included several County staff, namely myself, DCD Director Al Scalf, and my fellow Long- Range planners Ryan Hunter and Joel Peterson . All nine Planning Commissioners were there, including Chair Peter Downey; their names and districts can be found at the following web link: h_tt //www..co,lefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/PlanningComm ssion htm Minutes of the meeting will be produced, but it will probably be a couple of weeks before those are available. My estimate is that minutes for yesterday's session will be on the agenda for approval at the August 6th meeting; if you don't hear from me, please remind me around that time, and I will send you an electronic copy ASAP. Best regards to you, Carla, and Ian. Karen Barrows Assistant Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend , WA 98368 (360) 379-4482 From: Keith Guise [mailto:kwguise @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:54 AM To: Karen Barrows Subject: Re: Planning Commission field trip Hi Karen, It was nice to finally meet you yesterday. If it is possible may I obtain a list of the participants on the field trip yesterday as the introductions were a blur and my memory is not what it used to be. Additionally, do you know if I could access a copy of official minutes or recorded statements from the visit(if any are produced) by the county participants as some of the County employees seemed to diverge into separate groups and I was unable to hear or participate in what was being discussed.. Thank you Keith Guise 8/7/2008 Page 3 of 3 •Original Message ---- From: Karen Barrows <kbarrows @co.jefferson.wa.us> To: Keith Guise <kwguise @yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 11:14:00 AM Subject: RE: Planning Commission field trip Thanks, Keith. We'll be in a white van with green lettering ("Jefferson County Transit"), and looking for you! Best regards, Karen Barrows Assistant Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend , WA 98368 (360) 379-4482 From: Keith Guise [mailto:kwguise @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 7:32 PM To: Karen Barrows Subject: Re: Planning Commission field trip Thank you Karen and my number is 828-699-6538. Keith Original Message ---- From: Karen Barrows <kbarrows @co.jefferson.wa.us> To: Keith Guise <kwguise @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2008 11:38:45 AM Subject: Planning Commission field trip Hi Keith, Just a reminder that the field trip is tomorrow(Wednesday), and we hope to be in the area of your property around 5:00-5:30 p.m. Do you have a cell phone number I could have to contact you in case our timing is radically different or we can't find you for some reason? Thanks, Karen Barrows Assistant Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend , WA 98368 (360) 379-4482 8/7/2008 CorY jyti-001. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICIAL MERU RECORD Ordinance No. 0 8-1004-99 adopting development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort effective October 4,1999 Section 3.802 requires the Department of Community Development to maintain a count of Measurement Equivalent Residential Units(MERUs)and of residential dwelling units. Total residential dwelling units are not to exceed 2250.Total MERUs are not to exceed 2575. Allocations of MERUs are to be determined according to the provisions of Section 3.803. The department is to maintain a matrix showing allocation of residential and commercial MERUs. Table 1 the total MERU cap, the allocation of residential and commercial MERUs and the total MERUs remaining to be allocated ( Table 2 the matrix for tracking MERUs that revert and/or are assigned to new uses Table 3 a detailed allocation of residential MERUs Table 4 a detailed allocation of commercial and public facility MERUs Questions should be referred to: Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Avenue Port Townsend,WA 98368 (360)379-4450 OP griaPt14. frn7 A 11 cie oskins, D. i s 'P r e Jo .on, Development Services Manager Associate 'lanner, 'L Lead Updated as of May 31,2007 MERU Record 1 ORIGINAL Table 1 Calculation of Available MERUs Based on Sections 3.801 and 3.805 Total Available MERUs 2575 Total Platted Property 1908 Built 1344 Platted undeveloped lots 564 Lots with Preliminary Approval 150 MERUs Allocated to Residential (Total residential dwelling units shall not exceed 2250) 2058 MERUs Allocated to Commercial 323.9 Total Allocated MERUs 2381.9 193.1 unallocated Statistical analysis accurate as of 5/31/2007 Per Section 3.803 MERU Allocation and Assignment: 1. Each MERU is assumed to generate 200 gallons per day(GPD)of sewer wastewater flow. 2. Each single family dwelling unit or recorded,platted lot counts as one MERU 3. Each multi-family dwelling unit counts as one MERU 4. Assisted living, congregate care, and similar facilities are assigned MERUs based on the number of bedrooms,beds,and type of care or assistance provided based on Department of Ecology standards in effect at the time of application. 5. Commercial development is assigned MERUs based on Department of Ecology standards as of the effective date of Ordinance NO. 08-1004-99. 6. If the use is not assigned a flow rate by DOE,the required gpd will be assigned based on actual use or other comparative process approved by the Department. 7. Residential lots approved by a preliminary subdivision are allocated MERUs based on the preliminary approval. If the subdivision expires or is withdrawn,the MERU allocation shall revert to unallocated status. 8. If a recorded subdivision is vacated or if platted lots are consolidated in a manner that precludes development of one or more residential uses,unusable MERUs will revert to unallocated status. Table 2 Conversion Matrix Based on Sections 3.803 and 3.806 Use being converted Allocated MERUs Available New Assigned Available Reverting to MERUs use MERUs MERUs unallocated status 275.6 ` 275.6 01 m•is Terrace II 80 -80 Kitsa• Bank 3.5 3.5 -3.5 Woodrid:e Villa:e Div I 1 -- 1 Resort Revision TBD TBD Total 193.1 Statistical analysis accurate as of 5/31/2007 MERU Record 2 ORIGINAL Table 3 Residential Measurement Equivalent Residential Units(MERUs) Plat Totals Lot Count Admiralty 64 North Bay Condominiums 54 Fairway Village 14 Highland Greens 38 Inner Harbor Village 46 Loomis Short Plat 22 Port Ludlow No. 1-1 72 Port Ludlow No. 1-2 63 Port Ludlow No. 1-3 54 Port Ludlow No. 1-4 106 Port Ludlow No. 1-5 29 Port Ludlow No.2-1 63 Port Ludlow No.2-2 103 Port Ludlow No.2-3 233 Port Ludlow No.3 87 Port Ludlow No.4 80 Port Ludlow No.5 18 Port Ludlow No.6 24 Port Ludlow No.7 20 Bayside Short Plat 4 Bayview Village 55 Edgewood Village 27 Fairwood Village 19 Greenview Village 16 Ludlow Bay Village TH&Marina Lots 58 Ludlow Beach/Point Tracts 20 Ludlow Cove(Single-family Residential Lots)(Phase 1 &2) 17 Ludlow Point Village—Div 1 35 Ludlow Point Village—Div 2 14 Ludlow Point Village—Div 3 18 Ludlow Point Village—Div 4 21 Oak Bay and Great Scott Short Plats 6 Olympic Terrace Division I 41 Olympic Terrace Division II Phase I 41 South Bay No. 1 57 South Bay No.2 18 South Bay No.3 35 Teal Lake Village •98 Timberton Village Phase I&II/Creekside Village Div I 59 Timberton Village III/Creekside Village Div II 19 Wedgewood Short Plat 3 Woodridge Village 35 Vittuli Short Plat 2 Total Platted Properties 1908 Existing(built)residential development 1344 Platted undeveloped lots 566 Preliminary Plat Approval Creekside 2(Now known as Timberton Village) 111 Olympic Terrace Division II Phase II 39 Total Lots with Preliminary Plat Approval 150 Total Residential MERUs 2058 Statistical analysis accurate as of 5/31/2007 MERU Record 3 ORIGINAL Table 4 Commercial and Public Facility Measurement Equivalent Residential Units(MERUs) Use MERU Allocation MERUs Total j Allocated J,.,r Existing Uses 320.4 Harbormaster Restaurant 50 gpd per seat(165 seats) 41 Conference Center 1993 FEIS 4 PT Office/PL Property Sales 1993 FEIS (Actual Flows TBD) 20 The Inn-Hotel 130 gpd per room(37 rooms) 24 The Inn-Restaurant/lounge 50 gpd per seat(72 seats) 18 Marina 1993 FEIS 15.5 Village Center-Moriarty 4074 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 4 Coldwell Banker Bldg 4000 sf@ 200 gpd/1000 sf 4 Village Center-Loomis 3000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 3 Village Center 15,000 sf @ 200 gps/1000 sf(1993 FEIS) 15 Beach Club&Bridge Deck 1993 FEIS 25 Church Actual Flows 0.5 Treatment Plant and Pump Stations 1993 FEIS 5 Olympic Property Group Offices Actual Flows 0.5 RV Park 1993 FEIS 10 Bay Club(Recreation Center) 1993 FEIS 22.5 Ludlow Bay Realty Actual Flows 0.4 Pro Shop/Golf Support Facilities 1993 FEIS 8 Resort Commercial 2500 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 1993 FEIS 3 Village Center—Moriarty#2 5000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf est max potential 5 Village Center-Loomis 5000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf est max potential 5 Village Center Expansion 45,000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 1993 FEIS 45 Pro Shop/Golf Support Expansion 1993 FEIS 41 Fire Hall 10,000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf est max 1 potential Total MERUs Allocated to Existing 320.4 Uses New Uses Kitsap Bank 3500 sf @ 200 gpd/1000(Actual Flows TBD) 3.5 Resort Revision TBD Total Commercial MERUs 323.9 Statistical analysis accurate as of 5/31/2007 MERU Record 4 0 o * fr '',,. _n'....... ! --' a - r� # i .0 4 ` ' X a lP - . ,, .0. ,te:i ir,„ II let 1,iii 4 It. , --s ." , . ,„,, a. ..,„„r, 40.- , „ i1$401 ' 04 WI"Ilk ill iy I.,r*.te**1.'''' . 11N'rst 1 Lat„, . *,, 7.* , *f. .1,..* - -•.` ,.....*, . 2� :,, / , ryai�" '. . `;i # t, , $ 4. '`r.,. �, y' ` a " ,,' s Ddb ',..i i A 0,"„t *P #° .! , ail '\ , . ''.s"sw f04 iir-4 -f- .ftioeili v l9P. ' "%IVy�. 44 r" «pro* Re 4 i- 4 *y* ,#°�" .fr F m "Nt I se +► 40 4•. - ). 41, *, 1 ;" 'i , , . , 4 -, / i;'," .. . 40*" \ .. ik-s. -- o EHU 4 i 'i .19(1r4 eirt 2'\Er , C) EP � C— « r'< n ac gay '4 * a O N - • j '- \ n if 7 — _ , a P k .„.....,* - . .. , t § �q s K -..21 #Y 4i. „ v A j y ;, m b n H ;,'ry - :: I t Y ...$: dAS ./., ,.„, A., . — lir 4,Arr . , iiir . , $ , , „ , .. t f t ,• ,. tf`•rt.II e� MCI t a ►M 4.6 l 1,w '„1 ,; ` _ ? _ 'i t+" or . * f n �n o - far "�' t r .. \ ,,. � ,► < "1 spa r a 16,110"1! )4k, �` is a� .� ' '� �# �• .' y * # % 3 e, ,,,,I1 'tsit N. ..,14 ... -4 .:I 0,0 F a. '"' 0,, *; .4 .t 0 .� r ,� 2 1 ", Ar 0 `:• -. ■...„4t ' . V -. ). , • Illk 1 pir* :-. I ,17,4414,4‘. - '4 4 , ,„ ,...„ a. ... ,-.... : , ,........, .,..,. : ,, .1.. .... ,,,,,,,,,,,,pr, "' ,, ..4:t. vs rak „t ,..:-. 11,,, ,- Ad , \1/4„ '. allitotert''''' lh'' A* 11 '-'44.: .,,,, c .)..., 2 r .7 4!Prib*,". L *41.Ce ''' '*,'*4 i'l\\\''' -' i. \ 4011 , ,, A� y 0 ii ilir.* • 1 k \. ,., ,. ,.., Tom, ,..,< Uo m , } #4" 1! . ^ x d .s 41 } f a -� A e ^C m y * '.,° �, .' ,'�c,a..,. 14. ice.� .. co o. : ,R 1 ro a N ' 0 °. . g ,.. °. j/ " + ° - , ,.. ,,.. 7. .-k;"--.., . ,it:' ' '',..11 ia'.4„ .'i;!:it'A,C% ' \' ' '''''''; , 4" 0 :"‘ " *- to rt ' if- It b i� 1 .,0" , 's.4 * W •*. y • . ? 1� '�� t `* a i� { � s . � TY ' •ws A 40": 9 ;} 1` Al, Y . .... .7.4r.40 ,. glii ,o '' i r Y " .w • � ! x !t1s tI •,�s.,4., ,it ! prat. ,i, -, . . ik" �1� ° "� 'iii it �. a fvi rw 1� .0t7,,-, ;if " _ .; `t a". f0 IA '? _ x:. , ,,,„ , , gr.41,1, iiii -,, ' 447 . - rz, - , ,,,) - ....,....:, ' ',,,e , *- _.. IN4 v4;4 ..' '" 1 '4""' 40 2 -. •"P.,,Sa iL ' lialit#4,..- ' a: . -.-...' ' - - ' 41" 411hf% ''''' V \ r . , --.14,, , .. 14 , °*--• A i 'mg, 4: :I' 1 -, "r. c''' ., .: - 's u } . i' lie*4t ♦ \ 4 ' ri py z%91.1 14 l' ' 1 ' '44°4 \ ,...ricitie,', C ' lit 0 . oa z ry , .., _„ •..:,,., . . ...,... .. . . ,, , a # .3 . III .. o -^-J o ., ` is 1 1 �, N a , a J%,leg ei” ,� ba ii pi-22J. Vi4 0 0 er t+ S '• '•c . PF "7 s i" � !( ,,616:6, . , "i , ,p3,,... 3, Y. .1�' r Yi, A. ..fir . A� ; o o r,. ..., t .:OP ' . , ,.,I 4.0111 Try _may 1-11':,.. Sii ,,. i&,-.,2,,„: , 1 r h , -',,,. \„*,, , ' I ei. ,.. ._ . IF III .„ .„ r 4 'r*- w 40* .s„ 1114 , 1 el c. „.i .*? .r 6 fib. l R a w -, , P „ ~ �, � k 66`� *, •+ti w ay ; + qew � * r 0 0 4, ' R , . �;� yk r� r. ' e-r t i , N 0 'AX S CAI ` �' ay. w NN li lii � t, . , , „ ,lifr � * : `. o#M . p • - ,. ♦',. i Vs _ ! _ 2. F , - An to ,00 4. ....., * oi•••• -.k,..,. )stbs, , .. • , , .4-.041 . ,„4„, 4i,j,_, .,-,_ \,..,n .- n * C n `illirt-14 < r T --.. )14.- > ° an a; ¢ 4, E • `.... • I \ "i-( ' . %Ai : ° +X�r I r ) 4 ill .-‘. yf- o t� ma o 4:*.4 4.1:.„ . a t 14 � a ry .-0 fI • ' n w �'io 800Z/L/8 •••zanivauwapis;no deuzno-auremaolnzase,deuzl.zsg•deuzizsa•Casa•a ioo/lainaas/sn•Um•uosIaBaf•oa•sdEuz//:d11u - - . _ 1 » � am. ' ,# Irwin' l'''' *i . . a. 9ddt?'ZL L LZ8 * I i f* *i�" a yt.. 7,1 72 ,, 1"., . `• I '3. # .. . 1 r. :a a.rn- 1 _...,. ...k. fit: - h. y ' •-..- tr. ►' tat a ! • ' Q�Y1Jd ifIV - ., ■.I7 `k •f • , '',4.-".- •`rte,. - R m e , '- airy r ,, .. �is.yy ,..,,!7 r.. a Sologd i eV gOOZ - Y1N ,'UF1 rrrJ ° "='4 ti� *°,,,tit`s . • ,.° fir.ri H-Slaa[t?d if,' ' 1 t c . ,,400- i $ ♦, , ,4,t4: f .r .' , 4 speoN or a" 1 . . , , , ,■ x ;00;4 iLZ,1,1.4- r ' �" a b S.9aD xI} T C # *A -' .r 7 . S . .'4 P ii+ '' >, �* `' suKOj L''''..L''''..1. 4. w ,4 v,, semeej papeles 30000QG6o ySr a 66 .... . ' 09Z000000 ' , ,.'s' 1.4',01 � N , ..q puaBai Ta .ZOW09066 -...111'1:. •f'' #`�.1., LOOZLLLZ$ aa" `.• w 1tLZ � ,! i - . ai,g, N : 'F:00S1LLZ8 4 a .- t le f'i. ,rr.1'1.,,; 4.iQC°5.�i3F,F... r - t $i00f#S06b t000906� irr.,01000,;06,6 iiii ems ', , 1 ni r; k u, i a ^s — •14 Lf a 'w, I '4%Pt+_ 6i gZ90Q Y5 rocAl .?A Z.tX)g't In .i i761 ,ZB / r 7►Ot..,,i r. i,,,,It I. Cff000905456ZOONh5F 9Z000C066SO ° ` 8002 p17:817:9. LO •n`d nyl `uoi;oalloo s;I;o AOalnooe pue poq ew eq;Aq peliwil sl dew siy; ul peule;uoo a;ea .4p!Ien JO sseu;oeiioo s;i o;;oadsaa y;iM A;ueJJenn ou se)lew pue uiejeq paule;uoo a;ep ay;;o Aoemooe eqi o;;sa;;e;ou seop A;uno3 uosJ9J4er-AINO SDSOd2ifld 1VNOI1VV IOdNI 2JOzI Ie!Jee90 69-80V11A1 1 Jo 1 aced ;nd;np dew 800Z/L/8 "•aonluotiD7gopislno deuzno—auzeNaotn.lasi,deuzi.Isg•dvurtasa•Casa•uzoopainaas/sn•um•uos.zallaf•oo•sdeuz//:d11u L.— .: . f 7+.7r.Rtr`.. i• a14; ryn»x ..x c:+.a0 Att+n3 14 pepvnst glen Jam.. a{�r5 4Lb. F *'. it i "1! -. •f. y _ 5. s 4y '''. -la: 004.44144.gal r,iii:II_ 4,ftLi4,00- ,, r .A-seg Y f -" t fi A�" a w s Y±yea ' it'1a apt ,1* o; , t' ,'r; '� •, _b 44':,,V -- T` , N } a .. `. p L„.0.' t-. .,.` r s '-- -�+. . 1,.E, set,epurog -_ J'. "r �° -.0* +.� i1. ., . � .:141. - 'r, .ii soiNd leuav coot � I., '-'re p''''} 5 ..r' lt . „'.+ w � .�q ' = '3 ` ".Heted a . ' aw rt s a t w Ili w .• y aS'Aa:r°D !r F i w t 4 of q°" : A`" � ' t e" * r t /..„to.X.-4066 a - .. g , setnteaj peae,es puaiai . 00006 t Eill plipr iiii irdiniiii. SiCODSogf . to ar iiz „ - pV'�9: ew ...,'s.f 4.1.4:-4....4.r.4,-, 'a+. + < w 'ILI E .11. fro. u 1 •10009066 ZZC......r:» iii,.... - 3' , _ `�- t OOfJScA' Y r t t � 612 a oc0DF4 6 67000S OK CRO04D66 ' # i a $"fit' I, war 9Z0005066 ' 8002 1717 817.91. LO •ny nyl uol}oelloo S4!4o OBJnooe pue poyfaw ay;Aq pe !Wll sl dew siyl ul peuleluoo eTed Ailpllen JO sseu}oaiaoo sTi 0;;0edseJ y}lnn kkueaaenn ou semew pue ulaaay pains;uoo elep ay;40 Aoeanooe ay;of Ise4le lou seop Aluno0 uosaa}}ar-LINO S2SOd2ifld 1VNOI±VLP IOdNI 2IOd leI ee90 69-80V1W i JO i 3aBd lndlnp dew 800Z/L/8 "'JaAluaiiD7gapIsino deuzno—auzeNaotn,zasi,deurrzsg•deurtasa•i zsa•uzooAainuas/sn•enn•uosaajjaf•oo•sdeuz//:diTu . . � 1r'- na �Y '5r sn:_ � e:-, �K> • ' VP4voitsbetN dik. T 4# kt *N y - -- • 1 i C R .,,, r T 7' , i €♦ ' 3 p �: •n 1,wins '9q3 x "il • , It" r- 'p' avT ` i#rpr seuepunoa 1-'ODni '= ;.a. ,:is !ar x solo4d teas'!g00Z d," _J ) ? ia : y p oa ar t b4 , o .- r. S^^ J % a Y * m F-• 4,* , 3 ' Setnleed pepsin t040t7it?64 v � :.. • _ ��Mt: ' Yu �r "G puaBa- ,t ,C 11' , .x I. 1 e I Z0040 bpU(� c_ 'a G ' . w lit " ,, w a . tom'iz . „, .O ., " ,f, .., ' ' `t 41*i x a Cali r t „l�� v 904S1ti7R r F+" r �� II .,`„ryr,” ;y EOOSLtt7$ : k.� Y . r .Is S }.. 14 .. - �R a ti �. 'Y, J :1 :86pQOB085 t ,bt90M(}S0�56. ily": *,. .1t • {1 �`e'1� '* + i" r t , fa+ MQI tpd ��P:7_4; w# r a*,i. ,° "* J r• „f irt_lb,' ,4' + k ' 'LZCC4}Ct 3Fs • Q �d f' `r .� " ' r. pZ ..• .... .. R+ �. 4 ti Yom. of l� .. ...9 t " ',w 9Z000 1 w E�wa*1,"._.p,..:St-. • -!-.. 1M 8002 j7j7:817•9. LO bny nyl "uol�oa11oo S !Jo�oeanooe pus poq ew ay;Aq pa}luall sl dew sty; ui pau!eWuoo a ea "Amen JO SSGU1O9JJOO s11 01 loedseJ 4liM Alueaaem ou se>leW pus ulaaaq peU!e;Uoo e}ep ail;;o Aoeanooe ayi of 1sa4}e Tau saop kkunoa uosJejJe -A1NO S2SOdIfld 1VN011V ■21OdNI 2IOd le!Jeeg0 62-80V-IW I Jo I aced lndinp deyAi , JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 A. OPENING BUSINESS B. DELIBERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL DOCKET C. ADJOURNMENT 04,0051 Co0 n4C-D A. OPENING BUSINESS The regular meeting was called to order at the WSU Learning Center at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Jim Hagen. Planning Commission members present were Allen Panasuk, Phil Flynn, Dennis Schultz, Bud Schindler, Peter Downey, Mike Whittaker, and Bill Miller. Edel Sokol was absent. DCD staff present were Josh Peters, Kyle Alm, and Cheryl Halvorson, secretary. There were five members of the public present: Kevin Widell, Nancy Dorgan, Gloria Bram, Sue Schroader of OPG, and Janet Huck of the Leader. The Chair invited staff updates. Josh Peters stated that there would be an open house on September 20 sponsored by DOE on the WRIA 17 rule. He received an email flyer from DOE and would forward it to the Planning Commission. Jim Hagen asked if Mr. Peters had talked to Phil Wiatrak of DOE about whether he had forwarded the comments received at the August 31 Planning Commission workshop to his superiors. Josh Peters replied that he had not talked to Mr. Wiatrak directly. He stated that he would ask Mr. Wiatrak about it. The commissioners were interested to know whether a written report would be provided to their superiors. If so, the Planning Commissioners would be interested in receiving a copy of it for the record. It was also noted that the public would be interested as well. Mr. Peters stated that a copy of the August 31 minutes had been forwarded to DOE staff. The secretary noted that staff had handed out a corrected chart for the watershed Reserve Areas. Bud Schindler stated that we had been talking about WRIA 17, but a portion of WRIA 16 was in the South County. He thought it was appropriate to discuss that planning unit as well. He did not know if there was any synergy between the two planning units. Peter Downey stated that there was a big difference between the two WRIAs. Josh Peters stated that this county actually had about four WRIAs within its jurisdiction, stating that there were a couple in the West End. He stated that Mason County was the lead for WRIA 16. He stated that WRIA 17 planning was farther ahead than WRIA 16 in terms of process. He stated that the watershed plan for WRIA 16 had not yet been adopted, whereas the WRIA 17 plan had been adopted and we were now into the rule making process. The Chair invited committee reports. Bud Schindler stated that the UDC Committee had met. He suggested that the minutes for those meetings be distributed to the full Planning Commission. He reported on a couple of things that had been raised by Al Scalf at the last meeting. The thought was that the issues should be addressed in the UDC Omnibus. He stated that the committee had considered the County-wide Planning Policy [CPP] . They thought the CPP should be incorporated into the Comp Plan and any amendments to the CPP should be handled as part of the Comp Plan amendment process. He stated that it may be necessary to involve the UGAs, the city Planning Commission, the Port, and maybe even the state agencies in understanding and making sure the CPP were a working piece of literature. He stated that the committee thought that, right now, they 2 really were not working. He thought they should work and that they should have a performance analysis applied to show that they were working. Dennis Schultz stated that, as part of the process, there should be a meeting with the city, the Port, the UGA, and/or state agencies. He stated that it was not a Planning Commission only topic; the other entities also had input and a say in the CPP. Those entities should be directly involved in the CPP amendment. He pointed out that there had been one update of the CPP in ten years. He agreed that the CPP was not working because no one did anything with it. He thought that revising the CPP could make it a workable document by providing better policy. Bud Schindler stated that it should be recognized that there was a need for the CPP in order to have consistency and coordination between jurisdictions. The level of consistency and coordination was a question that needed to be answered. Mr. Schindler reported on his conversation with Doug Peters of DCTED at the August 31 meeting about the CPP and the fact that they were not working in this county. He reported that Mr. Peters had agreed that if they were not working, they should be fixed. He thought there was a challenge to find what was necessary to reach the goal of consistent planning and coordination between the agencies and jurisdictions. Mike Whittaker referred to the Comp Plan amendment process, which may include the CPP in the future. He offered the opinion that a process taking the better part of a year was too long. He stated that he would like to see that process sped up, although he admitted that may not be possible. Jim Hagen stated that if the CPP was incorporated into the Comp Plan as suggested, any amendments to the CPP would go through the regular Comp Plan amendment process. The Chair invited public comments, noting that the comment period to the Planning Commission on the Comp Plan amendments had closed. He stated that comments on the amendments should be directed to DCD for inclusion in the record and distribution to the BOCC. Nancy Dorgan stated that she had watched the CPP amendment process start and then implode. She stated that language had been proposed by staff without justification or rationale. Ms. Dorgan then commented on the watershed meeting. She thanked the Planning Commission for having that meeting. She stated that there had been a total disconnect between watershed planning and land use planning. She stated that the Planning Commission meeting was the first time she had seen an effort at bringing the two together. She referred to the 2004 Comp Plan amendment cycle where the county had rezoned so many acres into Ag Lands of Local Importance. She stated that she had commented about the SEPA analysis as it related to water. She described a public records request she had made in 2004 and the response she received from DCD concerning any watershed planning reviewed by the county for the 2004 Comp Plan amendment cycle. The response basically denied her request as not being specific enough. She stated the belief that water impacts of planning should be an environmental consideration. She stated that the problem was that Long Range Planning had not been involved in the watershed planning process. There had not been an intersect between watershed planning and land use planning. She stated that there was a lot of work to be done in that regard and she thanked the Planning Commission for beginning that intersect. Ms. Dorgan described the Washington Water Acquisition Program. She stated that there was a lot more going on with regard to watershed planning than what the Planning Commission got at the August 31 presentation. She thought that 3 presentation was really pretty bad. She provided information on her comments for dissemination to the Planning Commission. B. DELIBERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ON 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL DOCKET Referring to the 2004 Comp Plan amendment process, Jim Hagen asked if it was true that people had been asked to wait for a year to apply for their site specific amendments. Josh Peters stated that the BOCC had adopted a resolution that the county would not take site specific amendments because of the workload for the 2004 update, the Planning Commission's amendments, and the UGA amendments. Phil Flynn stated that the Planning Commission had agreed with that decision. Mr. Hagen stated that the point of his comment related to the discussion in the SEPA analysis about the cumulative impacts of the number of site specific amendments. He stated that if the county had allowed site specific amendments in 2004, we may not have had as many this year. The commissioners and staff discussed cumulative impacts. Josh Peters stated that analyzing legislative proposals like these presented difficulties in assessing cumulative impacts. Nonetheless, we were charged with doing it. Allen Panasuk coRimented that all of the citizens who applied this year had to wait over a year in order to make their application. He did not think that was an efficient use of time for applicants. Bud Schindler stated that he did not know how many, if any, of this year's site specific amendments were delayed from 2004. Dennis Schultz stated that the Planning Commission and staff had a tremendous workload in 2004 without taking on site specific amendments too. Josh Peters stated that he did not think many of these applicants had contacted DCD about submitting an amendment last year. He added that, ironically, the county did rezone 220 parcels in 2004 into the Local Agriculture designation. He pointed out that the BOCC' s resolution to not take site specific amendments in 2004 could be found on the 2004 web page. It provided the reasoning for not taking site specific amendments. Staff handed out a memo responding to public comments and requests for additional information received at the August 17 public hearing. The Chair stated that the Planning Commission would review and discuss the proposed amendments in the order presented in the staff report, which grouped them by category. Before taking up specific amendments, the Planning Commission and staff held a general discussion on the contents of the memo. The discussion touched on several of the specific amendments. Josh Peters stated that the Planning Commission and staff had received both written and oral comments at the August 17 public hearing. Some of that information refuted recommendations in the staff report. He stated that, as a result, staff compiled the memorandum that was handed out at this meeting. Staff grouped their responses in the same order as the amendments were presented in the staff report, with the first group being changes in residential densities. Josh Peters stated that they decided to take a look at some of the larger issues that potentially affected all four of the residential density applications. One question raised related to the "established pattern" . He stated that staff addressed that issue at length in the memo. He stated that each of the residential density designation criteria included an established 4 pattern criterion. He stated that it was staff's perspective that when the Comp Plan was developed, everyone involved (staff, the Planning Commission, public and BOCC) looked at the pattern that was on the landscape at the time and essentially made judgments about what the established pattern was and zoned accordingly. He described some examples. He noted that a specific criterion for RR 1:20 was that property be directly adjacent to a Master Planned Resort. A specific criterion for RR 1:5 related to smaller parcels along the shorelines. Bud Schindler asked what was magical about 1:5. He asked why something like 1:2.5 or 1:2 or 1:1 was not considered. He thought that if the county had adopted such zoning, it would change the circumstances and probably change the decisions that were made. Josh Peters stated that at one time there were residential densities similar to what Mr. Schindler described. He stated that he could not say why the county chose the densities it did, not having worked for the county at that time. Jim Hagen stated that he had gotten an old Comp Plan from DCD. It had rural residential densities of Suburban at 5:1, Rural at 1:1, and resource lands at 1:5. So, we had extensive 1-acre rural zoning in this county. Mr. Peters stated that the old plan was prior to Growth Management, which was a key. Josh Peters stated that the GMA essentially said to divide the landscape into urban areas, rural areas, and resource lands. In addition, there were provisions for MPRs or LAMIRDs. There were such things as residential LAMIRDs. He thought a place like Cape George could have been designated a residential LAMIRD. He did not know that 1:5 was a magic number that may have come about through case law or whether it had come through Hearings Board decisions. He stated that it was a popular number. He stated that it was possible that 1:2.5 would survive scrutiny if done is such a way that you had a variety of rural residential densities, which was part of the statute. He thought that 1:1 would not be considered rural. Also, you would run into health issues with a minimum amount of land to accommodate both a septic and a well. He thought Jefferson County took a couple of passes at the rural residential densities and may have ended up in front of the Hearings Board. He stated that he knew the county had an appeal before the Hearings Board on the commercial forest designations. As a result, the county revisited those designation criteria. While he could not say exactly why the RR 1:5 came about, he felt sure it had to do with the separation between rural and urban and identifying those areas that were already developed as of July 1, 1990, whether rural commercial, rural industrial, or even residential areas. He stated that while the rural designation was 1:5, everyone recognized that there were many areas in the county where the lots were not five acres in size. Jim Hagen asked if the zoning in the old Comp Plan was good right up to adoption of the GMA. He stated that he was trying to understand why and when the leap was made from 1:1 and 5:1 to 1:5, 1:10, and 1:20. Josh Peters replied that it was really with adoption of the GMA that those densities were taken up. The GMA required that counties try to concentrate population into areas where services were provided, basically densify your urban or urbanizing areas, and then maintain your rural landscape and resource lands. Josh Peters discussed the section of the memo addressing the established pattern issue. He addressed staffs reasoning for using the 50W rule, which he indicated was not a hard rule. It was a guide for looking at the established pattern around a specific parcel of land. The established pattern criterion was included in order to allow discretion. However, staff 5 did not want to apply that kind of discretion; they wanted some kind of standard they could apply neutrally across the board. He stated that if you were going to use the established pattern criterion to rezone a parcel, it should be very site specific in the sense of the adjacent parcels and it should essentially be an exception based process. The zoning had already happened and the criteria had already been applied. If a specific parcel could have reasonably been zoned a different way, that was the exception the county should be considering. He stated that staff wholeheartedly disagreed with the idea that you could take a collection of parcels that happened to be owned by one landowner, who had applied and paid the same amount of money as someone who applied for one parcel, and look at that collection of parcels as one unit. He stated that you should not look at numerous parcels as one unit and then look at the surrounding density of that unit to establish the rezone. An extension of that philosophy would be if someone owned 1, 000 or 5,000 acres that had small lots on it periphery and rezone that large piece into small lots. Josh Peters referred to the table on the three rural residential amendments. It depicted answers to each of the designation criteria. He stated that it was staff's analysis and the Planning Commission could accept it or not. He stated that staff thought that, in these three cases, the zoning should remain as it was. In the fourth amendment, staff thought the zoning should be changed, based on the facts. Josh Peters stated that the one amendment staff supported for rezoning (MLA05-59) was a 40-acre parcel near Shine currently designated RR 1:10 and was requesting RR 1:5. It was surrounded on three sides by RR 1:5, although there was commercial forest land on the fourth side. He stated that it was ironic that the same applicant [OPG] had other land in forestland that they were saying was compromised because it was close to smaller residential lots and they needed a buffer on their forestland. If you applied that same philosophy, the RR 1:10 on the MLA05-59 parcel provided a much better buffer than RR 1:5 would. Rezoning the 40-acre parcel to RR 1:5 would make the buffering problem worse. He stated that the point was that we should try to apply the criteria neutrally in all cases. He stated that, clearly, if you had an advocate for a particular position, you could pull pieces out of the criteria to make it support your position. He stated that, in these cases, we had the same applicant in two situations and the same philosophy could not be applied the same in both places. Dennis Schultz referred to the table, stating that in some cases the criterion was not applicable. He thought the table should have shown "NA" instead of "No" . He thought "No" biased the people looking at the table. He thought that using "NA" in appropriate cases would dramatically change the ratio of "Yes" and "No" answers. Josh Peters responded that it was not intended to mean that three beats two. He stated that it simply was meant to answer the criterion question. Jim Hagen stated that the same idea applied to a situation where four criteria applied and the applicant satisfied two of them. However, those two did not have priority enough to support a recommendation for approval. He wondered about how the criteria were prioritized. Josh Peters stated that if you were talking about the Tala Point area, staff simply disagreed that the applicant met any of the criteria. He stated that it did not make sense, from staff' s perspective, when considering the criteria to say that area could be characterized by parcels of similar size along coastal areas. While it was near a coastal area, it was not on a coastal area. It was not of 6 similar size; those parcels were large parcels. He stated that it just did not meet that criterion, and to suggest that it did, did not make sense from staff' s perspective. He stated that it did not meet the other criteria either. It was not part of an established pattern of the same or similar size parcels. It was actually a pattern within itself of larger parcels. He stated that if the Planning Commission made a different finding, the commission would have to make findings supporting a rational basis for that recommendation. He thought it was within the commission' s legislative discretion to make that judgment. Jim Hagen thought it was a valuable discussion because it set up the background, since there were common issues with a lot of the amendments. He stated that the established pattern issue especially came up in all of the residential up-zone requests. MLA05-39, Nelson/Monroe: Bud Schindler stated that he looked at an amendment like Nelson/Monroe and looked at the parcels around it and certainly it did not meet the 50% standard. However, he thought that if it was divided in half (two parcels) , it looked reasonable. But when you looked at it in terms of the zoning, he came back to thinking about if we had zoned some parcels 1:2.5 or 1:2, he thought it would change the texture of how you looked at some of the applications. He thought it made sense to split that parcel in two. Dennis Schultz stated that he was trying to second guess the original zoning. He stated that the Nelson/Monroe parcel was in the Dabob Valley. It was basically an agricultural zone through that area. He stated that the parcel size for long term commercial ag was 20 acres. His guess was that when they originally zoned that area, they decided that everything would be zoned at 1:20, whether it was agriculture or residential. He stated that if we were doing the zoning today, he thought some would be ag, some would be RR 1:10 and some would be RR 1:5. Josh Peters stated that, under the 1998 Comp Plan, we created Agriculture Production Districts. Within that zone, parcels were either zoned RR 1:20 or Ag Lands 1:20. The rural residential zoning was assigned basically because the parcel was not in the Open Space Ag tax program. He stated that he had started to put that explanation in the memo. However, when staff looked at the original Ag Production District for the Dabob Valley, they found that the district line was actually on the other side of the road. He thought Mr. Schultz may be onto something since all of those parcels were zoned RR 1:20. Mr. Schultz stated that the framers of the 1998 Comp Plan did a lot of work in a short time in considering the zoning. He thought it was probably time to go back and look at some of the zoning and consider changing it in some areas. Bud Schindler agreed. Jim Hagen stated that, as background, the goals in the GMA were not prioritized in importance. They were all to be taken equally. He stated that we constantly heard about preventing sprawl as an overarching mission of GMA, but it was really no more important than the property rights goal. He stated that a recent unanimous Supreme Court decision had stated as much. He stated that one thing the property rights goal talked about was something about arbitrary actions. While he did not mean "arbitrary" in a negative or critical concept, he thought "arbitrary" could be the term used to arrive at the 1:20 zoning. While he was not trying to be critical, he thought there were a lot of factors to consider that impacted the decisions besides the relevant criteria in the Comp Plan. 7 r t Bud Schindler asked about the relationship between development pressure and land availability. It seemed like there had to be a point where we said we needed to change how we zoned property in order to accommodate development pressure. He was thinking particularly about the area near the bridge. He stated that there was a lot of demand for development in that area. He wondered at what point the issue of development pressure entered the equation. Peter Downey stated that GMA required us to plan for a 20-year horizon, but we could update the plan during that time. Mr. Schindler stated that we were establishing a mechanism for zoning now and we had decision criteria, but he was not sure it took development pressure into account. Josh Peters stated that, in general, he thought it would be more of a legislative decision. He thought Mr. Downey was suggesting we should take it from a broader brush perspective. He stated that certainly one opportunity was when you did the Comp Plan update, which could be done in any given year. It would be based on the growth management indicators. He stated that it was not just development pressure. There were other factors to consider, such as transportation factors, resource factors such as water, etc. As an example, Mr. Peters referred to the water service area map for the Bywater Bay area, stating that there were "x" number of lots and "y" number of possible connections. Kyle Alm stated that there were 102 available connections from the PUD and 179 vacant parcels in the Bywater Bay service area. He referred to the map of the Bywater Bay service area provided with the memo. Mike Whittaker stated that in a perfect world, you would say you have this much water which could effectively accommodate this much growth. He stated that if you had land, but you did not have water, it was nothing. He stated that this country was based on the freedom to own and use land. He admitted that you had to be more restrictive as more people came. However, it seemed to him that all the rules and regulations should be common sense guidelines instead of hard and fast rules to be applied. He stated that people changed, trends changed, demographics changed, but we were stuck with rules that were basically developed in the last fifteen years. He stated that a good case in point was the industrial land bank [ILB] . Under the rules, we had to say that the one decision was final and we had to live with it forever. He stated that he was trying to understand the issues and trying to be objective, adding that he was basically for property rights. He stated that people bought land, if nothing else as an investment, but if they could not do anything with it, where was their investment? Allen Panasuk moved that the Planning Commission approve the application for MLA05-39. Dennis Schultz seconded the motion. Peter Downey stated that the one thing that bothered him about the applicant' s argument for this application was that they had argued that it was a Centennial Farm. He thought that was a reason to keep the property whole and not split it in two. He stated that the problem with our ag lands and farms was that it got split up until eventually it was no longer functional as ag land. He reiterated that the Centennial Farm argument just rubbed him wrong. Bud Schindler stated that we should allow a larger house for an ADU. He did not think the Centennial Farm issue was pertinent. He stated that he looked at it from the way it was laid out and made a decision based on that. He stated that we had to live with the rules we had for land use. He thought that if we had a different ADU regulation that was less restrictive, it would be different, particularly if they could build two houses on one parcel. Since we did not have that, we were faced with a decision. 8 � L Dennis Schultz stated that this was a unique parcel, particularly with its location. He stated that he would be happier if we could require them to put the whole thing in some kind of trust or covenant and then split it, so they could not sell it off. Bill Miller asked if the adjacent smaller parcels had houses on them or if they just happened to be property that was in smaller pieces. He stated that it appeared the farm just got split over time. Kyle Alm responded that he believed some of the parcels had houses and some did not. Josh Peters stated that the applicant provided a timeline. He stated that timeline showed how the larger homestead got divided over time. Mr. Miller stated that, after breaking it down, it looked like this was the piece that was left. He stated that he liked the idea that it was buffering the little pieces from the bigger pieces. Jim Hagen stated that one of the things he had found in his archival research was something from a current Hearings Board member, Holly Gadbaw. It was called a Rural Element Guide. It was from the time when rural lands were still called "the leftover meatloaf in the refrigerator" . One thing she talked about was preserving housing for immediate family on farms. He stated the belief that we were not talking about a classic subdivision. This was simply to enable a family member to have housing on a 16-acre parcel of land. He stated that he wanted to be clear that this was just his interpretation. He stated that the staff recommendation mentioned something about Goal 2 of the GMA, which was about reducing sprawl. He logically did not see how splitting a 16-acre parcel in two could be described as sprawl. He stated that this application was an attempt to keep the property in the family. He stated that there was the argument that they could sell it and a developer could divide it up. He stated that the commission could only go on the good faith of the applicant' s stated purpose. Dennis Schultz stated that family farms were generally split up for inheritance purposes, either to provide property to family members or to pay inheritance taxes. The motion carried with six in favor, two opposed, and no abstentions (6-2- 0) . The secretary pointed out that the commission had just recommended creating a RR 1:5 zone inside a zone of RR 1:20. She stated that all of those small parcels were zoned RR 1:20. Dennis Schultz stated that if the county was doing the zoning again, all of those small parcels would likely be zoned RR 1:5. He thought that if the owners of those small parcels applied for a rezone, the commission would be amenable to their request. Josh Peters stated that the Planning Commission needed to include findings in support of its recommendation in its report. He suggested that staff draft some findings based upon the commission' s discussion for the Planning Commission to edit. If commissioners had specific findings they wished to include, they could email them to staff. Allen Panasuk offered the opinion that the Centennial Farm issue was a non-issue. Bud Schindler stated that he went by his "gut feeling" and his feeling was that he looked at the parcel sizes regardless of zoning. He thought the commission had considered the parcel sizes and it made sense to make the decision it did. 9 Josh Peters pointed out that the by-laws allowed for a minority report, if the minority members wanted to make one. It was noted that the members of the minority must be "on the same page" and not have disparate reasons for the way they voted. Jim Hagen stated that one of the main things he kept running across in recommendations for denials was a concern about a domino effect. He did not think this represented a pressure for a domino effect on nearby parcels. MLA05-51, Kirkpatrick/Skurdal: Jim Hagen stated that the staff report suggested an alternative zoning choice of RR 1:10 which the applicants had accepted verbally at the hearing. That alternative was offered by staff if the Planning Commission did not take the staff recommendation for denial. He asked if the choices to the Planning Commission were (1) approve the rezone as requested, (2) accept the alternative rezone at RR 1:10, or (3) deny the request. Josh Peters stated that the commission actually had more choices and described some of them, including requiring a PRRD [Planned Rural Residential Development] . Bud Schindler stated that the commission had received public comments about water quality and erosion. He wondered whether those comments had made staff consider the application further and differently. Josh Peters replied that staff' s recommendation was for denial of the proposal without relying on any of those comments. That being said, staff did offer an alternative. He stated that staff did consider the mapped landslide hazard area. He stated that staff' s recommendation for the alternative was that any development would have to be outside of at least the moderate hazard land. He stated that a geo-tech report would be necessary for any development on the parcel that was close to that critical area. He thought that influenced staff more than anything else. He stated that staff did not have any insight into what that area was like, although there appeared to be a disagreement between neighbors, which was unfortunate. He stated that some of the things could not be judged without spending more time and money analyzing for site specific characteristics. He stated that, because staff had other information upon which to rely, the comments did not make or break staff's recommendation. Mike Whittaker asked if, when staff provided an alternative recommendation, the county could specify how the larger parcel could be divided. Josh Peters stated that the specifics would be part of the subdivision process. He thought the staff report talked about the landslide hazard area and recommended that any development should be outside that critical area and would require a geo-technical assessment. He stated that a map was just a guide. It required a more site specific analysis. Peter Downey stated that, if the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezone, the proponent would have to come to the county for a subdivision. Josh Peters stated that the development code would govern the subdivision review. Bud Schindler stated that an onsite review would then be done and, if a landslide hazard area was found, it could be found to be unbuildable. Mr. Peters stated that could happen. Mr. Schindler stated that he got concerned when we rezoned something in a landslide hazard area, but when they went to split it up, they could not do it. Mr. Downey stated that there was nothing preventing them from applying to build a house in that hazardous area right now. They would still have to go to the county with an application and they would still have to deal with it. Mr. Peters stated that Mr. Downey was 10 correct. However, we wanted to analyze as much information as we could for the rezone application. In this case, there were areas on that parcel that either had no geologically hazardous areas mapped or had a slight hazardous area. He stated that you could build in a "slight" area. Mr. Peters stated that, if staff had been able to do a site specific analysis and decided that the entire parcel was constrained for a host of reasons, it would have influenced staff's recommendation. Jim Hagen stated that could be the case (critical areas constraints) even if the parcel was not rezoned. Just because you had a 20-acre piece of property, using an extreme example, it did not mean you could put a house on it. Mr. Peters stated that, in terms of making the staff recommendation, there were two main constraints on the property. One was the landslide hazard area and the other was the proximity to the commercial forest land. Phil Flynn stated that the Planning Commission could not draw a line where the subdivision should occur. Bud Schindler expressed a concern about how the parcel would be divided and still take into account the forest buffer. Kyle Alm stated that their proposal was to do a PRRD and cluster, so they could take the buffer into account. Bud Schindler stated a concern that part of the submission from the applicant included a plan for a septic system in the buffer area, which indicated to him that a house would be within the 250-foot forest buffer area as well, because you typically sited the house near the septic. He did not know if that was meaningful or not. Dennis Schultz stated that no house was built on the property. Josh Peters explained that the county allowed stand-alone septic permits without a building permit. Peter Downed moved that the Planning Commission recommend rezoning this parcel from RR 1:20 to RR 1:10. Allen Panasuk seconded the motion. Bill Miller asked about fire access and whether there was any responsibility on the county' s part. Mike Whittaker stated that he was a fire commissioner and volunteer in the subject fire district. He explained that anytime someone applied for something, the proposal came across the Fire Chief' s desk. He would take a look at the site. If the road access was not suitable for the fire equipment, the Chief would advise the proponent that it was their responsibility. They could either build a suitable road or they were basically on their own. Bill Miller asked if the motion meant that they could do two units instead of four. It was agreed that was the basic intent of the motion. The motion carried with six in favor, one opposed, and one abstention (6-1- 1) . Bud Schindler explained that he knew one of the neighbors and was acquainted with the personality difficulties in the neighborhood. Therefore, he thought it was unfair to participate in the vote and had abstained. MLA05-59, Olympic Property Group: It was pointed out that this subject property was in the Shine area. Allen Panasuk moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment per the staff recommendation. Peter Downey seconded the motion. There being no discussion, the motion carried unanimously (8-0-0) . 11 ( 4 Jim Hagen stated the understanding that the Planning Commission did not have to make a decision on every one of the applications. If the commissioners did not feel comfortable with one or more, the commission could extend its deliberations to the next meeting. He stated that the commission was not under a time constraint to finish its recommendations at this meeting, nor should the commission feel pressured over matters of this importance. MLA05-60, Olympic Property Group: This group of parcels was in the Tala Point area. Dennis Schultz asked if OPG had said anything about this property when they came up with the MPR (what the future plan for this property was) . Josh Peters stated that he could not answer that question. He stated that when the MPR was designated, most of the property around the MPR was left at RR 1:20, ostensibly for future expansion purposes or for a buffer so that you would not have sprawl from a centralized population. Bud Schindler suggested that the Planning Commission delay this recommendation until it found out if there were any implications related to the MPR. Peter Downey stated that he would like to move to deny the application, although he thought the commission should talk about it more. Peter Downey moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the amendment. Bill Miller seconded the motion. Allen Panasuk asked about the boundary for the MPR, commenting that he thought it was supposed to have a certain number of lots. Josh Peters responded that there was a boundary and there was a count of a certain number of residential equivalent units [ERUs] . The ERUs related to the number of sewer hookups. So as development occurred in the MPR, the new units were subtracted from that ERU number. Mr. Panasuk asked, therefore, if development in the proposal area would affect the ERUs for the MPR. Mr. Peters stated that the ERU units were only those within the MPR boundary. Outside of the boundary, there was mostly RR 1:20 and then resource lands with some RR 1:5 in a pocket to the north and along the coastal areas. Allen Panasuk asked for further clarification about the genesis of the MPR boundary, wondering whether the proposal area would affect the MPR facilities. Sue Schroader, OPG, was given the opportunity to explain. Ms. Schroader stated that the ERUs was tied to the sewer capacity for the MPR. Phil Flynn asked if that placed a cap on the number of lots in the MPR. Ms. Schroader replied that essentially it did. Ms. Schroader explained that this Tala Point area property was outside the MPR and would not be served by the MPR sewer facility. Staff and the commissioners discussed sewer treatment and water service for the proposal area. It was noted that the proposal area was outside of the MPR boundary and would not be served by the MPR services. It was pointed out that, being rural, the proposal area could not be served by a centralized sewage treatment plant; it would need to be onsite sewage disposal, although that may take on the form of a community drainfield. Josh Peters stated that water availability was an issue. He stated that the proponent suggested that a small scale community water system may be an alternative. Water rights would be an issue. He stated that there was some mention, and staff did address it in the staff report, that utilities in general were not a problem 12 in terms of a community environment like that. He stated that staff did not mean to suggest that they had studied the water situation specifically and determined that water resources would not be an issue. He stated that staff simply did not know. He stated that staff had contacted the Department of Health to find out if water was an issue in that area but had not received an answer back in time for this meeting. He stated that a community water system to the north had more connections than the system had approved. And to the east, the parcels were on individual wells, which were along the coastline. He stated that was neither here nor there with regard to water availability problems for the subject parcels. He stated that staff had provided a map of the Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones [SIPZ] in that area. He stated that what staff did know was that we did not have any identified High Risk SIPZ, stating that the zone was all Coastal SIPZ due to the proximity to the shoreline. He stated that the general message was that staff did not make a determination about water availability, although that did not suggest that there was or was not a problem. Bill Miller and Mike Whittaker stated a concern about water given the potential number of people (about 400) that could be allowed on those parcels if the amendment was granted. As an explanation of the process, Jim Hagen stated that the motion was to deny the amendment. If that motion was defeated, it did not mean the amendment was approved. It meant that the debate would continue. Jim Hagen stated that the established pattern issue was pretty unique in this case because you had large parcels, but you had lots of smaller parcels along the coastline. He stated that there was certainly a very large presence of fairly intense development in the general area. Peter Downey stated that there was also a large amount of land that was zoned RR 1:20 and there was open space. He thought the character of that area appeared to be very rural. He thought it would be a significant change to a very large area of land. He stated that he had a problem with all of it being RR 1:5. Mike Whittaker asked if the Planning Commission had the latitude of recommending something different in the zoning, using a combination of zoning. Dennis Schultz questioned whether the commission should get into that level of rezoning recommendations. Peter Downey agreed, stating that he would be reluctant to suggest that he knew what was in the property owner' s best interests. Bud Schindler stated that staff had taken the liberty of rezoning some of the parcels based upon the criteria. He thought the commission could do the same thing. Mr. Downey stated that the difference between this proposal and the staff suggestion on MLA05-51 was that the proponent accepted the alternative. He stated that there had not been any suggestion like that in this case. Mr. Schultz stated that the commission could recommend that the proponent bring back another proposal. The commissioners discussed the number of potential lots and housing units. Jim Hagen stated that the staff report indicated that there would be an additional 47 dwelling units if all four of the amendments were approved. Mr. Hagen stated that he did not look at RR 1:5 as being very intensive use. Bud Schindler stated that, again, he considered the area, stating that there was pressure to develop in that area. He stated that he looked at the number of lots that were already established in that area and questioned whether an additional 37 units really had that much impact. 13 Peter Downey stated that his concern related to the size of the acreage involved. It related to just doing "cookie cutter" 5-acre parcels. He thought there was an opportunity to do some good planning for that acreage in order to preserve the open space and still have the number of units allowed in the rezone. He wondered what kind of cluster development we could have. If you just rezoned it 1:5, you had lost the opportunity to do some good things. Jim Hagen stated that he was not sure we had lost the opportunity. He stated that some of these decisions were in the hands of the property owners. He stated that under the GMA, we had to draw lines and say "This is rural" and "This is urban." However, in describing this area as rural, he considered the general area. He stated that the Port Ludlow Village Center was two miles away and there was really intensive development in the area. He stated that we kept coming back to a discussion about areas that were generally characterized by existing development. He stated that we were not talking about urban densities like 4:1; we were talking about one dwelling unit per five acres. Peter Downed stated that when the commission had talked about the other amendment [MLA05-51] , it was talking about 20 acres, whereas this amendment was for 250 acres. He stated the opinion that there was an opportunity there to get a better development rather than just doing 5-acre parcels. Bud Schindler stated that the developer should have their own best interests in mind when deciding how that rezone would be configured. He thought this particular developer [OPG] , and given the existing area around Port Ludlow, would put together a very nice development pattern. Dennis Schultz noted that a lot of the property was on steep slopes. He thought there would be a lot of parcels that would not be buildable if the property owner just did straight 5-acre parcels. He stated that no one had done an analysis of how many of the potential parcels could actually be built upon. Josh Peters stated that correspondence from the applicant's representative had criticized staff for mentioning that there were steep slopes because ostensibly you would deal with that when you got to the development code level. Mr. Peters pointed out, however, that one of the criteria for RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 was the presence of critical areas. He thought the main criteria the legislators used for the county zoning in designating RR 1:20 were that one, plus the fact that they were large parcels, plus the fact that they were a transition to urban growth areas or MPRs. Allen Panasuk asked about how the developer would go about subdividing the property if the RR 1:5 zoning was approved. He wondered about how the developer would deal with the steep slopes. Josh Peters stated that a geo- technical report would probably be required, although that was a lot of area to do a geo-tech assessment on. It was possible that we could require some limited scale of assessment, and then when it came to individuals buying a property and wanting to build on it, a more thorough assessment would be done. He stated that was a factor that went into the zoning across the county. He stated that there were properties that were difficult to build on, but the fact was that they did exist. Mr. Panasuk stated that should be part of the developer's and buyers due diligence. Bud Schindler stated that, in a situation like that, it would be short minded of the developer to create unbuildable lots. He thought they would do what they could to get "the most bang for their buck" . 14 Dennis Schultz stated that he would like to see the developer develop this property in a very creative way because it would be more profitable for them, rather than just cutting it into 5-acre parcels. Bud Schindler stated that should be up to how the developer wanted to develop it. Josh Peters stated that Mr. Schultz was right that you could have "boxes" in typical 5-acre parcels. But Mr. Schindler was also correct that the developer had the option of doing a PRRD or something similar. He stated that the county had received very few PRRD applications, however. The question was called for. The motion to deny the amendment failed with three in favor, five opposed, and no abstentions (3-5-0) . Dennis Schultz stated that he would still like to see some kind of development plan, at least a preliminary plan similar to what the commission had received on some other amendment applications. Bud Schindler questioned how much the county could hold a proponent to a development plan they may present at this stage. He stated that they had not had a geo-tech assessment done. Allen Panasuk stated that they would not do it unless they knew they had the zoning. The commissioners discussed whether the commission could require a PRRD as a condition of the rezone approval. Staff stated that it was possible for the Planning Commission to make that recommendation, noting that such a recommendation had been done in the past. Josh Peters described the possible density bonus for a PRRD, adding that retaining open space was a requirement. Bud Schindler stated that it was an interesting option and wondered whether the commission should educate itself about a PRRD. Dennis Schultz questioned what benefit the proponent would get from using a PRRD. Allen Panasuk moved that the Planning Commission approve MLA05-60 at RR 1:5 without a PRRD requirement. The motion died for lack of a second. Peter Downey asked if it was possible at this point in the process to go back to the proponent and ask if a PRRD was an option they were willing to accept. Josh Peters replied that he believed there had been some precedent in the past where an applicant had been involved in the discussion because the commission was considering alternatives. Off the cuff, he did not think it would be out of line for a matter as important as this. He added that it was great when we had a situation where the landowner wanted exactly the same thing the legislative body wanted. However, it did not happen often. He stated that this was a legislative decision that the commission was suggesting may be made. Dennis Schultz asked staff to provide more information about the implications of a PRRD at the next meeting. Josh Peters responded that staff could make a presentation on PRRDs, or staff could answer specific questions on the subject, or staff could provide a copy of the UDC section on PRRDs. Bud Schindler suggested that the applicant be informed that the Planning Commission was considering the option and would be receiving a presentation, because he thought they would be interested as well. He thought it was in the commission's best interest to examine this option before making a decision. Dennis Schultz moved that the Planning Commission table this amendment to the next meeting in order to hear a presentation about PRRDs before making a decision. Peter Downey seconded the motion. 15 • Bud Schindler suggested that the applicant be invited to hear the presentation, stating that it could be an education for both the Planning Commission and the applicant. It was an opportunity to make this process a win-win rather than the applicant being surprised. Mike Whittaker referred to the environmental checklist concerning water availability, which said that it would not be addressed until development occurred. He expressed concern about making a decision without having information on water availability. He thought the commission should have all the resources it could in order to make a good decision. Josh Peters responded that he agreed with Mr. Whittaker that it would be helpful to have as much information as we wanted before making a decision. He stated that he had contacted the Department of Health for their perspective as co-managers of a state resource. He stated that the property was near the coast, so there could be a problem, but there may not be either; we just did not know. He stated that if staff received information before the next meeting, staff would certainly provide it. He stated that when you were doing a subdivision of a certain size, at some point water rights came into play. He stated that the applicant possibly would have to get water rights. He stated that, thirdly, it would be awkward for us to say that, because DOE was proposing certain rules that would limit water in East Jefferson County, we should recommend denial. He stated that staff looked at the designation criteria and decided it did not meet the criteria for a rezone, so staff did not need to consider the water issue. Bud Schindler stated that he looked at such questions as a challenge for the developer. While he thought the questions were good questions, he thought they were ones that should be answered during the development phase. Jim Hagen stated the opinion that it was not for the Planning Commission to challenge private property owners about what to do with their property. It was their property and they were asking for a simple rezone. If they chose to do a PRRD, that was their prerogative, but the county should not be telling them how they should do their subdivision. While this discussion had gone into more complex territory, it was his opinion that the commission should not be telling private property owners what they should do with their property. The question was called for. The motion to table carried with six in favor, two opposed, and no abstentions (6-2-0) . Jim Hagen stated that the commission would begin a new category of amendment. The next two amendments were for a change in zoning from Commercial Forest 1:80 to RR 1:20. MLA05-38, Hopkins/Barber: Josh Peters stated that Kyle Alm could provide a summary of the staff's supplemental material presented with the memo. The Chair suggested that the commission delay consideration of the two forest rezones until the next meeting in order to have time to review the supplemental material. He thought the issues were very complex. He suggested the commission skip ahead to the two requests for rezoning to commercial instead. The commissioners agreed by consensus to do so. 16 MLA05-53, Widell: The proposed amendment was for a rezone from Rural Residential to commercial with inclusion in the Glen Cove LAMIRD. Josh Peters summarized the supplemental information staff had provided in the memo. It included a portion of an ordinance dealing with Glen Cove, a letter from the city to the county, and a letter from the county to the city. All dealt with the Glen Cove LAMIRD and were in response to a question about a second inter-local agreement or memorandum of understanding. He stated that, apparently, no second agreement was adopted. The exchange of letters and the ordinance itself answered the question about the Glen Cove boundary. He stated that the discussion on the topic began on Page 8 of the staff memo. Bud Schindler stated that he would think that the boundaries for LAMIRDs were not sealed in concrete. He thought there should be some process set up for adjusting the boundaries over time as necessary. He thought it was a reasonable thing to do. He stated that this application was a request to adjust the boundary. He asked if there was a process for adjusting the boundary and questioned why we could not adjust the boundary of a LAMIRD. Josh Peters provided information on the history of the LAMIRD issue. He stated that there was nothing in the GMA that said a LAMIRD boundary was a one-time deal, but there was also nothing in the act that said it was a continuous deal. He stated that Hearings Board decisions from the various boards were not consistent on the issue. He stated that we had a decision from the Western Hearings Board that said the Glen Cove boundary was final. We also had an ordinance that said it was the final boundary. We also had an inter-local agreement with the city that said the boundary was final until 2016, but the agreement could be amended if the city and county were amenable. So, there could be a possibility, if the city and county jointly decided to re-open negotiations and re-analyze new information, to reconsider that boundary. He stated that it would always be in the context of the LAMIRD criteria which said that we had to look at the situation as it existed on July 1, 1990. He stated that he knew he had not answered the question "Yes" or "No" because it was a complicated issue. He stated that, basically, we had a local agreement between the city and county that there was agreement on the boundary until 2016. He stated that there was language in the Comp Plan that talked about establishing and designating LAMIRDs in the past tense. So, from the Comp Plan, you could infer that it was essentially done. However, he also did not see that there would not be legislative discretion there. There may be some process by which the county could engage the city about re-evaluating the Glen Cove area, or they may do a different LAMIRD from the current Glen Cove boundary. He explained that there was one external boundary around the Glen Cove area with two zones inside. He stated that the applicant had even mentioned that it could be a different kind of LAMIRD; it did not have to be part of the Glen Cove LAMIRD; it could be some other rural LAMIRD description. Mr. Peters stated that there were lots of factors associated with this application. Peter Downey stated that there was nothing that said that past legislative action curtailed the powers of the people. So, a past legislative decision could not say that it was final and you could never change it. The legislative body could always change it. Bud Schindler stated that the ordinance said that the parties had reached a final agreement; it did not say that was the way it would be henceforth. What he heard staff say was that it would be very complicated and time consuming to reopen the process. Kyle Alm read a section from the ordinance 17 that indicated the boundary was permanent unless the parties agreed to open discussions about a UGA. Phil Flynn stated that the decision had been made that Glen Cove would not be a UGA. Josh Peters stated that the ordinance was adopted during the time when both the Tri Area and Glen Cove areas were being studied for possible UGA status. Josh Peters stated that it was a complicated application. He noted that a court case had been involved. He stated that staff had made it clear to the applicant in initial discussions and in the staff report that the staff recommendation was based on the fact that we had established the LAMIRD and what the ordinance said. Therefore, staff' s recommendation was for denial. However, there was some merit to some of the issues raised by the applicant in terms of that property being part of a LAMIRD, including the commercial access that pre-dated July 1, 1990. He stated that it was ultimately up to legislative discretion in matters like this. Mr. Peters stated that it was also clear that you could not continuously re-evaluate LAMIRDs. Dennis Schultz stated that the options were to re-open the Glen Cove LAMIRD or create a new LAMIRD. Mike Whittaker stated that it sounded like if the city and county had agreed, it was a "done deal" . Peter Downey stated that you could make the argument that the property was grandfathered in because it had a commercial access permit dated well before 1990. Josh Peters stated that you needed to be careful when using the term "grandfathered" because it had a specific legal connotation in this state. He stated that he was not sure how the previous access permit from the state DOT influenced the county's decisions about land use. He stated that it was not as clear cut as the vesting law in the state. Bud Schindler stated that, if the Planning Commission agreed to this application, it would be up to the BOCC to decide if it wanted to try to re- open the issue with the city. Bud Schindler moved that the Planning Commission recommend approving the application. Peter Downey seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion carried with seven in favor, none opposed, and one abstention (7-0-1) . MLA05-70, Pepper: The application was for a rezone from Rural Residential to commercial for inclusion in the Four Corners LAMIRD. Josh Peters stated that the question was raised at the public hearing about water being available on the property and the circumstances being the same as another rezone (in Chimacum) . Mr. Peters pointed out that staff discussed the issue beginning on Page 9 of the supplemental memo. He stated that the circumstances were not the same. He stated that the difference was that in the Chimacum area, there was a commercial water tap on the property. The Pepper property did not have a water tap on it. There was a water line running by the property and there was the potential to serve the property. In answer to Dennis Schultz's question, Josh Peters explained that all of our rural commercial districts were considered LAMIRDs. Jim Hagen asked if the water tap issue was another pre-1990 issue. Josh Peters replied that it was. 18 AI Josh Peters addressed the relationship between this application and Jefferson Transit. He read a portion of a letter from Ms. Pepper' s attorney who said that a use by Jefferson Transit would be much more intense than any commercial use Ms. Pepper might develop and should not be grounds for denial of the application. Mr. Peters stated that was not the reason staff recommended denial; it was not because commercial uses would be inconsistent with surrounding properties. He stated that the general checklist indicated that there would not be any identifiable significant impacts related to commercial uses at that particular corner as opposed to surrounding properties. It was specifically about the LAMIRD criteria. It was about the application of the criteria in the GMA which was incorporated into our Comp Plan. It was not about any perceived or identified or analyzed impacts that could happen if the property was zoned commercial because there could be many uses there, not just a transit. You could do any of the uses listed for a Neighborhood Crossroads zone. He stated that staff recommended denial simply because they did not think it met the criteria for inclusion in the LAMIRD. That was the same analysis staff had found in 2002 . Bud Schindler asked if the fact that this property did not have a tap and the other property did have a tap was the rationale for denial. He also asked why water being available to serve the property (the water line running by the property) was not enough to meet the infrastructure criterion for a LAMIRD. Dennis Schultz pointed out that there was a difference between a commercial water tap and a residential tap. Josh Peters stated that there was case law about built environment including underground infrastructure. That was one factor in the Glen Cove boundary analysis, although not the only factor. He stated that it had become clear in this county' s application of the built environment criterion that having actual commercial water service available and the infrastructure in place was different than having water lines running by in the street that was serving both residential and commercial property. Jim Hagen stated that the contention had been made that the property was zoned commercial in the past, after adoption of the GMA, and that it was down zoned. Josh Peters responded that he did not know, but added that it was not important to staff in any case because that (past commercial zoning) was not a criterion for designation. It was not part of the LAMIRD criteria from the statute. What was important was what was on the ground on July 1, 1990, or whether it was part of a larger area that was a LAMIRD (a logical outer boundary with limited infill) . He stated that according to staff's analysis, which had been done more than once now, nothing had changed the conclusion reached in 2002. Again, that did not mean the Planning Commission could not come up with another conclusion, although it would have to be backed up with findings. Mr. Peters stated that, if the property was used for a transit facility, it would require a conditional use permit. Phil Flynn stated that, rezone or not, the transit could put their facility there under the conditional use permit process. Jim Hagen stated that staff had determined that the Pepper property was not within the logical outer boundary. Josh Peters agreed. Mr. Hagen asked about the basis of the characteristics of existing development. Mr. Peters stated that staff pulled the 2002 file, looked at the evaluation that occurred then, and investigated to see if there was any new information. In fact, there was a suggestion about new information concerning a commercial water tap or some other kind of infrastructure. Upon further investigation, staff found that there was not a tap. There was just a water line running by the property, which was the same characteristic for many properties in the 19 44 • county. He stated that the Planning Commission could disagree. It was at a corner. The commission could make an argument that it was part of an outer boundary, although staff thought it was a weak argument in 2002 and still thought so. Of course, if the legislative body decided to grant the rezone, it would be staff' s job to defend it. Bud Schindler stated that this was a crossroads but yet not all four corners on that crossroads were part of the LAMIRD. The secretary pointed out that we had that situation in other places in the county. Josh Peters stated that, if that was the commission's perspective and it wanted to make that a finding, it would be a finding that staff would be tasked with defending and staff would do their best. He stated that when the county adopted the zoning in 1998 and when it was reconsidered in 2002, the decision was to not include that parcel as part of a logical outer boundary. He stated that staff felt no reason to recommend anything different now. While that was staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission could recommend something different. Mike Whittaker moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the MLA05-70 request by the applicant for the rezone. Peter Downey seconded the motion. Bud Schindler asked if the motion should include wording about adjusting the outer boundary of the LAMIRD. Dennis Schultz stated that if the motion was approved, the LAMIRD would automatically be adjusted. Josh Peters stated that it meant that the property would be included in the LAMIRD. There being no further discussion, the motion carried with seven in favor, one opposed, and no abstentions (7-1-0) . MLA05-06, McDiehl LLC: The application was to rezone a residential parcel for inclusion in the Village Center in Port Ludlow. Allen Panasuk moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of MLA05- 06. Dennis Schultz seconded the motion. Phil Flynn suggested that the Planning Commission require the access to be from the side street rather than from the main road (Oak Bay Road) . Kyle Alm stated that Public Works had said not to condition it in that way. They preferred to review it when a development proposal came in. Specific uses generated different amounts of traffic and it may or may not be acceptable, depending on the use. Also, there was some question about whether the open space easement was on the Osprey Ridge side of the property and whether or not an easement could be granted. He stated that it was something that should be considered with a development proposal. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously (8-0-0) . MLA05-66, Jefferson County: The suggested amendment would address some housekeeping issues. Bud Schindler moved that the Planning Commission accept the application as presented. Phil Flynn seconded the motion which carried unanimously (8-0-0) . 20 I; f 4 ► Given the hour, the commissioners agreed to put off the remainder of their deliberations to the next meeting. C. ADJOURNMENT The Chair invited public comments. Kevin Widell, Port Townsend, stated that the Planning Commission had voted on his Comp Plan amendment tonight. He stated that any way to push this forward to make the county and city talk about it would provide something good if they could come to an agreement. He stated that the Glen Cove area was bound by the city and the county; it was kind of a big in-between area that it seemed like no one wanted to agree on. If that could not be done for future growth in this county, the other option was to look at the parcel as a stand- alone LAMIRD. He stated that there was a question whether it could be a (d) iii LAMIRD on its own under the GMA and Hearings Board decisions. He thought that was another option for the parcel. He thanked the Planning Commission for pushing it down the process track. Gloria Bram stated that she came to the meeting because she was interested in the process and because she was interested in the Pepper application. She stated that she was aware that Jefferson Transit had chosen that site for their new facility. One of the criteria for their choice was the price of the property. She stated that the price of the property was low because it was not zoned commercial. She stated that there were two other sites some people thought were much more appropriate for Jefferson Transit. She thanked the Planning Commission for giving Ms. Pepper the opportunity to realize a commercial profit from her property. She stated that she lived in that area. She worked on one side of the airport and lived on the other, so anything that happened at the intersection of Four Corners Road and Highway 20 was of great concern. She stated that she had been trying to get some traffic mitigation in that area for over a year. Again, she thanked the Planning Commission for giving Ms. Pepper this zoning because she felt she deserved it. The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES These minutes were approved this day of September, 2005. Jim Hagen, Chair Cheryl Halvorson, Secretary 21 e revAc. p 08/27/08 From: Keith& Carla Guise 133-B Osprey Ridge Rd Port Ludlow, WA. 98365 360-437-9302 Alternate Address: 810 Dills Farm Way Greer, SC. 29651 To: Stacie Hoskins Jefferson County, WA. Planning Manager Karen Barrows Jefferson County, WA. Assistant Planner Please withdraw site-specific UDC amendment application MLA08-59 as of August 27 2008. Thank You 03/ai 0& ffLL Keith Guise Carla Guise ECEIVED AUG 27 AHEM NTY JO MLA08-59 proposed by Keith and Carla Guise, requesting the following: 1) Change the current land use designation for parcel #821-175-005, a 5.8 acre parcel located on Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow, Washington, 98365; 2) Amendment proposal seeks to rezone from the current land use designation of Master Planned Resort (MPR) Single-Family Tracts 1:2.5 to MPR-Village Commercial Center (MPR-VCC). Statutes guiding review of this proposal can be found under: the Growth Management Act at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), by which limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs) can be designated by local jurisdictions outside of urban areas; the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 (Land Use and Rural Element); and Chapters 18.15 and 18.45 JCC. Key questions to consider when reviewing this application: A) What rules and precedents apply to rezoning within an MPR? Where is additional information on this topic located? B) If approved, this rezone will create an additional 5.8 acres of MPR-Village Commercial Center(VCC)property, when it is estimated that there are already at least 30 acres of undeveloped MPR-VCC zoned property nearby. Should that make a difference in whether to recommend approval or denial of the rezone based on GMA guidelines? C) Will rezoning this property affect the county's ability to ensure a balance of land use densities within the MPR? D) Should the county rezone the property before it is subdivided? E) What about water rights allocation(allotment to MERU's) issues? F) Will rezoning this property create pressure to upzone additional properties? If so, is that in the long-term best interest of the county as a whole? G) Will rezoning this property affect the level of service provided in the county? H) How will rezoning this property affect neighboring parcels, open space, and native vegetation and ecosystems? I) Have county wide attitudes, assumptions, growth projections, service delivery capacity, or other circumstances changed since the adoption or revision of the comp. plan in such a way as to warrant a rezone of this property? Is there new information available since the adoption or revision of the comp. plan that would warrant a rezone of this property? J) Would rezoning this property be consistent with the GMA, comp. plan, and county wide planning policies? K) Is the property physically suitable for the requested rezone, including access (ingress and egress from Oak Bay Road onto the property), provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding land uses? NOTES: Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 40. MLA 05-06 for Parcel Identification Number("PIN") 821117005 is submitted by McDiehl LLC. The parcel is located at the northeast corner of the Osprey Ridge and Oak Bay Roads within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort("MPR") and the applicant seeks to rezone this 0.89-acre site from MPR Residential to MPR Village Commercial Center. 41. Amendment of an internal land use designation within the Port Ludlow MPR is correctly achieved through legislative action in conjunction with the annual CP amendment cycle,pursuant to Jefferson County Code("JCC") 17.05.060 Revisions to Resort Plan. 42. Parcel 821117005 is not owned by Port Ludlow Associates, LLC,the successor in interest to Pope Resources, and thus the 2000 Development Agreement between Pope (now Port Ludlow Associates) and the County is not applicable to that parcel. 43. With respect to MLA05-06, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts as if stated in full here the findings and conclusions in favor thereof of the Planning Commission and the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum(August 3, 2005) which discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any. 44. Master Planned Resorts ("MPRs") are governed under a distinct statutory provision within the GMA. They are not Rural Lands, and thus are not Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development. Instead, RCW 36.70A.360 provides that MPRs "...may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section." 45. Since an MPR is more akin to an urban area, approving this CP amendment that allows additional commercial development to occur at an intersection in that urban area where commercial development already exists is supported by both state law and public policy. 46. MLA05-39 for PIN 801213014 is submitted by Nelson/Monroe and seeks to rezone an approximately 16.47-acre parcel in the Dabob Valley near Quilcene from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Page 8 of 21 rPage 1 of 3 Karen Barrows From: Keith Guise [kwguise @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 2:45 PM To: Karen Barrows Subject: Re: MLA08-00059 Greetings Karen, Below are the responses to the question raised by Mr. David Armitage Committee Chairperson, Community Development Committee, of the Port Ludlow Village Council. I have placed his questions in quotations and my respones underneath. 1. "The county needs to assure that the parking on the commercial piece be in compliance with all existing county and state requirements". Response: The county permitting process is in place to ensure development complies with existing codes, laws, and regulations including parking specifications. Any future development resulting from the proposed rezone will of course be subjected to the same. 2. "There is an issue with respect to the ingress onto and egress from Oak bay Road onto the property". Response: Without knowing the specific issue Mr. Armitage had in mind I can only address what I think may be of general concern to him. Tentative plans see Ingress and Egress facilitated via an existing logging road after improvements and County scrutiny via the permit process. The County Roads department has at this point not found any major obstacles to its location and will be intimately involved throughout the process. 3. "There is a concern that the commercial use of the property may not be appropriate as proposed". Response: Currently no commercial use of the property has been officially proposed. The proposal at hand is to rezone the lot to commercial use. If the rezone attempt is successful any subsequent proposed commercial use will again be subject to the county permitting process with ample time for the public to voice concerns and apprehensions. Additionally, I am a member of the Port Ludlow Community and will have the closest residence to any commercial activity that may be proposed on the lot in the future. For that reason one can be assured that I would do nothing to adversely affect property values or quality of life in the community. 4. "The current proposal presents a commercial enclave in an otherwise residential property (including the church on parcel 821175006)". Response: By that logic one can argue the converse and say my property is a residential enclave in an otherwise commercial area. All the properties to the south are commercial (village center), that includes a fuel station and convenience store, a postal service, a hair salon, a restaurant, a real estate office, an RV park and campground, PLA administration offices, a chiropractor, various shops, an accountant, a Friday market, a bank, and a recycling center. The property to the east is zoned residential but in practice used as a church. Adjacent to that(further east)there are more commercial buildings including a dental practice, more real estate offices, a restaurant, a bank, an art gallery, and apartment housing. Continuing east is a commercial lot that was recently rezoned from residential to commercial. Directly to the south of that are more commercial buildings including office spaces for lease. Moreover,my lot was removed from the LMC by the original owner and developer who drafted unique CCR's to specifically allow for commercial development. 5. "It would seem to be more appropriate to have the whole parcel zoned either commercial or residential". 6/23/2008 Page 2 of 3 Response: I chose to subdivide my lot in order to build my personal residence on half the lot(the upper portion) and to act as a buffer between any commercial activity and other residences within Ludlow. The subdivision idea was an attempt to mitigate any negative aspects that could possibly arise and hopefully alleviate concerns residents may have. The fact that I and my family are building our personal residence next to the proposed rezone should provide adequate assurance to other residence that no obnoxious or objectionable activities will take place. 6. "The specific commercial use should be compatible with the residential area as well as a neighbor with the Port Ludlow Community Church". Response: My intent is to make sure any future commercial use will not only be compatible with the community but perhaps even complement the quality of life in a rural community like Port Ludlow. Furthermore, since my residence will be the closest to it, only commercial uses that do not generate unnecessary noise, lighting, and traffic will be considered. Any future commercial use will also fully consider the concerns of the church and its patrons. However, it should be pointed out that, other than my lot, all of the church's neighbors are currently commercial for profit businesses. 7. "We are puzzled as to why the county is moving to zone the property prior to splitting the property?Zoning the total parcel commercial and then splitting the parcel to have half rezoned residential seems like a lot of extra work" Response: My rezone application was submitted prior to completing the subdivision proposal due to the length of time required for a rezone application to be finalized. The rezone application takes approximately one year to complete and had to be submitted by a specific deadline. Since the subdivision process can be completed in months I have chosen to submit it during the summer after I return to Port Ludlow. Ultimately I will be presenting my subdivision application within a month regardless of the outcome of the rezone results. Thank you and hope this helps. Keith Guise Original Message ---- From: Karen Barrows <kbarrows @co.jefferson.wa.us> To: Keith Guise <kwguise @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 1:27:32 PM Subject: FW: MLA08-00059 Hi Keith, As long as we've begun the process of answering questions pertaining to your application, please see below an email from Dave Armitage, who has several questions as well. It's good that you provide me with the answers to these questions for the reasons we've already discussed. Many thanks. Karen Barrows Assistant Planner, Long-Range Planning 6/23/2008 Page 3 of 3 Jeffers& County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend , WA 98368 (360) 379-4482 From: Dave [mailto:gd.armitage @gte.net] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:22 PM To: Karen Barrows Subject: MLA08-00059 May 31, 2008 Subject: MLA08-00059 Dear Ms. Barrows, I am writing in regards to the proposed subdivision of parcel 821175005 (MLA08-00059). The Port Ludlow Community Development Committee review the preliminary application on Thursday, May 29th. The following are the initial concerns that were voiced: The county needs to assure that the parking on the commercial piece be in compliance with all existing county and state requirements. There is an issue with respect to the ingress onto and egress from Oak bay Road onto the property. There is a concern that the commercial use of the property may not be appropriate as proposed. The current proposal presents a commercial enclave in an otherwise residential property (including the church on parcel 821175006). It would seem to be more appropriate to have the whole parcel zoned either commercial or residential. The specific commercial use should be compatible with the residential area as well as a neighbor with the Port Ludlow Community Church . We are puzzled as to why the county is moving to zone the property prior to splitting the property?Zoning the total parcel commercial and then splitting the parcel to have half rezoned residential seems like a lot of extra work. Respectfully, David Armitage Committee Chairperson Community Development Committee Port Ludlow Village Council 6/23/2008 Re: Public records request MLA08-59 & MLA08-96 /GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert Page 1 of 2 Karen Barrows From: Karen Barrows Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:21 AM To: 'Bert Loomis' Cc: Jeanie Orr; Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; David W. Johnson Subject: RE: Public records request MLA08-59& MLA08-96/GMA VIOLATIONS---- Bert Bert, Thank you for your email. You ask good questions about MLA08-59, which will be considered when this application is reviewed by staff. Site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications received by the March 1st deadline are automatically placed on the Preliminary Docket for inclusion on the Final Docket(please see JCC 18.45.050(1)(a)and (3)). Therefore, processing a site- specific application does not constitute a judgment on its merits. GMA guidelines, Jefferson County Code, and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are all integral to Planning Agency and BoCC review of the entire set of applications, individually and cumulatively. Notice will be given when the preliminary staff report/recommendations and SEPA review on the Final Docket becomes available, and notice also will be given with respect to the public process, including Planning Commission public hearings on the Final Docket. Your comments are welcome at any time, and will be included in the public record. Thanks again, Sincerely, Karen Barrows Assistant Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4482 From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bertl @cablespeed.com] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:46 PM To: Karen Barrows Cc: Roseann Carroll; Karen Barrows; David W. Johnson; Al Scalf; John Austin; Mickey Gendler; Jim Perkins; Les Powers; Lewis Hale; Randall Shelley; John Alden; Allison Arthur; Douglas Barber; Hana Buresova; Walter L Cairns; Stephen Causseaux; Jeff Chew; Bill Cooke; Joseph D'Amico; Jim Fritz; Bill Funke; Lynn Gauche; Diane Golden; Suzanne Graber; Lewis Hale; Del Jacobs; Greg Jordshaugen; Peter Joseph; Ed Knodle; Larry Lawson; Jack McKay; Larry Nobles; Ron Null; Audrey Pedersen; Les Powers; Bruce Pyles; Rick Rozzell; Bruce Schmitz; Randall Shelley; Jeff Shipley; Bob Skodis; Ralph Thomas; Barbara Wagner-Jauregg; Nancy& Bill Zingheim; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld Subject: Re: Public records request MLA08-59 &MLA08-96/ GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert Karen, David has asked me to direct my questions to you. I look forward to your response. Thank you Bert On 6/1/08 1:00 PM, "David W. Johnson" <dwjohnson @co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: I have forwarded your request for public records the Roseann Carroll, our Office Administrator. Your 6/2/2008 Re: Public records request MLA08-59 &MLA08-96 /GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert Page 2 of 2 . questions or comments on these cases should be addressed to Karen Barrows in Long Range Planning. From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bertk cablespeed.comi Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 10:10 PM To: David W. Johnson; Al Scalf; John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: RE: Public records request MLA08-59 & MLA08-96 / GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert David: This is a public records request for copies of the files for applications MLA08-59 & MLA08-96. Also, why is DCD processing an application [MLA08-59] that would create an additional 5.8 acres of MPR-VCC zoning when the MPR currently has more than 30 acres of undeveloped MPR-VCC zoned property. Is this zoning change consistent with GMA guidelines? Thank you Bert 6/2/2008 Page 1 of 2 Karen Barrows From: Karen Barrows Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:28 AM To: 'Keith Guise' Subject: FW: MLA08-00059 Hi Keith, As long as we've begun the process of answering questions pertaining to your application, please see below an email from Dave Armitage, who has several questions as well. It's good that you provide me with the answers to these questions for the reasons we've already discussed. Many thanks. Karen Barrows Assistant Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4482 From: Dave [mailto:gd.armitage @gte.net] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:22 PM To: Karen Barrows Subject: MLA08-00059 May 31, 2008 Subject: MLA08-00059 Dear Ms. Barrows, I am writing in regards to the proposed subdivision of parcel 821175005 (MLA08-00059). The Port Ludlow Community Development Committee review the preliminary application on Thursday, May 29th. The following are the initial concerns that were voiced: The county needs to assure that the parking on the commercial piece be in compliance with all existing county and state requirements. There is an issue with respect to the ingress onto and egress from Oak bay Road onto the property. There is a concern that the commercial use of the property may not be appropriate as proposed. The current proposal presents a commercial enclave in an otherwise residential property (including the church on parcel 821175006). It would seem to be more appropriate to have the whole parcel zoned either commercial or residential. The specific commercial use should be compatible with the residential area as well as a neighbor with the Port Ludlow Community Church. We are puzzled as to why the county is moving to zone the property prior to splitting the property?Zoning the total parcel commercial and then splitting the parcel to have half rezoned residential seems like a lot of extra work. Respectfully, 6/23/2008 Page 2 of 2 David Armitage Committee Chairperson Community Development Committee Port Ludlow Village Council 6/23/2008 Page 1 of 1 Karen Barrows From: Jim Boyer[baysiders @cablespeed.com] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 8:52 PM To: Karen Barrows Subject: Port Ludlow rezone application Ms. Barrows, I have been informed that you are soliciting comments regarding the rezoning application of Keith Guise—Parcel Number 821175005. As a property owner and Trustee of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission I am involved in discussions and workshops focusing on the long range plan and status of our community. One thing our residents always bring up is the condition of our village center and the possible expansion of conveniences to better serve our community in the future. As our population grows the need for conveniences becomes more important, especially with the rising costs of fuel and transportation. Our surveys and comments regarding things people would like to see in Port Ludlow include medical services, pharmacy, dry cleaners, hardware, and more food service among others. But, always topping the list is the desire for an expanded grocery market that would include a nice selection of fresh meats and fish along with fresh produce. The logical place for such a market is at the village center where the gas station is. In order for a sizeable expansion of that market we would need places for our small businesses such as accountants, designers and the categories mentioned above to move. Available space is at a minimum and due to the defeat of the proposed Trend West development, Port Ludlow Associates is looking at the reuse of the commercially zoned RV Park for condominium development. I join with many of my friends and neighbors in supporting the rezoning application of Keith Guise and urge you to assist us in this opportunity to make more competitive commercial space available to enhance the entrepreneurial future of our community and better serve our residents. Sincerely, Jim Boyer Port Ludlow (360) 302-0989 7/8/2008 Map Output Page 1 of 1 MLA08-59 05aerial �F X " � *�` �. « rp �+ � � �e`` t .„,,'='‘'..,14 `°� ,'�, 44t* r� , , , Y7- 4 Y W. 4 • !4 ' 1 . .. Ti t x4 -'E +l r M � a t ' :4 _ y iit Jir A _ t Ake "fL4 Legend rte " ' ¢ JC Roads ads,. ' . ` -4„„ . ti i,'(.: . t ......1,,,_ _ �'ati r t. �� i ` t L�R Stru ms.,N . .... , ip s ' i - V ▪ Ai ri V EGG Tide C1• tsJ, .. W :.”' i.,J jr 4./ Type a + • x r l t , "r.' .J Type 3 R ` r#y }! f • Type 2 At , . * °0 w !t ° • . r ***4 1„.r * 2005 Aerial Photos • • , + i.:. i� ” : ' 4!!"° '' 4` ¢ Boundaries ,, ,. "`, " '�#,"� '�►� ► �, _��` � - n ~veer G� �•, n =. 4, :.► *�' 164 4:' ",6 1r -* 1 I Cele.Gars t "`are A it. x '`; 11. ; ., , 4 ' • r °- '� r a VI 1 - tea ' , ,,. 1 ,w ..=waoied.i...e.-‘e i , ; FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Mon Jun 23 09:15:37 2008 ,k,)44--a.Z1 ---■ 604c4.....4..t cf___ .,ta,„,4,..,..e4t.e0../..„-c-( i er) 6 0.0-ace, •-iitt-ce, C ! ;_0 plc , � \ IC2t( e.1 C .'1 (ck g 0 / fdt.'4446(r.,_) http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientV ersion=4.0&Form=True... 6/23/2008 • Map Output Page 1 of 2 MLA08-59 zoning • d 821175 - 8{1Wb IG ?Pry _.-:..- 821171 t r' 090504081 VW 5008 1 t. 821/1200/ 1171008 82117 '_c+171QD7 • 821171 Ce_i Se Village W r, .,r 11710t' Q `82117200€• c. £211/2006 11p; t t k Gfiandler C1 J 5t"t1 "0" f 7 . cr, http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientV ersion=4.0&Form=True... 6/23/2008 Map Output Page 1 of 1 MLA08-59 aerial . 1175001 _- 990700088.`' 6..1./14t a 994500018 950700069 99 15 990500017 0•990500081 Wit 9+90500011 <'994500009' t +1175003 1.11,13 904100041 jam'�.44' ;:.117 '" Ml0wM6 9�J0100002 lk, ^M"� �''"�1 .'1�■111. �fV01M111O,: `.: i 1.1 1 1 1. . ••1.1 1 1 1( �y�,� (y�ryi/� 4 1/� vn 994100200: . �.1 "" ♦!. fit.1111:1A ' m a Al ^' 111€*.260 990100004 r N1172001 040400264 / 99 :1 f a 82117141 M ` i `8 x- =1171009 o ; ,• 1175006 + 52• ,,.4 " " 11 11- '1 " ` • , ,- .,117500s " °'`821171008 1,, 8211750Q5 $ 821171007 Legend ,, * 0 Selected Features .° �" 968800100 * � �pxc3�'1:7,-1 X821171012 i Parcels-I-4 Roads 821171003 100" n Parcels- ;-0* iy• $ c6,3{ t. 1171013 2006 Aerial Photos . 1 s� Boundaries 968800103 ,1 sg wt,: bb T ..ct t, 4158i+.r)t70U9 11 �t6' 4°46'301 Cant' 96,86004 .a. .» A "' '968800010 968804013 l7° 7 01 Met ,er CCRilbelb •821172•.:.c ek i 9686-1:'_a ::c:==--:''...).2., ... . 1172002 F 061600702 9616000201 821174005�. i .-_ . ". _ 1173001 990500300 9616007022 :961600503: 961600001 ` ° 100 .: Alas xcmdea a1..c^s-cn Carey Cats S moms GtS ., _ ,4 : - FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Mon Jun 23 08:56:26 2008 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientV ersion=4.0&Form=True... 6/23/2008 Map Output Page 1 of 1 MLA08-59 Hil!shade 1 e ••,,'': . 0 r 4 11 ' 0 1 ...- ' # 4 1 4 . trit 4,1 , 04- 4 Legend • Je'Roads '4. Df*2 Streams ..... 0 — - .. or.................,.. 14/ Type 9 4,...' '' v, , Type 5 -. ,.. .., .- k'11+•'je 41'7 ie C ....'"' E ..I-. r,... _,.. i „.01 Type 4 ii ,AO* J ---' '. • ... Type 3 4%,........ 4e/ Type 2 .:'" r e'" ' Type 1 1 , iv oirxr Boundaries 4 0 7 Atoierson Coxty 41 if i I d 1 I :Veer 0, 1 I Oevr Coultas 4 ,. r i tr' ill , ' r r 4; -,y''''''" ., FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data b the herein and makes no warranty with respect to its i correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by e method and accuracy of its collection. Mon Jun 23 09:11:35 2008 1 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True... 6/23/2008 Map Output r Page 1 of 3 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map I 99:"5�.XX7. 82.1 15002 ~9a9uouophuv 31, ,.; 82`•7500' 82"/Lv�■2 va 2 1 99o500019 SPq I oWCl- 930500+:•q 9401500018 99050008' 5C •j 1 , elimpigolk 99O5CX}U11 9909°°009 92••150gq 990500013 ti C7' 82••1••+_�N 82••/500.3 ,. 9g05Q0°0S 9905°0°°81, 9905000°6 IA 6 " 82"'+2Cr." Lts°'sue 990900°04 990910002 8L etixxXw2e.; RiQ,,° occv x....,i "{�^ 990900001 82''/"0'.:3, 82' .rVa - 82 1141.4 . 821+1 {705 82°'/"..?08 82 "1500'9 82" ! r,r i0,0,KBA ',...41048- tp 41,514 WOO 7 82".irg �a - 82• /'/..\' rl+ VILLAGE wAy `,'� ; E8&-r,• 968800010 ,% 172002 '? 821 112f ice.6 .) ,. _-. 4.1471:rrn,dedap.:cam-emu,Canty Central Senates GIS 1 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True... 1/4/2008 Map Output Page 2 of 3 Legend Highlighted Feature Selected Features Towns 0 CaunN seat * Rae Cutlers iv Road System 1 Parcels-H County Zoning Resat RQedye3 15 aResat Rmedsafaat 1 10 Rural Reeder**127 ■ Hoary trt3emreat ■ Rases=Beef kd. alSap Messina u'l ■ tiC a Rare 1/stage Geier ■ Crel.CMl,a2t GC Gras CC Crasartsads NC ■ Cammerei Fame Rua Faras1 ever:keg Firma Jp 1?A At 127 �/ +arealEPF Waste Mgn Re I. "tl rarest si.aest Pack `easel*Regega Wear Bodes MPR-Stole Fano MPR•SF Tracts MPR Mdatenay MPR Resat Cellars "941. Ige Caas • MPR Own Stvtoe MPR RearaRan II JGA.sax Dens Res JGA Mad.Dais.Res. J iA P g!t Des.Ras (--I ,GA-Urttartt.lgnttetaarert DUrUaiCanmuaa JGA•Meer Greeted Urn rn ewe JuA•Pettsc -exl Taarsed UGA aIetRecersuti Curled Reservattm ■ Ye Lend Boundaries A'ail, 0 _arras http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True... 1/4/2008 Uv � \J Re: Public records request MLA08-59 &MLA08-96 /GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert Page 1 of 1 Karen Barrows From: Bert Loomis[bertl @cablespeed.com] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:46 PM To: Karen Barrows Cc: Roseann Carroll; Karen Barrows; David W. Johnson; Al Scalf; John Austin; Mickey Gendler; Jim Perkins; Les Powers; Lewis Hale; Randall Shelley; John Alden; Allison Arthur; Douglas Barber; Hana Buresova; Walter L Cairns; Stephen Causseaux; Jeff Chew; Bill Cooke; Joseph D'Amico; Jim Fritz; Bill Funke; Lynn Gauche; Diane Golden; Suzanne Graber; Lewis Hale; Del Jacobs; Greg Jordshaugen; Peter Joseph; Ed Knodle; Larry Lawson; Jack McKay; Larry Nobles; Ron Null; Audrey Pedersen; Les Powers; Bruce Pyles; Rick Rozzell; Bruce Schmitz; Randall Shelley; Jeff Shipley; Bob Skodis; Ralph Thomas; Barbara Wagner-Jauregg; Nancy & Bill Zingheim; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld Subject: Re: Public records request MLA08-59 & MLA08-96/GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert Karen, David has asked me to direct my questions to you. I look forward to your response. Thank you Bert On 6/1/08 1:00 PM, "David W. Johnson" <dwjohnson @co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: I have forwarded your request for public records the Roseann Carroll, our Office Administrator. Your questions or comments on these cases should be addressed to Karen Barrows in Long Range Planning. From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bert1Pcablespeed.com1 Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 10:10 PM To: David W. Johnson; Al Scalf; John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: RE: Public records request MLA08-59 & MLA08-96 / GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert David: This is a public records request for copies of the files for applications MLA08-59 & MLA08-96. Also, why is DCD processing an application [MLA08-59] that would create an additional 5.8 acres of MPR-VCC zoning when the MPR currently has more than 30 acres of undeveloped MPR-VCC zoned property. Is this zoning change consistent with GMA guidelines? Thank you Bert 6/23/2008 Re: Public records request MLA08-59 &MLA08-96 /GMA VIOLATIONS----Bert Page 1 of 2 d'LleviAllivanie� 2cq 3 Orr i1 Link in-szt From: Karen Barrows Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:21 AM To: 'Bert Loomis' Cc: Jeanie Orr; Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; David W. Johnson Subject: RE: Public records request MLA08-59& MLA08-96/GMA VIOLATIONS--- Bert Bert, Thank you for your email. You ask good questions about MLA08-59, which will be considered when this application is reviewed by staff. Site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications received by the March 1st deadline are automatically placed on the Preliminary Docket for inclusion on the Final Docket(please see JCC 18.45.050(1)(a)and (3)). Therefore, processing a site-specific application does not constitute a judgment on its merits. GMA guidelines, Jefferson County Code, and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are all integral to Planning Agency and BoCC review of the entire set of applications, individually and cumulatively. Notice will be given when the preliminary staff report/recommendations and SEPA review on the Final Docket becomes available, and notice also will be given with respect to the public process, including Planning Commission public hearings on the Final Docket. Your comments are welcome at any time, and will be included in the public record. Thanks again, Sincerely, Karen Barrows Assistant Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4482 From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bertl @cablespeed.com] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:46 PM To: Karen Barrows Cc: Roseann Carroll; Karen Barrows; David W.Johnson; Al Scalf; John Austin; Mickey Gendler; Jim Perkins; Les Powers; Lewis Hale; Randall Shelley; John Alden; Allison Arthur; Douglas Barber; liana Buresova; Walter L Cairns; Stephen Causseaux; Jeff Chew; Bill Cooke; Joseph D'Amico; Jim Fritz; Bill Funke; Lynn Gauche; Diane Golden; Suzanne Graber; Lewis Hale; Del Jacobs; Greg Jordshaugen; Peter Joseph; Ed Knodle; Larry Lawson; Jack McKay; Larry Nobles; Ron Null; Audrey Pedersen; Les Powers; Bruce Pyles; Rick Rozzell; Bruce Schmitz; Randall Shelley; Jeff Shipley; Bob Skodis; Ralph Thomas; Barbara Wagner-Jauregg; Nancy &Bill Zingheim; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld Subject: Re: Public records request MLA08-59 &MLA08-96/GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert Karen, David has asked me to direct my questions to you. I look forward to your response. Thank you Bert 6/4/2008 Re: Public records request MLA08-59 &MLA08-96 /GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert Page 2 of 2 On 6/1/08 1:00 PM, "David W. Johnson" <dwjohnson @co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: I have forwarded your request for public records the Roseann Carroll, our Office Administrator. Your questions or comments on these cases should be addressed to Karen Barrows in Long Range Planning. From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bertMcablespeed.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 10:10 PM To: David W. Johnson; Al Scalf; John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: RE: Public records request MLA08-59 & MLA08-96 / GMA VIOLATIONS ---- Bert David: This is a public records request for copies of the files for applications MLA08-59 & MLA08-96. Also, why is DCD processing an application [MLA08-59] that would create an additional 5.8 acres of MPR-VCC zoning when the MPR currently has more than 30 acres of undeveloped MPR-VCC zoned property. Is this zoning change consistent with GMA guidelines? Thank you Bert 6/4/2008 Page 1 of 2 Karen Barrows From: Karen Barrows Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 8:44 AM To: 'Dave' Cc: Jeanie Orr; Stacie Hoskins; Al Scalf; David W. Johnson Subject: RE: MLA08-00059 Dear Dave, Thank you for your comments on MLA08-59. They will be taken into account when this application is reviewed by staff. Jefferson County has as yet made no recommendations with respect to this proposal; the ideas you are researching are part of the application, and thus represent the ideas of the applicant, not the county. Thanks again for your comments Sincerely, Karen Barrows Assistant Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4482 From: Dave [mailto:gd.armitage @gte.net] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:22 PM To: Karen Barrows Subject: MLA08-00059 May 31, 2008 Ms. Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development Long Range Planning Department Jefferson County, WA. Subject: MLA08-00059 Dear Ms. Barrows, I am writing in regards to the proposed subdivision of parcel 821175005 (MLA08-00059). The Port Ludlow Community Development Committee review the preliminary application on Thursday, May 29th. The following are the initial concerns that were voiced: The county needs to assure that the parking on the commercial piece be in compliance with all existing county and state requirements. There is an issue with respect to the ingress onto and egress from Oak bay Road onto the property. 6/2/2008 Page 2 of 2 There is a concern that the commercial use of the property may not be appropriate as proposed. The current proposal presents a commercial enclave in an otherwise residential property (including the church on parcel 821175006). It would seem to be more appropriate to have the whole parcel zoned either commercial or residential. The specific commercial use should be compatible with the residential area as well as a neighbor with the Port Ludlow Community Church. We are puzzled as to why the county is moving to zone the property prior to splitting the property?Zoning the total parcel commercial and then splitting the parcel to have half rezoned residential seems like a lot of extra work. Respectfully, G. David Armitage Committee Chairperson Community Development Committee Port Ludlow Village Council 6/2/2008 Request for Change from Residential to Commercial Reference Number: MLA05-06 Applicant: McDiehl LLC—Bryan Diehl; Agent David Goldsmith Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821171005 Location: Port Ludlow Village Center General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information Subject property is located on the intersection of Oak Bay Rd and Paradise Bay Rd/Osprey Ridge Dr. Applicant wishes to rezone the property for commercial use, although he has no intended use listed on the rezone application. Property is the only residential use on the intersection and is isolated from other residential properties by open space reserve tracts to the north and to the west. Subject parcel is 0.89 acres in size. The current use of the parcel is as a residence the future use would be limited to the uses specified in the Master Planned Village Center zone adopted in Ordinance 10-1214-98. the zone allows for a variety of retail and service oriented commercial uses as well as residential use. The parcel is within a susceptible aquifer recharge area. (ALA ck/v- 0 ' � t Request for Change from Residential to Commercial Reference Number: MLA05-06 Applicant: McDiehl LLC—Bryan Diehl; Agent David Goldsmith Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821171005 Location: Port Ludlow Village Center General Description and Site-Specific Ei.vironmental Information Subject property is located on the intersection of Oak Bay Rd and Paradise Bay Rd/Osprey Ridge Dr. Applicant wishes to ;rezone the property for commercial use, although he has no intended use listed on the rezone application. Property is the only residential use on the intersection and is isolated from other residential properties by open space reserve tracts to the north and to the west. Subject parcel is 0.89 acres in size. Jefferson County designated the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort(MPR) under RCW 36.70A.362, which allows counties to desii nate existing resorts as MPR which may constitute urban growth. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Rural element indicate that the area is not rural, tl to first page of the element also mentions Port Ludlow as an exception to the rural desigm dons found throughout Jefferson County. The integration of GMA requirements '.o protect rural character and prevent low-density sprawl is accomplished by integrating the Land Use and Rural elements. Exceptions to the County's rural designations include-the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort and the Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area. {Land Use and Rural element, 3-1) MASTER PLANNED RESORT GOAL: LNG 23.0 Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only existing Master Planned Resort(MPR) authorized under RCW 36.70A.362. POLICIES: LNP 23.2 The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth and development at Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated MPR boundary. LNP 23.8 The Port Ludl)w Master Planned Resort commercial area shall be designated is the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. The MPR is an urban environment; there is a more intense use of the land, higher density housing, and urban services (sanitary sewe,) available within the MPR boundary. The Development agreement that governs Port Ludlow addresses how rezones are to be addressed in section 3.905(1) Revisions to the Resort Plan. 3.905 Revisions to Resort Plan: a t t 1. Any proposed change to the MP'R boundary or zone changes within the MPR shall require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and related zoning action. Such changes are outside the scope of the Revision processes described below and in sections 3.906 and 3.907. The County may approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan only if all the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) are fulfilled. Because the MPR is an urban environment the requirements of 36.70A.070(5)(d) do not apply as they would in other commercial designations outside of UGAs. The Village Commercial center is not listed with any of the other rural designations for Rural Village Center or Crossroads; and is primarily governed by private codes, conditions and restrictions. Staff Recommendation Approval (AnaD • • • STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON IN THE MATTER OF amending the } Interim Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 } Sections 3.160,4 and 11,under } RCW 36.70A.390,regulating land use } And development within the Port } ORDINANCE NO. 10-1214-98 Ludlow Master Planned Resort } The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners enters the following findings: 1. Jefferson County is planning under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act, codified as 36.70X.RCW. 2. Jefferson County adopted its 20-year comprehensive land use plan on August 28, 1998. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort,based on the provisions contained in RCW 36.70A.362. 4. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance ("EICO"), Ordinance No. 06-0828-98, concurrent with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that all future development within the County is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance contains provisions for development throughout the County but omitted development standards for several zoning districts within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. 6. The BOCC directed planning staff and the Jefferson County Planning Commission to develop and adopt development standards for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort within sixty(60)days of the issuance of the EICO. 7. The Planning Commission held 4 public meetings,attended by a total of seventy-five(75) members of the public and representatives of Olympic Resource Management(ORM). 8. The Planning Commission, staff and members of the public toured areas of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort on September 23, 1998,at the invitation of ORM. 9. At the meeting of September 30, 1998, staff presented to the Planning Commission a review and comparison of the development limitations contained in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. 10. At the public meeting of September 30, 1998, the Planning Commission requested to see a Master Plan for Port Ludlow. 11. Representatives of ORM responded that no new Master Plan had been finalized and that a resort redevelopment plan was in the process of being worked out with residents of the Port Ludlow community. VOL 24 3249 December l 1, 1998 1 l< (1 12. On October 7, 1998, ORM presented to the Planning Commission a conceptual rendering of a redevelopment plan for the resort complex area of the Master Plan Resort. 13. RCW 36.70A.362 contains provisions for the review of existing Master Planned Resorts. 14. The County has found that the existing plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas and that on-site and off-site infrastructure impacts have been fully considered and mitigated. 15. The planning staff advised the Planning Commission that, without an adopted new master plan for Port Ludlow which addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed new development at Port Ludlow,development standards would have to be adopted that were consistent with the adopted 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement. 16. The Planning Commission, on October 7, 1998, voted ( five in favor, none opposed and one abstention)to have staff develop standards and regulations which were consistent with the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement. 17. The Planning Commission and staff, at the public meetings of September 30th, October 7th and October 14th, 1998, reviewed the proposed development regulations prepared by the planning staff and took public comment. 18. On October 14th, the Planning Commission voted, recommending forwarding this draft ordinance to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. 19. This ordinance is consistent with the SEPA determination of August 17t, 1998. 20. This ordinance shall remain in effect until such time as final development regulations to implement the MPR designation are adopted. NOW,THEREFORE,The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners amends the interim Ordinance No. 06-0828-98, Sections 3.160, 4 and 11,under RCW 36.70A.390,regulating land use and development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort and ordains the following: 24 ray: ` 50 December 11, 1998 2 SECTION 1 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE Section 1.10 Statement of Authority: This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Chapter 36.70 RCW. Section 1.20 Statement of Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to accommodate development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and that identified in the 1993 FEIS. A new or revised Master Plan may be submitted for the entire area within the MPR boundary or for an entire zone within the.MPR. All plans submitted shall comply with Section 3.90 of this ordinance. Port Ludlow is the only Master Planned Resort(MPR) in Jefferson County. In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement and Jefferson County Resolution 17-96,which allocates population to Port Ludlow over the next 20-years,the MPR is limited to a total buildout of 2250 residential units including single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family, assisted living and congregate care.The Comprehensive Plan lists seven categories of general uses within the MPR. Section 1.30 Rules of Interpretation: The following rules shall be followed in making interpretation relating the terms and conditions contained herein. 1. For purposes of this Ordinance, all words used in the ordinance shall use normal and customary meanings,unless specifically defined otherwise in this ordinance. 2. Words used in the present tense include the future tense. 3. The plural includes the singular and vice-versa. 4. The words"will"and"shall"are mandatory. 5. The words"may"and"should"indicates that discretion is allowed. 6. The word"used"includes designed,intended,or arranged or intended to be used. 7. The masculine gender includes the feminine and vice-versa. VOL 24 i-Ar, 3251 December 11, 1998 3 ,t 1: • • • SECTION 2 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS Sections: 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations 2.20 Intent 2.30 Exemptions Section 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all land, all water areas and all structures within the boundary of the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow as depicted on the official land use map for Jefferson County,Washington. Section 2.20 Intent. No structure shall hereafter be erected and no existing structure shall be moved,altered, added to or enlarged,nor shall any land or structure be used,or arranged to be used for any purpose other than that which is included among the uses listed in the following chapters as permitted in the zoning district in which the structure or laud is located, nor shall any land or structure be used in any manner contrary to any other requirements specified in this Ordinance. Section 2.30 Exemptions. The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the regulations of this Ordinance, but are subject to all other applicable Local, State and Federal regulations including, but not limited to, the County Building Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, the Shoreline Management Master Program and SEPA. 1. Wires,cables,conduits,vaults,pipes,mains,valves,tanks,or other similar equipment for the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications,electricity,gas,or water or the collection of sewage, or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained by a governmental entity or a public or private utility or other County franchised utilities including customary meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, distribution transformers and temporary utility facilities required during building construction, whether any such facility is located underground, or above ground; but when only such facilities are located in a street right-of-way or in an easement. 2. Railroad tracks, signals, bridges and similar facilities and equipment located on a railroad right-of-way, and maintenance and repair work on such facilities and equipment. 3. Telephone booths and pedestals, underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus shelters, informational kiosks, public bicycle shelters, or similar structure or device which is found by the Director of Community Development is obviously intended to be appropriately located in the public interest. 4. Agricultural buildings used to house livestock,store feed or farm equipment. 5. Minor construction activities, as defined by the UBC, Section 106.2 and structures exempt under Jefferson County Building Code Ordinance#03-0713-98 as amended. vol_ 24 rar.s 3252 December II, 1998 4 Section 3 PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 3.10 Single Family(MPR-SF) 3.20 Single Family Tracts(MPR-SFT) 3.30 Multi-Family(MPR-MF) 3.40 Resort Complex/Community Facility(MPR-RC/CF) 3.50 Village Commercial Center(MPR-VC) 3.60 Recreation Areas(MPR-RA) 3.70 Open Space Reserve(MPR-OSR) 3.80 Additional Requirements 3.90 Master Plan Revisions Section 3.10 Single Family Zone(MPR-SF) Section 3.101 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote single family residential areas within the MPR, including opportunities for reasonably priced housing. Section 3.102 Permitted Uses:The following uses are permitted within the MPR zone: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Home-based business. 3. Accessory buildings, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment. . 4. Trails,parks,open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. 5. Minimum lot areas of 5,000 square feet approved through a platting process and not to exceed a density of four(4)dwelling units per acre.Existing subdivisions shall not be further subdivided. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11 on non-conforming uses. Section 3.103 Conditional Uses:The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-SF zone: 1. Trails,parks,open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. 2. Minimum lot areas of 3,500 square feet if approved through a platting process and not to exceed a density of four(4)dwelling units per acre.Existing subdivisions shall not be further subdivided. 3. Single family attached dwelling units including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes as part of a new subdivision,not to exceed four(4)dwelling units per acre. Section 3.104 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height. Section 3.105 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements for detached dwelling shall be as provided in Tables MPR-SF below. TABLE MPR-SF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Surface 4 DU/AC 5,000 sq.ft. 40' 20' 5' 5' 45% Vol. 24 Far, 3253 December 11, 1998 5 I Section 3.20 Single Family Tract Zone(MPR SFTZ Section 3.201 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote larger, single family residential tracts within the MPR. Section 3.202 Permitted Uses:The following uses are permitted within the MPR-SFT zone: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Accessory buildings,such as garages,carports,storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment. 3. Accessory buildings,such as barns,stables and similar structures. 4. Home-based business. 5. Trails,parks,open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 3.203 ConditionaTUses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MPR-SFT zone: 1. Trails, parks,open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. Section 3.204 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected,enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height. Section 3.205 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-SFT below. TABLE MPR-SFT Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Surface 1 DU/2.5 AC 2.5 AC 100' 25' 25' 25' 20% Section 3.30 Multi-Family Zone(MPR-MF) Section 3.301 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote within the MPR multi- family housing opportunities,in part to provide lower-cost housing units. Section 3.302 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-MF zone: 1. Multiple family dwelling units including condominiums. 2. Assisted-Living and long-term care facilities. 3. Accessory uses and structures supporting the residential environment such as garages, carports, storage buildings,pools,and recreation buildings. 4. Home-based business. 5. Trails, parks,open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 3.303 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-MF zone: I. Trails,parks,open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. • � ar.r December I I, 1998 VOL 24 -M. . ,J ,�� 6 • Section 3.304 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height as measured by UBC standards. Section 3.305 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-MF below. TABLE MPR-MF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Coverage 10 DU/AC -N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 55% Section 3.40 Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone(MPR-RC1CF) Section 3.401 Purpose: The MPR-RC/CF zone is intended to provide amenities and services associated with a destination resort. Uses in the RC/CF zone must be supportive of the recreational nature of the resort. In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS, the MPR-RC/CF zone is limited to a total development cap of 48,000 square feet of non.residential development in addition to those uses which existed prior to 1993.Until a new master plan is developed and is approved by the County, no new development is allowed except the redevelopment of those structures currently built or vested.For the interim,uses and structures which were in existence at the time of issuance of the FEIS shall be permitted to redevelop in kind(i.e. condominium units). Existing condominium units shall continue to be allowed in the resort zone. Retail commercial uses within this zone that are associated with the resort use are limited to a total of 2,500 square feet and are part of the 48,000 total square foot cap for the zone.Kehele Park is located to the north of the RC/CF zone and serves as a community park operated by the Ludlow Maintenance Commission. Section 3.402 Permitted and Conditional Uses: For purposes of this ordinance,uses at the resort complex are limited to those uses which currently exist and those which are addressed in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS until the submittal and approval of a new plan for the redevelopment of the resort zone in accordance with Section 3.90 of this ordinance. The following uses are permitted within the MPR-RC/CF zone which are directly related to the resort facilities and/or operations. USES RC/CF Kehele Park Hotel(Inn)and appropriate associated uses ✓ Conference Center/Banquet Facility ✓ Parks and Trails as part of a platting process ✓ ✓ Recreation Center/Club ✓ Restaurant/Lounge/Bar ✓ Marina ✓ Seaplane Dock C Resort Related Retail Use ✓ Library/Museum C Interpretive and Informational Kiosks ✓ Community Organization Activity Facilities,i.e. club house ✓ Multifamily and Single Family Residential Structures(10 du/ac) ✓ Tennis Courts ✓ ✓ Those uses and activities which currently exist at the LMC-owned property(Ludlow Beach Club and Kehele Park) are recognized as valid uses and activities and may continue in accordance with the current use of the facilities. vol- 24 Fir: 3255 December 11, 1998 7 Y J Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Residential uses within the RC/CF zone are bound by the bulk and dimensional standards established in their respective residential zoning districts within this Ordinance(see Sections 3.10 and 3.30)and are limited to the overall 2250 residential unit cap for the MPR. Section 3.403 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections,as measured by UBC standards, except for Hotels which shall not exceed 50 feet in height as measured by UBC standards. Section 3.404 Bulk Requirements: Bulk and dimensional requirements for the MPR-RC/CF zone are contained in the table below. TABLE MPR-RC/CF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Coverage N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 50% Section 3.50 Village Commercial Center Zone(MPR-VC) Section 3.501 Purpose: The intent of the MPR-VC zone is to provide retail-commercial uses and other services to serve the needs of resort visitors and community residents.In addition to retail commercial uses or services, other uses such as government or community offices and facilities; long-term care facilities; and visitor services shall be permitted within this zone. Section 3.502 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in the MPR-VC zone: Permitted Commercial Uses • Bank and financial institutions • Art Gallery • Variety Stores • Interior Shop • Grocery Stores • General/Business Offices • Hardware Store • Professional Offices • Pharmacy and Drug Stores • Real Estate • Liquor Stores(state) • Theater • Personal Medical Supply Stores • Food Service Establishments • Travel Consultant • Day care Center • Post Office • Clinics (Medical, Dental, Mental Health, • Dry cleaner/Laundry Chiropractic) • Florist Shops • Social Services • Specialty food stores • Miscellaneous Health • Sporting Goods and related Stores • Home Health/Home Care • Book and stationary Stores • Vehicle Repair and Gas Station • Jewelry Stores • Car wash • Photographic and Electronic Shops • Transportation Service • Computer and Office Equipment and Related • Utility purveyor offices Services • Recycling Drop-off facility • Music Stores • Library • Farmer's Market • Museum • Barber and Beauty shops • Community Center VOL 24 1-acs 3 36 December 11, 1998 8 t I . • Public agency or utility offices Residential Uses: • Police facility • Multi-family • Fire Station • Assisted living • Post Office,mailing and packaging businesses • Single family in association with • Park retail/commercial uses (i.e. second story apartments) Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Residential uses within the MPR-VC zone are bound by the bulk and dimensional standards established in their respective residential zoning districts within this Ordinance (see Sections 3.10 and 3.30) and are considered part of the overall 2250 residential unit cap for the MPR. Section 3.503 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MPR-VC zone: • Parking Structure • Meeting Facilities Section 3.504 Height restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected,enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height,excluding roof projections,as measured by UBC standards. Section 3.505 Bulk Dimension Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building allowed shall be 30,000 sq.feet. MPR-VC Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Coverage N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC o1 19 Section 3.60 Recreation Area(MPR-RA) Section 3.601 Purpose: The MPR-RA zone is intended to recognize, maintain, and promote the existing and future active recreation activities and areas within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Section 3.602 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-RA zone: 1. Parks and Trails 2. Golf Shop/Club House/Snack Bar/Lounge 3. Interpretive Center,signage 4. Golf Course and Related Offices/Maintenance Buildings and Facilities 5. Indoor and Outdoor Recreation Club Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 3.603 Height Restrictions. No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height,excluding roof projections,as measured by UBC standards. VOL 2 IMF,: J,57 December 11, 1998 9 f , Section 3.604 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area for the MPR-RA shall be consistent with table 11-1 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance(No. 06-0828-98). MPR-RA Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Coverage N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC Table 11-1 Section 3.70 Open Space Zone(MPR-OSR) Section 3.701 Purpose: The purpose of the Open Space zone is to preserve in perpetuity and enhance the natural amenities around Ludlow Bay, the Twin Islands and other natural areas within the MPR. Uses within the Open Space Area shall be low impact and serve to promote or enhance the aesthetic qualities of the Master Planned Resort.No residential or commercial development shall be permitted in the MPR-OSR zone. Section 3.702 Permitted Uses:The following uses shall be permitted in the MPR-OSR zone: 1. Parks,trails,paths,bridges,benches,shelters,and restrooms 2. Directional and interpretative signage and kiosks. Section 3.703 Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted conditionally in the MPR- OSR zone: 1. Man-made water features or enhanced natural water features, such as ponds, wetlands, wetland buffer enhancements and storm water detention ponds. 2. Interpretive Center 3. Equestrian Facility Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. • Section 3.704 Height Restriction: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height,excluding roof projections,as measured by UBC standards. Section 3.705 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building allowed shall be 2000 sq.feet.Some utility facilities may exceed this cap. Section 3.80 Additional Requirements Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions or development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented in this ordinance: 1. Ordinance No.05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. Ordinance No. 10-1104-96,Stormwater Management Ordinance 3. Ordinance No.04-0526-92,Subdivision Ordinance,as amended by this Ordinance 4. Chapter 246-272 WAC,On-Site Sewage Systems 5. Shoreline Management Master Program VOL 24 l-ac;F 3 258 December 11, 1998 10 t t 6. Other local, state, and federal regulations as applicable, such as the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The provisions contained within this ordinance are intended to serve as emergency interim development standards and are consistent with the current development plan for Port Ludlow. Final development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort will be established upon completion of the Master Plan for the Port Ludlow MPR and will be consistent with the Master Plan, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and all other pertinent documents. Section 3.90 Master Plan Revisions 1. Applicability: A. A revision to an existing Master Plan or any sub-area or zone within the Master Planned Resort shall be submitted to the County for approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the previously adopted Master Plan or FEIS. All subsequent development proposals shall be consistent with the revised Master Plan and development regulations as aproved. B. The requirements of this section do not apply to any development for which a permit has been granted and for development that was vested prior to the adoption of this regulation. 2. Purpose: To provide for the planning, development, and assessment of revisions to the Master Plan consistent with RCW 36.70A.362 and the specific policies contained within the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. When approving a revision to a Master Plan, the County shall make the following findings: a. The proposed revision does not create new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the existing MPR; b. The revision to the Master Plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; c. On-site and off-site infrastructure(including,but not limited to, water, sewer, storm water or transportation facilities) impacts for the revised resort have been fully considered and mitigated. 3. Review Process: Proposed revisions to a Master Plan shall be submitted to the Long-range Planning Department. The proposal will be reviewed against the provisions outlined in Sections 3.901 and 3.902 below and the DCD Director will make a determination as to whether the proposal constitutes a major or minor plan revision. Upon making a determination, the proposed revision shall follow the appropriate process for plan revisions as outlined in Sections 3.901 or 3.902. Section 3.901 Major Revisions Revisions to an adopted Master Plan that will result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the MPR designation including: increase in the intensity of use, scale, or density of development; revisions to the MPR boundaries or sub-area boundaries; or changes which are deemed to have a substantial impact on the environment beyond those which have been reviewed in previous environmental documents,are considered to be major revisions and will require the submission of a revised master plan,or sub-area or zone plan that addresses the proposed changes. vol- 24 l•ar, 3259 December 11, 1998 11 1. Application for a Revision to Master Plan or Sub-area Plan or Zone Plan. A revision to the Master Planned Resort or any sub-area or zone shall be prepared describing the proposed revision in relation to the approved Master Plan and provide a framework for review, analysis and mitigation of the revised development activity proposed. The Master Plan revision proposal shall include the following information: A. A description of the setting and natural amenities in which the MPR is situated,the particular natural and recreational features that attract people to the area and resort and how the revised Master Plan or Sub-area Plan or Zone Plan fits within the overall approved master plan. B. A description of how the Master Plan revision complements the destination resort facilities of the MPR. C. A description of the design and functional features of the Master Plan revision, with supportive information, which provide for a unified development, integrated site design and protection of natural amenities; and which further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. D. A listing of proposed additional allowable uses and/or proposed maximum density and intensity of uses within the MPR and a discussion of how these changes and their distribution meet the needs of residents and patrons of the MPR. Additional proposed uses for review may include but not be limited to the following uses for the following zones: MPR-RC/CF MPR-VC MPR-RA MPR-OSR • Short-term visitor • Garden store • Restaurant • Interpretive accommodations and appropriate centers associated uses • Marina and related facilities • Antique store • Lounge • Equestrian facilities • Youth activity center • RV park • Emergency Helicopter pad Increased impervious surface ratios may also be allowed within the MPR-VC and MPR-CF zones only if the proponent clearly demonstrates in the plan document that adequate facilities will be developed to ensure adequate storm water management. E. A description and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed revision, including an analysis of the cumulative impacts of both the proposed revision and the approved Master Plan,and their effects on surrounding properties and/or public facilities. F. A description of how the proposed Master Plan revision is integrated with the overall MPR and any features, such as trail systems, natural systems or greenbelts, that have been established to retain and enhance the character of the overall MPR. G. A description of the intended phasing of development projects within the revised sub- area/zone, if any; and how this phasing relates to the overall phasing of development within the MPR. H. Maps, drawings, illustrations, or other materials necessary to assist in understanding and visualizing the design and operation of the completed proposed development,its facilities and services,and the protection of critical areas. VOL 24 lay! 3 A o December 11. 1998 12 V f • 1. A calculation of estimated new demands on capital facilities and services and their relationship to the existing MPR demands, including but not limited to: transportation,water, sewer and storm water facilities;and a demonstration that sufficient facilities and services to support the development are available or will be available at the time development permits are applied for. 2. Major Revision Process The revised Master Plan or sub-area/zone plan will identify allowable uses, their locations and intensities,and the cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. Plan revisions will be submitted to the Jefferson County Long-Range Planning Department for review and an administrative determination of the type of Master Plan revision by the DCD Director. The DCD director shall make a determination of the Master Plan revision within 14 days of submission. Those revisions that are deemed to be major revisions will be reviewed as submitted by the Jefferson County Planning Commission for consistency with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and other supporting documents and regulations. The Planning Commission will then submit the Master Plan and a report of findings and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for review and final adoption as a sub-area amendment to the Comprehensive Plan within sixty(60)days of the major revision determination by the DCD Director. Revisions of Master Plan or sub-area/zone plans within an approved Master Plan Resort may occur outside the annual comprehensive plan amendment date. The adopted revision will also be reviewed by the SEPA Responsible Official to determine the level of environmental review required for the revised plan. Section 3.902 Minor Revisions It is recognized that a Master Planned Resort may require minor changes to facilities and services in response to changing conditions or market demand and that some degree of flexibility for the resort is needed. Minor revisions are those that do not result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the master plan in effect and which: a. Involve no more than a ten percent(10%) increase or decrease in the overall square footage of the floor area over that identified in the development plan (Master Plan or sub-area/zone plan). b. Will not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and/or facilities than that addressed in the development plan. c. Do not alter the boundaries of the approved plan. d. Do not propose uses that modify the recreational nature and intent of the Master Planned Resort. 1. Minor Revision Process: Applications for plan revisions shall be submitted to, and reviewed by the Jefferson County Long-Range Planning Department to determine if the revisions are consistent with the existing MPR plan, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and other pertinent documents. Those proposals that are determined to result in no major change in use, location, intensity or environmental impact and which satisfy the above-referenced criteria shall be deemed a minor plan revision and may be administratively approved by the Director of the Department of Community Development. VOL 241-A(.: 3^61 December 11, 1998 13 f 1 2. Requirements: All minor revisions shall be evaluated to determine the anticipated environmental impacts associated with the minor revision and shall demonstrate that there are adequate services and infrastructure to support the proposed minor revision.Those revisions that do not comply with the provisions contained within this Section shall be deemed a major revision, subject to the provisions outlined in Section 3.901 above. December 11, 1998 14 VOL t 4 J' ' SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY Severability: If any section, subsection,or other portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,such section,subsection,or portion thereof shall be deemed a separate portion of this ordinance and such holding shall'not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5 REPEALER Repealer: Effective immediately upon its adoption, this Ordinance repeals and replaces Sections 3.160,4 and 11 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance(Ordinance No.06-0828-98). SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE PERIOD Effective Period: This ordinance shall become effective on the !4 Day of � .. 1998 and shall remain in effect until such time as final development regulations to implement the MPR designation are adopted. VOL 24 f-AIS 3263 December 11, 1998 15 Section 7 ADOPTION Adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this / ay of_ 4f. 1,_, 1998. " S1,Aq ••S btfi,i'',, JEFFERSON COUNTY �k •• **0 `a 1:t BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ` j d \. r „,.// J '• r.- ii e A Glen Huntin r , Chair • a *-1 „. ATT ST, �',�'t, A ilk eI / � 0 IFS' 4, ► / /iiiitoPiti1t/ Lorna Delany Daniel arp. -MiZ Clerk of the Board / ......., � -Allider0("--1.11211112alhill 1 Richard Wojt, ember f APPROVED AS TO FO•, : • Y r, ill , Alililifilki4 f-/ ID avid Skeen,Pros' uti pe Attorney - / l � Al Scalf,Director, Department of ComifirniffiyDevelopment vol.. 24 Farr 64 December 11, 1998 16 4 NCOb,�, JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 Long-Range Planning and Growth Management Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 CIS P (360) 385-9123 FAX: (360) 385-9357 1-800-831-2678 Memorandum DECE To: Bert Loomis 1 • JUL 0 21999 • From: Al Scalf, Director Community Development , UllNTY _ �► c.. .1EFFEkSv,i 0 CC: Board of County Commissioners �• t30ARD OF t;OMMC°1S°I(1NFp Date: July 2. 1999 Re: Finding of Fact 14,Ordinance No. 10-1214-98 You have requested the background research and documentation that lead to Finding of Fact #14 in Ordinance No. 10-1214-98 regulating land use and development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. In formulating the findings of fact for the above referenced ordinance, county staff considered the following policies in the Land Use Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies: LNP 25.1 Ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies with County development regulations established for critical areas and that on-sire and off-sire infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated. LNP 25.2 The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth and development at Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated MPR boundary. LNP 25.3 No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the vicinity of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.. LNP 25.4 The total number of residential lots allowable within the MPR boundary shall not exceed the 1993 Port Ludlow FE1S total of 2,250 residential dwelling units. LNP 25.7 No preliminary plats will be processed by Jefferson County for the 200-acres south of the Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR boundary (as depicted on the official Jefferson County Land Use Map) until such time as a conceptual site plan has been approved by the County. The intent of the ordinance was also considered to support Finding of Fact#14. Page 1 of 2 0 . Ordinance No. 10-1214-98 Regulating land use and development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Section 1.20 Statement of Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to accommodate development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and that identified in the 1993 FEIS. A new or revised Master Plan may be submitted for the entire area within the MPR boundary or for an entire zone within the MPR. All plans submitted shall comply with Section 3.90 of this ordinance. Port Ludlow is the only Master Planned Resort(MPR)in Jefferson County. In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement and Jefferson County Resolution 17-96,which allocates population to Port Ludlow over the next 20-years,the MPR is limited to a total buildout of 2250 residential units including single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family, assisted living and congregate care. The Comprehensive Plan lists seven categories of general uses within the MPR. In the course of developing the above referenced Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinance, County staff thoroughly reviewed the existing plan under the Critical Areas Ordinance, the Critical Area maps,monitoring reports submitted by the Resort and the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. Development limitations contained in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS were considered in drafting the Comprehensive Plan policies as well as in drafting Ordinance No. 10-1214-98. County staff concluded that development outside of these limitations would also be outside the scope of the Comprehensive Plan FEIS. The intent of both the Comprehensive Plan policies and the interim ordinance is to limit development to that reviewed in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. Finding of Fact#14 was based on the County's assessment that by limiting development to those impacts analyzed in the Port Ludlow FEIS, the County had ensured that"on- site and off-site infrastructure impacts have been fully considered and mitigated." Enclosed: Analysis by Blake Liebermann of Port Ludlow FEES Memo from Al Scalf to the Board of Commissioners dated August 25, 1998 Page2of2 ly '/ • Port Ludlow FEIS Analysis In April 1993, ORM submitted a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Port Ludlow community. The FEIS examines the cumulative environmental impacts associated with the Inn at Port Ludlow and the implementation of the 1987 Port Ludlow Development Plan, spanning 1,200 acres of the southern portion of the Port Ludlow community. The proposed action includes the following development on the 1,200 acre site: • 700 residential units(531 1F and 169 multi-family units) • 47,500 sq.ft.of additional commercial space • a 36-room Inn • expansion of Marina by 100 slips • a new golf course clubhouse(6,000 sq.ft.) • development of recreational trails • development of supporting infrastructure • 815 acres of permanent open space Residential Standards Single-family The Port Ludlow FEIS divides the proposed residential and commercial development into 50 development areas (see Figure 3 on page 2-6 of the FEIS). According to the FEIS, development areas 16 through 42 and 47(see map)would accommodate 508 single-family residential units on a total of 1,118 acres, of which, 751 acres would remain in open space. As a result, net density would be 1.4 units/acre(508 units on 367 acres). Single-family units would range in size between 6,000 sq.ft.to 10 acres(overall gross residential density= 0.6 units/ac.).The largest lots would be contained within development area 35 (1:10); the smallest lots would be in development area 25 (2.6 units/acre). Multi-family Approximately 120 multifamily units would be constructed on 28 total acres for an average gross density of 4.3 d.u./ac. (individual development area densities range from 3.3 units per acre in development areas 45 and 46 to 5 units/acre in development area 50). Of the 28 total multi-family acres, approximately 17 acres are to be dedicated open space resulting in 11 acres for 120 multi-family units(11 units/acre). Mixed-Use Development area 48 is identified as a mixed single and multi-family area.A total of 72 units(23 single-family and 49 multi-family)are slated for this area,with a gross density of 4.1 units/acre. Minimum lot size is estimated to be 3,586 sq.ft.,with an average lot size of 4,361 sq.ft. 1 P s� Commercial The FEIS proposes 47,500 sq. ft. of additional commercial space of which, 45,000 sq. ft. would be accommodated in development area 43 (MPR-VC). The FEIS assumes the following breakdown of commercial space: • 30,000 sq.ft.grocery store • 10,000 sq.ft.of retail • 5,000 sq.ft.of office • 1.4 acre parking lot(158 parking spots) The FEIS also lists potential commercial uses for this area, including: general retail, medical offices,a café,a grocery and hardware store. Resort(Inn) The FEIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow anticipated mixed-use development on the 17.5 acre project site.Included within this mixed-use area is: a 36-room Inn(34,171 sq. ft./50' high);72 residential units (see Mixed-use section above); 2,500 sq. ft. of tourist-oriented retail commercial space, to accommodate a proposed souvenir shop and bakery; a 50' foot high, 1,850 sq. ft. "Townhall,"to be used for meetings and community activities;a 800 sq.ft.marina manager's office(from which marina-related merchandise would be sold); and parking for 400 vehicles. The proposed development is anticipated to use only 7 acres of the 17.5 site;the remaining 10.5 acres would be undeveloped open space. Recreation/Open Space The FEIS proposes that 815 acres of permanent open space would be designated within the 1,200- acre site.The Recreation/Open Space would include walking,jogging and bicycle trails. Other recreational uses identified include an addition of 100 slips to the boat marina and a 6,000 sq.ft.golf course club house. Access and Circulation Roads and dedicated rights-of-way total approximately 43 acres and neighborhood streets account for approximately 84 acres. Impervious Surfaces(Drainage) A total of 120 acres of impervious surfaces is anticipated for the 1,200-acre development site. The breakdown is as follows: Zone Acres Percentage (of 1290 acre site) Single-family(and associated streets) 76 6.3 Multi-family 9 0.8 Commercial 2 0.17 Mixed-Use(Inn site) 7 0.6 Roads(Arterials) 26 2.2 Total 120 10.0 2 / The impervious surface estimates assume a 2,000 sq. ft. footprint per single-family unit and 500 sq. ft. per driveway per single-family lots. Assumptions for multi-family areas are an average of 1,200 sq.ft.footprint per unit,300 sq. ft. in parking area(1.5 spaces per unit)and 50 linear feet of right-of-way with 28 feet of paved width and 4-foot-wide sidewalk. Assumptions for the commercial area were 1,300 sq. ft. of parking area(3.5 spaces)per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area, and 45,000 sq.ft.of building footprint area. Acreage Figures for the Port Ludlow MPR' Zone Acreage MPR-RA 225.8 acres MPR-VC 38.4 acres MPR-SF 1251.5 acres MPR-MF 74.6 acres MPR-RC/CF 52.6 acres MPR-SFT 111.6 acres MPR-OSR 358.6 acres Total 2113.0 acres Environmental Impact Statement--Overview "Non-Project" Status The Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact.Statement (FEIS) considers the cumulative and broad environmental impacts of the anticipated development within Port Ludlow over the next ten years. The FEIS for the Port Ludlow Development Plan is considered under SEPA as a"non-project" (programmatic) action. "Non-project," according to WAC 197-11-774, means "actions which are different or broader than a single site-specific project, such as plans, policies and programs." The FEIS does not address specific development projects contained in the Port Ludlow Development Plan, because each project would be subject to further Jefferson County review and approval. Furthermore, WAC 197-11-441 (1) and (2) allow the contents of an EIS for a non-project proposal to be more generalized than for a"project" action. Scoping Scoping is defined in WAC 197-11-793 as "determining the range of proposed actions, alternatives, and impacts to be discussed in an EIS,...[and] is intended to identify and narrow the EIS to the significant issues." "Significant," as used in SEPA (WAC 197-11- 794 (1)), means "a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality." I Figures obtained from Jefferson County IDMS and are exclusive of roads. 3 it II ` • memorandum 0 DATE: August 25, 1998 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Al Scalf,DCD Director Long Range Planning Staff RE: Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Representatives from the County met with Olympic Resources Management on several occasions recently to discuss the interim regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. ORM has submitted draft regulations,and,while the Planning staff has worked to resolve issues with ORM, many issues remain unresolved. The Planning staff has revised the ORM proposed draft to produce the attached interim regulations that the Planning staff is recommending to the BOCC for adoption under the emergency Interim Controls ordinance. A. MPR Designation The staff has reviewed the regulations proposed by ORM and discussed these issues with CTED staff. Staff concerns regarding urban standards and commercial uses broader than resort-related uses led to the discussion with CTED. CTED raised questions regarding the similar treatment of the Village Commercial Center for the MPR and the County's treatment of Rural Village Centers, both in terms of the range of uses,and some uses that appear to go beyond the needs of the residents and the guests of the MPR, such as professional office buildings.CTED has stated that commercial areas of an MPR should not accommodate regional shopping activities or employment centers. CTED provided the County with two policies for serious consideration. These policies are recommended by staff for inclusion in the final Comprehensive Plan. Staff presents three options to the BOCC for its consideration of this issue: 1. The Master Planned Resort designation could be severed from the larger community and limited to the actual resort facility and immediate area,which includes some residential uses, and should also include the golf course. The"community"portion of Port Ludlow would not constitute part of the MPR,and be treated similar to Kala Point and Cape George. The commercial area could then be designated for uses allowed in a Rural Village Center. This option would delay the plan because of the need for public review and the change to the FEIS,and thus • is not the preferred option. 2. Adopt the designated MPR boundary and limit the range of commercial uses within the Village Commercial Center consistent with the RCW language that"...an existing resort may • include other permanent residential uses,conference facilities,and commercial activities supporting the resort,but only if these other uses are integrated into and consistent with the on- site recreational nature of the resort." RCW 36.70A.362 [emphasis added]. If this option is selected,staff recommends changing the commercial area designation from Village Commercial Center to Resort Commercial Center. 3. Adopt the designated MPR boundary as an interim boundary to keep the County's options open,similar to commercial areas,Glen Cove,and the Mill. Consider the two options above through the Planning Commission public process, in a timeline that allows for staff research and development of options. Include policies in the Land Use and Rural element to resolve this issue consistent with the RCW,as well as the extent to which"urban"development can occur,and the extent that urban development can be allowed under the statute. Based on the discussion with CTED over implementing regulations,staff has questions whether the entire Port Ludlow • community should be included under the MPR designation,or whether the it is, in fact,no different from Kala Point or Cape George,except for the nearby resort complex. The Interim Controls ordinance will limit uses and standards by a revision of the staff draft of Section 18. Planning staff prefers option#3. B. Interim Controls The staff-recommended version of Section 18 differs from the interim regulations proposed by ORM for the following reasons: 1. Interim controls are adopted by emergency ordinance,precluding Planning Commission review and extensive public discussion. The regulations proposed by ORM would represent a significant departure from existing County regulations,with a level of detail more appropriate to final development regulations. It is appropriate for the interim to adopt limited regulations and to defer discussion of the significant changes until the process of final development regulations. 2. The Master Planned Resort may include growth which"....may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section."(RCW 36.70A.362) Under the timelines for adoption of the Plan and the interim ordinance,the Planning staff cannot research urban standards and develop options for a number of issues discussed below. Staff recommends that many of the"urban"standards requested by ORM be addressed in the process for final development regulations. 3. RCW 36.70A.362 cited above is limited by requirements that: "(4)The county find that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas;and(5) On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated." The environmental impacts of 3500 square foot lots,as well as 90%, 75%and 60% lot coverage and the associated storm water drainage problems already existing in portions of Port Ludlow raise questions regarding allowing such standards over the extent of the entire community, rather than limiting these urban standards to the resort area. It is well-documented that urban levels of impervious surface significantly reduce the protection of water quality and fish habitat. In light of Endangered Species Act proposed listings,urban areas are now re- examining previously accepted"urban"standards that have clearly failed to protect fish habitat. Planning staff has concerns regarding consistency with best available science,and therefore with goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The following issues are among those requested standards that may not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that is being adopted and/or require further discussion: • Single family zone allowing attached,condominium style dwellings to be permitted outright,and conditionally allowing duplex,triplex,and other multiplex structures, with a minimum lot size of 3500 square feet in an area zoned 4:1, i.e.approximately 11,000 sq ft per residence. • Uses that require further definition,such as resort related retail,vacation/timeshares, structured parking,and employee support facilities. • Commercial uses that may not be supportive to the resort complex and may not be consistent with state law, and single family uses in the Village Commercial Center. • The list of uses suggested for all areas. • Lot coverages of 60%,75%and 90%over large areas. • Clarification of the nature of forest management activities and other uses in Open Space areas and the perpetual status of the Open Space. • Maximum building sizes in several areas. • Height allowance of 65 feet that may exceed fire safety requirements. 4. Planning staff has concerns that adoption of the"urban"standards requested could result in new significant adverse impacts to the environment that were not addressed in the DEIS or the FEIS of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of these standards would require a supplemental FEIS to address the impacts of these development standards. This would delay adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The ORM proposal appears to vary in significantly from the original Master Plan for the Port Ludlow Resort. If this is the case,the Master Plan should be revised and submitted to the County with appropriate environmental documents prior to approving any change to the internal configuration of the Master Planned Resort. 6. While ORM has explained that these regulations have been developed and reviewed in an extensive public process within the MPR,that process cannot substitute for the County's public process,which includes the Planning Commission and the public countywide. Adoption of "urban"standards in an emergency ordinance that lacks a full public process is not recommended. Staff Recommendation: It is the goal of the Planning staff to produce for the BOCC a legally defensible Comprehensive Plan for adoption on August 28, 1998, not only in terms of consistency with the Growth Management Act, but also in terms of internal Plan consistency and public process. The Planning staff recommends adopting Section 18 as revised by the staff,and encouraging ORM to fully participate in the final development regulation process over the next 6 months,which will include a review of the regulations proposed by ORM and endorsed by Port Ludlow community planning groups. ...?....6, 7 a �-� z �56. E � zu- • ON r C3,--a-tar �;;e. yy`� y t_ En JEFFERSON COUNTY �v��dx �/�` ►� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ��`]`�1 i413h ,, i G u b?/�C 0"1 621 Sheridan Street•Port Town ,\ Washirbtbn • . . i J NHS 360/379-4450.800/831.2678• L ?�-4451 Fax r);,; JAN - 7 2007 1 ,_(� -- 'f SS co ; Pre-Application Conference) coeriy The Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UtC) requires that before an application is made for all Type II and Type III project applications and Type I applications proposing impervious surfaces of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more and/or non-single family structures of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more, a pre-application consultation must be held. The consultation includes preliminary review and administrative assistance. This service does not include extensive field inspection or correspondence. Pre-application consultation does not limit subsequent administrative review. At the conference, Department of Community Development personnel shall provide the applicant with: (1) A list of the requirements for a completed application; (2) A general summary of the procedures to-be used to process the application; (3) The references to relevant code provisions or development standards that may apply to the approval of the application; and (4) A list of any applicable hourly review fees that may be charged by one or more County agencies upon the filing of a project permit application with the County. Discussions at the conference or the information provided by the staff shall not bind or prohibit the County's future application or enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by County representatives shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements of County, state and federal codes, laws, regulations and land use plans. NAME: V--)44.4r) GUISQ, 1 n MAILING ADDRESS: , V t 0A/, I 1�t s harm 1var Greer, SC C�q l¢ 'S TELEPHONE:(HOME) 7\71 9l��l ` C! ` - fX < (p (WORK) 8 a s- l 1Q - 6 5 3 �J REPRESENTATIVE: A MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE:(HOME) (WORK) I RECTFON$ 1. Please answer all questions on this form completely. I 2. Attach a sketch of the Conceptual Design for the proposed use or activity,showing the following information: a. Vicinity sketch; b. North arrow and scale; c. Property boundaries and identification of land uses on adjacent properties; d. Means of ingress and egress; e. Property/lot drainage; f. Possible locations of sewage disposal and water supply systems; g. Location of utility easements;and h. Proposed location of buildings,including setbacks to property boundaries. 3. Attach payment of the applicable fee,as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance. PRE-APP CONFERENCE.DOC REV.10/08/2001 - ,. , Ali a y Keith Guise Home: 864=848= 21 o A N 7 2007 L) 810 Dills Farm Way Cell: 8281-699-6538 Greer, SC. 29651 COUNTY !DEP' '3 tY DEVELOPMENT This Pre-Application Conference request is for the proposed subdivision of Port Ludlow No 6 Lot 12 V9/P40-41 8/17-28N RlE tax parcel number 821175005,into two separate lots,and for rezoning the lower lot from MPR-SF-Tracts to allow commercial development. Currently the lot size is 5.79 acres and the proposed subdivision would result in two separate lots, one upper and one lower each approximately 2.60 acres in size,thus satisfying the density requirements. The upper lot is to remain zoned residential and will eventually contain one private residence with access and utilities serviced by the Bluebird Lane easement. The proposed lower lot will have separate access from Oak Bay Rd,which it fronts,and possibly utilizing the location of the existing logging road. The precedent for rezoning has been established as the properties to the east and south of this lot are currently zoned commercial(MPR-Village Center). The adjacent property is still zoned MPR-SF-Tracts but is utilized as a Church not a residence.Additionally,Port Ludlow No 6 Lot 12 was removed in 1998 from the Ludlow Maintenance Commission by a previous owner with separate CCRs established with Olympic Resource Management for the express purpose of commercial development. My request for rezoning the lower lot is to eventually construct a small building that will fill the demand for small commercial lease spaces in Port Ludlow for area businesses. The proposed subdivision and rezoning may even indirectly result in creation of some local jobs in retail or office administration. , 2 The following image depicts the property boundaries for parcel#821175005 including contour lines and proposed new boundary line for subdivision. 1/ i s ' OCVM sit( :010.. .. . . 1/1Pk lane iiikLyor ' 14 itik eoccoone . _........wist 4 ,...:_iotinsressieggess and ilillik, .),,..) Neo, m.....,-, ,lane Easement itoh, e i Ilk 1414 at Proposed New Lot to remain residential(MPR-SP Tracts) Original lot 821175005 is 5•79 acres and would be A t / subdivided into 2 lots each ih approximately 2-60 Proposed New Boundary Line acres m size. io IN* Proposed New Lot Zoning to be changed from MPR-SF Tracts to ..,.. comerciaL . . - '...• - ;. .. - 111,, 'alb' Lower lot can utilize existing logging road access to Oak Bay Road Oak Bay Road ..0 1 sof""*"""i..... .......... .-,'""\ I —7: ---T—, r7;-7---rtyr-i 1 '''')■' -"' JAN - 7 2007 : _..1 1 — C0t3r,IIN dtv ''',Z-VELOPMEtill j 4__ - 3 The preceding ,._,....„.:, image depicts the zoning g of parcel# 821175005 and surrounding areas. .,., ,-,... . , .. . . . .,, ...„.. .,.......„. .. . . ., ,_,. . . . . ...._ . _. _... . . . • . .•. ., _, , .•,.._ 1..;,,, 4 ill 4,,, .:1.. ,,,,_.:.; 11_ ,t,:..,,. ,.....__,,,,,,:„..::-..„:„,,,,t,t,,,,_,:tii,.,..1-1.1 ::. . . :::::.::..-,,,,,,A.-..?:,..-..--:::-2,:,..;_-;:•_;-. tt.*4;1 ._„_. .... .,, .:. .:44,.,:i- ... .., , .. .. ,._. , '-,-. --_-, .---- .1 ;A:',..,:f., II' .::.A. —, 0 El ..4 1.-•Ii ,,-.-„... - t_q ...-•1 ,: t•-__,,, "t:,:ir- -,-..A fr,„-.2. -..,..4 ...; -• ,. --.7,4 E.:-.. ;?-.*:',,' ,i-: - ""-.:4-: ,''.•--.3 .; _ .. _ . r; -.•:-; t:.:1'.', LI 13 --.;- t-,i. rt. ,,. „.„.„ .-;:r 6-'4 ..-1‹ :4".••*-:.-k• t.------ty- t•:-.: - .7,:j ‘,,,p4.,4-, ---.11,„••:„.„, .,.., „:„...., --,1 ,..,.-,•,•1-._, _. „, :•-;,-.., -T.:',..:4. ..,„4,-;5---f-,..1 ;-,-:"--,.... :,':-.1:---.„. '4:::4,- '-'--.:,.::' ' -- ' II'• I .4....--__.r.,.-- -...:._.4 1 2p. .,. y .-:P: T-"----'•i'''.• zi: ,'''...-:::-,:-- -,,i.--1 ..s. _..„:„,....._.,..,. . ...,...,,,...... ...„ 1_. tr• - , ... 7.- a,-.,.,-,--•.i,t7', 4.-,,,. ,--,i-.:- ...:z.:..:,.... -..,... ::-.,..;.-,-..-7.;,...,-:.-..,:„.....<.,„&::::- .":-If:.•; ..., -,.,-;? .4.-:::.• '- . . „ , . .. . , .. -1:-•,;„t•••,,„, 1;•-•:..„•_:.••.,. '':::'''':'l''''''''''''''''''''''''.4' -L':. '.''':i''','-','',''',':'';::::.''„':''..':'''':','":','':''':. ..''.'„,:','.''..'-''',',','4!:',1'"I'-,-"...:-' '2.1,,'''..I.',.'. ',...; .' - - - .:1,-.: ,,,..•,,--,4;•:. ... .... . ..„. ..„„,........ . ..., .. _ ,„.. .. ....,-, .., : . .., ..., „,,.... , .- ...r. „.,. '•'-'",e4".-t- ;H'5'.;11.;'::"I':fil 11,:l?ii-,i.,,,i'6,--::-.ir.,. .'it,::::.--..'..-:-.;-,..' :--7.•::.:::::,:::-4,-;:::;:,-1-....--,,:;:-,:,:,--..,i - .- ----q2.-,r ti/4 •...,..,.,:„.,,,,,,,:,,,:„...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i,::::::„„::::,,,,,;,:,:...s_:::„::=:.:,.:ii..,,,,,:.,,r.. .:,..,:„.::;,•;,,,:„...,.....,....:,„: ,:::...,:,.44..,,,,,:,.. ..,:.,:,...:,.,,...,:.,,,,,, ,,..,,,r,..)..,::::,,,,,..",:::,::::,,,,,::„: f'..iiigi7Ailliii-::1!!.::;.i5i:::g. ;;;:ii.:' ,.,•Iii4f: '-'-'1,;"141:V-11tY51:1'-::::-TiSiii:',..a.;:... f.''::::-'-:.'f'i: ::.-:,,,,,,,:!,,,,r,-.:;:,-izi..-.:TI, ,,,,=,i,,,, ,,,:t.,...,„...7,3,,„.T,,,..,.....,,,:-.,, ,,,,,,,ti,,,,-,:j,,,,,.,,.:,,',13i,.•,e;.,-„ggf.i$- A.:‘,.,,...;%.,,-,7,,-;.-,It.4.0.,-..:7 ;„...,,,:,-,,,,::',.. .,,,,-4.-..,,,,,-, -.77-,..--,;;;:k.,'4-3 1.a k.,v...:,,v,..-.:_,..,4.:„;,,,,,,)A.,,slz-44•.;•.,,i,....:,;'..:,-,;:::-_..,,....,.1x-,,ii:,. -,,,:.i:'.,::.?..,:;',4,..vi,_,,,:y50-4,sti%:-..7::.:7,.:ri;%..-.,,,:..ini.'...k.,:::-F,.,.-.,.:::,:-.,..- : Y,..;:ig'ii-;,-.',-6..y.",:,-:,,,:;-..-.,-.:..;......;,,,„-:,...,,,--,-,:------..--- rati.,•,:?:-*;-..:??4,%,,,it:::: i.::::::::i.. ..i":,-44.i'ii...i::&,:,:;;:,,,::;:,,,Y.'.4,::: :=1-.:{': ..:_,. ...tt fr-,,,v4i,,..-.:. ,t4,,,.,,,,,..,,,,,te,;:li,i1.,,-;le.,,,,,:.;:,-.:K.,F2,...,g-.:-..,.a:,:.,,,.,:•,:„: 1,v.!-':,:t.t,::,-..;..,,L,;11::.'-0!,.;:t!:',;.-r;i1,:t.-: ,- . -S ':,;;FI .. . M ' • k„...,,,44.,AW.9, -:%:,:g,X9.,kitt,Fia..1.k3'.-fAl'Afs4-N.,1kitie:r:;,,,1-!,-,,,,,:,:.,.1,,S5 Al . .,.., . o ,g, --r : ... . ,....„...,..,,,,,..,1,:lkio'4,,,,,,,,,,4-,-R,,,IM.!,':,r,,,,,.Z.:.,:z,-...,V.1,i,A.,,,,,,,,44:ek,,i.-t,;,,,,,,,,:14:,-.0.4,',..e.o,•;-4.'41v;„;-.,..;;;::, \ - i \ i i_la - -— 1 \ - 11r)i JAN - 7 2007 11._JI ' ,I. . • , . £PMENT 4 The following image depicts the development of the surrounding lots as per Jefferson County WA 2005 aerial photographs. iYirSz IT :',•:' : ff ..1 8. 'Al � y: i r +..!1a.t f`t ? " w� r i r r� 1 V 1 l ► ' iu A JAN —7 2007 I 1. \ L r.„""'a , Parcel Print Page 1 of 1 Parcel Number: 821175005 05/14/2007 Owner Mailing Address: KEITH GUISE CARLA GUISE 810 DILLS FARM WAY GREER SC 296515571 Site Address: Section: 17 School District: Chimacum(49) Qtr Section: NE1/4 Fire Dist: Port Ludlow(3) Township: 28N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1E Tax Code: 231 Planning area: Port Ludlow(7) Sub Division: PORT LUDLOW NO 6 Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: PORT LUDLOW NO 6 I LOT 12 V9/P40-41 8/17-28N-R1E I I 10 No Photo Available http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/assessors/parcel/parcelprint.asp?PARCEL_NO=821... 1/8/2008 6) 33 0 lir, . N C.0 7. 7\ - -1 CO --k 0 . -,, -- I ' 1 1 1., ._i .c::. _-gl 1 1 1,4:4-1 i 1 , t i i ::-1--i_ * '--ct- ' 1 I I , '... . - -,0, ._3 ...; r 3- ! , '...c......I - • .. __, ___ . ■ i t"- I 16 r ?a! --1 ' 1- - 1-- -r- -: i ci. , (I) , -----j-- 1 1-_,-.7-7-7,-r f. i° i + , i . . } ‘) • 1 3 . -,-,I o 1 i . .0._.__ i , ' .... - .,•,.--.(,. -i, ) i L- ,1/4-/' i . ¶-- - --I---1- 7-- ' -0 ; — • ' Ic, I . ■ . , I 1 -4 ----;: (,cs-i ----- . 1; 1-----1 ; ! ' ' Q) Ti - ' : :. . .i.—..-- , --r- , , r : • 1 , , I , , .- 1 1 .,• ' (-) ,_ _____3____L__.: ,_____:_t___Jo 1, .,. 1 , i \, ___ --8._--- -- _) m --cp , . ' , ,_ , , _ , ___ _ AJr, .----r-- -I---- ,.,, r : 1• , i i _ :/ 1 1 451 • kil 16 '-I-7-1T-7----!-- ' --7-- ----1 --!! -,1,—!" —, ' - ' I 4 cy\ 12- 0 ,-- , ;.<._ ! - - . ____ ____ 9 I ., , i I I- ; , . , -. :!:_-...! \ i . ; _-4. .i„17,:--- ..I I I I I _____,_ _ 0 I-s----- ! 1 , -10----1----.7i--'-`1-- 7-1 ------ - --T---- '('4 4 „ i , -,---r . I VI , i 1 ! I --A ic . , UI 7 I ,.„....._r____TI____. __ ___ _____, '' -7—'' -i-- ' -r, • ..-?:,.,- --+- I - .!. ' • CD g i , I . 1, ; 1 i ■ , I I • I . , , I I I . : 1 . ,. _.. , , • ,_.... _ C ,, .. 1 • . ,, i r 1 ' . ' ■ ■ ' ' i _±" - , I-- ; . , 7, - - 8 , ' c , -p a ; . P -, . . • i) ' - i , ; T- . , I . . _._,. 1 1 I 1 -1 '5>- l-7..), is.„,..--.y...." . . I • .C. . ; -C----:--. ' ---"- r...., C..1.7 .._ g . --. --,---- . T c .- r- , Oz. ; ;sz> :0 ; (- G 0 0 t -;-- • 1 ; (4, -e— c) . ; __ I . 8, -k—) l; - ; - .3 . Ls, , : , oo 9i . • • ' . r. ', • , 1 --ij ''P) 1-''' ' •(`' ' M . _ -I E I ; ' ..,---",- . .(7-. ' 1' • 11 , I -,- ' , ,, T — ! -r C. g,) c. E I i .c., ) / .• . . • , C-1-1 -7 -_- ' , _. . ____ ____ / : I ! - cl-N _ , . • . fr% 1 1 : I . ! -I -- ' IY---' - .- 1 I I I I 1 !, ! 1 , , -. _..• . ! — _______ --- • -,- - -,- -4------..,. -- g ---:- ! : I I ; : sz -,) 0 . --, . : ,.., A . e, • . . 4 a . , . ____________----, _.. _. , _ 0 ..., , , , , _______._ -- ---• -- --- - -- - . , , , 1 • tw ___ _ - • i _ _ ' , . i . 1 „ , , , , , . , , (-\-\ • r- • . ! : , _ , -:— • CK , . 1 , L ) r , 1 SD 1 ; —1 --- 7 -; ---1 ---, (S-- 1 --T • ---- -r---. ;___ • -,, . ; I ; f ; 0 _ (± 1 1'D c;.; ; L _t_! r•-• ; ! . ! 1 . I •! { _ . ____,_ rT- 6 r- ; 'D 1 .. I V\ .CA , VC- . . .. 6 - . fL oi----. , r , _ --(7. _ . . . r 0 .--- --I k.N C ‘'i I C--- . . . I 5-, ' . ' ' - I C.) I ' I' ! I, I 1 !0 p ') 0: > , , - I ' ' -CT C •' , ! I 7T- , I 7\ 2 ,... 4"P - 1.-- •t-- _A\ . 0 –0_, `--. ) --3- . .; ■ " . -- - W (..)3 - ; 0 0. - , - -fl, ; , • ..-- . N 0 ; I-- I - I , CA , • , • . • , .....‘ C.. -ij g ' - ' .1 ; ,------t— •- . i . , ' , ,m ____, 1 .. , I , • 51- --\---- 0. .. . z ..._______(7,_______ _____ _____..._ .'. .._.4____ ...,,________ . , ___4„._ • . • -r- , 1 33 Ci.)m,,› ; ; . • , -- . r `---- f : ; . . . ' , 1 1 i • ' _ . .C. . I . , <7,- , r , , „, . . . , . • . • . _.. ( ......,.,,,,,, , . • ' , ' , ••■■ob.' ■ - -' ,01..b. , 1-r- , ---7----- -- '., — c-p- - , --- . -7 . - , -__ , 1 . , --7 i —, , I) -' 0 '. I ' ' et:. , si, , . , , . , . X- : 0 1 cA 4- 0 2 • „ ' r. ____ i ' ; .-.4.1110111.111111111111 i , n w, xi :— 1 : • st IS' ' ' 0 • , 7 , t 7 -- 1111 , , . . • _ ....._ x •. -6_4- , , • ------------------..---•- : . ... 0 CO c- -1 ! i. ; ; 3 ' 47N. , . . . .,...-... . i , , - , _ P _ . • . Z.. . ;.--- III , 11 2 . ______. ;7`-' ,.;,` , ; ';' ; . . , , .- --r-. m -!%-'7 - . • 0, - - • `-( 0 s-- • o a 11• . , — la , ID 6 73 . ' . . 04 -F, . .' I -n , -) e_- \ 9 --.. . r3 .:- Cp - ' r A.), _ e- CA 111 , . __ , . __. , ..„1 — , . . ■ -1:7-_,_.,-CY ....1, ' -"Q =7- k- ,, '' . : l''' ....x. I, -%.›I r,v : ' , --; • ----- -- 4_lb- - .: -V 0 . „,/..-'' , •••' , ! ' 1 -, ' ; • , . , --; • ..r L._., ,-• . I ril c- xi — • — --' , - - - • * . . . ■ : -. . . . r > '..-.'- ' . . '-r •, '..T ■ ■ "'1." , * I 1 , -T--- ' -:----0 . '. ■,„ , i : z --`)0• - „._ _-, , . , .., — -,- - - -T ,;:-:-.- G) : ,2-.,,,._ .. „ , -•- . .,, . 0 . i /: , . ' • , ' ' __...: L .r'77I■, P . ............,...----____—_ i A . ,. \ - . ; „....,.— ,.! .. • • , . ' . !, .... ;=.6 (44 , •-r- ,..- --- ' - 7--; 7 1 ----- . t-i ----'r . -.." I I q Ct . ■ . . .1 . I.-C -,-----,r ,\ I- • . I .1--1 .."''' ''• ; ____r_.' Ti _r., 7,3 :,______,.: , -;-- --- --- —a-7 1 ; (-" ■ C-----?.--70—i --; -, \''. , A---, — I ; . ,,,--.3 . , • .• , ,, ( ..--° (,) 8 ; 7- _ „- - : , *- VA . , . . 1. , --.. ,,,..„ ----'" . . , r r:A?111 - 5 -... .... (7, :„,.. ---0- . ':- c,, -Fs) ..._ _......._, . . _o_ , . — ---- f.-J-cy--T 0 ,-- .---1, ' • ,,.,a -.‹,:z r..,' . ---- , ' 5' c ! --- ---r---- ---- , ! -=-1_. ; • , , -f..---) -. I i cy 7'711 0 1 ■1 . . -‘-c----- ■ . , - ' ; 1 , 1 -----!----T n i , (5 , , , , ,,..._. .7 : ..... ...._. ...!_ r.____ ,__. 1 -,- 1 I ---- .1 i 1 . . I- 7 , t.._ 1 • . ! 1 '"_ .. . I , _ I, , , ' % r.-.. ?.;--- — -:- (S 5 4-• t C4 • .) • 2 The following image depicts the property boundaries for parcel# 821175005 including contour lines and proposed new boundary line for subdivision. r R atittsoot -� - ' e's.r r ''.4,`'a '"v ®,,v„^ r ..--"t fit. ''' xlc� d'Lane e` ' �, �s Tom. a -.!>.■ k. ) i --°i"""�"��*'� N ` .. -- pper lot ingressiegress and k `°" \____./1 '° . tilities will be accessed via i I �t luebird lane Easamerd t }'` t� i iy }• i f s ; Proposed New Lot to remain i 1 residential(MFR-SF Tracts) if i ... :,,.- Ongtnal Lot $r �� ---- ''�id 821175005 is 5.79 . r r< $I. ji if acres and would be i r' subdivided into 2 1 lots each M ;_ 4 y approximately 2.60 m --Proposed New Boundary Line `,, acres in size. r"-- r� 'w '.,, r --10.11 Proposed New Lot Zoning to be ` t " changed from MPR-S1 Tracts to "l. -- _� M comercial ., . '''- *' .,_'_k__ ' Lower lot can utilize existing logging ° ° " road access to Oak Bay Road Oak Bay'toad Y' -. x l i t JAN - 7 2007 `1 i i 1 1 6-) 'D C W C 0 iii a t1._ ( CO G 6 _ . o c<, . m c---- J En. UN 3 (� T; o ' _ _ r ' ______\_. o tI `3 0 G � ; Q, _� . P _ 1 RI' —/ d.3?cd c� a 4 8 z l _ _ 2 -� _G C a `~ -� '�cn 3 h i^ 7 C- 0 1 9 Q U A -- p o 0 Ce Z44 /J P b c- U , , i . - ._---- 1 r c--- - r —5 e) _. ,.-- _ ______ _________ . , m s CS" CP C v fit- 9-) c' ___. Li C) = • D - 3 Ch ._..0 _. W c n �• o i 2 7 LA -k.--__ J U� U; N 6,3 CO Z ca m �r _ sa 6 7-, Z hh v �. z III ,6T ---- - C\ \-. \ . GE W fWit D W _.G_ ` 1 6. P , 11 M N G -� S �� r o �, '� cf, C • - . C 11 z E' _ --� o GbGZ _ . 7,-:---::.......es„:„...77:---1.--- 4� 5- v, L ____ ---1 ' -'"-- 310•= (...._,' ,...,',1_ : Cc:,2 1, -; *_ ' -s.''''''''''''......4:.'?..-s, 4 '. g - • - L I _ - - J tS 74 t G9 _Galls maiA 3NIT..N3v _ ___L - -— - .-. -- - , ;NM,u dotld uoiSN1WIC1 \ ' _ — • — _ H \-4- — . i I i i It---1.:.-1 -----1 ' I �i, ‘Ii 1 i L __, .z.4.::: tri 1-1-' . ZIP ----- —; I 11 ih/ OI N�WGJ � .-- • 1 cil .......„.7 . < �^ NOicN� 4Ia e . - r y hh 4t. ii r° ,„. g ( . ,\ \ ,,,- * z, !:i g t.., \ii, _,- E N a . i . 1 z & 0 L, . . gcA si . . 2 i t.1 ; ........- . ,,,,,,,...: !! I / kJ A „.,,p yle ...,,,... Li 2 . ! 1 )/ V\ Ci t).. i . . : ..i. + 4.) r+ + O • 1 54 ,Z :::), -.2.e.:=1 4 ..t / .••• i t 1 i 0 .0 + * g ii - . • 2 x \ , i ►- \ li **••■ ,...1. ,..• / tfl el ul 4............. 71 ml 1 N r ,1 E § • • 4 '►� \ �� ION i il ' p- pl • ■ , dd� i' ti a�° °' t 3 0 3 a a6 E • o o a� i :o Q ao 0 ti " m 5 3 w y N N Cam. 3+° 0 0 aZ > S. -G is U � a 'u - r ) t ev U 0 co b Ord " A 0 O t-.1.0 N .d i O v 49 3.4 0 U U 8 v O b .. ° v' •k O . U t. t b U O.. U w s v .. 0 b) 0 tar y " U y . y 0 O v y C wa a) 0 M O id N 3 ¢ . Q C � e0 a ; o e O y 0 L. � o v S. am . v ' r O U C/) .. � N � • 0r A Or U " N i5... O y v" U I c2 U O cti am ^ .y ro -. V V .N c.0 y„ C N � q . � +• + II 3 o 1 p tr `4 � - m O j p eI O s , „s U 0 co aO ct n O O y . O n ci r h C (:) 4) ▪ y a -° �; t o a�•° oo�” —°' 2 3 o o a) 3 0 b -� o .� idar^C o '.z 5 e3o :... L. .� . C) G.' "8 U vim, 3.4 `v U rat Ow tq ++ `�r) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ iii t G - id Q ° w ". a PRE08-00001 Pre-Application Conference Keith Guise 2 Lot Short Plat & Re-zone Attendees: Jim Pearson DPW; Karen Barrows DCD; David Wayne Johnson DCD 1 pm, January 24, 2008 Owner/Applicant: Keith & Carla Guise 810 Dills Farm Way Greer, SC 29651 Parcel/Location: 821 175 005 - Between Oak Bay Road and Bluebird Lane adjacent to the Church within the Port Ludlow MPR. Description of Proposal: The proposal is to subdivide one (1) 5.79 acre parcel into two (2) 2.6 acre parcels in the Single Family Tract zone (MPR-SFT). Once the subdivision is finaled, an application for a re-zone to commercial zoning (MPR-VC) will be submitted for the parcel on Oak Bay Road. PUBLIC WORKS (Roads & Stormwater) Jim Pearson LONG RANGE PLANNING Karen Barrows • Comprehensive Plan Amendment for re-zone to Village Commercial (VC) zone (JCC 18.45) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION - LAND USE • Zoned - Single Family Tracts - 2.5 acre minimum density • Short Subdivisions (JCC 18.35.090 - attached) • Type II Permit with Public Notice required (no public hearing) • Surveyor required • Olympic Sewer & Water - run lines to property line • Permitted Uses in the VC zone (attached) Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA): • Coastal SIPZ (Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone) Buffers & Setbacks: • Front, side and rear yard building setbacks: 25 feet (UBC standards in VC zone). Bulk & Dimensional Standards • Building Height: 35 foot maximum • Maximum Area of Impervious Surface Coverage (%): 20% (45% in VC zone) • Minimum lot width: 100 feet (N/A in VC zone) Application & Fees: • Complete Application Includes: o Master Permit Application o Land Division Supplemental Application (see JCC 18.35.090) o Plat Certificate o Certificate of Water Supply Utility Service o Subdivision Fees Due at time of application $1,777.00. (See attached worksheet) Guise Short Plat& Re-zone Page 1 of 2 o Fee for Comp Plan Amendment: $2,503.00 o Public Works fees billed separately Guise Short Plat& Re-zone Page 2 of 2 ■ , ',11.17 ;i f8 01 1-AX( 3a(313 • :' �r';;Ii;• � 's ,f !" t: 1 , `; kJR6AN t _ 1 CE Y t 1 ,- ,yr .36:26 PA.I 1 ;t,. .;IFS i rs1-'S7U1: Z 00;• .t , ,;';yd A _ 4 • - t e - ' err ) J. ,k,, L" C.w ..,,,..,;-1 .— ,a N . .y . , ), ORffi 141 C �Y A. T A 2 E 1. . xs ,as. "."iT, „X ;1,7:a4 1.z W -r t. t 1 t rm--. ". :/ also a r tic4. _- 5111C-.t.,,h c. t loll,rat s 's a. - --_-_- r m. The gas 1434 teprs _ _ , Legg ohrlaros of:fie 1 P a-iba l r:-ad cp: 7, 'Port =9 Mo.6,as per ' 'S' z .- -. ^,. .;-gym t of rr• •-, e .... - - -. _ky re_ -- ii.:-•'L� - -., p1 1 :_ M1 -- bw - ,`x.1) � , �tt A - its"Cs>v t ' r. g ;I11,1MINAT1ON O ' o '- . -i r -..,N) _° Upe'. --'_ ion ofrlais r °-,1 an panics:r ;.ar & taf'.'13e A = _:zit,tie New Co - '! wriphtt4 and I °,- t'� to arse Mtn Peter '',c:� __ mac, „ _ - `-, ., _- ;.1:6.... mot: Arid "r` '17'-= - ' _1 rw` El+i ._ b 4, Ws&abasastar __. -• . s j,i-... +d ,-w8.kk1" ,:T- .. .N work win `- - _,F afters 1t --- r-r-• __:tit. - ...11;„1-.-:. l v.,l C1 3I - - _ •" •yam --y�•-� '' Y - ' �.r .x • - + fir' 2* ��_. t . pr », ._ . a3 t-. — sat elf _: to ww .x_ .- - ` 1.. '' _ ,- -- - ",7377 s iM." 'r,. _. ,, 7 1 ht irmal __- a� ._-_- fT.4---tL owr oraitne -. a. . Fa= �= at past aa+ ' s•,gas,cubit r•-- - sass uo . T _ 'ottidett to the taitattinction or - bw. , - ti pmitatbls*pen ufPe yes• ?hai,e,,g, ?' ±"vain= - a actin , .1/z,rte a axe _ 1 have way+ -- -KS mizitxuszl =' �. - , + * __ eh t t_- -Y: e Thar Applicant shall soncitt,I gotapicto Application to Pte* cau+ , ,ite ble upon . . -• . .. =- {i`-1✓.� .. ''.r{'j `Y 6 .� :" .., - ^` a:..,� 7i• S h AtA y k }-0 gild -- -- ' wow, t $ -. 43AFw 8:'9r:(�t;`&��d �'°:ei�x*�8P' ' t, ,te''. Pad' „ itvf! -' ."001;3 ', 1Valt ___, - i _3 Oka d fie. qy wC, vM„ _– rJ3 4 401514011111 - i tot- Rthe 31144111ri w — .®..a._.4 g.. N■IM,.-a itT mss'tap- _ -.I costs incurred incarxis,- iTI AN'1 &A = as 2 r•;: _ #s Y H r7r�ca 9rfA!!9 P. o _ fit..- .-,. . - DC C1 "•"° . "' _ -'Po¢` C1411 r Page 3 of r • .. .. Si. $d" SA' • 14' . .... 'r, i4`. . �. J_ - AX', .! ,1 - _ , ; f' .T.0; Ir-SCR ,r, - K A r.fo-, ., r t «, 1ST ,y4'.4...- "l'!. . .,+l4A,1 2: iakutiJ , , ;I ra. f 2 ,a Fi° , - . - .F 9.ny«t+E•3o4. a ix", q taa1�r,,:ity. ;la in:C-2'""7 4X arty k1s' u i 7 aT isbY i 0", 3 `r r -m-_-=f. 0)01 .,, • s - --_ 1114,7 e Sl, e : =: i s . - _ .. 'S cm,d aWf}i5 *29�ikdt}iA � t.....g tlN.11' a ---04.4:5 - - _ -AL .. °F r...1-7,----k,, c tI - '4 1: 1 r,. ' >�.a�...;.. ..-mart 0,1 h .»4 .'. j ,a, t , y 1,19, c :, ..-' ._ . , �_. wi Iwo R ?y!:,"0CI". sS. - ° .__ . . ,-__ of - _ �«-1, ` ._the• -.'.s `,:. W_.. ,,o;; d__: -try :..: �r.° x� Wi t^ , ,_ . _. 1 2 .,J o 1 14a tr _, y 0: t n c 4 ' - - -a" We Pees eh : --. -. .r""' t APS -_ =_Able+ -- -or at be _-t r mace; . _ :4 q+° - - S -i 5, 1 ,+m➢3 _.,.,,w. «-ywv�,r,w.a.c4w°^r°�,^mau5.44.*s ._A.. may- -m,awoS.q'°'rg,°! ,yam,-z _ __ ., _v_ �yy �. -='.f..-�v_ � - - :). . 1 J l w',;)3a 4i ru . :.: 1ST A - I..a: '1': "151 a)' . a ' : .. r . . r ' 3 .y ,„.`.`. • _ - a .J, - - - - . ,_'2,11ld', _ - -- ,. ' S. - ,: =_-- - . .., ta's _. .-'Cw^b" . -J.,d ti - ' a _ . i" V = - 'a s z. —-- "— y 45Yi.Z.' -,_. .A4t :'aca.s',,t az&"--.` - .4a4 1,7;,,,-..--...--.1-:=4 WI tits cones it is er g fil srstoc . . 1a"� 1.01,8 c " % sUt t . , °{ -- = ..--_-_--fit --:-s2 m.ile 3 tu,:tid.0 4,',. ,- _ !_._ _ r -.ire$ _-'$ z a ""ra �g�xE is ---i _— •' i ZfC GYl. . t - r _ -. *xis ion*4t` -;L}I� -_ m 7>w Pgre - _.ftI - .", . -_- �,t ic8 - t ��. - -_- - -_ " ,.1 .3 ter- f -��a�"Mil ee, ai*'a., -, , •'- .. 77Y' - _ - _ - - _--- - e5uf S +� - :e t� Fw,,,,,,,w _ o 9 ,6(., v i, `, , t r �i7 tw • i•s '11R6,- 013-` n 9 r d 1ST Al 4 1 AYSY_k:`t: t38•'410 • VIII n, . - .---, _ --crag^ --- _ r 1 E ofst.1 ESS ==-' -. .---• torooted this Ageventara on or shoot She 4ea8 - POPE d3,"°,�; m, L -- _ M.+P,Imo. #rs CrAndrei �:�•""may _ �.'6...:.+c - ,"_,,,,.,,. , co ity Thom die - reit 6+s: '_. `�: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT These fees are effective January 1, 2008 and are subject to change. SUBDIVISION REVIEW FEE WORKSHEET DATE: G 2--9 I Q Pre-Application #: GLA,Lce " O ( Applicant Name and/or Authorized Representative: - PROJECT TYPE FEE REQUIRED PROJECT TYPE FEE REQUIRED Long Plat Base Fee 4,509.00 Short Plat Base Fee 1,468.00 l '{-GB HEALTH DEPARTMENT Subdivision Review Base Binding Site Plan / PRRD's 4,509.00 $354.00 Plus $70.00 Per Lot Final Short Plat, Long Plat, Boundary Line Adjustment BSP & PRRD 157.00 - Review Fee 140.00 Notice of Application 142.00 C Li 7 PRRD Review Fee 140.00 Density Exemption Review Fee 140.00 Hearing Notice 142.00 requiring field work Notice Boards #X $10.00 LO Density Exemption Review Fee 70.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PUBLIC WORKS SEPA Checklist 524.00 Short Plat $62.00/Hour** Long Plat 5-14 Lots SEPA Hourly Rate 52.00 $1,312.00 Plus $132 Per Lot Long Plat 15 or More Lots $1,312.00 Plus $196 Per Lot **Short Plat hourly fee to be billed SUBTOTAL #1 ( .73--1-1-SUBTOTAL#2 Subtotal Column #1 u/ C Subtotal Column #2 GRAND TOTAL tt Other fees (but not limited to) payable before final recording: Environmental Review: Additional hourly charge may apply-see Hourly Rate. Minimum recording fee $108.00 Taxes paid up to date for the year the plat is to be recorded Cost of survey - see a licensed surveyor Cost of road construction, storm drainage, erosion control, etc. Cost of any required reports (geo-tech, wetland, eagle management, etc.) Cost of school and fire district fees (if applicable). F:\permit\PLNCNTR\FEES\SUBFEE_01-01-2008.DOC Page 1 of 1 C arr cb, JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend •Washington 98368 360/379-4450 . 360/379-4451 Fax vel%N•4/ 0, www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Master Permit Application MLA: Project Description(include separate sheets as necessary): Tax Parcel Property Number: Size: (acres/square feet) Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Property Owners)of Record: Telephone: Fax: email: _ _ Mailing Address: Applicant/Agent(if different from owner): Telephone: Fax: email: Mailing Address: What kind of Permit?(Check each box that applies ❑Building ❑Variance(Minor,Major or Reasonable Economic Use) ❑ Demolition Permit ❑ Conditional Use[C(a),C(d),or C]** ❑ Single Family ❑Garage Attached/Detached ❑ Discretionary"D"or Unnamed Use Classification ❑ Manufactured Home ❑ Modular ❑ Special Use(Essential Public Facilities)** ❑ Commercial* ❑ Boundary Line Adjustment ❑ Change of Use ❑ Short Plat** ❑ Address ❑ Road Approach ❑ Binding Site Plan** ❑ Home Business ❑ Cottagelndustry ❑ Long Plat** ❑ Propane ❑Planned Rural Residential Development(PRRD)/Amendments** ❑ Sign ❑Plat Vacation/Alteration** ❑Allowed"Yes"Use Consistency Analysis ❑ Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions*" ❑Stormwater Management ❑ Shoreline Management Substantial Development** ❑ Site Plan Approval Advance Determination(SPAAD)* ❑Shoreline Management Variance ❑Temporary Use ❑ Comprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map Amendment ❑Wireless Telecommunication* ❑Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment ❑ Forest Practices Act/Release of Six-Year Moratorium ❑Tree Vegetaion Request *May require a Pre—Application Conference **Requires a Pre-Application Conference Please identify any other local,state or federal permits required for this proposal, if known: DESIGNATION OF AGENT I hereby designate to act as my agent in matters relating to this application for permit(s). OWNER SIGNATURE Date: By signing this application form,the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein,and in any attachments,is true and correct to the best of his,her or it's knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save,indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities,judgments,court costs,reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees,representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. Staff's access and right of entry will be assumed unless the applicant informs the County in writing at the time of the application that he or she wants prior notice. Signature: Date: The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential"take"of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the "Endangered Species Act"or"ESA."Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions that will be undertaken because this permit has been issued will not violate the ESA. Any individual,group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s)even if you are in compliance with the Jefferson County development code.The Applicant acknowledges that he,she or it holds individual and non-transferable responsibility for adhering to and complying with the ESA. The Applicant has read this disclaimer and signs and dates it below. Signature: Date: G:\PermitCenter\###FORMS###\DRD FORMS\Master Permit Application 12-19-2006.doc BUILDER STATEMENT The signer of this statement does hereby certify that they are the Owners of the parcel referenced herein,that they are not licensed contractors and that they will be assuming the responsibility of the General Contractor for the proposed project. Signature: Date: GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLER: PHONE: FAX: ( ) ( ) MAILING ADDRESS: EMAIL: CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE WAINS NUMBER: NUMBER ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: PHONE ( ) Fax:( ) MAILING ADDRESS: EMAIL Project Type: Frame Type: Bathrooms: Shoreline: Type of Sewage Disposal: ❑ New ❑ Wood Existing: ❑ Sewer ❑ Addition 0 Steel Proposed: Bank ❑ Community System ❑ Alteration/Remodel ❑ Concrete Total: Height: ❑ Individual System ❑ Repair ❑ Masonry SEP Permit# ❑ Demolition 0 Other: Bedrooms: Water Supply: Existing: Setback: ❑ Private well ❑ Two Party Type of Heat: Proposed: ❑ Public Total: Name of System: If this is a Commercial Project you must answer the following: Number of Parking Spaces: Current: Proposed: Number of ADA Parking Spaces: Number of occupants(includes owners,tenants,employees,etc) Current Proposed IBC Occupancy: IBC Type of construction: Will you have Food Service? Yes / No If this is a Propane Tank and/or Appliance Installation permit,mark all items below that apply: 1 Underground Tank 1 Above ground Tank Size of Propane Tank: 1 Heat Stove 1 Cook Stove 1 Woodstove 1 Fireplace Insert 1 Hot Water Tank 1 Pellet Stove 1 Other Is this appliance being installed in a Manufactured/Mobile Home? Yes / No When applying for a permit to install a propane tank you must also submit a site plan showing all of the buildings,all property lines, tank location and size,distances from the propane tank to all property lines,buildings and septic system components, including the reserve area. Square Footage Current Proposed For Office`Usi .t my= Amount Main Floor Heated EH BId App Review: 2"°Floor Heated 2 Consistency Review: Other Heated ,; � _ Base fee: Mezzanine Additional Section: Heated Basement Plan Check fee: Unheated Basement State Surcharge fee: Other Unheated Pot Water Review fee: Garage/Carport SUBTOTAL Decks 911/Rd Approach fee: Other TOTAL: $ Receipt Number: Cash/Check Number: ESTIMATED COST(REQUIRED) Date: •Fair market value of all labor and materials foundation to finish Initials: G:\PermitCenter\###FORMS###\DRD FORMS\Master Permit Application 12-19-2006.doc von cerke4, JEFFERSON COUNTY . ►s DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' 621 Sheridan Street• Port Townsend •Washington 98368 360/379-4450 • 800/831-2678 • 360/379-4451 Fax Land Division Supplemental Application' MLA# PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: Submittal Requirements 1. A completed Master Land Use Application and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist (if applicable). Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner. 2. Short Plat, Long Plat or Binding Site Plan application fee (as applicable), as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance,as amended. 3. Any supplemental information identified by the Administrator. 4. Five (5) paper copies of a preliminary plat meeting the requirements of Unified Development Code (UDC) Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 for short plats, or UDC Sections 7.4.3 and 7.4.4 for long subdivisions/binding site plans and identifying points of access, all easements, deeds, restrictions, or other encumbrances restricting the use of the property,as applicable.Copies of the applicable UDC sections are attached for your use. 5. Where site conditions require a special report to assess or address any probable significant adverse environmental impacts, a study (or studies, as applicable) prepared by a competent professional may be required if deemed necessary by the Administrator. 6. Evidence of compliance with UDC Section 6.7, Stormwater Management Standards, as deemed necessary by the Administrator. 7. The preliminary plat must be prepared in accordance with UDC Section 7.3.3 for short plats, or 7.4.3 for long plats. The contents of the preliminary plat must provide the information listed in 7.3.4 for short plats and 7.4.4 for long plats. 8. The following supplemental information: Subdivision Name: Land Use(check one): ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial Total Acreage of Property: Total Lots Proposed: Water Supply(check one): ❑ Individual Wells ❑ Community Water System Sewage Disposal Method: Average Lot Size: Minimum Lot Size: Open Space: See UDC Section 7. Use this application for Preliminary Plats (short or long)and for Mixed Use, Commercial and Industrial Binding Site Plans; a separate application is available for Residential Binding Site Plans. LAND DIVISION APP.DOC REV.4/3/2001 Pane 1 9. I, , do hereby swear and certify that in addition to the land subject to this application(check the box below which applies): ❑ I have no interest in ❑ I have an interest in land within 300 feet of any portion of the subject property by reason of ownership, contract for purchase by agreement or option by any person, family member, firm, or corporation in any manner connected with me or the development. SIGNATURE DATE 10. The applicant hereby certifies that the preliminary plat provides an accurate representation of the proposed land division;and the applicant hereby acknowledges that any approval issued on this application may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false. SIGNATURE DATE LAND DIVISION APP.DOC REV.4/3/2001 Page 2 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St, Port Townsend WA 98368, (360)379-4450 APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF ADEQUATE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY Resolution#99-90 requires building permit applicants to provide evidence of an adequate potable water supply. Name Phone Mailing Address Zip Code Parcel ID# Subdiv. Block Lot(s) Site Address Zip Code Type of Structure Check all that apply Note:Special conditions may apply within Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones. (SIPZ) Valid Water Right Permit(generally applies to springs,attach copy) Approved Public Water(Submit the attached Water Availability Notification form completed by your water purveyor stating the system is capable of and will supply water.) Individual Well–attach copy of: 1) Well logs (If no well log report is on file,a 1 hr stabilization test may be substituted) 2) Lab analysis for water quality parameters tested within 3 years of application: -Total colifomi -Nitrate-N -Chloride 3) Plot plan showing location of well with distances from proposed sewage system, buildings, driveways and surrounding properties. Two-party Well—items above AND recorded Operation&Maintenance agreement and recorded Easement. By signing the application form,the applicant/owner attests that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of their knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the applicant/owner with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities,judgments, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees, representatives or agents for the purpose of application review and any required later inspections. Access and right of entry to the applicant's property or structure shall be requested and shall occur during regular business hours. Signature Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 1) Water Right Permit# 2) Public Water Supply WS 1D# in Compliance Yes No 3) Individual Well Driller Name Date Drilled Depth Production Meets Water Quality Standards Yes No SIPZ Yes Circle: Coastal Moderate High No Basel upon information provided by the applicant,it appears that the potable water supply: meets conditionally meets does not meet the conditions of RCW 19 27.097 and the Guidelines for Determining Water Availability for New Buildings. Application Reviewed by Date Date Fee Receipt# Check# Case#BLD Jefferson County Permit Center, 621 Sheridan St, Port Townsend WA 98368 WATER AVAILABILITY NOTIFICATION PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM TO: Jefferson County Environmental Health Department FROM: (Water System Name) System Operator State ID Number Total connections for which system is approved Number of service connections existing (in use) Number of service connections committed Date and results of most recent water bacteriological analysis The water system is capable of and will supply potable water to the following location: Assessors Parcel ID# Legal Description Site Address Operator Signature Date EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS SERVICE COMMITMENT H:\homelpincntrlinfohith\pubwater 8/95 c,,e,r („0 -- C3 -A - ' w o eC c W �• -- O _ B , 0 2_ 4)--e1/4Aa eA � `e-, L cn, 6 o a o S — (AA- - "eir .S1A-b a = - e C e s I tin317 Cac- i I -� -tea 7 � � � 7.2.5-5- ,„,,ON co C� werVi, JEFFERSON COUNTY �v�•✓ � � ��/�` 064.-, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT J4 ft i-- y �� / �s 7� 4A '1 621 Sheridan Street• Port Townsend r Washington 9$368 _ �SNO� 360/379-4450.800/831-2678.360/378-4451 Fax JAN - 7 2007 _.., { --e — '9 SS a' Pre-Application Conference! The Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) requires that before an application is made for all Type II and Type Ill project applications and Type I applications proposing impervious surfaces of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more and/or non-single family structures of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more, a pre-application consultation must be held. The consultation includes preliminary review and administrative assistance. This service does not include extensive field inspection or correspondence. Pre-application consultation does not limit subsequent administrative review. At the conference, Department of Community Development personnei shall provide the applicant with: (1) A list of the requirements for a completed application; (2) A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application; (3) The references to relevant code provisions or development standards that may apply to the approval of the application; and (4) A list of any applicable hourly review fees that may be charged by one or more County agencies upon the filing of a project permit application with the County. Discussions at the conference or the information provided by the staff shall not bind or prohibit the County's future application or enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by County representatives shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements of County, state and federal codes, laws, regulations and land use plans. NAME: t).-)..Q,4,0 G U w s Q. 0 n MAILING ADDRESS: UC' ^V ,`�tl1fl S t-ci m 1u Gcee(-, S C. aq 5 1 TELEPHONE:(HOME) `e lno' - C1�T S "r C% t (p (WORK) gas - (0 9q - (06 3 '3 REPRESENTATIVE: V A MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE:(HOME) (WORK) DIRECTIONS 1. Please answer all questions on this form completely. 2. Attach a sketch of the Conceptual Design for the proposed use or activity,showing the following information: a. Vicinity sketch; b. North arrow and scale; c. Property boundaries and identification of land uses on adjacent properties; d. Means of ingress and egress; ' e. Property/lot drainage; f. Possible locations of sewage disposal and water supply systems; g. Location of utility easements;and h. Proposed location of buildings, including setbacks to property boundaries. 3. Attach payment of the applicable fee,as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance. - PRE-APP CONFERENCE.DOC REV.10/08/2001 Property Description General Location: el.,1-LAM 0^t Pi,c 1 I'\ 8 ern Glut by fri 1a nt. Cad(G.CQ,n�- +o t Church w4 �n +ht I)3 J. ( jclt3.) (h4541r 2(a nit c so(\.. Legal Des iption(from Property ax Statement): 'Po r4 L c 1.3 LA) No tD Lo la vq /? 4o - 41 8/ 11 - agN - ? I t 9-Digit Parcel Number(from Property Tax Statement): 8c I 175 00 Total Acreage: 5 . 11 Zone: %Lot Coverage: Applicant: VOwner 0 Lessee ❑ Contract Purchaser ❑ Other Project Description �r Osal su-bd;.l;de 204 Lucl tom No is Lo I'd into ,l-wo S pert -e Cont. upper gone. lower ) . Add. 4- un� ( (�� ^ col wo yr.) k1,3 rezone e lo(Jae r eon-mmarc . * ►4 ')o53-1 l,IQ I can re9ups+vn G rt- Iica-lwn Gogae4cc via 4tk'phone ('olcutnce, 6AIl (1S .i Cn1 eorren4l bra 4-eJ In u a c®r-1;n& OnJ do no+ ,Ian r.e.i IIOasln:ng� S+ct4c un+,t march aoo8 Property Owner(name and mailing address): V-).p i.1-ri l7Uf 5Q S310 ID tI s Ct(rt1 Luc.A1 Gr.t.tr SC. a9 05 I Standard Disclosure Information provided to a prospective applicant during the pre-application consultation is based on County regulations in effect at the time of the pre-application consultation. Revised or new County regulations could affect a future development application. A pre- application consultation does not vest a future development application. By signing the application form,the applicant/owner attests that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of their knowledge. I also certify that this application is being made with the full knowledge and consent of all owners of the affected property. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the applicant/owner with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities, judgments, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. ! further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. This right of entry shall expire when the County (through the Administrator or the Administrator's representatives)concludes the application has complied with all applicable laws and regulations. Access and right of entry to the applicant's property shall be requested and shall occur only during regular business hours. 101)` (r"-- I . ... of I 04 os (SIGNATURE) (DATE) I hereby designate to act as my agent in matters related to this pre-application conference. (LANDOWNER SIGNATURE) (DATE) PRE-APP CONFERENCE.DOC REV.10/08/2001 Page 2 Map Output Page 1 of 3 Features not surveyed x 1 ii 4 961400047E 8t`_4i0 v 8 ti' ce .: tt� 99(7500044 -__ __ w . ;98070006c ' 'c el 9905000310*'., - 990700073' 990500030 990700088 Lt ;_22 0009-Y.)019 9..,...!,......'3 f _ ',1 82"+`../X∎3 w"•:!• =d050C470d ,y_ 0004i'. 81" +---- v,m,._N Cr .98050;•_rz �,- 74111 30d72E47 516(.7G199 990600001 ,990100004 821171014 8211.14098211 00S' •••r_O:* 1171008 "1. % 821171007 _...OAICBAY ‘6) Qp, 821?73003: z 8244,/-0.).}. . .g688Y', + 821+x'001�t «w�.- Q 'C #j • B I 1. "'` ' • 1172002 I 82 ''. UNKNOWN, .4 J` 9688x::=- c 4,.,,,,,,,,,D, 968800102- '- ' ' ' 117 ii.« ',.4a:r3'n.dedvy.x.:l.x,i Canty Cerra Sereces GIS et 06w. .. S http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientVer... 1/8/2008 3 The preceding image depicts the zoning of parcel # 821175005 and surrounding areas. ,.. 1 ... 4. Ft . ... , '--:-. _ , 4('').1.1:4 .1 I 1V;;:' - :■'. li .... - ,-- _ -I,.. ..., , , . .... u ( . _,:..., .....„ , , ..-,- .g._ . , . .._ _ _ . _ _ .. a t. _ 1 , _ _ -I i i .-.. - ,... -. , ..... ,, t..... .... .... . _, . .. . . ., ._ cc ,...,.. , .r __—___\- -...., il— ...I., 8 --: . ___---__—___\-- .... .1 lti -•-•• Z -'14sie.,1 ,______------------ , ....._ *ti ''• i II MI1 ,,,.. L), s-, 429 ..zzi ..,2 -2 El' ffl '-g ta , ... .._ Si S" ::. \ A. , ia I 1 ),--, -' ,.; L. 1 L_ i,-.,,L' ---- 1 1. , JAN - 72007 'c.,... .....___i 4 The following image depicts the development of the surrounding lots as per Jefferson County WA 2005 aerial photographs. r `A4 fy r. ft t i ids #� 8t )'908 t p s 0' . 0 ".OAK BAY RO°° i...; API m x �: eat Psj 0 .�, it *y n5c mDx r i p V"IAGE rar _ '° r + . ' g8 r s 82"+'N'1 ` 958080896 :968BO00'9 SH ' &. 3 956808804 968800:+1 558900013*.,......'"8 a '-:9688006,1 9668000'A. ,958AWOk a v ti I Max aadedDeR3ramCartyCeirs&was(IS �n a . L.' \- \- 1")► JAN - 7 2007 l Keith Guise Home: 864-848-421d A N - 7 2007 810 Dills Farm Way Cell: 828.699-6538 J Greer, SC. 29651 % " ` L.::r LU °rILN1 This Pre-Application Conference request is for the proposed subdivision of Port Ludlow No 6 Lot 12 V9/P40-41 8/17-28N R1E tax parcel number 821175005, into two separate lots, and for rezoning the lower lot from MPR-SF-Tracts to allow commercial development. Currently the lot size is 5.79 acres and the proposed subdivision would result in two separate lots, one upper and one lower each approximately 2.60 acres in size,thus satisfying the density requirements. The upper lot is to remain zoned residential and will eventually contain one private residence with access and utilities serviced by the Bluebird Lane easement. The proposed lower lot will have separate access from Oak Bay Rd,which it fronts, and possibly utilizing the location of the existing logging road. The precedent for rezoning has been established as the properties to the east and south of this lot are currently zoned commercial (MPR-Village Center). The adjacent property is still zoned MPR-SF-Tracts but is utilized as a Church not a residence. Additionally, Port Ludlow No 6 Lot 12 was removed in 1998 from the Ludlow Maintenance Commission by a previous owner with separate CCRs established with Olympic Resource Management for the express purpose of commercial development. My request for rezoning the lower lot is to eventually construct a small building that will fill the demand for small commercial lease spaces in Port Ludlow for area businesses. The proposed subdivision and rezoning may even indirectly result in creation of some local jobs in retail or office administration. Page 1 of 1 David W. Johnson From: Michelle Farfan Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:43 AM To: David W. Johnson Subject: RE: MPR Subdivison They would need to construct the line to the parcel boundary. Michelle Farfan Associate Planner, FHM Lead Dept. of Community Development 621 Sheridan Port Townsend WA 98368 mfarfan @co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4457 360-379-4473 (fax) This document is intended only for the person(s)to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged, proprietary or other data protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, copying or distributing this document is prohibited. From: David W. Johnson Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:26 PM To: Michelle Farfan Subject: MPR Subdivison Michelle, I have a pre-app for a subdivision in the MPR. I understood that if sewer were available, they would need to hook up to it. Is that correct? For the purposes of the subdivision, couldn't they just say they have access to water and sewer through OWSI and proceed with the application? Thanks! David Wayne Johnson Associate Planner Port Ludlow Lead Planner Jefferson County Dept of Community Development 360.379.4465 1/17/2008 435974 1111 SOf04/2000 11:40A Jotforgan County, WA POPE RESOURCES RESO 090.00 ORDINANCE NO.O$-1004-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10.1214-98 and adopting new • regulations for the Pon Ludlow Planned Resat development TABLE MPR-SF Density Minimum Minimum Front Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Yard . Setback Setback Impervious Setback Surface 4 5,000 sq.ft. 40' 20' 5' 5' 45% DU/AC 4 3,500 sq. ft. 40' 20' 5' 5' 2,250 square feet DU/AC Conditional for any lot less Use required than 5000 sq.ft. in size • Section 3.106 Commercial Forest Land Buffers: New developments on property located adjacent to lands designated Commercial Forest are subject to the requirements of the County's Forest Lands Ordinance No. 01-0121-97. Section 7.20(1)of the Forest Lands Ordinance allows modification of the standard 250'setback from adjacent commercial forest.lands. Within the MPR- SF zone, the following limitations shall apply to any agreement to modify the standard buffer or setback requirement for development adjacent to.Commercial Forest land. 1. An average setback of at least 200' shall be maintained. 2. Critical areas and critical area setbacks or buffers shall not be included in the calculation or areas used to establish the 200' average setback distance. 3. A minimum setback of 150' shall be maintained. 4. Natural vegetation and forested areas shall be maintained in a native state,but may be managed to ensure healthy reforestation and avoid hazards to life or property. 5. The boundaries of the buffer or setback area shall be visibly marked during and following development. 6. When established through a platting process,the buffer or setback area shall be designated on the face of the plat as a separate open space tract. 3.107 Accessory Dwelling Units Prohibited: Accessory dwelling units shall not be allowed in the MPR-SF zone. 3.108 Conceptual Site Plan Requirement: Prior to preliminary plat approval in the south area designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as requiring a"conceptual site plan,"a plan shall be submitted to the. Department of Community Development showing a concept for development of the entire south area. The conceptual site plan shall illustrate at least one development option for the entire south area and shall at a minimum address required buffers,road layout,and potential phasing. SECTION 3.20 SINGLE FAMILY TRACT ZONE(MPR-SFT) Section 3.201 Purpose: This zone recognizes, maintains and promotes larger, single family Page 9 of 26 435974 N1�ei {1:40A AO forum county. MA PM RESOURCES RESO 500.10 ' ORDINANCE NO.08-1001-99 repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance 10-121448 and adopting new development regulations for the Port Ludlow Plumed Resort residential tracts within the MPR. Section 3.202 Permitted Uses:The following uses are permitted within the MPR-SFT zone: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Accessory uses and structures, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment, when clearly subordinate and supplemental to a permitted use. 3. Accessory buildings,such as barns,stables and similar structures,when clearly-subordinate and supplemental to a permitted use. 4. Home-based business. 5. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting or development review process. Section 3.203 Conditional Uses:The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MPR SFT zone: 1. Trails,parks,open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting or development review process. 2. Above-ground electrical substations,sewage pump stations and treatment plants,and potable water storage tanks or facilities. Section 3.204 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height Section 3.205 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements:Bulk and dimensional requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-SFT below. TABLE MPR-SFT Maximum Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Impervious Density Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Surface . 1 DU/2.5 2.5 AC 100' 25' 25' 25' 20% AC Section 3.206 Accessory Dwelling Units Prohibited: Accessory dwelling units shall not be allowed in the MPR-SFT zone. Page 10 of 26 Parcel Print Page 1 of 1 Parcel Number: 821175005 05/14/2007 Owner Mailing Address: KEITH GUISE CARLA GUISE 810 DILLS FARM WAY GREER SC 296515571 Site Address: Section: 17 School District: Chimacum (49) Qtr Section: NE1/4 Fire Dist: Port Ludlow(3) Township: 28N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1E Tax Code: 231 Planning area: Port Ludlow(7) Sub Division: PORT LUDLOW NO 6 Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: PORT LUDLOW NO 6 I LOT 12 V9/P40-41 8/17-28N-R1E I I I E, No Photo Available http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/assessors/parcel/parcelprint.asp?PARCEL_NO=821... 1/8/2008 CASES, FINDING, CONDITIONS, PERMISSIONS FOR Parcel 821175005 Printed: January 8, 2008 Cases Name Review Type Status Planner PRE08-00001 GUISE I P Application Received: 1/8/2008 Permit Issued/Case closed: Case Finaled: The proposal is to subdivide lot 12 into 2 seperate lots (one upper and one lower). Additionally, the applicant wants to rezone the lower lot to commercial. No findings, conditions,or permissions found. Page 1 of 1 ■ • C: Co H O = O O' U- Cu _0 Z LL \ 0 I—I O (.0 .. .. m ¢ C) ci- a) — co O z o -o — co o O L J 'O x C: •O -1-.' U) C U O = F— LU 0 O Z -+-I "O I—I 0) 0) Q -- O L L C U I~ 4 _0 0 U U Q Z 0 7 O J 0_ 0_ X — •\ U F- F- O O LU .- O) C: I a) a) Z O) "0 O = 0 Cu U C= I •C3 LU N C = = 3 F— .— CO \ O .— 0 (ID '�. J U CM N CC CO Z 10 C .— H LO -- CO = } I M } CU d- Q I— I's CO I CD 3 LD -D CC O O W CD CO C L U .-- O J LU g 0) LU CL ti Z 0_ CO CC Cr Cu O \ Q O CC •' CC X 0) 2 X "-. O LL I LU LL CO CL Cu O • I— Q CC CO CO U CO J I—I F- I-I H CO CO C) J Cu O W LLI = = J = CL = Y I— CD CD J U LU -0 J Cu X LU I—I CC U .— F- a) J 2 Q 0 C: I- LU O) C1 1- J LU O C: 1- CD U) co = I-I C: O W a) O O H O 0_ O W Q — C: CD 0_ J = ++ �. U Y U CD CD CD (O — +J 0 L!) O CO >. O O O 117 LJ) .- ti CO I—I Cu = ti CO CD ti O ti O ....... O I~ O O O "0 L CY) O LO U a) Cu a # C O CO 0) -• L 3 L I-I Y C — a) O +I a) = CD CI) )) a) •- mf) CD L a) 0 (O a) -0 > (O 0 L L 0_ — 0 a) O_ C- O N X -I-I U 'O X 10 CO 0_ (0 -- -- CU a) I- F- X q- F- CO CO c{- X X F- Q JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: D U REFUND REQUEST/POSTING MEMO The amount of Kl.1331\1`,�c �� received from for(case#) e. Eo O ' ©)OO\ is to be refunded to: •. A r goo ( . A).to q SS-11 i as a result of: .. . ■ _ . �..r ►�_� 1 - a St q.� Date number of original receipt: S 9.1 Q 0. I O. 1 — �� Q REVENUE FUND CODE NO. REVENUE SOURCE NAME AMOUNT 143-000-010 322.10.00 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS BM 143-000-010 322.40.20 ROAD APPROACH PERMIT APPLICATIONS RAP 143-000-010 322.40.30 UTILITY PERMIT APPLICATIONS 143-000-010 322.40.80 ADDRESS FEES 911 143-000-010 334.04.20.20 CTED GRANTS 143-000-010 341.50.00 SALE OF MAPS&PUBLICATIONS PUBS 143-000-010 341.60.00 DUPLICATING SERVICES COP/DUP 143-000-010 345.81.00 SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS 143-000-010 345.81.10 CAMPER CLUB APPLICATIONS 143-000-010 345.81.20 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEV.PERMIT APPS 143-000-010 345.81.30 CURRENT USE TAX ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS 143-000-010 345.81,40 ZONING APPROVAL APPLICATIONS 143-000-010 345.81.50 CRITICAL AREA REVIEW CAR 143-000-010 345.81.60 CONVERSION OPTION HARVEST PLAN COHP 143-000-010 345.83.00 PLAN CHECK FEES 143-000-010 345.83.10 FIRE MARSHALL PLAN REVIEW 143-000-010 345.89.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SEPA 143-000-010 346.22.30.40 DCD Water Review 143-000-010 359.90.60 SHORELINE VIOLATIONS 143-000-010 359.90.65 BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS 001-250-000 369.90 MISC TREASURER REV-BAD CHECK FEE 127-000-010 346.22.30.10 HEH523 WATER AVAILABILITY FEES H2O 127-000-010 346.22.30.10 HEH541 LIQUID WASTE FEES SEPTIC )-36).00 127-000-010 346.22.30.10 HEH545 EES 3RD Party Inspector Report Filing Fee 127-000-010 346.22.30.10 HEH582 SHORT/LONG PLAT FEES 127-000-010 346.22.30.10 HEH549 SEP Other 0/5 180-000-010 322.40.50 RIGHT OF WAY APPLICATIONS 180-000-010 343.20.10 ROAD FUND 626-000-010 239.10 PLNG TRUST ACCT 650-511-000 386.00 STATE BLDG CODE FEES 659-003-030 367.13 FIRE DIST#3.MITIGATION FEES 685-049-030 300.00.00.2900 SCH DIST#49.MITIGATION FEES TOT REF ! ) b . 00 Authorized person signature: J . Treasurer's check#: bate: Treasurer's signature: G:/PermitCenter/DEPOSIT/Refund Form 12-2005.doc �c' ° ,bey Jefferson County D C D Invoice No. 08-50-- i, � ° : 1, 621 Sheridan Street " Port Townsend, WA 98368 "yeti. o (360) 379-4450 fax(360)379-4451 INVOICE c-- Customer Name Keith &Carla Guise Date 1/8/2008 Address 810 Dills Farm Way MLA# PRE08-00001 City Greer State SC ZIP 29651-5571 Case# Phone J Case# Qty Description Unit Price TOTAL 1 Subdivision Pre-App Fee Balance $7.00 $7.00 1 Public Works Pre-App Fee Balance $3.00 $3.00 1 Environmental Health Pre-App Fee Balance 14.49---- �$. .OA--- tAAA Wail tArc.,,A. TA , \ I oatItc-tivertAA til-tuwa1/4.Lk OA Please Make Payable to: Jefferson County Please Mail to: 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 /0,0'C. SubTotal 31A,9e' Payment Details o Cash O Check O Outstanding TOTAL $ }c60" Name Check# _ Office Use7rly Receipt# Department of Community Development JEFFERSON COUNTY 7L� NO. 95547 DATE I - 1- O B RECEIVED FROM • DESCRIPTION BARS# AMOUNT CURRENCY i)(e --�" , ._5(„? q 0 Eli- t3Aa)r( te ATP xi -c, -fticce_Q. 139 t 9 ©05 RECEIVED BY TOTAL at WIP CC 0 t s y 4' w ..f.0yy Of e Q: illik. 0 lir c) _ a co ___. a c tG• e . ,,,,a, .. . „,,,,,,„,,, iii E +sue '`' li At E, ,e T u) Nr N . (NI N r Z W h r to yl ,- .• n' t lo. '• ".. '., • '. . ' , ,_ . ... • *IN --'4441" 4 -, .•• • ••t* r If: , i ts: :;i ::,..71 .„ ..i.-„. . . * ,. ‘ . .., •. , ..•.....:, .., • ...,,. . \ Jr ..- - . .,' 0. ••• ,. 1., : , ..: , +6.-; . ,..,.. r ..!. .• _ ,,,, ' * ' ' ' .-.:':.- . .. . • . ..... k . ..... . ..••• .- , , - --.• lei"' • --"4- . -•-' ., - •• I •- - : '•:_, ' -:... .. . (j-.. ... .....;„ , 0, . . '-•:Ip 7.-ts..1)...4::,•:',',..1•••••'...'f..,. • . 4. • . • • 4 400 7 . , . .,‘ :. •I . , i • -'• ., .,?r, ' .=. •' ' • I • . , •..-•...: , ,,.., .. , . k■' IL 'Y'v'''. 0 '''•• ' , *, • ‘,1..'...'. ...,.":•V‘11 'i.e.."'' •. '.." • .'‘., ,10, -'. !41.:. '''/ , • 9. - ...•••• • - *2 •1;. A.,• -,....•••••• 1:•• ..,..,..,.....,, . .... .. : :•,• . ,ti.,. ....., • ..,...• ..:•• . .?.... ii,..• ,, 't. : •„. . :„ ‘• 8 .: A ,., ..:,, .,, , -•c,,•,.4'....• .t't"i# f 4..... 111 44'4 i': •••'••• 1) 'f•'.. •'''' • .• ' . % .7.-''', .,..-•;40• • , . „ . •.•wt. . : 1 I ..1,,i,.,.r . • *.=...,A;•.• • ' V 1 '- : .." ' ,% •-•.1::, ...i.-',.• ..,:“:, . : "l'.. 1 f i ',, II.,.•. it , ,,.. , .1 A i g. • ...:*:"."......,:"..;?•-„;, .. .,. : '.- Z. ;-• . Ai . • ' ., :. ...., . • . ..- - ,..,.-t•-* A - .:.4-.i„ ••'• -.i . „. ' ... .. .: ,. l• -.= - -,'tar-,Z :::„ .-,..„..„... v ,,. .- .,,,t - ,.. A.' '''' • ,. , %,r) :•• • :;•.„. •„ ,:____ rsi ... .1:. , ,,.: „w , 0. ,.,•••:. .,• ,,.. ,.... .. .. . .• : .. ce,I .i, •: : ._ ,,,,., • . . ,...,..:::„...,, ,... ..3 -.-- ...,.,;;,„.„,..., ., ....t.t, i ...- , -"__ _ v „_. :•,- . - .•N ' • ' ' ' ' • :t..,-,, . • • . ',., ,.i. • • P ' '3 i '....."--* - ., • •.-;'*ilj". .■.: , ;'-' , i 't , • ;'' t ' -/ .2.1.-i ' 4.:. ' .--•: -:-....,. • I .,. !•:;;:•:"....•• ......... f-.-4 - ::::•,' .. „ ...,., : ,-'• r „. wig' .i..; - - ." .•,,,, .. •-•• , .• , .. 1 ••:.•.- -' '. • . 4 . i ' •••••-- .: • .• . ,n•••. : •;::: ':•,',. . • -.0 ,•. ....., :-•. •;:•.....•-• _ 4, : ,,.„.... . • , • .... I.. •.. . ..• .■ ;• • ',;'1,...... .•.if•• ' = .=r-••• 4,-•- i , ••• • •• • .. 'V' t:::• ). .cht.s.:„.:1,.>„.....,. -. • :,..1 ti, ..... •••,.. • .. , ,...... • • I ..4. • ..- •••• ..1. f", •- mo 0:,:. ,.• ...• L.,...........i:-„,.: - ... ..i - li. 1:-..- ' 4.=••1;1!....:* • :. T:'`-' i'..... . ...‘ . P, . . . • . ...4_, . . ... ., ., • 1 4 t 4. .1•.4,- • •......., 7,.. • .„ . ......ri,..• ••,-..v. .. .. . :-.„. ., • - .. ;I, • •:. :::• . _.. . ,.:... . . . ........ „„.. , . _ ,:•• ._ ,• . ....„ , ........ .. _... .. ... ............ ... . • . r. .. .. ••.=.4.1" .. • 3, .„, , ,... ••- ., 7, „...„ • . •• . _•. •$,:...........#: ..4 - • .-..-.4..,r!..tiii.:::,,. .... ... •-•.. . .. - - • : .,:.. tkg..:,-,....t=:.,. g•i:.,:.... :4,147 f',.-".•,' •• :,;:i--..,... . 2- - "...„.: 11••••.2.:•• .i.,•.:1:.:.. .•• •,-4'` .' . • ,, • - . • • i •<,..= •• , :: ... ....V .. . - -.r..,',. • "i, f I..VS 1 7 . ,• .:. 1 . : . _„.,,,,,, .. VP „ ..., •ti,'.'„.... 'to 1 ' ' ' • - .. , • . ,- ..• .•.,.... . .. .. ., . ,:.. • :. • • - • •• 1...• -.4-''''' . ••:...... ... .-. - • . • ,,,. ., .....,-.. .... • ::.„}„ quos ' '' "'..1 ..34 'Ss • • .. .1' '''. • . ,'. ... : • 1. . .. •i:''. q... _ 1 . ' ' ''l ''...4.• ".• • 0 • . .?:• 7 . I t . .. .: ,i•■ 2 . „ • . .. . . , . -",• .. ... ...• .....„. ,,.. s• • ••.•. .. , 5...., ,. . .: •. • . , - 1 • .„ . .• ,, . :. 4,....1 ,, • •. : : .. .,.... .. 1. , •••:. ,A...:,...., . 4P ' I ;. -.• . 1.. '-.• .... A. ie 2, , :- • -.' • ,--',.$,,- I, -,D , , . ..„ ...... . .... . , -• ,444.,,,,. \*.:;. ...., ••..:: , • :•,,,,• .• . . •••••,,oz• .i.:-• -, . . . .. .. -. . : . . .. • 4 . ., . I ' . • '.. 1 .:". . •'' - • n . ... , r .t •. . ... ...: ...•• . - ,•. • . - ' ';•'' , 'A. . • • • • :. , . • •,E;.-• ..., 'i,4....,*,:s,,'' • :(...f.' i--,'•'Ili .. . .:.:' .-. . .. .: `'.1if'-....,. •.4:.i r. i"::.:4. , it , .. . :.. . .#• r.,41 • . .. . . ... •• ...,- t f_... ... . . • ... -. .,. !..• 4, 4...:•,.. IV..;.ej , .f -, '.. ..; .. ...? .., ,.e. 4.... ;:7,„.....„4,o.• _... ...-r••-•-...:-... ...., - 1*,•-i,'"_...„:%--7.-....TH.; -' ,."!.•!..".:.„,.. ..• ' ...!4,:l.%.1 ' -- ' . . • ••• .ik• .6.,..,. ../.. ,.....40..,-.,,:e.'`.!,/ T.:. .. • , • . --v , - ......k. .. .,.:. „:- . , _.•. •.. ...: .". ••,,:. .. 1:-. •,. ,. • . ,; , • 4.4 _ • . _ ... .`iir'... 1....:-Irt1:-.---..7-7 4-',-: •.... •,,, .3.. : :. 40,. '11 . '...i, . , ,. J ,, "••,''7:...,',"-. it.ire' :• .'•... ..t.1,.,,.,,:.■,,...,. ,4,. .4 v.. i.,. ' t'-'-' '',... . ..4 .L.A,.7::•.•:.'. - ... . ......'4..-•• •;,• -...:1.--i...„•••••,;•"..,•:••....!:. oft.4.-K.,,.. of: :;.,.. . ..;1-...-.. ..,..f. itt. .,. . . - ;:. ',4;.. , . , . • •-• .:‘, , ;••-.4 • -.. ., •••• ••• ....:: :".• , ;I • ••„; • 4 • ,.,..: •,.....,4„.: "x":,.. .... -. ....--.4;:-.,.:::.:•:. At'', • ...:, „ .... .....likt'2,,. -.• ....,,.. ! .:..:. ., .,.. . ,,... ---;---- •••• •''''''4...4," - ' ....'•,_ . ..' - ••••••:.•••ir• .. •• . '•,•,'' •'..'"E:' • • ••;;;r•-••• ';''...• .:-.••• , ; •.:: •;!;,• •..- ", ''.;••"•-,;•••' ' i•• , . : • •-••• .„. . .. .. ..... ', .4.•• • ...... ....; ,.7 3;•:-..;:i . ., 44.:41117.?,...•.-•VP.7.X...,•.. •_ l': ' ....• ; • .,.....• .v.',,,t,•''..',....:.' •• . `'. 1 "•:'4 : . . .... .. ... . .. ,..: , .,..:4.. i„,.,• .,... :. .., . ., At.. II P:lt, ''''',..;..'•, • -.i.,. . •, •''' . ,f4i,f'1141; :, - , ..:. .•,, ::.--; ! .4:- r. . - =,,, -•....,., ,• ••••: i • •0 . ••AvosP:', •,.#.• -.-••••• ' :.-- ••• • ill' ,'',.- 9•it• ••t. i • 4 ..=e',"T.---"-7..''' . "''';.s''r 1 gi '!".°:''',,,, ''',',.;I.,: .7.."•'4[1.- '...q-...:: I ,............; .?".'• - ,• : .• -"... ,1•,. .. ...---,..i.:-; ag, ,..•.40 ift''.-''' • .--pia, l'" -'' '''.. 4, '. • •ii . ......... 1 '"Ai•s ' 'fliit-: A.-• ' .."- .... •• •• • • .• 4.... -'1'. • . •-•••4•••••••-•-••- .••■4.• .:. •40 •,:,...••••: : . ...,4 1.-t : - . - .., . . • •.••••••• c.eic.i4;,ir.._•••„ . • .• \ ,. • q" • 4. . -'*b... < 1. .'- Vt.-;ft-' ,..'.' ..• ,„, .... :.. ..„ r. . ... •4?<:., : -., „ i...;"'7' ...: ' : •"••, ,....0:::,„,ilik.. ..... , ... r tii. _. .."4" • ,..4...i.i.,-.....:::,...........;„ .:•••?.:7`;',••. ›ii-i,' •;•.-1'.•:,....'•:':i ' '''''' -.'-; '''• -• • -.."••-•:..-„...."' • ..'"Ih..:''''.' ••.- • ; ••• '1 '4%; , ' ' -"' ikllot''7 ••••,,- ---'i 0 •• •-..- • •••,t...' ' • .,...,.-4,' •.„.,.•,,i•:.,„••. • jest .; r_,. - ,4:- '., -;-;t''' .•'-'-.. •,.. • .--.41 '‘, . •...k i ''. ', '-'-„ ' 3 ::'....el" .....ii:'..-.4;i: ' ..' f'•i;',.'-..-;•'• K. : :......'..:. •:. . '''.: ' --..,:;v:..',..,,..- :1. ..........-. :11,I. ' 1, ::..•. '7• 1 ) . - .• - : ;..-- 4:4 r4...4...::,.•,•";•• .,.-,.`......lt. IV •i..:;'''. '' ..'''':::.•'''''•...... I •'*•••'''... .•'''.'$'r - c':"••'.. :,,1 ..ir..•: 'z : •• •'• , -' •1• ''''.. ' 4:1.7 ''••• '' iet ....s.F, •.:1•11'.' . Jill',47‘,..*ir.• • •• ' ..•--. --:.- ,,.1;':0•4,., -. • -....:••'.,A. ..0 ,, ‘r.• ..,..;4:* I 'I -4 :4 / . •%, 1.'A'i ' ';* •••;'• :d ''. .••••''. ''.71i 0. ;147 •'?'''':::''; :.,'•'•,',..''-;.• •'-• '.:•• •-•--il •VA ,L" .......:': 4*W -',..:,,--• •-• . ••••-; :op , .• •••!•:.:•'40. .11,41.1, * , ..;;;.:' ,..,..,.k-1,,,,,A.•A f.1. .-"...'' .. ... ..•',.111004 4. , . - . ..-'...-', ,-....-: • • - ' : 1 . . -",- . ,', .' ,.., .. 6 g"6.,,-"•• - • , ,--• " ' "'"` Ni' ., ttA . ''' '•••''' . •'''''•.•:':i140'''•6 : ' *'.. ,ilipo,:.t....: :'-1 ' -• • • • • , -,