Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 1028 94ORDINANCE NO. 15-1028-94 JEFFERSON COUNTY INTERIM URBAN GROWTH AREA JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Robert Hinton, Chairman Glen Huntingford, Member Richard Wojt, Member October 28, 1994 VOL O FAG! 0 JLSf;(; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson IN THE MATTER OF an interim land use } control designating an Interim Urban } Growth Area pursuant to 36.70A.110 RCW, } ensuring that development will be } encouraged in urban areas, and not in } rural areas. } ORDINANCE NO. 15-1028-94 The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners enter the following findings: 1. Jefferson County has historically experienced rapid population growth which is likely to continue. Jefferson County Planning Department data, based upon figures obtained from the Washington State Office of Financial Management, indicate that Jefferson County experienced compound annual growth rates of: ten and six -tenths percent (10.6%) for the years 1960 to 1970; forty-nine and seventy-five hundredths percent (49.75%) for the years 1970 to 1980; and twenty-seven and eighty-two hundredths percent (27.82%) for the years 1980 to 1990. The population growth during the years 1980 to 1990 placed Jefferson County among the fastest growing counties in the State of Washington. 2. Jefferson County's population growth rate requires that the County and the City of Port Townsend develop comprehensive plans and development regulations under the statutory requirements of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A.040 RCW). 3. In the passage of the Growth Management Act the Washington State Legislature found that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of our state (Chapter 36.70A.010 RCW). 4. The Growth Management Act contains goals to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations for counties and cities required to plan under the statute (Chapter 36.70A.020 RCW). 5. Specifically, the Growth Management Act seeks to encourage development in areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner and to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development (Chapter 36.70A.020(1) and (2) RCW). Page 1 of 17 d � VOL Cu ° FACE 1567 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 6. The Growth Management Act defines "urban growth" as growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings structures and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires urban governmental services (Chapter 36.70A.030(14) RCW). 7. The Growth. Management Act defines "characterized by urban growth" as land having urban growth located on it, or ... land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth (Chapter 36.70A.030(14) RCW). 8. If not properly planned and managed within the framework provided by the Growth Management Act, meeting the demands of a rapidly growing County population is likely to cause suburban sprawl, commercial strip development, commercial and industrial development at inappropriate locations, damage to environmentally sensitive areas and loss of natural resource lands and open spaces. Also, this pattern of development is likely to create demands for urban services and utilities at densities which are insufficient to support their extension and only at a significant cost to tax payers. 9. The Growth Management Act requires that Jefferson County designate interim urban growth areas by way of development regulation on or before October 1, 1993, and permanent urban growth areas at the time the revised Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is adopted (Chapter 36.70A.110 RCW). 10. These regulations conform to and implement the provisions of the Growth Management Act and the Procedural Criteria for Adopting Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Procedural Criteria) that relate to the establishment of interim growth area (Chapter 36.70A.110 RCW and Chapter 365-195-335 WAC). 11. Consistent with the Growth Management Act and the Procedural Criteria, these regulations designate an interim urban growth area within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if not urban in nature until development of the Comprehensive Plan or development of the information and analysis required by the GMA and Countywide Planning Policies. (Chapter 36.70A.110(1) RCW and Chapter 365-195-335(1)(a) WAC). 12. These regulations designate the only incorporated city in Jefferson County as an interim urban growth area (the City of Port Townsend), consistent with the Growth Management Act and the Procedural Criteria (Chapter 36.70A.110(1) RCW and Chapter 365-195-335(1)(b) WAC). Page 2of17 VOL 26 FAG! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 13. Based on current data and considering the insufficiency of information provided by the City of Port Townsend regarding their land use capacity, these regulations establish an interim urban growth area of sufficient density to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the County for the succeeding twenty (20) year period, in conformance with the Growth Management Act and the Procedural Criteria (Chapter 36.70A.110(2) RCW and Chapter 365-195-335(1)(d) WAC). 14. In compliance with the Growth Management Act and the Procedural Criteria, the process of designating an interim urban growth area has included regular and frequent consultations with elected and appointed officials representing the City of Port Townsend. 15. In compliance with the Growth Management Act, Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have jointly adopted a County -Wide Planning Policy (County Resolution No. 128-92 and City Resolution No. 92-112) (Chapter 36.70A.210 RCW). The policy provides, in part, that the general pattern of future development in the County, including higher intensity development, should occur within mutually established urban growth areas and that outside of such designated areas, the rural character and benefits of the land should be maintained. 16. Policy 1.1 of the County -Wide Planning Policy requires that the County and the City jointly prepare a regional population forecast for growth management planning purposes, using the Washington State Office of Financial Management population projection as the low or base projection and establishing medium and high range projections. 17. In conformance with Policy 1.1 of the County -Wide Planning Policy, Jefferson County Planning Department staff prepared draft population projections in July of 1992. In July 1992, this draft population forecast was reviewed and provisionally approved by the Growth Management Steering Committee, pending further refinement by Port Townsend and Jefferson County Planning staffs. In February and March 1993, Port Townsend and Jefferson County Planning staffs held three meetings for the purpose of reviewing and identifying required revisions to the original population projections. In August of 1993, Jefferson County Planning Department staff completed and presented a final revised population forecast to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and the City of Port Townsend for review and comment prior to formal adoption by the Growth Management Steering Committee. The Growth Management Steering Committee reviewed the population forecast on September 16, 1993 and September 30, 1993. The City, however, must formally agree to the population forecast prepared by Jefferson County. They filed an appeal with the Western Washington Growth Planning (now Management) Hearings Board (WWGMHB) based, in part on the population projection. Subsequently an agreed upon projection was reached using a report prepared by Watterson West Associates. Page 3 of 17 'VOL FacF JM -69 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 18. Policy 1.2 of the County -Wide Planning Policy, read in concert with the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A.110(2) RCW), requires that urban growth areas be sized to accommodate one hundred percent (100%) of the Washington State Office of Financial Management projected low base population growth for the succeeding twenty (20) year period. 19. Figures released by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (and projected for the succeeding twenty (20) years by Jefferson County Planning Department staff) forecast a low base population growth for the twenty (20) year period beginning April 1, 1993 and ending March 31, 2013, of nine thousand two hundred and seventy (9,270) persons. The Watterson West report and the agreed upon population projection indicate the OFM projected low base population growth figure for the succeeding twenty (20) year period is not accurate. OFM has indicated their figures do not accurately reflect the actual growth rate. The majority of the OFM figure, however, will be allocated to Port Townsend. The remainder will be reserved pending outcome of the analysis of the study areas designated by this ordinance. The discrepancy between the OFM figures and the Watterson West figures shall be allocated following investigation of the study areas designated herein. 20. Policy 1.4 of the County -Wide Planning Policy indicates that Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow are under consideration as being "characterized by urban growth" for the purpose of designating urban growth areas in the unincorporated County. Policy 1.4 further requires that the Tri -Area Community Development Plan and the Port Ludlow Master Plan be used as guides in the delineation of urban growth area boundaries. However, the WWGMHB Final Order declares this information insufficient as a basis for IUGA designation. Therefore further study will be initiated and completed as designated herein. 21. Consistent with policy 1.3 of the County -Wide Planning Policy, these regulations designate interim urban growth area boundaries that will accommodate the projected low base population growth for Jefferson County. 22. The original Port Ludlow Master Plan conceived of a community with approximately six thousand (6,000) homesites. To date, approximately one thousand two hundred (1,200) homesites have received County approval, of which less than six hundred (600) have been developed. 23. For the purposes of these interim regulations, this ordinance establishes a Port Ludlow Interim Study Area encompassing all those areas lying within the Port Ludlow Master Plan boundary. 24. Consistent with policy 1.3 of the County -Wide Planning Policy, and the relevant provisions of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A.110(1) RCW), these Page 4 of 17 von 20 mE 01%E -p70 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 regulations designate the incorporated limits of the City of Port Townsend as an interim urban growth area. 25. Policy 1.7 of the County -Wide Planning Policy requires that the County adopt interim level of service standards for public services and facilities located inside and outside urban growth areas prior to adoption of urban growth area boundaries. 26. In conformance with Policy 1.7 of the County -Wide Planning Policy, Jefferson County Planning Department staff (in conjunction with the Jefferson County Capital Facilities Coordinating Committee) circulated draft Interim Level of Service Standards on January 17, 1992. During the period January, 1992 to August, 1993 the draft Interim Level of Service Standards were further reviewed and refined by Port Townsend and Jefferson County Planning staffs. On August 6, 1993, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted the Interim Level of Service Standards to guide the planning process and to ensure that all future development would be provided with an appropriate level of public services, compatible with each community's position in the County's settlement structure, and commensurate with the County's fiscal capabilities. The City appeal was also based on the Interim Level of Service Standards. The WWGMHB Final Order requires clarification of the Level of Service Standards. This Ordinance deletes all but the Port Townsend IUGA. The City has not provided the necessary information required by the Order. The County has further prohibited development and clarified the provision of services. 27. Policy 1.8 of the County -Wide Planning Policy indicates that urban growth areas will be separated from each other by designated rural or resource lands, open space corridors, or unique topographic features. 28. Consistent with policy 1.8 of the County -Wide Planning Policy, the urban growth area and study areas established by this ordinance are substantially separated from each other by areas that are currently designated as resource production or rural lands under the existing Comprehensive Plan, as well as areas that are contemplated for designation as resource or rural lands or open space corridors in the revised Comprehensive Plan. 29. In substance, policy 2.3 of the County -Wide Planning Policy requires that new development meet the adopted level of service standards as a condition of project approval. 30. Consistent with policy 2.3 of the County -Wide Planning Policy, these regulations require that new development conform with the adopted Interim Level of Service Standards and density standards. 31. Policy 2.4 of the County -Wide Planning Policy requires that urban governmental Page 5 of 17 'VOL ?10 ME 01�71 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 1 services not be extended beyond urban growth area boundaries unless needed to 2 mitigate a threat to the public health or welfare, or to protect an area of 3 environmental sensitivity. 4 5 32. In conformance with policy 2.4 of the County -Wide Planning Policy, these 6 regulations proscribe the extension of urban governmental services to unincorporated 7 areas outside the urban growth area boundaries. 8 9 33. Policy 2.6 of the County -Wide Planning Policy states in pertinent part: "The 10 minimum design capacity for all planned capital facilities will be based upon the 11 total population projected for the service area at the end of the twenty year period 12 identified in the adopted population forecast." The City of Port Townsend must 13 submit their Capital Facilities and associated analysis in order to comply with GMA 14 and Policy 2.6. 15 16 34. Policy 2.7 of the County -Wide Planning Policy states in substance that the City 17 of Port Townsend and Jefferson County will update the Coordinated Water System 18 Plan based upon the joint population forecast, and that such revisions may require 19 modifications to the land use elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the 20 community development plans. It requires further, that comprehensive plans include 21 water quality and water conservation policies and standards. The update is in 22 process. An October 21, 1994 letter recommended reliance on the 1986 CWSP. 23 24 35. The Growth Management Act requires Jefferson County to amend the Jefferson 25 County Comprehensive Plan and to enact permanent controls implementing the 26 revised Plan (Chapter 36.70A.040 RCW). A component of these statutory mandates 27 requires Jefferson County to adopt permanent urban growth areas (Chapter 28 36.70A.110). Accordingly, the urban growth area designation established by these 29 regulations is wholly provisional and is subject to revision. It is expected that the 30 interim urban growth area will be reviewed and refined during the preparation of 31 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and implemented through a permanent 32 zoning control. 33 34 36. On August 7, 10, and 19, 1993 Planning Department staff held public workshops 35 in Port Ludlow and Chimacum for the purpose of receiving public comment on the 36 establishment of interim urban growth boundaries, and to comply with the procedural 37 requirements of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A.140 RCW). 38 39 37. On September 1, 2 and 7, 1993, the Jefferson County Planning Commission held 40 meetings to review the proposed interim urban growth areas ordinance and prepare 41 a report for the advice of the Board of County Commissioners. This review and 42 report was accomplished in compliance with the requirements of the Planning 43 Enabling Act (Chapter 36.70.640 RCW). 44 Page 6 of 17 VOL wF 01,572 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 38. On September 20, 1993, the Board conducted a workshop with Planning Department staff to review the Planning Commission's report and recommendations and, based upon that report, to direct final modifications to the draft ordinance prior to public hearing. 39. On October 6, 1993, notice of public hearing(s) on the proposed interim urban growth areas ordinance was published in the Port Townsend/Jefferson County Leader. 40. Consistent with the procedural requirements of the Growth Management Act, the Board held public hearings at the Tri -Area Community Center on October 18, 1993 and at the Port Ludlow South Bay Recreation Center on October 21, 1993 for the purpose of receiving public testimony and written correspondence on the merits and deficiencies of the proposed interim urban growth areas ordinance (Chapter 36.70A.390 RCW). The Board and the Port Townsend City Council held a corresponding public hearing at the City's Recreation Center on October 25, 1993. 41. On October 27, November 1, 3, 8, 22 and 23, 1993, the Board conducted public workshops and discussions with Planning Department and Community Services staff for the purpose of reviewing and deliberating upon testimony received at the public hearings, and directing modifications to the proposed legislation. 42. In compliance with the Growth Management Act, the State Environmental Policy Act, and the relevant provisions of the Washington Administrative Code, these regulations have been subject to environmental review and threshold determination (Chapter 36.70A.110(4) RCW, Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC). The response regulation creates greater restrictions on development and thus eliminates or reduces the impacts, if any, to the environment created by the original ordinance. 43. Based on the Assessment of Interim Planning and Development Activities, the analysis of Building Permit issuance, lot creation, commercial development and the schedule of adoption of the Rural Element of the revised Comprehensive Plan, the Ordinance will not allow development to foreclose GMA planning options or significantly alter the rural character of Jefferson County. 44. Based on the opinion of the Jefferson County Health Department that no public health threat will be created by development pending adoption of the Rural Element of the revised Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance does not have the potential to significantly impact the aquifer in the Tri Area 45. The County had proposed to enact a response regulation that created a range of rural densities and concomitant regulation. The County consulted various parties and agencies in preparation of that ordinance. However, although positive response Page 7 of 17 6voL Q Face 01.5373 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 was received, the city indicated that their disagreement with County actions remained. Rather than waste the resources and time involved in meeting that lack of cooperation, the County believes progress toward ultimate GMA goals is more productive. The County thus withdrew that proposal in favor of a restrictive response. The County also proposes to implement the Rural Lands Element according to the aforementioned schedule. 46. The County initially enacted a moratorium on development to avoid uncertainty in the legal rights of its citizens and to allow preparation of its response. 47. Because the time allowed for such a moratorium under RCW 36.70A.390 will lapse, it is necessary to enact the required regulations immediately in order to provide assurance that some level of reasonable development may be permitted pending adoption of elements of the Revised Comprehensive Plan. 48. The Board deems an emergency exists based on the above findings and the record herein. 49. The Board intends this ordinance to apply to all property within the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County, to the extent permitted by law. 50. This ordinance allows for development to proceed in a manner consistent with the rights of individuals to peacefully use and enjoy their property. Concurrently, this ordinance encourages development in areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 51. These regulations bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare of the County as a whole. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: SECTION 1.00 Designation of Interim Urban Growth Areas. 1.10 Interim Urban Growth Area: For the purpose of this ordinance, the city limit boundary of the City of Port Townsend is hereby established as the Port Townsend Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110. Said boundary is graphically portrayed on Attachment "A". Page 8 of 17 '-VOL ME 0 1574 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 Section 2.00 Urban Population Allocation. 2.10 Population Reserve Created 2.20 Port Townsend Allocation 2.30 Port Ludlow Reserve 2.40 Tri -Area Reserve 2.10 Population Reserve Created: A reserve of the urban population allocated to Urban Growth Areas is hereby created pending outcome of the Port Ludlow and Tri -Area special studies. 2.20 Port Townsend Urban Population Allocation: Pursuant to County -wide Planning Policy No. 1(2), all of the urban population except as reserved in subsection 2.30 is hereby allocated to the City of Port Townsend IUGA. 2.30 Port Ludlow Reserve: Based on the Watterson West Inc. population forecast, 2500 persons of the population to be accommodated in urban growth areas has been reserved for the Port Ludlow study area. This reserve or portion thereof will be allocated to the Port Ludlow IUGA, if the area is so designated as a result of the special study provided for in Section 3.20 of this ordinance. Should the area have capacity to accommodate additional urban population, a portion of the Port Townsend UGA population may be reallocated. If capacity does not exist to accommodate the reserve population, the excess population will be reallocated to the Port Townsend UGA. 2.40 Tri -Area Reserve: Due to the nature of the Tri -Area aquifer recharge study, no population has been reserved at this time. Population distribution and allocation will be reevaluated following the results of that study and should the City of Port Townsend demonstrate it does not have capacity to accommodate the its urban growth allocation. SECTION 3.00 SPECIAL STUDY AREAS. 3.10 Glen Cove Industrial Area 3.20 Port Ludlow Area 3.30 Tri -Area Aquifer Recharge Area 3.10 Glen Cove Industrial Area: A special study area is hereby established as graphically portrayed on Attachment "A" following the boundary for the Highway 20 Corridor Light Industrial/Commercial (M/C-a) found on Map 7 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94). 1. Study Provisions: The Glen Cove Industrial Area will be studied to determine if this area should be included as part of an expanded Urban Growth Area for the City of Port Townsend or be retained as a stand alone rural industrial center. Page 9of17 VOL 20' Farm 0x 575 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 2. Interlocal Agreement: A interlocal agreement between the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County will be created establishing level of service parameters, annexation provisions (including tax -base sharing), service providers arrangement, development standards, concurrency requirements and project review processes. 3. Study Duration: Said study and interlocal agreement shall be completed within 180 days from the effected date of this ordinance. The provision of this subsection shall terminate 180 days from the adoption of this Ordinance or upon completion of the Interlocal Agreement which ever shall occur first. Should an Interlocal Agreement not be completed within the prescribed time period, the Glen Cove Industrial Area will be established as a stand-alone rural industrial center consistent with Policy #8(6) of the County -wide Planning Policy. 3.20 Port Ludlow Area: A special study area is hereby established as graphically portrayed on Attachment "A" following the approximate boundary of the Port Ludlow Master Development Plan. 1. Study Provisions: The Port Ludlow area will be studied to determine if this area should be established as a unincorporated UGA under the provisions of R.C.W. 36.70A.110. The study will evaluate whether Port Ludlow is "characterized by urban growth" under the provisions of R.C.W. 36.70A.110, evaluate the ability of the existing planned development to accommodate all or a portion of the urban population projection currently held in reserve, determine current and planned infrastructure capacity, define household facility costs and capital facility financing, evaluate limitations posed by critical areas, evaluate the size and delineation of boundaries consistent with County -wide Planning Policy No. 1(3) and evaluate elements of the existing master plan that would affect the ability of the area to receive all or a portion of the reserve population. 2. Study Duration: Said study will be concluded within 90 days from the effective date of this ordinance. 3. Study Effect: The conclusion of the study will be to determine if the Port Ludlow area or portion thereof should be designated as a Interim Urban Growth Area. Designation shall occur by an amendment to this ordinance, including Attachment "A". 3.30 Tri -Area Aquifer Recharge Area: A special study area is hereby established as graphically portrayed on Attachment "A" following the approximate boundary of the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (Ordinance No. 05-0509-94) underlaying the Tri -Area. The Page 10 of 17 VOL 20 iAGE 01576 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 aquifer recharge soil study area may extend beyond, but shall be no less, than the boundaries established herein. 1. Study Provisions: The Tri -Area Aquifer Recharge Area will be studied to determine potential impacts on aquifer recharge soils, in terms of water quality and water quantity, resulting from existing and future development within the study area. 2. Critical Area Ordinance Amendment: Based on the results of this study, the standards of the Critical Area Ordinance (Ordinance 05-05090-94) will be reviewed and amended, if required, to provide greater protection. 3. Study Duration: Said study and amendment to the Jefferson County Critical Area Ordinance shall be completed by December 31, 1994. The provisions of this section shall terminate on December 31, 1994 or upon adoption the aquifer protection standards which ever shall occur first. 4. Study Effect on Urban Area Consideration: The results of the study will be used to determine if future consideration should be given to the Tri - Area for possible designation as a Urban Growth Area or remain a component of the rural element of the comprehensive plan. Pending the outcome of the aquifer study, no population reserve has been established for future IUGA allocation to this area. Section 4.00 Interim Level of Service Standards. 4.10 Interim Level of Service Standards 4.20 Applicability 4.10 Interim Level of Service Standards: The adopted Interim Level of Service Standards are hereby amended and incorporated within these regulations as Attachment "B" 4.20 Applicability: All new development in Jefferson County that requires final administrative or legislative approval by the Jefferson County shall comply with the adopted Interim Level of Service Standards as a condition of project approval. Section 5.00 Extension of Existing Urban Governmental Services. 5.10 Extension Prohibited: Except as allowed by the adopted Interim of Level of Service Standards, new development occurring outside of the Interim Urban Growth Area shall be designed in such a manner as not to cause the extension of urban governmental services. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as restrictive or prohibitive of the in -fill of existing platted areas lying outside of the interim urban growth area where urban Page 11 of 17 VOL 20 Fac! 0 JL5 77 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 governmental services are provided. Further, nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to impose an obligation on the City of Port Townsend to extend or otherwise make available water service that it is not otherwise obligated to make available and serve. Section 6.00 Existing Lots of Record. 6.10 Effect: Nothing in this ordinance shall effect the use of existing lots of record provided said use is consistent with applicable Federal, State or County Statutes, Laws, Codes, Regulations or Ordinances. Section 7.00 Port Townsend Water Service Obli ag tion. 7.10 Service Obligation: The County hereby acknowledges City Resolution 93-72 which provides advanced notice that the City intends to reduce its service area outside of its boundaries. The County further recognizes the procedures established in the Coordinated Water System Plan for said service area adjustments. Section 8.00 Prohibition of Commercial/Industrial Rezones and P.U.D.s. 8.10 Applications Prohibited: For the duration of this ordinance, no applications for commercial or industrial zone reclassification or Planned Unit Developments shall be accepted or administered which would create in whole or in part a new zone or extension of an existing zone for commercial or industrial purposes. Section 9.00 Subdivision Densities and Lot Area Outside of Interim Urban Growth Areas. 9.10 Minimum Lot Area Required 9.20 Densities Required 9.10 Minimum Lot Area Required: All new subdivisions or short subdivisions occurring outside of the Interim Urban Growth Area established by this ordinance shall be designed in such a manner that each residential parcel created has a lot area of not less than one net acre in size. Lot area calculation are exclusive of road rights-of-way, road easements, community well easements and similar community encumbrances or dedications as portrayed on the plat. Drainage and utility easements, however, may be included as part of lot area calculations. 9.20 Density Required: Nothing in this ordinance shall allow new subdivisions or short subdivisions locating outside of the interim urban growth area established by this ordinance to create residential densities less than one unit per acre or as provided for in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and/or Community Development Plans. (Said densities are depicted on Attachment "A" for graphic purposes only. See Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and/or individually adopted Community Development Plans for specific densities provisions.) Page 12 of 17 .VOL 20 Face 01578 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 Section 10.00 Rural Element and Interim Overlay District. 10.10 Process and Adoption 10.20 District Effect 10.10 Process and Adoption: The schedule to fully create and develop the Rural Element to the GMA Comprehensive Plan and create a Interim Rural Overlay District is hereby adopted and included as Attachment "C". 10.20 District Effect: The Interim Rural Overlay District will be a special zoning district, complete with use tables and allowable densities, created to provide a framework for activities and uses locating outside of Interim Urban Growth Areas and Resource Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance. Said district will remain in effect until the GMA Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Regulation are developed and adopted. Section 11.00 Development Monitoring. 11.10 Monitoring Reports: The Jefferson County Permit Center will provide a weekly monitoring reports to the Board of County Commissioners, listing the number of commercial/industrial permits, residential building permits and mobile home siting permits by type and location; and the number of subdivisions, short subdivisions, and binding site plans including the number of lots proposed, average lot size, and location. Said reports shall include historical data to determine if new development proposals are within historical trends. Section 12.00 Severability. 12.10 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 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 13.00 Effective Date. 13.10 Effective Date: This Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety and shall become effective on the 31st day October of 1994. Page 13 of 17 1579 VOL 20 �a AGE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 Section 14.00 Adoption. 14.10 Adoption: Adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this 28th day of October, 1994. SEAL: r r��7 A'I='PES'' �.. a L2 Lorna Delaney, Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark Huth, Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF UNTY COMMISSIONERS R-65i4t Mpton, Chairman Page 14 of 17 .-VOL 20 Face 01580 C Attachment B INTERIM PUBLIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS December 1, 1993 These service standards are adopted pursuant to policy 1.7 of the CWPP requiring interim level of service standards for urban growth area planning. They are adopted as guides to the planning process and will be refined as numerical standards in the process of amending the Comprehensive Plan. The affect of these policies on development density is shown at the bottom of the table. Key: "UGA": Port Townsend and any designated Urban Growth Area. "RURAL CENTER": unincorporated communities designated in the revised comprehensive plan, such as Brinnon, Clearwater, Gardiner, and Quilcene. "RURAL LANDS": those areas not otherwise categorized herein that could be developed to Waal densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (until amended). "RESOURCE LANDS": any area designated "Resource" in the current or revised Comprehensive Plan. "allowed": permitted and will be evaluated in the Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities element. "provisional": allowed only until urban services are available, may require special design features or agreements. "conditional": prohibited except in special cases (see 2 below). "rot allowed": prohibited unless to mitigate a proven threat to public health and safety. (1): road standards are based on predicted traffic volume using Federal functional road classes. (2): higher standards may be required in Critical Areas or to mitigate proven threats to public health & safety. (3): as needed to comply with other County ordinances and the DOE Stormwater Manual VOL 2.0 Fa r � ® JL5 Q2 (4): designed in conformance with standards of the Coordinated Water System Plan. f u v PAGE 16 of 17 RURAL RESOURCE PUBLIC SERVICE <`i'C:::::::iE�i:::Ei?E!>fEEEi CENTS R LANDS a P rks Neighborhood Perks allowed E`%tick IE>�ltsl not allowed PtdaMatdb ike Accomoda tion built al highways &arterials �8 �#i#;i;G�_;.;i;?;`i;i;?;:; a ]lowed not allowed built along collectors ;:::<::i8l�i?e�E':?�`E' conditional :%<ilot9iioW#i# #??% not allowed built along residential streets`E^?:<;i;? conditional ;:;:::)Y#C811dfY!#li::;:; i;;.t' not allowed Public Roads (see 1 below gravel surface xxxx allow ed allowed paved surface �<�:t;�b`✓??'>':?? allowed conditional street lighting>:`�>?';`� � •`.� conditional ' :'%:z:#�t61fi��Ef1:�<> «�:�:?:?E conditional street cleaning ............:. ::::«<::«£<?i?:�:%��`�����`'i#'i?## not allow ed �<itOt�Pn!bA`� `':?':�r�i�' not allowed Safety Safe tlre/EMP !Police X.Public Response time good fair Sewage Treatment ( see 2 below On-Siteseptic :::::. allowed E`E allowed CommunityIke infield :>:. ....:::::::::::.:::::::::. ..........::.:.:.......................... alto wed conditional Sanitary Sewer ..:.:........::::::.:::::::.: :`:'•.`:tYtd::z::z::;z:::::: :;:.:;.:.:;•: 1 owed not 1 ::<fiiit biitk•.`•s•.'' is not allowed Solid Waste Collection Dr box onl ?�? E'O3!lSiptlB�E;:`?'E`>'<oE allowed is allowed Curbsidecollection o di[tonal :'':c 44g4r not allowedi: Stormwater System(set see 3 below ' iltmti On-site tnf on i��»<#<3?#'?>' allowed ::>?<`:':': conditional 'oral facilitiesii'•':�i'•iii>�.d) conditional GtAr�... ' not allowed' Transit Service Regional service i'i''''$I�b:'•E'�'i`':??3S3 all owed ;`:?cN��i��:Gi<f:'iii w not allowed Hourlyservice `'>E:. X1.4.: not allowed lowed nota 1 Water Supply see 2 below P Y( ter Individual wa s terns Ys Yer t~tiordiiiii[ed'V1�afer `stem Plan Requirements Y 9 Community Water System Ys Key: "UGA": Port Townsend and any designated Urban Growth Area. "RURAL CENTER": unincorporated communities designated in the revised comprehensive plan, such as Brinnon, Clearwater, Gardiner, and Quilcene. "RURAL LANDS": those areas not otherwise categorized herein that could be developed to Waal densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (until amended). "RESOURCE LANDS": any area designated "Resource" in the current or revised Comprehensive Plan. "allowed": permitted and will be evaluated in the Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities element. "provisional": allowed only until urban services are available, may require special design features or agreements. "conditional": prohibited except in special cases (see 2 below). "rot allowed": prohibited unless to mitigate a proven threat to public health and safety. (1): road standards are based on predicted traffic volume using Federal functional road classes. (2): higher standards may be required in Critical Areas or to mitigate proven threats to public health & safety. (3): as needed to comply with other County ordinances and the DOE Stormwater Manual VOL 2.0 Fa r � ® JL5 Q2 (4): designed in conformance with standards of the Coordinated Water System Plan. f u v PAGE 16 of 17 Attachment C RURAL ELEMENT - SCHEDULE *1994* October 26th Planning Commission Discussion of Draft #3 • Adoption of Schedule • Identification of Major Issue for staff COMPLETED analysis. • Issue Clarification to BOCC November 2nd Planning Commission Meeting Rural Issues: Rural Character, Water, Sewer, Clustering, P.U.D., Economic Development November 9th Planning Commission Meeting Community Plans Coordination November 12th Saturday meeting of Planning Commission to complete Draft Rural Element November 16th Planning Commission final review for creation of Draft for Public Hearing on December 12, 1994 November 18th Planning Staff mails their recommendations to Planning Commission on: • Major Issues • Finding of Facts November 23rd OPEN - If necessary to meet. Nov. 8th -29th Staff prepares final Rural Element document for public presentation on December 12th. November 30th Public Hearing Notice *Rural Draft Available To Public* December 2nd Mail: Revised Rural Draft to PC. December 7th OPEN - Possible Hearing Date - if we can advance. December 12th Planning Commission Public Hearing December 16th End of Written Comment Period December 21st Planning Commission Discussion • Draft #4 Public Comments • Draft Preliminary Findings *1995* January 4th Planning Commission Preliminary Report January 12th Recommendation/Findings - OK January 13th or Submission to BOCC January 19th VOL 2.4 ° FacF ® 1583 PAGE 17 of 17 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION to ORDINANCE NO. 15-1028-94 JEFFERSON COUNTY INTERIM URBAN GROWTH AREA In Compliance with Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Final Order No. 94-2-006 Chapter 1: Compliance Ordinance Preparation Background............................. Page 1 Chapter 2: Approach to Comply with WWGMHB Final Order No. 94-2-0006 .................... Page 3 Chapter 3: Assessment of Interim Planning and Development Activities ..................... Page 6 Attachments 1 - 16 ................................. Page 9 CHAPTER I Compliance Ordinance Preparation Background Interim Rural Overlay District Jefferson County had proposed to meet the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Order No. 94-2-006 through the development of a Interim Overlay District pursuant to Section 5.00 of the Jefferson County Zoning. This effort involved a ad-hoc committee comprised of Planning Commission Members, County Commissioners and City staff. In addition, appellants were contacted to receive their input on the approach being forwarded. The result of this effort was a draft ordinance establishing a interim rural overlay district and special study areas (Attachment 11). This ordinance was then circulated to interested parties. Although no formal public process had yet begun, comments were solicited or received from 1000 Friends of Washington (Attachment 12), the City of Port Townsend (Attachment 13), Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (Attachment 14), Pope Resources (Attachment 15), Mark Beaufait, Esq. (Attachment 16). It was intended the draft ordinance would be adopted under emergency procedures and then proceed with full public discussion, debate and comment. Madrona Planning and Development Services was commissioned to lead the effort in drafting the response ordinance. The chronology of events which led to the draft ordinance is provided in Attachment 17. Madrona Planning and Development Services prepared a number of research documents to substantiate the elements of the then proposed draft ordinance. These research documents are on file with the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners with copies held in the Jefferson County Planning Department. Research documents include Survey of Articles, Research and Public Documents Relating to the Establishment of Rural Centers; Survey of Jefferson County Community Plans (in draft form); Survey of Skagit County Planning Commission Proposed Comprehensive Plan Element Policy Document; Survey of King County Executive Proposed Comprehensive Plan; Survey of Island County Draft Comprehensive Plan; and Survey of Clallam County Draft Comprehensive Plan. These documents now will be used in developing the rural element of the comprehensive plan as required by the adopted Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance. Of the comments received on the draft ordinance, the City of Port Townsend took exception with virtually all aspects of the approach. The County, in review these comments reevaluated its approach to respond to the Hearings Board Order. The County found that what was being proposed was quite similar to the ongoing effort of the Planning Commission and Community Planning process with its extensive public process. In order not to duplicate, confuse, or frustrate the public planning process further, the Board of Commissioners chose to abandon its original approach and adopt an approach which ensures adequate public process to address the rural issue, while protecting future planning options. This approach is provided in Ordinance No. 15-1028-94. Page 1 VOL 20 PAGE Q 185 Chapter 1: Compliance Ordinance Preparation Background Discussion and evaluation of how this ordinance complies with the Hearings Board Order is provided in Chapter 2 of this supporting document. An assessment of potential development activities allowed under this ordinance is provided in Chapter 3. The conclusion reached by the County based on the information provided in this background report is as follows: "Projected over the next three to six months, the level and type of development anticipated under Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 does not have the potential to significantly impact the aquifer in the Tri -Area, close planning options that would otherwise be available to the Growth Management Plan nor significantly alter the rural character of Jefferson County" Page 2 VOL 20 qac= 0 1586 CHAPTER 2 Approach to Comply with WWGMHB Final Order No. 94-2-0006 A number of issues were raised by the Hearings Board order. The order directs Jefferson County to specifically amend its Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 02- 0110-94). Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 is adopted to amend the Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance in compliance with the Hearings Board order. This ordinance both amends and establishes processes to address the GMA issues raised in the Hearings Board order. Final Order Requirements: Order Element 1. Eliminate any interim urban growth area designations outside of the city limits of Port Townsend within thirty days of the date of this Order. No other interim growth areas can be designated until the information and analysis required by the GMA and Jefferson County CPPs is completed. The amended ordinance eliminates all unincorporated UGAs. The amended ordinance establishes the UGA boundary for the City of Port Townsend as the current City limit. The City has been requested to develop its capacity analysis to determine if the current boundary is sufficient to accommodate the projected population (Attachment 1, Letter Hinton to Clise, October 28, 1994.) The County is willing to adjust this UGA boundary, provided that the city clearly shows capacity within the current City limits is insufficient to accommodate the projected growth. In addition, the amended ordinance establishes two study areas which will review possible establishment of unincorporated UGAs: Port Ludlow and Tri -Area. However, during the study period the areas will be subject to rural development regulations. Port Ludlow: The Port Ludlow study area is established to determine the appropriate- ness of designating the area as an unincorporated UGA. The analysis being conducted will determine the capacity of the existing planned development to accommodate a portion of the County's projected urban population. The ordinance reserves a portion of the urban population to be allocated to Port Ludlow should it be designated a IUGA. The existing boundaries of the planned community will be the study boundaries. The study will analyze current and planned infra -structure capacity, limitations posed by critical areas, and other factors which may impact the ability of this area to accommodate any of the projected urban population. In addition, the scale and character of the area will be assessed to determine whether this area is considered "characterized by urban development" as provided for in the GMA and County -wide Planning Policy. Tri -Area: The Tri Area study area is established to address two issues, 1) appropriate development standards to protect aquifer recharge soils in the area and 2) determine Page 3 VOL 20 FACE 01587 Chapter 2: Approach to Comply with WWGMHB Final Order No.94-2-0006 the appropriateness of designating the area as an unincorporated UGA and if so, the proper sizing of said UGA. The second issue is dependent on the first. Once the aquifer issue is addressed, the same level of analysis provided in the Port Ludlow study will be utilized to determine whether the Tri -Area, or portions thereof, should be designated as an unincorporated UGA. Order Element 2. Clarify the language of the ordinance to not allow new urban residential, commercial or industrial development outside a properly designated IUGA within thirty days of the date of this ordinance. The amended ordinance prohibits new commercial or industrial rezones or PUDs until the revised County Comprehensive Plan is complete and adopted. In addition, planning commission members working on the ad-hoc committee drafting the first response ordinance determined the range of uses found in the existing zoning code were consistent with the rural nature of Jefferson County. A review of rural commercial and industrial uses is being undertaken by the Planning Commission as part of the development of the rural element (see response to Order Element 3) to the Comprehensive Plan. The amended ordinance establishes the Glen Cove Industrial Area study area. The purpose of this study area is to determine if this area should be included within the expanded boundary of the City UGA or be a stand-alone rural industrial center as provided for in County -wide Planning Policy No. 8 (6). An interlocal agreement between the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County will be developed during the study phase to: establish appropriate level of public services, service providers agreements, annexation agreements (including tax -base sharing), development standards, concurrency requirements and project review processes. Should the area be determined to become part of an expanded UGA for the City of Port Townsend, the UGA boundary will be so modified. Due to prior commitments and differing priorities, the City and County have had difficulties in meeting joint GMA requirements. The ordinance places a 180 day schedule to complete the tasks outlined in the ordinance to assure both parties give this study appropriate priority. Finally, the most intense residential densities allowed outside of Urban Growth Areas is one unit to the acre under optimum conditions. Rural densities (units per acre) currently range from 1/1, 1/2, 1/2.5, 1/5 depending on location, soil type, critical area components and utilities. Past trends indicate the average lots size created in the balance of the County is 1/2.5 acres (see Chapter 3, Assessment of Interim Planning and Development Activities). The County is amending rural densities in response to Order Element Number 3. No new residential development dependent on the availability of urban governmental services is permitted. Page 4 VOL 20 FnF h58s Chapter 2: Approach to Comply with WWGMHB Final Order No.94-2-0006 Order Element 3. Adopt an appropriate rural density designation within sixty days of the date of the Order. The amended ordinance does not alter rural densities as provided in Ordinance No. 02-0110- 94. In an attempt to define an appropriate mix of rural densities it was discovered that this effort duplicated and confused efforts of the Planning Commission who are in the process of drafting the Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan update (Attachment 2). A criticism of the original IUGA ordinance was a lack of public process in its development. In order to comply with the time lines established by the Hearings Board Order, the County again found itself attempting to address this complex community issue with arguably insufficient public process. So as to avoid duplicating efforts of the Planning Commission and to provide for meaningful public process in the establishment of rural densities, the County has chosen to adopt an accelerated schedule for completion of the Rural Element (See Ordinance #15-1028- 94, Attachment C) as its method of meeting the terms of the order. Once complete, this element will be used to create a Interim Rural Overlay District establishing the range of rural residential densities and uses appropriate for Jefferson County to serve while the entire GMA Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinance is being completed. Additional Ordinance Provisions: In addition to the three major tenants of the Hearings Board order, the amended order address a number of other issues in the following manner. Existing Lots of Record: The ordinance clarifies the confusion in the community surrounding existing lots of record. The County recognizes existing lots of record as potential building sites provided the lots meet requirements for sewage disposal and water supply and are consistent with the uses provided for in the zoning code. Level of Service Matrix: The County has amended the Level of Service Matrix (see Ordinance 15-1028-94, Attachment B) consistent with the letter from Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (Attachment 2). Population Forecast: The County has petitioned the Hearings Board to accept the Watterson West Inc. Population Forecast For Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend, August, 1994 for use in developing GMA Comprehensive Plans (Attachment 3, Letter Hinton to WWGMHB, October 28, 1994). City Water Service Obligation: The ordinance makes it clear that by adopting this ordinance the County does not intend to impose any additional obligation on the City to provide water service beyond existing legal obligations. Page 5 VOL 20 FAG! 0 JL589 CHAPTER 3 Assessment of Interim Planning and Development Activities GMA Rural Element Jefferson County has prepared a public comment draft (Attachment 4) of the rural element for the new Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act. The draft Introduction, Index, Existing Conditions, and goals are also included to help the reader understand the context of this portion of the plan. The authors have available to them progress drafts on Transportation, Public Facilities, community Plans, and other elements in the process of development. The county maintains a computer based Geographic Information System (G.I.S.) with existing land use, critical areas, and other data for analysis. Based on the GMA and County goals, the Rural Element proposes three land use categories and three categories of rural centers. The county proposes to use these land use densities as the interim rural density designation required under the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Final Order No. 94-2-0006 of August 10th 1994. The Rural Element represents the best available synthesis of rural land use options presently available to the county. It represents considered citizen input through the Jefferson County 2000 Survey, Community Planning Process, The Planning Commission, and citizen comment. Eleven community groups have been meeting under the general direction of the Planning Department and surveying the citizens in their communities as to the densities and uses appropriate in their respective rural communities. Complete drafts of seven plans have been submitted for review and partial drafts have been submitted for the others. A matrix of density recommendations from the plans in relation to the draft rural element and forest lands ordinance is included as Attachment 5. Using the rural element as a basis for the interim as well as the final implementing ordinances ensures a standard of consistency between the two ordinances. Application of this scheme will provide a high level of land use consistency with the fewest problems of adjustment between the interim and final adopted plan. Aquifer Impact Analysis The Tri -area aquifer study area encompass approximately 2000 acres in the Tri -area community. 1028 households and 81 commercial/industrial sites presently exist in the area covered by the aquifer study. Development on existing lots of record based on historical trends can be expected to range from 70 to 105, over the course of the next year, representing less than 1% of the total build out (Attachment 4). During the study phase established phase established by the IUGA ordinance, a range of 15 to 25 dwelling units can be expected to locate in the Tri -Area. Based on the projected development activity and the current quality of ground water in the Tri -Area, development which may occur during the study phase poses an insignificant threat to the ground water resources (Attachment 8, Fay to Goldsmith, Oct 27,'94). Page 6 :von 20 wE 01590 Chapter 3: Assessment of Interim Planning and Development Activities Residential Development Activitv The rate of residential development in Jefferson County has been significantly influenced by the regional and national economies. Since 1990, the building permit rate has been approximately 850 per year, of which 400 represent new living units including mobile homes (Attachment 9, Permit Center 1993 Annual Report). Of these, approximately 90 have been in Planning Area 7 dominated by the Port Ludlow development with sewer and water. An average of approximately 85 are in Planning Area 4, the Tri -area. Attachment 6 provides a quarterly breakdown of residential permits in the two planning areas and the total for the county. The permits issued through the third quarter in 1994 indicate a pattern similar to the past three years. Port Ludlow is a master planned retirement community developed beginning in 1968 on the site of a timber mill closed in the 1930's. The project includes a golf course, swimming pool and other recreational facilities for active retirement living. The developer operates a sanitary sewer and water system for the community. An EIS/Master Development Plan provides for a build out to 2250 homesites, of which 1750 have been approved. Approximately 380 single family and multi -family units are currently in the early stages of the regulatory process. The Tri -area is a much older community with a small established commercial core. Much of Port Hadlock and Irondale were platted in the 1870's when they were small but thriving fishing, timber and iron making communities. To meet current regulations, it often takes 8 to 10 platted lots to create one building site. The northern boundary of the Tri -Area is Kala Point, a contemporary residential subdivision encompassing approximately 360 acres with 487 units of which 276 have been occupied. Subdivision Activity Since January 1, 1993, 242 new lots of less than five acres in size have been created in Jefferson County. 153 were under one acre and 89 between one and five acres. Of those lots less than one acre, 63.4% are in Port Ludlow, 18.3% in the Tri -area and 18.3% in the remainder of the county. Of those lots between one and five acres 22.5% are in the tri -area and 77.5% in the remainder of the county. None were in Port Ludlow (Attachment 5). Of the sixty-five plats filed county wide, 10 are in the city, one has three lots over 20 acres and eight contain a total of seventy lots larger than five acres in size. Current sub -division proposals with pre -applications scheduled and on hold by the moratorium total approximately 450 lots and townhouse sites of which 380 are located in the Port Ludlow development. Commercial/Industrial Activity Commercial permits issued from 1992 to present are summarized below: (Attachment 10, New Commercial and Industrial Construction) Page 7 .VOL 20 FACE o IL591 Chapter 3: Assessment of Interim Planning and Development Activities Year Total Permits New Commercial Space 1994 (10 Months) 28 9 1993 10 10 1992 11 11 The new commercial space category excludes permits for condominiums, towers, signs, fences, pole storage buildings, equipment sheds, remodels, churches and government buildings. Mini Storage and pre -manufactured site sales offices are included. Of the 28 actual Retail/Business/Wholesale spaces developed in the past 2 years and 10 months created 19 were in the Tri -Area, 5 in Port Ludlow, and the remaining 6 were in other commercial zones in the county. Typical projects are mobile real estate sales offices; 2,000 to 3,000 square foot retail, business and manufacturing facilities; and 6,000 to 10,000 square foot mini -storage rental facilities. Conclusion Projected over the next three to six months, the level and type of development anticipated under the proposed ordinance does not have the potential to significantly impact the aquifer in the Tri -area, close planning options that would otherwise be available to the Growth Management Plan nor significantly alter the rural character of Jefferson County. Page 8 VOL 20 DPW 01592 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter: October 28, 1994, Commissioner Hinton to Mayor Clise 2. Letter. October 21, 1994, Wells to Goldsmith 3. Letter: October 28, 1994, Commissioner Hinton to WWGMHB 4. Jefferson County Draft Rural Element 5. Density Recommendations from Community Plans, Jefferson County, October 27, 1994. o. jeiiersai. C'O-Ul ty i ermit Center Single Family Peimit Activity SUmn-.ary 7. Memo: October 25, 1994, Chapman to Goldsmith 8. Memo: October 27, 1994, Fay to Goldsmith 9. Jefferson County Permit Center 1993 Annual Report 10. Jefferson County New Commercial & Industrial Construction 11. Draft Ordinance: Jefferson County Interim Rural Overlay District 12. Letter: October 24, 1994, 1000 Friends of Washington to County Commissioners 13. Letter: October 21, 1994, City of Port Townsend to County Commissioners 14. Letter. October 21, 1994, State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development to Goldsmith 15. Letter. October 21, 1994, Pope Resources to Commissioners 16. Letter: October 20, 1994, Elston, Brown and Beaufait, P.S. to County Commissioners 17. Compliance Ordinance Preparation Timeline VOL 20 FACE 01593 ATTACHMENT #1 VOL 20 WE 0 JL594 Jefferson County 04 I Board of County Commissioners f. I P.O. Box 1220 1% Port Townsend Washington 98368 , Phone (206) 385-9100 • 1-800-831-2678 JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFORD, DISTRICT 2 NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 October 28, 1994 The Honorable John Clise Mayor of the City of Port Townsend City Hall Port Townsend, Wa 98368 Re: Ordinance #15-1028-94, Amending #02-0110-94, Responding to the Western Washing- ton Growth Management Hearings Board Order Dear Mayor Clise: In direct response to the City's letter addressing the proposed Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance dated October 21, 1994, we have reconsidered our approach to complying with the Hearings Board Order. We had hoped to be able to craft an ordinance that addressed the Hearings Board Order as well as other concerns expressed by the appellants. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case in the time frame allotted. The ordinance enclosed amends Jefferson County Ordinance #02-0110-94, establishing Interim Urban Growth Areas invalidated by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. In keeping with that Board's final order, this ordinance does not re-establish any unincorporated Urban Growth Area. It recognizes the possible expansion of the City's UGA to accommodate the Glen Cove Industrial Area. The Ordinance also reserves 2,500 people for future consideration of an Urban Growth Area in Port Ludlow. Pursuant to County -wide Planning Policy No. 1 (2), 100% of the projected OFM population must be accommodated within UGA boundaries. Therefor the City, being the only recognized UGA, will need to plan to accommodate the entire OFM population projection over the 20 year planning horizon less the Port Ludlow reserve. The OFM projection places your target population between the medium and high end sub -area projection for the City as provided in the Watterson West population forecast. In order for us to continue to move forward on the land use element of the County comprehensive plan, we request you place priority and complete your capacity analysis to accommodate this projected population in the next 90 days. If your capacity analysis indicates that additional land area outside of the current City limits will be necessary to accommodate this population, we request you provide the County with: 1) a copy of the City's capacity analysis and methodology; including density, housing mix, constraints, and infrastructure assumptions, 2) the mapped area for possible UGA extension, and 3) a phasing schedule for infrastructure extensions. VOL i> 100% Recycled Paper City of Port Townsend October 28, 1994 Page: 2 Given that the Watterson West forecast had distributed a portion of the urban population to unincorporated Jefferson County (Port Ludlow and Port Hadlock), you will need to adjust your planning assumptions accordingly. It appears, pursuant to your scoping notice, the projected OFM population cannot be accommodated in plan alternatives. Alternative 2 (if modified) and 3 appear to contain enough projected growth to be consistent with County -wide Planning Policy No. 1 (2). The County, in commenting on the scoping notice, has formally responded to the content of the EIS relating to the population forecast and associated land use assumptions used in driving the alternatives. In addition, you need to be aware that the Watterson West medium forecast adds 7,583 persons to the OFM projection. It has been assumed that this population will be accom- modated in the rural areas of our community. However, in order that. your planning efforts fully evaluate the range of possibilities, your staff should include this additional population as part of ti ei!" cs pacity analysis, plan a.terna..�!ps ain LIS evaluaucn. With the aquifer recharge issues associated with the Tri -Area currently wider study, we are unsure if this area will accommodate any of the projected urban population. This response ordinance identifies Port Ludlow and the Tri Area for special study to evaluate possible inclusion as future UGAs and if so, to what extent. In addition, both communities are involved in extensive public processes which will, in part, determine the nature and type of community the citizens envision. In the meantime, Jefferson County is moving forward with its comprehensive plan update to accommodate the non -urban population in a growth pattern that maintains the resource base and rural atmosphere of the community as expressed by the various planning groups through out the County. Given the above, and the information needs identified in the Hearings Board Order, we formally request you direct your staff to complete the capacity analysis within the timeframe identified. We also request you identify who will be assigned to work on drafting the interlocal agreement concerning the Glen Cove special study area. Once the Port Ludlow capacity analysis and GMA build out alternatives have been prepared, we will notify you if Port Ludlow will be designated as a UGA and if so designated, if the reserved urban population can be accom- modated. Similarly, once the aquifer recharge study is complete and the critical area ordinance amended, we will be able to assess the future status of the Tri -Area. Your immediate attention to the above requested information is appreciated. Chairman cc: City Council Members Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Growth Management Steering Committee City Planning Department Jefferson County Planning Department ; VOL 20 FACE 01596 ATTACHMENT #2 von_ 20 WE 01597 STA7'F o� 7 O y S Oy 1 89 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St: SW • PO Box 48300 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8300 • (206) 753-2200 October 21, 1994 Mr. David Goldsmith Jefferson County Board of Commissioners �0 J.L`torson Street Post Office Box 1220 Port Town end, Washington 98368 Dear Mr. mith: OCT 218 19H KARID Or CVi;y INAN� ZMNEERS Thank you for the opportunity to review your Draft Compliance Ordinance, per your letter dated October 13, 1994. The strategies you have outlined for your Board of County Commissioners represent a positive direction for land use planning in Jefferson County. The willingness of your Board to tackle these issues helps to reinforce the lead role that the County will be playing on land use and water issues. Our staff will continue to work with you on these interim measures with the goal of helping you finalize your Growth Management (GMA) comprehensive plan and development regulations by January 1, 1995. To help us better understand the geographic extent of your proposed ordinance, we request you send a map outlining the designated rural centers and crossroads. In an effort to assist you and your Board prior to a public hearing on your draft ordinance, I have compiled comments from my staff and from the departments of Ecology (DOE) and Health (DOH). Our comments are intended to clarify substantive issues and to point out statutory requirements which must be met for development to occur. If additional clarification or assistance is needed, please let me know. Your draft ordinance provides additional land use controls to halt the proliferation of public water systems in rural Jefferson County. However, the proposed standards for provision or development on page 6 of your draft ordinance could conflict with Jefferson County's 1986 Coordinated Water System Plan. Since local ordinances cannot supersede state law, (i.e. the Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977), the following substitute language should be adopted: 20 inF 0 3598 Mr. David Goldsmith October 21, 1994 Page Two Projects will be considered based upon the 1986 version of the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan (JCCWSP) until such time as the JCCWSP has been updated by the Jefferson County Water Utility Coordinating Committee and the new plan approved by the Department of Health, with concurrence by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners." To clarify how projects will be considered, the following provisions of the JCCWSP are specifically referenced and should replace page 6 of your draft ordinance: 1. Water System Plalis. Mrcjects vvill not be approve by DO'"' wilasi he project is consistent with a DOH -approved water system plan. DOH can make exceptions if the utility has been placed on a compliance schedule.or the project is intended to resolve a health emergency. Water system plans will be subject to review by Jefferson County to ensure consistency with local land use plans or ordinances. Comments from adjacent water systems and other interested parties will also be considered by DOH as part of the plan review process. 2. The Utility Service Review Procedure. Proposals to expand existing, or create new, public water systems must be consistent with Chapter 3 of the 1986 JCCWSP, entitled, " Utility Review Procedures". A chart illustrating the service area review procedure is enclosed for your reference. 3. Service Areas. The service areas identified in the 1986 JCCWSP shall be used when determining service providers. If a utility wants to adjust its service area, it must follow the procedure outlined above and in the JCCWSP (see Enc. 2 service area maps). 4. Consistency With Land Use. The county will review each project and provide a letter to DOH verifying consistency with local land use policies and plans. The letter shall reference the ordinances where applicable. 5. Design Standards. The land use based design standards contained in the JCCWSP (Enc. 3) shall be used for all projects. Jefferson County shall provide a letter to DOH indicating the applicable land use category that pertains to the development project. 6. Certification. Jefferson County will certify to DOH, in writing, that each project is consistent with the JCCWSP and the current land use ordinance. We concur with your findings that the city of Port Townsend has control over the use of their available water supply. We recommend working with the city and Jefferson County PUD to formally amend any service area agreements that are outlined above and in the JCCWSP. 0 1599 Mr. David Goldsmith October 21, 1994 Page Three r In addition to the requirements outlined above, Jefferson County is required to conduct SEPA review of non-exempt development projects and determine water supply adequacy for building permits and subdivision approvals. RCW 19.27.907 requires a verification of an adequate water supply prior to issuance of a building permit for any new building requiring potable water. RCW 58.17.060 and RCW 58.17.1 10 require written findings of an adequate water supply prior to approving a short plat or subdivision. When reviewing an application which proposes to utilize a public water system, Jefferson County will co iiavt UUi-i iv obtain: in*ormai1011 reyaiiJuig die adeyuauy of the water system to the proposed project. Jefferson County will not approve a project where DOH has determined that the proposed source of potable water is not adequate for this purpose. The protection of Port Townsend's critical aquifer recharge area is of vital importance to the region. We, along with DOH and DOE, are willing to help facilitate a process with you, the city, and the PUD to help ensure that the new ordinance will comply with DOH's wellhead protection requirements and GMA critical area protection. Next steps: Project applications that are on hold will begin to be processed by DOH pending the adoption of your draft ordinance with the changes outlined above. Finally, we are committed to helping you resolve these complex growth and water issues with the city and the PUD. With the county in the lead, we will help facilitate state and local involvement in the process. Through a cooperative process, we can attain a mutual goal of establishing greater certainty regarding development in the County by completing your Growth Management Comprehensive Plan and the JCCWSP Update under the deadline! Enclosures cc: City of Port Townsend Jefferson County PUD DOH DOE Governor's Office Mike Fitzgerald Sincerely, Steve Wells Assistant Director Growth Management Services '-VOL 20 mF 1600 ATTACHMENT #3 VOL 20 Fac= 0 JL60JL Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Phone (206) 385-9100 • 1-800-831-2678 JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFORD, DISTRICT 2 NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 October 28, 1994 Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board l'IAC'I.lcary 1r1arAJ.Vll, I11 -`:des+ 21st Ave. Suite #1 - MS: 0953 Olympia, WA 98504-0953 Re: Compliance Hearing Dear Board Members: Jefferson County enacted ordinance No. 15-1028-94 to respond to WWGMHB Final Order No. 94-2- 0006. We feel confident that we have met the spirit and intent of the order and request a compliance hearing to formally present our response. The enclosed ordinance and supporting documentation directly addresses those issues which could be reasonably accomplished with limited public process and establishes a defined public process and time line to address the remaining issues. In addition, the supporting documentation projects and analyzes the likely outcome of taking the approach forwarded. All of this will be explained and examined in detail at the compliance hearing. Following the final order, Jefferson County placed a moratorium on development activity. This moratorium has lasted over 50 days. In the interim, the County has developed an approach and methodology to address the issues raised by the order and documentation of the impact of this approach. The request for a compliance hearing is to assure to the citizens of Jefferson County that the approach is appropriate pursuant to your order. We wish to avoid further uncertainty for our citizens. In addition, Jefferson County formally petitions the Board to concur with the population forecast prepared by Watterson West Group, Inc. for the City of Port Townsend. The County, as a party to the develop- ment of this forecast agrees, with its findings and recommendation. To move forward in our planning efforts, we specifically request the Board to review said forecast and accept the Medium Population Projection for use by the City and County in development of their respective Growth Management Plans. We respectively request a compliance hearing be scheduled at your earliest possible convenience. I e y, Hinton, Chairman VOL20 FAcF 0x.602 �� 100% Recycled Paper ATTACHMENT #4 vo,_ 20 FAGS' 01603 REVIEW DRAFT RUR&L L&H[Da '111FAMOMINS, October 6,1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -I VOL M PACE 0 J-604 RURAL LA NDS ROAD MAP TO THE FUTURE The creation of a road map for a journey into the futurerequires us to not only know where we are today, but we must have a goal or vision of the community we want at the end of the journey. We know the length of the trip, 20 years, but we have to know the type of vehicle we are driving and the cost of operating the vehicle. In 1994, Jefferson County is a community of 24,200 people spread across approximately 1,161,600 acres including the national park. This is a density of about 2.1 persons for every 100 acres. In comparison, King County has a density including their national forests and parks of 116 persons per 100 acres, which is over 55 times the density of Jefferson County. Jefferson County is and wants to remain a simple community. We would rather be driving a classic 1955 Chevy than a 1994 Mercedes. In any case our automobile is not full. We still have an empty back seat. In our 1955 Chevy gas, and transportation costs are a little more expensive because we are using regular gas, but maintenance and tune ups are low because we can still do much of the work ourselves. It is estimated that in the next 20 years, the county's population will increase by slightly over 14,000 people. This is an increase of approximately. 58 per cent. Of these, about 6,000 people are anticipated to live in the City of Port Townsend if services can be provided. The remaining 8,000 people are expected to live in the unincorporated areas of the county. Rural character means different things to different folks. I could be "peace and quiet", or freedom to do what you want on your land, or elbow room, or just the ability to have a piece of nature in your back yard. In general, rural is often defined more in terms of what it is not, rather than what it is. Even the Growth Management Act defines it in terms of what it is not. It is not urban and it is not resource lands, but it is everything in between. Rural character is part of our geographic separation from the hustle and bustle of the Seattle Megalopolis. We eont have to fight the traffic congestion, smog, or crowded public services; we can dust hear about it on the radio. Puget Sound is our wall, but also our walk -way. It is just high enough that we do not have people crowding us, but just low enough that we benefit from the tourists visiting during the summer and on weekends. We have the farms in the Chimacum Valley, the sail -boats in Port Townsend, and the rains in the Olympic Mountains. Rural suggests diversity and tolerance. Rural lands are a key to our lifestyle, to our Vision, to our basic identity. The Growth Management Act has been so hard to accept in Jefferson County because it does not imply diversity and tolerance. It creates visions of "urban" and mininuzes our concern for "rural" development. Through managing the growth of Jefferson County we can maintain the rural lifestyle so valued by us all. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 1 VOL 2'& f AGF 01605 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT # 3 October 6, 1994 The issue facing Jefferson County is: How do we continue the rural environment that is Jefferson County with an increase in population of 14,000 in the next 20 years? In direct numbers our projected population growth will mean approximately a 58 per cent increase in the "rural" population. Presently, in the Port Townsend Urban Area, the population density is approximate 160 persons per 100 acres. This would increase to 260 people per 100 acres by the year 2014. At the same time the present rural population density of about 2.1 people per 100 acres would increase to approximately 2.18 persons per 100 acres or 25,324 people. In real terms the "rural" areas will incease in population by approximately 3,940 new households over the 20 year period (assuming 2.3 people per household) This is approximately 200 houses annually. Assuming the use of 5 acre lots land demand would be 19,700 acres, while using 10 acres lots land demand would double to 39,400 acres. Presently, according to the Department of Natural Resources land use inventory of 1993, eastern Jefferson County has 79,274 acres of "rural lands", or 2 to 4 times as much land as necessary for the projected rural growth until the year 2014. Yet, just having the land area does not shape the type of "rural character". Without planning, Jefferson County's rural character will be lost. It will actually be taken from us in the form of sprawling low-density, single dimensional development that uses up our open space in an inefficient and unattractive manner. Our Discovery Bay Planning Committee saw rural very clearly in their statement: "To the people of Discovery Bay, rural is much, much more than merely a checkerboard of 5 or 10 or 20 acre 'mini -estates' ". If the uncontrolled sprawl of "cookie cutter" rural estates continues, both critical areas and natural resource lands could be threatened. The development of both the rural and urban areas is tied to the economic health of the county. We need to pay attention to the diversification of our economy and the housing we can provide for our citizens. If we increase either development costs for our commerce or our residents by unnecessary regulations, our infrastructure cost will create economic slow -downs as dollars move to more competitive markets. In Jefferson County, a family -wage job -base needs to be developed. Home industries, retirement, tourism, and other similar businesses, including light manufacturing, need to be encouraged to locate here. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS V01- 2_01°� FaG� 0 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT # 3 October 6, 1994 5.3.1 RURAL LANDS - GENERAL 5.3.1.1 PURPOSE: The purpose of the Rural Element is to guide and direct development in the rural areas of Jefferson County. The Growth Management Act groups lands that are outside of the UGAs and that are not suitable as Natural Resource lands as rural. The goal of the Rural Element is to preserve the rural character and lifestyle including the freedom to use one's land and live a traditional "rural life". Rural areas are characterized by minimal public services; varied, but low density residential development; open spaces; resource dependent activities, and industries; and. outdoor recreation facilities. The rural element* of the comprehensive plan is designed to recognize and maintain the unique character of individual community plans within Jefferson County without creating the need for urban levels of service and without degrading the environment. In the analysis of identifying rural lands and drafting definitions, goals and policies, a transitional land use was observed that was in between "rural" and "urban" in character. These areas had some major urban services, which had been previously extended to outside of urban incorporated areas. Growth Management regulations do not appear to have envisioned any growth strategies for these areas of transition. Jefferson County can not ignore the fact that the extension of some urban services has created major growth management strategy problems that need to be addressed. This lack of coordination has resulted in direct policy and political conflict between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend. If left unchecked those old policies would have resulted in urban sprawl. Jefferson County has identified these transitional areas as "Rural Towns". 5.3.1.2. DEFINITION: 1. The Growth Management Act defines Rural as: "Lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The rural element shall permit land uses that are compatible with the rural character of such lands and provide for a variety of rural densities. " RCW 36.70A.070(5) H 2. Rural areas are"characterized by limited urban -type services such as fire, police and limited social services. Urban type facilities such as sewers, large water systems, curbs, sidewalks, parking lanes, street lights, constructed surface water facilities, and public transit are generally not present, but may be sporadically located based on old service areas or special interests. 3. Rural areas are characterized by diverse, sometimes incompatible, land uses and by living styles that are seen as rural and as an alternative to urban lifestyles. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 3 'VOL 2 0 lad=_ 0 J607 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT N 3 October 6, 1994 4. Rural lands have low residential density of less than one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre except in rural activity centers. Rural lands are typified by larger amounts of open space and greenbelt areas than urban areas. 5. Commercial and non-commercial agriculture, forestry, and tourism and other natural resource-based practices are consistent with rural areas, support rural character, and should be protected. 5.3.1.3 RURAL LANDS CLASSIFICATIONS: The following sub -classification of the Rural Optimal Land Use Designations are established: Average Residential Maximum Density Size 1. Rural Resource RR 1 du/20.0 acres plus 2. Rural Residential RRI 1 du/ 5.0 acres to 20.0 acres 3. Rural Residential RRH 1 du/ 2.5 acres to 5.0 acres 4. Rural Activity Centers 1. Rural Cross -Roads 1 du/acre 2. Rural Villages 2 du/acre 3. Rural Towns 4+ du/acre Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 4 VOL 20 Face 01608 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT M 3 October 6, 1994 5.3.1.4 GOALS: 1. To reduce public and private utility, transportation, and infrastructure costs for development outside of UGAs and rural centers. 1. Set rural densities to minimize costs. 2. To prioritize the establishment of urban levels services, facilities, and commercial activities in UGAs and rural centers. 2. To maintain the natural conditions and open space that characterize rural areas and contribute to the liveability of the county. 1. To preserve the natural features and amenities in rural areas. 2. To assure the preservation of open space as a component of rural character. 3. To assure that development patterns maintain the rural character. 3. To retain the resource value of rural lands. 1. To encourage resource based industries in rural areas. 2. To minimize the impacts to functions and values of rural land for groundwater recharge, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, and other public benefits. 4. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS VOL 20 ME 01009 Page 5 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT # 3 October 6, 1994 5.3.1.5 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES: 1. Limit the provision of public and private services in the Rural Residential I and 11 areas to those necessary to support a rural way of life as defined in the individual community plans. In all cases the minimum necessary public and private services must assure the basic health, safety and welfare of the residents. 1. Develop land within the constraints of physical carrying capacity of the parcel of land. (1) Health: Both the availability of water and the disposal of sewage must meet the County and State standards. (2) Safety: The County has identified critical areas that relate to the location of flood plains, aquifer recharge and geological hazards. These areas pose more danger for personal and public safety and may limit development. (3) Public Some physical limitation of land create both private Benefit: and public benefits. Presently, these areas are identified as aquifer recharge areas and wetlands. 2. Public Sanitary Sewer lines shall not be extended into rural areas Sewers: except to remedy a health emergency or groundwater contamination. Sewers may be extended only if they are tightlined and only when no alternative technologies are feasible. 3. Drinking Water: The following methods of supplying drinking water are encouraged: 1. Private wells, as long as they are acceptable to the Department of Ecology (DOE), where lots are sufficiently large to avoid problems of pollution and well proliferation that is threatening groundwater. 2. Group B Water Systems (15 service connections or less, or servicing fewer than 25 people per day, 60 days of the year) for clusters, P.U.D.s and where well proliferation has threatened groundwater. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS -VOL 20 u FAGS 0 JL610 Page 6 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT' # 3 October 6, 1994 3. Group A Water Systems (Major Public Water Supply systems) in the following cases: 1. Rural Towns 2. Rural Village 3. Rural Crossroads 4. Areas where extensions are necessary to solve immediate health or safety problems threatening existing residents. COUNTY WIDE POLICY ISSUE: DRINKING WATER - DISCUSSION The above policies relating to drinking water are part of an ongoing decision making process that is not limited just to Jefferson County. Many counties are continuing to view on-site wells as a primary or the primary source of water in rural areas. These are viewed as an acceptable solution of water supply by the Department of Ecology (DOE) where lots are sufficiently large to avoid problems of pollution and well proliferation threatening ground water. King, Spokane and Yakima counties seem to be taking the brunt of the problems with drinking water supplies. Each area is to be finding its own solutions. In Jefferson County, it may not be possible to provide adequate water services to some areas with individual on-site wells. Some existing systems are already failing or are threat to public health. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act has more stringent standards that will generally make it more difficult for small water systems to comply. Aquifer depletion, water rights, and GMA standards all seem to be pushing the idea that public water systems should not be provided in rural areas. However, we believe the opposite should be true. The primary goal of GMA is to prevent urban sprawl and the public cost of that sprawl. Urban sprawl is the continued "cookie cutter" division of property into residential lots with little open space. "Rural sprawl" can also happen. This is a proliferation of 5,10, 20 mini -estates that again become a "cookie cutter" across the rural landscape and totally alter the "rural character" that Jefferson County is attempting to maintain. This is specifically why flexibility has been created in the above policies. Note: During the present planning process and to comply with the Hearings Board Order, Jefferson County has agreed to an interim standards governing public water system development. We need to be aware of those standards, but the planning time period we are charged with looking at is 20 years. We should apply both creative and inovative ideas to water management. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 7 . VOL 20 wF 0 461 Coanorehensive Plan DRAFT # 3 October 6, 1994 2. Limit the ultimate of connections for either public or private water or sewage disposal in Rural Crossroads and Rural Villages. This Policy is designed to specifically maintain the "rural character" and not let these limited service communities become urban areas. 3. Using flexible regulations, create development pattern in rural areas that are economically effienct. 1. Objectives: (1) Flexibility in site development that will result in a more efficient and environmentally'sound use of land, while harmonizing with adjoining development and preserving the county's rural character. (2) Minimize the adverse impacts upon and loss of resource and critical area lands. (3) Providing compatibility with adjacent development and land uses in rural areas by requiring larger buffer strips and designated open spaces. (4) Providing greater economic opportunities for rural property owners for use of land which has a substantial amount of development - limiting characteristics. 2. Clustering: Cluster development is preferred over standard subdivisions. The following standards shall be applied to cluster development in order to achieve the intended benefits. (1) Provide incentives to cluster within the permitted density range. This could include bonus densities for creating permanent open space or creating new wetlands. (2) Allow individual or joint ownership of open space which results from the clustering process. (3) Where clustering occurs at its maximum allowable density, the open space shall be kept in perpetuity. (4) Lot sizes may be reduced from the minimum lot size that is necessary for public health with the placement of a on-site sewage disposal system. The maximum lot size cannot be more than two times the minimum lot size of the zoning classification. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 8 f von 20 mF 0 1612 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT # 3 October 6, 1994 (5) Flexible setbacks and building locations shall be permitted according to the design guidelines and standards. (6) Provision for open space regarding minimum required percentage of open space in a development site, range of uses of open space, maintenance responsibility, and the kinds of ownership shall be made through the design guidelines and standards to be developed for cluster development. (7) Encourage owners of unbuilt lots of record to reconfigure the lots in a cluster format.. The land owners may actually increase densities through the'bonus incentive program up to fifty (50) per cent. (8) Adopt fire, health, and other development -related regulations which allow for cluster developments in rural areas. (9) Provide for open space with vegetation in cluster developments such as compatible surface water retention areas to help improve water quality and to minimize erosion, flooding, and prevent damage to fish and wildlife habitats. 3. Planned Unit Developments Encourage the use of Planned Unit Developments. The following develop u11d3ri: ;i,l W ,lr,i; :G plane+l unit developments in order to achieve the intender: public benefits. (1) Provide incentives to PUDs that permit density ranges to double if design considerations provide significant public benefits. This could include bonus densities for creating permanent open space, creating new wetlands, providing needed public facilities or capital. (2) Allow individual or joint ownership of open space which results from the planned unit development process. (3) In PUDs, open space shall be kept in perpetuity. (4) Lot sizes may be reduced from the minimum lot size that is necessary for public health with the placement of on-site sewage disposal system. The maximum lot size shall be compatible with the Community Area Plan. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS VOL 20 wF 01613 Page 9 CoinorehenAve Plan DRAFT k 3 October 6, 1994 (5) Flexible setbacks and building locations shall be permitted according to the design guidelines and standards to be developed for PUDs. (6) Provision for open space regarding minimum required percentage of open space in a development site, range of uses of open space, maintenance responsibility, and the kinds of ownership, shall be made through the design guidelines and standards to be developed for a PUD. (7) Encourage owners of unbuilt lots of record to reconfigure the site usin* the PUD format. The land owners may actually increase densities through the bonus incentive program up to double the underlying density. (8) Adopt fire, health, and other development related regulations which allow for PUD developments in rural areas. (9) Provide for open space with vegetation in planned unit developments such as compatible surface water retention areas to help improve water quality and to minimize erosion, flooding, and prevent damage to fish and wildlife habitats. 4. Encourage innovative techniques such as transfer of development rights, subdivision dedications, impact fees, current use taxation, public or private land acquisition, donation of conservation easement, and land banking to encourage lower densities and preservation of open space in addition to cluster development. 4. Conserve rural resources. 1. Preserve and encourage restoration of land and water environments required by natural resource-based activities, including the protection of critical areas, natural wildlife, and other open spaces. 2. Preserve and encourage rural lifestyles, aesthetics, and outdoor recreation. 3. Protect air and water quality. 4. Minimize conversion of agricultural and forestry land by providing cluster development, planned unit developments and buffering between these designated lands and residential developments. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 10 vas 20 FAU ,. -Q JL61 Comprehensive Pian DRAFT #_ 3 October 6, 1994 5. The conservation of rural resources is based upon the development of standards in rural areas such as the following: (1) Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces in developments. Site development standards must include proportional provisions for limiting paved parking; widths and lengths of paved access roads and driveways; and site coverage in general. Shared access roads and the use of porous construction material for roads where feasible shall be employed. (2) Minimize the use of constructed drainage facilities and encourage alternative perpetually maintained methods of surface water management, such as grass -covered swales, on-site retention areas, retained vegetative cover, etc. (3) Provide incentives to landowners who voluntarily provide public benefits such as protecting wildlife corridors, protecting historic and cultural sites, and scenic amenities; creating wetlands; and/or designating greater setbacks from wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas. (4) Protect important land features such as ridgelines by discouraging alteration of those features by development. The human eye is drawn to specific points in a landscape. The destruction of ridgelines damages the aesthetic qualities of the rural environment. (5) Protect important elements of rural character including its visual, scenic, and historic resources. 5.3.2 RURAL RESOURCE LANDS 5.3.2.1. PURPOSE: 1. To identify those lands that do not have the immediate potential for development into rural residential areas. 2. To identify areas that may have short term economic use (less than forty (40) years) in timber production or farming. 3. To encourage continued use of the resource activities until sufficient market demand is present to convert the property into rural residential uses. 4. To create a secondary tier for future rural development similar to the secondary tier of residential development in the UGAs. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 11 VOL 2 0 WE 0 � �l5 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT # 3 October 6, 1994 5.3.2.2 DEFINITION: Rural Resource Lands are those lands that may not have long term economic significance in production, but are in transition from the long term economic significant Resource Lands to Rural Residential Lands. These lands located in the second tier of development for rural development. The tier concept of growth management tool that directs capital improvements. In this case of Rural Resource lands we are puposely delaying improvements until the need is present. The objective is to discourage "piece -meal" and "leap -frog" development without sufficient services. Rural Resource lands are closer in function to the Resource Lands that have permanent timber and mineral production. than the Rural Residential lands. Rural Resouce lands are presently held in large parcels at a minimum of 20 gross acres. They are, lands that are usually classified in the timber tax or open space programs. 5.3.2.3 1. 2. 3. 5.3.2.4 1. 2. DESIGNATION CRITERIA: Areas where the short-term optimum land use capability is resource production; or A buffer between agricultural and/or forestry uses and higher density residential areas of Rural Residential Areas; or Areas that have minimal public services such as roads and power that without major public or private expenditures are not ready to develop into rural residential densities. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES: Encourage continued use of the land in resource production. 1. Preferable land uses in rural resource areas are related to farms, forestry, tourism, and outdoor recreation. 2. Master planned resorts may be allowed in accordance with Section Limit low -intensity rural residential development to maintain rural character. 1. Rural Resource densities are established at one (1) dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres. 2. Clustering or planned unit developments would allow the development to be increased to a maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5.0) acres when at least sixty (60) per cent of the total site is left in permanent resource production or open space. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 12 ra�_ 20 Face 0 10JL6 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT # 3 October 6, 1994 3. Home occupations and cottage industries will be allowed throughout the rural resource areas provided they do not adversely affect the surrounding uses and the environment. In addition; they must be: (1) Sufficiently screened or distanced from roads and adjacent properties from the site. (2) Governed by appropriate standards to be developed in the implementing ordinance. (3) Sizes of home occupations are limited by community plans. 5.3.3. RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS RURAL RESIDENTIAL I RURAL RESIDENTIAL Il 5.3.3.1. PURPOSE: There are three fundamental purposes of Rural Residential Classifications: 1. To create areas where housing has less per-unit cost because the full range of public services are not provided. 2. To maintain the diverse residential lot sizes while creating low residential densities and preserving open space. 3. To provide open space and transitional land use buffers between high intensity urban activities and low density agricultural -forestry uses. 5.3.3.2. DEFINITION Rural residential areas are best defined in the activities of the people. Rural residential areas house a variety of people who think independently and are very self reliant. The rural lifestyle includes large houses, small houses, old cars, new cars, barns, timberland, farms, clearcuts, and open space. It is not merely a checkerboard of 5 or 10 or 20 acre "mini -estates" that only can be afforded by the wealthy retired people from the urban areas, rather it is a mixture of independent lifestyles. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 13 VOL 20 MF 0 1617 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT X 3 October 6, 1994 5.3.3.3 DESIGNATION CRITERIA: 1. Areas where the land capability is suited for low-density residential development because of limited public or private services; or 2. Areas that are rural in character and living environment as determined by the Community Plans; or 3. Areas that support an existing identified rural residential area; or 4. A buffer between agricultural and/or forestry uses and higher density residential areas of Rural Crossroads, Rural Villages, Rural Towns, or UGAs. 5.3.3.4 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES: 1. Encourage diverse economic opportunities and uses compatible with and supportive of a rural way of life. 1. Preferable land uses are rural residential, home occupation/ cottage industries and activities related to farms, forestry, tourism, outdoor recreation and entertainment and other open space activities. 2. Home occupations and cottage industries will be allowed throughout the rural residential area provided they do not adversely affect the surrounding uses and the environment. In addition, they must be: (1) Sufficiently screened or distanced from roads and adjacent properties to the site. (2) Governed by appropriate standards to be developed in the implementing ordinance. (3) Sizes of home occupations are limited by community plans. 3. Allow public and commercial recreational and associated uses, such as, but not limited to, campgrounds, lodging, interpretive centers, marinas, youth camps, golf courses, horse riding arenas, and rifle or archery ranges. 4. Master planned resorts are allowed in accordance with Section 'Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 14 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT # 3 October 6, 1994 2. Encourage low -intensity rural development to maintain rural character. 1. Rural Residential densities range from one dwelling unit per five (5) acres to one dwelling unit per two and one half (2.5) acres. (1) All development densities must be within the physical carrying capacity of the parcel for on-site sewage disposal, etc... (2) Minimum lot size shall be two and one half acres (2.5). Lot may range up to twenty (20) acres in size. (3) Preference and bonus incentives , shall be given to cluster developments and planned unit developments per the General Rural provisions stated above. 5.3.4. RURAL CROSSROADS 5.3.4.1. PURPOSE: 1. To provide limited retail commerce and services to rural areas at designated rural arterial intersections; and 2. To provide a "country store" atmosphere that are appropriate in character and scale to their rural environments or service areas; 3. To provide an alterative to strip developments alongarterials and to a concentration of commercial and higher -density residential developments at intersections; and 4. To provide an opportunity to develop activity clusters that can function as a neighborhood center of a small enough scale to carefully maintain the small rural character. 5.3.4.2 DEFINITION: Rural Crossroads are those areas clearly identifiable as a rural commercial "country store" focus. Rural Crossroads have existing commercial functions such as a country store, a gas pump, and/or restaurant. There may be some very limited residential uses by owners or workers, but other residences independent of the commercial activityare uncommon. Normally we would see the owner or possible worker in the store living in a residence adjacent to or above the commercial activity. A Rural Crossroads should be limited in commercial size to relate to the rural service area it is plan to serve. Each of the community plans will determine the size of their Rural Crossroads as a historic function and based on the population projections of the County. (For the purpose of this Draft proposal, the community groups should look at a commercial focus of between 3,000 and 10,000 gross square feet of actual buildings). A Rural Crossroads is similar in function support to a neighborhood commercial center in a city. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 15 'VOL 20 Face 0 1619 Comordmulve Plan DRAFT k 3 October 6, 1994 5.3.4.3 1. 2. 5.3.4.4. 1. DESIGNATION CRITERIA Recognize pre-existing commercial pattern as the foundation for the designation of Rural Crossroads. Utilize local knowledge, experience and preferences by the neighborhood residents through Community Planning to establish the geographic size and service limits of a Rural Crossroads. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND. OBJECTIVES: Direct limited development into Rural Crossroads. 1. Commercial development in Rural Areas is encouraged to locate where possible in existing Rural Crossroads to provide employment, shopping, services and housing opportunities compatible with surrounding roads, utilities and rural character. Limited convenience shopping and services for more remote rural area residents may be provided by existing and future Rural Crossroads. 2. Residential development densities may be higher in the Rural Crossroads as it supports the commercial activity. 3. Residential uses that do not support the commercial activities are not encouraged. 4. Establish standards and design guidelines to protect environmental quality, rural character, unique and special natural, scenic features and important community amenities and values. (1) Expansion of designated Rural Crossroads must be compatible with other adjacent uses, without placing an unfair tax burden on the general public. (2) Rural Crossroads shall not be designated to include areas of natural hazards or Resource Lands. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS � �vo� 2��,fFU �0 Page 16 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT' # 3 October 6, 1994 5.3.5. RURAL VILLAGES 5.3.5.1 PURPOSE: 1. To direct growth pressure from the surrounding rural areas and to provide activity centers where shopping, employment, and services for both residents inside the village and residents within a 20 minute travel distance buy supplies. 2. To promote commercial and tourism services at a scale that preserves the surrounding rural characteristics; 3. To provide a focus that is appropriate in character and scale to the rural environments or service areas; 4. To stop both strip commercial and residential developments along arterials and concentration of commercial and higher -density residential developments at intersections; and 5. To provide an opportunity to develop moderate sized clusters that can function as a community center of a small enough scale to carefully maintain the rural character. 5.3.5.2. DEFINITION: Rural villages historically have a commercial core with surrounding residential neighborhood. They are a natural part of the rural landscape. Historically, they may even have been a Rural Town over a eighty years ago and decreased in size to dust a Rural Crossroads. The changes in land use pattern are a result of changes in the economy and transporation. Rural Villages may have an associated residential component which is readily distinguishable from surrounding rural lands. They have a distinct boundary from adjoining rural land uses. Villages offer many of the advantages of clustered development, but they can only absorb limited growth and still retain their village character. Further growth would mandate consideration as a Rural Town. Performance standards should be developed to assure that the rural villages fit rural surroundings. Rural Villages are those areas generally identifiable as the primary focus of a rural community. They contain commercial, single family residential, and multiple family residential. The commercial core could range from 10,000 to 30,000 square feet in gross building area. The population size of the Rural Village is dependent upon the rural area that both surrounds and supports the commercial core. The Community Plan directs the size and geographic location of the Rural Village. A Rural Village is similar in function support to a community commercial center in a city. However, it may be physically smaller in focus because of the travel distance. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 17 VOL 20 FA5F 0 1621 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT k 3 October 6, 1994 5.3.5.3. DESIGNATION CRITERIA 1. Recognize the pre-existing pattern as the foundation for the designation of Rural Village. 2. Utilize local knowledge, experience and preferences by the neighborhood residents through Community Planning to establish both the geographic size and population limits of Rural Villages. 5.3.5.4. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES: 1. Direct higher intensity mixed-use development into Rural Villages. 1. Rural Villages contain higher density housing design limits to assure that the Rural Villages remain constant in size. 2. Commercial and very limited industrial development in Rural Areas are encouraged to locate where possible in existing Rural Villages to provide employment, shopping, services and housing opportunities compatible with surrounding roads, utilities and rural character. 3. Establish standards and design guidelines to protect environmental quality, rural character, unique and special natural, scenic features and important community amenities and values. (1) Expansion of designated Rural Villages must be compatible with other adjacent uses, without placing an unfair tax burden on the general public. (2) Rural Villages shall not be designed to include areas of natural hazards or Resource Lands. 5.3.6. RURAL TOWNS 5.3.6.1. PURPOSE: 1. To relieve growth pressure from the surrounding rural areas and to provide town centers where shopping, employment, and services for residents, and supplies for resource industries, including commercial, industrial, and tourism services, at a scale that is more consistent with an urban environment than the surrounding rural characteristics; 2. To provide a town focus that is appropriate in character and scale for the transition from the previous rural environments or service areas into urban growth areas; Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS voi- 20 Fars Lf 2 Page 18 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT M 3 October 6, 1994 3. To provide a focused core and town center instead of strip developments along arterials or small concentrations of commercial and higher -density residential developments at intersections; and 4. To provide an opportunity to develop more intense activity clusters that can eventually within a fifty year period function as an independent town or city. 5.3.6.2. DEFINITION: Rural Towns are viewed as a transition from a dominantly rural community to one which as full urban services and, ultimately many will become incorporated and/or assume UGA status. Rural Towns are those areas where growth and development has occurred, but at a scale and density somewhat less than a UGA. Rural Towns received primary public utilities before the implementation of Growth Management. Prior to 1992, these communities had been encouraged or planned to go beyond the concept of "rural character" and today we can not turn them into ghost towns or Rural Villages. They were planned to provide regional service outlets for a variety of goods and services. Moreover, Rural Towns need not currently provide a full range of urban services. The transition may be of a relatively short duration or may require many years to complete and must be guided by a specific community plan formulated by and for local citizens. Jefferson County can not deny previous land use and policy actions by local or state jurisdictions to create communities with urban services. Rural Towns are envisioned to have a commercial focus of between 40,000 and 80,000 gross square feet of commercial retail building space. 5.3.6.3. DESIGNATION CRITERIA 1. Previously approved "Master Plan" or utility extension agreements to provide any primary public service such as domestic water or sanitary sewer at urban levels of service by any public agencies. 2. Utilize local knowledge, experience and preferences by the neighborhood residents through community planning to establish both the geographic size and population limits of Rural Towns. 5.3.6.4 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND GUIDELINES: 1. Direct higher intensity mixed-use development into Rural Towns. 1. Rural Towns contain higher density housing than Rural Villages, but they are design to the lower limits of UGA status. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 19 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT # 3 October 6, 1994 2. The intent is that the Rural Town will grow into Urban Growth Areas and become incorporated. 3. Commercial and industrial developments are encouraged to locate where possible in existing Rural Towns to help provide the focus of employment, shopping, services and housing opportunities, to allow transition into an urban growth area. 4. Establish standards and design guidelines to protect environmental quality, older rural character, natural, scenic features and important community amenities and values as the community finishes its transition from the "rural character" into more of an urban environment. (1) The transition of designated Rural Towns to UGAs must be compatible with other adjacent uses, without placing an unfair tax burden on the general public. (2) Rural Towns shall not be designated to include areas of natural hazards or Resource Lands. CWPP - ISSUE REMAINING The rural element of the comprehensive plan will recognize existing industry located outside UGAs, as well as establish a framework for the siting of industries which, due to their size, resource dependence, or incompatibility with UGAs, would be better suited to locate in rural areas. Provisions will be made to ensure that adjacent land uses are not converted into urban uses due to the proximity of these developments or to infrastructure necessary to support them. Comment: This could be discussed here in the rural area or in a special - industrial over -ride section. Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 20 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT' N 3 October 6, 1994 Industrial and commercial uses larger than home occupations and cottage industries, and not requiring urban level services, may be allowed in rural residential areas but they should be compatible with densities, land uses, and standards of rural areas. (1) Allow industries related to and dependent upon agriculture, aquaculture, timber, tourism or minerals; (2) Allow industries requiring large secluded areas away from population centers that do not require urban land services. Such areas will be established as TDR receiving properties. A formula will established to define the TDR requirements for development; (3) - Industrial and commercial uses should be subject to strict site development standards and preservation of open space on and/or off-site; (4) Allow public and commercial recreational and associated uses, such as but not limited to campgrounds, lodging, interpretive centers, marinas, youth camps, golf courses, riding arenas, and rifle or archery ranges. path: G:\GROUP\PLANNING\COMP.DRA\RURAL Section 5.3 RURAL LANDS Page 21 zVo+_ 20 FAA 01625 i � d� 0 3 3 O 3 3 o Q 3 p 0 0'•� '� 3 C •�•� 04� � o o'�0 0000 o� •�oo occ •E•�� 147)tn0 o a: N 040 '�$ ���� :a• ol 13 13 a a c 3: ca3 U°� zU°40 ���z b'o� v°c� � U o 0 0 zzz 0 0 0 �zz �' 1 C14 rn 000 o a; 04 �� 3 3 o� �•-� $•s�� 3 3' � � �o � '� �g 3� � � foo 13 v a � a - $_ _ ��� z � « ���z « o « •�C o ��� o 0zz 400 a: p 3 •� 0 0 0 �g Baaz�� dao o �a oo z U z z U U U U z z M N M a i w � •� •8 � .o`gc •� � •� .3 •3 •3 3 3 � d w 3 0ilo 3 3.2.2.2 ao v•oa0 3a 00 0 =:�!a«o_ o «o a�«o '0 aO zz O Op zUa p Oz Oz « uzz « « zz �w� zf 0 Q � � •C fn u F 3 a �45 �n 8 8 002 �o.� F� qu �• p5� Asa. y Pct '� ' 5'«°L O `C ,~ems 3 '" ``� �°e a •� �� �• e c e a W C gU... 79 $e�, Qn�3 �� � w" 3� w ah H 004 � °AU o �p4Uz o'o Woao0o0 �i.�.wa. �oG.. VOL 20 wr 0 ATTACHMENT #5 yo_ 20 Face 01-626 `VOL 20 FacF 0 :1 (;Z7 U d FQ N 0 O d C7 D � b � z o - F"'or 00 N A . 0 Ix r o � Y yj b U O tn tn Cd U O cl) r- 1 I U Ha zr oroo rX � 0 O F d az z�z d z O � W� U� �aOaOa 00 5 AWWO oa = 0 `VOL 20 FacF 0 :1 (;Z7 U d FQ N 0 O ATTACHMENT #6 VOL 20 PAGE 01(3,2s T W J° CD z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 h � u d M N � O m a0 f, i0 0 4 M N 03nssi SiIV483d 3O a38rm N r N z zz cn r z O0 o Z J Z3 cn L F � ° al �o0 o - co Cl) M r rn m N 0 X629 Q _J W Q Qi N W N N O co LU (� co .6 T LU Q N 0 CC O r r N x a J_w-- T S .r _J N m Q cc LL Q C7 W -� O a — z zz z O0 o Z J Z3 cn L v U � ° al �o0 o - co VOL. 4 PACE 0 X629 V) H Z vJ WLL U! a Z Jw W 5 a N °t1 Z ww� OCG U Jwz J ai m LL. M CCCC C7 Z 0 (t} Z to z a 9 L r X00 u O N N 7 O 00i a00 10 100 u01 1 M N O O 03(1SSI S11WN3d j0 838vinN VOL 20 FacF 0 +D Y F- Q D a Er LL co N N "t 00. M r :. N V' M Y Cl) T. cli M M M tD a v T N M M N Qi cc J F- 0 M 0 w a[ z D 0 m 0 O D 0 �y UL LL VOL 20 FacF 0 +D Y F- Q D a Er LL co cc LL J m r0 100 V01 d r07 N0O 0 a00 On 0 u07 d M N 0 0 O3f1SSl Sllrid3d 30 23881 N r L. aO N N F- D m N N N Cl) M" N N J Ia) (nQ u r. W V LL 0: `r WN. H Q N Qi N ao u> N Lo CM N 0 0 0) Q W LLt- W = N N o M rn J w a r J ca U. M Z CC F - Z U<_ ¢ z U cr — D. Y 0 U) Z d ry V LL w fA Z F- 0 LL p' 0 . vol. FACE0- C w C Q =0 � J )o S J cc H 1 0 to 0-0- o6 )n )ro �a o �z z ;g .a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h � Y d N N O M 0 N 0 N 1 M N 03nssi SlIV483d j0 83GV4nN VOL 20 FACE 01632 rn 0 LnN N N O ~ N rn N (O M N O co N P N M CJ O r- ch r' N M N N 0 M r Q� (i w W a� c °Z Q 0 o LL VOL 20 FACE 01632 rn 0 LnN m m 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 00 0 0 0 d 0 N O O 03nssi slIM3d 30 a3ewnN W N 00) Qi r WE to O) N n r r T< W N M 11 rn C TT 0 = ► O 0cr aC W = O U- to F- LL von 20 FacF 0.1633 633 Of I O 1 N N ATTACHMENT #7 VOL 20 [AGF 0 1634 OFFICE OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR Jack Westerman III, Assessor October 25, 1994 TO: DAVID GOLDSMITH FROM: JEFF CHAPMAN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF NEWLY CREATED LOTS Based on the attached information, it appears that the percentage of newly created lots in each given area since the beginning of 1993 is as follows: LESS THAN 1 ACRE IN SIZE: TRI -AREA: 18.30% PORT LUDLOW: 63.40% OTHER (OUTSIDE CITY): 18.30% MORE THAN 1 ACRE, LESS THAN 5 ACRES IN SIZE: TRI -AREA: 22.47% PORT LUDLOW: 0% OTHER (OUTSIDE CITY): 77.53% VOL 20 FAcF 01635 P.O. Box 1220, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368-0920 (206)385-9105 1-800-831-2678 FAX (206)385-9197 ATTACHMENT #8 VOL 20 Face O:.636 Jefferson County Health & Human Services CASTLE HILL CENTER • 615 SHERIDAN • PORT TOWNSEND, WA • 98368 L*k TO: DAVID GOLDSMITH COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR FROM: LARRY FAY r� ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR DATE: October 28, 1994 RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY INTERIM URBAN AREAS ORDINANCE The Jefferson County Health Department has been asked to address concerns as to whether continued construction on existing lots of record in the Tri -area creates the potential for a significant public health threat. It is my understanding that this response is limited to building construction between now and completion of revisions to the critical aquifer recharge areas chapter of the critical areas ordinance. The deadline for the revisions is December 31, 1994. It seems to me that the answer has to come in two parts: 1) is there currently a public health problem in the Tri -area; and 2) will the additional construction and consequent sewage loading projected between now and the end of the year significantly increase the probability of future public health effects. The most probable health effect associated with build out in the Tri -area where onsite sewage systems are used on small lots would be aquifer contamination from inadequately treated sewage. Indicators of contamination from sewage include total and fecal coliform and nitrate nitrogen concentrations. There is not a lot of information on ground water quality in the Tri -area except from the two wells operated by the City of Port Townsend. The most recent water test results from the city wells that was available to this office is from samples collected and analyzed in September 1992 for the Hadlock well and September 1993 for the Tri -city well. Nitrate concentrations were 1.6 mg/L and 0.5 mg/L respectively and well within the 10 mg/L drinking water standard. I am not aware of any other wells in the area that have been tested extensively. In addition to well information, the failure rate of onsite sewage systems in the area may indicate whether or not a public health problem exists. The health department does not have a program to systematically inspect all systems but does numerous inspections, upon request, for building permit or financing purposes or for compliance checks and complaint response. Failure for these purposes is principally clogged drainfields and surfacing effluent or sewage backing into the house. Between June 1993 and September 1994 the health department issued seven permits to repair failing systems in the Tri - area. V0. ;_ 20 G 1637 HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENTAL ALCOHOL/DRUG DEPARTMENT HEALTH DISABILITIES ABUSE CENTER FAX 206/385-9400 206/385-9444 206/385-9400 206/385-9435 206/385-9401 Memo to David Goldsmith October 28, 1994 Page Two Information provided to the health department by long range planning indicates that there are between approximately 1000 and 1600 houses in the Tri -area depending on where boundaries are drawn. While repair permits probably do not account for all failing systems, these numbers are not of major concern when compared against the number of existing dwellings. Based on the somewhat limited data, this office must conclude that there is not currently a public health emergency in the Tri -area. A record of building permit activity for the years 1991 through 1993 and the first three quarters of 1994 was supplied by the Permit Center. Residential construction has increased from 71 units/year to 91 units/year in the Tri -area between 1991 and 1993. Quarterly analysis would suggest that residential building permit activity drops off in the fourth quarter although in the 1993 fourth quarter, more permits were issued than any other quarter during the period. Some of this may have been due to changes in the City of Port Townsend policies around water reservations that came into effect in the beginning of 1994. Thirty residential building permits were issued during that quarter. If one takes a conservative view and assumes that 30 permits is typical of the kind of response the county could expect in the fourth quarter of 1994 and the existing residential base is between 1000 and 1600 units, there would be an over all increase in sewage loading of between about 2 and 3 percent. It is hard to imagine that a 2 to 3 percent increase in sewage loading would have a discernable impact on water quality in the aquifer. This office has to conclude that continued residential construction on existing lots of record through the end of the year at the current levels does not represent a public health emergency. This is not to say that build out of all lots of record would not create a potential for problems or that current practice of a 5000 square foot zoning limit to lot size and the practical limit of 10,000 square feet for septic systems are adequate for protection of the aquifer. Issues around lot size, density, treatment standard, and onsite sewage system management should be addressed in the revisions to the critical areas ordinance. LDF/wg VOL 20 pw Q 1638 ATTACHMENT #9 'VOL 20, ME 0 1639 CD 6 I c 0? v c� c� �ODK 5o� cD (D N � 7C 0)• O m �• � aco O Q- n cC CD c C. -v CD 1 3 0 O O CL d r+ O C4 —* C-) (D � N (D O — :3D n —O)' Ox c r+ l< D 0 vo?- 20 FACE 01640 C— m m 'n 'n m m ch 0 DCz z00 CC: �Dzz co r G) z wmo-< Ocnm iog z -4 0 m z m �! ICD c� IO m Q CD a)C CD y ICD (i Z M Q M Cl) � O d d QO m fl; y (D o ICD CD C21)rF m C7 Z m O O ICC CC i I 33 O Z O M M INA N i i ((woFi O 1`•'•� Iw-h 0 w VOL cn -+ -0 v - 0 i I O Z O M M M V i O i i CD cn cc O ICD CD CO IM i CO i W CSD V CSC N N 0 w W IW ow a m m MD mEk0W 5 m a 0 0 n O O T.m naE- 2'O m K d 0 Nm'0 m yCO� D i = �m N m =1 C O 0 N 47 .0. 0 a m 3 !4 O CD r x7 c 3 O m;p�. CU 0 O y O m -� mm m n Co _ yea n C CD CL CD �� 7 y 0 ETDM N 07 y CD S C_ < a m ID m C C C m Dfc7 -h N O y %-% M C 7 3 n m O m C 0 m a ,< �a CD C-) 3�-o m 7 m to �rtm FD N a� :r 7y�• N m CDD O ,+ ?N O O yam O 3 3 cpm 1m in O r+ - m 0Ma 'tam 0 �Mw CD Ca nO 7 no :3 cn any O O m " C n 3 tai, d ?n 7 m !Z 0cn0 M m 7 0 V m CD a I co A m VOL C- m m m m I j CO 00 V C) CI) 46 W N O v z 0 0 c * mmco>Omw>Oc) M p O M M O O A z z �z p i -NiZr-<DmRnDmrC`� ZZzmincco0�mcn-rl o m mommzocnoo <�0>-0 Do cn - m M z 0 m toZ 0 0 C/) -i > m O m r- O (- = Z O m m Cl) CC) Z O O n m z Z 0 Prl 30o r- arTi m p O 2 m O n p :1) O C Z m y O n Z G. Fac ® 1.642 0 0 0 :E CD PL CL CL CD CL 0 0 co C CD to -A m m Lq rg -A -A -L -A: -A -L -A -A -A -A -A -4 -L "" ", < tD -A. CD w w (D CO CD M cD W cD cD W W W W W W W W ou W -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 > CD 0 CD 00 14 0) CP N) CD 00 -4 a) Cl) z cD Vr) cn ha co to: 4 to w 1.-,,4 m W: CC) CO3 -4 -4 rwk M C,3 cin N) co Ul CA) CA O O. (D ro i to 0) :CA): 0) ro 0) Ul. CA) .0) Ul 01 -4 CA) ro. Co -4: l. Ln W: CA) :tn. Lq rg O CD 4 Ln cD P, 0). W ui, tn -4 CO 14 CO co 03 co , 0 ,6 W Co M .4 N W. M 0 -4 -4 N W 0 co VOL 2u' ,FACE 01643 cn "o Z Z Z m -n Z a0 9a F m m > M M cn M 50 M Z 0 m Cl) w"I cn I w 'I" CD 00 co A to 0 -4 Cn CD cD Vr) cn ha co to: 4 to w 1.-,,4 m W: CC) CO3 -4 -4 rwk M C,3 cin N) co Ul CA) CA O O. (D ro i to 0) :CA): 0) ro 0) Ul. CA) .0) Ul 01 -4 CA) ro. Co -4: l. Ln W: CA) :tn. 0) CA) C-3 4 0 -4 0) cn C#) ro. -4 6o 4 tD cA) -N a) W 01 w co w WNco W( -n W 4 K), 0 Ul CP ..... XXX . ... .. to -4 CD -AL V N -4 C M G) :0 -4 00 , W to CA) (A) -N CA) 4 M. Ln N 0 C W 0 �o Im 4h.: W :CY) m a) 0) 0). (3) M A -N ro 0 ro ro ro -A C.) -o, C.) co cn 0) (n 4 4 -A, im 0 14 N CAI ..... .... ... �00 . C:, 0 C) 0 :o o to co O CD 4 Ln cD P, 0). W ui, tn -4 CO 14 CO co 03 co , 0 ,6 W Co M .4 N W. M 0 -4 -4 N W 0 co VOL 2u' ,FACE 01643 cn "o Z Z Z m -n Z a0 9a F m m > M M cn M 50 M Z 0 m Cl) 0 -0 0 0 :E CD PL CL CD CL 0 cc c CD 0) ,VOL , 20 wF 01644 �IS �SI 1■111 11111 �� IlVllli ,VOL , 20 wF 01644 V 1 CD cr 1 co CA) M m 1 0 0 0 cn CDPL 0 Q CL cn CL 0 0 >v co c CD V) "VOL 20 qac! 0 1645 7,-u _ Z mZ :c G) Oa m 33 m �' a m T O 0 _0 0 0 CD m PL CL CD CL 0 O CD cn 4 M m C0 CD CD CD Co Co -A cD -A cD cD cD to (D CD (D CD CD CD CD CD -4 (D --4 CD -4 :� a) cn (D 0 W W 4 M. Ln U) N -A 0 (D COL 0) Co 1 CD Cn C4 C4 V :Ln (n C F .... ..... 0 co: ..... 0 cn. .... ..... -A .... ..... Xb I:Ul --4 ;A: 03 W ioD N rn j V O. A ED. co co, CD c4l co W 6 ro co ,C> Al CD CO -4 0 -4 P. ca 4 65 po co : Im CD 1-4 m m -N Co 0 :ul NN. 0 C)" j CD Co cn: (D -4 ...... (n V -.4 O a .... ..... ..... Ln ...... .... 0) C) CA) 'co: 0 w co In Ja 4 A- A W CD CTS 4, ro Cn Cn W 4 4, C:. W CO LnCTScn 46 co --4 --4 to (D Cn Co 0) Ul V VOL A PAV 0164G INI a --i "o 0 � > z z z <0 z G) m > C > M z c:; M m 0 C.) 0 clC) . ZI C) c (D -A rj:) cn Ca .0) . 0) Co 1 CD Cn C4 C4 V :Ln (n C F co ..... 0 co: ..... 0 cn. .... co -A .... W I:Ul --4 ;A: 03 W ioD N rn j V O. A ED. co co, CD c4l co W 6 ro co ,C> Al CD CO -4 0 -4 P. ca 4 65 po co : Im CD 1-4 m m -N Co 0 :ul NN. 0 C)" j CD Co cn: (D -4 ...... (n V -.4 O a .... ..... ..... Ln 0) C) CA) 'co: 0 w co In M co K� 4: r,o a) CD CnCo W Co co CD • ro C4 N NVcz C4 w Cn Im CD cn (n co, N cn W M y --4 (D ba 0) En. rQ c:) cn .14 co ro I I M K) co 14 0 (D ODS -4 CO, A6 4 CO CD co CD ca co W W 00 W0 Ca 4 0 W 0 CD .(0 -4 W CO N O W. W N o 0 col 1 " N to W to N to CD to CO .4 V0 '4 CO CD 0 CO C) CO Ja 4 A- A W CD CTS 4, ro Cn Cn W 4 4, C:. W CO LnCTScn 46 co --4 --4 to (D Cn Co 0) Ul V VOL A PAV 0164G INI a --i "o 0 � > z z z <0 z G) m > C > M z c:; M m 0 -A 0 0 0 vol- 20 FAGF 01647 �O-Zo C -M om 03: UY, aV mj CA) fO -01 CA): N CA) C-3 .AW CD: CO CO:: (.n: (D (A) 0. 0.: '-4 (7) Lrl: a, ..... .. . ..... 7" 7 7 w ca CA); CO En fl) CA) (A) Ui co ......... ..... ........... 7 ..... .. q q w a w C') CO q .4 .06 A6 CA) CA) w A- m C'a .................... :-4! CO: (A: -0- -4 CA) 0 -01 00 0 0) .............. ...... ........... ............ ...... .............. ........... -1 w w w w w h w a 4, CA3; CA) z6 Co: Ca: CA) Ul. CA). -4. 0): 0. -P: C): 00: (n: a):: 0):' ........... ... .... ........... ........... w X. N , ro: Ca' (A) CA) ul CA) CA) 4: ro!' mi ............. 00 Cy): (D -N: G);: CF) 4 M: C)D: ...... ............... ..... . ............. .......... ..... ....... t� w (D CO q w oo: ta Ln cn c3r): a) 0) 4: cn: (n:J. CA) M W ............. CD, CA). -4: 0): 0); K) CO -A: CA): K) CD CA) ............. ...... . . ..... ... ..... . ......................... IID' CD w C) 14 W CA a) CA -4 cr) 00: CD -4. 0): 4 (JI 4: Cn: -4 CA) 0: 14 N 0: h3 W:4. ...... ....... ........... .......... ................. ... w a CD coa q q q . . . . ... c.): En: cn CC) -4; -4: CD 0): (D. 14:: En'4: CD a 0: co: co: (D: K): 0): oo: (.n: oo ....... ........................... ...... .................... a . . . . . CD CD co; co: .01 a): 0) co: : co Co. cr) : LT1 CD: 0) 14: W. co0) ;q Cn to: Cna d cn: ca:: (OO: : (D: ............. .. . ... ........ ..... ......................................... m w :'q.CD a m :.CAD X. CD-A CD : cn: (7): -4. 00: C): Co 0 CO: CO; -4 - 4CA) 0 vol- 20 FAGF 01647 0O:Z .... O:� �� �: W -4 `� 0 '.?ii < 0 cr C CD w ., Q CD 'yCD .. 1 :W: . m :.:::::. En:: N -•:N N N:N CA): j: O;CD:O to: O:(D:W:CO 0):N:A.V: ........... .......: ...... ..... ..... ..............:... ............................... .. .. .. . :.....:.. . a w �Znw. V' ..: ;: '.... .. .:' . Q: CD: -A co C7 •:tD O N -+ -+: A O V N V1 �I:z ..................... 6 :CD ?. O J : : 1 : N : J :.a :.�► : :.`(D ;:0 a €M': ...CD CD O c�0)�-4;co: C7: co CD co co � V : t W W CD;CD AA?V N:co: CD; O:C70'Vi W` r v CD c K X VOL 20 Face 0-1648' 0 V " 1 n CD Q I (o A NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED N N N N N W W rn o O N rn Ca O N -;Nl rn co O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO (A lD co cn Z� 00 J /Lo W to w VOL 20 ATTACHMENT #10 Yo_ 20 PxF 01650 JEFFERSON COUNTY NEW COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION 1994 W k OGjo�0 l`i V TOWNSHIP 28 01 E PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 821162001 BLD93-0854 35 unit hotel with dining/lounge/conference rooms COM NEW 821355012 BLD94-0145 Construction of a transmission termination cable station DUP NEW 821162001 BLD94-0216 DUPLEX COM NEW 821311001 BLD94-0410 Installation of prefabricated equipment shelter, communications tower & cellular antennas COM NEW 821222003 BLD94-0454 150' steel lattice tower with antennas, premanufactured bld 05+ NEW 821162001 BLD94-0509 Townhouses: 5 units COM NEW 821175009 BLD94-0600 retail building MAX OCC LOAD 32 COM NEW 821312001 BLD94-0657 premanufactured building for telephone equipment, US WEST TOTAL 8 TOWNSHIP 19 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 901101039 BLD94-0608 Commercial Storage building TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 26 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 954900028 BLD94-0460 150 ft cellular communications tower w/12'x 12' equipment bldg TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 28 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 801181001 BLD94-0457 150 ft high cellular communications tower w/1 -12'x 121& 1 121x 28' utility bldgs TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 29 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO.+©{ tj fw COM NEW 994200025 BLD94-0076 -lf;J Storage Building IZA94-0002 COM NEW 901141017 BLD94-0387 Remove mobile; construct storage building & office IZA94-0037 COM NEW 901141017 BLD94-0388 Temporary office trailer IZA94-43 1994 TOTAL 3 TOWNSHIP 30 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 001213023 BLD94-0090 Sales & Storage Office IZA 94-0008 COM NEW 001152006 BLD94-0104 SDP93-0009, IZ61-93, construct 80 X 130 bldg adjacent to existing finishing rm bldg. to house new paper roll wrapping equipment COM NEW 001282024 BLD94-0114 pole building; commercial storage COM NEW 948602603 BLD94-0151 120' x 36' RV & boat storage bld IZA94-0001 COM NEW 001324003 BLD94-0203 install wash pad, catch basin, pump & holding tank (above ground) IZA94-0021 COM NEW 001212016 BLD94-0237 Auto Clinic :IZA94-0020 COM NEW 901042004 BLD94-0337 sign;IZA94-0033 COM NEW 001081004 BLD94-0339 solid wate transfer and recycling facility; IZA94-0034 CO subject to meeting fire flow req DUP NEW 001171013 BLD94-0425 Duplex - unit 7 DUP NEW 001171013 BLD94-0426 Duplex - unit 8 COM NEW 947100807 BLD94-0480 new commercial showroom/storage/forge TOTAL 11 TOWNSHIP 26 02 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 602353053 BLD94-0118 18 unit mini storage:IZA94-0012 TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 30 02 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 002124015 BLD94-0399 Pole Barn for Commercial Use TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 26 11 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 611010000 BLD94-0228 f ence TOTAL 1 VOL 20 FAGF 01652 ------------------------------------------ GRAND TOTAL 28 ------------------------------------------ JEFFERSON COUNTY NEW COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION 1993 TOWNSHIP 17 01 E PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 821084004 BLD93-0618 mobile home installation/office building; IZ43-93 TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 28 01 E PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 821162001 BLD93-0611 remove 4 tanks, piping; install 4 new UST and double wall fiberglass piping to dock COM NEW 821162001 BLD93-0773 SEWAGE PUMP STATION DUP NEW 951500301 BLD93-0794 Duplex TOTAL 7 VO TOWNSHIP 30 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. 20 Far, COM NEW 001081004 BLD93-0005 retaining wall COM NEW 001213015 BLD93-0029 commercial greenhouse COM NEW 001332001 BLD93-0055 environmental center for trash, waste oil, and recycling containers COM NEW 948602603 BLD93-0081 120 x 42 foot RV & 42 x 96 boat storage TOTAL 3 TOWNSHIP 26 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 601071001 BLD93-0317 pole building for vehicle storage TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 29 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 901182036 BLD93-0242 indoor swimming pool (building only) COM NEW 942902603 BLD93-0284 attached garage COM NEW 901182036 BLD93-0367 pool and spa COM NEW 994200045 BLD93-0579 5500 sq ft commercial building; IZ-57-92 COM NEW 901111005 BLD93-0619 mini storage building - 30' x 1001, phase 3 IZ50-93 IND NEW 901111009 BLD93-0705 Install prefab used motor oil collection tank COM NEW 986400306 BLD93-0735 convert garage to studio; IZ-57-93 TOTAL 7 VO TOWNSHIP 30 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. 20 Far, COM NEW 001081004 BLD93-0005 retaining wall COM NEW 001213015 BLD93-0029 commercial greenhouse COM NEW 001332001 BLD93-0055 environmental center for trash, waste oil, and recycling containers COM NEW 948602603 BLD93-0081 120 x 42 foot RV & 42 x 96 boat storage 0 &:Vkl COM NEW 001294007 BLD93-0130 home business: catering kitchen COM NEW 001081004 BLD93-0162 office space at solid waste transfer station COM NEW 001212016 BLD93-0180 commercial office and warehouse COM NEW 001081004 BLD93-0256 animal control building COM NEW 001081004 BLD93-0312 install 2 septage holding tanks; 21,040 gal total COM NEW 001081004 BLD93-0313 install prefabricated office COM NEW 001081004 BLD93-0314 construct equipment building COM NEW 001081004 BLD93-0315 pole building COM NEW 001081004 BLD93-0316 pole building COM NEW 941500007 BLD93-0443 cmu wellhouse COM NEW 001184003 BLD93-0459 storage building IZ20-93 COM NEW 948600801 BLD93-0484 storage building IZ38-93 IND NEW 001081004 BLD93-0706 Install Prefab used motor oil collection tank COM NEW 948601701 BLD93-0727 storage building; IZ52-93 COM NEW 948600801 BLD93-0728 storage building with restroom; IZ54-93 COM NEW 001054011 BLD93-0732 Change of use:barn to winery IZ12-92 TOTAL 20 TOWNSHIP 39 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 964800007 BLD93-0660 new 26 unit mini storage; see IZ46-93; bldg B TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 25 02 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 993000064 BLD93-0091 timber framed/steel sheeted bld over water tank & pumps TOTAL TOWNSHIP 26 02 W PARCEL # COM NEW 602353002 portable used for classroom COM NEW 602353002 propane tank installation TOTAL 1 VOL. CASE NO. BLD93-0470 BLD93-0569 2 TOWNSHIP 27 02 W 1993 PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 937200852 BLD93-0120 mobile espresso cart COM NEW 956100003 BLD93-0385 new office - IZ33-93 IND NEW 702231010 BLD93-0707 Install prefab used motor oil collection tank COM NEW 702133009 BLD93-0853 new shed, repairs; IZ68-93 COM NEW 702133009 BLD93-0864 tank installation; 6000 gallon TOTAL 5 TOWNSHIP 29 02 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 902103001 BLD93-0319 tower & accessory building TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 30 02 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 002332006 BLD93-0552 truck scale and weigh master shed; IZ42-93 TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 26 11 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 611010000 BLD93-0135 WAREHOUSE COM NEW 611010000 BLD93-0204 replace 2 underground storage tanks with above ground tanks COM NEW 611010000 BLD93-0622 chapel COM NEW 611010000 BLD93-0812 construct storage shed for recycling TOTAL 4 ------------------------------------------ GRAND TOTAL 47 ------------------------------------------ VOL 20 FAG! 01655 JEFFERSON COUNTY NEW COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION 1992 TOWNSHIP 28 01 E PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 821163003 BLD92-0044 modular construction office COM NEW 821214004 BLD92-0136 WELL HOUSE FOR DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY COM NEW 821162001 BLD92-0277 deck addition COM NEW 821302001 BLD92-0293 commercial mobile office COM NEW 821171004 BLD92-0307 portable office/temporary COM NEW 978900131 BLD92-0431 relocate 24 x 40 general office building:retail foundation and floor insulation, entry & restroom COM NEW 821171004 BLD92-0455 reconstruction of commercial office/warehouse/restaurant COM NEW 821175007 BLD92-0495 commercial development: offices TOTAL 8 TOWNSHIP 26 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 601342030 BLD91-0830 COMMUNITY CENTER TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 28 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 801012001 BLD92-0222 KINGDOM HALL TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 29 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 901024022 BLD92-0086 6400 square foot retail sales COM NEW 901114008 BLD92-0330 pole building 05+ NEW 901182036 BLD92-0413 16 unit condominium: units 15 through 30 05+ NEW 901182036 BLD92-0414 8 unit condominium UNITS 31-38 COM NEW 901013002 BLD92-0432 change of use: bakery - health department permit for 10-20 seats only COM NEW 901204044 BLD92-0435 rebuild garage as commercial storage COM NEW 901114000 BLD92-0522 CHURCH COM NEW 942902105 BLD92-0564 construct movable sales office .VOL 20 EAU 0 165(; 1992 05+ NEW 901182036 BLD92-0680 condominium: Units 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 & 48 COM NEW 994200031 BLD92-0681 PORTABLE OFFICE 3-4 NEW 901182036 BLD92-0764 condominiums: Units 49, 50, 51 & 52 TOTAL 11 TOWNSHIP 30 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 948602005 BLD91-0799 ministorage - needs SEPA approval before issuing permit IND NEW 001284006 BLD91-0821 HANGER DUP NEW 001263016 BLD92-0203 condominium - duplex - unit 1 - building 24 COM NEW 001212012 BLD92-0238 new commercial building: furniture store IZ17-92 COM NEW 001311002 BLD92-0278 pole building - for storage COM NEW 001081004 BLD92-0411 hole in the gound with concrete walls & floor COM NEW 948600802 BLD92-0755 commercial building: office & showroom COM NEW 001281004 BLD92-0776 150' steel lattice tower, cellular phone site TOTAL 8 TOWNSHIP 9.9 01 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 964800007 BLD92-0569 mini storage: 26 units TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 26 02 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 602353040 BLD92-0355 COMMERCIAL MINI -STORAGE TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 27 02 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 702231018 BLD92-0031 CHURCH MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY 513 TOTAL 1 TOWNSHIP 26 11 W PARCEL # CASE NO. COM NEW 611010000 BLD92-0243 generator shed �'j TOTAL . �'`OL1 2V [AGE GRAND TOTAL 1992 VOL 20 wF Oir 33 ATTACHMENT #11 �YOL 20 WE 0 59 DRAFT 1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED that Interim Rural Overlay Districts are hereby 2 created pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, Jefferson County Zoning 3 Code, as follows: 4 5 SECTION 1 6 PURPOSE AND EFFECT 7 8 Subsections: 9 10 1.10 Purpose and Effect 11 12 1.10 PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of the Interim Rural Overlay Districts are 13 to repeal and replace Ordinance No. 02-0110-94, Jefferson County Interim Growth 14 Areas Ordinance. All development activities subject to Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, 15 Jefferson County Zoning Code, Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, Jefferson County 16 Subdivision Ordinance, Ordinance No. 07-075-94 Jefferson Count Interim 17 Forrest Resource Lands Ordinance and Ordinance No.06-0705-94 Jefferson 18 County Interum Mineral Resource Lands Ordinance shall conform to the 19 requirements of this overlay district. In the event of a discrepancy between the 20 requirements of the overlay districts and those found in the zoning code, 21 subdivision ordinance, or interim resource lands ordinances the stricter standards 22 shall apply. 23 24 25 SECTION 2 26 DEFINITIONS 27 28 Subsections: 29 30 2.10 Definitions 31 32 2.10 DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Ordinance, certain words are defined as 33 follows: words in the present tense include the future tense; words in the singular 34 shall include the plural; the word "shall" is mandatory; the word "should" indicates 35 that which is recommended but not required; the word "may" is permissive. 36 37 All words in this Ordinance shall have their plain and ordinary meaning unless 38 otherwise defined herein below: 39 40 1. Rural Centers: Rural Centers are those unincorporated places which serve 41 the retail commercial and service needs of a local area. Land uses within 42 these centers include: 43 44 Shopping, employment, and services for residents, supplies for 45 resource industries, and commercial, industrial, and tourism 46 development at a scale that preserves the surrounding rural 47 characteristics. 48 49 Residential development that includes small -lot single-family and 50 multi -family, and mixed-use developments. 51 52 Community facilities and services necessary to support the rural 53 center and promote pedestrian mobility. : von 20 mF 0X660 DRAFT Interim Ruml Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 1 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM For the purposes of this ordinance, Rural Centers shall be further defined as being comprised of two distinct types: Rural Centers (Village) and Rural Centers (Crossroads). 6 2. Rural Center (Crossroads): Rural Center (Crossroads) provide convenient 7 local services for nearby residents, support natural resource-based 8 industries or agricultural uses, and provide services for the traveling public. 9 Rural Centers (Crossroads) have been established by virtue of historic 10 transportation patterns. Rural Centers (Crossroads) are not located within 11 urban growth areas. 12 13 The purpose of the Rural Center (Crossroads) designation is to recognize 14 existing concentrations small scale commercialuses located along major 15 transportation routes in rural areas. Rural Centers (Crossroads) contribute to 16 the continued economic vitality of the rural area by facilitating transportation 17 and providing a very limited selection of goods and services "around the 18 corner." 19 20 3. Rural Center (V o: Rural Centers (Village) are unincorporated areas of 21 spatially -related commercial, industrial and residential development which 22 are governed directly by Jefferson County. Rural Centers (Village) provide 23 a focal point for community identity, and offer the opportunity for 24 community groups such as chambers of commerce or community clubs to 5 participate in p affairs. Rural Centers (Village) are not located within 2 27 28 The purpose of the Rural Center (Village) designation is to recognize 29 existing concentrations of higher density residential and commercial activity 30 in rural areas. Rural villages have been established by virtue of historic 31 settlement patterns, and have become for many County residents the 32 physical representation of community identity. Rural Centers (Village) 33 contribute to the continued economic vitality of the rural area by providing 34 needed goods and services "close to home." 35 36 Rural Centers (Village) may allow for modest economic growth if supported 37 by the community and adequate utilities and other public services are 38 available. Although higher density development may require public sewers, 39 applying the full range of urban level of service development standards may 40 not be necessary. Even though Rural Centers (Village) may in some 41 circumstances develop densities similar to those found in an Urban Growth 42 Area, they are considered part of the rural area for purposes of growth 43 management, and do not provide significant growth capacity. 44 45 4. Rural Commercial Uses: Rural commercial uses are those retail and 46 wholesale activities which provide general goods and services for a rural 47 community. Although some types of rural commercial development may 48 duplicate uses found in urban areas, all rural commercial uses shall be of an 49 intensity and scale which accommodate the short-term or convenience 50 shopping needs of the local community, and do not rely on a regional 51 population for market support. 52 53 For the purposes of this Ordinance, rural commercial uses shall be located 54 within Rural Centers. 1. VOL 20 PAGE 0 X661 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 2 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM I 2 5. Rural Industrial Uses (Non -resource, Rural Industrial Uses (Non - 3 resource) are industrial uses located within rural centers which contribute 4 towards the continued economic vitality of rural areas through the provision 5 of non -service sector jobs. Rural Industrial Uses (Non -resource) shall be 6 established in a manner which does not adversely effect rural character. 7 Screening, vegetative buffering, and contextually -based architectural design 8 shall be used to better integrate the proposed Rural Industrial Use. 9 10 For the purposes of this Ordinance, Rural Industrial Uses (Non -resource) 11 of less than 15,000 square feet gross floor area shall be permitted within 12 rural centers provided that adequate public services are available. 13 14 6. Rural Industrial Uses (Resourced Existing or proposed industrial uses in 15 rural areas either isolated or located near rural centers which are resource 16 based, including but not limited to aquaculture, shellfish harvesting and 17 processing, timber harvesting, processing and related silvaculture activities, 18 extraction and processing of minerals and all agricultural uses. Rural 19 Industrial Uses (Resource) uses contribute towards the continued economic 20 vitality of rural areas and are an integral element of historic rural 21 development patterns in Jefferson County. Rural Industrial Uses 22 (Resource) shall conform to the standards for the use type described in the 23 Jefferson County Zoning Code, the Jefferson County Interim Resources 24 Lands Ordinance and other applicable Jefferson County Ordinances. 25 26 For the purposes of this Ordinance, Rural Industrial Uses (Resources) shall 27 be permitted as allowed by the Jefferson County Resource Lands 28 Ordinance, and the Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance. Rural Industrial 29 Uses (Resource) shall provide for necessary public services on site. 30 31 7. Rural Residential Uses: Rural Residential Uses are characterized by 32 residential development within Rural Centers (Village) and residential 33 development outside of rural centers. 34 35 Rural residential uses located within Rural Centers, shall provide a range of 36 affordable housing options for Jefferson County residents through diversity 37 of lot size and type, shall reduce transportation impacts by reducing vehicle 38 trips, and shall maintain a favorable jobsthousing balance. Rural residential 39 uses located within Rural Centers support and maintain vital, healthy rural 40 community centers. 41 42 Rural Residential Uses located outside of rural centers shall have low 43 densities which can be sustained by minimal infrastructure improvements, 44 such as septic systems and rural roads. Rural residential development 45 outside of Rural Centers shall not cumulatively create the future necessity or 46 expectation of urban levels of service. 47 48 For the purposes of this Ordinance, rural densities shall be as indicated on 49 the Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map. 50 51 VOL DRAFT Interim Raul Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 3 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 SECTION 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERIM ZONING DENSITY OVERLAY DISTRICTS Subsections: 3.10 Establishment of Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts 3.20 Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts - Use and Bulk Limitations 3.30 Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Minimum Building Area: 3.40 Official Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map 3.50 Boundaries - Attesting Regulations 3.60 Boundary Interpretation 3.70 Boundary Line Adjustments - Limitation 3.10 ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERIM ZONING DENSITY OVERLAY DISTRICTS: For the purposes of this Ordinance and to carry out these regulations, Jefferson County will be hereby divided into four classes of density overlay districts as tabulated below: Interim Zoning Density Overlay District Rural Center (Crossroad) Rural Center (Village) Rural Residential I Rural Residential II Minimum Residential Lot Size 1 Acre 1 Acre 2.5 Acre 5 Acre 3.20 INTERIM ZONING DENSITY OVERLAY DISTRICTS - USE AND BULK LMTATIONS: For the purposes of this Ordinance, rural commercial uses shall be located within Rural Centers, and shall be consistent with the following use and bulk limitations: Rural Center (Crossroads): Permitted Use Maximum Floor Area (in sq, ft.) All C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Uses 2,500 as indicated in Sec. 6.00 Jefferson County Zoning Code ExcQtLmg the following: Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Plan Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the SMP Construction yards Feed stores Hardware stores Day care center Group home for the handicapped Home business Residences, multi -family Residences, single-family YoL 20 xF 0 1 j; DRAFT Interim Rund Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 4 As permitted by SMP As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code 5,000 As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code 10,000 As permitted by Zoning Code Revised: October 19, 199410.55 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 3.30 Water -dependent or water -related commercial uses As permitted by SMP located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Permitted Use Maximum Floor Area (in�Lft.) All C-2 General Commercial Uses 2,500 as indicated in Sec. 6.00 Jefferson County Zoning Code Ex�QftM the following= Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the SMP Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the SMP Construction yards Day care center Feed stores Food stores Hardware stores Government buildings Group home for the handicapped Home business Laboratories for research and testing Lumber yards Nursery, landscape materials Pharmacy or drugstore Residences, multi -family Residences, single-family Restaurants Theaters, excluding drive-in theaters Theaters, Drive-in Undertaldng establishments Vehicle sales, repair and service Veterinary hospitals Water -dependent or water -related commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Wholesale, which mai include incidental retail outlets only such merchandise as is handled at Wholesale As permitted SMP As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code 10,000 7,500 As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code 5,000 As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As per SMP BUILDING AREA: For the purposes of this Ordinance, the minimum building area for single family residences shall be 10,000 square feet or as required by the Jefferson County Health Department for on-site sewage disposal, which ever is greater. 3.40 OFFICIAL INTERIM ZONING DENSITY OVERLAY DISTRICTS MAP- The locations and boundaries of the Interim Zoning Density limitations shall be shown on the map entitled "Official Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map, Jefferson County, Washington." The official interim zoning density overlay districts map and all notations, references and amendments thereto and other information shown thereon are hereby made a part of this Ordinance, just as if the information set forth on the map were fully described and set out herein. V01- DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Disuicts Ordinance Page 5 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM 1 3.50 BOUNDARIES - ATTESTING REGULATIONS The boundaries of such 2 districts are as shown upon the official interim zoning density overlay districts map, 3 which is hereby adopted The provisions of this Ordinance are attested by the 4 signatures of the County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Board, with the seal 5 of the County affixed, and shall be kept on file in the office of the Clerk of the 6 Board. Copies shall be available for inspection by the public. 7 8 3.60 BOUNDARY INTERPRETATION. Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries 9 of any interim zoning density overlay district shown upon the official interim 10 zoning density overlay districts map, the following rules shall apply: 11 12 1. Where boundaries are indicated as approximately following the centerline of 13 streets or alleys or lot lines, such lines shall be construed to be such 14 boundaries. 15 16 2. Where one or more boundaries intersects a lot, the location of such 17 boundary shall be determined by use of the scale appearing on said official 18 interim zoning density overlay districts map and the respective portions of 19 the parcel shall be subject to the respective districts except as provided in 20 item (4) of this section. 21 22 3. Where a public street is officially vacated or abandoned, the area comprising 23 such vacated street or alley shall acquire the classification of the property to 24 which it reverts. 25 26 4. Whenever a district boundary line passes through a lot of record, which 27 existed prior to the passage of this Ordinance the entire lot of record may be 28 used in accordance with the provisions of the least restrictive of the two 29 districts, provided that more than 50 percent of the lot of record is located 30 within the least restrictive of the two districts. For the purposes of boundary 31 interpretation the districts shall be classified in teams of restriction as 32 follows (least restrictive to most restrictive): Rural Center (Village); Rural 33 Center (Crossroad); Rural Residential I; Rural Residential H. 34 35 5. The location of a district boundary line passing through unplatted property 36 shall be defined solely by the legal description contained in the Official 37 Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map included with this Ordinance. 38 39 3.70 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS - L04CEATION: For the purposes of this 40 Ordinance, boundary line adjustments shall not be used to facilitate the inclusion or 41 exclusion of a property, or group of properties from the aforementioned density 42 limitations. 43 44 VOL 20 w! 0 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Pagc6 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 SECTION 4 ESTABLISHMENT OF HITERIM SPECIAL STUDY OVERLAY AREAS. Subsections: 4.10 Interim Special Overlay Study Areas - Establishment 4.20 Glen Cove Industrial Overlay Study Area 4.30 Tri -Area Aquifer Recharge Overlay Study Area 4.10 INTER — SPECIAL STUDY OVERLAY AREAS - ESTABLISHMENT• For the purpose of this ordinance two Interim Special Overlay Study Areas are established: the Glen Cove Industrial Overlay Study Area and the Tri -Area Aquifer Recharge Overlay Study Area. The boundaries of each of these two study areas shall be depicted on the Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map. 4.20 4.30 GLEN COVEIND-USTRIAL OVERLAY STUDY AREA: 1. Study Provisions: The Glen Cove Industrial Area will be studied to determine if this area should be included as part of an expanded Urban Growth Area for the City of Port Townsend or be retained as a stand alone rural industrial center. 2. Interlocal Agreement: A interlocal agreement between the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County will be created establishing level of service parameters, annexation provisions (including tax -base sharing), service providers arrangement, development standards, concurrency requirements and project review processes. 3. Infill Provisions: During the study phase, new development, consistent with the Jefferson County Zoning Code, may infill in the study area provided public services exist to support the activity or the activity requires no expansion of public services. 4. Study Duration: Said study and interlocal agreement shall be completed within 180 days from the effected date of this ordinance. The provision of this subsection shall terminate 180 days from the adoption of this Ordinance or upon completion of the Interlocal Agreement which ever shall occur first. TRI AREA AQUIFER RECHARGE OVERLAY STUDY AREA: 1. Study Provisions: Those portions of the Tri -Area located within the Overlay Study Area as indicated on the Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map will be studied to determine potential impacts on aquifer recharge soils. This study will analyze the potential adverse impacts in terms of water quantity and water quality resulting from existing and future development located within the study area VOL 20 Face DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts ordinance Page 7 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM 1 2. Criticad Area Ordinance Amendment: The results of the study will be 2 reflected in appropriate aquifer protection standards to be included in the 3 Jefferson County Critical Area Ordinance. 4 5 3. Infill Provisions and Moratorium: The following provisions shall apply to 6 all new permanent development, except accessory uses to existing 7 development, located within the study area. The purpose of these provision 8 are to provide mtenm protection of the aquifer during e stu y period: 9 10 Single Family Residential: Minimum building area shall be One (1) 11 Acre or as approved by the Jefferson County Department of 12 Environmental Health consistent with the special standards required by 13 Chapter 246-272 WAC for on-site sewage system use 1n areas where 14 underground sources of drinldng water are vulnerable to contamination 15 16 Commercial and Industrial : Prohibited (All development subject to 17 Section 6, Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, Jefferson County Zoning Code). 18 19 4. Study Duration: Said study and amendment to the Jefferson County Critical 20 Area Ordinance shall be completed by December 31, 1994. The provisions 21 of this section shall terminate on December 31, 1994 or upon adoption the 22 aquifer protection standards which ever shall occur first. 23 24 25 SECTION 5 26 INTERIM PUBLIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 27 28 Subsections: 29 30 5.10 Adoption of Interim Public Level of Service Standards 31 5.20 Objectives 32 5.30 Definitions 33 5.40 Development Standards 34 35 5.10 ADOPTION OF INTERIM PUBLIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS: The 36 interim public level of service standards, Attachment A, are hereby adopted and 37 incorporated as an integral part of this ordinance for planning purposes, except as 38 modified by this section. 39 40 5.20 OBJECTIVES: The establishment, extension, or infill of community water systems 41 in the overlay district shall be approved to meet the following objectives: 42 43 1. Provide infill of existing systems where approved water capacity exists; 44 45 2. 8@1-46e @*isti fig am a *To avoid multiple unregulated 46 individual wells; and 47 48 3. To mitigate a declared health emergency. 49 Yp1_ .20 1667 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 8 Revised: October 19, 199412:09 PM 1 5.30 DEFE14MONS: (See W.A.C. 246-290 for precise definition). For the purposes of 2 this ordinance, the following definitions shall apply: 3 4 1. Water Systems: All water systems except those serving one single family 5 residence. 6 7 2. Groups A systems: Public or Private systems containing 15 or more service 8 connections, or serving 25 people or more per day, 60 days of the year. 9 Normally have a defined service area boundary and water system plan. 10 11 3. Group B systems: Public or Private water systems containing fewer than 15 12 service connections, or serving ewer than 25 people per day, 60 days of 13 the year. Service area defined by system plan approval. 14 15 4. x Sion: Provision of public water service to areas beyond defined 16 service area boundaries of existing systems. 17 18 5. Extension: Installation of water transmission lines within defined water 19 service area boundaries of existing systems. 20 21 6. Infill: Individual service connections to existing water transmission lines. 22 23 7. Fire Flow: The supplemental water resources, over and above domestic 24 requirements, required to be available to the system for the protection of 25 properties from fire. Fire flow requirements are established in the 26 Coordinated Water System Plan and include the classification of Rural, 27 Urban, Urban Commercial and Multi -family, and Industrial. 28 29 5.40 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: For the purposes of this ordinance, the following 30 development standards shall apply: 31 32 1. New Group A Systems: 33 34 a. Multi -service connection systems: Not allowed, except to mitigate a 35 declared health emergency. 36 b. Single service connection systems: Allowed only to serve rural commer- 37 cial/industrial development. 38 c. Fire flow to meet CWSP requirements. 39 40 2. Existing Group A Systems: 41 42 a. Expansion: Not Allowed, except to mitigate a declared health emergency. 43 b. Extension: Allowed within defined service area, provided adequate water 44 resources are available. If a system service area has not been defined, the 45 service area will be considered the extent of existing as -build system. 46 c. Infill: Allowed, provided approved water capacity exists. 47 d. Fire flow to meet CWSP requirements. 48 49 3. New Group B Systems 50 51 a. Multi -service connection systems: Allowed to serve existing 52 nseM,-residential or rural commercial / industrial development. VOL 20 wF 0166s DRAFT Interim Rural Oveday Districts Ordinance Page9 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 b. Single service connection systems: Allowed to serve new rural commercial industrial development. c. Fire flow at rural standards for residential development, or as p in SECTION 6 SEVERABILITY Subsections: 6.10 Severability 6.10 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 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 7. REPEALER Subsections: 7.10 Repealer 7.10 REPEALER: These regulations repeal and replace Ordinance No. 02-0110-94, Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance. All permits, approvals, and/or conditions established pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 shall remain in effect and shall be considered valid. SECTION 8. EFFEC PERIOD Subsections: 8.10 Effective Period 8.20 Substantially Complete Applications • � NNN. �iY� I_ • _ • � � Y.. _ � 8.20 SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS: Applications which have been determined to be substantially complete by the Department of Development '.VOL 20 Face 0i)rig DRAFT interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 10 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Review prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall, at the option of the applicant, be processed consistent with the requirements of this Ordinance or the requirements of the Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance No. 02- 0110-94. V01- 20 w'F 011", ( DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 11 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 SECTION 418-9 ADOPTION Subsections: 4-89.10 Adoption 499. l OADOPTION: Adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this day of , 1994. SEAL: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Robert Hinton, Chairperson Richard Wojt, Member ATTEST: Lorna Delaney Clerk of the Board Glenn Huntingford, Member APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark Huth, Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney VOL 0' fAu 0:1 (i 7i, DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Pago 12 Revised: October 19, 199410:55 AM ATTACHMENT #12 Friends of Washington 1000 Friends of Washington 1305 - 4th Avenue, Suite 303 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206)343-0681 Pax(206)343-0683 October -24, 1994 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98:68 OCT 2 5 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSION s;S RE: Jefferson County's Proposed Interim Rural Overlay Districts Dear Members of the Board -of County Commissioners: 1000 Friends of Washington is generally supportive of the concepts set forth in the County's interim proposal for rural lands. The historic pattern of rural development in Jefferson County has been one of small communities located at a crossroads surrounded by farms and forest lands. These small rural communities should be permitted to retain their vitality and grow, provided that this rural growth is of a scale and intensity that is consistent with rural character. We continue to have the following concerns with the proposal: 1. The Size, Location and Number of the Rural Centers We have not yet seen an official map of the proposed rural centers. Our understanding is that Quilcene, Brinnon, Ludlow, Pt. Hadlock, and Irondale are to be designated as Rural Center -Village and that there are a number of additional areas designated as Rural Center - Crossroads. The crossroads designation should be limited.to those areas that have already been designated or developed for commercial development. The boundaries of the Rural Center -Village should be limited to a one-quarter mile radius around the historic center of the community. The Rural Residential I designation should be limited to a small area surrounding the Rural Center -Village designation. 2. Minimum Residential Lot Size - Section 3.30 This section seems to contradict the minimum residential lot size requirements of Section 3. - If this section is intended to permit development of a single family home on an existing nonconforming lot, it should simply state that. Otherwise, this section should be deleted. In addition, the ordinance should include strategies for the aggregation of nonconforming rural lots. ® Printed on recycled paper t y0; 0FacF Q JL673 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners October 24, 1994 Page 2 3. The Range of Allowed Uses Within the Rural Center -Village There are a number of permitted uses within. the Rural Center - Village that are urban in character and should not be permitted within rural areas. We have particular concerns about the following uses: Laboratories for research and testing: These labs often generate hazardous or toxic waste that is not suitable for disposal in septic systems. If these are to be permitted in rural areas, the materials that are in use and the size of the facility should be restricted. The City of Bainbridge Island has done some work in this area and could probably provide an example of appropriate restrictions. Residences, Multi=Family - It is unclear how multi -family residences are to be permitted with a minimum lot size of one -acre. If clustering is permitted, then the ordinance should establish a maximum. number of units .(perhaps 4) within the multi. -family dwelling. Restaurants - Should have a maximum square footage and a maximum number of.daily trips that can be generated to prevent franchise fast-food establishments in rural areas. Theaters - This is not a typical rural use. If the number of screens were limited to one or two, it may be in keeping with the rural character. Vehicle Sales, repair and service - Small family car repair shops have long been around in rural areas. Quickee Lubes have not. Again the County should limit the size and number of daily trips generated by these businesses in order to prevent urban uses within , rural villages. - These comments are not intended to suggest that the County should prohibit national franchises. These uses depend on high-volume sales and are urban in character.. It may well be that the County should redesignate certain Rural -Center Villages as UGAs once it has done the appropriate analysis to support such a change. 4. Water Service New Group B water systems should be limited to the boundaries of the Rural Centers, except to mitigate a declared health emergency. 20 Fac_ 0 von j_,- V-1 , Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners October 24, 1994 Page 3 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We would be happy to work with the County on these or other issues. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, � V Tracy Burrows Planning Director. r '1 VOL 20 0 1675 ATTACHMENT #13 VOL 0 f'.�F City of Port Townsend City Council Port Townsend, Washington 98368 385-3000 October 21, 1994 OCT 21 1994 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners _.. Jr�"ers�°.. Coz: - �� .`1.775'tt'�r•s..ICP l _ . . ... P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Draft Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance, dated October 19, 1994 Dear Commissioners: As members of the City's Growth Management Committee (Council members McCulloch Shoulberg and Davidson) we have completed a review of Jefferson County's Draft Interim Rural Overlay District Ordinance, dated October 19, 1994. We believe the rural center concept may be appropriate for Jefferson County. We were encouraged to hear, as discussed at the October 12 Joint Growth Management Committee meeting, that the intent of the draft ordinance is to: 1. Designate small, compact rural centers in certain areas of the county; 2. Establish an aquifer protection district that stretches from the Tri -Area to near the Port Townsend city limits in which new commercial and industrial development is prohibited, until aquifer recharge protections are complete; 3. Establish a joint study area around Glen Cove industrial park in order to determine if the area should be included within an UGA; and 4. Limit densities outside of rural centers to one unit per five acres. However, upon careful review of the ordinance, we are concerned with specific provisions of the proposal which appear to be inconsistent with both the GMA and the Final Decision and Order issued by the Western Growth Management Hearing Board (i.e., No. 94-2-0006). Accordingly, we submit the following questions and comments on the proposed ordinance for your review and consideration: 1 VOL 20 FACE 0 J.677 Does the Proposed Ordinance Create a Precedent for Avoiding the Appropriate Designation of the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow as UGAs within the County's Final Comprehensive Plan? The concept of rural centers has merit for the future of Jefferson County's- rural areas, especially for areas such as Brinnon and Quilcene. We supported inclusion of the rural center concept in the County -wide Planning Policy, and continue to favor the idea, as long as: 1. Rural centers develop at a scale and intensity that preserves the characteristics of the surrounding rural lands; and, 2. Rural centers are provided with public services and facilities which meet truly "rural" levels of service standards. ,he Count-'-, inilua� proposal, discussed at the Septe:nbcr 2j, 1 ggu �n L3oc CommitreP meeting, suggested that the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow would be designated as "rural villages." This proposal caused us grave concern, since it appeared that the approach was to simply change the name of the boundary surrounding Port Ludlow and the Tri -Area from "interim urban growth area" to "interim rural village." This appeared to us as a quick and easy solution designed to remove the moratorium but not address the City's concerns expressed in its IUGA appeal. However, at the Joint Growth Management Committee meeting on October 13, we were pleased to see that the revised proposal is to consider the Tri -Area as a "special study area" rather than a rural village. However, we continue to be perplexed by recent statements made by County Officials which suggest that the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow may not be designated as final Urban Growth Areas within the County's Comprehensive Plan. We reiterate that the City has never opposed the designation of either the Tri -Area or Port Ludlow as UGAs. A careful reading of the City's appeal of the Interim UGA Ordinance reveals that the City's objection to the action was based on five factors: 1. The size and extent of the IUGAs; 2. The failure to support the IUGA designations with appropriate analysis; 3. The lack of adequate restrictions on commercial and industrial growth allowed outside of IUGAs; 4. The inadequacy of the rural densities specified for areas outside of IUGAs; and 5. Uncertainties regarding the City's ability to provide water to the Tri -Area IUGA as delineated. We are concerned that the proposed ordinance may create a precedent which could lead to the designation of the Tri -Area as one large "rural village." If the area accommodates urban commercial uses and urban densities, and it "looks and feels" like an UGA, it should be designated as such. Because the ultimate disposition of the Tri -Area is still in doubt, it, is impossible to know what level of water service will be needed or required. Stated plainly, simply changing the name of the Tri -Area to "special study area" or "rural village" does little N VOL 20 4 1pw Q 1 678 to address the concerns raised in our appeal, or the violations of the GMA identified by the WGMHB. We believe that the planning and provision of an adequate water supply infrastructure for the Tri -Area should be occurring now rather than later. Does the Proposed Ordinance Perpetuate Historic Development Patterns which the GMA Seeks to Avoid? A fundamental objection we have with the approach used in the proposed ordinance to designate rural centers (i.e.,both "crossroads" and "villages") is its excessive reliance upon existing plans and ordinances to guide future growth. To elaborate, the proposed rural centers are based on current commercial and industrial zones delineated within the Jefferson County Zoning Code. In turn, the Zoning Code was based upon the County's 1.979 Comprehensive plan "Optimum Land Usc Map" and C;o...munity Develup:nent l ian ::: ape cf somewhat more recent vintage. This approach seems destined to perpetuate the historic pattern of sprawling development in rural areas which the GMA was designed to correct. This same concern was an important issue in the City's appeal of the IUGA Ordinance (i.e., the proposal's reliance upon existing zoning creates a substantial risk for continued inappropriate commercial and industrial development in rural areas). A review of the use tables in the Zoning Code (which are referenced within the draft ordinance) reveals that the proposal would continue to permit urban types of development to locate within the rural "villages" and "crossroads." One of the purposes of the GMA is to break away from these historically inefficient patterns of development. To this end, the GMA prohibits urban growth outside of UGAs. A review of the Zoning Code Maps, and the Build -Out Analysis contained within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Code, reinforces this conclusion. When applied to the current proposal, the results of the Build -Out Analysis suggest that rural centers, including "villages" and "crossroads," contain approximately 680 acres of commercially zoned land (i.e., both C -I and C -II). By way of comparison, the City of Port Townsend, presently the County's only UGA, has 181 acres of commercially zoned land. The Build -Out Analysis also indicates that only 388 of the 680 acres have been "developed." (See attachment 1 - please advise us. if our analysis or conclusions are in error). This fact highlights the more than considerable potential for infill development under the proposed ordinance. Does the Ordinance Adequately Distinguish between Rural and Urban Uses? As discussed above, it appears that the draft ordinance seeks to implement the existing zoning code and zoning map designations. It is not reasonable to rely upon the Zoning Code definitions and use table for the neighborhood commercial (C-1) and general commercial (C- 3 VOL 20 FAGF 0 1679 2) districts as a measure of what uses can accurately be characterized as "rural commercial." (See attachment 2). By way of example, research and testing laboratories and vehicle sales (both activities allowed under the C-2 or general commercial designation) have not traditionally been considered rural commercial uses. Through considerable refinement of the Code's use tables, however, many commercial uses could reasonably be considered "rural" (e.g., "research and testing laboratories for agricultural and timber resource management purposes"; or "farm machinery and equipment sales"). Without further refinement and specificity, a software or medical research laboratory or a luxury car dealership could be located in the middle of a rural center. Permitting development of this nature to occur in rural areas appears patently inconsistent with the intent of the GMA. Adding to our confusion and concern, subsection 3.2 of the proposed ordinance, read in -r_j„n,-tion with the Zoning Code, would allow the maximum floor wren of most commerciA enterprises to be set on a case-by-case basis. (including the research lab and vehicle sales examples cited above). Surprisingly, the zoning code indicates that there is no maximum floor area specified for C-1 and C-2 commercial uses. Accordingly, it is not inconceivable that a 50 acre or larger, luxury car dealership could be permitted outright in a rural center under the existing draft ordinance. Has the Research and Analysis Which Would Support Rural Center Designation Been Completed? Similar to the City's concerns with the IUGA ordinance (No. 02-0110-94), the draft ordinance appears to be based on neither the Watterson sub -county population distribution for the sizing of rural centers, nor an analysis of the carrying capacity of the land (i.e., critical areas and resource lands). Instead, the boundaries appear to have been drawn under the assumption that reliance upon one-half mile "concentric circles" surrounding the rural center commercial cores is reasonable. It is our understanding of the GMA and Board decisions, that without the required analysis, higher densities in or adjacent to rural centers cannot be justified. We are unaware of any analysis having been completed which supports a 1:1 rural density, or a minimum building area of 10,000 square feet for single family residences in the areas specified (see Subsection 3.30). Do the Level of Service Standards Promote "Rural' Development Patterns? r We presume that the matrix handed out at the October 12 meeting is to be attached to the draft ordinance. Again, it is difficult to provide useful comments on level of service standards without the matrix being included with the draft ordinance. Overall, however, we are troubled with the idea that, under the draft ordinance, the city would provide "rural" water 4 VOL 20} mr. 01680 to the Tri -Area study area for some undefined period of time. Then, in the future, the area would likely become an UGA, with the requirement to provide water at an urban level of service. Thus, the City would be confronted with the necessity of upgrading, at great expense, an inadequate infrastructure that the city owns and has accepted. Wastewater presents a similar infrastructure concern, except that continued development of individual and community septic systems present a threat of aquifer contamination over the effective duration of the proposed ordinance. As we understand the County's approach to service standards, it appears that the level of service matrix thus far discussed is based on the earlier matrix developed for the IUGA ordinance. Our concerns over the level of service standards for the rural centers mirror our earlier concerns with the level of service matrix for the interim UGA, especially with respect to water and se .,--t in the Tri -Area. Th,2 wai T ix allows ;most things to occur am; ,Ogre. There is no definition of "conditional" or "provisional." Class A water systems are allowed in villages and are conditionally allowed elsewhere. If allowed outside of UGAs and villages, this does not promote rural character. Rather, it encourages urban densities. Additionally, we cannot support allowing Class B or independent wells in UGAs, or wells in the rural villages. Has the Public Process Been Adequate? As you know, the rural centers concept was presented verbally to staff for the first time on September 27. A few more details were presented to the Joint Growth Management Committee on October 12. The first draft ordinance was not available for review until late in the day on October 17. A revised draft ordinance became available on October 19. Rural Overlay District maps and the interim level of service matrix are referenced but have not been included in the draft ordinance. Without these attachments, it is impossible to fully review and understand the location, extent and implications of the rural overlay districts. As we understand it, the Board anticipates action on the proposed ordinance on October 24. This allows less than one week for the City and interested citizens to provide useful comments for the Board to consider prior to action on the proposed ordinance. We understand the tremendous time constraint the Commissioners are under to comply with the Hearing Board's Order, but we cannot support the absence of public participation that has characterized the ordinance development and adoption process thus far. Moreover, we are baffled as to why no SEPA review has been initiated on the proposal. SEPA presents a useful opportunity to comply with the public participation requirements of the GMA. We respectfully request that the Commissioners delay action on this ordinance until interested parties have the appropriate maps and level of service matrix to examine, the SEPA process has been completed, and affected parties have had sufficient time to comment on the proposal. The above questions and comments represent our overall comments on the draft ordinance. 5 VOL 2.0` Face 0 JL681 The following comments pertain to the specifics of the ordinance itself. Comments are arranged according to the appropriate Section numbers within the proposal. Section l: Purpose and Effect See comments above, especially those relating to the use of the existing zoning code as the basis for designing rural centers and uses allowed in each zoning category. Section 2: Definitions Our overarching concern is that these definitions define or could include within the definitions of "rural uses" and "rural development" land uses which are not at all rural. The definitions (--,g„ ",; ;,pn:"R _ . , c-nirtIIierc:ial, industrial ... at a ccaic that preserves Eurroun ing ;-ural characteristics" and "residential development that includes small lot single family and multi- family, and mixed use developments," etc:) beg the question: How does one define "rural characteristics?" How is the scale of residential development any different from the historic pattern of development? Under what circumstances would commercial and retail establishments not "serve the retail and service needs of a local area?" These definitions, couched in soft planning jargon, would appear to allow the perpetuation of existing development patterns. The definition of "Rural Center (Village)" raises particular concern. Why, under planning consistent with the GMA, would "higher density development" not require the "full range of urban level of service development standards?" This language appears to skirt the more difficult issue which all counties must encounter at this juncture: an analysis of public facilities (which are supposed to be provided primarily by cities) and the levels of service necessary for the proposed levels of development. One cannot simply say that urban levels of service "may not" be available without going through the analysis. This is particularly true . when the definition concedes that "Even though Rural Centers (Village) may in some circumstances develop densities similar to those found in an Urban Growth Area, they are considered part of the rural area for purposes of growth management, and do not provide significant growth capacity." This language appears to underscore the contradiction of the proposed rural center concept and the UGA requirements. How can densities be similar to UGA densities, especially if the villages do not "provide significant growth capacity?" At what level of service will infrastructure be provided? What data analysis and planning has been done to guarantee that the County is not providing too much growth capacity (especially in light of the large land areas anticipated for inclusion)? Section 3: Establishment of Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts The one acre minimum lot size set forth in subsection 3. 10, to our knowledge, does not benefit from any more analysis now, than it did before the Hearings Board earlier this year. Further, we retain serious concerns regarding the lack of analysis concerning existing platted n VOL 20 PAGE 0:1682 lots. Again, we are unaware of the County having conducted any further analysis regarding the infrastructure (i.e., water) needs of the villages. Is the phrase "as permitted by the Zoning Code" used throughout subsection 3.20 synonymous with "no limitation?" A brief review of the provisions of the Zoning Code would indicate that this reading is accurate. By way of example, we question how the following uses can even remotely be considered "rural" without further refinement of the definitions and significant limitations on maximum floor area allowed: laboratories for research and testing; multi -family residences; restaurants; theaters (including drive-ins); mortuaries; and vehicle sales, repair and service establishments. How can the one acre minimum lot size set forth in subsection 3.10 be reconciled with the It X000 square foot buildi:�v urea described in subsection ? xcl^ Tni provision `.'.'�Juld appear to allow continued development on existing platted lots within the rural centers, without first demonstrating an ability to provide services at this density. Wholesale allowance of development of existing undeveloped platted lots is not the solution. Without an opportunity to review the maps which depict the proposed rural center overlay zones, it is not possible for us to comment on subsections .3.40 through 3.70. Section 4: Establishment of Interim Special Study Overlay Overall, we strongly support the establishment of the Special Study Overlay Areas for Glen Cove and the Tri -Area. However, we have some reservations about the uses and densities allowed in these Special Study Areas in_ the interim period prior to the studies being completed. Please see our specific comments below. 4.20 Glen Cove Industrial Overlay Study Area: 4.20.1 Our understanding of the GMA would not allow the Glen Cove Industrial Area to be retained as a stand alone rural industrial center unless it was for only that portion of the area to by used by the Port Townsend Paper Mill or some other resource -related industrial use. 4.20.3 Given the lack of water to serve the Glen Cove Area today, we cannot support this provision which allows unlimited infill in the study area, until the special study area and related interlocal agreements are completed. 4.20.4 We agree that the study should be completed within 180 days. However, we are mystified as to the intent of the recent addition adding language that the _area would be designated a stand-alone industrial center if no agreement was reached in that period. This appears to give the County an excuse not to complete the study or to reach agreement with the City within the 180 day period. 7 VOL 20 PAGE 01683 4.30 Tri -Area Aquifer Recharge Overlay Study Area 4.30.1 We support this provision, however, without a map, it is difficult to comment on the appropriateness of the boundaries of the overlay area. It should also be noted that many other class A and B groundwater systems in Jefferson County are in need of protection. Since these systems are important to the County's larger water supply issues, it may be advisable to include these systems for protection as well (e.g., Shine, Quilcene, etc.). 4.30.2 This needs to be completed by December 31, 1994. We are willing to assist the County in this effort. However, we would be interested to know what the County's plans are if the ordinance amendments are not completed by the end of the year. 4.30.3 Single family residential: It is unclear whether this provision would really limit minimum lot sizes to one acre. It appears that this could be exempted by the Department of Health to at least a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This type of density would greatly increase the risk of contamination to the aquifer. Commercial and Industrial: This provision is especially confusing. Is commercial and industrial development prohibited or allowed subject to the zoning code? 4.30.4 We are concerned that the County may not have completed adequate amendments to its critical area ordinance by December 31, 1994. Section 5: Interim Public Level of Service Standards 5.10 Again, we are not sure what is proposed for level of service standards, as Attachment A is not included with the ordinance. The level of service standards which are adopted should be specific and clearly define the quantity of water to be supplied per person per day, and adequate fire flows. 5.20 This appears to say that water system extensions, etc., "shall" be approved if there is capacity in the system or to avoid multiple unregulated wells. This seems too broad of a statement without some consideration of other factors. 5.30 Reliance upon the distinction between Group A/Group B water systems to differentiate between "urban" and "rural" growth is inadvisable. The Department of Health has established these classes in order to require different development standards and r reporting systems. However, nothing in the Department of Health regulations addresses the issue of what constitutes a "rural" versus an "urban" water system. For example, a system with 15 connections can be a Group A system. However, .in and of itself, this fact does not establish that the system is "urban." It would be more E VOL 20 Fac! 01684 appropriate to distinguish based upon level. of service standards for the various land use designations (e.g, UGAs, Rural Villages, Rural Crossroads, etc.). 5,40.2.b Extension: We cannot support this provision because it would allow extension of urban water systems outside UGAs. Moreover, the subsection, as written, would permit the expansion of service areas located outside of UGAs. The establishment of UGA boundaries and service area boundaries should be considered in tandem. 5.40.3 New Group B Systems: As drafted, the provision would allow substantial commercial and industrial development outside of UGAs. While the City is not opposed to specifically defined and limited "rural" commercial development outside of UGAs, this provision coupled with the use tables from the Zoning Code which are referenced in .-aiU-� c! cw for a:� inappropriate le��A; ,; ,.r,:�� Pr�idi r :.clops; �t -_ --''r P ;- K -- - Section 6: Severability No comments. Section 7: Repealer How can these regulations repeal and replace Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 if such ordinance has been null and void for at least sixty days? Section 8: Effective Period 8.10 There appears to be confusion between what "interim ordinance" means in the context of GMA planning (RCW 36.70A.390) and an "emergency" interim control under the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70.795). Candidly, we do not believe an "emergency" exists which necessitates characterizing or processing this ordinance as an "emergency interim control." We reserve additional comments on this section until it is completed with effective dates. 8.20 We are puzzled as to why and how a substantially complete application prior to the effective date of this ordinance can be processed under the Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 if such ordinance has been null and void for at least sixty days. How Does the Proposed Ordinance Comply with the Hearing Board's Order? Based on our review of the draft ordinance, we must conclude that the proposed ordinance lacks the analysis and justification required by the GMA. Moreover, the County has not provided evidence of compliance with the three requirements of the WGMHB order: 6 voL 20.F�c� �f85 1. The County has yet to do the "homework" necessary to document the size and location of these rural centers. Nor has the County provided sufficient details as to how rural centers (villages) are different from interim urban growth areas; 2. The County has not demonstrated how and why urban residential, commercial or industrial development uses can be allowed in rural centers which are outside a properly designated UGA, and; 3. The County has not provided the analysis to support the use of a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size or a 1:1 density in rural areas. Optional Measures to Consider to Comply with the Hearing Board's .Order It is with great ,w-- offer suggestic .. of ;,c- u might co -nilly with the WGM142's order and meet the City's concerns. But you have asked in the past what would satisfy the City's concerns. So these are offered in the spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation. 1. Continue to do the homework to include rural centers within the rural element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. In the plan, possibly designate small, compact rural centers in certain areas of the county, such as Quilcene and Brinnon. Distinguish between commercial and industrial uses which are "urban" and those that are "rural." Amend the zoning code as necessary to reflect these differences. 2. Establish an aquifer protection district that stretches from the Tri -Area to near the Port Townsend city limits in which new commercial and industrial development would be prohibited until adequate aquifer recharge standards are in place and UGAs or appropriately sized rural centers are adopted. 3. Establish a joint study area around Glen Cove industrial park in order to determine if the area should be included within an UGA. 4. Designate a interim minimum lot size of one unit per five acres until the homework is completed. If the analysis supports it, include a range of rural densities in the adopted comprehensive plan. Of course, there are likely other ways the County could comply with the Board's order and satisfy our concerns. Toward this end, we hope we can continue to work together to avoid further costly and time consuming appeals. In summary, we believe the rural center concept has merit and should be thoroughly examined r and analyzed during development of the County's rural element. Of course, we are more than willing to jointly work with the County in its analysis of the suitability of the Tri -Area and Glen Cove area for possible inclusion within final urban growth areas. 10 VOL 20 Face 0 1686 Thank you for considering our comments. gie McCulloch Ted Shoulberg . Bill Davidson cc: Mayor and City Council David Clark, Department of Health Rich Sarver, Department of Health Steve Wells, Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development 11 VOL 20 Fac! 01687 ATTACHMENT #14 VOL 20 FxF 01688 FROM:DCTED GROWTH MGT TO: 2063859382 OCT 21, 1994 5:27PM #060 P.01 V 7, 1.40 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC: DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St. ,SW • PO 9OX 46300 • 01YMpia, Washington 98504-8300 * (200) 7..53-2200 October 21, 1994 Mr. David Goldsmith ss--� �l J rule J;D l Vli ial l��' VVfMIu VVVIIIIIIIUJIVn41 + 1820 Jefferson Street Post Office Box 12`20 Port Town end, Washington 98368 Dear Mr, mith, Thank you for the opportunity to review your Draft Compliance Ordinance, per your letter dated October 13, 1994. The strategies you have outlined for your Board of County Commissioners represent a positive direction for land use planning in Jefferson County. The willingness of your Board to tackle these issues helps to reinforce the lead role that the County will be playing on land use and water issues. Our staff will continue to work with you on these interim measures with the goal of helping you finalize your Growth Management (GMA) comprehensive plan and development regulations by January 1, 1995. To help us better understand the geographic extent of your proposed ordinance, we request you send a map outlining the designated rural centers and crossroads. In an effort to assist you and your Board prior to a public hearing on your draft ordinance, have compiled comments from my staff and from the departments of Ecology (DOE) and Health (DUH). Our comments are intended to clarify substantive issues and to point out statutory requirements which must be met for development to occur. If additional clarification or assistance is needed, please let me know. Your draft ordinance provides additional land use controls to halt the proliferation of public water systems in rural Jefferson County. However, the proposed standards for provision or development on page 6 of your draft ordinance could conflict with Jefferson County's 1986 Coordinated Water System Pian. Since local ordinances cannot supersede state law, (i.e. the Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977), the following substitute language should be adopted., Post -It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #ofPago$ From Dept. S Phone M `(R &4f Fax # rIn.. Pax # A% ►E FROM:DCTED GROWTH MGT T0: 2063859382 Mr. David Goldsmith October 21, 1994 Page Two OCT 21, 1994 5:28PM #060 P.02 "Projects will be considered based upon the 1986 version of the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan (JCCWSP) until such time as the JCCWSP has been updated by the Jefferson County Water Utility Coordinating Committee and the new plan approved by the Department of Health, with concurrence by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners." To clarify how projects will be considered, the following provisions of the JCCWSP are specifically referenced and should replace_ page 6 of your draft_ ordinance! 1. Water System Plans. Projects will not be approved by DOH unless the project �s consistent with a DOH -approved water system plan. D^vii cbri make exceptions if the utility has been placed on a compliance schedule,or the project is intended to resolve a health emergency. Water system plans will be subject to review by Jefferson County to ensure consistency with local land use plans or ordinances. Comments from adjacent water systems and other interested parties will also be considered by DOH as part of the plan review process. 2. The Utility Service Review procedure. Proposals to expand existing, or create new, public water systems must be consistent with Chapter 3 of the 1986 JCCWSP, entitled, " Utility Review Procedures". A chart illustrating the service area review procedure is enclosed for your reference. 3. Service Areas. The service areas identified in the 1986 JCCWSP shall be used when determining service providers. If a utility wants to adjust its service area, it must follow the procedure outlined above and in the JCCWSP (see Enc. 2 service area maps). 4. Consistency With Land Use. The county will review each project and provide a letter to DOH verifying consistency with local land use policies and plans. The letter shall reference the ordinances where applicable. 5. Design Standards. The land use based design standards contained in the JCCWSP (Enc. 3) shall be used for all projects. Jefferson County shall provide a letter to DOH indicating the applicable land use category that pertains to the development project. 6. Certification. Jefferson County will certify to DOH, in writing, that each project is consistent with the JCCWSP and the current land use ordinance. We concur with your findings that the city of Port Townsend has control over the use of their available water supply. We recommend working with the city and Jefferson County PUD to formally amend any service area agreements that are outlined above and in the JCCWSP. ,,, 20 pw ©��jq() FROM:DCTED GROWTH MGT T0: 2063859382 Mr. David Goldsmith October 21, 1994 Page Three OCT 211 1994 5:29PM #060 P.03 In addition to the requirements outlined above, Jefferson County is required to conduct SEPA review of non-exempt development projects and determine water supply adequacy for building permits and subdivision approvals. RCW 19.27.907 requires a verification of an adequate water supply prior to issuance of a building permit for any new building requiring potable water. RCW 68.17.060 and RCW 58,17.1 10 require written findings of an adequate water supply prior to approving a short plat or subdivll i -_n_ When reviewing �?' "-NN'•'"�"" ii s�-.LSY}i P'C"Poses to Utilize .,. h.UNiiw ��: .�n.vl yr t': ri ., :.1 .�-.•.vi .�.+v 11 vVl.iilly VY111 contact DOH to obtain information regarding the adequacy of the water system to serve the proposed project, Jefferson County will not approve a project where DOH has determined that the proposed source of potable water is not adequate for this purpose. The protection of Port Townsend's critical aquifer recharge area is of vital importance to the region. We, along with DOH and DOE, are willing to help facilitate a process with you, the city, and the PUD to help ensure that the new ordinance will comply with DOH's wellhead protection requirements and GMA critical area protection. Project applications that are on hold will begin to be processed by DOH pending the adoption of your draft ordinance with the changes outlined above. Finally, we are committed to helping you resolve these complex growth and water issues with the city and the PUD. With the county in the lead, we will help facilitate state and local involvement in the process. Through a cooperative process, we can attain a mutual goal of establishing greater certainty regarding development in the County by completing your Growth Management Comprehensive Plan and the JCCWSP Update under the deadlinel Enclosures cc; City of Port Townsend Jefferson County PUD DOH DQE Governor's Office Mike Fitzgerald Sincerely, Steve Wells Assistant director Growth Management Services vol_ 20 Fac= 0 1vjq . ATTACHMENT #15 vol- 20 PxF 01692 SENT BYTOPE RESOURCES ;10-21-94 ; 4:48PM ; 2063859382;# 2/ 2 Pape Resources A t im;rad Yertnerahtp 19147 lurO Avenue Northeast P.O. Box 1780 POulsbo, Washington 98370 0239 (906)697.6626 (708) 697-1156 FAX October 21, 1994 VY lU110ldiilc Board Of'County Conn-nissioners Jetrerson County CotnrthoLlsc PO Box 1220 Port Townsend WA. 98368 Re: Draft GMA Compliance Ordinallee Gentlemen: CtC_; 14 Within the last several days, we have become aware: of the County's draft of an amendment to the Jefferson C01118Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of whlcll is to repeal and replace Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 (Interim Growth Areas). In reviewing said draft, we fund that no section has been provided which reestablishes the "Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area." The Coturty does have available adequate Information to substantiate: the Port Ludlow UGA in full compliance with requirements of the Growth Management Act. In the next several days, we arc prepared to provide whatever assistance your staff might require to i hake the necessary modifications to tie proposcd Ordinance. We respectfidly request that you snot adopt the Ordinauice without inserting a Port Ludlow UCTA component. Sincerely, David Ci1zininghani Vice President, Larid fisc Ills c: David Goldsmith, Director, Jefferson County ConniTnunity Services voL 20 FAC,_ 016D3 ATTACHMENT #16 VOL 20 FAfr 016,94 MARK S. BEAUFAIT PAUL RICHARD BROWN DOUGLAS W. ELSTON hand delivered ELSTON, BROWN & BEAUFAIT, P. S. Attorneys at Law 914 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 6 PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON 98368 TELEPHONE 12061 385-2516 October 20, 1994 Jefferson County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 P_--i-,t r_Pn_ ?n ,y! jd , WA 98358 Re: Interim Compliance Ordinance Gentlemen: 1 !U 1 2 U 11994 Thank you for taking time to meet yesterday morning to discuss the Interim Urban Growth Areas process, and the proposed Interim Compliance Ordinance currently before you. This letter is written to you as a concerned citizen and a land use practitioner in Jefferson County. I am not affiliated with, and I am not representing, any group or political action committee in connection with these comments. There appear to be two major difficulties with the proposed Interim Compliance Ordinance. First, the Interim Compliance Ordinance is essentially a blanket down -zoning of the entire County to one unit per five acres, except in certain extremely limited areas, and second, Class A water systems are prohibited. Unfortunately, these are likely permanent changes, as has been said, there is rarely anything more permanent than an interim ordinance. Given the growth projections for Jefferson County, the Port Ludlow -Oak Bay area, the Tri -Areas and the rest of the County, there is, and will be, a need for affordable, accessible and buildable lots. Buildable residential lots need to be available in numbers beyond the projections, as do total residences, because otherwise demand for the tight housing supply will drive housing prices sky high. Ratcheting the entire County into one unit per five acres is in many areas a down -zone factor by twenty five (25) from the prior Comprehensive Plan. This appears to be done to comply with the City of Port Townsend's wishes, but suffers from the same defects as the prior planning. The new proposal is not supported by an underlying needs and resources analysis. At the time we met, you did not have access to the proposed zoning map or density proposals for our review. We have obtained copies of this information, but for such a large and likely VOL 20 PAGE 0 Jefferson County Commissioners October 20, 1994 page - 2 permanent change, it is very scary that a zoning map will be adopted without hearings just four days after it is produced to the public. Affordable and buildable lots will require reasonable portions of the County to be left at densities of one unit per acre and higher. This zoning cannot be simply limited to existing lots, because the existing mix may not be appropriate for providing affordable and buildable lots for the future. A wise mix of existing lots and new developments at higher densities, in spccified areas, will arable the low density parts of the County t:� be kept at low density. Otherwise, we will have a profusion of five acre ranchettes with extremely small modulars or mobile homes as the least expensive housing in the County, albeit at a great resource and land consumption cost. It is suggested that the Commissioners seriously review zoning densities before jumping to a density layout that will be argued as a basis for most future regulation. Second, and as important, the proposed Interim Compliance Regulation totally prohibits Class A water systems serving over fifteen users, whether publicly held, or privately held. Thus, there is no way to mitigate the adverse effects of multiple wells being installed in sensitive areas. As mentioned in my prior letter, this is counter -intuitive and counter-productive. Because of the many pressures facing the County, it is possible jump from the frying pan into the fire, leaving all of us worse off than before planning. While you will need to consult with counsel, it appears legally possible, and reasonable, to proceed with a set of hearings and workshops, with staff assisted by counsel gathering and scripting the necessary information for the Commissioners on affordable housing, aquifer protection, balanced growth, open space, and forestry resources. I believe this can be done with deliberate speed, without locking into an unworkable land -use scheme. o►_ 20 FA(IF 01 Jefferson County Commissioners October 20, 1994 page - 3 We will be working with, and living under, the new County zoning regulations for well into the future. Please take the time now to study the Interim Control Ordinance in more detail before you enact it. Very rulqeau urs, Mark ait ►- = �1S' Enclosure cc: Mark Huth, Esq. Mr. Rick Sepler msb4&19b.Ltr YOB 20 FAGS 01697 ...� �.; i • '3� r>uN Y V i 2 I V I L�UH 5W V , f L NK Z NU H2O TEL 110:664w05$ - ; STAT$ OF WASHINGTON X596 P42 4e(, .. IF '8 d AUG _ 8 J99 DEPARTMENT t7F HEALTH SOUTHWEST DRINKING WATER OPERATIONS 2411 P44174; Ave, ' P.O. 80A'87823. • vly+tipht, Wuhina gn 9d104 -r823 (2061 86.1-0168 July 28, 1994 Larry Fay _. ffarsca Cowity Health Duiwirrrant Environmental Health Division Castle Hilt Center 815 Sheridan Port Towneend, Washington 98388 Dear Mr. Fay: In review of the Jefferson County Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance #02 - Oil 0-94 42- 4110-94 and amending vidimince5 #43-0207-94 and x{04-0228-94, refereed hereinafter ai "the .ardlnances", It aopaurs that the regulations in the ordinances prohibit the development of new public water systems In the rural areas of Jefferson County yet allow a land uae density of 1 unit per acre. I have discussed these regulations and ilia possible rarr'Iifioatlons with appropriate personnel in the Departmerh of Health and together have formulated the following c:on-IIncriLs: 1, The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, with the support or the water purveyors, de❑lared Jefferson County a Critical Water Supply Servioo Area which formally Implemented the Water System Coordination Act of 1977. A Coordinated Water System Pian (CWSP) was developed'to. astabiish a procaus fur the public to -fallow in requesting water service. The CWSP establishes service areas for public water purveyors In the rural areas of Jefferson County and bets Forth .a rileans fur the purveyors to plan for futur4 needs. The ordinances appear to lie in corirlicct becauzie they disrupt the processes defined In the CWSP. Any GMA efforts should take Into aoiisideratlon other planning efforts. The CWSP defines a process for individuals to request water s,brvice tram the most appropriate water bupply. Under these regulations a purveyor would not be allowed to install new faculties and sources to serve the request. Furthermore, this rule will undermine the Jefferson CaunLy PUD's Satalllte Management Program. -VOL 20 FAfF 0 1698 2. Restricting the developmoriC Of public water systema In the rural arca whllo allowing a density of 1 unit per acre will gnGourage the prailferation of individual wells. This will thwart any type whter resource managemant ' I. _1. n . • ' . .uL. 1J1 J •• � � 1 Y Y 1 LTJ • iv Larry pay July 28, 1.904 Page Two 4. PHONE No. : 206 437 2740 I W WH sw rim l rrK I rqG I rZO TEL 1.10; 6a4805a prOgrarn, r3s13e01011y aquifer protectlon and avatar conservation Having mo, individual walls in the ground is contrary to weter raaUurcer managertte�t: er the protection of public health and ground water supplies. The �.:� r e uirem ayslo rneiit - I.f.:..... io res #:y p of-pul�liC~vrrAter supplieg•in rural'�rees�j However, it !s ct®ar' i tural'tand use requtations aro to be dveioped." The Fural land use regutatlpr are to provide far land uass that are compatible with the rural character•of`' the area, but it does not state that this Is to be accompllshed by restricting the development of public water systems. GIVIA efforts should adopt land use based design standards which era consistent with GMA requirements and the CWSP. Land use dGnaity criteria should uitimatcly control development in the rural M03. The development of public water systems should not encourage higher density development if land use, zoning and level of service standards are clearly asteblished. r •,- .... •.:.:�: r`�'���'cF1e o inion a � �.... .�? t,:thee i7�ditn a r duce•:pubi�o�hea protecti" '", due to the fact'that ind v �a1'` ..h0 e ; .-.: ,� -•� wells'are not required to monitor water quality and provide appropriate water treatment to the same extent as public water supplies, It Is understood that actions to amend these regulations may take place. It seems that In the beet interest of public health an4 water resource management, (aquifer protection) It would make good sense for the County to reassess its position on this issue. Perhaps establishing rural level Of service standards would b 4rr...•.... .••T ...r„«q• . .KrM•.,,;;K,., ,.Jti u :.t.::: •,.: .,�,,..•:w:.r :..: ... e..more %pprvpriate• than prohibiting pubtic wAtar.,systema.; If you have any further concerns or rived assistance with these issues please feel free to 000 tact Me. SQ:ciu cc; Richard Sarver, WSDOH Karl lnlnmx •\r. IA/dn^U Sincerely, 0� � Vo- 20 Sean Orr�� W800H SW Reglonol Planner Southwest Drinking Water Operations ATTACHMENT #17 Vo; 20 farF 0 1,700 COMPLIANCE ORDINANCE PREPARATION TIMELINE Madrona Planning & Development Services was contacted by Jefferson County on August 26, 1994 to meet and discuss compliance strategies to address the requirements of the Western Growth Hearing Board Order. Between August 26th and October 26th Madrona Planning & Development Services met with the County's senior planning staff, the Public Works Director, representative of the County's Graphical Information Service (GIS) Department, County Commissioners, County Planning Commissioners, City Of Port Townsend Council Members, senior City of Port Townsend Planning Staff, representatives from the City of Port Townsend's consulting engineering firm, CH2M Hill, and the City's groundwater specialist. In addition, Madrona met with Paula Mackrow, president of the Olympic Environmental Council, and Tracy Burrows, director of 1000 Friends of Washington, parties to the appeal of the Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance, and to representatives from several State agencies. A chronology of these meetings is listed below: September 12, 1994 • Phoned Dr. Gary Pivo, Professor of Urban Planning, University of Washington, and Founder and Director of the Growth Management Clearinghouse. Dr. Pivo suggested a number of alternatives, and resources that were available. September 14, 1994 • Met with Tracy Burrows, 1000 Friends of Washington, in Seattle to discuss the designation of existing land use patterns in Jefferson County. Rural Village and Rural Crossroads definitions were discussed • University of Washington Library, Growth Management Clearinghouse: A review of recent abstracts, journal articles and books relating to rural density and character was compiled. September 20, 1994 • Panel Meeting with representatives from the State Department of Health, the Department of Transportation & Community Development, the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD # 1, & County Staff, to discuss water service in rural areas. tire_ 20 F��� 0. � 01 Compliance Order Preparation Timeline Madrona Planning & Development Services October 23, 1994 Page -2- September 20, 1994 • Met with an Ad -Hoc Committee comprised of County Commissioners and Planning Commission Members formed to advise Madrona Planning & Development Services and County Staff on directions for a compliance ordinance. September 21, 1994 • Spoke with City of Port Townsend, Senior Planner, Dave Robison about development standards for rural areas. September 22, 1994 • Spoke with City of Port Townsend, Senior Planner, Dave Robison about rural densities. September 29, 1994 • Spoke with City of Port Townsend Planner, Eric Toews, concerning utilities issues. • Met in Seattle with Steve Wells, Assistant Director for Growth Management, DCTED, to discuss compliance issues and water service in rural areas. October 4, 1994 • Second meeting of the Ad -Hoc committee. The City of Port Townsend planner, Eric Toews was presented. Several members of the public were present. Mr. Steve Hayden, Olympic Environmental Council was also present. • Meeting with Mr. Dave Robison, City Planner, to discuss rural definitions. October 5, 1994 • Phoned Mr. Larry Fay, Director of Environmental Health for Jefferson County to discuss water issues. • Spoke to Mr. David Cunningham, Vice President, Pope & Talbot, Co., a representative of the Port Ludlow community concerning density issues. October 6, 1994 • Meeting with Dave Robinson, City Planner concerning rural strategies and the City of Port Townsend's potential concerns. VOL 20 MF 1' Compliance Order Preparation Timeline Madrona Planning & Development Services October 23, 1994 Page -3- October 7, 1994 • Meeting with Dave Robinson, City Planner and Bob Aegetter, Senior Planner, Jefferson County, to discuss interim density and the creation of special study areas. October 10, 1994 • Meet with the Board of County Commissioners to review the draft and consider alternatives. • Meeting with Paula Mackrow, President of the Olympic Environmental Council, concerning maps, rural center designations, and aquifer protection. October 11, 1994 • Phone conversation with Dave Robison concerning the compliance ordinance. October 12, 1994 The Draft Ordinance was presented to the Growth Management Steering Committee, which includes three City of Port Townsend Council persons; Marjorie Rogers , a representative from the Tri -Area Community Planning Group; and the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. In addition, City of Port Townsend staff, including Mr. Bob Wheeler, Director of Public Works, and Mr. Dave Peterson were present at this meeting. The Growth Management Steering Committee meeting is open to the public and there were many citizens present. Comment on the Draft Ordinance was received from both Steering Committee members and the public at this meeting. October 19, 1994 • Spoke with Mr. Craig Jones, Attorney for Pope & Talbot, Co. and Mr. David Cunningham, Land Use Planner for Port Ludlow Corporation about their concerns relating to the draft ordinance. • Meeting with Mr. Dave Peterson, CH2MHill, consulting firm for the City of Port Townsend. Reviewed the Draft Ordinance. • Meeting with Ms. Colette Kostelec, City of Port Townsend, Groundwater Specialist, concerning aquifer recharge, study area protections and the draft ordinance. October 20, 1994 • Meeting with Mr. Mark Beaufait, representative of County landowners concerning interim standards and planned unit developments. vo _ 20 Fac= 9 170U3 Compliance Order Preparation Timeline Madrona Planning & Development Services October 23, 1994 Page -4- Meeting with Mr. Craig Jones and Mr. David Cunningham, representatives of Port Ludlow, Inc. concerning interim densities and commercial development. October 21, 1994 • Phone conversation with Ms. Tracy Burrows, Director, 1000 Friends of Washington, concerning draft compliance ordinance. This meeting schedule represents a over 8 hours of meetings with City Staff and their consultants, with the Olympic Environmental Council (OEC) and with 1000 Friends of Washington. Additionally, there were three public advisory group meetings and countless hours of internal review. Madrona Planning and Development Services prepared an exhaustive review of currently adopted ordinances, local plans and state of the art thought in the preparation of the compliance ordinance. VOL 4U W! 1`` 04 JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Phone (206) 385-9100 • 1-800-831-2678 ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 TO: Recipient of Jefferson County Interim Urban Grow 15-1028-94 FROM: David Goldsmith, Director of Community Services DATE: November 9, 1994 SUBJECT: Attachment #18, Letter from OEC to Jefferson County Board of Commissioners No. Enclosed is a letter to the Board of County Commissioners from the Olympic Environmental Council concerning the Draft Interim Rural Overly District. This letter was inadvertently left out of the back ground documentation to the IUGA ordinance passed. Please include this letter in your copy of IUGA Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 as Attachment #18. V01- 20 Q j 100% Recycled Paper ATTACHMENT 18 Olympic Environmental Council P.O. Box 1906, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (406)379-8442 06)681-2642 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. box 1220 Port Townsend WA, 98368 Dear Commissioners, The Olympic Environmental Council would like to offer these comments regarding the approach and mrncess the Coati t inn to t?�-- in the" :t) ft Interim Rura Overlay District liidinanct; uai%.i Dauber i9, i994. Due to the sever time constraints the County has createdand the limited public process, we can only speak from the mushroom gallery regarding the process used to create this ordinance. We feel this proposal is good starting point as a basis for discussion. However it requires on going and continuous public process. This ordinance has never been presented in any public forum, and was only conceptual at the Growth Management Steering Committee meeting at which Commissioner Hinton repeatedly refused to let the public make comment or ask questions. While the approach has been billed as innovative and based on sound planning principles, the concept has not moved forward into ordinance language that adequately restricts the sub -urbanization of rural communities. This concept does not provide a realistic management of growth in its definition of rural or urban characteristics. Providing adequate services must be based on analysis of population projection, allocation, existing density potential and critical area limitations as the county has been asked to provide by the Western Growth Management Hearing Board. As GMA appears to require clear distinction between urban and rural densities and level of service for long range planing purposes, this sort of interim short term "flexibility" does not meet the intent of the Act. The Final Order clearly states that 1:1 is rarely acceptable since it is neither urban nor rural. This concept of slowly moving density rungs out into the margins of resource land is a point we find most objectionable. This concept causes undo confusion regarding the planning for long term service provision to both the service providers and the current and future residents. The historic conflict in the Tri Area over sewer availability is an excellent example of this confusion. Your planners have created public confusion by releasing an unproofed draft of a "rural element" concurrent with this hasty version of a short term compliance ordinance. This ordinance has had no official planning commission review or public hearing, the term ad- hoc being used to describe the unofficial process. The word from the people of Jefferson County is that there is still no public presentation or review of appropriate analysis that supports the designations or concept of Rural Level of Service Standards, densities or resource based rural commercial industrial uses. The entire ordinance is built around a list of uses drawn from the zoning code that conveniently expanded the existing commercial industrial areas after the County was clearly out of compliance with all required GMA interim deadlines regarding 1UGAs, Critical Areas And Resource designations. Vol". 20 Farr 0 -1700 Abundant Life Seed Foundation' Admiralty Audubon' Black Hills Audubon' C.A.US.E.' Friends of Kah Tai Lagoon ' Friends of the Elwha' Friends of Pulali Point * Olympic Park Aseociates' Protect the Peninsula's Future' Quilcene Ancient Forest Coalition' Save Our Gtata. PnrF • Rnntk (--ty ('mr(iinatino ('nn it . Trinity linitwl V, ttuvli-t (1_-i, r Waah Nati— Plwnt c ­ *m . nit ('han ' Wim r There are several elements of this proposal that we are interested in addressing on a more appropriate time frame. These include the Aquifer research proposal which should continue to be dealt with on a regional bass, not limited to the Tri -Area. We would appreciate the opportunity to comment on the scope, funding and implementation of such a study. There seem to be several forums for public discussion on this topic. Please clarify which forum will oversee the resolution of this important issue. We have supported the use of one dwelling unit per 5-10 awes as appropriate variety in the rural areas of Jefferson County. However OEC has always tied that sort of density flexibility to adequate protection of resource land beyond this rural fringe development. As that issue is also unresolved, we reserve support of the 5 acre minimum density until a more limited interim rural element is proposed and the resource designations clear. As long as this "minimum" density can be disregarded at the discretion of the County Board of Health, this is a meaningless illusion of compromise. Population allocation seems to have been left out of the Interim proposal. All population r iminens dis` issed so far seem to imply that the are en^»Eh existing, .,dable lis of mcuiu ie grciwui weii beyonti the 2u ycar plaiAg window. If not, show your work, please. The less flexibility the speculators have in Jefferson County at this point, the more flexibility the communities of this rural peninsula will have in the long term. However well intended the concept may be we find its intent to perpetuate the sprawling subdivision and land speculation patterns historic to Jefferson County while the County continues to delay the Comprehensive Plan deadlines. Thank you for your consideration on this issue. Sincerely, Olympic Environmental Council Board of Directors von_ 20 Fvr 01-7707 Olympic Environmental Council P.O. Box 1906, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (206)379-8442 (206)681-2642 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Octobef, 3, 1994 Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. box 1220 Port Townsend WA, 98368 [»!0V C 8 1994 r Dear Commissioners, The Olympic Environmental Council would like to offer these comments regarding the approach and proceess the County intends to take in the " Draft Interim Rural Overlay District. Ordinance, d atcd October 19, 1994. Due to the sever time constraints the County has createdand the limited public process, we can only speak from the mushroom gallery regarding the process used to create this ordinance. We feel this proposal is good starting point as a basis for discussion. However it requires on going and continuous public process. This ordinance has never been presented in any public forum, and was only conceptual at the Growth Management Steering Committee meeting at which Commissioner Hinton repeatedly refused to let the public make comment or ask questions. While the approach has been billed as innovative and based on sound planning principles, the concept has not moved forward into ordinance language that adequately restricts the sub -urbanization of rural communities. This concept does not provide a realistic management of growth in its definition of rural or urban characteristics. Providing adequate services must be based on analysis of population projection, allocation, existing density potential and critical area limitations as the county has been asked to provide by the Western Growth Management Hearing Board As GMA appears to require clear distinction between urban and rural densities and level of service for long range planing purposes, this sort of interim short term "flexibility" does not meet the intent of the Act. The Final Order clearly states that 1:1 is rarely acceptable since it is neither urban nor rural. This concept of slowly moving density rings out into the margins of resource land is a point we find most objectionable. This concept causes undo confusion regarding the planning for long term service provision to both the service providers and the current and future residents. The historic conflict in the Tri Area over sewer availability is an excellent example of this confusion. Your planners have created public confusion by releasing an unproofed draft of a "rural element" concurrent with this hasty version of a short term compliance ordinance. This ordinance has had no official planning commission review or public hearing, the term ad- hoc being used to describe the unofficial process. The word from the people of Jefferson County is that there is still no public presentation or review of appropriate analysis that supports the designations or concept of Rural Level of Service Standards, densities or resource based rural commercial industrial uses. The entire ordinance is built around a list of uses drawn from the zoning code that conveniently expanded the existing commercial industrial areas after the County was clearly out of compliance with all required GMA interim deadlines regarding IUGAs, Critical Areas And Resource designations. VOL 20 PicF ®1713 Abundant Life Seed Foundation' Admiralty Audubon' Black Hills Audubon' C.A.USY- * Friends of Kah Tai Lagoon . Friends of the Swha' Friends of Pulali Point' Olympic Park Associates . Protect the Peninsula's Future' Quilcene Ancient Forest Coalition' Save Our Stats Park t Sn..th (--ty ('mr.iinatino ('--il * Trinity T Tnita.l VvthMiat C'),-1, * Wach Nntiw Plant Sraioty - 01v Chan t Wil'i There are several elements of this proposal that we are interested in addressing on a more appropriate time frame. These include the Aquifer research proposal which should continue to be dealt with on a regional basis, not limited to the Tri -Area. We would appreciate the opportunity to comment on the scope, funding and implementation of such a study. There seem to be several forums for public discussion on this topic. Please clarify which forum will oversee the resolution of this important issue. We have supported the use of one dwelling unit per 5-10 acres as appropriate variety in the rural areas of Jefferson County. However OEC has always tied that sort of density flexibility to adequate protection of resource land beyond this rural fringe development. As that issue is also unresolved, we reserve support of the 5 acre minimum density until a more limited interim rural element is proposed and the resource designations clear. As long as this "minimum" densitycan be disregarded at the discretion of the County Board of Health, this is a meaningess illusion of compromise. Population allocation seems to have been left out of the interim proposal. All population projections discussed so far seem to imply that there are enough existing, buildable lots of record to accommodate growth well beyond the 20 year planing window. If not, show your work, please. The less flexibility the speculators have in Iefferson County at this point, the more flexibility the communities of this rural peninsula will have in the long term. However well intended the concept may be we find its intent to perpetuate the sprawling subdivision and land speculation patterns historic to Jefferson County while the County continues to delay the Comprehensive Plan deadlines. Thank you for your consideration on this issue. Sincerely, Z�6 Olympic Environmental Council Board of Directors 4 VOL �� FacF 0 � "" 1 r_ City of Port Townsend City Council Port Townsend, Washington 98368 385-3000 = 'a FILE Copyy October 21, 1994 OCT 21 1994 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse' P.O. Box 1220 L Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Draft Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance, dated October 19, 1994 Dear Commissioners: As members of the City's Growth Management Committee (Council members McCulloch Shoulberg and Davidson) we have completed a review of Jefferson County's Draft Interim Rural Overlay District Ordinance, dated October 19, 1994. We believe the rural center concept may be appropriate for Jefferson County. We were encouraged to hear, as discussed at the October 12 Joint Growth Management Committee meeting, that the intent of the draft ordinance is to: 1. Designate small, compact rural centers in certain areas of the county; 2. Establish an aquifer protection district that stretches from the Tri -Area to near the Port Townsend city limits in which new commercial and industrial development is prohibited, until aquifer recharge protections are complete; 3. Establish a joint study area around Glen Cove industrial park in order to determine if the area should be included within an UGA; and 4. Limit densities outside of rural centers to one unit per five acres. However, upon careful review of the ordinance, we are concerned with specific provisions of the proposal which appear to be inconsistent with both the GMA and the Final Decision and Order issued by the Western Growth Management Hearing Board (i.e., No. 94-2-0006). Accordingly, we submit the following questions and comments on the proposed ordinance for your review and consideration: 1 VOL 40 mF 017,15 Does the Proposed Ordinance Create a Precedent for Avoiding the Appropriate Designation of the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow as UGAs within the County's Final Comprehensive Plan? The concept of rural centers has merit for the future of Jefferson County's rural areas, especially for areas such as Brinnon and Quilcene. We supported inclusion of the rural center concept in the County -wide Planning Policy, and continue to favor the idea, as long as: 1. Rural centers develop at a scale and intensity that preserves the characteristics of the surrounding rural lands; and, 2. Rural centers are provided with public services and facilities which meet truly "rural" levels of service standards. The County's initial proposal, discussed at the September 27, 1994 Ad Hoc Committee meeting, suggested that the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow would be designated as "rural villages. " This proposal caused us grave concern, since it appeared that the approach was to simply change the name of the boundary surrounding Port Ludlow and the Tri -Area from "interim urban growth area" to "interim rural village." This appeared to us as a quick and easy solution designed to remove the moratorium but not address the City's concerns expressed in its IUGA appeal. However, at the Joint Growth Management Committee meeting on October 13, we were pleased to see that the revised proposal is to consider the Tri -Area as a "special study area" rather than a rural village. However, we continue to be perplexed by recent statements made by County Officials which suggest that the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow may not be designated as final Urban Growth Areas within the County's Comprehensive Plan. We reiterate that the City has never opposed the designation of either the Tri -Area or Port Ludlow as UGAs. A careful reading of the City's appeal of the Interim UGA Ordinance reveals that the City's objection to the action was based on five factors: 1. The size and extent of the IUGAs; 2. The failure to support the IUGA designations with appropriate analysis; 3. The lack of adequate restrictions on commercial and industrial growth allowed outside of IUGAs; 4. The inadequacy of the rural densities specified for areas outside of IUGAs; and 5. Uncertainties regarding the City's ability to provide water to the Tri -Area IUGA as delineated. We are concerned that the proposed ordinance may create a precedent which could lead to the designation of the Tri -Area as one large "rural village. " If the area accommodates urban commercial uses and urban densities, and it "looks and feels" like an UGA, it should be designated as such. Because the ultimate disposition of the Tri -Area is still in doubt, it is impossible to know what level of water service will be needed or required. Stated plainly, simply changing the name of the Tri -Area to "special study area" or "rural village" does little N � VOL 20 Fac! 0 171G to address the concerns raised in our appeal, or the violations of the GMA identified by the WGMHB. We believe that the planning and provision of an adequate water supply infrastructure for the Tri -Area should be occurring now rather than later. Does the Proposed Ordinance Perpetuate Historic Development Patterns which the GMA Seeks to Avoid? A fundamental objection we have with the approach used in the proposed ordinance to designate rural centers (i.e., both "crossroads" and "villages") is its excessive reliance upon existing plans and ordinances to guide future growth. To elaborate, the proposed rural centers are based on current commercial and industrial zones delineated within the Jefferson County Zoning Code. In turn, the Zoning Code was based upon the County's 1979 Comprehensive Plan "Optimum Land Use Map" and Community Development Plan maps of somewhat more recent vintage. This approach seems destined to perpetuate the historic pattern of sprawling development in rural areas which the GMA was designed to correct. This same concern was an important issue in the City's appeal of the IUGA Ordinance (i.e., the proposal's reliance upon existing zoning creates a substantial risk for continued inappropriate commercial and industrial development in rural areas). A review of the use tables in the Zoning Code (which are referenced within the draft ordinance) reveals that the proposal would continue to permit "urban" types of development to locate within the rural "villages" and "crossroads." One of the purposes of the GMA is to break away from these historically inefficient patterns of development. To this end, the GMA prohibits urban growth outside of UGAs. A review of the Zoning Code Maps, and the Build -Out Analysis contained within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Code, reinforces this conclusion. When applied to the current proposal, the results of the Build -Out Analysis suggest that rural centers, including "villages" and "crossroads," contain approximately 680 acres of commercially zoned land (i.e.,both C -I and C -II). By way of comparison, the City of Port Townsend, presently the County's only UGA, has 181 acres of commercially zoned land. The Build -Out Analysis also indicates that only 388 of the 680 acres have been "developed." (See attachment 1 - please advise us. if our analysis or conclusions are in error). This fact highlights the more than considerable potential for infill development under the proposed ordinance. Does the Ordinance Adequately Distinguish between Rural and Urban Uses? As discussed above, it appears that the draft ordinance seeks to implement the existing zoning code and zoning map designations. It is not reasonable to rely upon the Zoning Code definitions and use table for the neighborhood commercial (C-1) and general commercial (C- 3 1717 2) districts as a measure of what uses can accurately be characterized as "rural commercial. " (See attachment 2). By way of example, research and testing laboratories and vehicle sales (both activities allowed under the C-2 or general commercial designation) have not traditionally been considered rural commercial uses. Through considerable refinement of the Code's use tables, however, many commercial uses could reasonably be considered "rural" (e.g., "research and testing laboratories for agricultural and timber resource management purposes"; or "farm machinery and equipment sales"). Without further refinement and specificity, a software or medical research laboratory or a luxury car dealership could be located in the middle of a rural center. Permitting development of this nature to occur in rural areas appears patently inconsistent with the intent of the GMA. Adding to our confusion and concern, subsection 3.2 of the proposed ordinance, read in conjunction with the Zoning Code, would allow the maximum floor area of most commercial enterprises to be set on a case-by-case basis (including the research lab and vehicle sales examples cited above). Surprisingly, the zoning code indicates that there is no maximum floor area specified for C-1 and C-2 commercial uses. Accordingly, it is not inconceivable that a 50 acre or larger, luxury car dealership could be permitted outright in a rural center under the existing draft ordinance. Has the Research and Analysis Which Would Support Rural Center Designation Been Completed? Similar to the City's concerns with the IUGA ordinance (No. 02-0110-94), the draft ordinance appears to be based on neither the Watterson sub -county population distribution for the sizing of rural centers, nor an analysis of the carrying capacity of the land (i.e., critical areas and resource lands). Instead, the boundaries appear to have been drawn under the assumption that reliance upon one-half mile "concentric circles" surrounding the rural center commercial cores is reasonable. It is our understanding of the GMA and Board decisions, that without the required analysis, higher densities in or adjacent to rural centers cannot be justified. We are unaware of any analysis having been completed which supports a 1:1 rural density, or a minimum building area of 10,000 square feet for single family residences in the areas specified (see Subsection 3.30). Do the Level of Service Standards Promote "Rural" Development Patterns? We presume that the matrix handed out at the October 12 meeting is to be attached to the draft ordinance. Again, it is difficult to provide useful comments on level of service standards without the matrix being included with the draft ordinance. Overall, however, we are troubled with the idea that, under the draft ordinance, the city would provide "rural" water 0 to the Tri -Area study area for some undefined period of time. Then, in the future, the area would likely become an UGA, with the requirement to provide water at an urban level of service. Thus, the City would be confronted with the necessity of upgrading, at great expense, an inadequate infrastructure that the city owns and has accepted. Wastewater presents a similar infrastructure concern, except that continued development of individual and community septic systems present a threat of aquifer contamination over the effective duration of the proposed ordinance. ' As we understand the County's approach to service standards, it appears that the level of service matrix thus far discussed is based on the earlier matrix developed for the IUGA ordinance. Our concerns over the level of service standards for the rural centers mirror our earlier concerns with the level of service matrix for the interim UGA, especially with respect to water and sewer in the Tri -Area. The matrix allows most things to occur anywhere. There is no definition of "conditional" or "provisional." Class A water systems are allowed in villages and are conditionally allowed elsewhere. If allowed outside of UGAs and villages, this does not promote rural character. Rather, it encourages urban densities. Additionally, we cannot support allowing Class B or independent wells in UGAs, or wells in the rural villages. Has the Public Process Been Adequate? As you know, the rural centers concept was presented verbally to staff for the first time on September 27. A few more details were presented to the Joint Growth Management Committee on October 12. The first draft ordinance was not available for review until late in the day on October 17. A revised draft ordinance became available on October 19. Rural Overlay District maps and the interim level of service matrix are referenced but have not been included in the draft ordinance. Without these attachments, it is impossible to fully review and understand the location, extent and implications of the rural overlay districts. As we understand it, the Board anticipates action on the proposed ordinance on October 24. This allows less than one week for the City and interested citizens to provide useful comments for the Board to consider prior to action on the proposed ordinance. We understand the tremendous time constraint the Commissioners are under to comply with the Hearing Board's Order, but we cannot support the absence of public participation that has characterized the ordinance development and adoption process thus far. Moreover, we are baffled as to why no SEPA review has been initiated on the proposal. SEPA presents a useful opportunity to comply with the public participation requirements of the GMA. We respectfully request that the Commissioners delay action on this ordinance until interested parties have the appropriate maps and level of service matrix to examine, the SEPA process has been completed, and affected parties have had sufficient time to comment on the proposal. The above questions and comments represent our overall comments on the draft ordinance. 5 VOL 20 face 01"0419 The following comments pertain to the specifics of the ordinance itself. Comments are arranged according to the appropriate Section numbers within the proposal. Section 1: Purpose and Effect See comments above, especially those relating to the use of the existing zoning code as the basis for designing rural centers and uses allowed in each zoning category. Section 2: Definitions Our overarching concern is that these definitions define or could include within the definitions of "rural uses" and "rural development" land uses which are not at all rural. The definitions (e.g., "shopping, ... commercial, industrial ... at a scale that preserves surrounding rural characteristics" and "residential development that includes small lot single family and multi- family, and mixed use developments," etc.) beg the question: How does one define "rural characteristics?" How is the scale of residential development any different from the historic pattern of development? Under what circumstances would commercial and retail establishments not "serve the retail and service needs of a local area?" These definitions, couched in soft planning jargon, would appear to allow the perpetuation of existing development patterns. The definition of "Rural Center (Village)" raises particular concern. Why, under planning consistent with the GMA, would "higher density development" not require the "full range of urban level of service development standards?" This language appears to skirt the more difficult issue which all counties must encounter at this juncture: an analysis of public facilities (which are supposed to be provided primarily by cities) and the levels of service necessary for the proposed levels of development. One cannot simply say that urban levels of service "may not" be available without going through the analysis. This is particularly true when the definition concedes that "Even though Rural Centers (Village) may in some circumstances develop densities similar to those found in an Urban Growth Area, they are considered part of the rural area for purposes of growth management, and do not provide significant growth capacity. " This language appears to underscore the contradiction of the proposed rural center concept and the UGA requirements. How can densities be similar to UGA densities, especially if the villages do not "provide significant growth capacity?" At what level of service will infrastructure be provided? What data analysis and planning has been done to guarantee that the County is not providing too much growth capacity (especially in light of the large land areas anticipated for inclusion)? Section 3: Establishment of Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts The one acre minimum lot size set forth in subsection 3. 10, to our knowledge, does not benefit from any more analysis now, than it did before the Hearings Board earlier this year. Further, we retain serious concerns regarding the lack of analysis concerning existing platted ,T VOL 20 PAGF 0 1:2-0 lots. Again, we are unaware of the County having conducted any further analysis regarding the infrastructure (i.e., water) needs of the villages. Is the phrase "as permitted by the Zoning Code" used throughout subsection 3.20 synonymous with "no limitation?" A brief review of the provisions of the Zoning Code would indicate that this reading is accurate. By way of example, we question how the following uses can even remotely be considered "rural" without further refinement of the definitions and significant limitations on maximum floor area allowed: laboratories for research and testing; multi -family residences; restaurants; theaters (including drive-ins); mortuaries; and vehicle sales, repair and service establishments. How can the one acre minimum lot size set forth in subsection 3.10 be reconciled with the 10,000 square foot building area described in subsection 3.30? This provision would appear to allow continued development on existing platted lots within the rural centers, without first demonstrating an ability to provide services at this density. Wholesale allowance of development of existing undeveloped platted lots is not the solution. Without an opportunity to review the maps which depict the proposed rural center overlay zones, it is not possible for us to comment on subsections 3.40 through 3.70. Section 4: Establishment of Interim Special Study Overlay Areas Overall, we strongly support the establishment of the Special Study Overlay Areas for Glen Cove and the Tri -Area. However, we have some reservations about the uses and densities allowed in these Special Study Areas in the interim period prior to the studies being completed. Please see our specific comments below. 4.20 Glen Cove Industrial Overlay Study Area: 4.20.1 Our understanding of the GMA would not allow the Glen Cove Industrial Area to be retained as a stand alone rural industrial center unless it was for only that portion of the area to by used by the Port Townsend Paper Mill or some other resource -related industrial use. 4.20.3 Given the lack of water to serve the Glen Cove Area today, we cannot support this provision which allows unlimited infill in the study area, until the special study area and related interlocal agreements are completed. 4.20.4 We agree that the study should be completed within 180 days. However, we are mystified as to the intent of the recent addition adding language that the _area would be designated a stand-alone industrial center if no agreement was reached in that period. This appears to give the County an excuse not to complete the study or to reach agreement with the City within the 180 day period. 7 VOL 20 FAGS 0 :17 �?, 4.30 Tri -Area Aquifer Recharge Overlay Study Area 4.30.1 We support this provision, however, without a map, it is difficult to comment on the appropriateness of the boundaries of the overlay area. It should also be noted that many other class A and B groundwater systems in Jefferson County are in need of protection. Since these systems are important to the County's larger water supply issues, it may be advisable to include these systems for protection as well (e.g., Shine, Quilcene, etc.). 4.30.2 This needs to be completed by December 31, 1994. We are willing to assist the County in this effort. However, we would be interested to know what the County's plans are if the ordinance amendments are not completed by the end of the year. 4.30.3 Single family residential: It is unclear whether this provision would really limit minimum lot sizes to one acre. It appears that this could be exempted by the Department of Health to at least a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This type of density would greatly increase the risk of contamination to the aquifer. Commercial and Industrial: This provision is especially confusing. Is commercial and industrial development prohibited or allowed subject to the zoning code? 4.30.4 We are concerned that the County may not have completed adequate amendments to its critical area ordinance by December 31, 1994. Section 5: Interim Public Level of Service Standards 5.10 Again, we are not sure what is proposed for level of service standards, as Attachment A is not included with the ordinance. The level of service standards which are adopted should be specific and clearly define the quantity of water to be supplied per person per day, and adequate fire flows. 5.20 This appears to say that water system extensions, etc., "shall" be approved if there is capacity in the system or to avoid multiple unregulated wells. This seems too broad of a statement without some consideration of other factors. 5.30 Reliance upon the distinction between Group A/Group B water systems to differentiate between "urban" and "rural" growth is inadvisable. The Department of Health has established these classes in order to require different development standards and reporting systems. However, nothing in the Department of Health regulations addresses the issue of what constitutes a "rural" versus an "urban" water system. For example, a system with 15 connections can be a Group A system. However, .in and of itself, this fact does not establish that the system is "urban." It would be more ' VOL 20 FACE 0 JL722 appropriate to distinguish based upon level of service standards for the various land use designations (e.g, UGAs, Rural Villages, Rural Crossroads, etc.). 5.40.2.b Extension: We cannot support this provision because it would allow extension of urban water systems outside UGAs. Moreover, the subsection, as written, would permit the expansion of service areas located outside of UGAs. The establishment of UGA boundaries and service area boundaries should be considered in tandem. 5.40.3 New Group B Systems: As drafted, the provision would allow substantial commercial and industrial development outside of UGAs. While the City is not opposed to specifically defined and limited "rural" commercial development outside of UGAs, this provision coupled with the use tables from the Zoning Code which are referenced in the draft, allow for an inappropriate level of commercial development in rural areas. Section 6: Severability No comments. Section 7: Repealer How can these regulations repeal and replace Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 if such ordinance has been null and void for at least sixty days? Section 8: Effective Period 8.10 There appears to be confusion between what "interim ordinance" means in the context of GMA planning (RCW 36.70A.390) and an "emergency" interim control under the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70.795). Candidly, we do not believe an "emergency" exists which necessitates characterizing or processing this ordinance as an "emergency interim control. " We reserve additional comments on this section until it is completed with effective dates. 8.20 We are puzzled as to why and how a substantially complete application prior to the effective date of this ordinance can be processed under the Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 if such ordinance has been null and void for at least sixty days. How Does the Proposed Ordinance Comply with the Hearing Board's Order? Based on our review of the draft ordinance, we must conclude that the proposed ordinance lacks the analysis and justification required by the GMA. Moreover, the County has not provided evidence of compliance with the three requirements of the WGMHB order: 'VOL 20 IRS' 0 17,23 1. The County has yet to do the "homework" necessary to document the size and location of these rural centers. Nor has the County provided sufficient details as to how rural centers (villages) are different from interim urban growth areas; 2. The County has not demonstrated how and why urban residential, commercial or industrial development uses can be allowed in rural centers which are outside a properly designated UGA, and; 3. The County has not provided the analysis to support the use of a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size or a 1:1 density in rural areas. Optional Measures to Consider to Comply with the Hearing Board's Order It is with great reluctance we offer suggestions of how you might comply with the WGMHB's order and meet the City's concerns. But you have asked in the past what would satisfy the City's concerns. So these are offered in the spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation. Continue to do the homework to include rural centers within the rural element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. In the plan, possibly designate small, compact rural centers in certain areas of the county, such as Quilcene and Brinnon. Distinguish between commercial and industrial uses which are "urban" and those that are "rural. " Amend the zoning code as necessary to reflect these differences. 2. Establish an aquifer protection district that stretches from the Tri -Area to near the Port Townsend city limits in which new commercial and industrial development would be prohibited until adequate aquifer recharge standards are in place and UGAs or appropriately sized rural centers are adopted. 3. Establish a joint study area around Glen Cove industrial park in order to determine if the area should be included within an UGA. 4. Designate a interim minimum lot size of one unit per five acres until the homework is completed. If the analysis supports it, include a range of rural densities in the adopted comprehensive plan. Of course, there are likely other ways the County could comply with the Board's order and satisfy our concerns. Toward this end, we hope we can continue to work together to avoid further costly and time consuming appeals. In summary, we believe the rural center concept has merit and should be thoroughly examined and analyzed during development of the County's rural element. Of course, we are more than willing to jointly work with the County in its analysis of the suitability of the Tri -Area and Glen Cove area for possible inclusion within final urban growth areas. 10 - VOL 20 FACE 0 :17424 Thank you for considering our comments. gie McCulloch �� A Ted Shoulberg Bill Davidson cc: Mayor and City Council David Clark, Department of Health Rich Sarver, Department of Health Steve Wells, Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development 11 IIvo_ 2n RG! 01 25 WHAT AREAS WITHIN THE COUNTY ARE "RURAL CENTERS" & HOW MUCH LAND IS AVAILABLE FOR ' COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THESE AREAS? I. Rural Center (Crossroads): Although the draft "Interim Rural Overlay District Ordinance" does not specifically identify these areas (no map has yet been provided), discussions of the Ad Hoc Committee suggest that the following areas are candidates for designation: 1. Beaver Valley Neighborhood Commercial Zone: Current Zone Type: C-1 Area: 2.98 Acres Developed Areas: 2.98 Acres , Undeveloped Areas: 0.00 2. Black Point Road Neighborhood Commercial Zone: Current Zone Type: C-1 Area: 16.65 Acres Developed Areas: 0.00 Acres Undeveloped Areas: 16.65 Acres 3. Four Corners General Commercial Zone: Current Zone Type: C-2 Area: 21.04 Acres Developed Areas: 17.49 Acres Undevelojed Areas: 3.55 Acres 4. Center Neighborhood Commercial Zone: Current Zone Type: C-1 Area: 0.39 Acres Developed Areas: 0.00 Undeveloped Areas: 0.39 5. Gardiner General Commercial Zone: Current Zone Type: C-2 Area: 173.23 Developed Areas: 41.55 Acres Undeveloped Areas: 131.68 Acres 6. Discovery Bay General Commercial Zone: Current Zone Tvpe: C-2 Area: 141.51 Acres Developed Areas: 42.80 Acres Undeveloped Areas: 98.71 7. Marrowstone Island Neighborhood Commercial Zone: Current Zone Type: C-1 Area: 1.00 Acre Developed Areas: 1.00 Acre Undeveloped Areas: 0.00 VOL 20 FACE- 8. Mats Mats Neighborhood Commercial Zone: Current Zone Tvpe: C-1 Area: 6.69 Acres Developed Areas: 3.84 Acres Undeveloped Areas: 2.85 Acres 9. Wawa Point Neighborhood Commercial Zone: Current Zone Type: C-1 Area: 27.70 Developed Areas: 25.06 Acres Undeveloped Areas: 2.64 Acres Total Area Likely to be Designated Commercial within the "Rural Center (Crossroad)" Designation: 391.19 Acres. Total Undeveloped Areas Potentially Available for "Infill" Development: 256.47 Acres (65.5% of all Commercially Zoned Land within the "Rural Center (Crossroad)" Designation). (Note: All information derived from Table C-1, Build -Out Analysis Final Results, contained within the Draft EIS for the Jefferson County Zoning Code). IL Rural Center (Village): Again, the draft "Interim Rural Overlay District Ordinance" does not specifically identify these areas (no map has been provided). However, discussions of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Consultant's presentation before the Joint Growth Management Committee suggest that the following areas are candidates for designation: 1. Port Ludlow General Commercial Zone: Current Zone Type: C-2 Area: 8.87 Acres Developed Areas: 6.48 Acres Undeveloped Areas: 2.39 Acres 2. Brinnon General Commercial Zone: Current Zone Tvpe: C-2 Area: 95.81 Acres Developed Areas: 59.86 Acres Undeveloped Areas: 35.95 Acres 3. Quilcene General Commercial Zone: Current Zone Type: C-2 Area: 184.02 Acres Developed Areas: 91.28 Acres Undeveloped Areas: 92.74 Acres Total Area Likely to be Designated Commercial within the "Rural Center (Village)" Designation: 288.7 Acres. Total Undeveloped Areas Potentially Available for "Infill" Development: 131.08 Acres (45.4% of all Commercially Zoned Land within the "Rural Center (Village)" Designation). (Note: All information derived from Table Gl, Build -Out Analysis Final Results, contained within the Draft EIS for the Jefferson County Zoning Code). 2 'VOL 20 PAGE 0 1 �!7 C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District A district whose commercial uses serve and enhance a neighborhood or limited residential market. These commercial uses may include, but are not limited to, retail businesses dispensing commodities, providing professional services or providing personal services primarily to individuals within the neighborhood. Permitted Outright Amateur Radio Antennas, less than sixty-five (65) Day care center (13 or more charges). feet. Group home for the handicapped. Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Church or place of religious worship. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling, or distributing of goods and services such as: Construction Yards. Commercial uses (neighborhood): retail businesses dispensing commodities, providing professional services, or providing personal services to the individual, such as: Agencies (such as real estate, insurance, etc.) Alcoholic beverage sales (packaged) Bakeries, Retail Banks and financial institutions Barbers and beauty shops Convenience stores Clinics Construction Yards Dance, Body Building, Martial Arts Hardware stores Offices Pharmacy or drugstore Professional offices Restaurants Vehicle repair and service 'VOL Home business consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of this Code. Residences, multi -family. Residences, single family. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, sixty- five (65) feet in height or less. Transient accommodations (including hotels and motels). Water -dependent or water -related light industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Permitted Conditionally Amateur Radio Antennas, more than sixty-five (65) feet. Bed and Breakfast inns (3 to 6 guest rooms). Boat building and repair: Commercial. Kennels.. Mineral extraction and processing. Recreational vehicle park. Transient (up to 30 day stay). Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, more than sixty-five (65) feet in height. 20 fl.GE 0 J-7218 C-2 General Commercial District Primarily a general commercial district in which the conduct of activities involved in the retail or wholesale buying, selling or distribution of goods and services shall be permitted. Mini -storage, transient accommodations, and time-share developments shall be considered general commercial activities for the purpose of this Ordinance. Permitted Outright Amateur Radio Antennas, less than sixty-five (65) Boat Building and repair: Commercial. feet. Church or place of religious worship. Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Commercial relay or transmission facilities. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling, or distributing of goods and services such as: Agencies (such as real estate, insurance, etc.) Alcoholic beverage sales (packaged) Bakeries Banks and financial institutions Bus stations and terminals Car wash Clinics Convenience stores Construction Yards Dry cleaners and laundries Food stores Hardware stores Laboratories for research and testing Lock and gunsmiths Lumber yards Nursery, landscape material Offices Pharmacy or drugstore Photographic studios Physical culture establishments: fitness centers, tanning salons, etc. Plumbing shops and yards Printing, publishing and reproduction establishments Professional .Offices Radio, television repair and service Radio, television broadcasting stations (excluding antennas) Repair shops Restaurants Retail stores not otherwise named in this list, including department stores Sign manufacture, painting and maintenance Theaters, excluding Drive -In Theaters Undertaking establishments Vehicle sales, repair and service Veterinary hospitals Wholesale, which may include incidental retail outlets for only such merchandise as is handled at Wholesale Commercial uses (neighborhood): retail businesses dispensing commodities, providing professional services, or providing personal services to the individual, such as: Barbers and beauty shops Construction Yards ,. VOL 20 FAGF 01729 C-2 Permitted Outright (continued) Day care center (13 or more charges) Group home for the handicapped. Home business consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of this Code. Industrial park. Industrial use, light, 5,000 square feet gross floor area or less. Kennels. Recreational vehicle park: Seasonal (up to 180 day stay). Recreational vehicle park: Transient (up to 30 day stay). Recycling: Low Intensity. Residences, multi -family. Residences, single family. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, sixty- five (65) feet in height or less. Transient accommodations (including hotels and motels). Warehousing. Water -dependent or water -related light industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. VOL 20 FAGS C-2 Permitted Conditionally Amateur Radio Antennas, more than sixty-five (65) feet. Bed and Breakfast inns (3 to 6 guest rooms). Mineral extraction and processing. i Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, more than sixty-five (65) feet in height. G-1 General Use District Primarily a mixed-use district permitting agricultural and related activities, silviculture, home businesses and residential activities. Permitted Outright Amateur Radio Antennas, less than sixty-five (65) feet. Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Cemeteries. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling, or distributing of goods and'services iuch as: Wholesale, which may include incidental retail outlets for only such merchandise as is handled at Wholesale. Group home for the handicapped. Home business consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of this Code. Residence, single-family. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, sixty- five (65) feet in height. Permitted Conditionally Amateur Radio Antennas, more than sixty-five (65) feet. Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Bed and Breakfast inns (3 to 6 guest rooms). Church or place of religious worship. Commercial relay or transmission facilities. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling, or distributing of goods and services such as: Nursery, landscape material Restaurants Theaters, Drive -In Veterinary hospitals. Day care center (13 or more charges). Kennels. Mineral extraction and processing. Recreational vehicle park: Seasonal (up to 180 day stay). Recreational vehicle park: Transient (up to 30 day stay). Residences, multi -family. Towers, antennas, and ' supporting structure, more than sixty-five (65) feet in height. Water -dependent or water -related light industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. VOL 20 wF 01 31 U Urban Residential The purpose of this district is to provide for a mixed-use district which will allow a full range of residential densities and neighborhood commercial activities. This district is to be a buffer or transition between commercial districts and general use districts. Mixed use buildings and multi -family housing shall be permitted uses in this zone. Permitted Outright stay). Amateur Radio Antennas, less than sixty-five (66) feet. Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Church or place of religious worship. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling or distributing of goods and services such as: Theaters, excluding Drive -In Theaters Veterinary hospitals. Commercial uses (neighborhood): retail businesses dispensing commodities, providing professional services, or providing personal services to the individual, such as: Agencies (such as real estate, insurance, etc.) Alcoholic beverage sales (packaged) Bakeries, Retail Banks and financial institutions Barbers and beauty shops Convenience stores Clinics Dance, Body Building, Martial Arts Hardware stores Offices Pharmacy or drugstore Professional offices Restaurants Vehicle repair and service Day care center (13 or more charges). Group home for the handicapped. Home business consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of this Code. Recreational vehicle park: Seasonal (up to 180 day Residences, single-family. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, less than sixty-five (65) feet in height. Permitted Conditionally Amateur Radio Antennas, more than sixty-five (65) feet. Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Bed and Breakfast inns (3 to 6 guest rooms). Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, more than sixty-five (65) feet in height. VOL 20 FAGS • Uv i 32 U Urban Residential The purpose of this district is to provide for a mixed-use district which will allow a full range of residential densities and neighborhood commercial activities. This district is to be a buffer or transition between commercial districts and general use districts. Mixed use buildings and multi -family housing shall be permitted uses in this zone. Permitted Outright stay). Amateur Radio Antennas, less than sixty-five (65) feet. Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Church or place of religious worship. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling or distributing of goods and services such as: Theaters, excluding Drive -In Theaters Veterinary hospitals. Commercial uses (neighborhood): retail businesses dispensing commodities, providing professional services, or providing personal services to the individual, such as: Agencies (such as real estate, insurance, etc.) Alcoholic beverage sales (packaged) Bakeries, Retail Banks and financial institutions Barbers and beauty shops Convenience stores Clinics Dance, Body Building, Martial Arts Hardware stores Offices Pharmacy or drugstore Professional offices Restaurants Vehicle repair and service Day care center (13 or more charges). Group home for the handicapped. Home business consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of this Code. Recreational vehicle park: Seasonal (up to 180 day Residences, single-family. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, less than sixty-five (65) feet in height. Permitted Conditionally Amateur Radio Antennas, more than sixty-five (65) feet. Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Bed and Breakfast inns (3 to 6 guest rooms). Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, more than sixty-five (65) feet in height. VOL20��G� ( �': 33 G-1 General Use District Primarily a mixed-use district permitting agricultural and related activities, silviculture, home businesses and residential activities. Permitted Outright Amateur Radio Antennas, less than sixty-five (65) feet. Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Cemeteries. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling, or distributing of goods and services such as: Wholesale, which may include incidental retail outlets for only such merchandise as is handled at Wholesale. Group home for the handicapped. Home business consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of this Code. Residence, single-family. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, sixty- five (65) feet in height. Permitted Conditionally Amateur Radio Antennas, more than sixty-five (65) feet. Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Bed and Breakfast inns (3 to 6 guest rooms). Church or place of religious worship. Commercial relay or transmission facilities. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling, or distributing of goods and services such as: Nursery, landscape material Restaurants Theaters, Drive -In Veterinary hospitals. Day care center (13 or more charges). Kennels. Mineral extraction and processing. Recreational vehicle park: Seasonal (up to 180 day stay). Recreational vehicle park: Transient (up to 30 day stay). Residences, multi -family. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, more than sixty-five (65) feet in height. Water -dependent or water -related light industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. 'VOL 20 FacF 0 1734 T C-2 Permitted Outright (continued) Day care center (13 or more charges) Group home for the handicapped. Home business consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of this Code. Industrial park. Industrial use, light, 5,000 square feet gross floor area or less. Kennels. Recreational vehicle park: Seasonal (up to 180 day stay). Recreational vehicle park: Transient (up to 30 day stay). Recycling: Low Intensity. Residences, multi -family. Residences, single family. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, sixty- five (65) feet in height or less. Transient accommodations (including hotels and motels). Warehousing. Water -dependent or water -related light industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. C-2 Permitted Conditionally Amateur Radio Antennas, more than sixty-five (65) feet. Bed and Breakfast inns (3 to 6 guest rooms). Mineral extraction and processing. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, more than sixty-five (65) feet in height. C-2 General Commercial District Primarily a general commercial district in which the conduct of activities involved in the retail or wholesale buying, selling or distribution of goods and services shall be permitted. Mini -storage, transient accommodations, and time-share developments shall be considered general commercial activities for the purpose of this Ordinance. Permitted Outright Amateur Radio Antennas, less than sixty-five (65) feet. Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Boat Building and repair: Commercial. Church or place of religious worship. Commercial relay or transmission facilities. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling, or distributing of goods and services such as: Agencies (such as real estate, insurance, Alcoholic beverage sales (packaged) Bakeries Banks and financial institutions Bus stations and terminals Car wash Clinics Convenience stores Construction Yards Dry cleaners and laundries Food stores Hardware stores Laboratories for research and testing Lock and gunsmiths Lumber yards Nursery, landscape material Offices Pharmacy or drugstore Photographic studios etc.) Physical culture establishments: fitness centers, tanning salons, etc. Plumbing shops and yards Printing, publishing and reproduction establishments Professional Offices Radio, television repair and service Radio, television broadcasting stations (excluding antennas) Repair shops Restaurants Retail stores not otherwise named in this list, including department stores Sign manufacture, painting and maintenance Theaters, excluding Drive -In Theaters Undertaking establishments Vehicle sales, repair and service Veterinary hospitals Wholesale, which may include incidental retail outlets for only such merchandise as is handled at Wholesale Commercial uses (neighborhood): retail businesses dispensing commodities, providing professional services, or providing personal services to the individual, such as: Barbers and beauty shops Construction Yards i . VOL 20 u 0 11,0136� C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District A district whose commercial uses serve and enhance a neighborhood or limited residential market. These commercial uses may include, but are not limited to, retail businesses dispensing commodities, providing professional services or providing personal services primarily to individuals within the neighborhood. Permitted Outright Amateur Radio Antennas, less than sixty-five (65) feet. Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Church or place of religious worship. Commercial Uses, General: uses whose primary activity is the retail or wholesale, buying, selling, or distributing of goods and services such as: Construction Yards. Commercial uses (neighborhood): retail businesses dispensing commodities, providing professional services, or providing personal services to the individual, such as: Agencies (such as real estate, insurance, etc.) Alcoholic beverage sales (packaged) Bakeries, Retail Banks and financial institutions Barbers and beauty shops Convenience stores Clinics Construction Yards Dance, Body Building, Martial Arts Hardware stores Offices Pharmacy or drugstore Professional offices Restaurants Vehicle repair and service Day care center (13 or more charges). Group home for the handicapped. Home business consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of this Code. Residences, multi -family. Residences, single family. Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, sixty- five (65) feet in height or less. Transient accommodations (including hotels and motels). Water -dependent or water -related light industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. Permitted Conditionally Amateur Radio Antennas, more than sixty-five (65) feet. Bed and Breakfast inns (3 to 6 guest rooms). Boat building and repair: Commercial. Kennels. Mineral extraction and processing. Recreational vehicle park. Transient (up to 30 day stay). Towers, antennas, and supporting structure, more than sixty-five (65) feet in height. VOL 20 fAGr 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED that Interim Rural Overlay Districts are hereby created pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, Jefferson County Zoning Code, as follows: SECTION 1 PURPOSE. AND EFFECT Subsections: 1.10 Purpose and Effect 1.10 PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of the Interim Rural Overlay Districts are to repeal and replace Ordinance No. 02-011 Q-94, Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance. All development activities subject to Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, Jefferson County Zoning Code, Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance, Ordinance No. 07-075-94, Jefferson County Interim County Interim Mineral Resource Lands Ordinance shall conform to the requirements of this overlay district. In the event of a discrepancy between the requirements of the overlay districts and those found in the zoning code, subdivision ordinance, or interim resource lands ordinances the stricter standards shall apply. SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS Subsections: 2.10 Definitions 2.10 DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Ordinance, certain words are defined as follows: words in the present tense include the future tense; words in the singular shall include the plural; the word "shall" is mandatory; the word "should" indicates that which is recommended but not required; the word "may" is permissive. All words in this Ordinance shall have their plain and ordinary meaning unless otherwise defined herein below: 1. Rural Centers: Rural Centers are those unincorporated places which serve the retail commercial and service needs of a local area. Land uses within these centers include: Shopping, employment, and services for residents, supplies for resource industries, and commercial, industrial, and tourism development at a scale that preserves the surrounding rural characteristics. Residential development that includes small -lot single-family and multi -family, and mixed-use developments. • Community facilities and services necessary to support the rural center and promote pedestrian mobility. Vol- 2,0 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 1 ", Revised: October 19, 199410:54 AM 2 For the purposes of this ordinance, Rural Centers shall be further defined as 3 being comprised of two distinct types: Rural Centers (Village) and Rural 4 Centers (Crossroads). 5 6 2. Rural Center (Crossroads): Rural Center (Crossroads) provide convenient 7 local services for nearby residents, support natural resource-based 8 industries or agricultural uses, and provide services for the traveling public. 9 Rural Centers (Crossroads) have been established by virtue of historic 10 transportation patterns. Rural Centers (Crossroads) are not located within 11 urban growth areas. 12 13 The purpose of the Rural Center (Crossroads) designation is to recognize 14 existing concentrations small scale commercial uses located along mayor 15 transportation routes in rural areas. Rural Centers (Crossroads) contribute to 16 the continued economic vitality of the rural area by facilitating transportation 17 and providing a very limited selection of goods and services "around the 18 corner." 19 20 3. Rural Center Vi • Rural Centers (Village) are unincorporated areas of 21 spatially -related commercial, industrial and residential development which 22 are governed directly by Jefferson County. Rural Centers (Village) provide 23 a focal point for community identity, and offer the opportunity for 24 community groups such as chambers of commerce or community clubs to 25 participate in public affairs. Rural Centers (Village) are not located within 26 urban growth areas. 27 28 The purpose of the Rural Center (Village) designation is to recognize 29 existing concentrations of higher density residential and commercial activity 30 in rural areas. Rural villages have been established by virtue of historic 31 settlement patterns, and have become for many County residents the 32 physical representation of community identity. Rural Centers (Village) 33 contribute to the continued economic vitality of the rural area by providing 34 needed goods and services "close to home." 35 36 Rural Centers (Village) may allow for modest economic growth if supported 37 by the community and adequate utilities and other public services are 38 available. Although higher density development may require public sewers, 39 applying the full range of urban level of service development standards may 40 not be necessary. Even though Rural. Centers (Village) may in some 41 circumstances develop densities similar to those found in an Urban Growth 42 Area, they are considered part of the rural area for purposes of growth 43 management, and do not provide significant growth capacity. 44 45 4. Rural Commercial Uses: Rural commercial uses are those retail and 46 wholesale activities which provide general goods and services for a rural 47 community. Although some types of rural commercial development may 48 duplicate uses found in urban areas, all rural Commercial uses shall be of an 49 intensity and scale which accommodate the short-term or convenience 50 shopping needs of the local community, and do not rely on a regional 51 population for market support. 52 53 For the purposes of this Ordinance, rural commercial uses shall be located 54 within Rural Centers. (� 1F,,�3 2Q Fes. DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 2 Revised: October 19, 199410:54 AM 2 5. Rural IndustriUses (Non-resou= Rural Industrial Uses (Non - 3 resource) are industrial uses located within rural centers which contribute 4 towards the continued economic vitality of rural areas through the provision 5 of non -service sector jobs. Rural Industrial Uses (Non -resource) shall be 6 established in a manner which does not adversely effect rural character. 7 Screening, vegetative buffering, and contextually -based architectural design 8 shall be used to better integrate the proposed Rural Industrial. Use. 9 10 For the purposes of this Ordinance, Rural Industrial Uses (Non -resource) 11 of less than 15,000 square feet gross floor area shall be permitted within 12 rural centers provided that adequate public services are available. 13 14 6. Rural Industrial Uses fResource): Existing or proposed industrial uses in 15 rural areas either isolated or located near lural centers which are resource 16 based, including but not limited to aquaculture, shellfish harvesting and 17 processing, timber harvesting, processing and related silvaculture activities, 18 extraction and processing of minerals and all agricultural uses. Rural 19 Industrial Uses (Resource) uses contribute towards the continued economic 20 vitality of rural areas and are an integral element of historic rural 21 development patterns in Jefferson County. Rural Industrial Uses 22 (Resource) shall conform to the standards for the use type described in the 23 Jefferson County Zoning Code, the Jefferson County Interim Resources 24 Lands Ordinance and other applicable Jefferson County Ordinances. 25 26 For the purposes of this Ordinance, Rural Industrial Uses (Resources) shall 27 be permitted as allowed by the Jefferson County Resource Lands 28 Ordinance, and the Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance. Rural Industrial 29 Uses (Resource) shall provide for necessary public services on site. 30 31 7. Rural Residential Uses: Rural Residential Uses are characterized by 32 residential development within Rural Centers (Village) and residential 33 development outside of rural centers. 34 35 Rural residential uses located within Rural Centers, shall provide a range of 36 affordable housing options for Jefferson County residents through diversity 37 of lot size and type, shall reduce transportation impacts by reducing vehicle 38 trips, and shall maintain a favorable jobslhousing balance. Rural residential 39 uses located within Rural Centers support and maintain vital, healthy rural 40 community centers. 41 42 Rural Residential Uses located outside of rural centers shall have low 43 densities which can be sustained by minimal infrastructure improvements, 44 such as septic systems and rural roads. Rural residential development 45 outside of Rural Centers shall not cumulatively create the future necessity or 46 expectation of urban levels of service. 47 48 For the purposes of this Ordinance, rural densities shall be as indicated on 49 the Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map. 50 51 von. 24 fry 01`40 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 3 Revised: October 19, 199410:54 AM 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 SECTION 3 ESTABLIS184 ENT OF INTERIM ZONING DENSITY OVERLAY DISTRICTS Subsections: 3.10 3.10 Establishment of Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts 3.20 Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts - Use and Bulk Limitations 3.30 Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts - Minimum Building Area: 3.40 Official Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map 3.50 Boundaries - Attesting Regulations 3.60 Boundary Interpretation 3.70 Boundary Line Adjustments - Limitation For the purposes of this Ordinance and to carry out these regulations, Jefferson County will be hereby divided into four classes of density overlay districts as tabulated below: Interum Zoning Density Overlay District Rural Center (Crossroad) Rural Center (Village) Rural Residential I Rural Residential II Minimum Residential Lot Size 1 Acre 1 Acre 2.5 Acre 5 Acre 3.20 INTERIM ZONING DENSITY OVERLAY DISTRICTS - USE AND BULK LIMITATIONS: IONS: For the purposes of this Ordinance, rural commercial uses shall be located within Rural Centers, and shall be consistent with the following use and bulk limitations: Rural Center (Crossroads): Permitted Use Maximum Floor Area ( aq. ft.) All C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Uses 2,500 as indicated in Sec. 6.00 Jefferson County Zoning Code Excepting the followings Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Plan Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the SMP Construction yards Feed stores Hardware stores Day care center Group home for the handicapped Home business Residences, multi -family Residences, single-family to- 20 �Au 01P7,11 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 4 As permitted by SMP As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code 5,000 As permitted byZoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code 10,000 As permitted by Zoning Code Revised: October 19, 199410:54 AM 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Water -dependent or water -related commercial uses As permitted by SMP located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Rural Center (Ville): Permitted Use Maximum Floor Area lin sQ, ft.) All C-2 General Commercial Uses 2,500 as indicated in Sec. 6.00 Jefferson County Zoning Code Excepting the following: Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the SMP Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the SMP Construction yards Day care center Feed stores Food stores Hardware stores Government buildings Group home for the handicapped Home business Laboratories for research and testing Lumber yards Nursery, landscape materials Pharmacy or drugstore Residences, multi -family Residences, single-family Restaurants Theaters, excluding drive-in theaters Theaters, Drive-in Undertalcing establishments Vehicle sales, repair and service Veterinary hospitals Water -dependent or water -related commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program As permitted SMP As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code 10,000 7,500 As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code 5,000 As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code Aspermitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Code As permitted by Zoning Cale As permitted by Zoning Code As per SMP Wholesale, which may include incidental retail outlets 10,000 only such merchandise as is handled at Wholesale 3.30 INTERIM ZONING DENSITY OVERLAY DISTRICTS - � BUILDING AREA: For the purposes of this Ordinance, the minimum building area for single family residences shall be 10,000 square feet or as required by the Jefferson County Health Department for on-site sewage disposal, which ever is greater. 3.40 OFFICIAL INTERIM ZONING DENSITY OVERLAY DISTRICTS MAP: The locations and boundaries of the Interim Zoning Density limitations shall be shown on the map entitled "Official Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map, Jefferson County, Washington." The official interim zoning density overlay districts map and all notations, references and amendments thereto and other information shown thereon are hereby made a part of this Ordinance, just as if the information set forth on the map were fully described and set out herein. VOL 20 'racy 01742 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 5 Revised: October 19, 199410:54 AM 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 3.50 BOUNDARIES - ATTESTING REGULATIONS. The boundaries of such districts are as shown upon the official interim zoning density overlay districts map, which is hereby adopted. The provisions of this Ordinance are attested by the signatures of the County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Board, with the seal of the County affixed, and shall be kept on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board. Copies shall be available for inspection by the public. 3.60 BOUNDARY INTERPRETATION. Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of any interim zoning density overlay district shown upon the official interim zoning density overlay districts map, the following rules shall apply: 1. Where boundaries are indicated as approximately following the centerline of streets or alleys or lot lines, such lines shall be construed to be such boundaries. 2. Where one or more boundaries intersects a lot, the location of such boundary shall be determined by use of the scale appearing on said official interim zoning density overlay districts map and the respective portions of the parcel shall be subject to the respective districts except as provided in item (4) of this section. 3. Where a public street is officially vacated or abandoned, the area comprising such vacated street or alley shall acquire the classification of the property to which it reverts. 4. Whenever a district boundary line passes through a lot of record, which existed prior to the passage of this Ordinance the entire lot of record may be used in accordance with the provisions of the least restrictive of the two districts, provided that more than 50 percent of the lot of record is located within the least restrictive of the two districts. For the purposes of boundary interpretation the districts shall be classified in terms of restriction as follows (least restrictive to most restrictive): Rural Center (Village); Rural Center (Crossroad); Rural Residential I; Rural Residential H. 5. The location of a district boundary line passing through unplatted property shall be defined solely by the legal description contained in the Official Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map included with this Ordinance. 3.70 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS - LIMITATION: For the purposes of this Ordinance, boundary line adjustments shall not be used to facilitate the inclusion or exclusion of a property, or group of properties from the aforementioned density limitations. tm- 20 fafr 1 ,13 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 6 Revised: October 19, 199410:54 AM 1 SECTION 4 2 ESTABLISIB 4ENT OF INTERIM SPECIAL STUDY OVERLAY AREAS. 3 4 Subsections: 5 6 4.10 Interim Special Overlay Study Areas - Establishment 7 4.20 Glen Cove Industrial Overlay Study Area 8 4,30 Tri-Area Aquifer Recharge Overlay Study Area 9 10 4.10 IlVTERIM SPECIAL STUDY OVERLAY AREAS - ESTABLISHMENT: For the I I purpose of this ordinance two Interim Special Overlay Study Areas are established: 12 the Glen Cove Industrial Overlay Study Area and the Tri-Area Aquifer Recharge 13 Overlay Study Area The boundaries of each of these two study areas shall be 14 depicted on the Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts Map. 15 16 4.20 GLEN COVE INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY STUDY AREA: 17 18 1. Study Provisions: The Glen Cove Industrial Area will be studied to 19 determine if this area should be included as part of an expanded Urban 20 Growth Area for the City of Port Townsend or be retained as a stand alone 21 rural industrial center. 22 23 2. Interlocal Agreement: A interlocal agreement between the City of Port 24 Townsend and Jefferson County will be created establishing level of service 25 parameters, annexation provisions (including tax-base sharing), service 26 providers arrangement, development standards, concurrency requirements 27 and project review processes. 28 29 3. Infill Provisions: During the study phase, new development, consistent 30 with the Jefferson County Zoning Code, may infill in the study area 31 provided public services exist to support the activity or the activity requires 32 no expansion of public services. 33 34 4. Study Duration: Said study and interlocal agreement shall be completed 35 within 180 days from the effected date of this ordinance. The provision of 36 this subsection shall terminate 180 days from the adoption of this Ordinance 37 or upon completion of the Interlocal Agreement which ever shall occur first. 38 Should an Interlocal Agreement not be completed within the afore- 39 mentioned time period, the Glen Cove Industrial Area shall 5F established as 40 a stand-alone rural industrial center consistent with Policy # (6) of the 41o�'de Punning Po cy for Jefferson County, W 'ngton. 42 43 4.30 'TRT-AREA AQUIFER RECHARGE OVERLAY STUDY AREA: 44 45 1. Study Provisions: Those portions of the Tri-Area located within the Overlay 46 Study Area as indicated on the Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts 47 Map will be studied to determine potential impacts on aquifer recharge soils. 48 This study will analyze the potential adverse impacts in terns of water 49 quantity and water quality resulting from existing and future development 50 located within the study area.. 51 VOL 20 w r ® 1_*7# DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Pagel Revised: October 19, 199420:54 AM 1 2. Critical Area Ordin,,,g_= Amen ent• The results of the study will be 2 reflected in appropriate aquifer protection standards to be included in the 3 Jefferson County Critical Area Ordinance. 4 5 3. Infill Provision and Moratorium: The following provisions shall apply to 6 all new permanent development, except accessory uses to exlsting 7 development, located within the study area. The purpose of these vrovisions 8 are to provide: 5i enm protection of the nuiterduunngie stud p 9 10 Wigle Family Residential: Minimum building area shall be One (1) 11 Acre or as ved b the Jefferson Goun ment of 12 Environmen H consistent wi the 1 stan ds required b 13 Lha ter Z l WA or on-site sewa a stem use in areas where 14 underground sources o dnnldn Ovate r are vu era le to contamination. 15 16 Commercial and Industrial : Prohibited (All development subject to 17 Section 6, Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, Jefferson County Zoning Code). 18 19 4. StudyDur bion: Said study and amendment to the Jefferson County Critical 20 Area Ordinance shall be completed by December 31, 1994. The provisions 21 of this section shall terminate on December 31, 1994 or upon adoption the 22 aquifer protection standards which ever shall occur first. 23 24 25 SECTION 5 26 INTERIM PUBLIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 27 28 Subsections: 29 30 5.10 Adoption of Interim Public Level of Service Standards 31 5.20 Objectives 32 5.30 Definitions 33 5.40 Development Standards 34 35 5.10 ADOPTION OF INTERIM PUBLIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS: The 36 interim public level of service standards, Attachment A, are hereby adopted and 37 incorporated as an integral part of this ordinance for planning purposes, except as 38 modified by this section. 39 40 5.20 OJECrIVES: The establishment, extension, or infill of community water systems 41 in the overlay district shall be approved to meet the following objectives: 42 43 1. Provide infill of existing systems where approved water capacity exists; 44 45 2. to avoid multiple unregulated 46 individual wells; and 47 48 3. To mitigate a declared health emergency. 49 .VOL 20 wF 017 IS M DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 8 Revised: October 19, 199410:54 AM 1 5.30 DEFESI ONS• (See W.A.C. 246-290 for precise definition). For the purposes of 2 this ordinance, the following definitions shall apply: 3 4 1. Water Systems: All water systems except those serving one single family 5 residence. 6 / 2. fro i�..ps A systems: Public or private systems containing 15 or more service 8 connections, or serving 25 people or more per day, 60 days of the year. 9 Normally have a defined service area boundary and water system plan. 10 11 3. Group B systems: Public or private water systems containing fewer than 15 12 service connections, or servin�ewer than 25 people per day, 60 days of 13 the year. Service area defined by system plan approval. 14 15 4. Ex ion:. Provision of public water service to areas beyond defined 16 service area boundaries of existing systems. 17 18 5. Extension: Installation of water transmission lines within defined water 19 service area boundaries of existing systems. 20 21 6. Infill: Individual service connections to existing water transmission lines. 22 23 7. Fire Flow: The supplemental water resources, over and above domestic 24 requirements, required to be available to the system for the protection of 25 properties from fire. Fire flow requirements are established in the 26 . Coordinated Water System Plan and include the classification of Rural, 27 Urban, Urban Commercial and Multi -family, and Industrial. 28 29 5.40 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: For the purposes of this ordinance, the following 30 development standards shall apply: 31 32 1. New Group A Systems: 33 34 a. Multi -service connection systems: Not allowed, except to mitigate a 35 declared health emergency. 36 b. Single service connection systems: Allowed only to serve rural commer- 37 cial/industrial development. 38 c. Fire flow to meet CWSP requirements. 39 40 2. Existing Group A Systems: 41 42 a. Expansion: Not Allowed, except to mitigate a declared health emergency. 43 b. Extension: Allowed within defined service area, provided adequate water 44 resources are available. If a system service area has not been defined, the 45 service area will be considered the extent of existing as -build system. 46 c. Infill: Allowed, provided approved water capacity exists. 47 d. Fire flow to meet CWSP requirements. 48 49 3. New Group B Systems 50 51 a. Multi -service connection systems: Allowed to serve misting lots 52 feeor&residential or rural commercial / industrial development. VOL 2 U Act Q DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 9 Revised: October 19, 199410:54 AM 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 b. Single service connection systems: commercial industrial development. c. Fire flow at rural standards for resit in the CWSP for rnmmPmial / inrine SECTION 6 SEVERABILITY Subsections: 6.10 Severability Allowed to serve new rural imn see C` 6.10 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 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 7. REPEALER Subsections: 7.10 Repealer 7.10 REPEALER: These regulations repeal and replace Ordinance No. 02-0110-94, Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance. All permits, approvals, and/or conditions established pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 shall remain in effect and shall be considered valid. SECTION 8. PERIOD Subsections: 8.10 Effective Period 8.20 Substantially Complete Applications 8.20 SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS: Applications which have been determined to be substantially complete by the Department of Development .V.0�: 20 fact C 17,17 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 10 Revised: October 19, 199410:54 AM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Review prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall, at the option of the applicant, be processed consistent with the requirements of this Ordinance or the requirements of the Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance No. 02- 0110-94. VOL 20 Fane 0 DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 11 Revised: October '19, 199410:54 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 SECTION 40-9 ADOPTION Subsections: 409.10 Adoption 409.10ADOPTION: Adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this day of , 1994. SEAL. ATTEST: Lorna Delaney Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark Huth, Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney "VOL 20. F GF 01"749 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Robert Hinton, Chairperson Richard Wojt, Member Glenn Huntingford, Member DRAFT Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance Page 12 Revised. October 19, 1994 10.54 AM VOL 4U VAIII U 7_ # V z O O O O O q0 0 O O O � � ' O� � •� •� •� � E„r O O O O O O� � O O O C C �00 .� d��a v, q�Cw7�c 00 $ ,oil 3333 0 •'� 3;0 'g e�C •$o0 i� c'c-c 0 0 0 0 0 e o o° �a ° o o rA ' 19 O U O U�� zV� a dz+ �V UV zxz azz NNen 0cc a ''��3.3 q O ° �01 .. ° .330 .o0 •gc 0�� C-) z�� �aaUo uz Jaz X00 �uu 000 NNM uzz g 0in a t 0044C Uaa zUa aa�z V,�+ �z u •+ ++ U u V?rz M000 NMcn < a O O zz� a:g*zoo 0 0 zua 3v9a 0 0 0 auuzuz va 3a :oda aaa 0 0 Gec �, c az z z � � z 0 d a� E O fn p $ r� H `� W u F Z a 3 c u p o ws h: V Vh m� u c m °# U vwi cn cn a .2 a c cW v 780 SUV.. W�U... °b �a�. `� pO 0 4u H OAvxc�z Woaaam W�i='.waoc VOL 4U VAIII U 7_ # MARK S. BEAUFAIT PAUL RICHARD BROWN DOUGLAS W. ELSTON hand delivered ELSTON, BROWN & BEAUFAIT, P. S. Attomeys at Law 914 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 6 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 TELEPHONE (206) 385-2516 October 20, 1994 Jefferson County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Interim Compliance Ordinance Gentlemen: Cpp` Thank you for taking time to meet yesterday morning to discuss the Interim Urban Growth Areas process, and the proposed Interim Compliance Ordinance currently before you. This letter is written to you as a concerned citizen and a land use practitioner in Jefferson County. I am not affiliated with, and I am not representing, any group or political action committee in connection with these comments. There appear to be two major difficulties with the proposed Interim Compliance Ordinance. First, the Interim Compliance Ordinance is essentially a blanket down -zoning of the entire County to one unit per five acres, except in certain extremely limited areas, and second, Class A water systems are prohibited. Unfortunately, these are likely permanent changes, as has been said, there is rarely anything more permanent than an interim ordinance. Given the growth projections for Jefferson County, the Port Ludlow -Oak Bay area, the Tri -Areas and the rest of the County, there is, and will be, a need for affordable, accessible and buildable lots. Buildable residential lots need to be available in numbers beyond the projections, as do total residences, because otherwise demand for the tight housing supply will drive housing prices sky high. Ratcheting the entire County into one unit per five acres is in many areas a down -zone factor by twenty five (25) from the prior Comprehensive Plan. This appears to be done to comply with the City of Port Townsend's wishes, but suffers from the same defects as the prior planning. The new proposal is not supported by an underlying needs and resources analysis. At the time we met, you did not have access to the proposed zoning map or density proposals for our review. We have obtained copies of this information, but for such a large and likely VOL 20 mrF 0 _1751 Jefferson County Commissioners October 20, 1994 page - 2 permanent change, it is very scary that a zoning map will be adopted without hearings just four days after it is produced to the public. Affordable and buildable lots will require reasonable portions of the County to be left at densities of one unit per acre and higher. This zoning cannot be simply limited to existing lots, because the existing mix may not be appropriate for providing affordable and buildable lots for the future. A wise mix of existing lots and new developments at higher densities, in specified areas, will enable the low density parts of the County to be kept at low density. Otherwise, we will have a profusion of five acre ranchettes with extremely small modulars or mobile homes as the least expensive housing in the County, albeit at a great resource and land consumption cost. It is suggested that the Commissioners seriously review zoning densities before jumping to a density layout that will be argued as a basis for most future regulation. Second, and as important, the proposed Interim Compliance Regulation totally prohibits Class A water systems serving over fifteen users, whether publicly held, or privately held. Thus, there is no way to mitigate the adverse effects of multiple wells being installed in sensitive areas. As mentioned in my prior letter, this is counter -intuitive and counter-productive. Because of the many pressures facing the County, it is possible jump from the frying pan into the fire, leaving all of us worse off than before planning. While you will need to consult with counsel, it appears legally possible, and reasonable, to proceed with a set of hearings and workshops, with staff assisted by counsel gathering and scripting the necessary information for the Commissioners on affordable housing, aquifer protection, balanced growth, open space, and forestry resources. I believe this can be done with deliberate speed, without locking into an unworkable land -use scheme. VOL 20 Farr 011441520 :►2, Jefferson County Commissioners October 20, 1994 page - 3 We will be working with, and living under, the new County zoning regulations for well into the future. Please take the time now to study the Interim Control Ordinance in more detail before you enact it. Very rul f rs, Mark Beait MSB:jkc Enclosure cc: Mark Huth, Esq. Mr. Rick Sepler mab4a19b.Ltr VOL 20 PxF Cly. , >., 3 — ...,[lW�- k�3 • X34 Mfl ICAQ-3 11) : L1UH `SW LA 1 NK t NUHao TEL Ng : 66-1b�5a , a 2411 Pd4(74 sere. - STATE OF WASHINGTON AUS;X Ea DFPARiMEN T OF HEALTH 94 SOUTHWi:ST DRINKING WATER 0MATIONS P.O. 80A 47023,4 W)'111plit, • MOO 664.0768 July 28, 1894 Larry Fay Jefferson County Health papartrTlUnt Environmental Health DivislQn Castle Hill Center 816 Sheridan Dort Towneend, Washington 9838$ ©ear Mr. Fay: In review of the Jefferson County Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance #02- 011 0-�4 02-41'10-�)4 and amending vidirrarlces #05-020 -94 and x{04-0228.94, refereed hereinafter ag "the ordinances", It appears that the regulations in the ordinances prohibit the development of new public water syster%U In the rural areas of Jefferson County yet allow a land use density of 1 unit per acre. I have discussed these regulations and the possible ramifications with appropriate personnel in the Department of Health and together have formulated the following c::c rnmelntes: 1, The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, with the support of they water purveyors, dealared Jefferson County a Critical Water Supply Servioc Area which formally Implemented the Water System Coordination Act of 1977. A Coordinated Water System Play (CWSP) was developed'to, establish a process fur the public tel fallow in requesting water service. The CWSP establishes service areas for public water purveyors In the rural areas of Jefferson County and bets forth .a muans for the purveyors to plan for futur4 needs. The ordinances appear to be in conflict because they disrupt the processes deflned in the CWSP. Any GIVIA efforts should take Into conslderation other planning efforts. The CWSP defines a process for Individuals to request water soevica from the most appropriate water supply. Under these regulations a purveyor would not be allowed to Install new facilities and sources to serve the request. Furviermore, this rule will undermine the Jefferson County I'UD's Satellite Management Program. vol_ 20 Face n:1754 2. Restricting the development of public water sy terns in the rural arca while allowing a density of 1 unit per ACI'd Will 611eaurage the pr411fermlort of Individual wells. This will thwart any type w6ter resource rnonagemant FROM : HM CONSTRUCTION PHONE NO. : 206 437 2740 _ r . •�,. - _ _ L . L l r . i U r Lal H sw Lr. t r lk t t4G irZO TEL Nt4; 6348058 Larry Pay July 28, 1,994 Page Two program, especially aquifer protection and water conservatlon< Having mora individual walls In the ground is contrary to wateF wuutirce mansgerrient and the protection of public health and ground water supplies. f,3�, fig. The. Growth. Ma �f�en'le nl,�Act,d2es' not' set..JQrth u requirement to Kest, . �.�.' auslo meat ..w'.. _ ' irt...,;.. ' � • , p `�puf;i� ��nreter suppiiag in r.�r l;;sr asl.1i However, it is cle87 at •rural'land u8e raqulations ary t4 be developed." Ttie rural land use reguletlOnj are to provide for land uaea that are compatible with the rural character off,` the area, but it does not state that this is to be accomplished by restricting the development of public water systerns. GIVIA efforts should adopt land use based design standards which are consistent with GMA requirements and the CWSP. 4. Land use denslty critoria 6hould ultimately control development In the rural W983. Tho development of public water aystems should not encourage higher density development if land use, zoning and level of service standards are clearly astablished. C �1�1 w a•,....:•.••.,r• �a � Rei, t^'r„ i7 �,LJaV�. :�a 1JL�.,.£, .,.:^, _ -,:.... - .•..:. ta�th*ar� �f:�the o pinivrl • that,.��te 6 z . -IF Iratectiio'n'�due to 'ttie fa x' thaet In �v "�aI- wells' are' nut require to manitar iter q"ualit and rovide a 4 Y p appropriate Water treatment to the same extent as public weter supplies. It is understood that actions to amend these regulations may take place, it seems that in the best Interest of public health anal water resource mensgernent, (aquifer protection) It would make good sense for the County to reassess its position on this issue. Perhaps,establishing rural level Of service standards would be 'more4 bipWi-dprlato't�iansprohibit( r i'c waer.. 'a' Cis pub( srris If you have any further concerns or rued assistance with these Issues please feel free to coMact me, Sincerely, 0 _rV61- VOL 20 HGG 0 �� �zs Sean Orr WBDOH SW Regional Planner Southwast Drinking Water Opeiations SQ:ciu ca: Richard Sarver, WSDOH iCrirl .Inl-rnann IAI.ti''P1r'11•.� BOGLE&GATES LAW OFFICES KEITH W. DEARBORN Two Union Square 601 Union Street Seattle, Washington 98101-2346 Main Office: (206) 682-5151 Facsimile: (206) 621-2660 Direct Dial: (206) 621-1403 VIA FACSIMILE and FIRST CLASS MAIL Marianne Moe, President Jefferson County Home Builders Association P.O. Box 1399 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Dear Ms. Moe: Anchorage Bellevue Olympia Portland Tacoma Vancouver, B.C. Washington, D.C. 27204/00001 October 20, 1994 "'...� OC—1 2 41994 .M1V.�'�1 i i. .. .... I am writing to respond to your letter of September 20, 1994. I understand fully the concerns of your association regarding moratoria in general and, specifically, I am familiar with the impacts a moratorium can create on the building industry. I am very concerned about your opinion and that of your association and troubled by your feeling of betrayal. First, let me say that I did not, in fact, advance the idea of an emergency moratorium. I was consulted about the action before it was taken. I asked the county to explain specifically the reasons why a moratorium was believed necessary and I advised that it be for a short duration. I believe I suggested no longer than 45 days. At the time, the county was at a loss to identify effective alternatives that were less burdensome. Under the circumstances, I did in fact concur that a short moratorium may be a legally supportable action. I want to make it clear that it was not me who advanced the idea or advised the county that one was necessary. I hope this explanation is helpful. Clearly, in today's world it is everyone and provide meaningful services t representation of Jefferson County follows for Kitsap County. Both counties are the clients I have assisted in over ten years. have a one-dimensional view on planning an issues. I do, however, hope to strive to vo�- 20 Face 0 17f 5G difficult to please o your clients. Our our recent engagement first public sector I do not pretend to d land development maintain a reputation Marianne Moe October 12, 1994 Page 2 of being fair and objective and strive to be consistent in the advice I offer. Toward this end, I am most willing to meet with you and your members to attempt to clear the air on this matter for I value and wish to maintain your trust in my judgment on growth management issues. Very truly yours, BOGLE & GATES Ike kL, Keith W. Dearborn cc:- John Hempelmann BIAW Executive Committee Jefferson County Commissioners Mark Huth, Jefferson County Prosecutor KWD\D0CS\M0E1012.LTR BOGLE &GATES ELSTON� BROWN & BEAUFAITq P. S. MARK S. BEAUFAIT PAUL RICHARD BROWN DOUGLAS W. ELSTON via facsimile Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Attorneys at Law 914 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 6 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 TELEPHONE 12061 385-2516 October 21, 1994 Commissioners Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Interim Compliance Ordinance Dear Commissioners: 1*11f copy This office represents Harold and Marianne Moe, property owners in the Mats Mats Bay area. These comments relate to the legislative proposals before you for the Interim Urban Growth Compliance Ordinance. These matters are also of concern to numerous small land owners throughout Jefferson County. The proposed Interim Compliance Ordinance down -zones the entire County, more than 1/2 mile from Port Ludlow, Quilcene, Brinnon, Port Hadlock and Irondale, to one unit per 5 acres. As mentioned in my prior letter, this zoning will likely be ratcheted into place, forcing many new home buyers to purchase 5 acre ranchettes, one of the least desirable parcel sizes for land use impacts. Mr. Rick Sepler informs me that in earlier discussions concerning the Interim Compliance Ordinance, there was substantial discussions regarding conditional use/planned unit development controls which would allow developments at a density of one unit per acre in areas where there previously used to be five units per acre, subject to planned unit development and conditional use standards. Obviously, these standards would include provisions for safe, privately owned, water supply and septic systems, whether group or individual.. In areas that have traditionally had small lots, like the Mats Mats Bay area, allowing such developments is appropriate. A planned unit development/conditional use program will prevent the undesirable lower densities (at lease in blanket form) from being ratcheted into place, to the detriment of housing affordability, ranchette sprawl in the County, and smaller landowners. Please add these conditional use provisions to the Interim Control Ordinance VOA.. 20 BPI "'tir Jefferson County Commissioners October 21, 1994 Page - 2 before passing it, along with provisions making Class A privately held water systems conditional where they contribute to the public health, welfare and safety. Those working on the committee reviewing the Interim Compliance Ordinance apparently wanted to include the planned unit development/additional density provisions. These terms should be re -added to the Interim Compliance Ordinance. We can provide drafting assistance in connection with these provisions if requested. Very truly yo aml� S Mark S. Beauf it MSB:lmd CC: Mark Huth, Esq. (via facsimile) Mr. Rick Sepler (via facsimile) Harold and Marianne Moe (via facsimile) 1md/msb4A21b.1tr vol.. 20, M 9 0 0 Pope Resources A Limited Partnership 19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast P.O. Box 1780 Poulsbo, Washington 98370-0239 (206)697-6626 (206) 697-1156 FAX October 21, 1994 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend WA 98368 Re: Draft GMA Compliance Ordinance Gentlemen: Within the last several days, we have become aware of the County's draft of an amendment to the Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of which is to repeal and replace Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 (Interim Growth Areas). In reviewing said draft, we find that no section has been provided which reestablishes the "Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area." The County does have available adequate information to substantiate the Port Ludlow UGA in full compliance with requirements of the Growth Management Act. In the next several days, we are prepared to provide whatever assistance your staff might require to make the necessary modifications to the proposed Ordinance. We respectfully request that you not adopt the Ordinance without inserting a Port Ludlow UGA component. David Cunningham Vice President, Land Use ph c: David Goldsmith, Director, Jefferson County Community Services cc-. Pin I P I , e.& 10 -az •q� (4 Friends of Washington 1000 Friends of Washington 1305 - 4th Avenue, Suite 303 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206)343-0681 Fax(206)343-0683 October -24, 1994 Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Jefferson County Port Townsend, WA Board of Commissioners Courthouse 98368 OCT 2 5 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RE: Jefferson County's Proposed Interim Rural Overlay Districts Dear Members of the Board.of County Commissioners: 1000 Friends of Washington is generally supportive of the concepts set forth in the County's interim proposal for rural lands. The historic pattern of rural development in Jefferson County has been one of small communities located at a crossroads surrounded by farms and forest lands. These small rural communities should be permitted to retain their vitality and grow, provided that this rural growth is of a scale and intensity that is consistent with rural character. We continue to have the following concerns with the proposal: 1. The Size, Location and Number of the Rural Centers We have not yet seen an official map of the proposed rural centers. Our understanding is that Quilcene, Brinnon, Ludlow, Pt. Hadlock, and Irondale are to be designated as Rural Center -Village and that there are a number of additional areas designated as Rural Center - Crossroads. The crossroads designation should be limited to those areas that have already been designated or developed for commercial development. The boundaries of the Rural Center -Village should be limited to a one-quarter mile radius around the historic center of the community. The Rural Residential I designation should be limited to a small area surrounding the Rural Center -Village designation. 2. Minimum Residential Lot Size - Section 3.30 This section seems to contradict the minimum residential lot size requirements of Section 3.10. If this section is intended to permit development of a single family home on an existing nonconforming lot, it should simply state that. Otherwise, this section should be deleted. In addition, the ordinance should include strategies for the aggregation of nonconforming rural lots. ® Printed on recycled paper VOL20 FA CF Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners October 24, 1994 Page 2 3. The Range of Allowed Uses Within the Rural Center -Village There are a number of permitted uses within the Rural Center - Village that are urban in character and should not be permitted within rural areas. We have particular concerns about the following uses: Laboratories for research and testing: These labs often generate hazardous or toxic waste that is not suitable for disposal in septic systems. If these are to be permitted in rural areas, the materials that are in use and the size of the facility should be restricted. The City of Bainbridge Island has done some work in this area and could probably provide an example of appropriate restrictions. Residences, Multi -Family - It is unclear how multi -family residences are to be permitted with a minimum lot size of one -acre. If clustering is permitted, then the ordinance should establish a maximum number of units (perhaps 4) within the multi -family dwelling. Restaurants - Should have a maximum square footage and a maximum number of.daily trips that can be generated to prevent franchise fast-food establishments in rural areas. Theaters - This is not a typical rural use. If the number of screens were limited to one or two, it may be in keeping with the rural character. Vehicle Sales, repair and service - Small family car repair shops have long been around in rural areas. Quickee Lubes have not. Again the County should limit the size and number of daily trips generated by these businesses in order to prevent urban uses within, rural villages. These comments are not intended to suggest that the County should prohibit national franchises. These uses depend on high-volume sales and are urban in character. It may well be that the County should redesignate certain Rural -Center Villages as UGAs once it has done the appropriate analysis to support such a change. 4. Water Service New Group B water systems should be limited to the boundaries of the Rural Centers, except to mitigate a declared health emergency. VOL20 FAV 0 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners October 24, 1994 Page 3 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We would be happy to work with the County on these or other issues. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, GU IT acy Burrows Planning Director. 1 VOL20 Fare 176 ' VOL 20 PAGF 0 � i C C �l tc r, M io xl-iw M (GMA) A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE TO SET TONE FOR THE PAPER 1776 - Freedom'. Let's record it on a declaration of Independence! Our own Country, peace, quiet, work for food and shelter, help each other, allow for personal differences, work together in peace and prosperity, respect each other's home and privacy - Grab our guns and protect each other if necessary! Somebody needs to speak to all of the brown people? Maybe they will be able to help us? And we can find a way to help them! They are extremely curious. Wouldn't you be, if they came sailing into your fishing hole? We will figure something out, I'm Hungry. We all have learned of the history of the Native American people, that is an entire other paper! (This is all from recall so some of my dates, timing, and omissions are expected general knowledge). England's Government was working pretty well, let's pattern after them. Yes, but no religious persecution. Let us keep freedom ringing with a Bill of Rights! What was going on through most of the years until about 1900's? Agriculture, fishing, hunting, pioneering, hanging for killing, didn't have time for lengthy Government slow -ups unless: We had to fight to preserve our freedom. Pioneers out the ears! Transportation- railroads, ports - help me add to the list - people were busy! Let's see, what was the Government doing? Major foreign affairs. We have this great set-up, let's keep it this way. Immigration became a concern and a system for them to operate we can deal with this many - they hustle and survive. Foreign affairs, trade, court system (I think it was quicker because people were generally more honest). Am I missing a couple functions? Making rules - creating tax system, but note you have the feeling it was only for necessary functions and many of the government "volunteers and elected" had other jobs also. The feeling was keep taxes as low as possible, Government expenses as low as possible, and let us live, work, and enjoy the new continent. Check me - the Boston Tea Party was a problem with England? That was our tax retaliation? Anyway, when taxes get too high, it is a problem! That is why in the position of a Government servant, the monetary expectation is low, or should be, yet the respect and fame should be high due to these people should be the most intelligent problem -solving sacrificing individuals available. I was thinking about the Boston Tea Party - what about the Seattle Espresso Party? I am not trying to bore you or insult you with a 20 L r 0 �`� C0 rough run through history but it backs up my points on our direction. Life was physically difficult. There were not too many thoughts of a controlling Government or social pressure or they would place them on the next ship back to Europe. Church, school, and family gatherings were the social events, along with a few others. Although we still had the ones that were raising hell and robbing banks. The medium of trade was the focus after farming and raising a family. Precious metals, paper later, and I am afraid to know what might be next. You know I still ponder how the thought of Gold ever was started. Am I missing something? I think jewelry gets out of control, you can't eat it, but that is what happened. Probably the only thing they had that was somewhat rare, and so on... Another role of government was to enforce freedom and manage the vote. Oh, Democracy. Note they enacted few additional laws except as needed. It also seemed if they had good politicians they kept them, and it was easy to determine who was helping and who was the problem. Today, many have no idea of voting records or what is going on! Most do have a fair idea of the Democratic outlook vs. the Republican outlook. Now the party crossing on issues is not as noticed, possibly? It is a much more unknown and quite frankly frightening process today. Anyway, it seemed the feeling was not to come up with an idea to vote about but rather observe society and when they could not solve a problem they would take it to the Government - the best problem solvers in the Country. Something like this Executive Branch is asked into mediate problem. Legislative clarifies, properly words, and trouble shoots. Judicial protects rights, laws, and freedoms. Legislative votes. Executive decides, goes with it or clarifies until they get it right. Consider how much the Senate could come to a reasonable conclusion together. Not always, but is it a little different today? It is more complicated in GMA, but the principle should remain the same: -People bring problems to Government. _Government works for a solution that is acceptable to all. Decide if nearly ALL before voting. Rarely would they pass something that is highly controversial without a lot of time,or forget it. -Government did not decide on changes that they felt necessary and see what happened. People brought problems for balanced solutions. -Government did not only weigh one side of the picture because the goal is to come t with plan that all will approve - then VDI_ 26 WiF (� 7C 03 they might be approved to raise some salaries. PEOPLE GOING TO GOVERNMENT NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATING PEOPLE 1930's - Depression - Private industry and economic needs to be careful. Government answers as many cries as possible but WWII returned stability. Importance of foreign protection stimulated concern - Russia was considered a problem. WWII victory brought home prosperity. Private industry flourished in the 1950's and considered for the most part an excellent era because of growth. Government followed with increased management and followed the lead of private industry. Followed the lead, providing needs as necessary. And then came the 60's. We need to be a world influence. We need money and lot's of it, to keep up our defense forever. We must keep up with those Russian boys. Coming from prosperity of the 50's, there was some money available. The best education is necessary - money, remember we were in a public school system now, but it grew to a different dimension in the 1960's. The Government needs money and things to do. People were spoiled with recent success and were interested in creating new things to do. Let's make a worldwide party! The Government is creating jobs, let's invent some programs, programs, programs! World peace! Civil rights! Our ideas have excellent intentions, many positive humanitarian ideas were a result. Lets rock out at Woodstock, what is that you are smoking? We must solve all world problems. Take care of everybody. No job? Welfare. Vietnam. Senior citizens. I'm sure I could receive help on remembering the options. I was born during this zoo. People looked at good possibilities at the beginning, but we are out of control. Parents and other citizens attempted to gain common sense. The important point was the establishment of these programs and the business of Government. While budgets have been trimmed at times, it was very difficult to eliminate programs that are heavily relied upon. Are they working? Are some needed and some not? What would be the result of adding more? Take a societal and economic look today. What kind of efficiency does the Government system provide? Is welfare ever abused? Does the school system produce what we wish to see? With Medicare, now total health insurance? Is society a safe and happy place as the original intended forefathers designed? Now private industry. Well, some big business is rolling on. Many small businesses are hanging around as long as possible but tax burden and limited, slowed property growth slows income. Big business, such as corporations, have resources and ability to grow and operate, swallowing small business. This happens in direct conflict to growth man2Ument ab li citizens and residents are V01- WI left scrambling economically with an undesired result of land use. Historical perspective and management. (Beware Port Townsend and rural Jefferson County). Yet do we see any interest of conversion of unemployed to stimulate small business and private industry? Could that ease the tax burden and maintain local development? Would the Washington State GMA help the local residents or would it only reasonably allow growth by large business from areas like, oh, let me see, CALIFORNIA! How come the Japanese and other foreign representation come to my office looking to start business while the locals are not? They have start-up money to begin and we do not! Did I hear correctly that our wonderful Government, yet again, has a real nice plan for starting a business, if you are immigrating! What is going on? Doesn't anybody like us? We have only just lived here, some for many years. Back to my brief rush through history, please keep in mind I am only trying to touch on enough points to make my points. For the sake of time it s straight from historical memory so please qualify it as a scan. One last sad point on the result of the 60's movement was that it created many distinct groups. Some are still bitter with revenge on a spoiled plan of radical change. It created a further gap between political parties and possibly a situation in our nation that we may never again see common goals. Balance, (not the high wire performer), but the idea we seem to be able to create Government programs fairly quickly, but they seem to be difficult to re -organize or eliminate. Where did we lose the idea of producing, sharing, and living together happily and enter into extreme concern of financial security and loss of togetherness? We have created a condition of Government vs. private industry instead of enjoying the benefits of our rich Country. We seem to segregate into three major classes: Government employee, wealthy entrepreneur, and everybody else. Everybody else is further divided into workers, small businesses, and Government dependents. This structure is somewhat necessary of a free -enterprise system, however, the ability to move between major classes has diminished creating a dissatisfaction for the class of "everybody else". Wealthy families remain wealthy with minimal effort, Government employees often obtain a treasured stability, but workers and small business owners are usually frustrated without security. (This also would apply to temporary Government employees). Those on Government assistance create a large area of concern. Their skills and abilities have deteriorated due to inactivity. Loss of self esteem often creates loss of values. Crime problems, severe society problems. Because of a large Government with a large tax intake - private organizations and community find it difficult to keep giving people what they need the most; caring and encouragement. Government is extremely active in determining our nations needs. However, instead of helping develop the fulfillment of those needs through private industry, they add an vo►_ 20 wF 0 ;� �5 office. This characteristic of society provides too much tension. No longer can anyone put in a 40+ hour work week and feel secure. The 1990's are a time when America wants change and opportunity. Where is it? Nobody seems to agree on what to do? Is it carefully thought out? Will it work? Will it get worse? Now Government is also attempting to sponsor health care with requirements from private industry. Shouldn't private industry be the significant promoter or determining factor in such a case? Remember, is it people to Government or Government to people? GMA - A direct result in de -valuing a person's home, estate, investment, or security. Will we be a totally Government operational society? Is it still a "bottom-up" democracy? Has a dictating approach ever worked? Currently, that is our direction. Is it possible to re-establish the system to where it was before the spiral began? It is not encouraging but there may be a possibility to return to balance. GMA - INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT, POPULATION, AND ECONOMICS The Washington State Growth Management Act is an effort by legislators to protect natural resources and to manage, which translates to slow, population growth. While the environmental method is the method of application - the results need to be realized. Environmental conservation should be a legitimate concern of all people. The question is required application. The only effective way to stop or slow growth of population is to stop allowing any immigration into the state and similarly deny any immigration into the United States of America. It would be necessary to change the ideals and philosophy of ou nation. The problem would be: "once you start changing things re would it stop"? However, I would not totally be opposed to this idea as it would allow for natural growth of current residents and their families. It would also give us the opportunity to focus our humanitarian effort to creating good quality of life in other countries. Other countries have this policy along with other population controls. Although I am not necessarily saying it is for us. Let us look at what we are trying to do. We are attempting to limit growth at the expense of property owners who are often long term residents. The Native American people have endured this type of suffering for well over 200 years. Do we encourage the Native American culture and heritage and give them an active role in our society or do we build them gambling houses and watch them drink their lives away? v0!_ 20 pnr 017 9 Washington is a beautiful state. I have traveled to many areas of the planet, and up to present, have not found a place I would rather be. The concern is at current development rate, it will not remain so. I share this concern. In this sense many property owners and residents are behind the GMA. Land owners and residents would not be able to maintain their estates because of diminishing economic opportunity and increasing taxes, procedures, and fees as a result of the GMA. Do you ever have the feeling that our representation is a direct representation of new residents AGovernment based employee system, and various groups who do not give consideration to families who struggled to settle the area? What if a requirement for office was residency or land owner tax payer for 50 years? Wouldn't that be true local representation? Will we not always need a production of natural resources? The euphoric environmentalist suggests we will use other methods for building houses and making toilet paper. A world full of metal homes and plastic houses or washing my hand off after going #2 doesn't sound to neat to me! A more reasonable environmental procedure would be to allow deteriorated natural resource material to go back to the earth for decomposition and soil regeneration. Other alternative material would be a disposal problem and we have enough of those. I complement the great strides made in environmentally safe products and recycling. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (Abbreviated AGM, MGA, GAM, (GAME), GMA-correct response) With guidance I was pointed to my local Planning and Community Development office and asked for all of the documentation on the Washington State Growth Management Act. I was handed a copy of what I assumed was RCW? (no title) It ranged from 36.70A.010 to 36.70A.902. Along with it, came another hefty packet titled 365- 195 WAC. My first thought was - why was it going to take so much time and effort to do a study on something I should understand in about 15 minutes? I also wondered why I was about to embark on a lengthy mission of study and comments when I should be working on shortening the stack of debts on my desk. But my most important thought was how was I going to justify to my wife to spending all this time on this project when we could be doing more enjoyable activities. I guess the answer comes from hoping that it will make a difference even when feeling like such a small person in a political state of confusion of a society called Washington State. After about 3 pages into the material, my thought was trying to remember some important issue about how public material should be VOL 20 FAGS 0 1,770 easily read and understood. Something about newspapers being printed on a 5th grade level? So, I reasoned that this must only be for select important people and it just didn't apply to Uncle Joe on his 70.251 acre homestead who had lived there all his life. Uncle Joe doesn't do well with reading as he had to spend most of his life -time energy tilling the soil and harvesting timber. I realized later in life why he had such a bent frame and rough hands as I spent 5 consecutive days helping with his firewood. Uncle Joe is a simple wonderful person. He has his granddaughter Jill to read to him twice a week from the Bible as he continues to prepare to meet his creator. He loves Jill so much that he has promised her his most precious worldly possession to share with her two brothers. She may have to split off 5 acres for her brother Jack as he is kind of a pain in the neck and she wants all of his junk to stay on his part of the field. Uncle Joe hopes she will be able to take care of the place until she meets him in a place of greatness beyond. O.K. , Uncle Joe couldn't read so this GMA document must not concern him. Anyway, - part one - General Considerations talk about development plans, common goals, public input - public input? Why do we need all of those big meetings? It all sounds good on the outside - facilities, planning, environment, and economic stability should be important. Continuing, it calls for "bottom-up" planning. That sounds reasonable. But wait, this Growth Planning Hearings Board needs to say we have the right idea. Does this mean if we have the wrong idea, according to them, we need to make it the way they want? It sounds like it would be easier if they would just tell us the plan. If they did that, then they might as well continue to tell us where our job is, where we can go to eat, how many times we can ride the ferry a week, and what is best for breakfast on Wednesday's. Let me see, this doesn't seem very fair. Here we go, local and regional variations WAC 365-195-050. This must mean a town can do what a town wants to do, a city for a city, a county for a county? No? The State must approve everything and we must come up with something they like? Oh No! What if we do not come up with what they like? I hope we will not have to go to jail? Certainly, that is not what the Government is saying. This is getting stressful - I need to take a quick jog, I'll be right back. O.K., I'm back. Let me take a deeper look and see what I can really make of this document. 13 goals (Hopefully, not unlucky 13) 1. Urban Growth It certainly makes sense to have a proper plan as the world grows. We do want products and services easily accessible. Proper facilities sound nice. I wonder who is going to pay for all of these improvements? Maybe we could clear their lots and be exempt? 2. Reduce Sprawl This one is a little concerning? As difficult as it is for va 20 ACF 01-" 1 Cr families to start businesses they should be complemented on finding something that works. Perhaps this relates only to cities? I could understand making sure everybody has a water and sewer hookup. There is no other way to do anything in a rural area except sprawl because that is how to make ends meet. Plus if you are in the country, it is nice to find some space. (I lost points 3 & 4, left the document in my other folder and forgot it on my rough draft.) 5. Economic Development This is pretty important. There would be only environment and no people if you didn't have it. 6. Property Rights (I'm tired of the tone of this document, reviewing a time - consuming, picky, and frustrating process when basic reasoning seems lost in the shuffle.) 7. Permit 8. Natural Resource Industry 9. Open Space and Recreation 10. Environment 11. Citizen Participation 12. Public Facilities 13. Historic Preservation The goals on the surface appear to be quite reasonable. I just have a difficult time with balance. Instead of taking each item point by point - and disinteresting the reader - I will make a few specific points at random and give my summary and conclusions. WAC 365-195-705 "Absent a clear statement of legislation intent or judicial interpretation to the contrary, it should be presumed that neither the act nor other statutes are intended to be pre-emptive. Rather they should be considered together and, whenever possible, construed as mutually consistent." My estimate is 70% of America would not understand that one. I'm not sure I do. If there are previous laws, they still hold, and we just attempt to blend it all together? This entire document seems to be blended together! I find myself embarrassed to be represented by a group of people who would spend so much time on something that should be so simple. VOL 2G FAGF Whatever happened to having the county development specialist and biologist simply go out to look at some property and say something like "of concern is this steep bank, it wouldn't be wise to build in that area for safety, the soils look pretty good, it may be wise to add some material - see your septic man. Here is the view, a place would fit nicely in that location. You know our concerns, sketch up your plan, if there is a different homesite we will check it out but otherwise it looks like a nice spot!" 'Obviously, there may be a little more involved but the attitude needs to be what you are able to do and in the best taste." Even this is controversial because of personal differences. WAC 365-195-725 UNCONSTITUTIONALLY FRINGE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS (f) GMA regulates activity which is the same as regulating rights. Real property is an item that has characteristics most items that can be liquidated do not have. It carries an ongoing tax. It seems we need to eliminate some taxes someplace. We give special considerations on ownership that effect the property. It is the basis of existence on the planet as everybody needs a space. Real property can have aspects other than monetary value, it could have cherished memories, it is a place of retirement originally designed for exclusive use by the owner - a place where no uninvited persons would be allowed if deemed necessary by the owner. This idea doesn't matter now? The feeling occurs to many to retreat to their home and place a big sign stating "those who trespass will not come back." People become disgusted with a society that is constantly telling them what to do and how to live. "Why can't people just leave us alone and let us be happy instead of stressed?" Those like us are welcome to be happy together. Those who wish to provide pressure and stress can buy their own property and create hell for each other. Instead the idea appears be: "since it is too expensive to buy all of the property, we will simply create so many guidelines and instigate them slowly and painfully until they give up and we will have it all, one way or another." The idea I did like from the 60's was we could all live together in peace and happiness. Restrictions placed .on real property is a financial taking disguised as better enjoyment for all. Most would attempt to provide reasonable environmental pre -cautions but what is reasonable, differs in each individual! The result? A group of angry property owners that decide their last step will be to cut every tree down in the State of Washington and ar& her environmental group that wants a life -time sentence for picking a flower. Any restrictions placed on real property require compensation. If a decision is made to acquire a property for public benefit, complete compensation is required. The need of area for public benefit VOL 20 %AGF 017 7 3 needs to be of undoubted necessity. We need to return Government to the people, beginning at their residence, extended to town, city, county, state and then federal. The original intention of an efficient small intelligent Government responding to people. We are completely out of balance with a huge powerful Government - and wanting to expand! People to Government not Government to people. WAC 365-195-730 Federal authority above with power? Another example of a Democracy that was designed from the bottom-up yet now the reality of a network of control, that if ever out of control could result in societal chaos. Are the politicians keeping the maximum freedom for citizens of our country as the highest priority? Another example of a democracy that was designed from the bottom-up yet now the reality of a network of control, that if ever out of control could result in societal chaos. Are the politicians keeping the maximum freedom for citizens of our country as the highest priority? WAC 365-195-735 How large a government is necessary? Will it come to our back property and since you couldn't hold it, you decided it was time to urinate. Out of the woods pops an agent from the "Green grass not yellow grass -Department of Septic and Urination" with a citation as a representative from the Federal, State, or County government? WAC 365-195-800 Specific control placed on land use. No son, we cannot do that either, the State says we can only make a wiffle ballfield in zone 482-B designated for children and plastic balls- we cannot play in the backyard. It is time for the important part, to summarize and conclude my points. An attempt(I believe well-intentioned by many) to create environmental and natural resource protection, our State Government produced an incomplete document for application when considering all needs for society. Private industry cultivation and economic management was not addressed. No alternatives were suggested for economic stability resulting from GMA to maintain balance of government and private industry. While I am concerned as any for proper conservation of timber resources, I do not see government leading in management of their resource lands. If a solid tree reaches maturation in 75 years, than no more than 1/75 of those lands should be harvested in any given year. Government lands need to be a human resource, well managed, and an economic release for private landowners. This would also slow growth of sub -division by timberworkers and landowners. An example of possible balance: During the harvesting of voi_ 20 FArF P I-774 61, timberland, a Biologist consultant from a Private Firm, licensed with appropriate knowledge, could assist the timberworker in a plan that would provide for care with natural features, harvesting, and replanting. This would provide a better balance for economic stimulation along with natural resource preservation while easing the tax burden. This idea needs to be developed into a number of government functions. However, economic loss due to preservation would still require compensation as when the property was purchased the financial loss was not considered. The importance of government translated to the private sector is vital. A direct result of GMA is the expansion difficulties for the displaced timber worker, when attempting to diversify. I do not think government funding is as much of a solution as alternative ideas. When money is transacted without establishing a confident long-term solution, responsible use of those funds diminish. The welfare system is a classic example. It was established to provide necessities until individuals could make an adaptation and has turned into a way of life. Another important point that I must include is the dependent government system that does not encourage self-improvement and creativity which are necessities for a person to maintain self- esteem. We are trying to incorporate our children to establish self-esteem and coping skills through society. Yet, our example is to be governmentally dependent. The government is the largest industry for the working class with politics, courts, schools, agencies, etc... so these employees support government economics for fear of job security. You have the low-income and welfare citizens who are governmentally dependent so in fear of basic needs find little reason not to give the support necessary for their existence.We have the senior citizens who are reliant on government assistance. We have those who are wealthy in private industry and management who see no need for change. Then we have the small business people. Families working hard for security and community improvement, the group doing as much as possible to carry the weight of an out of balanced economy. Is their optimism for change in the near future? GMA is yet an increasing burden on an unbalanced scale. I do want proper growth management. I do want the necessary increasing facilities. I do want well-designed infrastructure. Yet it must be a well balanced economic attack! The current atmosphere is not locally supportive, especially by those who feel they should work for their provisions. Growth and expansion becomes too difficult for long- time local families. Local economics cannot compete with out-of- state immigrants from a higher inflationary location. The restrictions placed on communities from the Growth Management Act cripple the current resident because of their inability to have economic opportunity to adjust. The big money moves in, the big money can pay for procedures, the big money results in big taxes, GMA limits economic flexibility, the youth of resident families cannot buy a home as their wages do not keep up with inflation, the long-term resident lives a life of frustration and bitterness, many not knowing exactly why. An incomplete issue in the mis-management of those moving in. Where is the representation that we need to take care of our people, our continueing generations who want their v0i_ 20 Far, 01-775 40 hour workweek and the opportunity to provide for their family in a reasonable fashion? What if we directed our management of growth to state immigration? Is it unrealistic to expect them to sacrifice for coming to live with us? There are some valid concerns brought to mind by the GMA, but I would rather have no immigration than be subject to a document of legislation enforced at the expense of those who are already here. Oh, another thing that sparked a brain cell, how can we determine specific environmental regulation and procedures of distances, vegetation, water management, etc... when every area of land I have ever looked upon(and there have been a couple) all have unique and different features? Every person on earth would have a different idea! A SPIRITUAL AFTERTHOUGHT As a person who holds Christian values close to the heart, our direction is overwhelming. While I am far from perfect from the way of the Lord, I see the possibility of a pessimistic future for the believer. God has difficulty being brought to the public classroom, yet the power of man can be emphasized freely. Evolution can be explained in detail, creation is becoming a lost concept. Personal rights are narrowed and limited. Declining GMA property rights are yet another example. Basic happy activities are substituted for complex systems of entertainment. With computers, information is quickly and easily processed. Although this is positive for efficiency, what i_' the future outlook? Will we become a network requiring more and more restrictions? The pressures of life overtake the traditional idea of happiness with the man coming home to spend every evening in peace and love with his family. I am not speaking against the freedom for opportunites for women or minorities(if there is such a thing) but the difficulty for family strength as a result of society. Now, both must work, the school alone is in charge of education, the pressure of economics creates a variety of problems. John's Revelation: Trouble in the end times. The Mark of the Beast for buying and selling -we are in the last days. Consider this scenario, a completely government controlled society, with private industry working inside of it. Now a real question, do we push for it to happen and look forward to the end, or do we fight it all the way? Beware of government playing a role, beware of networking. Government networking, Real Estate networking, The next network? Only God knows the full plan, will they do it to see what happens? A v01_ 20 [arr 0 177% City of PortUnsend City Council November 18, 1994 FILE COPY Port Townsend, Washington 98368 385-3000 Jefferson Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 Dear Commissioners: As you know, the City has been closely following the County's efforts to comply with the Western Growth Management Hearing Board's (Hearing Board) Final Decision and Order, No. 94-2-0006. To assist in these efforts, we submitted extensive comments on the County's earlier Draft Ordinance, dated October 19, 1994. As our comments indicated at that time, (see Attachment "A") we believed the County's earlier approach had merit, but that many detail aspects of the ordinance required further attention prior to adoption. We were encouraged that the draft ordinance had begun to address some of the many difficulties associated with commercial and industrial development outside of UGAs. Further, we were pleased to see that a five acre minimum lot size had been proposed for most areas of the County. We are concerned that the Adopted Ordinance (No. 15-1028-94) does not resolve many key issues and may not satisfy the Hearing Board's Final Decision and Order. Stated more directly, we believe the Adopted Ordinance does not comply with the Hearing Board's direction to: 1. Preclude new urban residential, commercial or industrial development outside properly designated IUGAs; and, 2. Provide for an appropriate rural density designation. In an effort to further clarify our concerns, the following subject areas and discussion have been prepared for your deliberation: IUGA ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 1 11/18/94 'VOL 20 fAGF 0 3-94.2 "Urban" Growth Outside of UGAs Our reading of the ordinance reveals that "urban" scale and intensity growth and development is likely to continue historical development patterns called into question by the Hearing Board. In this regard, we call your attention to §§5.10, 6.10, 8.10, 9.10 and 9.20 of the new regulation. Read as a whole, these provisions seem to indicate very little change to land use planning and permitting in Jefferson County. For example, §5.10 indicates that infill on the thousands of existing platted lots in unincorporated areas will continue, leading inevitably to urbanization. Further, §8.00 is quite revealing in what is does not state. That is, development in existing undeveloped portions of commercial and industrial zones, (nearly 390 acres according to the Build -Out Analysis contained within the DEIS for the County Zoning Code) may continue, despite the fact that such development is consistent with neither the spirit nor intent of the GMA. In summary, the County still has not demonstrated how and why urban residential, commercial and industrial development can be allowed in rural areas. Promotion of "Rural' Development Densities The Adopted Ordinance, once again, appears to use the 1:1 "rural" density for vast areas of eastern Jefferson County. In fact, the informational map provided as attachment "A" to the Ordinance indicates that virtually all the Quimper Peninsula, as well as considerable areas near the shoreline south to Port Ludlow are governed by the 1:1 "rural" density. As you are aware, this approach, unsupported by analysis, was rejected by the Hearing Board in its Decision and Final Order. Moreover, we are unaware of any recent analysis having been completed which supports the widespread use of the 1:1 rural density. (Note: It appears that there may have been a clerical error in the preparation of the ordinance; §9.20 actually seems to require new plats outside of UGAs to develop at a density of not less than 1 unit per acre). Population Distribution/Land Capacity Analysis After carefully reading both the Adopted Ordinance and associated correspondence to the Hearing Board and City, we do not understand what you intend regarding County -Wide population projections and distribution. On the one hand, the ordinance and your cover letter seem to support the notion that the Watterson "moderate" population forecast be used for GMA planning purposes. At the same time however, §§2.00 and 3.00 of the ordinance indicate that the designation of the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow as UGAs is still in doubt. Clearly, the Watterson "moderate" or recommended forecast is predicated on the assumption that these areas will be designated UGAs. If these unincorporated areas are not designated as UGAs, the recommended forecast is quite likely inaccurate, or possibly immaterial. IUGA ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 2 11/18/94 V01- 20 WE 01-;�43 Additionally, we are unsure as to how you arrived the 2,500 person "reserve" for Port Ludlow. The Watterson population forecast and distribution do not make reference to this figure. If your intent was to distribute to Port Ludlow the population allocated under the Watterson "moderate" forecast, this approach appears to be flawed. Stated simply, application of the Watterson distribution for Port Ludlow only makes sense if the moderate forecast and County -wide distribution is accepted as a whole. We agree with your expressed desire to adopt the Watterson recommendations. However, your Adopted Ordinance does not appear to accomplish what you desire. In any event, it should be recognized that the City's preliminary land capacity analysis clearly indicates that Port Townsend has sufficient undeveloped land to accommodate a wide range of possible growth scenarios. Understanding your need for information regarding the City's land capacity, we have forwarded our preliminary analysis to your staff for review (see Attachment "B") Glen Cove Special Study Area There appear to be no changes in this section between the draft and the Adopted Ordinance. Thus, our earlier comments are still applicable. We believe that future urban commercial and industrial development in this area may not occur unless it is within a properly designated UGA. Our understanding of the GMA would not allow the Glen Cove Industrial Area to be retained as a stand alone rural industrial center. Nevertheless, it may be appropriate for the Port Townsend Paper Mill, or other similar resource related uses, to continue to be a stand- alone rural industrial area. However, if this scenario were to occur, the developed properties in the area would become non -conforming uses in a "rural" area, future urban commercial/industrial uses would be prohibited, and the current commercial/industrial zoning would be rendered meaningless. Foreclosing urban scale commercial and industrial uses in this area may not be acceptable to the existing property owners in the Glen Cove Area, or to the community as a whole. We suggest that a meeting be scheduled involving the City, County and Glen Cove property owners to discuss these issues and look at future options for growth and development of the area. Tri -Area Aquifer Recharge Area In our October 21 letter, we provided detailed comments on the Aquifer Recharge Study Area provisions. Those comments still pertain to §3.30 of this ordinance. We are concerned to learn that the Adopted Ordinance appears to allow commercial and industrial development within these areas. We acknowledge, and are pleased, that the County is in the process of considering amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance to provide greater protection to the aquifer, but we are still concerned with development allowed during the interim period. IUGA ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 3 11/18/94 VOL 20 Face 01944 Similarly, the fact that the Adopted Ordinance does not designate truly rural densities (e.g., one dwelling unit per five acres), but instead relies on a one acre minimum lot size is troublesome. More alarming, however, is that the ordinance appears to allow the County Health Department to continue to issue septic permits for existing lots of record equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet in size, in effect creating an exemption from the one acre maximum density. As we understand it, there are approximately 10,000 platted lots in this general area. Continued development of these lots greatly increases the risk of contamination to the aquifer, since the areas of highest platted density overlie areas of the aquifer with the highest susceptibility. Interim Level of Service Standards The County has not engaged in any further capital facility or level of service analysis. This was a key issue in the City's appeal: whether the level of service standards included in the IUGA Ordinance were workable and capable of achieving their intended purpose. We acknowledge that the County has revised the Interim Level of Service Matrix for water supply systems to be consistent with the 1986 Coordinated Water System Plan requirements. However, this attempt to revise by reference the level of service standards only for water, does little to transform the LOS matrix into a useful tool for the public and permit administrators to understand. Clearly, standards have not been developed that provide meaningful measurements per unit of demand or other appropriate measures of need. We are also concerned because this approach relies on an outdated CWSP, which has not been applied consistently by any of the County's water purveyors, and has little relevance in the changed land use planning context of the GMA. Port . Townsend Water Service Obligation We are confused by what we perceive to be conflicting statements in §7.00. On the one hand, the County "acknowledges" City Resolution 93-72, which restricts the City's water service area on an interim basis, pending the CWSP amendments. On the other hand, the final sentence of the provision appears to indicate that it is not the County's intent to "acknowledge" Resolution 93-72, but to challenge its consistency with the 1986 CWSP amendment process. What is clear is that the CWSP was completed in 1986 (and possibly never officially adopted), under an entirely different local and state-wide land use planning agenda. Since 1986, population has dramatically increased in the Tri -Area, with attendant consequences for the City's water utility. Over the last couple of years, the City has developed the best information available on what its water utility is capable of providing. It would be a mistake of major proportions to continue to issue water commitments within an expansive area which does not recognize the limits the City, or any other water utility, faces in providing new water supplies. JUGA ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 4 11/18/94 vol. 20 Fac! 0 1945 We have reduced our interim water service areas after careful consideration being given to infilling within areas where water mains currently exist. We desperately need information from the County as to the location and density proposed for new development because we foresee that infill development will use up our water supply before we even address the issue of extending water mains into areas not currently served. We do not believe that the City can realistically obtain additional surface water rights to serve unincorporated areas. We also do not have scheduled capital facility improvements for anything beyond improvements necessary to reach the 1.8 million gallon per day level. Thus, we hope you can appreciate our severe constraints to providing future service in the Tri -Area, and our insistence to update the CWSP as soon as possible. Rural Element Our letter of October 21, 1994 addressed our concerns regarding the Interim Rural Overlay District in detail (see Attachment "A"). As stated in that letter, we believe the rural center concept has merit for areas like Brinnon and Quilcene. We agree with the Central Growth Management Hearing Board's Kitsap decision (No. 94-3-005) that is reasonable to conceive of a well designed rural center, where compact rural development containing rural commercial uses and a small but varied amount of housing types and densities could occur, provided that such centers are not urban in character, do not require urban governmental services, and not have undue growth -inducing or adverse environmental impacts on surrounding properties. The true test of whether rural centers or other rural development (e.g., cluster developments) result in urban growth is to ask the question: What would the plan and associated development regulations permit to be physically constructed on the ground? Is such development consistent with the GMA's definition of urban growth? How would rural centers ensure that "compact rural development" does not evolve into areas of urban growth? We believe that the rural element should include a discussion of what comprises rural development, and set forth procedural safeguards to assure that the cumulative effects of development in rural areas does not rise to the threshold of urban growth. Without clear parameters to prevent "urban" development projects in rural areas, inappropriate conversions of land to urban uses may cause a large loss of rural or resource lands, with attendant impacts to the natural environment. In summary, based on our review of both the draft and the Adopted Ordinance, we still have concerns regarding the County's approach for complying with the Hearings Board's Final Decision and Order: 1. We believe that portions of the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow are characterized by urban growth and upon further review and analysis may need to be included within UGAs. Our appeal was largely based on the lack of homework used in designating the UGAs, and more specifically, the City's ability to provide adequate water to the Tri -Area IUGA ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 5 11/18/94 VOL 20 FAGF 04346 IUGA as delineated, and the lack of adequate provisions to protect the City's groundwater resources. We continue to be concerned with statements that the Tri -Area will be designated a "rural village" where "urban growth" will be allowed to continue. 2. The County has not demonstrated how and why urban residential, commercial or industrial development uses can be allowed outside of properly designated UGAs. We feel that the County is considering designating Glen Cove as a stand alone industrial area if we do not reach an interlocal agreement, in less than 180 days. We cannot accept a stand alone commercial/industrial center abutting our municipal boundaries which would allow urban commercial and industrial uses. However, we are more than willing to assist the County and Glen Cove property owners in assessing whether or not Glen Cove should be in an UGA, and who would provide urban governmental services to the area. 3. The County has not provided the analysis to support a 1:1 density in rural areas. More importantly, by allowing the use of a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size within the Tri -Area aquifer recharge area, future development increases the risk to potential contamination of the City's Tri -Area groundwater resources. The above comments are reflective of the City's past IUGA appeal and letter of October 21. We hope we can now begin to build a better relationship with the County's Long-range Planning Department and GMA consultants. Please be assured that we would like to put this behind us, to begin to better communicate our interests to one another, to better work together and further coordinate our planning activities; and cooperate to resolve these issues in a non -confrontational manner. We hope you better understand our concerns and that these comments are of value in your deliberations. Julie McCulloch ?11111 ?)� ('5�zoc_� IUGA ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER Ted Shoulberg T 'VOL 20 mF 0194-7 Bill Davidson 11/18/94 City of Port Townsend City Council Port Townsend, Washington 98368 385-3000 �_. 1. # 0 -1994 October 21, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse - P.O. Box 1220 t .. Port Townsend, WA 98368` RE: Draft Interim Rural Overlay Districts Ordinance, dated October 19,1994 Dear Commissioners: As members of the City's Growth Management Committee (Council members McCulloch Shoulberg and Davidson) we have completed a review of Jefferson County's Draft Interim Rural Overlay District Ordinance, dated October 19, 1994. We believe the rural center concept may be appropriate for Jefferson County. We were encouraged to hear, as discussed at the October 12 Joint Growth Management Committee meeting, that the intent of the draft ordinance is to: 1. Designate small, compact rural centers in certain areas of.the county; 2. Establish an aquifer protection district that stretches from the' Tri -Area to near the Port Townsend city limits in which new commercial and industrial development is prohibited, until aquifer recharge protections are complete; 3. Establish a joint study area around Glen Cove industrial park in order to determine if . the area should be included within an UGA; and 4. Limit densities outside of rural centers to one unit per five acres. However, upon careful review of the ordinance, we are concerned with specific *provisions of the proposal which appear to be inconsistent with both the GMA and the Final Decision 'and Order issued by the Western Growth Management Hearing Board (i.e., No. 94-2-0006). Accordingly, we submit the following questions and comments on the proposed ordinance for your review and consideration: vol 20 MF 0134-8 Does the Proposed Ordinance Create a Precedent for Avoiding the Appropriate Designation of the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow as UGAs within the County's Final Comprehensive Plan? The concept of rural centers has merit for the future of Jefferson County's rural areas, especially for areas such as Brinnon and Quilcene. We supported inclusion of the rural center concept in the County -wide Planning Policy, and continue to favor the idea, as long as:.--.:.,- _ 1. Rural centers develop at a scale and intensity that preserves the characteristics of the surrounding rural lands; and, 2. Rural centers are provided with public services and facilities which meet truly "rural": f levels of service standards. The County's initial proposal, discussed at the September 27, 1994 Ad Hoc Committee k ti meeting, suggested that the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow would be designated as "rural villages ' �t ' This proposal caused us grave concern, since it appeared that the approach was to simply change the name of the boundary surrounding Port Ludlow and the Tri -Area from "interim urban growth area" 'to "interim neral village." This appeared to us as a quick and easy solution designed to remove the moratorium but not address Ithe City's concerns expressed in its IUGA appeal. However, at the Joint Growth Management Committee meeting on October. 13, we were pleased to see that the revised proposal is to consider the Tri -Area as a "special study area" rather than a rural village. However, we continue to. be perplexed by recent statements made by County Officials which suggest that the Tri -Area and Port Ludlow may not be designated as final Urban Growth Areas within the County's Comprehensive Plan. We reiterate that the City has never opposed the designation of either the Tri -Area or Port Ludlow as UGAs. A careful reading of the City's appeal of the Interim UGA Ordinance reveals that the City's objection to the action was based on five factors: 1. The size and extent of the IUGAs; 2. The failure to support the IUGA designations with appropriate analysis; 3. The lack of adequate restrictions on commercial and industrial growth allowed outside of IUGAs; 4. . The inadequacy of the rural densities specified for areas outside of IUGAs; and 5. . _ Uncertainties regarding the City's ability to provide water to the Tri -Area IUGA as delineated. We are concerned that the proposed ordinance may create a precedent which could lead to the designation of the Tri -Area as one large "rural village." If the area accommodates urban commercial uses and urban densities, and it "looks and feels" like an UGA, it should be. designated as such. Because the ultimate disposition of the Tri -Area is still in doubt, it is impossible to know what level of water service will be- needed or required. 'Stated plainly, simply changing the name of the Tri -Area to "special study area" or "rural village" does little 2 vol_ 20 wE 01.94: to address the concerns raised in our appeal, or the violations of the GMA identified by the WGMHB. We believe that the planning and provision of an adequate water supply infrastructure for the Tri -Area should be occurring now rather than later. Does the Proposed Ordinance Perpetuate Historic Development Patterns which the GMA~. 'Seeks to Avoid? --=, A fundamental objection we have with the approach used in the proposed ordinance to designate rural centers (i.e., both "crossroads" and "villages") is its excessive reliance upon_; existing plans and ordinances to guide future growth. To elaborate, the proposed rural centers' - are based on current commercial and industrial zones delineated within the Jefferson County. Zoning Code. In turn, the Zoning Code was based upon the County's 1979 Comprehensive ; Plan "Optimum Land Use Map" and Community Development Plan maps of somewhat more recent vintage. This approach seems destined to perpetuate the historic pattern of sprawling y- =:-;y development in rural areas which the GMA was designed to correct. This same concern was an important issue in the City's appeal of the IUGA Ordinance (i.e., the proposal's reliance upon existing zoning creates a substantial risk for continued . inappropriate commercial and industrial development in rural areas). A review of the use tables in the Zoning Code (which are referenced within the draft ordinance) reveals that the proposal would continue to permit "urban" types of development to locate within the rural "villages" and "crossroads." One of the purposes of the GMA is to break away from these,: historically inefficient patterns of development. To this end, the GMA prohibits urban growth outside of UGAs. A review of the Zoning Code Maps, and the Build -Out Analysis contained within the Draft - Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Code, reinforces this conclusion. When applied to the current proposal, the results of the Build -Out Analysis suggest that rural centers, including "villages" and "crossroads," contain approximately 680 acres of commercially zoned land (i.e., both C -I and C -II). By way of comparison, the City of Port Townsend, presently the County's only UGA, has 181 acres of commercially zoned land. The Build -Out Analysis also indicates that only 388 of. the 680 acres have been "developed." (See attachment 1 - please advise u& if our analysis or conclusions are in error). This fact highlights the more than considerable potential for infill development under the proposed. ordinance. Does the Ordinance Adequately Distinguish between Rural and Urban Uses? As discussed above, it appears that the draft ordinance seeks to implement the existing zoning code and zoning map designations. It is not reasonable to rely upon the Zoning Code definitions and use table for the neighborhood commercial (C-1) and general commercial (C - Vol 20 Face ® 1950 3 2) districts as a measure of what uses can accurately be characterized as "rural commercial." (See attachment 2).. By way of example, research and testing laboratories and vehicle sales (both activities allowed under the C-2 or general commercial designation) have not traditionally been considered rural commercial uses. Through considerable refinement of the Code's use tables, however, many commercial uses could reasonably be considered "rural";..,: >. '(e.g., "research and testing laboratories for agricultural and timber resource management;'; purposes"; or "farm machinery and equipment sales"). Without further refinement and specificity, a software or medical research laboratory or a luxury car dealership could bei located in the middle of a rural tenter. Permitting development of this nature to occur in¢�` rural areas appears patently inconsistent with the intent of the GMA. ' Adding to our confusion and concern, subsection 3.Yof the proposed ordinance 'read is conjunction. with the Zoning Code, would allow the. maximum floor area of most commercial enterprises to be. set on a case-by-case basis. (including the research lab and vehicle sales met. examples cited above). Surprisingly, the zoning code indicates that there is no maximum: � floor area specified for C-1 and C-2 commercial uses. Accordingly, it is not inconceivable that a 50 acre or larger, luxury car dealership. could be permitted outright in a rural center under.the existing draft ordinance. Has the Research and Analysis Which Would Support Rural Center Designation Been Completed? Similar to the City's concerns with the IUGA ordinance (No. 02-0110-94), the draft ordinance appears to be based on neither the Watterson sub -county population distribution for the sizing of rural centers, nor an analysis of the carrying capacity of the land (i.e., critical areas and resource lands). Instead, the boundaries appear to have been drawn under the assumption that reliance upon one-half mile "concentric circles" surrounding the rural center commercial cores is reasonable. It is our understanding of the GMA and* Board decisions, that without the. required analysis, higher densities `in or adjacent to rural centers cannot be justified. We are unaware of any: analysis having been completed which supports a 1:1 rural density, or a minimum building..`', . area of 10,000 square, feet for single family residences in the areas specified (see Subsection 3.30). Do the Level of Service Standards Promote "Rural" Development Patterns? We presume that the matrix handed out at the October 12 meeting is to be attached to the draft ordinance. Again, it is difficult to provide useful comments on level of service standards without the matrix being included with the draft ordinance. Overall, however, we, are troubled with the idea that, under the draft ordinance, the city would provide "rural" water 4'Q!_ � 0 Far:: � �;� �►�, 4 to the Tri -Area study area for some undefined period of time. Then, in the future, the area would likely become an UGA, with the requirement to provide water at an urban level of service. Thus, the City would be confronted with the necessity of upgrading, at great expense, an inadequate infrastructure that the city owns and has accepted. Wastewater presents a similar infrastructure concern, except that continued development of individual etid,; . community septic systems present a threat of aquifer contamination over the effective duration of the proposed ordinance. As we understand the County's approach to service standards, it appears that the level service matrix thus far discussed is based on the earlier matrix developed for the IUGA . ordinance. Our concerns over the level of service standards for the rural centers mirror our earlier concerns with the level of service matrix for the interim UGA, especially with respect:yr to water and sewer in the Tri -Area. The matrix allows most things to occur anywhere There° is no definition of "conditional" or "provisional." Class A water systems are allowed If a llowed outside of UGAs and villages;:: ==- villages and are conditionally allowed elsewhere. this does not promote rural character. Rather, it encourages urban densities. Additionally, -we cannot support allowing Class B or independent wells in UGAs, or wells in the rural villages. Has the Public Process Been Adequate? As you know, the rural centers concept was presented verbally to staff for the first time on* September 27. A few more details were presented to the Joint Growth Management Committee on October 12. The first draft ordinance was not available for review until late in the day on October 17. A revised draft ordinance .became available on October 19. Rural Overlay District maps and the interim level of service matrix are referenced but have not been included in the draft ordinance. Without these attachments, it is impossible to fully review and understand the location, extent and implications of the rural overlay districts. As we understand it, the Board anticipates action on the proposed ordinance on October 24. This allows less than one week for the City and interested citizens to provide useful comments for the Board to consider prior to action on the proposed ordinance. We understand the tremendous time constraint the Commissioners are under to comply with the Hearing Board's Order, but we cannot support the absence of public participation that has characterized the ordinance development and adoption process thus far. Moreover, we are baffled as to why no SEPA review has been initiated on the proposal. SEPA presents a useful opportunity to comply with the public participation requirements of the GMA. We respectfully request that the Commissioners delay action on this ordinance until interested parties have the appropriate maps and level of service matrix to examine, the SEPA process has been completed, and affected parties have had sufficient time to comment on the proposal. The above questions and comments represent our overall comments on the draft ordinance. ioi_ 20 lac=_ 1352 5 The following comments pertain to the specifics of the ordinance itself. Comments are arranged according to the appropriate Section numbers within the proposal. Section 1: Purpose and Effect 4.y. See comments above, especially those relating to the use of the existing zoning code as the basis for designing rural centers and uses allowed in each zoning category. x Section 2: Definitions 4 -. Our overarching concern is that these definitions define or could include within the definitions— of "rural uses" and "rural development" land uses which are not at all rural. The definitiogs--._t (e.g., "shopping, ... commercial, industrial ... at a scale that preserves surrounding rural p. characteristics" and "residential development that includes small lot single family and multiW__ family, and mixed use developments," ) be Pments,etc. 8 the question: How does -one define "rural -�.- characteristics? How is the scale of residential development any different from the histo .. ric pattern of development? Under what circumstances would commercial and retail establishments not "serve the retail and service needs of a local area?" These definitions, couched in soft planning jargon, would appear to allow the perpetuation of existing development patterns. The definition of "Rural Center (Village)" raises particular concern. Why, under planning . . consistent with the GMA, would "higher density development" not require the "full range of urban level of service development standards?" This language appears to skirt the more difficult issue which all counties must encounter at this juncture: an analysis of public facilities (which are supposed to be provided primarily by cities) and the levels of -service. = - necessary for the proposed levels of development. One cannot simply say that urban levels of service "may not" be available without going through the analysis. This is particularly true . when the definition concedes that "Even though Rural Centers (Village) may in some circumstances develop densities similar to those found in an Urban Growth Area, they are considered pan .of the rural area for purposes of growth management, and do not provide . . significant growth capacity." This language appears to underscore the contradiction of the'. proposed rural center concept and the, UGA requirements. How can densities be similar to UGA densities, especially if the villages do not "provide significant growth capacity?" At what level of service will infrastructure be provided? What data analysis and planning has been done to guarantee that the County is not providing too much growth capacity (especially in light of the large land areas anticipated for inclusion)? Section 3: Establishment of Interim Zoning Density Overlay Districts The one acre minimum lot size set forth in subsection 3. 10, to our knowledge, does not' benefit from any more analysis now, than it did before the Hearings Board earlier this year. Further, we retain serious concerns regarding the lack of analysis concerning existing platted Vol^ 20 we 013133 6 lots. Again, we are unaware of the County having conducted any further analysis regarding the infrastructure (i.e.,water) needs of the villages. Is the phrase "as permitted by the Zoning Code" used throughout subsection 3.20 synonymous with "no limitation?" A brief review of the provisions of the Zoning Code would indicate that this reading is accurate. By way of example, we question how the following uses can even remotely be considered "rural" without further refinement of the definitions and significant limitations on maximum floor area allowed: laboratories for research and testing;+ multi -family residences; restaurants; theaters. (including drive-ins); mortuaries; and vehicle sales repair and service establishments. How can the one acre minimum lot size set forth in subsection 3,10 be reconciled with the 10,000 square foot building area described in subsection 3.30? This provision would appe`az ,-.. to allow continued development on existing platted lots within the rural centers, without first . demonstrating an ability to provide services at this density, Wholesale allowance of development of existing undeveloped platted lots is not the solution. Without an opportunity to review the maps which depict the proposed rural center overlay zones, it is not possible for us to comment on subsections 3.40 through 3.70. Section 4• Establishment of Interim Special Study Overlay Areas Overall, we strongly support the establishment of the Special Study Overlay Areas for Glen Cove and the Tri -Area. However, we have some reservations about the uses and.densities allowed in these Speciaf Study Areas in the interim period prior to the studies being completed. Please see our specific comments below. 4.2Q Glen Cove Industrial Overlay Study Area: 4.20.1 Our understanding of the GMA would not allow the Glen Cove Industrial Area to be retained as a stand alone rural industrial center unless it was for only that portion of the area to by used by the Port Townsend Paper Mill or some other resource -related industrial use. 4.20.3 Given the lack of water to serve the Glen Cove Area today, we cannot support this provision which allows unlimited infill in the study area, until the special study area and related interlocal agreements are completed. 4.20.4 We agree that the study should be completed within 180 days. However, we are mystified as to the intent of the recent addition adding language that the area would be designated a stand-alone industrial center if no agreement was reached in that period. This appears to give the County an excuse not to complete the study or to reach agreement with the City within the 180 day period. 7 VOL 20 FAGF 0 1 54 • 4.3 Tri -Area Aquifer Recharge Overlay Study Area 4.30.1 We support this provision, however, without a map, it is difficult to comment on the appropriateness of the boundaries of the overlay area. It should also be noted that many other class A and B groundwater systems in Jefferson County are in need of protection. Since these systems are important to the County's larger water supply issues, it may be advisable to include these systems for protection as well (e.g., Shine, Quilcene, etc.). 4.30.2 This- needs to be completed by December 31, 1994. We are willing to assist the Countyin this effort. However, we would be; -interested to know what the County's plans are if the ordinance amendments are not completed by the end of the year. _ 4.30.3 Single family residential: It is unclear whether this provision would really luntt minimum lot sizes to one acre. It appears that this could be exempted by the Department of Health to at least a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This type of density would greatly increase the risk of contamination to the aquifer. Commercial and Industrial_ This provision is especially confusing. Is commercial and. industrial development prohibited or allowed subject to the zoning code? 4.30.4 We are concerned that the County may not have completed adequate amendments to . its critical area ordinance by December 31, 1994. Section 5: Interim Public Level of Service Standards 5.10 Again, we are not sure what is proposed for level of service standards, as Attachment A is not included with the ordinance. The level of service standards which are adopted should be specific, and clearly define the quantity of water to be supplied per person per day, and adequate fire flows. 5.20 This appears to say that water system extensions, etc., "shall" be approved if there is capacity in the system or to avoid multiple unregulated wells. This seems too broad_ of a statement without some consideration of other factors. 5.30 Reliance upon the distinction between Group A/Group B water systems to differentiate between "urban" and "rural" growth is inadvisable. The Department of Health has established these classes in order to require different development standards and reporting systems. However, nothing in the Department of Health regulations addresses the issue of what constitutes a "rural versus an "urban" water system. For example, a system with 15 connections can be a Group A system. However, in and of itself, this fact does not establish that the system is "urban." It would be more VOL 20 wF �'3 JJ 8 appropriate to distinguish based upon level of service standards for -the various land use designations (e.g, UGAs, Rural Villages, Rural Crossroads, etc.). 5:40.2.bExtension: We cannot support this provision because it would'allow extension of urban water systems outside UGAs. Moreover, the subsection, as written, would permit the expansion of service areas- located outside of UGAs. The establishment of UGA boundaries and service area boundaries should be considered in tandem. 5.40.3 New Group B Systems: As drafted, the provision would allow substantial commercial and industrial development outside of UGAs. While the City is not opposed to specifically defined and limited "rural" commercial development outside of UGAs, this provision coupled with the use tables from the Zoning Code which are referenced in the draft, allow for an inappropriate level of commercial development in rural areas , �.ection 6- Severability No comments. Section 7: Repealer How can these regulations repeal and replace Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 if such ordinance has been null and void for at least sixty days? Section 8: Effective Period 8.10 There appears to be confusion between what "interim ordinance" means in the context of GMA planning (RCW 36.70A.390) and an "emergency" interim control under the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70.795). Candidly, we do not believe an "emergency" exists which necessitates characterizing or processing this ordinance as an "emergency interim control." We reserve additional comments on this section until it* is completed with effective dates. 8.20 -We are puzzled as to why and how a substantially complete application prior to the effective date of this ordinance can .be processed under the Jefferson County Interim Growth Areas Ordinance No. 02-0110-94 if such ordinance has been null and void for at least sixty days.. How Does ' the Proposed Ordinance Comply with the Hearing Board's Order? Based on our review of the draft ordinance, we must conclude that the proposed ordinance' lacks the analysis and justification required by the GMA. Moreover, the County has not provided evidence of compliance with the three requirements of the WGMHB order: 9 � VOL 20 FAG! 0 195 • . � � �; 1. The County has yet to do the "homework" necessary to document the size and location of these rural centers. Nor has the County provided sufficient details as to how rural centers (villages) are different from interim urban growth. areas; 2. The County has not demonstrated how and why urban residential, commercial or industrial development uses can be allowed in rural centers which are outside a properly designated UGA, and; 3. The County has not provided the analysis to support the use of a 10,000'sq. ft. minimum lot size or a 1:1 density in rural areas. Optional Measures to Consider to Comply with the Hearing Board's Order It is with great reluctance we offer suggestions of how you might comply with the WGMHB's order and meet the City's concerns. But you have asked in -the past what would satisfy the City's concerns. So these are offered in the spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation 1. Continue to do the homework to include rural centers within the rural element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. In the plan, possibly designate small, compact rural centers in certain areas of the county, such as Quilcene and Brinnon. Distinguish between commercial and industrial uses which are "urban" and those that are "rural." Amend the zoning code as necessary to reflect these differences. 2. Establish an aquifer protection district that stretches from the Tri -Area to near the Port, Townsend city limits in which new commercial and industrial development would be prohibited until adequate aquifer recharge standards are in place and UGAs or appropriately sized rural centers are adopted. 3. Establish a joint study area around Glen Cove industrial park in order to determine if the area should be included within an UGA. 4. ` Designate a interim minimum lot size of one unit per five acres until the homework is completed. If the analysis supports it, include a range of rural -densities in the adopted comprehensive plan. Of course, there are likely other ways the County could comply with the Board's order and satisfy our concerns. Toward this end, we hope we can continue to work together to avoid further costly and time consuming appeals. In summary, we believe the rural center concept has merit and should be thoroughly examined and analyzed during development of the County's rural element. Of course, we are more than willing to jointly work with the County in its analysis of the suitability of the Tri -Area and Glen Cove area for possible inclusion within final urban growth areas. 10 Vol_ 20 Fac, 01957 Thank you for considering our comments. j404 ie t Davidson McCulloch Ted Shoulberg Bi1 , ' • • • •' .. ' + . • Ate.:^.... , cc: Mayor and City Council David Clark, Department of Health Rich Sarver, Department of Health ` Steve Wells, Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development . - J ' ;.., �""s_ � j,yr ✓�}�rl.�t` t• � is � fv 'ti �, t _. n --F • • _ ;TrT ,� a �-'�', � a'•t•• �- i �e� .'. yi ��. ak ~ . -�. w`�` f � � yam- _ . •Y F+ � �._...,.er '¢��^. .ftp-- .cr-: City of Port Townsend Planning and Building Department 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385.3000 01 NAVAIYI :zIasi ZII From: Dave Robison/Eric Toews To: Gary Rowe, Director of Public Works Date: November 17, 1994 Re: Preliminary Land Capacity Analysis This memorandum is in response to Commissioner Hinton's request for information regarding the City's land capacity and ability to accommodate population projected to occur over the next 20 years (see letter of October 28, 1994 from Robert Hinton to John Clise). The methodology used for the capacity analysis was developed in cooperation with former Planning Director, Steve Ladd. We believe that this cooperative effort has resulted in a product which meets the planning needs of both the City and the County. Attached is a preliminary draft of the City of Port Townsend's land capacity analysis for your review. The methodology and assumptions used in conducting this analysis have not yet been described in a narrative form. However, the approach used is similar, though less complex, than that employed by Clark County, Washington. A summary of the Clark County approach has been included in this packet for your information (see attachment A). We will forward a draft of the methodology employed in our analysis as soon as it is completed. It should be stressed that the capacity analysis is, of necessity, somewhat theoretical at this stage of the process. Once a draft of the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map becomes available (release anticipated in January), a more detailed analysis of the proposed land use scheme will be conducted, confirming the City's ability to accommodate the forecast population growth, and factoring the proposed housing mix and densities. However, our preliminary analysis very clearly indicates that Port Townsend has the land capacity to accommodate a wide range of potential growth scenarios within its present corporate limits, including the OFM low base projection, and the Watterson "moderate" or recommended forecast. ,We hope this information will assist you in your planning efforts. If you require further information, or have comments and concerns regarding the analysis completed so far, do not hesitate to contact us! VOL 20 mF 01-959 m n A wvl_ ~w 111V�. V < C % N W N 10 a iz c s a CL x s � � � m oc s a � W � p � N i ooA4WWOg' II 11 O r fit N AN O W V V �W A V1�1 J. tOW J 0 0 11 11 a N N-40 A tis� W N O A n Q U to 11 OD A CO N A W W j j 0 0 N W N A V V V co V OD Ica @ o aD oD W A —• v W w A OD 0 tT co E 02 i �N1 J pp J i i ��E fI i � W aD 'All — m K i i I j�o C" co CA 8 -sk 4 NWN N W Q � � O cri OA o a 'o I n m y ai a► 11A1 gn Lif[ n -i 9 -nn wvl_ ~w 111V�. V O O a 7 A A3 G�= � c FTI Iwo � _—�.�h O .� CD m o � mm� ms �m o�Q o 9ra m O �> >> , 3 �do oo OO® IDm n 0 o m o, c ao m o o a o 3 o CL X3 Vm co c a m m o a o z agi m y m w W C 7 a a m m a tQ Q m> ; s a �i x n c m m m a m 3 C m ? 0 m c Oi . C a a �• m �, m o o c e x G ff 3 Q m D m tot to C C r W O/ ppm OpO � OD O O O 1 r _► C A .A co Cf N~ N W CJ1 j N N A W AA W tD co Co Co A N A C rt 0 3 A Nc0 O mc A I—A II co OO—A O A m co co coC ONco A O m m S. C � N c O W 7 O} x x p v+ R Ol �ia00W wc0000' OD w o cw a n °' 0 a o a a C FOm� d. CL r. c o < ' < a m m m ,o�� m ( m n m m m m . mo m� c► m m o m a as an CD m 0 1361 VOL20 Face O O a 7 p OTC Mem � s � ElFZ aa� c40 m as mm3 % a(A V < 1° r �O m>> 3 CL QOz CC in o G .mo mnO m C go m N o a mA mp Q cr Ca 7<>m_>aa� m a a m m � r a f m 3 m m o a 4 CL m m ` a x a m o C c Q 1p: 3 tS m co m 3 a � s � � 3 U O A -+ m O A u -n J J F W o � � 0 ca C. Go (A tT a 3 A A N co mN A a O N 7 m OCA CW7l n n C It co NWtp -pp..pp+ O N j coN 00� W A C O m� co � �m ca w N O W N " Z O j coo CCYR c" U" -n < m � C m N W V N -+ to V W tT I Cfl c rn A pp�� Co 0A� C" pj m A a a N Q�pp O N a W tW M A A W m 0 to 0 a O_ a m a .. a Q CL :. C O <c < CD ID mtom 1 pp m 1 to ti m N m to a to m m m VOL 20 Fact 0 1362 m m O VOL 20 PAV 01963 O X ° 7 CL m r - a 17 cr c a 2° 2 m W m c m a r m p C 0 7 j � c 3 3 Q !� 0 ° o T CL C) m o o o a ami '� m m m° CL a �' � ro 0 O m a 3 p a m m m �_ m in pc C u 'A 6 c O c' = c n �' u p m i 0 0 < m Q. 01 cc o x0 n a d M m m a 7 a <CL 10 < O C x a O C �+ ?c a p ° � a ° co m o a ca _ OC oO b 11 L Q (D O A i 0 co W W W W c m I Q 1-4 A A A N CA O N N -4 v ° O N A n � L A rL„ a 11 11 co co -+O O A. W W W 0 W m w c C V V 9 7 C7D W 7 � m ONN N71 N v -n < CD L .11H -4N V -� OOD i N FU D cm Woa x_ i W m W m W 4CTal A m N��� CWT N W� (Q p 1 p W p os .Q O m a a. CL C O � m $ m n m m m m m m m lb o III g °1 o m u a oe m m � VOL 20 PAV 01963 m to 0 J X 0 in= ® 4 3 'm CD Im < CD c w 3 o cm m x m< o n 0 < CD <O S m r r►cp p m dl n O n w m 0 st N c 0 0 3 n a CL .. RFT C r. O 0 p 0ma ' m 3 0 Go, O o a mm m Oo 06 0 3 � 7 j m 0 Cal O a Q m �: a _ ; Q 0 a 3 0 r zco CD m < o. C m 0 C m Q m GoGo $ a � _ p a � q A� J J imO WN lco W O ? N N O t0 A N pW Cf -+ W A a7 LA A C X O o g A 0 7 W A CD OfCA R"A QQlOmW NNA-�►0n Cco m30Ln NW+ W A W '• m W CO 0 C A Al N C7 0 V tT CD-+ N T s O) ND c , m Cpof O �\ w��w COQ W Cn mp 0 O c O c0 O C07��.n ntt WmNCL W N m� m to wm cs a a p .400 o O - � a M .: c O < O 3 < < � m OM O 0 m min m No go m M m w m a as a CD m m VOi_ 20 FGF 0 1_:,64 � g 2g & §i«& ■m f K' I «�K <�cgI � g ■ cr % Wit0 ID g m10 o E CD $ f _o 2 $ n® p0 0 I�� % .��2 n (D CL § �� 2/° < k / £ �206 � i 2- � 2- .�� » o i _ gco g & : § No cr © ■ Q < co¢ 3rr e J ■ 0 m d P &ID � i i m o& E k© m \ CL � e 'o C A ■ _ ■ 0 g $ E g > � 2 ■_ - c � 2 HI � eB A g � lo.. 2 _ � r2 w�$ qwg � . "IE A n 22� A A . f�§ §$�� �d © �o�� . ri � � . co_ CA CD dw@ & -4 00 §G Af, co0 K) CD v - F� . 1111 � � C E �# am � a CAa CA A, -4 A co �co cn± K)� ocl© to E -®_ - -a __ n ® Fa _E ® Go @ P CL c o f o sCD < o < a J 2, 10 0 � 40 m a g . VOL 20 R7 O 2 rr \� .D m to m vo=_ 20 Fact Dlscc, � to(A3 mem mm � o m s QQ S 2 �� m m IAOn z c� m or c m ° m a <mm a� as °0O p O p m ci V<o n oa o a m a a c O =L 16 R CL m N O to m m ci Co (p O 0 CD m ° to a mCL Qa w m Q 3 mm j 7 C. � O K O n CJ m !� m v s a 3 Q m.E6 m a m o r ? m to a w 0 m m ga m C = Q m m n O 3 O m ? � — n C �C$Ny N V m O A A -1 u u rs i i O .. O .. 1-41 1-4 OV NM CT coo CO O A A C Cf 9. — AA1 .°. 11 m S N W W N O N ( ° N t0 A A A -n C O O 1 1-4. 11 O O O co CAo OAA iCTi A t0 O A C O V V 3W O C70 � �.. m Oi i AC1DA N m A O C 1 Nm t-01 N t0 tb A N— Of j a A NCOo�m d Vm C, m to O ° 3 1a00o cN»Njo' m cm co IA A m to .. a CL 0 m m 1 m j m m M m o m w a a N m m vo=_ 20 Fact Dlscc, Oo�i C m 3�mm a mmc am 3 rz 3Q 0� m n m< m < p o a�3 3 0 C 0 A C g 0 0 O a q nm m o= m $ a� N C i = a' O a m n a m ep 3 a e0 s o m m m O °D m m � c .O► a ci N m o m Oc 0 w m a D N tp c 3 a Q W U 3 CL < m m m O M Q O 7 O. C C7 e! 10 YI _ 47 (D m �o r � fl.L1 7 N � k O O M S O � :p - m Q a o — $ a S n a � i e� � 8 ^ +T W CO V Al -n i J O I O 1 i O C" i fit N A "'\ W (71 ((z*�,T1' ? N O CO CT i CID co O A O A O C m m • D A A It {�D N w N N N �{ N N A Cfl W O i Q T CID COT N N TI A A A A {{ O O ACA -N+W W� �. C O V V OD 00 N CT W 000 ONDV i V A fOTt m m m C QT O A COT N is c A j_mu O4Den J i W A i NAS N Q, is C4 m 3 m m .6. -b, v a O m O O O m to m O m a a m ag O Q CL '. c O m m m m m m m (Dn o O m O m O m a a a N m N m N m VOL 20 wlF ft f,)6'7 'U � L 20 h/ 01968 J � o og.J i� n �0 0 ooi 777 E ««� -®g 7 Ei■ E CL 1=0 ■ 17 E©a CL ICAC) 0 & $ f� �o _ % ��} ° °a m0 0 E C,\� � a»-% ■I E t � a � n o - §°° 0 © o - ' g i k a g� 90 - ■ -' CD ca _ i } i � g J < © 06 ® $ e e E � t E 2 § CL _ � ' ■ St k ° m C a § .CL a § A o g �. ■ t _ n 13 . A . g � w�&� 8 . A A E R 8K� A 2 a & . K) cc . n A E A \ �E§ \ wCA&� q§K)� M g g c0 v v �� 00 co k � N)ww 00oC � . o M — ��. � k§ co_c o P m x �� SC"0 co C" C" -4 �om� IF $$v— AM ��w© © Ef_0 �__a o ®■@_ gmpa F- F-1 ■■ CL g 0CD < a�� o� 2�. to m a (D CD. ■ ■ � ■ ■ ■ L 20 h/ 01968 J � m m m m i O 0< X ;m<c o %C� o !s Gn . a s m m� o = m m m o p C m� 0 cr c m c 0 m° r m O 2 S o� 0— nm 0 <_ 3 O O �� < o 0 3 a 3 3 cr C'j <N o 7 m n w�� $ amc �. �° a ° Q tlm D O °' 0 3 3 m a 03 r. 0 n'i m n m c� m A m p 0 o rA = u m o a Q 'O cr Cl w m 0 CA Is < m m � n s a s fl' Q m m Co 10 3 o r (D m d ° m m a 3 CL < N O C 1P x z m ° co C a CD 3 - � a ° m co Er ? A to N i N Q Ll m V Q O A A �1 i i C O AA O 00) O~ v W A V U A A n N A A a N W >b O, OC70D� 0N0 i IiV i m A i A A C� O C AA A CJ 11 W 0 pNp 1 0 4 m V Cl V CT V FR N A N? i C .4. 0 V V a � 0 CA j m 0 t0 W (ID V A O V V tp tD -4 V (O � CA pt C i �(/zn� A.i to OA> X N A j C J A O m 0 W w N 4 0 i W -4 m 0 CA m N O� O CT d 37 .7 iv nM" � Ca — cc 000 003 Cm m w CA to a s o a . n a O CL C CL x c o m 3 m m a m 0 m m m m m rt m w a a 0 o 0 VOL 20 ws 0 ioG�!) iI , I I 111. : . .♦ . .• • . •:. .•. III � �'' /.•• , -I' a v.•♦♦ .�� ,� • - ��•`���•� • :.• •�ij�'., \ III 1�•■ 11 , I i _ � _ . ����• ♦�' a` • �i• - • •'•�• • } `i III I �I , •T,;w= ••• r■p;�, :•'-�o� ,;-•y. ♦� to di Ylpin IL �.�Ii.LI "SII If I!I �' .��i L�-:IT■�; ,� •�-a�'ii,•••,•I ,e•�`JP� 1 �~ i� pu.uwmuuu ! :r 11 � � I III I i I . ir.■uul� uunu 1.1 j !1'1:111 I ' � ' - � J ' ' '� , � I I ■,m ■ r ■ ff� 1::[ 1 J 11 • - '' ■■�1� LI1♦! NOit '=l,,i► u. ■■ ar n■ m ■■, a w, .ss ■■ .,■ ■rr s ■■.0 ...r• n 1 F.. +21 u•• _ L= • :1111■ n■ . S ..: T ,'� 1,,,11 1 .....r,: _I ...■ :_n■: r i ...—� ,I I� 1111' .• �:� �::::•:_. ■ 1 :: �::. 'If ,. II' ■■u ■1:'��I '1:.1,. 'u, :•= 11 M Us a IR■!■/�Isi,-_I If■■■■■I Il is :::�i'•111/l' 11:1111■. •-_I II'■`=vr:1:1 •,•G•-•_-`° ■n■=u_,.■�"l�1\■�I::% •■Room ■/■■... e`er �u � :I � � r � I (1 I ` /1■ n0 :e 11 ■i !Iuu m_■ ■• ■1-1 �1\� � � :IIC .111E � I °I ^ � :I I � ' I :�� � i■ III =• �= NnO R.■ — ••':I ::'.::::: ��� � I � ,. � :1 ■ r•• � �1 ■ ii i i= IIIII� �, ��_ �_ �1 ■1 ��■ J J I�—'� 11111 J� • ��'uu ■�■1w.r....., 6:I?.:����il IBJ■::—g; �.�1 1■■■ Ilr ■i_m"o�'� ,j;'•.'•�■.: MI I 11M je ■a■a ■� .. .r �■■u nom.. I _ .. ■_ .t' 111! 1111017 I . II1 HIP ,r ,f,,,�y, vjA- VACANT LAND ANALYSIS Assumptions for Vacant Buildable Land Criteria for Vacant Buildable Land • For residential land vacant parcels are defined as having a structural value of $10,000 or less. Commercial and Industrial are defined as parcels having a structural value of $50,000 or less. • Underutilized land is defined as parcels that are 3 times allowable lot size based on the existing zoning and greater. that 2.5 acres (Residential category only). Exclude all publicly owned land, parcels 5 $750,000 and mobile homes. square feet or less,, parcals" valued over " • Exclude type 1 critical areas (floodways, high quality wetlands with 75 foot buffer, slopes over 40%) • Include as vacant (however, calculate at a lower density_) type 2 critical areas (flood fringe, hydric soils with a 75 foot buffer, usgs stream coverage with 75 foot buffer and slopes 25 to 40%) • Deduct from vacant land inventory 5%for data limitations. Assessor data base is up -dated for new construction one time each year (July). It is anticipated that as the work progresses this limitation will be even further refined through the County's Sierra System. Land Utilization Assumptions • 90% of all land will convert over the 20 year time frame to its designated use. • 70% of all, underutilized land will convert to its. designated use within the 20 year .planning period. • Redevelopment, mixed use and vacancy rate factors are being researched and will be monitored over time to determine if these can be used in the future to help define the urban growth area. Deductions for Infrastructure - Based on a variable assumptions according to the size of parcel Vacant Land • 0% for parcels 5,000 to 20,000 sf • 25% for.parcels 20,000 to .1 acre ' 30% for parcels 1 acre to 2.5 acres •. 40% for parcels 2.5 acres or larger Underutilized Land • 0% for parcels 1 to 2.5 acres • 40% for parcels 2.5 acres or larger Density • 6 dwelling units (du)/acre for single family • 16 du/acre for multi -family •4.5 du/acre for pending plats Lad Use El Mn jWle 13, 1994 LU -W VOL 20 Face 01:373: •4 du/acre for land identified as critical 2 Market Factor • 25% for residential land • 25% for commercial land 5 0% for ,industrial land Housing Composition • 60/40 split for new single family/multi-family development • 2.33 persons per single family ..., , • 1.8 persons per multi -family Commercial/Industrial 12 jobs per acre for commercial • 9 jobs per acre for industrial Demographics 134,000 additional persons in Clark County. by 2013. These assumptions were used in the following methodology to define vacant buildable land in the urban' . areas of Clark County. It is understood that the ass.umptions and data will. be refined overtime and maintained to allow an efficient review at a minimum of five (5) years. Methodology . Step 1 , Starting with all parcels in the planning and interim urban growth areas subtract: 1. Public Lands a. government holdings +� . 1) parks 2) greenways 3) municipal facilities 4) road r.o.w. 5) school properties b. Utility facilities and major easements BPA transmission lines, northwest pipeline, etc. c. Bodies of water d. Public Wildlife Refuges 2. Exclude all parcels that. are Critical Type 1 (continue to track those parcels covered•by low. than 50% and more than 50% by type 1 critical areas) -a. floodways as defned by FEMA b. slopes greater than 40% c. high quality wetlands wn5' buffer Laid list E6=t Juxt 13, I994 LU -61 VOL 20 Y�G� 3. Identify all parcels with Critical Type 216 ( (continue to track those parcels covered by less than 50% and more than 50% by type 2 critical areas)) a. unstable slopes (DNRI b. slopes greater than 25 to 40% c. wildlife conservation areas (priority habitat areas) _. d. hydric soils w/75' buffer e. USGS stream coverage w/75' buffer f. flood fringe as defined by FEMA Product:TotaI Vacant Buildable Land 1. Acres of critical exclusions by City, IUGA and Planning Area 2. Acres of vacant land by parcel size 5,000 to 20,000, 20,000 to 1 acre, 1 to 2 5, 2.5 .-5, 5-10, .10+ acresr Step 2 From all Residential Lands identify: 1. Residential land ' a. Parcels with structures assessed at less than $10,000. z b. All vacant buildable land that is currently zoned residential c. All residential parcels that are 3 times minimum lot size of the zone and the resultant polygon is 2.5 acres or greater that have the potential to be further subdivided. 2. Exclusions c. All mobile home parks, personal property, mining property, and common areas d. Parcels 5 acres or more assessed at $250,000 and all parcels assessed at $750,000. Product: Buildable Residential Land 1. Acres of vacant residential land by City, IUGA and Planning Area - ., .. " , - 2. Acres of underutilized residential land by City, IUGA and Planning Area 3. Acres of vacant residential land by parcel size 5,000 to 20,000, 20,000 to 1 we 1 to 2.5, 2.5 -5, 5-10, 10+ and by City,, IUGA and Planning Area Step 3 From all lands identified in step 1, identify Commercial Lands: 1. Identify all vacant buildable commercially zoned land 2. Subtract a. all Commercial zoned parcels of land of fewer than 5,000 sf b.land that lacks full public services 500 feet from sewer C. parcels with structures assessed more than $50.000 is Critical aquifer raef+arge arw are classified as typo 2 critical areas. However. due to the unurtsintY of OafM+inq then bota+daria those are not utilized to datern*w if a parcel is buildable at not. These erase will be administered though the :onkV aW rand division codes. placing omits on what can or carrot be developed within time areas. Laid We E&MMt June 13, 1994 LU -62 VOL 20 Fay= 01073 rd Product: Commercial land available for develooment - 1. Acres of vacant commercial land by City, IUGA and Planning Area k.. 2. Acres of underutilized land by City, IUGA and Planning Area 3. Acres of vacant land by parcel size 5,000 to 20,000, 20,000 to 1 acre' 1 to 2.5, 2.6 -5, 5-10, 10+ and by City, IUGA and Planning Area y Step 4(step 4 being done by CREOC and Clark County) From all Lands identified in step 1, identify Industrial Lands: o^. 1. include all parcels with Otructural value less than' 'a50,000 " -' -=t• ...x;F;" , 2. Identify all vacant buildable industrially zoned land _ ..,.K 3. Subtract all Industrial zoned parcels of land of fewer than five acres 4. Rank land based on: primary a. immediate access to arterials b. parcels within 500 feet of sewer c. parcels within urban growth areas ` d. no critical areas �•' t e. slopes less. than 8 percent secondary a. parcels greater than 500 feet from sewer b. has critical type 2 coverage C. slopes 8 to 15 percent d. "smaller than 10 acres tertiary a. critical type 1 on parcel b. slopes greater than 15 percent c. parcels outside urban growth areas - . Product: Industrial land available for development - 1. Acres of vacant industrial land by City, IUGA and Planning Area development 2. Acres of vacant land by parcel size 1 to 2:5, 2.5 -5, 5-10, 10+ and by City, IUGA and Planning Area Lee UM E61at jxW 13, 199+ LU -63 VOL 20 19, 4 Blue Heron PIannIn Area BlueH on Platted lot 5266904 sq. ft Total area Scenario Lot Size 20000 5164 sq. ft Average lot size 1020 lots Base Lot Size 5000 8254281 .ft Total area jCurrent 158736 . ft Avera lot size to serve ve 52 lots Develo ment ca aci b scenario Current Future Rture Current Fultre Underdeve ed arcels and tential dev a lots 226 4657 36 157 10 AI lots and Un Aatted) Total developed parcels given base lot size 24 24 89 24 89 89 13521185 1 sq. ft. Total area Total undeveloped parcels and potented developable lots 182 268 182 2681 182 109 12613 sq. ft Average lot size Usting parcels made trudev 118 118 1 1491 1072 lots Total buildable parcels 314 304 119 all sheets 2474 2364 800 Impacted Parcels(Alrox Scenario AN ESA's remov as Isted below Total parcels in area 376 Ultimate E)dsgnq Conservative Wetlands 1 4 Development capacity by scenario Current I Future Current Future Current Future Side hazard 11 Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 2211 43 154 33 154 9 Drainage corridor 9 Total developed parcels Oven base lot size 241 24 89 24 89 89 Wlk*fe habitat 0 Total undeveloped parcels and potential devellopable tots 138 205 138 205 138 83 Any of the above 22 Usling parcels made uxrdev 91 91 116 Total buildable parcelsl 248 238 92 all sheets 2142 2041 710 Scenario With wetlands removed Hlmate tiv Development capacity by scenario Current I Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 2261 46 157 36 157 10 Total developed parcels given base lot size 24 24 89 24 89 89 Total undeveloped ed arcels and terttial developable lots 173 267 173 267 173 109 E)dsfing parcels made undevelopable 110 110 140 Total btildetle arcels 313 303 119 all sheets 2436 2329 1 791 Scenario With habitat removed Ultimate End Conservative Development capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 2261 46 157 36 157 10 Total developed parcels given base lot size 24 24 89 24 89 89 _ Total undeveloW parcels and t"al developable lots 182 268 182 268 182 109 EAsIng made 118 118 149 Total buildable parcels 314 3041 119 all sheets 2443 23361 792 Scenario With side hazard areas removed — Ultimate _ >astiConservative __ Dev_elop�mnt capacity by :scenario _ _ Underdeveaped parcels and petentiul devekpable lots Ci.rcrent �'^2 __ Future Current I 439 ` ;53. Future _ 3s Current RIre � 154, 9 - - Total developed arcels fiven base lot size 89 24 89 89Total undev arcels and tial dev tle lots r24124 211 153 211 153 85 E)dsti s made urxlev 102 102 129 Total bull" cels 254 244 94 all sheets 2191 2089 725 Sgenado With drainage areas removed Ultimate I Conservative Development capacity by scenario Current I Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 2251 46 157 36 157 101 1 Total developed parcels given base lot size 24 24 89 24 89 89 Total uxW d Parcels and Potential developable lots 174 263 174 263 174 107 E)dsbng parcels made able 113 113 143 Total buildable parcels 309 299 117 all sheets 2468 2358 798 ROW threshold 80000 on ROW 0.3 0.7 v.a W r Val. a— Castle Hill Planning Area Castle At ES5164 aft.Av-era:ge SCeflarlo Lot Size 20000 Base Lot Sin 5000 -Unatted - is 8254281 sq. ft. Total area Scenario 158736 sq. ft. Average to size _ Ultimate Fids Ln Conseryative 52 lots _ Development capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developed parcels given base lot size Total undeveloped parcels andential developable lots 428 104 264 59 104 152 160 364 264 511 160 104 364 152 264 14 3641 57 All lots Platted and Un atted 13521185 sq. ft. Total area 12613 sq. ft. Average lot sae Existing parcels made undevelopable 199 2 1072 lots Total buildable parcels 211 203 72 ---- Impacted Parcels rox. Scenario All ESA's removed as listed below Total parcels in area 730 Ultimate Existim rvative Wetlands 1 12 Development capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Slide hazard 0 Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developed parcels given base lot size Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 428 104 251 59 104 152 160 364 251 51 160 104 364 152 251 15 354 57 Drains2e corridor Wildlife habitat jAny of the above 16 0 28 Existing parcels made undevelopable 186 18622 Total buildable parcels 211 203 72-- Ultimate Scenario Existin With wetlands removed Conservative Development capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 4281 59 160 51 1601 15 Totaideveloped arcela iven base lot size 1041 104 364 104 364 364 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 2571 152 257 152 257 57 Existing parcels made undevelopable 11 192 226 Total buildable -parcel 211 72 7Withhabitat Scenario removed Ultimate ExistinConservative Development capacity by scenario Current I Future Current Future Current lFuture _ Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 428 59 160 51 1601 1 Total developed parcels given base lot size 104 104 364 104 364 364 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 1 264 152 264 152 264 57 Existing parcels made undevelopable 199 199 23 Total buildable arcels 211 203 72 Scenario With slide hazard areas removed _ Ultimate _ 6cisfn Conservative Development capacity by scenario Current I Future Current Future Current Future Underdevelo ed parcels and potential developable lots 4281 59 160 51 160 15 Total developed parcels given base lot size 1041 104 104 364 364 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 264 152 264 152 264 57 Existing parcels made undevelopable 199, 199 23 Total buildable parcels 211 203 72 Scenario With drains a areas removed Ultimate Existina Conservative nt ca ac b scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future o ed arcels and otential develoable lots 428 5 160 51 160 1o arcels iven base lot size 104 104 364 104 364 364 elo arcels and tential devel able lots pstng 258 152 258 152 258 5rcels made undevelopable 19 19 22ble parcel 211 203 72 ROW threshold 80000 Portion ROW 0.3 0.7 age Fort Worden Planning Area ForiWo den Plotted lot 5266904 sq. it. Total area Scenario Lot Size 20000 5164 sq. R 1020 lots Average lot size Base Lot Size - 50 S a notatted lafit 8254281 s . ft. 158736 R. Total area _ Avera a bt size_ _ Ullimat - stin o sery five 52 lots Development capacity b scenario Underdeveloped parcels and tential developable lots Total developedarcate Oven base lot size Total undevel arcate and potential developable lots Existing parcels made undevelopable _Total buildable rcels _T- Current Future Current Future Current Futuro 344 43 157 32 157 9 162 162 344 162 344 268 66 269 269 2� 237 23 109 98 31 All lots Platted and Un atted 13521185 . R. Total area 12813 sq. ft Average lot size 1072 lots Development capacity b scenario Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developedarcate given base lot size Total undevelopedparcels and tential developable lots Existing parcels made undevelopable Total buildable parcel Scenario All ESA's removed as listed belowI Ultimata �_ Fadstin Conservativ Current Future Current Future Current Future 239 34 107 25 107 8 162 162 344 162 344 344 132 48 132 48 132 18 112 112 12 82 73 26 impacted Parcels Total Is in area Wetlands Slide hazard Drainage corridor Wildlife habitat of the above rox 545 5 116 8 1 127 rio With wetlands removed Ultimate Existin Conservative Develo ment capacityb scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developed arcels given base lot size Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 343 162 266 43 162 66 156 32 156 344 162 344 344 266 66 266 22 Existing parcels made undevelopable Total buildable parcels 234 109 234 253 98 31 Scenario With habi=LE�E Ultimate Existing Development cai bj scenario Current Future Current Future I Current I Future Underdevel d attars and tential develo able lots 342 40 158 29 156 -- Total developed parcels given base lot size 162 162 344 162 344 344 Total undevelopedparcels and potential deve a lots Existing parcels made undevelopable Total buildable parcel 269 63 213 103 244 6 244 21 21 232 92 29 Scenario With slide hazard areas removed _ Ultimate Existing Conserv tive Development capacity b scenario Current Future Current Future Current futsrs Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 243 37 109 28 109 91 Total developed parcels given base lot size 162 162 344 162 344 344 Total undeveloped Parcels and potential developable lots Existing parcels made undevelopable 139 51 118 139 51 139 1 118 12 Total buildable arcels 88 79 28 Scenario With drains a areas removed UI 'mate EgLflng nservative Development capacity by scenario Current I Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 342 43 157 32 157 — Total developed parcels given base lot size 162 162 344 162 344 344 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 264 66 264 26422 Existing parcels made undevelopable 232 2321,251 Total buildable parcel 109 98 31 ROW threshold 80000 Non ROW 0.3 0.7 In VOL i Page 11 1 Qity of Fort I ownsenij L.anp Use Mal Sts North Beach Planning Area NorthB ach — — �:xiouxxa ..vixu�uv�x.. 5286904 sq. ft. Total area Scenario Lot Size Base Lot Size — . F6-w-.-,.P.ont —capac 2 5000 _ Ultimate — Scenario Foci ti Con ervative 5164 sq. ft. 1020 Tots Wed lots 8254281 ft. 158736 s . ft. 52 lots Average lot size Total area Average lot size by scenario Underdevel arcels and Potential developable lots Total develo d arcels iven base lot size Total undevelopedarcels and potential developable lots Existing parcels ade undevelopable m Current Future Current Future Current Future 156 44 93 39 93 98 98 155 9 155 15 250 02 250 56 250 7 2002 202 2 100 95 13 All bta Platted ar►d 13521185 s . ft. 12613 sq. fl 1072 Iota fled Total area Average lot size Total build Scenario All ESA's removed as listed below impacted Parcels Total parcels in area rox. 319 Development capacity b scenario !Underdeveloped arcels and potential developable lots Total develo ed Parcels given base lot size Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Ultimate Eci Un Conservative Current Future Current Future Current Future 149 43 87 38 87 B 98 98 155 98 155 15 171 54 171 54 171 B Wetlands Slide hazard ins corridor Wildlife habitat Any of the above 19 12 0 1 12 Existing parcels made undevelopable 124 87 124 165 92 12 =Development Scenario With wetlands removed Itimate ExistingConservative by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developed arcels given base lot size Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 156 98 215 441 93 98 155 56 2151 39 93 8 98 155 15 56 215 7 Existing parcels made undevelopable Total buildable rcels 167 100 167 2 95 13 Scenario With habitat removed Ultimate Existing Conservative Development ca c b scenario Current Future lCurrent Future Current Future Underdevelo d parcels and potential developable lots 155 431 92 38 92 61 Total developed arcels given base lot size 98 98 155 98 155 15 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 250 54 242 54 242 6 Existing parcels made undevelopable 195 19 2 36 Total buildable arcels 97 92 12 Scenario With slide hazard are removed Ultimate ggigm nservative Development capacity by scenario Current FFuture Current Future lCurrent I Future .. Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 1511 44 89 39 89 6 Total developed parcels given base tot size Total undeveloped arcels and potential developable lots 981 208 98 155 56 208 98 155 155 56 208 7 Existing parcels made undevelopable 160 1 201 Total buildable parcels 100 95 13 Scenario With drains a areas removed Ultimate xislin Conservative Develo ment capacity b scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdevelo ed arcels and potential developable lots 155 44 92 39 92 6 Total developed arcels given base lot size 98 98 155 98 155 15 Total undevelopedarcels and potential developable lots 243 56 243 56 243 7 Existing parcels made undevelopable 195 195 2 3611 Total buildable parcels 100 95 3-F ROW threshold 80000 Non ROW 0.3 0.7 ti Far; w ag South Ba Piannin Area oumoay Maned lot 5288904 sq. tt. Total area en to Lot Ize 20000 5184 sq. R. 1020 Iota Average lot size Base Lot Size 5000 _ Un tatted Iota -- 8254281 sq. R. Total area Scenario _ 158738 sq. It. Aver a lot size — ttimate 6cistin onservati we 52 lots Develo ment capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current IFuture Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developed parcels given base lot size Total undeveloped Is and potential developable bis 103 42 204 181 42 45 59 78 204 12 42 45 591 78 204 3 78 11 All Iota(Platted and U 13521185 . R. 12813 sq. n Total area Average lot size Existing parcels made undevelopable 176 176 194 1072 lots Total bull dabla arcela 63 57 14 — — Impacted Parcels (Approx.) Scenario All ESA's removed as listed bel Total parcels In area 140 Develo ment capacity b scenario Ultimate Current _ Future Existing Current Future Conservative Current Future Wetlands Slide hazard _2 _ 49 Underdevelo ed parcels and potential developable lotsP57 Total developedparcels given base lot size Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 6 42 15 40 78 57 —41-401 42 15 78 57 1 78 3 Dralna corridor Wildlife habitat Any of the above 8 4 55 Existing parcels made undevelopable 46 54 iotal buildable parcela 21 19 4 Scenario With wetlands removed Uitimate Existing Conserve a Development capacity by scenario Current Fulure Current Future Current IFuture Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 95 9 53 6 53 1 Total developed parcels given bane lot size 421 42 78 42 781 78 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 1631 36 163 36 1631 8 Existing parcels made undevelopable 13 139 15 Total buildable parcels 45 42 9 Scenario With habitat removed Ultimate ExistingConservative Development capacity b scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdevelopedparcels and potential developable lots 100 18 59 12 59 3 Total developed parcels given base lot size 42 42 78 42 78 78 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 204 45 197 45 197 11 Existing parcels made undevelopable 16 16 18 Total buildable rcela 63 57 14 Scenario With slide hazard areas removed Ultimata isti Conservative Development capacity b scenario Current Future Cunent Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developed els given base lot size 68 42 _ 1 42 41 78 7 4 41 78 78 Total undeveloped parcels and ential developable lots 69 19 69 1 69 Existing parcels made undeve opab e 5 6 8 Total buildable parcel 29 26 7 Scenario With drains a areas removed Ult(mate Fxdstin Conservative Development capacity by scenario Current IFuture Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 103 18 59 12 59 Total developed parcels given base lot size 421 42 78 42 78 78 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Existing parcels made undevelopable 1941 44 I 167 194 44 167 194 11 1 _ Total buildable parcela 62 56 14 ROW threshold 80000 orUon ROW 0.3 0.7 U town Plannln Area Upo Nn PI sq. ft. SC911aN0 Lot SIZ@ 2 sq. ft. lots i8254281 tares Bass Lot SIZe 5000 ts sq. R Scenario 158736 sq. ftAve-Ve lot size timateKAHM Consent adv 52 lots Develo ment capacity by scenario Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developed parcels given base lot size Total undeveb parcels and al developable lots Current Future Current Future Current Future 887 63 365 47 365 254 254 744 2541 744 349 55 349 349 11 744 12 Alt lots Putted and 13521185 sq. R. 12813 sq. R n Had Total area Average tot size E)risdng parcels made undevelopable Total buildable parcel 30 118 102 337 23 1072 lots impacted Parcels x Ultimate Scenario Extstin M ESA's removed as listed below Co se tiva Total PEM13 to area Wettands 1 1170 3 Development capacity by scenario Current _ Future Current I Future I Current lFuture Slide hazard 119 Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developedparcels given base lot size Total undevelopedarcels and potential developable lots 792 254 211 54 254 4 313 744 211 4 254 4 313 744 211 744 1 Drainage corridor Wildlife habitat of the above 0 13 123 Existing parcels made undevelopable 1 18 201 Total buildable parcel 97 83 is- Scenario With wetlands removed _ Ultimate Existing Con rvattve Development capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped Orcels and potential developable lots 886 63 364 47 364 11 Total developed parcels given base lot size 254 254 744 254 744 744 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 347 55 347 55 347 1 Existing parcels made undevalopable 30711 307 335 Total buildable parcels 118 1021 23 Scenario With habitat removed Ultimate E!UftnS Conservative Development capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future --- Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 880 56 361 42 361 91 Total developed parcels given base lot size 254 254 744 254 744 744 Total undeveloped Is and potential developable lots 349 48 307 48 307 1 E)risdng parcels made undevelopable 271 271 297 Total buildable parcel 104 90 19 Scenario With slide hazard areas removed _ itimatesin . Conservative Development capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 795 59 316 45 316 11 Total developed parcels given base lot size 254 254 744 254 744 744 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 222 48 222 46 222 12 Existing parcels made undevelopable 189 189 21 Total buildable parcells 107 931 23 Scenario With drains a areas removed Ultimate Exisdn Conserve v Development capacity by scenario Current lFuture Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 8871 631 365 47 365 11 Total developed parcels given base lot size 254 254 744 254 744 744 Total undeveloped is and potential developable lots 349 55 349 55 349 12 Edsting parcels made undevebpable 309 309 33 Total buildable parcels 118 1021 23 ROW threshold 80000 portion ROW 0.3 0.7 ag Winona Piannin Area Winona PI tied lot 5266904 sq. ft Total area Scenario Lot Size 2000 5164 sq. ft Average lot size 1020 lots Base Lot Size 5 Una iota 8254281 . ft 156736 . ft. Total area Ave re a lot size — (timate istln onservative 52 lots Develo ment ca ac b scenario Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developedparcels given base lot size Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Existing parcels made undevelopable Total buildable arcels Current Future Current Future Current Future 123 1 75 92 75 35 111 111 141 111 141 141 1133 425 1133 42 1133 117 890 890 1058 525 517 152 All lots Platted and 13521185 . tt 12613 sq. ft. 1072 lots n fatted Total area Average lot size Impacted Parcels A rox __ Ultimate _Scenario All ESA's _removed (as listed below Total parcels in area Existing Conservative Wetlands 773 6 Develo Meca ac b scenario Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Total developed parcels given base lot size Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots Current 871 1111 606 _ Future 92 111 33 Current 59 141 606 Future 84 111 330 Current Future 59 34_ 141 141 606 96 Slide hazard Dreina�e corridor _ Wtldlife habitat 1 Any of the above - 99 _ 15 7[� 117 Existing parcels made undevelopable 425 425 544 Total buildable�arcels_ __ 422 _ 414 130 _ cenarfo With wetlands removed -- lmate Exisfina Conservati e Development capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 1231 100 75 92 75 35 Total developed parcels given base lot size 111 111 141 111 141 141 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 1057 417 1057 417 1057 115 Existing parcels made undevelopable 82 82 984 Total buildable arcels 517 509 150 Ultimate With habitat -rut—Urel removed lConservative Development capacity by scenario Underdeveloped arcels and potential developable lots Total developed parcels given base lot size Current I 123 111 Future 100 111 Current 75 141 92 111 Current Future 75 35 141 141 _ Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 1133 422 1089 422 1089 117 Existing parcels made undevelopable 849 849 101 Total buildable parcels 522 _ 514 152 Scenario With slide hazard areas removed (timate Existino Conservative Develo meat ca ac b scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdevelo parcels and potential developable lots 87 92 59 84 59 Total developedparcels given base lot size 111 111 141 111 141 141 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 740 338 740 338 740 Existing parcels made undevelopable 553 55 67 Total buildable parcels 430 422 132 Scenario With drainage areas removed (timate Existin Conservative Development capacity by scenario Current Future Current Future Current Future Underdeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 123 100 75 92 75 3 _ Total developed parcels given base lot size 111 1111 141 111 141 141 Total undeveloped parcels and potential developable lots 1063 4251 1063 425 1063 117 Existing parcels made undevelopable 82 82 Total buildable parcels 525 517 152 ROW threshold 80000 on ROW 0.30.7 _ ` n FILE COPY November 18, 1994 Janet Welch, R.S. P.O. Box 1221 Hadlock, WA Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA Dear Sirs I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Ordinance 15- 1028-94, as part of your public hearing to solicit comments from the public. I am very concerned with the ordinance, for both specific and general reasons. The specifics: 1. Finding 26 states that the county, in response to the Final Order has "further prohibited development". I think the opposite is true, but in any case your assertion must be substantiated. 2. Finding 30 makes reference to "density standards in Planning Policy 2.3. There is no reference in 2.3 to density whatsoever. 3. Why are findings 36 through 41 in the ordinance when they were neither relevant to the writing of this draft, nor found to be adequate public comment by the Hearings Board. There has been no public input on this ordinance and the findings must so state. 4. Has this ordinance undergone SEPA review (finding 42)? Has that review been made public? The specifics of that review should be included to verify that it has been done. 5. What is the "Assessment of Interim Planning and Development Activities" referenced in finding 43? Has this ever been made public? Please include specifics (dates, etc). 6. Finding 45 states that this ordinance is a "restrictive response" to the proposed response (crafted by Madronna Planning). I was a member of the response committee and we are all aware that this ordinance is much less restrictive than the original response. 7. Section 2.20 allots "all of the urban population" (noting Port Ludlow reserve) to Port Townsend UGA yet the ordinance sets densities which allow all of the future growth to occur outside of the UGA. This is in direct violation of the goals and requirements of both Growth Management and is abhorrent planning at its very least. VOL 20 PAU 9 1382 8. In section 4. 10. have the amended Interim Level of Service Standards been approved by the Growth Management Steering Committee? If so, it should be so stated in the findings. 5. Section 10.10 states that Attachment "C" includes a schedule for the creation of a Rural Overlay District. Nowhere in the schedule are those words even used. That is the schedule for the Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission has been conducting their efforts accordingly. Finally, and more generally, I have grave concerns over the impact of the ordinance. The essence of the ordinance is to delineate UGAs (which it does by not doing) and set development controls outside those areas. Section 9 ostensibly deals with these development controls but fails to set density standards which provide any meaningful control whatsoever. Section 9.20 relies on the existing Comprehensive Plan and Community Plans to determine densities. As you are well aware, the density standards in the Optimum Land Use map, at up to 5 units per acre, are grossly inadequate. These standards are very different from those shown on Attachment "A", which is said to be for graphic purposes only. What are your "graphic purposes" other than to create confusion? If the existence of Attachment A is not confusing enough, there is the legend for rural densities which range from 1:1 to 1:2.5 "depending on location", the locations being notably absent from the map. This is the kind of vague and discretionary p1anning that has resulted in countless (successful) lawsuits against the county. Will you ever learn that your development controls must be clear, consistent, and adequate to achieve the intended ends? If your intended ends are to confuse, stall, waste taxpayer funds, and posture to portions of your constituency, you have succeeded. This ordinance is a shameful display of either your ignorance or deceit. Sincerely Janet Welch, R.S. VOL 20 mF 01,983 ELSTON, BROWN & BEAUFAIT, P. S. FILE COPY Attomeys at Law 914 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 6 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 TELEPHONE 12061 388-2816 MARK S. BEAUFAIT PAUL RICHARD BROWN DOUGLAS W. ELSTON November 21, 1994 hand delivered Jefferson County Commissioners P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Revised Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance Gentlemen: This office represents Harold and Marianne Moe in connection with the above referenced ordinance. The Moes are in favor of the Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance as previously adopted by the Commissioners. The Revised Urban Growth Areas Interim Ordinance provides for a range of property sizes. Based upon the population studies for the Tri Area, and the area from Oak Bay to Port Ludlow, there is a need for variable -size lots to retain housing affordability. Higher density in areas previously labeled Suburban under the Comprehensive Plan will permit more stringent controls in the resource areas of the County. The Revised Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance also bases its utilities planning on density, a rational approach to this issue. Water systems and septic systems per se do not make for urban areas; density should be the controlling factor. Using the Coordinated Water System Plan Standards for water systems allows this planning to proceed in a rational way. Many areas where somewhat higher housing densities are appropriate should not have one well per residence. It is often contrary to public policy to put in so many wells; water planning based upon water availability leads to random results. "' 20 FA' 0 -1_084 Jefferson County Commissioners November 21, 1994 page - 2 Current population projections for the County as adopted by the County require a mix of housing densities in areas outside the urban growth areas, both to cover growth, and to keep housing affordable. The Revised Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance makes appropriate provisions for this need. MSB:jkc cc: Harold & Marianne Moe JKC\HSB4B21A.LTR very truly y urs, Ik S ' Mark S. Beau ait von_ 20 WF 0 1-985 Pope Resources A Limited Partnership 19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast P.O. Box 1780 Poulsbo, Washington 98370-0239 (206)697-6626 (206) 697-1156 FAX November 21, 1994 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend WA 98368 Re: Interim Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 Gentlemen: FILE COPY Pope Resources has very serious concerns with regard to the validity of the above - referenced Ordinance designating the City of Port Townsend as the County's sole Urban Growth Area (UGA) and, among other things, establishing rural densities throughout Jefferson County. Pope Resources believes the Ordinance violates GMA and SEPA in many respects. The adopted Ordinance is: 1. Inconsistent with the County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPPs), including Policy 1 relating to designation of UGAs; 2. Based upon improper allocation and reservation of projected population growth and corresponding delineation of UGAs; 3. Devoid of any meaningful public participation prior to adoption; 4. Improperly designated as an "emergency" ordinance to circumvent the need for SEPA compliance and public participation mandated by GMA; and 5. Arbitrary and discriminatory with regard to determination of rural densities, lots sizes, and level of service standards. Port Ludlow UGA. Our company's most significant concern is the failure of the County to properly reinstate the Port Ludlow UGA. One of the principle planning goals of GMA is to encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner [RCW 36.70A. 020 (1) ] . Lands already characterized by urban development which are currently served by roads, water, sanitary sewer, transit, storm drainage, schools, and other urban services are to be delineated for UGAs (CWPP 1.3). The Port Ludlow area has all of the characteristics and is a prime example of an unincorporated area that meets the criteria of GMA for designation as an Urban 01- 20 Fa fi 0 3-:�86 Honorable Board of County Commissioners November 21, 1994 Page 2 Growth Area. Moreover, the County, recognizing these characteristics, adopted a specific policy declaring that the Port Ludlow area is "characterized by urban growth" and that the Port Ludlow Master Plan should be utilized as a guide in the delineation of UGA boundaries for Port Ludlow (CWPP 1.4). The County has not followed through with the appropriate designation despite having more than adequate information to do so. In addition to substantive documentation regarding infrastructure capacity, Port Ludlow is, perhaps, the only candidate UGA in all of Western Washington whose growth objectives have been subjected to a detailed, exhaustive Environmental Impact Statement. The consequence of this omission is the resulting arbitrary and discriminatory down -zoning of the Port Ludlow area in a manner that is entirely unjustified. Accordingly, Pope Resources respectfully requests that the Commissioners take whatever actions are necessary to expeditiously reinstate the Port Ludlow UGA by amendment of the Ordinance prior to the upcoming compliance hearing. RURAL DENSITIES. Section 9 and it's "Attachment A," in a completely arbitrary fashion, prescribes new residential densities for lands outside of Interim Urban Growth Areas. Several rather obvious modifications appear necessary. First, "Attachment A" graphically portrays only a fraction of Jefferson County leaving out both the central and western sectors. Second, Subsection 9.10 expresses allowable densities as a "minimum lot area" rather than "dwelling units per gross acre." In doing so, such a standard deceives landowners as to what their real density will be and masks the extent of rural downzoning proposed by this Ordinance. When one deducts road rights-of-way (typically 20%); then "critical areas" (typically 30%); then "community encumbrances" (typically 10%); a landowners' net usable area can easily be less than one-half of his or her property. Effective density, therefore, in an area designated for 1 -acre lots is only one dwelling unit/2 acres. For an area designated for 5 -acre lots, the density is quite likely only one dwelling unit/ 10 acres! Furthermore, one of the most effective, commonly used planning tools for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas is the prescription of densities in units per gross acre. Doing so allows owners to (a) easily calculate their real density, (b) cluster or group allowable units onto the least environmentally sensitive portions of a site, (c) reduce on-site infrastructure costs which translate into relatively lower housing costs. V01- 20 w -t 0 x_;)87 Honorable Board of County Commissioners November 21, 1994 Page 3 To imply that the densities set forth in Section 9 approximate those of Jefferson County's existing Comprehensive Plan is intentional misrepresentation. Indeed, areas formally designated "Suburban" at 5 units per gross acre, now will achieve roughly 1 unit per two acres (10% of their previous density). Areas formally designated "Rural" at 1 unit per gross acre will now have development rights (and property values) cut in half. We respectfully request your Board, finding no public health, safety, or general welfare reasons to the contrary, institute interim densities outside of UGAs consistent with those of the currently adopted Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, &A5�� David Cunningham Vice President, Land Use ph von. 20 FAr,F 01-)83 VILE COPY oiympic Environmental Council P.O. Box 1906, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (206)379-8442 (206)681-2642 0ovember 19, 1994 County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners; The Olympic Environmental Council would like to offer the following testimony regarding Ordinance # 15-1028-94, the "Jefferson County Interim Urban Growth Area," adopted October 28, 1994. This ordinance does not appear to comply with the Western Washington Growth Planning Hearings Board's final order dated August 10, 1994 in several important respects.. Chief among the deficits is the lack of appropriate rural densities, the lack of analysis justifying your decision, and the lack of even a token public review process. LACK OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION As the Hearings Board noted in its decision, the County is required to inform and involve the public in the development of land use policies such as the IUGA. Your first attempt to draft a compliance ordinance (the so-called Sepler ordinance) explicitly excluded participation by the public, including representatives of OEC. After announcing that the County would adopt the ordinance on October 24, the County did an about face, and produced in less than a week's time a =mT)Ietta X different ordinance, calling it an aemergency. LACK OF ANALYSIS This ordinance, like the one remanded by the Hearings Board, is not supported by adequate analysis. It is accompanied by a mish mash of "appendices" purporting to illustrate development patterns and trends to give credence to findings # 43 and #44 that '"the Ordinance will not allow development to foreclose GMA planting options or significantly alter the vo� 20 FX! 0 Abundant Life Seed Foundation Admiralty Audubon * Black Hills Audubon * C.A.U.S.E. * Friends of Kah Tai Lagoon * Friends of the Elwha * Friends of the Foothills No Oil Port * Olympic Park Associates * Olympic Rivers Council * Protect the Peninsula's Future Quilcene Ancient Forest Coalition * Save Our State Park * Trinity United Methodist Church * Wash. Native Plant Society - Oly. Chap. Wild Olympic Salmon ri rural character of Jefferson County" nor "have the potential to significantly impact the aquifer in the Tri Area," The information in these appendices does not support that conclusion. Information on subdivisions and permits &LreAdY jn_pXQreser as well as pre- app licaicon requests and conferences must be included in the analysis. INAPPROPRIATE RURAL DENSITIES This Ordinance persists in promulgating the allowed densities from the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and Community Plans from the early 1980's. Changing the names to "rural center" and "study area," etc. is all that has been done and this does nothing to change the densities allowed on the ground. Nowhere in the ordinance is any analysis that would justify this in terms of land capacity, population projections, or any other relevant planning measures. Your intent that some IlLt= "rural overlay ordinance" will address the rural density issues ignores the current reality of suburban sprawl and investment expectations being created D -QR. It also undercuts the ongoing work of the many community planning groups by codifying once again unacceptable densities from the past. This work perpetuates the pattern of non-compliance with GMA that has been going on for the past 2 years. The "Sepler Ordinance," was a good starting point for addressing the issues raised. We suggest you return to that work, and incorporate concepts of Existing -Use Zoning to deal with densities outside of IUGAs. It is far past time for the County to do real planning work, and quit wrapping "business as usual" in new and different packaging, Sincerely, Steve Hayde Board Member Olympic Environmental Council 20 FAu 01-.990 TO: Board of County commissioners RE: Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 Density in QUimper Planning Area The {Juimpar Planning representatives wish to 8c) on record as opposing the density of 1 unit/1 acre in the Quimper Planning Area. This is an urban level density and not appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The City of Port Townsend can accommodate its allocated growth without extending its urban growth boundary. 2. It is inappropriate for a community planning area which has stated its vision as retaining rural character and lifestyle. 3. Level of Service standards are minimal in the Q.P.A. 4. The existing variety of parcel sizes, including resource lands. 5. The proposed density is rural sprowl, based on the Western Washington Hearings Board ruling, and is unacceptable. O. The existing land use, which is rural in nature. 7. Limited governmental public services in the Q.P.A. 8. It dmmo not allow for open apace corridors/greenbelt area Port Townsend and the Tri -Area. This is an interim ordinance, and as such should preserve the most options while the Comprehensive Plan is being amended. This ordinance also promotes strip development along the Highway 20 corridor, which could have adverse effects on the tourist industry. V01- 20 or. -I 11-991 �. e ^ ~'^� -~-°-� p�r -~____