Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 0214 96STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson IN THE MATTER OF AN emergency } ordinance establishing interim land use } controls, being adopted pursuant to Chapter ) Ordinance No. 05-0214-96 36.70.790 and Chapter 36.70A.390 Revised } Code of Washington } Section 1.00: The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for: Clear and concise development regulations to guide the submission, review, and approval of all land use permit applications in unincorporated Jefferson County prior to final adoption of permanent development regulations that implement the Comprehensive Plan to be adopted by the County under the mandate of the State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). 2. The definition of Rural Centers as places suitable for the location of new development that is consistent with their established character and available public utilities and services. 3. A clear separation between urban and rural land uses by making revisions to the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94) that specify allowed and conditional rural commercial and rural industrial land uses. 4. A clear separation between urban and rural land uses through specifying allowable maximum densities for rural residential development in unincorporated lands not designated as Resource Lands of Long -Term Commercial Significance. 1.10 Findings: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners enter the following findings: 1. Jefferson County has committed to planning under the provisions of the Growth Management Act, codified as RCW 36.70A. 2. The legislative findings and planning goals adopted by the Washington State Legislature when the Growth Management Act was enacted in 1990 support the conservation and wise use of land in order to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by residents of the state. 3. Jefferson County has adopted an Interim Critical Areas ordinance, an Interim Agricultural Lands ordinance, and an Interim Mineral Lands ordinance that are in compliance with the GMA requirements contained in RCW 36.70A.060, RCW 36.70A.170, and the Minimum Guidelines (Chapter 365-190 WAC). BOCC Amended 2/26/96 1 4. Jefferson County has also adopted an Interim Forest Lands ordinance (Ordinance No. 07- 0524-95) that remains substantially intact despite adverse review by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Jefferson County has also adopted three land use controls designating Interim Urban Growth Areas, and setting rural development densities and level of service standards, that have been found out of compliance witJi the Growth Management Act by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. These ordinances are Ordinance No. 02-0110-94, Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 and Ordinance No. 01-0117-95. 6. Concurrently with these efforts, Jefferson County has been engaged with 13 community planning areas and with ten citizen based 'Community Planning Groups' in an ambitious 'bottom up' planning process that has had the joint objectives of producing new and revised land use plans for the unincorporated areas that constitute Jefferson County and the policy framework for the county comprehensive plan. 7. The draft comprehensive plan is close to completion and requires further work with respect to policies addressing land use densities, clustering, and commercial and industrial development outside UGA's, in order to be ready for public distribution. 8. Revisions to the draft comprehensive plan, together with the necessary adoption processes, are likely to take some additional time, presenting the County with the need to fully retain its planning options during this period. 9. The County is concerned that issues of development density, location, and scale be clarified during the plan preparation and adoption period for the benefit of all Jefferson County residents. 10. The Emergency Moratorium Ordinance (Ordinance No. 19-1121-95) adopted by the Board of Commissioners on November 21, 1995, while suitable for the situation it was adopted under, can be improved upon by an ordinance that has been crafted with the benefit of additional research and review. 11. In addition to maintaining progress on the Comprehensive Plan, County staff have labored intensively to craft an interim land use control that accomplishes similar objectives to Ordinance No. 19-1121-95 while removing the need for an absolute limitation on many forms of development activity. 12. Jefferson County continues to receive applications for the development of land that need to be reviewed and processed using a framework that is consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act and ESHB 1724. 13. The maintenance of effective and responsible county government requires immediate adoption of an emergency density ordinance that amends existing development BOCC Amended 2/26/96 VOL 22 rac: �3 2 regulations to comply with the Growth Management Act while allowing for the peaceful use of property. 14. Emergency adoption of this ordinance is necessary to guide the form of development projected to occur in unincorporated Jefferson County as an interim measure during Comprehensive Plan preparation and adoption. Use of the adoption procedures specified by the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70) could lead to lengthy extension of an existing emergency control that seeks to meet GMA goals through broad prohibitions on development. 15. The Board deems that an emergency exists based on the above findings. 16. The Board intends this ordinance shall apply to all property within the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County, to the extent permitted by law. 17. The Board finds that this emergency density ordinance preserves the status quo, pursuant to RCW 36.70.790 and RCW 36.70A.390, pending development and adoption of a revised comprehensive plan and implementing regulations, and this ordinance may be adopted without prior notice, or holding a public hearing. The Board also finds that this ordinance is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as provided in, and pursuant to, Washington Administrative Code 197-11-800. 18. These regulations bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare of the County as a whole. " 1.20 Enactment: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners does hereby ordain and enact into law the following provisions. 1.30 Title: This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the'Jefferson County Growth Strategy Ordinance'. 1.40 Repeal and Amendment of Existing Regulations: Land use controls previously adopted by the County shall remain in affect without modification unless specifically identified in the following subsections: 1. Repeal: i. Effective immediately upon its adoption, this ordinance shall repeal and replace the provisions of Ordinance No. 17-1002-95. ii. Effective immediately upon its adoption, this ordinance shall repeal and replace the provisions of Ordinance No. 19-1121-95. 2. Amendment: i. Effective immediately upon its adoption, this ordinance shall amend the provisions of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94) as noted in the sections and BOCC Amended 2/26/96 3 VAIs 22 i-,1(: 135 subsections modifying this regulation. 1.50 Zone and Map Designation Purpose: The purpose statements for each zone and map designation set forth in the following sections of this ordinance shall be used to guide the application of the zones and designations to all rural lands in unincorporated Jefferson County. The purpose statements shall also guide interpretation and application of land use regulations within the zones and designations, and any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through amendments to this Ordinance or the Jefferson County Zoning Code. 1.60 Zoning Districts: i. All reference made to the C-1, C-2, M-1, M-2, and M -C zoning districts within the body of this ordinance shall be construed to apply only to those lands receiving these designations on the zoning maps adopted as part of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94). ii. For the duration of this Ordinance, the County shall not accept any application to change the zoning designation of land within unincorporated Jefferson County. iii. For the duration of this Ordinance, the County shall not hold hearing, or make any approval, allowing the creation or expansion of any C-1, C-2, M-1, M-2, or M -C zone. iv. For the duration of this Ordinance, the County shall not accept any applications for Planned Unit Developments made under Section 9 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code. 1.70 Subdivision Densities: For the duration of this ordinance, the County shall not accept any applications for the subdivision of land that propose the creation of building lots smaller than those allowed by subsections 3.10 and 4.20 of this ordinance. 1.80 Port Townsend Interim Urban Growth Area: Nothing in this ordinance should be construed as affecting or amending the Port Townsend Interim Urban Growth Area initially created by Ordinance No. 1-0106-94, and confirmed by Section 1.0 of Ordinance No. 15-1028-94. Section 2.00 Rural Development Objectives and Policies: 2.10 General Objectives: The objective of the regulations contained within the following ordinance sections is to allow a range of opportunities and land uses that are compatible with, and support the continuation of, a rural way of life. Preferred land uses in rural areas should relate to farms, forestry, nursery activities, mineral extraction, outdoor recreation and entertainment, other open space activities, and residential uses. 2.20 Recreational Uses: Allow public and commercial recreational and associated uses, such as campgrounds, lodging, interpretive centers, marinas, camps, golf courses, air parks, riding arenas, and rifle or archery ranges. BOCC Amended 2/26/96 VOL 22 FmG-134 4 2 30 Commercial Uses: A limited range of commercial uses, sufficient to support their existing role in the local settlement system, should be allowed to locate in designated Rural Centers. Expansion, modification or intensification of commercial uses in existing locations outside a designated rural community shall be restricted. 2.40 Rural Residential Densities: Rural residential development should be allowed on lands which can physically support it without requiring urban level services. Further, rural residential development should be of predominantly low -intensity and seek to maintain or enhance established rural character while creating a development pattern in rural areas that uses land more efficiently than traditional development. 1. Allow residential development where physical carrying capacity, including septic capability, is adequate to support development. 2. Publicize available tax incentive programs that encourage the designation of property as open space. 2.50 Rural Services: Preserve the rural way of life by not providing urban services or urban levels of service within rural areas. A. Sewer interceptors shall only extend outside of an Urban Growth,Area (i.e., into rural areas), where: (i) Sewer service will remedy groundwater contamination and other health problems by replacing septic systems and community on-site sewage systems; or (ii) A formal binding agreement to serve an approved planned development was made prior to the establishment of Interim Urban Growth Areas. B. Allow a broader range of services to be provided in specific rural centers where such facilities are necessary to protect the public health and safety. 2.60 Rural Centers: In keeping with their historically established, community serving functions, designated Rural Centers shall be the location for activities not allowed in rural lands, where such activities are not urban in size, scale, or intensity of provision. A. Designated Rural Centers shall serve the following purposes: (i). To provide locations where rural residents can gather, work, shop, entertain and reside; (ii) To provide an activity focus for the surrounding rural area that is appropriate in character and scale; (iii) To provide a focussed alternative to strip developments along arterial and state routes; (iv) To provide appropriate services to tourists and other visitors recreating at major recreation facilities; BOCC Amended 2/26/96 6 M. voi_ 2 Z f ar,c 135 5 (v) To provide an opportunity for the location of public and private facilities that support the continued function of the designated rural center as a community center, so it may continue to meet its historically defined role in the Jefferson County settlement system. B. Condition all permits with established standards and design guidelines to protect environmental quality, rural character, and the significant natural and scenic amenities and features valued by Rural Center residents. C. Allow accessory dwelling units, senior housing and group homes, within Rural Centers. 2.70 Classification of Rural Centers: This ordinance shall designate three categories of Rural Centers: Planned Rural Communities, Rural Activity Centers, and Rural Neighborhood Centers. A. Planned Rural Communities All of the following characteristics must be present at the time this ordinance is adopted in order for an area in unincorporated Jefferson County to be designated a Planned Rural Community: (i) The area must be actively planned and managed under the guidance of a master plan recognized by Jefferson County (where 'active' shall be considered to mean the submission of plat applications and/or building permits over the past calendar year by the entity responsible for the master plan ). (ii) The area must possess a total population of at least 1,000 people, as estimated by the Jefferson County Planning Department. (iii) The area possesses a range of public, or quasi -public, facilities and services that are not typically available in unplanned, rural communities. (iv) The area has recorded a rate of growth equal to or greater than the county rate observed over the last five years (1990 - 1995). (v) The area possesses an established mix of commercial, industrial, public (or quasi -public) and residential land uses. (vi) The residents of the area have formed a Community Planning Committee for the purpose of producing a local plan under the Jefferson County GMA framework. B. Rural Activity Centers All of the following characteristics must be present at the time this ordinance is adopted in order for an area in unincorporated Jefferson County to be designated a Rural Activity Center: (i) The proposed activity center must have immediate access onto a state route, or, a major arterial; (ii) The proposed activity center shall be contain an established mix of commercial, industrial, public and residential land uses. BOCC Amended 2/26/96 vo,_ 22 l a 43C 6 (iii) The proposed activity center shall be located in a Planning Area (as defined by the Jefferson County Planning Department) that has a minimum population of 2,000 people. (iv) The residents of the area shall have formed a Community Planning Committee for the purpose of producing a local plan under the Jefferson County GMA framework. (v) The proposed activity center shall have existed as a separately defined community (according to County records) for a minimum of thirty years. C. Rural Neighborhood Centers All of the following characteristics must be present at the time this ordinance is adopted in order for an area in unincorporated Jefferson County to be designated a Rural Neighborhood Center: (i) The proposed neighborhood center must have immediate access onto a state route, or, a major arterial; (ii) The proposed neighborhood center shall contain an established mix of commercial, industrial and residential land uses. (iii) The proposed neighborhood center shall be located in a Planning Area (as defined by the Jefferson County Planning Department) that has a minimum population of 1,000 people. (iv) The residents of the area shall have formed a Community Planning Committee for the purpose of producing a local plan under the Jefferson County GMA framework. F (v) The proposed neighborhood center shall have existed as a separately defined community (according to County records) for a minimum of thirty years. Section 3.00 Rural Areas: The purpose of the rural land use designations made in this ordinance is to provide for the continued long-term rural character of these areas and to minimize land use conflicts with nearby agricultural, forest or mineral extraction production districts. These purposes shall be accomplished by: 1. Limiting residential densities and permitted uses to those that are compatible with rural character and nearby resource production districts. 2. Limiting residential densities and permitted uses to those able to be adequately supported by on site water and septic waste disposal systems and limited availability of other public services; 3. Allowing small scale farming and forestry activities and recreation uses which can be supported by rural service levels compatible with rural character; and, 4. Providing standards for the size and setback of permitted uses that are sufficient to minimize the possibility of use conflicts with adjacent agriculture, forest or mineral lands. BOCC Amended 2/26/96 ;von 22 gar:. - 13 i 7 3 10 Rural Residential Density. All subdivisions proposed in unincorporated Jefferson County for lands outside designated Rural Centers shall conform with the following density designations. The purpose of each residential density designation is described in the following subsections. The location and boundary of each density designation is shown on the precisely detailed maps adopted as part of this ordinance. 3 10.1 RR -5. One Dwelling Unit per 5 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to rural unincorporated lands where the observed density of development already exceeds one dwelling per five acres and soils can support on-site sewage disposal without damage to water resources; 3 10 2 RR -10. One Dwelling Unit per 10 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to rural unincorporated lands which do not have established subdivision patterns. 3 10 3 RR -20. One Dwelling Unit per 20 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to rural unincorporated lands that are adjacent to designated forest lands of long-term commercial significance, as well as lands where area -wide environmental features constrain development. 3.20 Zoning Designations: The following use table replaces the Table of Permitted Uses described in subsection 6.10 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94) and shall be formally identified in the Zoning Code as Table 6.10.1. Table 6. 10.1 establishes allowed and conditional uses for all neighborhood and general commercial, light industrial, heavy industrial and light industrial/commercial zones established under the Jefferson County Zoning Code, together with the Rural 5, Rural 10, and Rural 20 residential density designations, lying outside designated Rural Centers. Key: C = Conditionally Permitted ✓ = Permitted Outright Table 6.10.1 Permitted and Conditional Uses for Rural Lands Outside Designated Rural Centers District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-10 R-20 Use N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 5 10 20 Use Permit Accessory uses and structures incidental to Exempt any use which will not create a nuisance or hazard Agencies (e.g. real estate, C C insurance) Agricultural Processing, ✓ C C Heavy Airports and Airfields ✓ BOCC Amended 1/16/96 VOL 22 �n-43S 8 BOCC Amended 2/26/96 VOL F".1 139, C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-10 R-20 District N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Residential Special Use Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 5 10 20 permit C Alcoholic beverage sales (packaged) ✓ C C C C ✓ ✓ `� Amateur Radio Antennas, less than sixty five (65) feet tall Amateur Radio Antennas, C C C C C C C C More than sixty five (65) feet tall Aquaculture, in an area ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Aquaculture, in an area ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ C C C not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Automobile Restoration C C ✓ Boat Marinas Bed and Breakfast Inns Home with 1 or 2 Guest Rooms Business Bed and Breakfast Inns ✓ ✓ C C C C C with 3 to 6 Guest Rooms Blacksmith or Forge C ✓ ✓ Boat Building and Repair: ✓ ✓ ✓ Commercial Bus stations and terminals ✓ Car wash C Cemeteries ✓ Church, or place of C C C C religious worship Commercial relay or C ✓ ✓ ✓ transmission facilities Construction Yards C ✓ ✓ C ✓ Correctional institutions ✓ Craft (Hand Made) Goods ✓ ✓ ✓ C ✓ C C C Studios Day care: Family day care Home home (up to 6 charges) Business Day Care: Mini -day care Home center (up to 12 charges) Business BOCC Amended 2/26/96 VOL F".1 139, BOCC Amended 2/26/96 14C 10 C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-10. R-20 District N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Residential Special IISC Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 5 10 20 Use permit Day care: Day Care C Center (13 or more charges) Educational institutions Electronic goods repairs C C C ✓ Energy Facilities Essential public facilities and utilities Furniture Manufacture or ✓ ✓ ✓ Renovation Government Buildings Home Businesses consistent ✓ ✓ `� '� '� with the requirements of Section 14 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code Industrial park C C C Industrial use, Heavy ✓ Jewellery Design and Home Manufacture Business Kennels C C Laboratories for research ✓ ✓ ✓ and testing Lock and gunsmiths C C C Lumber Yards C C ✓ Metal fabrication and/or ✓ ✓ ✓ machining Mineral Extraction and C* C* C* ✓ C* C* C* C* primary processing Nursery, Landscape C ✓ C ✓ materials Other light manufacturing ✓ C ✓ activities not otherwise classified Parks, playgrounds, golf V courses, public community centers Pawnshops or second C hand stores Plumbing shops and yards C ✓ BOCC Amended 2/26/96 14C 10 * Unless proposed on land that is designated as Mineral Land of Long -"Perm Commercial Significance by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 09-0525-95 3.30 Bulk Dimensional and General Requirements: Section 12 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, as amended), Bulk and Dimensional Requirements, is hereby amended through incorporation of the following tables, which shall be formally identified in the Zoning Code as Tables 12.1 and 12.2. These tables replace all previously adopted Bulk and BOCCAmended 2/26/96 VOL 22 wi-441 11 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-10 R-20 District C-1 N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Residential Special Use Use Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 5 10 20 Permit C C C Printing, publishing, binding and reproduction facilities (non -retail) Radio, television broadcasting stations (excluding antenna) IL W/Recreational vehicle park: Seasonal (up to 180 days stay) Repair Shops not C ✓ C otherwise classified Residences, Single Family ✓ ✓ ✓ '� ✓ Restaurants C C C Sign manufacture, C C ✓ painting and maintenance Silvicultural processing C ✓ C C C Theater, Drive In ✓ ---------------- Towers, antennas, and supporting structure C ✓ ✓ ✓ C Less than 65 ft in height 65 ft or greater in height C C C C Vehicle repair and service ✓ ✓ C C Veterinary hospitals and C C C practices Water -Dependent light C C ✓ ✓ industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Water -Related light C C ✓ industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program * Unless proposed on land that is designated as Mineral Land of Long -"Perm Commercial Significance by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 09-0525-95 3.30 Bulk Dimensional and General Requirements: Section 12 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, as amended), Bulk and Dimensional Requirements, is hereby amended through incorporation of the following tables, which shall be formally identified in the Zoning Code as Tables 12.1 and 12.2. These tables replace all previously adopted Bulk and BOCCAmended 2/26/96 VOL 22 wi-441 11 Dimensional Requirements tables and shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located outside designated Rural Centers. Table 12.1 Residential Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Lands Outside Designated Rural Centers BOCC Amended 2/26/96 VOL2Z "A[144", 12 Minimums Maximums Lot Size Required Setbacks Lot Buildin Coverage g Height Front Zone Access Collector Secondary Primary Side (each) Rear Road Road Arterial Arterial C-1 Currently Platted 5' 10' Residential Lands Only I Lot or on Health Department Currently Standards When Platted Whichever is the 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an lands: 45% 35' greater space established requirement C-1 or C-2 Residential Unnlatted Lands Use/Zone: on Mapped 20' 20' Unplatted 35' development density Lands: When 45% abutting an established M or M -C Use/Zone: 20' 20' C-2 Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' Same as Same as Same as above above above RR -5 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 50' 5' 5' Same as Same as RR -10 above above RR -20 When abutting an established M -1 or M -C Use/Zone: 25' 25' When abutting an established M-2 Use/Zone: 50' 50' When abutting an established C-1 or C-2 Use/Zone: 25' 25' BOCC Amended 2/26/96 VOL2Z "A[144", 12 Table 12.2 Commercial and Industrial Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Lands Outside Designated Rural Centers BOCC Amended 2/26/96 13 von 2 2 Face 143 Minimums Maximums Lot Size Required Setbacks Lot Buildin Coverage g Height Front Access Collector Secondar Primary Side (each) Rea Zone Road Road y Arterial Arterial r C-1 Lot sizes shall be 5' 5' sufficient to meet the public health and When environmental abutting an protection standards 20' 30' 35' 35' M or M -C 50% 35' contained in zone: 20' 20' Jefferson County regulations When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 35' 35' C-2 Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' Same as Same as Same as above above above M-1 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 35' 10' 10' Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a C Zone 20' 20" When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 35' 35' M -C Same as above 20' 30' 35' 35' 10' 10' Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a C Zone 20' 20' When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 35' 35' BOCC Amended 2/26/96 13 von 2 2 Face 143 3.40 Rural Development Standards: 1 Industrially Zoned Land (M-1 and M-21: The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located outside of Rural Centers that are zoned M-1 or M-2 under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those specified in subsection 3.30 of this ordinance: (i). All uses occurring outside an enclosed building shall be screened from adjoining rural residential uses; (ii). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (iii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and screened by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iv). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. 2 Commercially Zoned Land (C 1 C-2) and Light Industrial -Commercially Zoned Land (M -CI: The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located outside of Rural Centers that are zoned C-1, C-2, or, M -C under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those specified in subsection 3.20 of this ordinance: (i). All uses that occur outside an enclosed building and are not directly related to the sale of goods to the public, shall be screened from adjoining rural residential uses; (ii). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (iii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and screened by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iv). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson. County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. Section 4.00 The Designation and Regulation of Rural Centers: This ordinance designates rural centers for the purpose of allowing the occurrence of a sufficient amount of non -urban BOCC Amended 2/26/96 i v,1 144 14 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 40' 50' 50' Same as above BC Standards M-2 When abutting a M1 Zone 20' 20' When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 100' 100' 3.40 Rural Development Standards: 1 Industrially Zoned Land (M-1 and M-21: The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located outside of Rural Centers that are zoned M-1 or M-2 under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those specified in subsection 3.30 of this ordinance: (i). All uses occurring outside an enclosed building shall be screened from adjoining rural residential uses; (ii). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (iii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and screened by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iv). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. 2 Commercially Zoned Land (C 1 C-2) and Light Industrial -Commercially Zoned Land (M -CI: The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located outside of Rural Centers that are zoned C-1, C-2, or, M -C under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those specified in subsection 3.20 of this ordinance: (i). All uses that occur outside an enclosed building and are not directly related to the sale of goods to the public, shall be screened from adjoining rural residential uses; (ii). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (iii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and screened by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iv). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson. County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. Section 4.00 The Designation and Regulation of Rural Centers: This ordinance designates rural centers for the purpose of allowing the occurrence of a sufficient amount of non -urban BOCC Amended 2/26/96 i v,1 144 14 growth to preserve the social and economic vitality of these communities until such time as permanent development regulations are adopted by the County following completion of its comprehensive plan production process. Such designations shall also serve as an indication of the possible direction to be taken by the County for its permanent regulations. This purpose shall be accomplished by: Limiting residential densities and permitted uses to those that are compatible with each rural center designation; 2. Avoiding the premature elimination of planning options by preventing the location of development that may be of sufficient scale or density to alter the existing character of each rural center. 3 Allowing development that will not require the creation or extension of public utilities and services to support its existence. 4 10.1 Designation of a Planned Rural Community: Based upon review of materials on file with the Board of County Commissioners, the Jefferson County Planning Department and the Office of the Jefferson County Assessor, the Port Ludlow community, as defined by the boundaries identified in the April 1995 draft of the Port Ludlow Community Plan, has been determined to meet the criteria contained in subsection 2.90A of this ordinance for designation as a Planned Rural Community and is formally designated as such. 4.10 .2 Designation of a Rural Activity Center: Based upon review of materials on file with the Board of County Commissioners, the Jefferson County Planning Department and the Office of the Jefferson County Assessor, the portion of the Tri -Area, as defined by the attached map adopted as part of this Ordinance, has been determined to meet the criteria contained in subsection 2.90B of this ordinance for designation as a Rural Activity Center and is formally designated as such. 4.10.3 Designation of Rural Neighborhood Centers: Based upon review of materials on file with the Board of County Commissioners, the Jefferson County Planning Department and the Office of the Jefferson County Assessor, the communities of Brinnon, Chimacum, Discovery Bay and Quilcene, as defined by the attached maps adopted as part of this Ordinance, have been determined to meet the criteria contained in subsection 2.90C of this ordinance for designation as Rural Neighborhood Centers and are formally designated as such. 4.10.4 Mapping: The boundaries of each Planned Rural Community, Rural Activity Center, or Rural Neighborhood Center, shall be separately identified on precisely detailed maps adopted as part of this ordinance. 4.20 Rural Center Residential Density: All subdivisions proposed in unincorporated Jefferson County for lands within designated Rural Centers shall conform with the following density BOCC Amended 2/26/96 VOL 22 Fac, Ar 15 designations. The purpose of each residential density designation is described in the following subsections. The location and boundary of each Rural Center residential density designation is shown on the precisely detailed maps adopted as part of this ordinance. 4 20 1 RR -5. One Dwelling Unit per 5 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to lands lying within each designated Rural Center where no established pattern of residential subdivision exists. 4 20 2 RR -3: One Dwelling Unit per 3 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to the following lands lying within the boundaries of designated Rural Centers: (i). Lands lying in or near the core of each designated Rural Center. (ii). Lands not containing any designated critical areas. 4.30 Zoninia Designations: The following table shall be formally incorporated within Section 6 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code as Table 6.10.2. Table 6.10.2 complements Table 6. 10.1 (contained in section 3.10 of this ordinance) by identifying uses that are permitted outright or conditionally in the C-1, C-2, M-1, M-2, M -C and R zones located within the rural centers designated by section 4.10 of this ordinance. All development applications for these lands shall be reviewed according to use table Key: C = Conditionally Permitted ' = Planned Rural Community Only d = Permitted Outright z = Planned Rural Community and Rural Activity Centers only Table 6.10.2 Permitted and Conditional Uses for Designated Rural Centers District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-3 R-5 Use N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 3 5 Use Permit Accessory uses and structures incidental to any use which Exempt will not create a nuisance or hazard Agencies (e.g. real estate, C ✓ insurance) Agricultural Processing, ✓ C Heavy Alcoholic beverage sales ✓ �/ (packaged) Amateur Radio Antennas, less ✓ ✓ C C C ✓ ✓ than sixty five (65) feet tall Amateur Radio Antennas, C C C C C C C More than sixty five (65) feet tall Aquaculture, in an area ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ V ✓ ✓ regulated by the Shoreline Master Program BOCC Amended 2/26/96 ..VOL -3 22 Fae� 1�E 16 District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-3 R-5 Use N'hood Comm. General Comm. Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Lt Ind / Comm. Residential 3 Residential 5 Special Use Permit Aquaculture, in an area not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ C ✓ Automobile Restoration ✓ ✓ Bakeries ✓ ✓ C Banks and Financial Institutions C' ✓ Barbers and Beauty Shops ✓ Of Boat Marinas ✓ Bed and Breakfast Inns with 1 or 2 Guest Rooms Home Busines s Bed and Breakfast Inns with 3 to 6 Guest Rooms ✓ ✓ C C C ✓ Blacksmith or Forge ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Boat Building and Repair: Commercial ✓ ✓ ✓ Bus stations and terminals ✓ Car wash ✓ C Cemeteries ✓ Church, or place of religious worship C C C C Clinics ✓ Commercial relay or transmission facilities ✓ ✓ ✓ Construction Yards ✓ ✓ ✓ C ✓ Convenience stores ✓' Correctional institutions ✓ Craft (Hand Made) Goods Studios ✓ ✓ ✓ C ✓ C C Day care: Family day care home (up to 6 charges) Home Business Day Care: Mini -day care center (up to 12 charges) Home Business Day care: Day Care Center (13 or more charges) Educational institutions ✓ BOCC Amended 2/26/96 17 District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-3 R-5 Use N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 3 5 Use Permit Electronic goods repairs ✓ ✓ C ✓ Energy Facilities ✓ Essential public facilities ✓ and utilities Food/Grocery Stores ✓ Furniture Manufacture or ✓ ✓ ✓ Renovation Group Home for the ✓' ✓Z ✓2 handicapped Group home (other) ✓ Alcoholism or drug treatment centers, work release facilities for convicts or ex -convicts, or other housing serving as an alternative to incaceration or detoxification centers Government Buildings ✓ Hardware store ✓ ✓ Home Businesses ✓ C ✓ ✓ consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code Industrial park ✓ C C Industrial use, Heavy ✓ Industrial use, light, not ✓ ✓ otherwise classified Jewellery Design and Home Manufacture Business Kennels C ✓ ✓ Laboratories for research ✓ ✓ C and testing Lock and gunsmiths ✓ ✓ ✓ Lumber Yards ✓ ✓ ✓ Metal fabrication and/or ✓ / ✓ machining Mineral Extraction and C* C* C* ✓ C* C* primary processing Nursery, Landscape ✓ ✓ C ✓ materials BOCC Amended 2/26/96 18 District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-5 Use N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 3 5 Use Permit Nursing homes and ✓2 C C boarding homes for the aged Offices ✓2 Other light manufacturing ✓ C ✓ activities not otherwise classified Parks, playgrounds, golf courses, public community centers Pawnshops or second ✓ ✓ hand stores Pharmacy or drugstore ✓2 Plumbing shops and yards ✓ ✓ Printing, publishing, ✓ ✓ ✓ binding and reproduction facilities (non -retail) Professional Offices C2 Radio, television broadcasting stations (excluding antenna) Recreational vehicle park: Seasonal (up to 180 days stay) Recreational vehicle park: C' ✓' Transient (up to 30 days stay) C Repair Shops Not ✓ ✓ ✓ Otherwise Classified Residences, Single Family ✓ ✓ C C ✓ ✓ Restaurants ✓' ✓ C Retail Stores not C2 otherwise identified in this table Schools ✓ Sign manufacture, C ✓ ✓ Of painting and maintenance Silvicultural processing ✓ ✓ C C Towers, antennas, and supporting structure BOCC Amended 2/26/96 w- 22 w,,149, 19 District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 . R-5 N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Special Use Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 3 5 Use permit Transient ✓ accommodations, (including hotels and motels) Less than 65 ft in height ✓ ✓ ✓ 65 ft or greater in height C C C Vehicle repair and service ✓ ✓ C C Veterinary hospitals and ✓ ✓ V practices Water -Dependent light C ✓z ✓ ✓ industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Water -Related light Cz ✓ ✓ industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program * Unless proposed on land that is designated as Mineral Land of Long -Term Commercial Significance by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 09-0525-95 4.40 Bulk Dimensional and General Requirements: Section 12 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, as amended) Bulk and Dimensional Requirements, is hereby amended through incorporation of the following tables, Tables 12.3 and 12.4. These Tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located within designated Rural Centers. BOCC Amended 2/26/96 VOL ? 20 Table 12.3 Residential Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Lands Within Designated Rural Centers BOCC Amended 1/26/96 VOL 22 wl-151 21 Minimums Maximums Lot Size Required Setbacks Lot Buildin Coverage g Height Front Zone Access Collector Secondar Primary Side (each) Rea Road Road y Arterial Arterial r C-1 Currently Platted 5' 10' Residential Lands Only 1 Lot, on 5000 Sq Ft, or Currently Health Department When Platted Standards 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an lands: 45% 35' Whichever is the established greater space C-1 or C-2 Residential requirement Use/Zone: on Unnlatted Lands 20' 20' Unplatted 35' Mapped Lands: development density When 45% abutting an established M or M -C Use/Zone: 20' 20' C-2 Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' Same as Same as Same as above above above M-1 Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' 20' 20' Same as UBC Above Standards When abutting an established M -2 Use/Zone: 25' 25' When abutting an established C-1 or C-2 Use/Zone: 20' 20' BOCC Amended 1/26/96 VOL 22 wl-151 21 M -C Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' 20' 20' Same as UBC Required Setbacks Lot Coverage Buildin g Height Front above Standards Access Road Collector Road Secondar y Arterial Primary Arterial When Rea r abutting an established C-1 or C-2 Use/Zone: 20' 20' When abutting an established M-2 Use/Zone: 25' 25' R-5 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 35' S' S' Same as Same as R-3 above above When abutting an established M -1 or M -C Use/Zone: 25' 25' When abutting an established M-2 Use/Zone: 50' 50, When abutting an established C-1 or C-2 Use/Zone: 25' 25' Table 12.4 Commercial and Industrial Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Lands Within Designated Rural Centers BOCC Amended 2/26/96 r ' 15 f 22 Minimums Maximums Zone Lot Size Required Setbacks Lot Coverage Buildin g Height Front Access Road Collector Road Secondar y Arterial Primary Arterial Side (each) Rea r BOCC Amended 2/26/96 r ' 15 f 22 Zone Access Collector Secondary Primary Side (each) Rear Road Road Arterial Arterial C-1 Lot sizes shall be 5' 10' sufficient to meet the public health and When environmental abutting an protection standards 20' 25' 30' 30' M or M -C 45% 35' contained in zone: 20' 20' Jefferson County regulations When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 25' 25' C-2 Same as above 25' 30' 30' 35' Same as Same as Same as above above above M-1 Same as above 25' 30' 30' 35' 10' 10' Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a C Zone 20' 20' When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 25' 25' M -C Same as above 20' 30' 35' 35' 10' 10' Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a C Zone 20' 20' When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 35' 35' M-2 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 40' 50' 50' Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a M1 Zone 20' 20" When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 100' 100' 4.50 Rural Center Development Standards: 1. Industrially Zoned Land (M-1 and M-2): The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located within designated Rural Centers that are zoned M-1 or M-2 under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those BOCC Amended 2/26/96 23 15F' specified in subsection 4.40 of this ordinance: (i). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (ii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and main highways and screened from any adjacent residential development by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iii). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. 2. Commercially Zoned Land (C-1 C-2) and Light Industrial -Commercially Zoned Land (M CZ The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located within designated Rural Centers that are zoned C-1, C-2, or, M -C under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those specified in subsection 4.40 of this ordinance: (i). All uses not directly related to the sale or rental of goods to the public, shall be screened from adjoining rural residential uses by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (ii). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (iii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and main highways and screened from any adjacent residential development by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iv). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. Section 5.00 Use of Existing Lots of Record: The purpose of this ordinance section is to codify the land use status of existing lots of record located within the unincorporated area of Jefferson County. 5.10 Non -Residential Land Uses: The suitability of existing lots of record for non-residential land uses shall be determined through the application of Local, State and Federal laws governing zoning, bulk, lot coverage, protection of critical and environmentally sensitive areas, and preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. 5.20 Residential Use of Existing Lots of Record: The following shall apply to the use of lots in residential zones for single family dwellings, where such lots have substandard area in comparison with residential density designation applied to the land by this ordinance. A. The owner of an existing lot of record, shall be permitted to develop such a lot if the lot meets all appropriate Federal, State and County development regulations in effect at the time an application for a building permit is made. 5.30 Residential Cluster Development: The 'clustering' of residential development is accepted and encouraged by the County. BOCC Amended 2/26/96 von- 22 w .,154 24 5.40 Additional Provisions: (i) The use of a Boundary Line Adjustment to reduce the area of a residential building site established under the provisions of this Ordinance is prohibited. (ii). Nothing contained within this Ordinance may be construed as permitting the creation of substandard lots from lots that comply with the density requirements of this ordinance. Section 6.00 Level of Service Standards: The following measures shall control the provision of the following publicly and privately provided facilities, utilities and services: 6.10 Water Supply: Potable water provided by a public water system may be made available to proposed developments that comply with all applicable County and State regulations (including this ordinance) subject to the following conditions: (i). The subject property is located entirely within an existing water service area recognized by the County. (ii). The provision of service to the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the water purveyor. (iii). The provision of service will not require the creation of additional system capacity. 6.20 Sewer Systems: All proposed developments must make provision for the on-site disposal of sewerage and waste water and meet all applicable County, State and Federal regulations. 6.30 Other Public Facilities. Utilities and Services: No development application shall be approved by the County where such approval will require the addition, expansion, creation or extension of any of the following facilities, utilities, or services, unless such addition, expansion, creation or extension is directly associated with construction of an essential public facility (such as schools, fire stations, government offices, etc.): Solid waste collection, solid waste drop -boxes and/or recycling facilities, traffic lights, passing, turning or merge lanes for vehicular traffic, (public) access roads, or street cleaning. Section 7.00 Zoning Maps: 7.10 Interpretation: Where uncertainties exist as to the location of any zone boundaries, the following rules of interpretation, listed in priority order, shall apply: A. Where boundaries are indicated as parallelling the approximate centerline of the street right-of-way, the zone shall extend to each adjacent boundary of the right-of-way. Non road- related uses by adjacent property owners, if allowed in the right-of-way shall meet the same zoning requirements regulating the property owners lot; B. Where boundaries are indicated as approximately following lot lines, the actual lot lines shall be considered the boundaries; C. Where boundaries are indicated as following lines of ordinary high water, or government meander line, the lines shall be considered to be the actual boundaries. If BOCC Amended 2126/96 vol- 22 irF' 15t"S 25 these lines should change the boundaries shall be considered to move with them; and, D. If none of the rules of interpretation described in subparagraphs A. through C. apply, then the zoning boundary shall be determined by map scaling. 7.10 Maps and Boundaries: A. The location and boundaries of all density designations or special purpose zones identified in this Ordinance shall be shown and delineated on a density map adopted as part of this Ordinance. B. Changes in the boundaries of the zones, including application or amendment of interim zoning, shall be made by ordinance adopting or amending the maps. C. Adopted maps shall be available for public review at the Jefferson County Permit Center. Section 8.00 Expiration: The provisions of this ordinance shall cease to be effective upon adoption by the County of final development regulations that implement the revised Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, as required by RCW 36.70A. BOCC Amended 2/26/96 2rroL r. .45C, 26 Section 9.00 Severability: If any section, subsection, or other portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitiutional by any court or review body 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 10.00 Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the date of adoption as set forth in Section 11.00 below. Section 11.00 Adoption: Adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this 14th day of February, 1996. Seal: yi► T Y t . , Q M or . t40X s � tey i x . s ; R ATTEST:'Y(9'-?,4t a Lorna L. Delaney Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: Paul E. McIlrath Chief Deputy Prosecutor Robert Hinton, Member VOL 22 tA(.,15"7 i` " / 26 NA 19 imr! I 1, 400-� ilm Brinnon Rural Neighborhood Center III -, .01---,7---,--------- --- February 14, 1996 fm�l 6 IV FAN 0 a 41 11 "r ►� +1" i ir1104a 7 rw,"�O. , i jj� 11 tit1 N1�� _� INJrriri'r._ .. r r� J ri91 ILE IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON IN THE MATTER OF ) approving amended wording for ) the Growth Strategy Ordinance ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, #05-0214-96 ) AND DECISION Board of Commissioners Decision: The the wording of Section 6.00 of Ordinance No. 05-0214-96, the Growth Strategy Ordinance, should a amended to provide clarity. We hereby: Approve the wording submitted by staff to amend Section 6.00. Reject the the wording and request that staff give further consideration to amended wording. DATED THIS DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 10 i)1 Urd iia-ne.e. X 09-0819- 9� ©�oii Hance #DGi- ©�19 -9� peptAtf 6y JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS E. WOJT, Chairman , Member Mkcused Absence) GLEN HUNTINGFORD, Member ATTEST: LORNA L. DELANEY Clerk of the Board *** Due to hand surgery, Commissioner Wojt signed with left hand, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO INTERIM DENSITY ORDINANCE #05-0214-96 August 5, 1996 Section 6.00 Level of Service Standards: The following measures shall control the provision of the following publicly and privately provided facilities, utilities and seervices: Section 6.10 Rural Water Supply: available to proposed developments that eemply vvkh all appheable County afld State r-egul fiens Rural water system development shall be consistent with County land use designations and comply with all applicable County and State regulations. 6.20 Sewer Systems: All proposed ngaj developments must make provision for disposal of sewerage and waste water and meet all applicable County State an Federal regulations. 6.30 Other Public Facilities, Utilities and Urban Services To From: JEFFERSON COUNTY PERMIT CENTER 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Board of County Commissioners Al Scalf, Director of Community Development July 9, 1997 Subject: Proposed Administrative Guidelines/Interim G,p 4,metrer r iijasge (IGSO)„° a ; JUL0 91997 UPDATE MEMOEFiRSC-N€t, 1`f BOARD OF OOW41SS10i1 This memo is a continuation of the discussion on issues raised in the May 22, 1997 memo to the Board relating to nine issues examined by planning staff in regards to the IGSO. The purpose of this memo and the meeting scheduled with the Board on Monday, July 14, 1997 is to discuss possible administrative guidelines which staff can utilize on an interim basis during implementation of the IGSO. Commercial Development: No clarification recommended. Staff continues to work on forming a consensus with department staff and other departments on this issue. Staff is concerned about rural standards/uses versus urban standards/uses. Rural Densities: The IGSO allows for one dwelling unit per 3,5,10, or 20 gross acres depending on the location of the proposed subdivision. Websters' dictionary defines gross as "total; entire; with no deductions; opposed to net" Planning staff has determined the definition of gross to mean average density or to divide the total acres proposed to be subdivided by the allowed density which results in the total number of lots allowed to be created, i.e. 40 acres to be subdivided in a R5 equals 8 lots. Applications are being processed with parcel sizes as small as 2.5 acres and 7.5 acres as long as they meet the overall average of the density area. Jefferson County previously used a definition in Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 (IUGA) which stated "all new subdivisions outside the IUGA's 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". Buildina Environmental Health Development Review Public Works Building Permits Septic Permits Subdivision, Zoning Road Approach Inspections Water Review & Shoreline Permits Permits & Addresses (360) 379-4450 FAX: (360) 379-4451 Clustering: No application will be processed which proposes clustering of lots as the IGSO doesn't provide specific criteria for design of such projects. Septic Exemptions: The Board can direct the department to continue with the administrative exemption process developed in the Summer of 1996, or the staff can write a resolution to further clarify the process for this type of subdivision, or staff can prepare separate resolutions on each propel for the Boards review. Minimum Lot Size: Continue with minimum lot size requirements as outlined in the onsite sewage system regulations specified in table VII and or as determined by a method II analysis per Larry Fay, Environmental Health Director. Use Table: No changes recommended. The Board could direct the department to rewrite the use table to incorporate needed revisions which may warrant an entire new interim ordinance. Rural Level of Service Standards: Water supply may be developed in compliance with all local, state and federal regulations. Water cannot be developed in the rural areas of the County which constitutes extension of urban services or is not consistent with the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP). Lot Consolidation: No recommended changes. The Board has indicated that any lot consolidation regulations would be accomplished through public hearings and recommendations from the planning commission. Home Business: No recommended clarification. 2 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Long -Range Planning and Growth Management Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9123 FAX: (360) 385-9357 1-800-831-2678 Date: May 22, 1997 To: Board of County Commissions From: Al Scalf, Director of Community Development Re: Discussion of Issues Related to Interim Growth e (IGSO) The attached report is intended to provide a basis upon which a discussion of issues related to the IGSO may proceed. While the attached report is fairly lengthy the issues at hand required sufficient discussion to provide the Board with an adequate information base upon which decisions may be made and direction provided. In addition to providing the Board with a discussion of the issues based on planning theory and principles, staff has offered a number of options for the Board's consideration. To the most part the options include: 1. Amend the IGSO; 2. Develop new ordinances or regulations (i.e. new development standards for development); 3. Provide administrative/policy interpretations and guidance, or 4. Do nothing. Other options may come to light during our discussion of the issues. Staff did not try to attach a level of "resource" commitment necessary to carry out each option, but, clearly each option will have a different demand on staff resources. Finally, each option carries a different level of risk or exposure in regards to legal challenge and therefore, legal review of the options may be considered by the Board prior to commitment. JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Long -Range Planning and Growth Management Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9123 FAX: (360) 385-9357 1-800-831-2678 Staff Report Long Range Planning Issues Related To The Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (IGSO) May 22, 1997 Background: On February 14, 1996 Jefferson County adopted an Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (IGSO) to provide "clear and concise development regulations to guide the submission, review, and approval of all land use permit applications in unincorporated Jefferson County prior to final adoption of permanent development regulations that implement the Comprehensive Plan... ". The ordinance was developed from a number of "models received from other jurisdictions which were "melded" into one document, the IGSO, to provided for interim land use regulations allowing the BOCC to lift a moratorium put in place on November 21, 1995. In essence, the IGSO revised the County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94) which specified allowed and conditional uses throughout the unincorporated rural portions of the county. Recently, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners have held a number of public discussions regarding a variety of issues which have recently surfaced due to the implementation and interpretation of this ordinance. These issues include, but are not limited to, minimum lot size, septic density exemptions, exemptions from base density, subdivision activity, commercial development, and rural level of services. Other issues not specifically "regulated" by the IGSO, yet, briefly addressed in this report include home based businesses and lot consolidation. The intent of this report is to provide a basis for discussing these issues in more detail, and ultimately coming to some determination regarding how these issues can be best addressed. Be advised that the IGSO does not regulate the subdivision of land, except through the density provisions, and therefore, any amendments to the IGSO will not aid in the County's concern that continued land division in accordance with the IGSO Map will undermine the County's Draft Proposed Preferred Alternative Land Use Map, thereby usurping the County's planning options. ISSUE #1: Commercial Development: Should Jefferson County Be Permitting Commercial/Industrial Development Activities Prior To Adoption of The Comprehensive Plan? Discussion: Prior to the adoption of the IGSO a number of Jefferson County's land use ordinances were found to be "out of compliance" with the GMA by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB). These ordinances were Ordinances No. 02- 0110-94 as amended, Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 and Ordinance No. 01-0117-95. In finding the County out of compliance with the GMA the WWGMHB specified that Jefferson County "[pJprohibit new urban residential, commercial and industrial development until an IUGA outside of Port Townsend's city limits could be properly designated". One of the reasons cited for finding at least one of the above ordinances to be out of compliance with the GMA was that while on its face this ordinance appeared to prohibit new commercial and industrial development outside of IUGAs, the County, according to the WWGMHB, "candidly" acknowledged that some 400 acres of undeveloped commercial and industrial development zones existed outside of the IUGR and the County took no action to prohibit new urban development in these areas. The Hearings Board stated "[t/he failure to follow the clear dictates of the Act to prohibit new urban growth outside an IUGA after October 1, 1993 renders Jefferson County in non- compliance. " (Compliance Hearing Order No. 94-2-0006 at p. 8). Currently, the County actually has over 1000 undeveloped acres zoned commercial and over 600 undeveloped acres zoned industrial outside of the County's IUGA (Port Townsend) and commercial development continues to be permitted. In its decision finding Island County's Code `Invalid" the WWGMHB stated, "[W]e have not precluded the placement of natural resource based industries or rural commercial development outside of IUGAs. The Act allows gpbropriate non -urban uses outside IUGAs. Non-residential uses outside IUGAs must, by their very nature, be dependent upon being in a rural area and must be compatible both functionally and visually with the rural area. " (Second Compliance Hearing Order and Finding of Invalidity, No. 95-2-0063). From the above ruling it appears the Hearings Board has determined that rural commercial development that is "appropriate " is allowed outside of IUGAs. Since the Hearing Boards ruling and under the IGSO new commercial development has continued to be allowed throughout Jefferson County, the question remains whether or not this development is dependent on being located within a "rural" area and is appropriate considering the instant facts. Since the adoption of the IGSO (February 14, 1996) Jefferson County has issued approximately 33 commercial building permits. Some of these permits included major construction at the Port Townsend Paper Mill, minor expansions, a P.U.D. #1 water tower and pump house, a little league concession building, etc. And therefore do not "fit" a true definition of "commercial" development. Those projects that do fit the definition of "commercial" amounted to 12 building permits during 1996 after the adoption of the IGSO. As of April 1997, Jefferson County has received over 20 applications for commercial building permits. Again, many of these do not fit the definition of commercial activity in a pure sense. Those that do total approximately 10 permit applications. As a note, many of the recent applications for commercial building permits are for "shell" commercial buildings. It appears these projects are speculative in nature and may in fact be an attempt to "vest" commercial development and circumvent the impact of proposed commercial downzoning contained in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Regardless, the real question is N whether or not these projects are dependent on a rural location? Seeing that there is no use associated with a many of these projects one cannot determine whether a rural location is necessary and therefore makes these projects suspect in terms of whether or not they are "appropriate" and "rural" dependent. Whether or not the allowance of new commercial and industrial development, that has an identified use or not, by Jefferson County outside of IUGAs is in compliance with the GMA or not remains a legal question. But, in light of the Hearing Boards previously cited Order the County, by continuing to permit new commercial development outside of IUGA's that may not be dependent on a rural location or "appropriate" may place the county at risk complying with the Act. A second issue closely related to the permitting of new commercial development outside of IUGAs is the permitting of new commercial development within Rural Centers. The size of the county's Rural Centers have been decreased from that depicted in the IGSO Map. In essence, the county's Rural Centers are proposed to be "downsized" by reducing the land area of each one. Is the county undermining planning options in regards to Rural Centers by continuing to allow new commercial development to occur within the boundaries of the Rural Centers illustrated on the IGSO Map as it determined it was doing by allowing the continuation of land divisions in accordance with the IGSO Map? Possible Action/Options: 1. Amend IGSO To Include Clear and Concise Rural Development Standards & Criteria and Require the Drafting ofSalient "Findings of Facts" supporting Each New Commercial Development Ap rn oval.. If we are to allow, by law, only "rural" commercial development outside of IUGAs we need to have clear criteria to guide the County in determining whether or not a particular proposed commercial project is in fact "rural" in nature and/or dependent on a rural location. This is important in light of the fact that the Hearings Board has stated that "[wle have said that no new urban commercial or new urban industrial development can occur outside of IUGAs. We have not precluded the placement of natural resource-based industries or rural commercial development outside of IUGAs. Non-residential uses outside of IUGAs must, by their very nature, be dependent upon being in a rural area and must be compatible both functionally and visually with the rural area. " (Second Compliance Hearing Order and Finding of Invalidity, No. 95-2-0063, Whidbey Environmental Action Network vs. Island County, Pg. 7). The IGSO does contain "Rural Development Standards" (e.g., pg. 14) to help determine whether or not a proposed commercial project is "rural" or not But, the question remains whether these standards provide adequate guidance in making this determination? At best the development standards contained in the IGSO are general in nature and applicable to development in both rural and urban environments. What is missing from these standards is criteria to determine whether the proposed activity is "dependent upon being in a rural area" (see Hearings Board language above). Therefore, if the County wishes to continue permitting commercial development within unincorporated Jefferson County, the County should develop adequate criteria and development standards by which these types of projects can be reviewed. The County may want to consider discontinuing the issuance of building permits for "shell" commercial structures at this time which, by their very nature, cannot be found to be "dependent upon being in a rural area". 3 2 Provide Administrative and/or Policy Guidance in Reviewing Commercial Development Applications: Instead of amending the IGSO or writing a new ordinance to guide the permitting of commercial development within the unincorporated portions of the county, administrative rules, procedures and/or policy could be developed to help ensure new commercial development projects are clearly dependent on a rural location and are "appropriate" to meet the requirement of the Growth Hearings Board rulings. While the issue of shell commercial buildings could also be handled in this manner. 3 Moratorium on New Commercial Development: Imposing a moratorium on all commercial development activity until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted provides another available option to the county. Because the Draft Comprehensive Plan proposes Rural Commercial Centers that differ in size from those that currently exist, are we foreclosing on some of our planning options by continuing to permit commercial development in accordance with the IGSO map? Q Do Nothing: Continue implementing the IGSO as it is. ISSUE #2: Rural Residential Densities: At What Density Should Residential Development Be Occurring in The unincorporated County? Discussion: In the above cited Hearing Boards Final Order finding Jefferson County out of compliance with the GMA the WWGMHB also specified that Jefferson County "establish appropriate rural density designations for areas outside the IUGA ". In its effort to comply with this decision the county included "rural' density requirements for new residential development in the IGSO. The IGSO states in Section 1.70, page 4, that `for the duration of this ordinance, the County shall not accept any application for the subdivision of land that proposes the creation of building lots smaller than those allowed by subsections 3.10 and 4.20 of this ordinance." Subsection 3.10 states that "[alll subdivision proposed in unincorporated Jefferson County for lands outside designated Rural Centers shall conform with the following density designations: RR -5 or one dwelling unit per 5 gross acres; RR -10 or one dwelling unit per 10 gross acres and RR -20 or one dwelling unit per 20 gross acres. " For lands inside of designated Rural Centers the densities are RR -5 and RR -3. These densities are for land not already platted. For lands already platted the ordinance contains language stating the minimum lots size for currently platted lands to be "1 lot or Health Department Standards, whichever is the greater space requirement" and for unplatted lands the minimum lot size is the "mapped development density ". It appears that the IGSO contains both a minimum lot size and underlying density requirements. The issue confronted by the implementation of the IGSO is that density and minimum lot size have been treated as if they are mutually exclusive instead of supportive. As an example, regarding the division of land outside of rural centers, the IGSO has allowed lots to be created at sizes less than the underlying base density. For example, a person who wishes to subdivide 100 acres of land situated in an area that is under the above cited "1 du per 5 "gross" acres may in fact create 20 building sites all of which have less land area than 5 acres. This is done through a local interpretation of the meaning of "gross" acre. M The IGSO was written with the term "gross" acre included. The addition of this term was determined to allow for a type of clustering or density averaging. Basically, what this means is that as long as one does not create more buildable lots than that allowed by dividing the base density into the total land area the actual size of each lot does is irrelevant. For example, take the above 100 acre parcel. The developer could propose to create 10 lots which are 3 acres each and 10 lots which are 4 acres each, or any other combination, as long as the number of lots does not exceed that which would be allowed to be created by observing the base density (e.g. 5 acres, therefore, 20 lots). In the case of the IGSO and the County's interpretation of its provisions for density and minimum lot size, the apparent problem is with the assumption that these two related factors are mutually exclusive and the county has the ability to choose one or the other to apply to a particular subdivision application. For example, if a developer proposes to subdivide 100 acres of land that has a density of IDU/5 acres we have allowed lots to be created well below the 5 acre base density by interpreting this provision to allow for any lot size as long as the base density is not exceeded. While this is true to a degree, it is only true as far as one does not create lots that are less than the minimum lot size specified in the ordinance. In the above example, according to the minimum lot size language contained in the IGSO this developer should not be able to create lots less than the "mapped development density", or 5 acres. If the County wishes to allow the subdivision of land to be able to create lots less than the "mapped development density" then the County should amend the minimum lot size language contained in the IGSO -- instead of choosing to interpret the two clauses as being mutually exclusive. By allowing lots to be created in the manner discussed above the county is utilizing what is called "density zoning" without acknowledgment or approval via policy guidance or ordinance provisions. Density zoning, according to The Language of Planning, "...offers both the community and the developer substantial flexibility in site design as long as the overall density restrictions and other requirements are met. Under this approach any type of dwelling is permitted, from detached homes to apartments, anywhere on the site, so long as total density does not exceed the maximum permitted. It is a somewhat further extension of cluster development provisions common in planned unit development ordinances. " While this concept can be valuable in certain situations, such as densely settled metropolitan areas, it is questionable as a tool for use in rural areas, especially under the GMA, especially in light of the fact that the county does not presently have any instrument authorizing the county to approve projects based on this concept (see Issue #3 - clustering for related discussion). The basic point here is that Jefferson County's Zoning Code is Euclidean based and not performance or density based, and simply put it appears the county is creating "apples" with an ordinance crafted to create "oranges". Possible Action/Options: 1 Provide Administrative and/or Policy Guidance For Governing Density Requirements • While the IGSO contains both du/acre and minimum lots sizes, the current issue in regards to the size of lots being created within the unincorporated portions of the county are largely a result of local interpretation and "tradition" of performance based zoning. Again, in general Jefferson County has interpreted these two approaches to regulating the density and intensity of land as being mutually exclusive, instead of interrelated. Administrative or policy guidance should be crafted which ties these two approaches to land use density and intensity together Z 2. Amend the IGSO or Develop a New Ordinance To Provide Better Guidance in Regards to Density and Minimum Lot/Parcel Size: In a manner similar to developing administrative and/or policy guidance the IGSO could be amended to be clearer in how the terms gross acres and minimum lot size relate to each other. Additionally, the application of density zoning and clustering should be clarified via an ordinance, or outright prohibited, at least until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and implementing ordinances can be developed and adopted. 3 Do Nothing: Continue Implementing the IGSO as is 4 Continue The Moratorium on The Division of Land ISSUE # 3: Clustering: Should the County be Allowing Rural Residential Clusters without any Criteria or Standards By Which To Review These Proposals? Discussion: The County has created lots that are less than the base density by approving projects which closely resemble "cluster" residential developments (closely related to the density zoning concept discussed above). In a cluster development lots are smaller (but still must adhere to a minimum lot size requirement) than in a conventional subdivision, and they are "clustered" on those portions of the site best suited for development, and common or open space is provided in perpetuity. Depending on the specifics of the ordinance regulating cluster developments a project may, or may not, exceed the underlying base density (e.g., density bonuses may or may not be authorized by the ordinance). The specifics of the ordinance also controls the amount or proportion of land required to be reserved as open space. One drawback of clustering is that it usually demands a higher level of project review because of the inherent special design and site requirements and therefore, application requirements and review procedures for cluster subdivisions may be more complex than the typical subdivision project. In some cases, a site plan showing building locations and elevations may be required. Finally, because the open space dedicated in a cluster project requires specific legal instruments for insuring the land remains devoid of development in perpetuity and because this open space needs to be "owned in common" the proponent of such a development project needs to be experienced and adept at making sure such measures are in place. Residential cluster developments are allowed in rural areas and in a Kitsap County case (#94-3- 0005) the Central Hearings Board said: "[t]he Board can conceive of a well -designated compact rural development containing a small number of homes that would look urban in character, not require urban governmental services nor have undue growth -inducing or adverse environmental impacts on surrounding property. Such a rural development could constitute compact rural development rather than urban growth. However, the ordinance does not have parameters to prevent development projects that constitute urban growth form occurring in rural areas. " From this statement it appears the key to successfully permitting dense residential development outside of IUGAs is that the ordinance regulating such development allows a limited (e.g. "small number of homes") number of dwelling units and prevents the development from being construed as "urban". To meet the requirements as outlined by the Hearings Board an ordinance regulating cluster developments must be in place with adequate criteria to ensure the projects are of a rural scale and rural in nature. Jefferson County has permitted some projects loosely based on the cluster concept with no criteria or special review procedures in place. Additionally, the County has no ordinance in C� place providing guidance in regulating, reviewing and permitting such projects. The IGSO has one line dedicated to clustering which simply states it is "encouraged". The county's subdivision code provides a brief definition of "clustering" and encourages "creativity" in lot layout and configuration", but again offers little in the way of guidance or criteria. Possible _Action/Options: 1 Amend IGSO or Write a "Stand Alone " Cluster Ordinance To Provide Guidelines and Criteria To Review and Condition Cluster Pro on sal: If the County wishes to permit clustering then it should development substantive language to be included in the IGSO or a new stand alone ordinance which provides the criteria and guidance necessary to insure future cluster projects are reviewed and conditioned in a consistent and appropriate manner. While clustering is a valuable tool in many cases, the importance of criteria and standards for the conditioning and approval of such projects cannot be overstated. Presently, Jefferson County's IGSO contains no criteria or standards to guide decision making in regards to these types of projects -- yet the county continues to allow "clustering" and the creation of lots at sizes smaller than that identified as the base density and which may in fact be "urban". This appear to fly in the face the Hearings Boards Order cited above and may place the County in a position of risk if challenged. If the County chooses to continue utilizing the cluster concept clear guidelines and standard should be developed and adopted prior to approving any further "cluster" subdivisions, or the County will be in a tenuous position trying to maintain a pattern of consistent project review and conditioning. 2. Provide Administrative and/or Policy Guidance in Reviewing and Conditioning Proposed Rural Residential Cluster Projects: There is a very real danger operating from a position devoid of written policy guidance. For example, not all cluster concepts allow densities to exceed the underlying base density of the zone, others allow density bonuses. The amount of open space required to be set aside by a developer also varies, as does the number of lots allowed in a particular cluster project. The unanswered question is what do we allow and/or require here in Jefferson County, especially devoid of an ordinance or other provisions guiding residential cluster developments? 3. Do Nothing: Continue implementing the IGSO and allow clustering void of any guidance or principles. The planning literature is replete with the advantages of well regulated cluster developments. Failures are also well cited. Additionally, real questions remain whether clustering works as well in rural areas as it does in metropolitan areas where open spaces are in high demand, especially if there are no guiding principles and/or criteria by which a residential cluster project can be reviewed for siting in rural environs. 4 Place a moratorium on all cluster developments until the adoption of the comprehensive plan which contains goals policies and strategies to guide the application for and approval or, cluster housin,g developments, VA ISSUE #4: Septic Exemptions Discussion:, Recently, lots have been created below the base density through the "septic" exemption administrative process. While the BOCC approved by motion the granting of these exemptions for a limited number of "hardship" cases, the lack of clear written guidelines and a sunset provision has contributed to a somewhat arbitrary administrative process. A second related issue is that the County's Subdivision Ordinance (No. 04-0526-92) lists the types of land divisions which are exempt from the code. Multiple septic permits or installed systems are not included in this list. If one can get past the two hurdles stated above, the question that then needs to be addressed is whether a "hardship" truly exists on which the exemption or variance is based (note for the purposes of this discussion the terms exemption and variance are used interchangeably because there is some confusion regarding whether the county's intent is to offer relief from the county's zoning code -- a variance, or relief from the provision of the subdivision code -- an exemption). With this in mind, the real issue in both situations is whether or not the county can justify either an exemption or variance to the density standards in the case of multiple septic permits or any of the other "scenarios" presented based on grounds of "hardship Does a person holding multiple septic permits constitute a "hardship"? Hardships should be construed very narrowly according to land use planning theory and principles. Should the county agree that a person who purchases a piece of land which has two expired septic permits, or for that matter, two valid permits, or even two installed septic systems is in fact faced with a "hardship" and should be able to subdivide the property? Hardship, at least from a technical and legal planning perspective are the result of something the property owner did not have a hand in and causes severe distress by limiting the owners ability to enjoy his/her property. In situations where a property owner is pleading a "hardship" the property owner must not only demonstrate a hardship, but that the hardship is caused by some exceptional feature of the property itself. Something like a steep topographical break, a sink -hole, or a small stream running at an unusual location, or something of the like would probably do to pursuade the granting of a "hardship" variance. However, these types of examples are the exception, not the rule. If all properties in the vicinity suffer from the same situation on which the hardship is based, a hardship variance would be inappropriate. When many properties are affected by the same problem, a zone change should be considered so everyone would get the same relief. If a variance is only granted to one of the affected property owners then s/he has obtained a special privilege to use his/her property in a way no one else can, even though they suffer from the same hardship, an inequitable situation at best. As an example of the types of things that do not merit the issuance of a hardship variance include: the fact that it will cost the owner more money to develop the property consistent with the zoning law. Personal hardships, such as the need to have the applicants mother live on the property is also not a valid reason to relax the provisions of the zoning ordinance and grant a hardship variance. Finally, the existence of non -conforming uses on the property (i.e. two legally permitted residential structures on one lot) is likewise immaterial to the issue of hardship. As a note, a process exists which allows the BOCC to approve, on a temporary basis, the siting of an additional housing unit on a developed lot to accommodate certain "hardship" situations such as the need to house a family member suffering from serious illness. In addition to staff warnings regarding allowing development at densities that may not be rural, the County has received at least two letters cautioning the County to reconsider granting density exemptions which may be in conflict with the GMA. One letter, from the City of Port Townsend (7/23/96) states "[pjroviding an exemption which would allow the creation of new "suburban " size lots and increase the already enormous residential land surplus would appear both unwise, and contrary to the goals and purpose of the GAM. " A letter from the Olympic Environmental Council, dated 12/9/96 concurred with the City's position. Possible Action/Options: 1 Develop Clear Administrative and/or Policy Guidance To Determine Whether A Hardship Truly Exists and Write a Sunset Provision For These Exemptions • In the Land Use Planning field, the concept of a hardship variance is often misunderstood. The rule is that the only reason for granting a hardship variance is because there is some exceptional physical feature of the property which justifies a relaxation of the regulations applicable to the property. The idea is to demonstrate that the applicant's property is burdened by an exceptional feature not common to other properties in the surrounding area. In the case of the county's septic exemptions, it is clear that the "hardship" has nothing to do with some "exceptional" physical feature. 2. Step Granting Exemptions/Variances to The Density_ Standards Based on Septic Permits or Installed Systems. 3. Do Nothing -- Continue to Grant Septic Exemptions/Variances to The Density Standards. ISSUE #5: Minimum Lot Size: Discussion: The issue of minimum lot size is closely related to the above density issues and has been no less problematic. The issue of minimum lot size has been central to discussions regarding lot consolidation and Health Department minimum lot size requirements. Recently, the County Health Officer has issued three memo's addressing this issue and in the latest memo (4/30/97) the Health Officer states "[tjherefore, ..., Jefferson County Health and Human Services, Environmental Health Division, under the authority of the Health Officer, will no longer approve applications for onsite sewage system permits that do not meet the minimum land area requirements specified in Table VII or as determined by a Method II analysis, except for applications for permits on lots contained within subdivision that were reviewed... " [previously]. Basically, this means that septic permits will not be issued for lots that are less than 12,500 square feet in total net area. Aggrieved individual's may, of course, appeal a denial to the Board of Health. While this Health Department policy places the responsibility of minimum lot size back into the Planning Departments corner, the issue of minimum lot size remains to be resolved. For example, how do we handle those situations where a person has recently purchased what may now be described as substandard lot, and, finally, for this purpose, how should the county deal with those land owners who have partitioned parcels in contiguous ownership among family, friends and corporations? It appears for this Health policy to have meaning the County may also 7 consider adopting a policy to consolidate substandard lots as of a certain date and/or treats parcels in contiguous ownership as a single legal lot for development purposes. It is interesting to note that requests for the Health Officer to issue permits for lots smaller than 10,000 square feet were few and far between. According to the Health Officer, it was only after the adoption of the IGSO, which identified 5,000 square feet as the minimum lot size, that requests to build on these small lots were made. Possible Action/Options: 1 Develop Clear Administrative and/or Policy Guidance to regulate minimum lot requirements throughout the unincorporated portions o the cough This may go beyond supporting the Health Officials recent policy regarding minimum lot sizes to include dealing with blocks or tracts of substandard individual lots as one legal parcel to be redivided in accordance with new minimum lots size standards. Lot consolidation may also be pursued. Disregarding the process of checkerboarding may also be an option. 2 Where a property owner holds title to contiguous parcels of lots require the property to be consolidated and resubdivided to better conform to the areas underlying based densitX. 3. Do nothing and continue allowing business as usual. ISSUE # 6: Use Table: Discussion: The "Use" table contained in the IGSO contains a listing of land use activities permitted in each specific land use zone classification (e.g. commercial zones, residential zones. etc.). Uses are either permitted outright or conditionally. Each specific zoning district and the permitted or conditional uses listed are further embellished byway of "purpose" statements associated with each particular zone to help interpret and apply land use regulations within each zone, and to help make any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through amendments to the IGSO. While use tables attempt to include all possible uses that may be proposed to located in a specific zone, this is usually impossible to achieve -- there is always a land use activity that is overlooked or not anticipated which eventually is proposed. In this situation an administrative decision, based on the purpose statement associated with the particular zone, will aid in making an appropriate decision. Possible Actions/Options: 1, Amend the IGSO Use table and Associated Purnose Statements for Each Zoning District: In the case of the IGSO the use table is fairly comprehensive but, some uses are not included at all, and more importantly, rural uses are not well defined. Also, the purpose statements provide minimum guidance in making a decision on a proposed land use activity not listed in the use table. In this situation amending the use table is the most appropriate course of action, if the addition is "reasonable" given the particular zoning district and the purpose of the district. 2 Develop administrative interpretations of each zones purpose statement and include a listing of�nnropriate uses. 10 ISSUE # 7: Rural Levels of Service Standards: Discussion: The development of certain services in rural areas is restricted by the IGSO. Public water systems is one such system. While the possibility of small water systems expanding and encouraging inappropriate growth and development is the fear, it is also appropriate in many instances to utilize public water systems in rural areas for a variety of reasons -- health being just one. In general terms, it is assumed by many that piped water systems are to only be provided in urban areas, but clearly there are many instances where it is appropriate to utilize public water systems for water delivery in rural areas -- just as it is appropriate to provide other public services and facilities throughout rural environs -- such as fire and police protection to name just two. The level of service in this situation is key. It appears clear that the GMA prohibits the delivery of urban services outside of UGAs and while the provision of such services such as water or sewer is usually thought of as urban services, it is the level of service (i.e. scope, size, expansion capabilities, purpose for service provision etc.) which defines the service as either urban or rural. While the delivery of such services in rural areas should probably be the exception and not the rule, it is perhaps prudent for Jefferson County to revisit the issue of rural level of service standards. Possible Action/Options: 1. Amend the IGSO to Allow For the Develobment of Public Facilities and Services Given Certain Factors and Criterion which Should Ensure the Level of Service Delivered is Appropriate in Rural Environs. 2. Administratively or Through Clear Policy Guidance allow. in certain limited situations, the creation of Public Facilities and Services to serve rural development as long as it is clear that these systems will not be allowed to expand. ISSUE #8: Lot Consolidation: Discussion: Over the past 6 months the BOCC has held a number of public meetings to discuss the issue of consolidating substandard lots. While consolidation is a controversial problem staff presented options and different scenarios in regards to how consolidation might work and which lots or parcels would be affected. To date the BOCC has taken no action beyond discussing the issue and taking public comment. It is possible the county currently has a requirement on the books which requires certain lots or parcels to be treated as one single parcel of lot and thereby consolidating lots or parcels in contiguous ownership. Language contained in the County's Subdivision Ordinance (No. 04-0526-92) appears to require substandard lots in contiguous ownership to be treated as one lot or parcel. In illustration, on page 10, Section 3, the ordinance states under 3.30 (1) "[pjarcels in the same ownership having contiguous boundaries shall be considered a single parcel for the purposes of this ordinance and may not be further subdivided through the short subdivision process. " The question is whether or not a parcel is the same as a legal lot of record for the purposes of this ordinance? On page 6 of the above referenced ordinance it states that a lot is a 'fractional portion of a division of land having fixed boundaries, and of sufficient area and dimension to meet the requirements of the 11 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and/or applicable community development plan, the Jefferson County Development Code, No. 3-89, the lot size standards and requirements of the local Health Department .... The term shall include tracts and parcels. " Apparently parcels can also be legal lots or record, and therefore according to the above language it could be determined that all lots or parcels in contiguous ownership are to be considered one parcel for the purposes of this ordinance. What this may mean (depending on one's interpretation) is that the owner of contiguous lots or parcels, at the time the ordinance was approved owned a signal legal parcel or lot regardless of the number of legal parcels or lots owned prior to the ordinances adoption. Therefore, it may be interpreted that all parcels or lots created prior to 1992 could, by the language contained in this ordinance, be treated as a single legal lot of record and if necessary, or desired, resubdivided under the provision of the current ordinance by a means other than the short plat process. As a note, the City of Port Townsend recently adopted a lot consolidation process and all lots recorded prior to 1937 are to be reviewed for conformance with minimum lot size standards. Possible Actions/Options: 1 Make an Administrative/Polity Decision Regarding The Meaning of The Above Cited Language and Provision in the County's Subdivision Code to consolidate lots or parcels created prior to 1992. 2 Continue studying the issue of consolidation and determine a course of action determined to be appropriate and in the county's best interest 3 Do nothing -- discontinue the discussion of lot consolidation. ISSUE # 9• Home Based Business: Discussion: Home businesses are provided for in the IGSO and regulated through the Jefferson County Zoning Code, Section 14. The purpose of allowing home based business is to allow the generation of income from a persons primary residence as long as certain provisions are met. While home based businesses provide individual's with added opportunity to generate income, the Section of the ordinance is " not intended to create new commercial or industrial areas, but rather to supplement an income, start up a business, or establish a workplace at home. " Home businesses are intended to not disrupt the residential use of adjacent properties and be compatible in appearance, operating hours, and other factors with the surrounding neighborhood. In most cases home based businesses are launched with the above principle in mind, but the county's code allows great latitude in regards to the type or business operation allowed and their scale or size. Because of the attractiveness of working out of ones home and the ability to undertake a wide range of business ventures the number of home based businesses throughout Jefferson County has continued to increase over the past couple of years. The question is whether or not the county's relatively liberal home based business ordinance is in fact creating a county -wide commercial zone -- clearly not in compliance with GMA and probably not the intent of the regulation itself. 12 Some of the more prominent issues relating to home based businesses in Jefferson County include: the number of employees allowed (e.g. 10), signage, permitting and permit review and the opportunity to create a very large business activity if the business is sited on a property 5 acres or larger. For illustration purposes Jefferson County allows up to 10 employees (more than the average firm in America today), Clark County allows only one employee, the business owner, for a Type I Home Business, and only one outside employee for a Type II H.B.. Snohomish County allows only one additional employee besides the owner, as does King County. Signage is another area useful for illustrative purposes. Jefferson County allows a sign to be 16 square feet, Thurston contains no provision for any signage, Snohomish allows a sign up to 2 square feet as does Pierce County. The point is currently Jefferson County's Home Business regulations are much more liberal than most other jurisdictions Possible Action/OUt1ons- 1 Amend the code regulating home based businesses to be more consistent with the intent of the home based business concent 2 Restrict through administrative orpolicy directive the size and scope Qf Proposed home based businesses to better rCflect the "intent" of such regulations. 3. Place a moratorium on all new home base businessal2nlications until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and in which goals andpolicies regarding home based businesses are contained. SUMMARY: After 14 months of being in place as an interim land use control, the IGSO merited review. While serving a need, the preceding discussion suggests some issues have surfaced over the ordinances lifetime which are related to matters of interpretation and implementation. The preceding discussion, while lengthy, is certainly not exhaustive, and was undertaken to illustrate some of the more salient areas of concern to planning staff and the Director of Community Development. In addition, the options presented may not be exhaustive as staff review has been limited. It may be possible to remedy most, if not all of the issues that have surfaced through means other than amending the ordinance, and written administrative and/or policy guidance appears an appropriate choice when one considers the limited resources available at this time. The key is that any determination or interpretation needs to be consistently applied. As a suggestion, a "team" approach to resolving some of the issues revolving around interpretation could be handled by members of the Long Range Planning Department and the Prosecuting Attorneys Office, as the `marriage' between land use and the law is self evident. Regardless of how the BOCC chooses to deal with the IGSO, the issue of land division is only cursorily related to the IGSO through density standards. There is little that can be resolved in regards to the BOCC's concern that the County's planning options will be eroded if subdivisions are allowed to continue unchecked under IGSO density provisions by amending the IGSO. 13 / June 18, 1996 Ordinance No. 05-0214-96 Emergency Ordinance Establishing Interim Land Use Controls, Growth Strategy Ordinance Adopted by BOCC on February 14, 1996 Amended on February 26, 1996 Public Hearing held on March 25,1996 Staff Recommendations include: Amend Section 3.00 to add Section 3.10.4 which will read: 3.10.4 Exemption to Density Requirement: An undivided parcel of land on which two or more single family or multiple family dwellings are located, or which have two or more approved, valid, and unexpired on-site sewage disposal permits issued prior to the effective date of the Emergency Moratorium Ordinance No. 19-1121-95, November 21, 1995, may apply to the Department of Community Development at the Permit Center for an exemption to the density requirement of this ordinance and may, upon approval, apply to subdivide the property to create separate lots for each of the structures or issued septic permits if the following conditions are met: A. Each of the single family or multiple family dwellings was constructed in compliance with all applicable building codes and County, State, and Federal law. B. Each of the issued on-site sewage disposal permits or installed sewage disposal systems are functioning properly and in compliance with the applicable environmental health regulations as reviewed and approved by the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department. C. None of the lots are large enough to allow them to be further subdivided under zoning regulations in effect at the time of division under this section. D. Lots created under the authority of this section are exempt only from the density and minimum lot size requirements as provided by this Growth Strategy Ordinance. Such lots and all land uses carried out on such lots are subject to all other standards and requirements of County, State, and Federal law. E. Lots created under this exemption will not create an unbuildable lot or lots. The creation of lots that cannot meet the density requirements of the Growth Strategy Ordinance for the siting of essential public facilities such as school facilities, fire protection district facilities, public transportation facilities, or other public facilities shall be reviewed by the Director of the Department of Community Development on a case by case basis. The Director shall review the application and assure that all options and alternatives are exhausted before granting an exemption. The essential public facilities exemption approval shall be only for The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant shall submit in writing the nature of the request, a site plan, copies of permits, and a statement describing the basis for the exemption. An applicant may appeal the administrative decision made by the Director of the Department of Community Development to the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. Amend Section 5.30, adding the following wording: As an incentive for preservation of high value open space, a development which dedicates 50% of its land to open space will be given a density bonus. The density bonus will be dependent upon the type and quality of open space dedicated. No density bonus will be allowed for preserving critical areas or buffers, but a density bonus not to exceed 150% of proposed lot yield based upon underlying density requirements will be given for those developments preserving or constructing dedicated open areas. Public trail systems, open meadows, and forested ridges will be eligible for the maximum density bonus. The proponent shall submit a site plan to the Department of Community Development at the Permit Center for review and approval by the Director. The density bonus will be given on a project by project basis. Amend Section 6.10, to read: 6.10 Water Sun& Potable water provided by a public water system may be made available to proposed developments that comply with all applicable County and State regulations. Amend Section 6.30 to read: 6.30 Other Public Facilities Utilities and Services: No development application shall be approved by the County where such approval will require the extension of urban governmental services. Urban governmental services include those governmental services historically and typically delivered by cities, and include storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit services, and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with non -urban areas. C 0 9 i0 y 3 t,fOf, 9r t q�°{7: K TO: COMMISSIONERS, Jefferson County f ~''t='`lest FROM: Dana Roberts, 438 22nd Street, Port Townsend, 385-1291 DATE: April 9, 1996 RE: Emergency Land Use Control Ordinance (Draft 7, of "January 31, 1995)[sic] (is this correct, or is Draft 7 of Jan. 1996??) By request of Glen Huntingford, here are my observations on the proposed text. Quite importantly, much of the real world effect of this ordinance will only become clear once the associated mapping is made available. Nevertheless, having suitable standards & requirements to apply to the several zones & numerous land uses that are fast coming on to our county is critical. Only that way can we combine maps & text to gain what all parties of good will should be seeking from the process: A Jefferson County of 2030A.D. that we're just as pleased to live in as we were in 1995. Specific points: FINDINGS 1.17--(pg.3, Line 15) --Is "...preserves the status quo..." quite the term that best describes your intention on this score? Unless it is employed to conform to a legality of RCW, wording it "...assures procedural fairness..." might better signal that you intend not to overturn prior practices but are shifting course somewhat --as it appears that is underway now. DURAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECT I VES & POL I C I ES 2.10-- (Pg. 4, Lines 35-7). Residence which doesn't sustain a rural way of life should not be a preferred use. While this section declares its contents to be "Preferred land uses....", it omits Commercial (which is treated Individually at 2.30) but includes "...residential uses." Because of the emphasis previously set out in sub- Sections 1.02, 1.03 & 1.04 which Identify the differential character of urban [& tract suburban? (residential)] & rural land uses, the inclusion of undifferentiated residential in a Preferred land uses listing seems an un -warranted emphasis. My recommendation would be to insert the word "associated" between "...and" & "...residential" in line 17. This would be an encouragement to the more self-sufficient rural land users enumerated elsewhere & perhaps hint at a less -receptive response to the placement in rural areas of residences that do not otherwise relate to the other Preferred uses listed. 2.50 RURAL SERVICES (Pg. 5, Lines 27-28)--A declaration to "Allow a broader range of services... where... necessary to protect the public health & safety." ought not to be capable of application to problems that a developer or user of land effectively brings upon themselves. Where current development --not historic (as on the Quilcene Flood Plain) -- causes itself problems, County [plus State & Federal] taxpayers must not be left with paying the bill for losses & damages which were preventable with the knowledge we have, & cannot be excused for not applying now. To avoid this problem, consider adding the following sentence at the end of line 28: "Such services may only be provided where the need for said protection has not been caused by developers or users of the lands to be protected. 3.03 RURAL AREAS (Pg. 7, Line 40) --Replacing the first word in this line ("Allowing......) with the word "Encouraging" will reinforce the emphasis elsewhere on truly rural activities & uses. The encouraging of these undertakings by rural residents offers perhaps our best chance to avoid becoming, over time, little more than a lower density vacation & retirement housing suburb. Encouragment of these activities affords a recognized & interesting opportunity for partial -to -full self sufficiency & support to residents who choose to respond to the challenge 3.20 (Table 6.10.1: Permitted & Conditional Uses for Rural Lands Outside Designated Rural Centers --Pages 8-11) is it intended to omit Agriculture & Forestry from the Table? in alphabetic sequence, both these activities seem to merit specific inclusion, if only to carry forward many of the earlier -stated intentions, as in Sections 1 & 3. Consider inclusion of: "Agriculture, including farming & related processing & sale of produce raised on premises, but excluding cattle (or other) feed lots." [The thought to exclude feed lots from general endorsement should perhaps be tempered by recognizing the particular consequences of this use & limiting it to Conditional use status.] Consider adding "Forestry, including timber management, when conducted in accord with a long-term silvicultural pian consistent with County & State requirements & regulations.". Sub -section 4.50.2(1)-- Commercial & Light Industrial --Pg. 23, Line 23). In terms of intent, the fair burden of such screening might better be expressed by revision of this line to read: "Al l uses in these zones, whether or not directly related to the sale, service or rental of goods at retail or wholesale shall be screened .... [& continue per lines 24 & 25). In addition, where such commercial & Industrial uses are in place prior to the construction of adjoining rural residential uses, ought not the later arrivals be obliged to assure effective screening of their properties? Otherwise, & especially for long-established uses dating from before adoption of this Ordinance, the consequence would seem to be that no screening obligation would apply on either party's part. Sub -section 5.20A --Residential Use of Existing Lots of Record (Pg. 24, Line 17) Should the words "or parcel" be inserted after the text: "...existing lot...."? This would deal with the many pieces of land not formally set out in plat maps as such. Prospective mapping of district & catagory boundaries (especially for Tri -Area & vicinity) It seems important in the Irondale area to work out mapping delineation of that Rural Activity Center with as many of its potential residents as possible. The fair goal would seem to be to use the maps to reduce potential incompatibilities & un -warranted difficulties for that locality qualifying for legitimate 'stand alone' municipal status & thus attaining a greater share of control over its own destiny. Thank you for the chance to make these comments. V J �l JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Emergency Interim Land Use Controls and Maps Ordinance #05-0214-96 DATE: March 25, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Do you wish to present testimony? YES NO MAYBE An22.. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑q1-7 �❑ F-1 ❑ M ❑ El ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Imo' ❑ E-1 a ❑ ❑ ❑fr— ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 G. q?c,Y V'o1 ��o�n WA '-10All ui�Lx''top x7 0 73570 `x$370 S3 IL5 �S < < Ell Aoi o(J 5 6 -Wu" I- e. s z Peu�' I was a�1 U QAt.zk Alll�( 03 z ) - ` 117` Df .-.-- -ed-k-W-)aZ C, X %= J441 �ab� ���. 9i-, Kz' zrc,,3 e 0 i -Z) JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Emergency Interim Land Use Controls and Maps Ordinance #05-0214-96 DATE: March 25, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Do you wish to present testimony? YES NO MAYBE �CCSOI © ❑ Z ❑ F ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0' ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ F-1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El ❑ ❑ N1 E:1 ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ z ❑ 1� 2i ❑ I ' ❑ IN ❑ ❑ ❑ Izv kk VA45 c'cw�e_ 9�aL w /S� a- s- CoUE be/ kX00 fie �4M2� -a G % —�V.7nJ 00 S- f i'CN6 t 9 E -d- ' 2Z`:WY. 5 Eli 1144 C�.ee- , �G d V : -�- — Tel Ef,4UL t1 T--bl� "o mr' P I o3 u-^ l7l�lr fP:ll�- U �S36S� 7 A* M65 L Py ' �� ra N�n��tin CoiO �ul3(�tNs �. 9d'3S� h S C' ^ PDX 7 ` 6 s efd I ail �rlft9� 9 r�� iS ,rls l'�CIVcrL /��` Wy I Sbc ' `c," �Lo b w@-uUc'Lkts> `�t C) zrc,,3 e 0 i -Z) Commissioners, The land use designations on the map and as they are define in the ordinance, go too far in regulating lot size and density. The County has not considered fully enough the exi tin intensity of the physical improvements that are already there and will be the determined land use into the future. Furthermore, the proposed regulations are not consistent with the results of the Community Planning Groups. Any proposed land use must reflect the desires of those "mini" comprehensive plans per area described. Isn't that the "bottoms up" approach we have insisted on? For lands on or near waterfront, it is clearly defensible to allow 1 or 2 du/a. View property on Boulton Peninsula, for example, can easily demonstrate existing land use intensity to just allowing smaller lot size. BUT, you must show your work. The Assessor's records must provide the numbers to substantiate what the Community Planning Groups have already told you. Many county's have exercised their discretion to allow a variety of .5 to IOa lot sizes in the rural element with the majority in the 2.5 to 5a. range. Again, please leave the comment period open so you may gain as much testimony as possible from the very people who will be impacted the most. Sincerely, JlarPhill'ips FROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM Bill and Melody Bacchus TSO Box 416 Quilcene, `'SIA, 98376 360-765-6455 Proposed Twana Roadhouse PHONE NO. : 360 765+6485 Jul. 31 1994 11:29AM P1 bEtwElul March '15, 1996 MAR 2 01996 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Wo havo oomo up with a now proposal wo aro submitting for your review. l ncloced is a plot map of the property including the wells and the proposed mid e2usLing drfuiilieldh zii the area. Our proposal is not to abandon the Dressler wolf but instoad to put in a now daifac;ld dj� �lavwxi VAL IAaG 6kgtt;1x xka5 xat;w 4;4j;lht;ld WvVid V, 1 50 44 '12 Tke system %ill be designed through Tillman Engineering with new tanks installed, The other items listed in the letter written by Linda Atkins addressed to Susan Porto, February 21, would all be included in the new design. Susan Porto R. S. has classified this soil at a .8 application rate giving us a capacity of 625 gallons. This drainfield would be used only for the proposed bakery/pizzeria.. We would need to apply for a variance into the Dressler well radius of about 15 feet. As the land lays, our new septic field would be down from the Dressler well. Their well, which is at 74 Feet, goes down through two impervious layers: We have enclosed the well log of the Dressler well. The cafe residence would remain on the existing system it is presently operating on. We are looking to seat 39 people. 2.5 gallons per person x 39 seats x 3 meals x 2 turnovers = 585 gallons. 2 full-time employees at 15 gal. each:h- 30 gallons. Total gallons needed would be 615 gallons. The above figures allow for us to seat 234 people in a day which is much higher than what we are estimating our business to be. Our morning business is primarily take -scut items and much of our evening business would he the same The nature of our food service will be bakery goods, sandwiches, ice-cream and pizza. We are looking for a solution which will riot endanger public health but on the other hand will be affordable to us. We feel this is a solution that works for us without creating a public health concern. Thank -you Bill and Melody Bacchus cc Larry Faye Bob Hinton Richard Wojt Olen Huntingford FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. 360 7 65+6485 Jul. 31 1994 11:31AM P2 xn "- x a �� ... -7 . IZ I �} , : , v. , +; Cis 4 , , Cl I `..._..ti. _....; ... _ .. .............. , r , : March 25, 1996 Jefferson County Commissioners Courthouse Port Townsend, WA Re: Public Hearing - Land Use Density Maps & Use Tables MAPS ARE INCORRECT A. Intent of the Brinnon Community Plan is not depicted correctly on the either map for density and "zoning". Natural restrictions and performance standards were used rather than zoning in Brinnon Community Plan. 2. NATURAL RESTRICTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT a. TOPOGRAPHY - Density is restricted by the topography of Brinnon- steep slopes would not allow an overall density of 1 home per acre, rather more likely an average of 5 acres per home. In some areas the land is unbuildable for miles, other areas would allow a home every so few acres and in only a few areas is the land level enough to allow a higher density. b. TIMBERLANDS - With private timberlands, national forest, state timber lands, state parks, and national parks being approximately 90% of the Brinnon Plan Area, development is already restricted to a small corridor along Hwy 101 and the two river corridors, the Dosewallips valley and the Duckabush valley. With few exceptions those corridors have already been platted into lots or acreage, mostly in 5 acre parcels. Many of these parcels cannot currently meet the performance standards for sewage and water, forcing owners to either buy more land to combine or to use only as RN sites. C. WATERWAYS -With the already existing shoreline and river setback requirements, the land all along Hood Canal, the two rivers and various salmon creeks is highly restricted for development. 2. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS a. SEPTIC & WATER - homesites can only occur where the parcel has sufficient area for disposal of sewage and protection of a well. b. BUSINESSES - home businesses were encouraged to locate anywhere, provided they did not interfere with the enjoyment of neighboring properties. Commercial ventures which cannot meet the neighborhood requirements would be located in the three commercial areas; WaWa Point, Brinnon and Black Point. c. HIGH DENSITY SUBDIVISIONS Clustering was encouraged where there are still parcels large enough to develop into a new neighborhood subdivision. Existing subdivisions without community water systems, still are required to meet the septic and water standards. d. AFFORDABLE HOUSING - A density of as low as 1 acre per homesite was used so as to not restrict those few parcels that are buildable from doing so. Affordable housing can only be addressed within a subdivision where prices can be maintained at a level affordable for low income and the many fixed income households of our mainly retirement community. B. Existing timberlands are not correctly shown on either map. See map enclosed, which more accurately shows the existing State/Federal timber lands and the private timber holdings. COMMERCIAL - Black Point and WaWa Point commercial areas were increased to include all the land up to the parcel o m ri _ in the Community flan, which is not reflected on the maps. Additionally, the Black Point area was zoned GENERAL commercial through public hearing process several years ago, which is also not reflected on the maps. The Brinnon Community Plan was accomplished and in effect since 1981, long before GMA was even imagined. The community updated that plan in 1994 to assist with GMA in Jefferson County. The plan was done with public input and due process and should be respected under the GMA law as representing the wishes of those who live in the community and created this document. The plan complies with GMA in that the Waal aspect is maintained, the density of homesites will continue to have a rural look, commercial areas will serve the local as well as tourist traffic without the urban sprawl and home businesses, unseen from the traveler's eye will support a healthy economy and community, Brinnon relies upon the Iocal fire district, paid entirely by Brinnon tax dollars, will never rely on public services for water or sewer, has little impact on public transit or police protection and in all aspects is in compliance with GMA.It seems that the Brinnon plan is being misinterpreted with respect to the density of homes. Since we did not use "Zoning" it is difficult to show on a map, however with the information above, it should be clear that we did not zone Brinnon 1:1 acre but did allow for a 1 acre homesite if available. I would like to request the Commissioners leave the Brinnon Community Plan as completed by the community. On the contrary, I do not believe that a zoning of 1:10 or 1:5 on the Quimper Peninsula is at all in compliance with GMA. If any area should be zoned 1:1, this should be the place, as the public services are already in place and would be easiest and least costly to expand to that area before any other area in Jefferson county. Linda Tudor P.O. Box 184 Brinnon, Wa. 98320 360-796-4900 City of Port Townsend Building and Community Development S40 Water Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360/385-3000 FAX 360/385-4290 HAND DELIVERED 1891 March 25, 1996 Board of County Commissionerssh Jefferson County Courthouse MAR 26 19 P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 y r i RE: County Interim Land Use Control Ordinance No. 05-0214-96'' `'R ' Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Jefferson County's Interim Land Use Control Ordinance. The Land Use Control Ordinance represents a substantial and positive step towards promoting rural densities and uses in unincorporated Jefferson County. Upon review, however, City staff continue to be concerned with three basic issues which could be addressed more effectively by this ordinance. Issue 91 - Use of Existing Lots of Record: The first issue is the status of existing platted parcels smaller than the newly adopted minimum lot sizes. In this regard, we note that section 5.00 of the ordinance attempts to "vest" existing undeveloped lots, many of which were platted long before the advent of planning and zoning. As written, the ordinance would continue to allow infill development on the thousands of existing platted lots in unincorporated areas and inevitably lead to urbanization. City staff believe that the most effective approach to promoting rural densities involves a combination of enacting larger minimum parcel sizes coupled with "lot consolidation" provisions which address unimproved nonconforming lots. This technique is not novel - many other counties have enforced lot consolidation provisions for 20 years or more. Using this approach, any nonconforming unimproved lot in common ownership with a contiguous lot would not constitute a legal building site unless combined with one or more adjoining lots up to the new minimum parcel size for the zone. By contrast, single unimproved lots where the adjoining lots are not in common ownership would be treated as legal building sites. Because of the significant number of previously platted lots in unincorporated Jefferson County, lot consolidation provisions are essential to maintaining rural character, and limiting the future demand for urban public services and facilities. Issue #2 - Amount and Location of Commercial and Manufacturing Zones: The second issue relates to the surplus of land zoned for commercial and manufacturing development. Much of this land appears to be situated outside of the new Planned Rural Community (PRC), Rural Activity Center (RAC), and Rural Neighborhood Center (RNC) designations. In fact, a review of the Build -Out Analysis contained within the DEIS prepared for the 1994 Zoning Ordinance reveals that nearly 250 acres of commercial land alone lie outside the PRC, RAC and RNC designations. The Build -Out Analysis also indicates that only about 92 acres of this area are currently ILUC ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 1 MARCH 25, 1996 developed, leaving nearly 158 acres for future commercial development. The analysis suggests that too much land has been designated for commercial and manufacturing development to be consistent with the rural character of these areas. City staff would encourage the County to consider downsizing the amount of land zoned for commercial and manufacturing uses lying outside the PRC, RAC, and RNC designations to recognize only existing conforming development, and to reduce the potential for new commercial development, which cumulatively, could erode the rural character of the area, and create demands for urban public services and facilities. Issue #3 - Distinguishing Urban and Rural Land Uses: The inclusion of use tables, and bulk, height and dimensional requirements within this ordinance represents a positive step towards differentiating between urban and rural scale and intensity commercial and manufacturing uses. However, it appears that the ordinance may not yet adequately distinguish between urban and rural uses. We note that many of the allowed uses, and lot coverage and height requirements appear largely indistinguishable from zone to zone, regardless of whether the zone lies inside or outside a PRC, RAC, or RNC. In this regard, it may be appropriate to create specific commercial and manufacturing zones that are tied directly to the PRC, RAC, and RNC designations. For instance, a C -I (RNC) designation would specify a narrower range of commercial uses, at a smaller scale, than would be the case with a C-I(RAC), while a C- I(PRC) designation would allow the highest intensity and widest range of neighborhood commercial uses. On balance, this ordinance is a very positive step towards promoting rural uses outside of properly designated Urban Growth Areas. However, despite the positive strides that have been made, there are some aspects in which the ordinance should be amended to better conform with the GMA, and recent decisions of the Growth Management Hearings Boards. We hope you better understand our concerns and that these comments are of value in your deliberations. Very truly yours, Dave Robison, Director Port Townsend Building & Community Development Department cc: Mayor Julie McCulloch & City Council Tim McMahan, City Attorney Bob Wheeler, Public Works Director Michael Hildt, City Administrator c'Vugaco \mwc i96.1e. ILUC ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 2 MARCH 25, 1996 3�-q6 PAUL W. PALMER RACHEL ALPHA PALMER 1524 Larson Lake Road Center, Washington 98325 Telephone: (360) 732-4442 Robert Hinton Jefferson County Commissioner P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Richard Wojt Jefferson County Commissioner P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Glen Huntingford Jefferson County Commissioner P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 RE: Interim Law Issue Gentlemen: In regard to the Interim Law Issue, we wish to go on record as protesting the following issues: 1. The 200 foot buffer zone on public right of ways. This can financially cripple a small land owner. 2. The limiting of the right to cut timber, according to the age of the timber. What is actually the maximum age limit that may be cut? 3. The $6,000.00 per one lot class as rural forest land. 4. The inability to build on deeded property that is lesser in area (acreage) than is now said to be admissible, because it is adjacent to other lands with more, or less, allowance. 5. Lower taxes on regular farmland that is now being listed for taxes for highest and best use. 6. We recommend that, until all of these issues have been settled, that our tax payments be held in escrow. 7. Why do we need Goldsmith and Rowe at $70,000.00 per year? Cut their salaries according to the work they actually perform. Signed at Port Townsend, Washington this 22nd day of March, 1996. AUL W. PALMER RACHEL ALPHA PA ER MAR 2 199 In regard to the Interim Law Issue, we wish to go on record as protesting the following issues: 1. The 200 foot buffer zone on public right of ways. This can financially cripple a small land owner. 2. The limiting of the right to cut timber, according to the age of the timber. What is actually the maximum age limit that may be cut? 3. The $6,000.00 per one lot class as rural forest land. 4. The inability to build on deeded property that is lesser in area (acreage) than is now said to be admissible, because it is adjacent to other lands with more, or less, allowance. 5. Lower taxes on regular farmland that is now being listed for taxes for highest and best use. 6. We recommend that, until all of these issues have been settled, that our tax payments be held in escrow. 7. Why do we need Goldsmith and Rowe at $70,000.00 per year? Cut their salaries according to the work they actually perform. Signed at Port Townsend, Washington this 22nd day of March, 1996. AUL W. PALMER RACHEL ALPHA PA ER _ cc, N 3 96 BROWN & BEAUFAIT, P. S. Attorneys at Law 914 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 6 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 TELEPHONE (360) 385-2516 FACSIMILE (360) 385-2535 MARK S. BEAUFAIT March 22, 1996 hand delivered Commissioner Richard Wojt Commissioner Glen Huntingford Commissioner Robert Hinton P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Interim Density Ordinance Dear Commissioners: e s MAR 2 2 1996 JEFFERSON COGWY BOARD OF COMM iSSiON'ERS The Interim Density Ordinance you are now working on may well be the most important piece of legislation you adopt during your terms of office. The purpose of this letter is to offer procedural suggestions, and to request that whatever decision you make, is made for firm, well -discussed policy reasons, clearly communicated to the community. Our office is still being contacted by residents in what were "suburban" areas of the County who believe their properties still are zoned at one residential unit per acre. The Interim Density Ordinance you adopt providing for rural centers and housing density in the County will, by the very nature of the legal and political process, become locked in place. There may be minor changes to your regulations, but we must expect that the densities and rural centers will mirror these regulations. To say or think otherwise is unrealistic. Thus, it is essential that the final Interim Density Ordinance be thoroughly discussed and well considered. What follows are hopefully procedural suggestions, as opposed to substantive ones. First, understand that you are the executive body as well as the legislative body for the County. You can direct the compilation of whatever information you need to make this decision. You are hampered by the Open Meetings Act, which prevents two of you from meeting together to discuss policy decisions. Yet you can avoid this entire problem by remaining in session, without allowing public comment, after the close of the Commissioner Richard Wojt Commissioner Glen Huntingford Commissioner Robert Hinton March 22, 1996 page - 2 appropriate public proceedings, to thrash out the mix of land use zones that will be in the Interim Density Ordinance. Please discuss every paragraph, every line, and every zone line by line, in session, and then make your decision. It would appear that this could take at least a few days in session. Given the importance of the decision, and it being your appointed task to make that decision on behalf of all County residents, it is critical you take the time to do so. After the conclusion of your public hearing, you should schedule your discussions as work sessions and make your decision in those sessions, on the record, line by line and zone by zone. Although currently unindexed, you have available to you in the existing Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Areas public records a substantial amount of information on housing density needs, housing costs, population studies, desires of the residents, environmental needs, and long-term goals for the County. Take the time to locate, to review, and to cite to specific items in this record in support of whatever decision you adopt, so that it can be sustained upon appeal, should any appeal be lodged. Here again, do your discussion openly and on the record. The appropriate staff members and/or legal staff should be on-call, and should be utilized, to provide this information to you, as needed, as your review proceeds. A simple two-hour discussion session among the Commissioners, with staff directed to compile the appropriate resolution, will likely result in another confused step in the Growth Management process. The Interim Density Ordinance and the Interim Density Map should have your individual fingerprints on every square inch of those very important papers. Finally, make an open and conclusive policy decision on whether you will adopt, or challenge, parts of the blanket Growth Management Hearing Board's decisions requiring "rural" areas be extremely rural, and that "urban" areas be extremely urban. If you decide to adopt that policy, say so, announce to the community that is what you are doing, and let the populace address the merits of your decision in subsequent elections. If there are parts of the Growth Management Hearing Board's decisions with which you disagree on legal and substantive grounds, make that decision clearly and openly, and then outline a plan to use your legal staff to handle appeals on those grounds. On civil matters, the County Prosecutor's office serves as the County's attorney, and you, as both the legislative and executive body of the County, are their client. Commissioner Richard Wojt Commissioner Glen Huntingford Commissioner Robert Hinton March 22, 1996 page - 3 Overall, it appears that a mix of densities, especially around the rural centers, is appropriate for this County. Small rural centers, appropriately scaled, should be encouraged where they exist, not forced out of existence by new zoning. The mere provision of small-scale "public" water and sewer systems in these areas does not make them "urban"; it is good environmental practice to combine water and sewer in areas where there is somewhat higher density, rather than have individual septic systems and wells. This response to environmental concerns does not make an area "urban". In conclusion, take firm legislative control over the adoption of the Interim Density Ordinance. Take the time to review, and rewrite if necessary, every section and every zoning area, as you see fit, sustained by the appropriate background information in the record. You should never be surprised by any provision in an ordinance you adopt. If you vote for it, you should be prepared to stand behind it as you go forward. We wish you the best in working over this very rocky ground. As noted in the enclosed cartoon, you have a very difficult task ahead of you. very truly yo rs At r, S 1RO) I Mark S. Beauf it MSB:jkc Enclosure cc: Mr. Al Scalf (w/enclosure) The Leader, Jefferson County (w/enclosure) jkc\msb6322a.1tr 03121!1996 15:58 3604370878 LOOMIS PROPERTIES PAGE 02 611MIN PROPERTIES Commercial Real Estate Brokers Established 1972 March 21, 1996 Commissioner Bob Hinton Commissioner Glen Huntingford Commissioner Richard Wojt Paul McIlrath, Esq. Mr. Al Scalf 1ESON COUNTY P.O. Box 1200 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Ordinance No. 05-0214-96 As amended 2/26/96 Dear Gentlemen: VIA FAX MAR 21 1996 .JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Would you please enter these comments into the public record. I have serious concerns regarding the new Emergency Interim. Land Use Ordinance No. 05-0214-96 as amended 2126/96. I believe the ordinance in it's present form is extremely vulnerable to a successful appeal on both procedural and substantive issues, My attorneys and I are available to work with the County to help correct these deficiencies. Also, I would life you to consider adopting the following as amendments to this ordinance: • Add "Multi -Family Residential Development" as an outright permitted use in C-2 [general commercial] zones in the Interim Urban Growth Area [Port Townsend] and Planned Rural Centers [Port Ludlow]. Expand the outright permitted uses in C-2 [general commercial] zones in the Interim Urban Growth ,Area [Port Townsend] and Planned Rural Centers [Port Ludlow] to match the permitted uses in the previous County [ordinance No. 09-0801-94. 9500 OAK BAY ROAD • PORT LUDLOW, WA 95365-9204 * (360) 437-2400 • FAX: (360) 437-0870 01/21/1996 15:50 3604370870 LOOMIS PROPERTIES PAGE 03 Add "Multi -Family Residential Development" to the definitions section of the ordinance: Multi -Family Residential Development: Developments containing structures housing two [2] or more residential dwelling units. Multi- family residential developments are those that are designed and intended for residential occupancy in multi-faillily structures regairdlcss of the type of building or ownership in which such use occurs. Examples include, but are not limited to: townhouses, duplexes, multiplexes, condominiums, apartment houses, boarding houses, and lodging houses. Establish a density of 10 units to the gross acne for all "Multi -Family Residential Development". If Port Ludlow is redesignated as a Master Planned Resort [MPRJ, these amendments would be consistent and appropriate for that designation as well. It is my understanding the appeal period expires on April 25, 1996. If that is not accurate, please advise me of the correct date. Your consideration and comments would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, 11 Bert Loomis CC. Dick McCann, Esq. Van Katzman, Esq. PROPERTIES Commercial Real Estate Brokers March 21, 1996 Mr. Glen Huntingford Commissioner JEFFERSON COUNTY P.O. Box 1200 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Glenn: Established 1972 [E 88 MAR 2 21996 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Thank you for taking the time to meet with me last week. I enjoyed getting to know you better and having the opportunity to share our ideas and concerns for the future of Jefferson County. As we discussed, I have some very serious concerns regarding the new Emergency Interim Land Use Ordinance No. 05-0214-96 as amended 2/26/96. I believe the ordinance in it's,,present form. is, extremely vulnerable to. a successful appeal on , both procedural and substantive issues. My attorneys and I are available to work with . the . County to , help correct these deficiencies. I would like you to consider adopting the following as amendments to this ordinance: - Add "?multi -Family Residential Development" as an outright permitted use in C-2 [general commercial] zones only in the Interim Urban Growth Area [Port Townsend] and Planned Rural Centers [Port Ludlow] . Expand the outright permitted uses in C-2 [general commercial] zones only in the Interim Urban Growth Area [Port Townsend] and Planned — Rural Centers [Port Ludlow] to exactly match the outright permitted ,use as described in the previous County Ordinance No. 09-0801-94. 9500 OAK BAY ROAD - PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365-9204 - (360) 437-2400 - FAX: (360) 437-0870 • Add "Multi -Family Residential Development" to the definitions section of the ordinance: Multi -Family Residential Development: Developments containing structures housing two [2] or more residential dwelling units. Multi- family residential developments are those that are designed and intended for residential occupancy in multi -family structures regardless of the type of building or ownership in which such use occurs. Examples include, but are not limited to: townhouses, duplexes, multiplexes, condominiums, apartment houses, boarding houses, and lodging houses. • Establish a density of 10 units to the gross acre for all "Multi -Family Residential Development". If Port Ludlow is redesignated as a Master Planned Resort [MPR], these amendments would be consistent and appropriate for that designation as well. Your consideration and comments on these suggestions would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please let me know. ;Sincer , Bert Loomis 1 FriendsotWashington 1000 Friends of Washington 1305 Fourth Avenue, Suite 303 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 343-0681 tax(206)343-0683 friends@eskimo.com Richard Wojt, Chair Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220, Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 fAAR 2 0 19,96 March 25, 1996 n RE: Jefferson County's Interim Rural Lands Ordinance Dear Members of the Board of County Commissioners: 1000 Friends of Washington would like to commend Jefferson County for having adopted interim rural densities that delineate a clear separation between urban and rural uses within the County. With the passage of Ordinance # 05-0214-96, the County has taken great strides toward compliance with the Growth Management Act. However, we remain concerned about the range and intensity of commercial and industrial development permitted in rural areas. The Act is clear that commercial and industrial development that is not associated with the rural or natural resource base is urban growth and must be prohibited in rural areas. The Central Puget Sound Hearings Board has elaborated on this concept as follows: The Board holds that ... proposed uses that meet the definition of urban growth will be prohibited in a rural area unless: (1) the use, by its very nature, is dependent upon being in a rural area and is compatible with the functional and visual character of rural uses in the immediate vicinity; OR (2) the use is an essential public facility. Vashon-Maury, et al. v. King County In this ruling, the Board held that King County's rural industrial policies violated the GMA because they permitted "an overly broad range of industrial uses that are not dependent on a rural location." Therefore, we strongly object to the County's current proposal to revert to the 1994 zoning code's table of permitted uses for determining the industrial and commercial uses that are allowed in rural areas. Allowing such a wide range of commercial and industrial uses clearly permits inappropriate urbanization of the rural areas of Jefferson County. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Tracy Burrows Planning Director .0 Printed on recycled paper March 5, 1996 Gentlemen: As a voter and a member of the Port Townsend -Jefferson County Association of REALTORS, I am deeply concerned over your recent approval of the "Jefferson County Strategy Ordinance," seventh draft. This newly adopted ordinance does not appear to honor the wishes of the communities within our county. Further it severely restricts residential and commercial growth, creating, in effect, no growth as opposed to managed growth. These restrictions ultimately mean a higher cost of housing for the residents within Jefferson County. The State Hearing Board is not in with the wishes and needs of our county as You our County Commissioners, are. I am asking you to review, and adopt, amendments to the Growth Strategy Ordinance that have been presented to you by the Jefferson County Homebuilders Association. These proposed amendments deal with the definition of "Rural Neighborhood Centers" permitted residential densities within Rural Centers and minimum standards for domestic water systems and sewage systems. Additionally, I ask you to consider a draft proposal before you that would clarity and restate the Planned Unit Development section of the Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance. I urge you to adopt these proposed amendments without delay. Your passage of the above mentioned modifications to the Growth Strategy Ordinance and the proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance would be an important step in the right direction to more sensible land use controls in Jefferson County. Sincerely, a-- March 16, 1996, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA. 98376 r-�: :+''9 •Y . Re: JC Growth Ordinance and Interim Density Map Sirs, And once again we are asked to comment on an ordinance that will further erode, at all levels, our rural way of life. I will again state to the Commissioners ( and anyone else within earshot) that from Jeff 2000 to present day this whole "planning" process is a sham, a cruel and expensive joke, and an attack on civil liberties. You, as our elected leaders, lend credibility to this latest faze (the most recent Growth Hearings Board decision) of the hoax by labeling it a "crisis" or emergency. There is no real "crisis". There is an intentionally created crisis that is born out of the fears of the liberal left. They create the "crisis" to ensure there are no alternatives but to enlarge the government to protect its citizens from the imagined threat. With this ordinance will the crisis be resolved? With any of the past ordinances are people better than they were before? I don't think so. I suggest you relegate this legally -questionable ordinance to the trash bin and go back to the community plans and the maps that accompany each plan. Th�X should form the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. The community plans are honest attempts at self governing and are what should emerge as the framework for what happens from now forward. 1, again, ask that the public comment period be extended through the community meetings. I do recognize the effort it will take to wade through all the changes the comments will insist upon, but in fairness to the people in the rural areas that do not yet realize this ordinance affects them. it is imperative that they be given the opportunity to speak and be heard. Copies of the map and ordinances should be displayed at all Post Offices or community centers where people can go to study them. You are doing a great dis-service to the rural people you represent by limiting the information from circulation because of location and costs. incerely, awe Mari Phillips Quilcene, WA. 98376 J March 19, 1996 +� 1 7 s DEAR EDC AND COUNTY, As a comercial busniness property owner on the Old Chimacum Road between Port Hadlock and Chimacum I was greatly distressed to find out my property has been rezoned under the c2 heading.IT is my uAderstanding that in the future if I should want to sell it as this business it would have to be approved by the county first. I feel this cuts the value of my property and could make the sale of it possibly impossibl:e.AFTER LIVING IN THIS COUNTY,RAISING MY CHILDREN HERE,PAYING TAXES I AM STUNNED TO THINK I HAVE WORKED ALL THESE YEARS SUPPORTING IT AND IT IS NOW AT RISK. My feeling and others on this road is that this area between chimacum and Hadlock is anatural business area it always has been. ghat is why we.all built here. WE would like this issue to be noticed and reevaluded. SINCERELY, LE I71� G U S E�%�---'�����. CHid M ALL VET SERVICE OLYMP I C l ��f/may TACK SHACK/ QUALITY GARAGE a: A. 3-lq-I� FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. March 18, 1996 Jefferson County Commissioners JEFFERSON COUNTY COURT HOUSE P.O. Box 1220 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: COMMENTS ON JEFFERSON COUNTY INTERIM DENSITY ORDINANCE Dear Commissioners: �e 3-l7-45 D ** VIA FACSIMILE "* (360) 385-9382 AI f -'D I respectfully request the Rural Activity Center designation for the Tri Area be expanded west of Rhody Drive to include the Spigarelli property. This boundary should include properties designated in the Tri Area plan update (proposed by the Tri Area Planning Group last year) with densities of one acre or less. As an alternative, the Rural Activity Center could reflect the boundaries of the incorporation for the Tri Area. I believe the two boundaries are very similar. The Tri Area Planning Group worked very diligently over a two year period to define how their community should develop. The plan was adopted by the group and sent to the Planning Commission for their review. Since that time, the plan has seemed to vanish. I urge the Commissioners to use this plan as a basis for determining the Rural Activity Center's boundaries. The proposed boundary does not reflect the efforts of this planning group; rather, it imposes the desires of the planning staff who have made their own determination of what is best for this community. That very same staff participated with this group in the analysis and debate that surrounded the Tri Area Plan update. More importantly, they were present when the vote was taken, and it appears they have chosen to disregard the efforts of this group. Again, I urge the Commissioners to reconsider the boundaries and densities proposed for this area. Enclosed is Senate Bill 6637, recently passed by the House and Senate, giving certain powers back to cities and counties to set urban growth boundaries. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. Jim indsay Proj ct Manager JL:gd JCCSPIG Enclosure cc: Don Spigarelli 120 W. Dayton EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 776-6006 Suite D-9 FAX (206) 776-5777 ,18 -MM -1996 10:33 Washington State House of Representatives Page 2/3 S-5070.1 SUBSTITUTE SKATE BILL 6637 State of Hashington 54th Legislature 1996 Regular Session By Senate Committee on Government Operations (originally sponsored by Senators Haugen, Sheldon, Winsley, Hale, Wood and Long) Head first time 02/02/96. 1 AN ACT Relating to limitations on'growith management hearings board 2 discretion; and am6nding RCW 36.70A.320. 3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 4 Sec. 1. RCW 36.70A.320 and 1995 c 347 s 111 are each amended to 5 read as follows: 6 (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, 7 comprehensive plans and development regulations, ((and)) amendments 8 thereto, and other recmired actions adopted under this chapter are 9 presumed valid upon adoption. In any petition under this chapter, the 10 board, after full consideration of the .petition, shall determine 11 whether there is compliance with (( _)) this chapter, 12 including approved county -wide plannina policies. In making its 13 determination, the board shall consider the criteria adopted by the 14 department under RCW.36.70A.190(4). The board shall defer to the city 15 or county as to the relative weight to be given to each goal set forth 16 in BCW 36.70A.020 in the development of its comprehensive plan and 17 development regulations The local government may give higher priority 18 to certain goals over others, but all of the goals must be given 19 effect. The board shall find compliance unless it finds ((by a P. 1 SSB 6637 28 -MAR -1996 10:33 Washington State House of Representatives page 3/3 1 MASS )) that the petitioner has demonstrated by 2 evidence that is substantial when reviewed in light of the whole record 3 before the board that the comprehensive plan. development rec[ulation, 4 or other action or amendment. of the state agency, county, or city 5 erroneously interpreted or applied this chapter. 6 (2) The shoreline element of a comprehensive plan and the 7 applicable development regulations adopted by a county or city shall 8 take effect as provided in chapter 90.58 BOW. --- END --- SSB 6637 p• 2 �C+ Pla-v�wi nI 's -al -76, March 15, 1996 Jefferson County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA. 98368 MAR 21 1996 BOARD OFR ©,MiiV SSIONER,e RE: Ordinance No. 05-0214-96, Jefferson County Growth Strategy Ordinance Dear Commissioners, When the above ordinance was implemented I was in the process of completing the items needed to subdivide parcel no. 962700078 and parcel no. 962700079 into 5 lots of approximately 1.25 acres each. I feel that I should be allowed to complete the subdivision of these parcels for the following reasons: a. the application process was begun well before the implementation of the above ordinance. b. the large number of subdivision applications being processed by Jefferson County at that time caused untimely delays with the various county departments such as Public Works and the Health Department. c. the large number of subdivision applications caused untimely delays with various sub -contractors such as septic designers, surveyors. d. confusion and indecision by County and City of Port Townsend personnel concerning water supply to the subdivision lots. e. the large expenses already incurred during the per -application process, i.e. lot survey costs of $6,000.00, soil logs and septic evaluation costs of about $500.00. f. the character and size of the proposed subdivision lots fit in exactly with the existing surrounding lots and homesites. g. these lots would be served by an existing public water system and would not require any additional wells to be drilled into the area's aquifer. I am requesting that the Board of County Commissioners approve the continuation of the subdivision process on parcels no. 962700078 and parcel no. 962700079 based on these reasons. iSincerel-- Street, P E 1: ENTER 821 Sheridan ee,Port Townsend, February 26, 1996 Re: Pre -Application Meeting DEAR APPLICANT: This letter i to inform you that a pre -application meeting was held on for parcel q(-0:Z0r)nZ9' within Section 'i - (A) e—SX letter Q�� North, Range' WM, for a proposed subdivision. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners have adopted an emergency ordinance (No. 05-0214-96) known as the Jefferson County Growth Strategy Ordinance which is effective as of February 14, 1996. This ordinance regulates new densities as well as zoning. The information that was given to you at the pre -application meeting may be incorrect or no longer relevant. Please contact Michelle Grewell at the Permit Center (360-379- 4463) to determine what your new density may be. These new densities may prohibit the possibility of any future subdivision. Sinc yo Al Scalf Director 6GYqM'Anity AS:mkg W,%:5 —5--S Building Building Permits (360) 379-4450 Inspection Hotline (360) 379-4455 Development Environmental Health Septic Permits Water Review (360) 379-4450 QeYeIgprMnt Review Subdivision, Zoning & Shoreline Permits (360) 379-4463 Public Works Road Approach Permits & Addresses (360) 379-4450 1-800-831-2678 FAX: (360) 379-4451 JEFFERSON COUNTY PERMIT CENTER 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 February 26, 1.996 Re: Pre -Application meeting DEAR APPLICANT: e -an licat* n meeting was This letter ASF, to inform you that a pr qla 7k -1 held oil for parcel _ 0—�'l within section Township North, Range I U Ift wM, for a proposed subdivision. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners have adopted an emergency ordinance (No. 05-0214-96) known as the Jefferson County Growth Strategy ordinance which is effective as of February 14, 1996. This ordinance regulates new densities as well as zoning. The information that was given to you at the pre -application meeting may be incorrect or no longer relevant. Please contact Michelle Grewell at the Permit Center (360-379- 4463) to determine what your new density may be. These new densities may prohibit the possibility of any future subdivision. Sinc ye Al Scalf Director 60MIRA'anity AS:mkg P -`tom- 06t( Building Building Permits (360) 379-4450 inspection Hotline (360) 379-4455 1-800-831-2678 Development gnvironmental Health Septic Permits Water Review (360) 379-4450 Q gy g lop me nL8_eY'!9w_ Subdivision, Zoning & Shoreline Permits (360) 379.4463 Publif, Works Road Approach Permits & Addresses (360) 379-4450 FAX: (360) 379-4451 5-19.1 rj MAR oc. G David H. Schroeder 500 Arabian Lane Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360)385-3489 March 26, 1996 County Commissioners and Planning Staff P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Gentlemen: PAR 2 6 z;'J .i r � _ I attended the hearing on the interim land use ordinance yesterday afternoon at the courthouse. Clearly there are community groups who feel that the current ordinance flies in the face of their original community plans. These seem to include Quilcene, Brinnon, and waterfront property owners. I just want to underscore that the Quimper community is not one of those groups. The lack of complaints from the Quimper yesterday is evidence of this. I congratulate you for taking the difficult steps you have taken. The interim land use ordinance is a step in the right direction. I ask you for leadership -- help us focus on the long term health and balance of our beloved area. Thank you for your difficult work. Sincerely, C David H. Schroeder March 26, 1996 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Four Creeks Community Association Regarding: Interim Land Use Ordinance MAR 211996 s• j^ /n S E e.. 3.^y1 E ! } �� ] i G 3,' i'`� i ➢e We are writing to clarify our previous letter regarding the interim Land Use Ordinance. In that letter, we stated that we support the downzoni ng of much of the land in our neighborhood from one residence per f ive acres to one residence per twenty. However, we did not adequately describe the precise area for which we made this statement. The enclosed map gives the needed description: only the area within the heavy black line. Our comments address our vision for our smal I neighborhood alone. We choose to make no further statement about the remainder of the Ordinance beyond those made in our previous letter. Sincerel , Tom Ammeter President, Four Creeks Community Association POB 1 Ch i macum, WA 98325 7324793 0710911996 11:38 3604370870 LOOMIS PROPERTIES PAGE 02 611MIN F�R[]QERTI E� Commercial Real Estate Brokers Established 1972 July 8, 1996 t; Mr. Al Scalf JEFFERSUN COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. JUL (1 19,96P.D. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Ordinance No. 05-07.14-96 as amended 2/26/96 Dear AL I would like the Board of County Commissioners to consider adopting the fnilnwing Is amendments to this ardi'MILk;e: • Add "Multi-Fa.Mily Residential Development" as an outright permitted use in C-2 zones inside rural centers. • Add "Multi -Family Residential Development" to the definitions section of the ordinance - Multi -Family Residential Development: Developments containing structures housing two [2] Or More residential; dwelling units. Multi- family residential developtxxCnts are chose that are designed and intended fnl' V-b;,dv11Gal uccupancy in multi-ramily structulCs regardless of the type of building or ownership in which such use occurs. Examples iliclude, but are not limited to: townhouses, duplexes, multiplexes, condominiums, apartment houses, hoarding houses and lodging houses, • Established a density of 10 units to the gross acrc for all "Multi - Family Residential Development". Your consideration and comments would be greatly appreciated. If you have any question, please let me know. Sin fe-5--7-:1 f -]Trt Loomis cc: Board of Coulrty Cwllnlisstoners Gary Ru we 9500 OAK BAY ROAD • PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365-9204 • (360) 437-2400 • FAX: (360) 437-0870 City of Port Townsend Building and Community Development 540 WSW Street, Port Towmand, WA •98368 3601385-3000 FAX 360/385-4290 HAND DELIVERED JUL 23 1996 July 23, 1996 JEFFERSON COUNTY Board of County Commissioners BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Proposed Revisions to County Interim Land Use Control Ordinance No. 05-0214-96 Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to Jefferson County's Interim Land Use Control Ordinance. When originally adopted, we expressed our opinion that the Ordinance represented a substantial and positive step towards promoting rural densities and uses in unincorporated Jefferson County (see letter from Dave Robison dated March 24, 1996). We also articulated our concerns regarding three issues which could have been more effectively addressed by the ordinance: 1. The status and potential future use of existing lots of record; 2. The amount and location of land for commercial and manufacturing uses; and 3. The distinction between urban and rural uses. We would suggest that if any amendments are considered, they should seek to better conform the ordinance with the GMA and recent decisions of the Growth Management Hearings Boards. We refer you to our letter of March 24, 1996, which briefly describes how this could be accomplished. After review of the amendments now under consideration, however, we have concluded that several of the proposed revisions further dilute rather than strengthen the interim ordinance, moving the regulation further from GMA compliance. A section by section discussion of our concerns follows. New Section 3.10.4: This proposed new section would allow an exemption from the density requirements of the ordinance to permit the creation of new substandard lots when a currently undivided parcel of land contains two or more single or multi -family dwellings. On a number of recent occasions, County staff have made reference to the fact that the County currently has a surplus of existing platted, buildable parcels capable of accommodating a population somewhere between 300% and 500% of the population allocated to unincorporated areas under the Joint Regional Population Forecast. Providing an exemption which would allow the creation of new "suburban" size lots and increase the already enormous residential land surplus would appear both unwise, and contrary to the goals and purposes of the GMA. ILUC ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 1 JULY 23, 1996 Amended Section 5.30: The proposed amendments to this section would allow a 150% density bonus for developments which contain 50% or more land as dedicated open space. Aside from concerns over the potential impermanence of such dedications, the potential for a density bonus of this magnitude in a rural area will surely promote sprawl. On a 20 acre ownership in a RR -5 zone, this would result in an effective density of one unit per two acres. Such densities have been repeatedly and resoundingly rejected by the Hearings Boards as inconsistent with the GMA. We cannot comprehend how such a density bonus will promote the GMA goals of encouraging growth in urban areas and reducing sprawl in rural areas (see Chapter 36.70A.020(1) and (2) RCW). Please recognize that we support Section 5.30 as originally adopted. As adopted, the section seeks to encourage the clustering of residential development in rural areas. This is highly desireable, and entirely consistent with the GMA (see Chapter 36.70A.090 RCW) and the County -Wide Planning Polite for Jefferson County (see CWPP #8.2). Amended Section 6.10: This section is proposed to be revised as follows: Potable water provided by a public water system may be made available to proposed developments that comply with all applicable County and State regulations the following Gooditiomw (i) Th (ii) The provision of se ,e poliGies of -the water pufveyon (iii) The provision of serviee -Ail! not require the oreation of additional system eapaoity. We do not understand the practical implications of these recommended deletions. We would suggest the following language be used, based on a combination of the language contained within the existing interim ordinance and the County Subdivision Ordinance: An adequate notable water supply shall be provided to each lot within a new development. Water supply may be accomplished through connection to an existing public or community water supply system, through individual wells, or any other alternative method consistent with State law. Connection to a public water_suDt)IL— stem may be permitted only when: The subject property is located entirely within an existing water service area, or the purveyor is subject to a prior contractual obligation to provide water-, Clil The provision of service to the development is consistent with the policies of the water purveyor; and iii Any service extension meets the requirements of the State Department of Health. Individual wells shall comply with minimum Jefferson County Health Department and Coordinated Water System Plan standards. Amended Section 6.30: This section is proposed to be revised as follows: No development application shall be approved by the County where such approval will require the addition, expansion, afeation e extension of afly e€ -the , stations,suoh addition, --. . I ation or- extension is difeady asseeiated with— eoust-R-ation of PAA essential > west drop , tFa li&s, passing, 4H-Aing or- merge lanes for- vehi ILUC ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 2 JULY 23, 1996 urban governmental services. Urban governmental services include those governmental services historically and tonically delivered by cities, and include storm and sanitary sewer systems domestic water systems street cleaning services fire and police protection services Public transit services and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with non -urban areas. We commend these proposed revisions which would bring the language into conformance with the definition of urban governmental services found in Chapter 36.70A.030(17) RCW. Use Tables: We have not been able to determine which, if any, of the tables included within the existing ordinance would be modified or replaced by proposed use tables. However, after reviewing the proposed tables, the concerns we expressed with the use tables contained in the adopted ordinance persist - it appears that the proposed tables do not adequately distinguish between urban and rural uses. Finally, we would suggest that commercial and manufacturing zones lying outside of UGAs, and outside of the Planned Rural Community (PRC), Rural Activity Center (RAC), or the Rural Neighborhood Center (RNC) designations are patently inconsistent with the GMA. These areas should be downzoned, and existing commercial and manufacturing uses treated as legal nonconforming uses, with, clear prohibitions on expansions of use. Planning Commission Recommendation of July 12: In its letter of July 12, 1996, the Jefferson County Planning Commission recommended that interim ordinance be repealed and replaced with the former Zoning Code. We believe that following such an ill-advised recommendation would represent a complete abdication of the County's responsibility to comply with the GMA'and decisions of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board involving Jefferson County. We hope you better understand our concerns and that these comments are of value in your deliberations. Very truly yours, Dave Robison, Director Port Townsend Building & Community Development Department cc: Mayor Julie McCulloch & City Council Tim McMahan, City Attorney Bob Wheeler, Public Works Director Michael Hildt, City Administrator cAiuga.c \jd 96.1d ILUC ORDINANCE COMMENT LETTER 3 JULY 23, 1996 EXHIBIT "A" Existing Approved Ordinance STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson IN THE MATTER OF AN emergency I ordinance establishing interim land use } controls, being adopted pursuant to Chapter } Ordinance No. 05-0214-96 36.70.790 and Chapter 36.70A.390 Revised } Code of Washington } Section 1.00: The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for: 1. Clear and concise development regulations to guide the submission, review, and approval of all land use permit applications in unincorporated Jefferson County prior to final adoption of permanent development regulations that implement the Comprehensive Plan to be adopted by the County under the mandate of the State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). 2. The definition of Rural Centers as places suitable for the location of new development that is consistent with their established character and available public utilities and 4. services. 3. A clear separation between urban and rural land uses by making revisions to the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94) that specify allowed and conditional rural commercial and rural industrial land uses. 4. A clear separation between urban and rural land uses through specifying allowable maximum densities for rural residential development in unincorporated lands not designated as Resource Lands of Long -Term Commercial Significance. 1.10 Findings: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners enter the following findings: Jefferson County has committed to planning under the provisions of the Growth Management Act, codified as RCW 36.70A. 2. The legislative findings and planning goals adopted by the Washington State Legislature when the Growth Management Act was enacted in 1990 support the conservation and wise use of land in order to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by residents of the state. 3. Jefferson County has adopted an Interim Critical Areas ordinance, an Interim Agricultural Lands ordinance, and an Interim Mineral Lands ordinance that are in compliance with the GMA requirements contained in RCW 36.70A.060, RCW 36.70A.170, and the Minimum Guidelines (Chapter 365-190 WAC). BOCC Amended 2/26/96 1 4. Jefferson County has also adopted an Interim Forest Lands ordinance (Ordinance No. 07- 0524-95) that remains substantially intact despite adverse review by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Jefferson County has also adopted three land use controls designating Interim Urban Growth Areas, and setting rural development densities and level of service standards, that have been found out of compliance with the Growth Management Act by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. These ordinances are Ordinance No. 02-0110-94, Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 and Ordinance No. 01-0117-95. 6. Concurrently with these efforts, Jefferson County has been engaged with 13 community planning areas and with ten citizen based 'Community Planning Groups' in an ambitious 'bottom up' planning process that has had the joint objectives of producing new and revised land use plans for the unincorporated areas that constitute Jefferson County and the policy framework for the county comprehensive plan. 7. The draft comprehensive plan is close to completion and requires further work with respect to policies addressing land use densities, clustering, and commercial and industrial development outside UGA's, in order to be ready for public distribution. 8. Revisions to the draft comprehensive plan, together with the necessary adoption processes, are likely to take some additional time, presenting the County with the need to fully retain its planning options during this period. 9. The County is concerned that issues of development density, location, and scale be clarified during the plan preparation and adoption period for the benefit of all Jefferson County residents. 10. The Emergency Moratorium Ordinance (Ordinance No. 19-1121-95) adopted by the Board of Commissioners on November 21, 1995, while suitable for the situation it was adopted under, can be improved upon by an ordinance that has been crafted with the benefit of additional research and review. 11. In addition to maintaining progress on the Comprehensive Plan, County staff have labored intensively to craft an interim land use control that accomplishes similar objectives to Ordinance No. 19-1121-95 while removing the need for an absolute limitation on many forms of development activity. 12. Jefferson County continues to receive applications for the development of land that need to be reviewed and processed using a framework that is consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act and ESHB 1724. 13. The maintenance of effective and responsible county government requires immediate adoption of an emergency density ordinance that amends existing development BOCC Amended 1/16/96 2 regulations to comply with the Growth Management Act while allowing for the peaceful use of property. 14. Emergency adoption of this ordinance is necessary to guide the form of development projected to occur in unincorporated Jefferson County as an interim measure during Comprehensive Plan preparation and adoption. Use of the adoption procedures specified by the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70) could lead to lengthy extension of an existing emergency control that seeks to meet GMA goals through broad prohibitions on development. 15. The Board deems that an emergency exists based on the above findings. 16. The Board intends this ordinance shall apply to all property within the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County, to the extent permitted by law. 17. The Board finds that this emergency density ordinance preserves the status quo, pursuant to RCW 36.70.790 and RCW 36.70A.390, pending development and adoption of a revised comprehensive plan and implementing regulations , and this ordinance may be adopted without prior notice, or holding a public hearing. The Board also finds that this ordinance is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as provided in, and pursuant to, Washington Administrative Code 197-11-800. 18. These regulations bear a substantial relationship to the public health,, safety and welfare of the County as a whole. 1.20 Enactment: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners does hereby ordain and enact into law the following provisions. 1.30 Title: This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the 'Jefferson County Growth Strategy Ordinance'. 1.40 Repeal and Amendment of Existing Regulations: Land use controls previously adopted by the County shall remain in affect without modification unless specifically identified in the following subsections: 1. Repeal: i. Effective immediately upon its adoption, this ordinance shall repeal and replace the provisions of Ordinance No. 17-1002-95. ii. Effective immediately upon its adoption, this ordinance shall repeal and replace the provisions of Ordinance No. 19-1121-95. 2. Amendment: i. Effective immediately upon its adoption, this ordinance shall amend the provisions of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94) as noted in the sections and 3 BOCC Amended 1/:6/96 subsections modifying this regulation. 1.50 Zone and Map Designation Puroose: The purpose statements for each zone and map designation set forth in the following sections of this ordinance shall be used to guide the application of the zones and designations to all rural lands in unincorporated Jefferson County. The purpose statements shall also guide interpretation and application of land use regulations within the zones and designations, and any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through amendments to this Ordinance or the Jefferson County Zoning Code. 1.60 Zoning Districts: i. All reference made to the C-1, C-2, M-1, M-2, and M -C zoning districts within the body of this ordinance shall be construed to apply only to those lands receiving these designations on the zoning maps adopted as part of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801.-94). ii. For the duration of this Ordinance, the County shall not accept any application to change the zoning designation of land within unincorporated Jefferson County. iii. For the duration of this Ordinance, the County shall not hold hearing, or make any approval, allowing the creation or expansion of any C-1, C-2, M-1, M-2, or M -C zone. iv. For the duration of this Ordinance, the County shall not accept any applications for Planned Unit Developments made under Section 9 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code. 1.70 Subdivision Densities: For the duration of this ordinance, the County shall not accept any applications for the subdivision of land that propose the creation of building lots smaller than those allowed by subsections 3.10 and 4.20 of this ordinance. 1.80 Port Townsend Interim Urban Growth Area: Nothing in this ordinance should be construed as affecting or amending the Port Townsend Interim Urban Growth Area initially created by Ordinance No. 1-0106-94, and confirmed by Section 1.0 of Ordinance No. 15-1028-94. Section 2.00 Rural Development Objectives and Policies: 2.10 General Objectives: The objective of the regulations contained within the following ordinance sections is to allow a range of opportunities and land uses that are compatible with, and support the continuation of., a rural way of life. Preferred land uses in rural areas should relate to farms, forestry, nursery activities, mineral extraction, outdoor recreation and entertainment, other open space activities, and residential uses. 2.20 Recreational Uses: Allow public and commercial recreational and associated uses, such as campgrounds, lodging, interpretive centers, marinas, camps, golf courses, air parks, riding arenas, and rifle or archery ranges. BOCC Amended 1/16/96 4 �� C'�mmercial Uses: A limited range of commercial uses, sufficient to support their existing role in the local settlement system, should be allowed to locate in designated Rural Centers. Expansion, modification or intensification of commercial uses in existing locations outside a designated rural community shall be restricted. 2.40 Rural Residential_ Densities: Rural residential development should be allowed on lands which can physically support it without requiring urban level services. Further, rural residential development should be of predominantly low -intensity and seek to maintain or enhance established rural character while creating a development pattern in rural areas that uses land more efficiently than traditional development. 1. Allow residential development where physical carrying capacity, including septic capability, is adequate to support development. 2. Publicize available tax incentive programs that encourage the designation of property as open space. 2.50 Rural Services: Preserve the rural way of life by not providing urban services or urban levels of service within rural areas. A. Sewer interceptors shall only extend outside of an Urban Growth.Area (i.e., into rural areas), where: (i) Sewer service will remedy groundwater contamination and other health problems by replacing septic systems and community on-site sewage systems; or (ii) A formal binding agreement to serve an approved planned development was made prior to the establishment of Interim Urban Growth Areas. B. Allow a broader range of services to be provided in specific rural centers where such facilities are necessary to protect the public health and safety. 2.60 Rural Centers: In keeping with their historically established, community serving functions, designated Rural Centers shall be the location for activities not allowed in rural lands, where such activities are not urban in size, scale, or intensity of provision. A. Designated Rural Centers shall serve the following purposes: (i). To provide locations where rural residents can gather, work, shop, entertain and reside; (ii) To provide an activity focus for the surrounding rural area that is appropriate in character and scale; (iii) To provide a focussed alternative to strip developments along arterial and state routes; (iv) To provide appropriate services to tourists and other visitors recreating at major recreation facilities; BOCC Amended 2126196 5 (v) To provide an opportunity for the location of public and private facilities that support the continued function of the designated rural center as a community center, so it may continue to meet its historically defined role in the Jefferson County settlement system. B. Condition all permits with established standards and design guidelines to protect environmental quality, rural character, and the significant natural and scenic amenities and features valued by Rural Center residents. C. Allow accessory dwelling units, senior housing and group homes, within Rural Centers. 2.70 Classification of Rural Centers: This ordinance shall designate three categories of Rural Centers: Planned Rural Communities, Rural Activity Centers, and Rural Neighborhood Centers. A. Planned Rural Communities All of the following characteristics must be present at the time this ordinance is adopted in order for an area in unincorporated Jefferson County to be designated a Planned Rural Community: (i) The area must be actively planned and managed under the guidance of a master plan recognized by Jefferson County (where 'active' shall be considered to mean the submission of plat applications and/or building permits over the past calendar year by the entity responsible for the master plan ). (ii) The area must possess a total population of at least 1,000 people, as estimated by the Jefferson County Planning Department. (iii) The area possesses a range of public, or quasi -public, facilities and services that are not typically available in unplanned, rural communities. (iv) The area has recorded a rate of growth equal to or greater than the county rate observed over the last five years (1990 - 1995). (v) The area possesses an established mix of commercial, industrial, public (or quasi -public) and residential land uses. (vi) The residents of the area have formed a Community Planning Committee for the purpose of producing a local plan under the Jefferson County GMA framework. B. Rural Activity Centers All of the following characteristics must be present at the time this ordinance is adopted in order for an area in unincorporated Jefferson County to be designated a Rural Activity Center: (i) The proposed activity center must have immediate access onto a state route, or, a major arterial; (ii) The proposed activity center shall be contain an established mix of commercial, industrial, public and residential land uses. BOCC Amended 2/26/96 6 (iii) The proposed activity center shall be located in a Planning Area (as defined by the Jefferson County Planning Department) that has a minimum population of 2,000 people. (iv) The residents of the area shall have formed a Community Planning Committee for the purpose of producing a local plan under the Jefferson County GMA framework. (v) The proposed activity center shall have existed as a separately defined community (according to County records) for a minimum of thirty years. C. Rural Neighborhood Centers All of the following characteristics must be present at the time this ordinance is adopted in order for an area in unincorporated Jefferson County to be designated a Rural Neighborhood Center: (i) The proposed neighborhood center must have immediate access onto a state route, or, a major arterial; (ii) The proposed neighborhood center shall contain an established mix of commercial, industrial and residential land uses. (iii) The proposed neighborhood center shall be located in a Planning Area (as defined by the Jefferson County Planning Department) that has a minimum population of 1,000 people. (iv) The residents of the area shall have formed a Community Planning Committee for the purpose of producing a local plan under the Jefferson County GMA framework. (v) The proposed neighborhood center shall have existed as a separately defined community (according to County records) for a minimum of thirty years. Section 3.00 Rural Areas: The purpose of the rural land use designations made in this ordinance is to provide for the continued long-term rural character of these areas and to minimize land use conflicts with nearby agricultural, forest or mineral extraction production districts. These purposes shall be accomplished by: 1. Limiting residential densities and permitted uses to those that are compatible with rural character and nearby resource production districts. 2. Limiting residential densities and permitted uses to those able to be adequately supported by on site water and septic waste disposal systems and limited availability of other public services; 3. Allowing small scale farming and forestry activities and recreation uses which can be supported by rural service levels compatible with rural character; and, 4. Providing standards for the size and setback of permitted uses that are sufficient to minimize the possibility of use conflicts with adjacent agriculture, forest or mineral lands. BOCC Amended 2126196 7 3.10 Rural Residential Density:; All subdivisions proposed in unincorporated Jefferson County for lands outside designated Rural Centers shall conform with the following density designations. The purpose of each residential density designation is described in the following subsections. The location and boundary of each density designation is shown on the precisely detailed maps adopted as part of this ordinance. 3. 10.1 RR -5: One Dwelling Unit ner 5 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to rural unincorporated lands where the observed density of development already exceeds one dwelling per five acres and soils can support on-site sewage disposal without damage to water resources; 3.10.2 RR -10: One Dwelling Unit per 10 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to rural unincorporated lands which do not have established subdivision patterns. 3.10.3 RR -20. One Dwelling Unit per 20 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to rural unincorporated lands that are adjacent to designated forest lands of long-term commercial significance, as well as lands where area -wide environmental features constrain development. 3.20 Zoning Designations: The following use table replaces the Table of Permitted Uses described in subsection 6.10 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94) and shall be formally identified in the Zoning Code as Table 6.10.1. Table 6. 10.1 establishes allowed and conditional uses for all neighborhood and general commercial, light industrial, heavy industrial and light industrial/commercial zones established under the Jefferson County Zoning Code, together with the Rural 5, Rural 10, and Rural 20 residential density designations, lying outside designated Rural Centers. Key: C = Conditionally Permitted ✓ = Permitted Outright Table 6.10.1 Permitted and Conditional Uses for Rural Lands Outside Designated Rural Centers District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-10 R-20 Use N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 5 10 20 Use Permit Accessory uses and structures incidental to Exempt any use which will not create a nuisance or hazard Agencies (e.g. real estate, C C insurance) Agricultural Processing, ./ C C Heavy Airports and Airfields J BOCC Amended 2/26/96 8 District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-10 R-20 N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Residential Special USC Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 5 10 20 Use Permit Alcoholic beverage sales C (packaged) Amateur Radio Antennas, J C C C C J J J less than sixty five (65) feet tall Amateur Radio Antennas, C C C C C C C C More than sixty five (65) feet tall Aquaculture, in an area ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ J ✓ ✓ '� regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Aquaculture, in an area ✓ Of ✓ ✓ J C C C not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Automobile Restoration C C Boat Marinas ✓ Bed and Breakfast Inns Home with 1 or 2 Guest Rooms Business Bed and Breakfast Inns ✓ J C C C C C with 3 to 6 Guest Rooms Blacksmith or Forge C Of ✓ Boat Building and Repair: ✓ ✓ ✓ Commercial Bus stations and terminals Car wash C Cemeteries ✓ Church, or place of C C C C religious worship Commercial relay or C ✓ ✓ J transmission facilities Construction Yards C ✓ J C ✓ Correctional institutions Craft (Hand Made) Goods ✓ J J C J C C C Studios Day care: Family day care Home home (up to 6 charges) Business Day Care: Mini -day care Home center (up to 12 charges) Business BOCC Amended 2/26/96 District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-10. R-20 Use N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 5 10 20 Use Permit Day care: Day Care C Center (13 or more charges) Educational institutions ✓ Electronic goods repairs C C C ✓ Energy Facilities Of Essential public facilities ✓ and utilities Furniture Manufacture or ✓ ✓ ,/ Renovation Government Buildings Home Businesses consistent ✓ ,/ �/ ✓ ✓ with the requirements of Section 14 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code Industrial park C C C Industrial use, Heavy ✓ Jewellery Design and Home Manufacture Business Kennels C C Laboratories for research ✓ ✓ J and testing Lock and gunsmiths C C C Lumber Yards C C Of Metal fabrication and/or ✓ ✓ ✓ machining Mineral Extraction and C• C• C" ✓ C" C• C' C• primary processing Nursery, Landscape C ✓ C ✓ materials Other light manufacturing ✓ C ✓ activities not otherwise classified Parks, playgrounds, golf ✓ courses, public community centers Pawnshops or second C hand stores Plumbing shops and yards C ✓ BOCC Amended 2/26/96 10 District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-10 R-20 Use N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 5 10 20 Use Permit Printing, publishing. C C C binding and reproduction facilities (non -retail) Radio, television broadcasting stations (excluding antenna) Recreational vehicle park: Seasonal (up to 180 days stay) Repair Shops not C ✓ C otherwise classified Residences, Single Family ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Restaurants C C C Sign manufacture, C C ✓ painting and maintenance Silvicultural processing C ✓ C C C Theater, Drive In ✓ Towers, antennas, and supporting structure C ✓ ✓ ✓ C Less than 65 ft in height 65 ft or greater in height C C C C Vehicle repair and service ✓ ✓ C C Veterinary hospitals and C C C practices Water -Dependent light C C �/ ✓ industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Water -Related light C C ✓ industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program * Unless proposed on land that is designated as Mineral Land of Long -Term Commercial Slgnitl.cance by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 09-0525-95 3.30 Bulk Dimensional and General Requirements: Section 12 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, as amended), Bulk and Dimensional Requirements, is hereby amended through incorporation of the following tables, which shall be formally identified in the Zoning Code as Tables 12.1 and 12.2. These tables replace all previously adopted Bulk and BOCC Amended 2/26/96 11 Dimensional Requirements tables and shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located outside designated Rural Centers. Table 12.1 Residential Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Lands Outside Designated Rural Centers BOCC Amended 2/26/96 12 Minimums Maximums Lot Size Required Setbacks Lot Buildin Coverage g Height Front Access Collector Secondary Primary Side (each) Rear Zone Road Road Arterial Arterial C-1 Currently Platted 5' 10' Residential Lands only 1 Lot or on Health Department Currently Standards When Platted Whichever is the 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an lands: 45% 35' greater space established requirement C-1 or C-2 Residential Unolatted Lands Use/Zone: on Mapped 20' 20' Unplatted 35' development density Lands: When 45% abutting an established M or M -C Use/Zone: 20' 20' C-2 Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' Same as Same as Same as above above above RR -5 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 50' 5' 5' Same as Same as RR -10 above above RR -20 When abutting an established M -1 or M -C Use/Zone: 25' 25' When abutting an established M-2 Use/Zone: 50' 50' When abutting an established C-1 or C-2 Use/Zone: 25' 25' BOCC Amended 2/26/96 12 Table 12.2 Commercial and Industrial Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Lands Outside Designated Rural Centers Maximums Minimums Lot Size Required Setbacks Lot Coverage g Hee n g Height Front Zone Access Collector Primary Side (each) Rea rse=condar Road Road al Arterial r C-1 Lot sizes shall be 5' S' sufficient to meet the public health and When environmental 30' 35' 35' abutting an M or M -C 50% 35' protection standards 20' contained in zone: 20' 20' Jefferson County regulations When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 35' 35' C-2 Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' Same as Same as Same as above above above M-1 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 35' 10' 10' Same as 8 dards above When abutting a C Zone 20' 20" When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 35' 35' M -C Same as above 20' 30' 35' 35' 10' 10'Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a C Zone 20' 20' When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 35' 35' 13 BOCC Amended 2/26/96 M-2 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 40' SU' 50' Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a M I Zone 20' 20' When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 100' 100' 3.40 Rural Development Standards: 1. Industrially Zoned Land (M-1 and M-2): The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located outside of Rural Centers that are zoned M-1 or M-2 under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those specified in subsection 3.30 of this ordinance: (i). All uses occurring outside an enclosed building shall be screened from adjoining rural residential uses; (ii). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (iii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and screened by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iv). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. 2. Commercially Zoned Land (C-1. C-2) and Light Industrial -Commercially Zoned Land (M -C): The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located outside of Rural Centers that are zoned C-1, C-2, or, M -C under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those specified in subsection 3.20 of this ordinance: (i). All uses that occur outside an enclosed building and are not directly related to the sale of goods to the public, shall be screened from adjoining rural residential uses; (ii). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (iii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and screened by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iv). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. Section 4.00 The Designation and Regulation of Rural Centers: This ordinance designates rural centers for the purpose of allowing the occurrence of a sufficient amount of non -urban BOCC Amended 2/26/96 14 growth to preserve the social and economic vitality of these communities until such time as permanent development regulations are adopted by the County following completion of its comprehensive plan production process. Such designations shall also serve as an indication of the possible direction to be taken by the County for its permanent regulations. This purpose shall be accomplished by: Limiting residential densities and permitted uses to those that are compatible with each rural center designation; 2. Avoiding the premature elimination of planning options by preventing the location of development that may be of sufficient scale or density to alter the existing character of each rural center. 3 Allowing development that will not require the creation or extension of public utilities and services to support its existence. 4 10 1 Designation of a Planned Rural_ Community: Based upon review of materials on file with the Board of County Commissioners, the Jefferson County Planning Department and the Office of the Jefferson County Assessor, the Port Ludlow community, as defined by the boundaries identified in the April 1995 draft of the Port Ludlow Community Plan, has been determined to meet the criteria contained in subsection 2.90A of this ordinance for designation as a Planned Rural Community and is formally designated as such. 4 10 2 Designation of a Rural Activity Center: Based upon review of materials on file with the Board of County Commissioners, the Jefferson County Planning Department and the Office of the Jefferson County Assessor, the portion of the Tri -Area, as defined by the attached map adopted as part of this Ordinance, has been determined to meet the criteria contained in subsection 2.90B of this ordinance for designation as a Rural Activity Center and is formally designated as such. 4 10 3 Designation of Rural Neighborhood Centers Based upon review of materials on file with the Board of County Commissioners, the Jefferson County Planning Department and the Office of the Jefferson County Assessor, the communities of Brinnon, Chimacum, Discovery Bay and Quilcene, as defined by the attached maps adopted as part of this Ordinance, have been determined to meet the criteria contained in subsection 2.90C of this ordinance for designation as Rural Neighborhood Centers and are formally designated as such. 4.10.4 Mapping: The boundaries of each Planned Rural Community, Rural Activity Center, or Rural Neighborhood Center, shall be separately identified on precisely detailed maps adopted as part of this ordinance. 4.20 Rural Center Residential Density: All subdivisions proposed in unincorporated Jefferson County for lands within designated Rural Centers shall conform with the following density BOCC Amended 2/26/96 15 designations. The purpose of each residential density designation is described in the following subsections. The location and boundary of each Rural Center residential density designation is shown on the precisely detailed maps adopted as part of this ordinance. 4.20.1 RR -5: One Dwelline. Unit per 5 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to lands lying within each designated Rural Center where no established pattern of residential subdivision exists. 4.20.2 RR -3: One Dwelling Unit per 3 Gross Acres: This density shall be applied to the following lands lying within the boundaries of designated Rural Centers: (i). Lands lying in or near the core of each designated Rural Center. (ii). Lands not containing any designated critical areas. 4.30 ZoningDesignations: The following table shall be formally incorporated within Section 6 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code as Table 6.10.2. Table 6.10.2 complements Table 6. 10.1 (contained in section 3.10 of this ordinance) by identifying uses that are permitted outright or conditionally in the C-1, C-2, M-1, M-2, M -C and R zones located within the rural centers designated by section 4.10 of this ordinance. All development applications for these lands shall be reviewed according to use table Key: C = Conditionally Permitted ,/ = Permitted Outright ' = Planned Rural Community Only 2 = Planned Rural Community and Rural Activity Centers only Table 6.10.2 Permitted and Conditional Uses for Designated Rural Centers District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-3 R-5 Use Mood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 3 5 Use Permit Accessory uses and structures incidental to any use which Exempt will not create a nuisance or hazard Agencies (e.g. real estate, C V insurance) Agricultural Processing. ,/ C Heavy Alcoholic beverage sales (packaged) Amateur Radio Antennas, less ./ ,/ C C C than sixty five (65) feet tall Amateur Radio Antennas. C C C C C C C More than sixty five (65) feet tall Aquaculture, in an area ,/ ./ ./ ,/ / V regulated by the Shoreline Master Program BOCC Amended 2126/96 16 District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-3 R-5 N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Special Use Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm, 3 5 Use Permit Aquaculture, in an area ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ C ✓ not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Automobile Restoration Of ✓ Bakeries ✓ C Banks and Financial C' ✓ Institutions Barbers and Beauty Shops ✓ ✓ ✓ Boat Marinas Bed and Breakfast Inns Home with 1 or 2 Guest Rooms Busines s Bed and Breakfast Inns ✓ ✓ C C C ✓ with 3 to 6 Guest Rooms Blacksmith or Forge ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Boat Building and Repair: ✓ ✓ ✓ Commercial Bus stations and terminals ✓ Car wash ✓ C Cemeteries ✓ Church, or place of C C C C religious worship Clinics ✓ Commercial relay or ✓ ✓ ✓ transmission facilities Construction Yards ✓ ✓ ✓ C ✓ Convenience stores ✓' Correctional institutions ✓ Craft (Hand Made) Goods ✓ ✓ ✓ C ✓ C C Studios Day care: Family day care Home home (up to 6 charges) Business Day Care: Mini -day care Home center (up to 12 charges) Business Day care: Day Care Center (13 ,/ ✓ or more charges) Educational institutions BOCC Amended 1/16/96 17 District C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R -3R-5 Use N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 3 5 Use Permit Electronic goods repairs ✓ ✓ C ✓ Energy Facilities ✓ Essential public facilities ✓ and utilities Food/Grocery Stores ✓ Furniture Manufacture or ✓ ✓ ✓ Renovation Group Home for the ✓' ✓z ✓z handicapped Group home (other) ✓ Alcoholism or drug treatment centers, work release facilities for convicts or ex -convicts, or other housing serving as an alternative to incaceration or detoxification centers Government Buildings Hardware store ✓ ✓ Home Businesses ✓ C ,/ ✓ consistent with the requirements of Section 14 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code Industrial park ✓ C C Industrial use, Heavy ✓ Industrial use, light, not ✓ ✓ otherwise classified Jewellery Design and Horne Manufacture Business Kennels C ✓ ✓ Laboratories for research ✓ ✓ C and testing Lock and gunsmiths ✓ ✓ ✓ Lumber Yards ✓ ✓ ✓ Metal fabrication and/or ✓ ✓ ✓ machining Mineral Extraction and C• C' C• ✓ C' C' primary processing Nursery, Landscape ✓ ✓ C ✓ materials BOCC Amended 2126196 18 19 BOCC Amended 2/26/96 C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-5 District N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Special Use Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 3 5 Use Permit ndfor the E ✓: Other light manufacturing ✓ C ✓ activities not otherwise classified ✓ Parks, playgrounds, golf courses, public community centers Pawnshops or second ✓ ✓ hand stores Pharmacy or drugstore ✓2 Plumbing shops and yards ✓ ✓ Printing, publishing, ✓ ✓ ✓ binding and reproduction facilities (non -retail) Professional Offices C2 ✓ Radio, television broadcasting stations (excluding antenna) Recreational vehicle park: ✓ Seasonal (up to 180 days stay) Recreational vehicle park: C' ✓' Transient (up to 30 days stay) C Repair Shops Not ✓ ✓ ✓ Otherwise Classified Residences, Single Family ✓ ✓ C C ✓ ✓ Restaurants ✓� ✓ C Retail Stores not CZ otherwise identified in this table Schools ✓ Sign manufacture, C ✓ ✓ ✓ painting and maintenance Silvicultural processing ✓ ✓ C C Towers, antennas, and supporting structure 19 BOCC Amended 2/26/96 District C- I C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-5 Use N'hood General Light Heavy Lt Ind / Residential Residential Special Comm. Comm. Industrial Industrial Comm. 3 5 Use Permit Transient ✓� accommodations, (including hotels and motels) Less than 65 ft in height ,/ ✓ ✓ 65 ft or greater in height C C C Vehicle repair and service ✓ ✓ C C Veterinary hospitals and we ✓ ✓ practices Water -Dependent light C ✓_ Of ✓ industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Water -Related light C2 ✓ ✓ industrial or commercial uses located within the area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program * Unless proposed on land that is designated as Mineral Land of Long -Term Commercial Significance by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 09-0525-95 4.40 Bulk. Dimensional and General Requirements: Section 12 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, as amended) Bulk and Dimensional Requirements, is hereby amended through incorporation of the following tables, Tables 12.3 and 12.4. These Tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located within designated Rural Centers. BOCC Amended 2/26/96 20 Table 12.3 Residential Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Lands Within Designated Rural Centers BOCC Amended 1/26196 21 Minimums Maximums Lot Size Required Setbacks Lot Buildin Coverage g Height Front Access Collector Secondar Primary Side (each) Rea Zone Road Road y Arterial Arterial r C-1 Currently Platted 5' 10' Residential Lands Only 1 Lot, on 5000 Sq Ft, or Currently Health Department When Platted Standards 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an lands: 45% 35' Whichever is the established greater space C-1 or C-2 Residential requirement Use/Zone: on Unolatted Lands 20' 20' Unplatted 35' Mapped Lands: development density When 45% abutting an established M or M -C Use/Zone: 20' 20' C-2 Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' Same as Same as Same as above above above M-1 Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' 20' 20' Same as UBC Above Standards When abutting an established M -2 Use/Zone: 25' 25' When abutting an established C-1 or C-2 Use/Zone: 20' 20' BOCC Amended 1/26196 21 M -C Same as above 25' 30' 35' 35' 20' 20' Same as UBC Buildin g Height Front Zone above Standards When abutting an established C -I or C-2 Use/Zone: 20' 20' When abutting an established M-2 Use/Zone: 25' 25' R-5 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 35' 5' S' Same as Same as R-3 above above When abutting an established M -1 or M -C Use/Zone: 25' 25' When abutting an established M-2 Use/Zone: 50' 50' When , abutting an established C-1 or C-2 Use/Zone: 25' 25' Table 12.4 Commercial and Industrial Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Lands Within Desiwnated Rural Centers 22 BOCC Amended 1/26196 Minimums Maximums Lot Size Required Setbacks Lot Coverage Buildin g Height Front Zone Access Collector Secondar Primary Side (each) Rea Road Road y Arterial Arterial r 22 BOCC Amended 1/26196 Lone Access Collecror Secondary Pnmary Side (each) Rear Road Road Arsenal Arterial C-1 Lot sizes shall be 5' 10' sufficient to meet the public health and When environmental abutting an protection standards 20' 25' 30' 30' M or M -C 45% 35' contained in zone: 20' 20' Jefferson County regulations When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 25' 25' C-2 Same as above 25' 30' 30' 35' Same as Same as Same as above above above M-1 Same as above 25' 30' 30' 35' 10' 10' Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a C Zone 20' 20' When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 25' 25' M -C Same as above 20' 30' 35' 35' 10' 10' Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a C Zone 20' 20' When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 35' 35' M-2 Same as above 20' 30' 35' 40' S0' 50' Same as UBC above Standards When abutting a M1 Zone 20' 20" When abutting an established Residential development or R Zone: 100' 100' 4.50 Rural Center Development Standards: 1. Industrially Zoned Land (M-1 and M-2): The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located within designated Rural Centers that are zoned M-1 or M-2 under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those BOCC Amended 2/26/96 23 specified in subsection 4.40 of this ordinance: (i). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (ii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and main highways and screened from any adjacent residential development by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iii). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. 2. Commercially Zoned Land (C-1 C-2) and Light Industrial -Commercially Zoned Land (M -QJ The purpose of this subsection is to establish standards for development of lands located within designated Rural Centers that are zoned C-1, C-2, or, M -C under the Jefferson County Zoning Code. All permitted and conditional uses shall maintain rural character through applying the following standards that are in addition to those specified in subsection 4.40 of this ordinance: (i). All uses not directly related to the sale or rental of goods to the public, shall be screened from adjoining rural residential uses by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (ii). Outdoor lighting shall be focused downward and appropriately shaded and configured to minimize intrusion of light into surrounding areas; (iii). Refuse collection/recycling areas and loading or delivery areas shall be located away from residential areas and main highways and screened from any adjacent residential development by a view obscuring barrier of locally occurring plants, shrubs and trees; (iv). In addition to conforming with the requirements of Section 15 of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, any sign approved by the County shall not be internally illuminated. Section 5.00 Use of Existing Lots of Record: The purpose of this ordinance section is to codify the land use status of existing lots of record located within the unincorporated area of Jefferson County. 5 10 Non -Residential Land Uses: The suitability of existing lots of record for non-residential land uses shall be determined through the application of Local, State and Federal laws governing zoning, bulk, lot coverage, protection of critical and environmentally sensitive areas, and preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. 5.20 Residential Use of Existing Lots of Record: The following shall apply to the use of lots in residential zones for single family dwellings, where such lots have substandard area in comparison with residential density designation applied to the land by this ordinance. A. The owner of an existing lot of record, shall be permitted to develop such a lot if the lot meets all appropriate Federal, State and County development regulations in effect at the time an application for a building permit is made. 5.30 Residential Cluster Development: The 'clustering' of residential development is accepted and encouraged by the County., 24 BOCC Amended 2/26/96 5 40 Additional Provisions: (i) The use of a Boundary Line Adjustment to reduce the area of a residential building site established under the provisions of this Ordinance is prohibited. (ii). Nothing contained within this Ordinance may be construed as permitting the creation of substandard lots from lots that comply with the density requirements of this ordinance. Section 6.00 Level of Service Standards: The following measures shall control the provision of the following publicly and privately provided facilities, utilities and services: 6.10 Water Supply Potable water provided by a public water system may be made available to proposed developments that comply with all applicable County and State regulations (including this ordinance) subject to the following conditions: (i). The subject property is located entirely within an existing water service area recognized by the County. (ii). The provision of service to the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the water purveyor. (iii). The provision of service will not require the creation of additional system capacity. 6.20 Sewer Systems: All proposed developments must make provision for the on-site disposal of sewerage and waste water and meet all applicable County, State and Federal regulations. 14 V, V)'" V--c-4.I se"r y„'k 1 s , 6.30 Other 1' ie i 't' • No development application shall be approved b e County where such approval will require the ai# C extension o ' ' 'es, utilities, or services, unless such addition, expansion, creation or extension is directly associated with construction of an essential public facility (such as schools, fire stations, government offices, etc.): Solid waste collection, solid waste drop -boxes and/or recycling facilities, traffic lights, passing, turning or merge lanes for vehicular traffic, (public) access roads, or street cleaning. Section 7.00 Zoning Maps: 7.10 Interpretation: Where uncertainties exist as to the location of any zone boundaries, the following rules of interpretation, listed in priority order, shall apply: A. Where boundaries are indicated as parallelling the approximate centerline of the street right-of-way, the zone shall extend to each adjacent boundary of the right-of-way. Non road- related uses by adjacent property owners, if allowed in the right-of-way shall meet the same zoning requirements regulating the property owners lot; B. Where boundaries are indicated as approximately following lot lines, the actual lot lines shall be considered the boundaries; C. Where boundaries are indicated as following lines of ordinary high water, or government meander line, the lines shall be considered to be the actual boundaries. If BOCC Amended 2/:6/96 25 these lines should change the boundaries shall be considered to move with them; and, D. If none of the rules of interpretation described in subparagraphs A. through C. apply, then the zoning boundary shall be determined by map scaling. A. The location and boundaries of all density designations or special purpose zones identified in this Ordinance shall be shown and delineated on a density map adopted as part of this Ordinance. B. Changes in the boundaries of the zones, including application or amendment of interim zoning, shall be made by ordinance adopting or amending the maps. C. Adopted maps shall be available for public review at the Jefferson County Permit Center. Section 8.00 Expiration: The provisions of this ordinance shall cease to be effective upon adoption by the County of final development regulations that implement the revised Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, as required by RCW 36.70A. BOCC Amended 1/16/96 26 Section 9.O0 Severability: If any section, subsection, or other portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitiutional by any court or review body 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 10.00 Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the date of adoption as set forth in Section 11.00 below. Section 11.00 Adoption: Adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this 14th day of February, 1996. ATTEST: Lorna L. Delaney Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: Paul E. McIlrath Chief Deputy Prosecutor r:, Robert Hinton, Member Glen Huntingford, M er 27 EXHIBIT "B" Recommended Changes to Ordinance Developed by Al Scalf, in Response to Commissioner's and Planning Commission Comments �,s�r�bu�ed o fhe, 130cc ort co/a,4117& June 18, 19% Ordinance No. 05-0214-96 Emergency Ordinance Establishing Interim Land Use Controls, Growth Strategy Ordinance Adopted by BOCC on February 14, 1996 Amended on February 26, 1996 Public Hearing held on March 25,1996 COT Staff Recommendations include: Amend Section 3.00 to add Section 3.10.4 which will read: L)Kf',. 3 10 4 Exemvtion to DensityRNuirement: An undivided parcel of land on which two or more single family or multiple family dwellings are located, or which have two or more approved, valid, and unexpired on-site sewage disposal permits issued prior to the effective date of the Emergency Moratorium Ordinance No. 19-1121-95, November 21, 1995, may apply to the Department of Community Development at the Permit Center for an exemption to the density requirement of this ordinance and may, upon approval, apply to subdivide the property to create separate lots for each of the structures or issued septic permits if the following conditions are met: A. Each of the single family or multiple family dwellings was constructed in compliance with all applicable building codes and County, State, and Federal law. B. Each of the issued on-site sewage disposal permits or installed sewage disposal systems are functioning properly and in compliance with the applicable environmental health regulations as reviewed and approved by the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department. C. None of the lots are large enough to allow them to be further subdivided under zoning regulations in effect at the time of division under this section. D. Lots created under the authority of this section are exempt only from the density and minimum lot size requirements as provided by this Growth Strategy Ordinance. Such lots and all land uses carried out on such lots are subject to all other standards and requirements of County, State, and Federal law. E. Lots created under this exemption will not create an unbuildable lot or lots. - The creation of lots that cannot meet the density requirements of the Growth Strategy Ordinance for the siting of essential public facilities such as school facilities, fire protection district facilities, public transportation facilities, or other public facilities shall be reviewed by the Director of the Department of Community Development on a case by case basis. The Director shall review the application and assure that all options and alternatives are exhausted before granting an exemption. The essential public facilities exemption approval shall be, only for The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant shall submit in writing the nature of the request, a site plan, copies of permits, and a statement describing the basis for the exemption. An applicant may appeal the administrative decision made by the Director of the Department of Community Development to the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. Amend Section 5.30, adding the following wording: As an incentive for preservation of high value open space, a development which dedicates 50% of its land to open space will be given a density bonus. The density bonus will be dependent upon the type and quality of open space dedicated. No density bonus will be allowed for preserving critical areas or buffers, but a density bonus not to exceed 150% of proposed lot yield based upon underlying density requirements A will be given for those developments preserving or constructing dedicated open areas. Public trail rystems, open meadows, and forested ridges will be eligible for the maximum density bonus. The proponent shall submit a site plan to the Department of Community Development at the Permit Center for review and approval by the Director. The density bonus will be given on a project by project basis. Amend Section 6.10, to read: 6.10 Water Suaaly: Potable water provided by a public water system may be made available to proposed developments that comply with all applicable County and State regulations. Amend Section 6.30 to read: 30 01ber Pudic Facilities. Utilities and Services: No development application shall be approved by the County where such approval will require the extension of urban governmental services. Urban governmental services include those governmental services historically and typically delivered by cities, and include storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit services, and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with non -urban areas. (�sc Tabi e 3 -For : n tc rtrn Erne rge ncl Pr -a 4�L- ��'� Additional: Inside Rural Centers Oral inance,. 6O ,C -7// Inside Rural Centers C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R-10 R 20 Alcoholic Bevem Alcoholic Beverages Auto Parts Gas Station C Grocery Store z 10,000 uare feet Bank Grocery Store 5 10,000 square feet Hardware Store Laundromat Gas Station Mni-stomge C Motel Professional Center Grocery Store 510,000 square feet Restaurants Retail Sales Z 2,500 sq ft C Retail Sales 5 2,500 sq ft Laundromat Tavern C Warehouse Outside Rural Centers DRAFT Outside Rural Centers C-1 C-2 M-1 M-2 M -C R-5 R10 R-20 Alcoholic Beverages Auto Parts Bank Barbers & Beauty Shops Gas Station C C Grocery Store Z 10,000 square feet '. Grocery Store 510,000 square feet Hardware Store Laundromat Mini -storage Motel Multi -family residences ✓ Professional Center C , Restaurants Retail Sales 2 2,500 sq R Retail Sales:5 2,500 sq ft Tavern C C Warehouse 1.1 P. L. Planned Rural Community EXHIBIT "C" Letter From Planning Commission Dated July 12, 1996 Jefferson County Planning Commission COURTHOUSE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 9B968 July 12, 1996 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners From: Gary Phillips, Chairman Jefferson County Planning Commission Subject: Proposed changes to Emergency Interim Land Use Controls Ordinance #05-0214-96 The Planning Commission met on July 10, 1996, to consider the proposed changes to the Use Table and Sections 3.00, 5.30, 6. 10, and 6.30 of Ordinance No. 05-0214-96. The discussions centered around the Use Table. It was noted that the Emergency Ordinance did not follow the community plans' recommendations. It was pointed out that the proposed changes still left many county businesses in a non -conforming use status. Some commissioners pointed out that the Zoning Code had gone through due process and public hearings, and had received considerable public input. The commissioners felt that the Zoning Code was an adequate regulatory document for the interim, until a County Comprehensive Plan is adopted. At that time, the Zoning Code would be reviewed and amended as part of the Comp Plan implementation process. Therefore, the Planning Commission undertook the following motion, which was carried unanimously by those members present: The Planning Commission recommends rejecting the Emergency Interim Ordinance and the proposed changes to it, and to return to the Zoning Code, which has already gone through public process and been approved. Jefferson County Planning Commission COURTHOUSE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 July 12, 1996 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners From: Gary Phillips, Chairman Jefferson County Planning Commission i Subject: Proposed changes to Emergency Interim Land Use Controls Ordinance #05-0214-96 The Planning Commission met on July 10, 1996, to consider the proposed changes to the Use Table and Sections 3.00, 5.30, 6.10, and 6.30 of Ordinance No. 05-0214-96. The discussions centered around the Use Table. It was noted that the Emergency Ordinance did not follow the community plans' recommendations. It was pointed out that the proposed changes still left many county businesses in a non -conforming use status. Some commissioners pointed out that the Zoning Code had gone through due process and public hearings, and had received considerable public input. The commissioners felt that the Zoning Code was an adequate regulatory document for the interim, until a County Comprehensive Plan is adopted. At that time, the Zoning Code would be reviewed and amended as part of the Comp Plan implementation process. Therefore, the Planning Commission undertook the following motion, which was carried unanimously by those members present: The Planning Commission recommends rejecting the Emergency Interim Ordinance and the proposed changes to it, and to return to the Zoning Code, which has already gone through public process and been approved. GC MEMORANDUM DATE: 03/25/96 TO: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners FROM: Permit Center Staff RE: Interim Growth Strategy Ordinance i?i: <; 'isj;:ii:;i:iii:::i:YFi::Sii?".}?iii}}:4:4:4:4:ii:}i}iii}i: ii:S4i:i4i:4:•i}>ii:i4}ilii}iiiiii;4:4:4}ii};4:•iiiiiiiX""4;{•i:4ii;: •n}i}iii}: iiii:•ii}ii>i::: i%viii:^iii:•:}i}ii:.iiTiiii:.i.�:::.�:::::::. �:::::::::::::::::::::::::. �: •i.t ':• :;:ii:!'i:>riii}iiiii+il.'iii}4:•i:4:4:•i:4:4}i;;:i!i•ii:•ii:•i:4:4:•::::•:::4::::? is 4iiii:4i Retain the current ordinance until a Commercial development and subdivision Comprehensive Plan is adopted. densities are restricted. Modify table of uses in the ordinance to better accommodate reasonable commercial uses without creating the extension of urban services. Retain the land use densities in the ordinance. Return to the old table of uses in the Zoning Ordinance The densities remain the same. Commercial development is still restricted, but only to prohibit an extension of urban services. Some commercial development such as professional offices, video stores, etc. would main be allowed in zoned commercial areas. This may result in the extension of urban services which is contradictory to one of the goals of the emergency ordinance and the Growth Mana-aement Act. WE NOW Return to a moratorium This stops all subdivision in Jefferson County, and provides uncertainty at a time when citizens need certainty. VOL 22 r,v,.785 2601 SOUTH CAPITOL WAY OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98501 SHOWALT W@ AOLCOM MARILYN G. SHOWALTER March 25,-1996 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: Creative Solution: Rural Waterfront Category Dear County Commissioners: (360) 956-0128TEL (360) 956-0548 FAX For more than twenty years, my family has owned a 5.3 -acre parcel of waterfront property near Shine. It has approximately 490 feet of waterfront. My sister and 1 have always planned that as we neared retirement, we would be able to divide it between us. This would be impossible under the new zoning of one unit per ten acres. I am writing to suggest that you create a new land -use category called Rural Waterfront ("RW"), as follows: Rural Waterfront ("RW"): One unit per two acres with a minimum of 150 feet of waterfront per unit. I believe the Rural Waterfront category would address a number of issues and yet still comply with the Growth Management Act. • A Rural Waterfront category is consistent with historical platting patterns. As a perusal of any plat map makes clear, the history of waterfront platting is distinctly different than the platting history of the interior lands. Because of their higher value, rural waterfront parcels are typically far smaller than the farm and timber lands just behind them. vol_ 22 gar;: 786 • A Rural Waterfront category would have minimal adverse impact, because so much of the coastline already is platted into even smaller parcels. Many waterfront parcels in rural areas are already platted at less than the acreage and front -foot requirements proposed here for the Rural Waterfront category. Because of the finite and relatively small amount of acreage that would be affected by the new Rural Waterfront category, impact on growth would be minimal. Impact on the environment would likewise be minimal because other laws and water requirements would have to be met. • A Rural Waterfront category would bring some measure of equity between waterfront owners who have already subdivided and those who have larger parcels. Nowhere is the impact of the new ordinance more dramatic than in its effects on waterfront owners. Because much of the waterfront has been platted into lots that are a tiny fraction of the new one - unit -per -ten -acre requirement, there is an enormous gulf between small waterfront lots and larger ones (and between the fortunes of their owners). A Rural Waterfront category would still be far bigger than many existing waterfront lots, but it would be more fair while still maintaining a more rural density. • Failure to adopt a Rural Waterfront category will mean only the super- rich can afford to live on the water. It is obvious that waterfront is different than interior land: it is appraised differently (by the front -foot); it has been platted differently; and it sells and is taxed at far -higher dollar figures. By requiring all previously non -short -platted waterfront to be limited to one unit per ten acres, the County is reserving those parcels not for the rich but for the super -rich. How many current residents of Jefferson County can afford to pay half a million dollars for a single -home lot? • A Rural Waterfront category is consistent with the Growth Management Act. I believe the County could defend the creation of a Rural Waterfront category, beginning with the points outlined above. Intuitively, everyone knows waterfront is different. Because the amount of waterfront property is very limited, because much of it has already been short -platted, and because two -acre 150 -front -foot minimums are relatively large for waterfront parcels, one can persuasively argue that proposed zoning will 2 VOL 22 rA,-787 indeed preserve the rural character of the rural areas of which the Rural Waterfront is a part. Please consider adopting a Rural Waterfront category. Thank you. Sincerely, Marilyn Showalter, also writing for Lois Showalter (Ralph Showalter is deceased) Ann & Bruce Strosnider VOL 22 Fir;;788 3 CC;. P3HQ 6 March 23, 1996 Delbert and Linda Perkins 13611 military Rd. S. Seattle Wa 98168 Re: 4205 Paradise Bay Rd. Port Ludlow, WA 98365 To Whom It May Concern: I IIA r fAAR 2,b 1996 We purchased a parcel of property in White Rock Cove, 7 1/4 acres, with our family about 7 years ago. Our intention at that time was to sub -divide the property into sections that would accommodate dwellings for four families. We knew that we could not sub -divide for 5 years. As soon as it became possible, we started trying to get things together. We were stopped dead in our tracks with the moratorium on sub- divisions in November. This came as a complete surprise to us, there was no warning what -so -ever. We had previously been given an address, a permit for a driveway (which has already been put in ), and a permit to put in a septic system for our new home. Our intentions have been very clear and we were never given any indication that it was not going to happen. We were told that we had to have at least 1 acre, which we understood. Now we are being told we have to have at least 5 acres. This is not fair or right. Those of us who have already made our intent known, should be given a chance to follow through with our plans. We can understand growth management, but it shouldn't affect those who made plans prior, under the old rules. We feel we should be able to have our sub -division approved, that it should be grandfathered in. We have invested quite a lot of money getting to the point where we can get ready to actually build. We can't afford to change plans this far into the project. It is not that we want to sub- divide to sell, we just want to live close by our family. Two homes have already been built on the 71/4 acres by members of the family, and not being able to sub -divide is putting a hardship on them, as well as us. If we could be given a certain length of time to sub -divide (fair amount for the process to go through) before the new rules go into affect for those already commited, it would really be appreciated. We are sure that the people that this would include would not ruin the states plans to limit growth. Please consider the affect your decision could make on the lives of the people involved. Sincerely � ,4�4�, ";U) Delbert and Linda Perkins voi- 22 iv, --789 cc.'. SPI 3 �tN March 17, 1996 ii ttkk a To: Board of County Commissioners From: Four Creeks Community Association t Regarding: Interim Land Use Ordinance�'n 0 The membership of Four Creeks Community Association is comprised primarily of landowners of property along Van Trojen Road, with members also from along West Valley and Anderson Lake Roads. Al I of our neighborhhood is within sections 15, 21, and 22 of Township 29N, Range 1W. We have reviewed the Interim Land Use Ordinance and have held a meeting to discuss its effect upon our neighborhood. Under this ordinance, most of the land in our neighborhood would be designated RR -20, with an allowable density of one dwelling unit per twenty acres. This represents a signficant downzoning, since under the old Comprehensive Plan our neighborhood was designated as "Resource Land", with an allowed density of one dwelling unit per f ive acres. Nevertheless, we support the RR -20 designation for our neighborhood, for the following reasons. (1) It is consistent with the present pattern of development in our neighborhood. The average size of ownership along Van Trojen Road is over 22 acres, not including the two large timber units owned by Pope Resources (240 acres) and Citifor (340 acres). If these two parcels are included, the average ownership exceeds 40 acres. In the past fifteen years, there have been more instances of landowners expanding their ownerships than there have been subvdivisions. (2) Much of the land along this ridge is difficult to develop, due to poor drainage, steep slopes, and deep groundwater. (3) A more intense level of development within our neighborhood would require the upgrading of Van Trojen Road, which would be very costly due both to its location and to the need to acquire additional right-of-way for approximately 2.5 miles. One of the goals of the Growth Management Act is to organize land use activities in ways that minimize the cost of infrastructure improvements. A major upgrading of Van Trojen Road would be in conflict with this goal. While we support the density allowed for our neighborhood under the RR -20 designation, we advocate an exception which would allow additional dwelling units for family members, such as parents and children. Under this exception, while land could not be subdivided below the twenty acre threshold, more than one dwe I I ing unit could be permitted, as long as there VOL 22 Wf 790 were no conflict with other county ordinances. While it is unlikely that this exception would result in a significant increase in actual density, it would meet the needs of some families. Finally, we call to your attention what we feel is an error in the designation of much of Section 15, that portion owned by Citif or, Inc., most of which is designated RR -5. We feel that the most appropriate designation for this land would be Commercial Forest Resource, since it is adjacent to Section 16, 600 acres of State School Land. Already, 80 of the 340 acres owned by Citifor is so designated. At the very least, the balance should be designated RR -20 along with the rest of our neighborhood, since it is accurately described as, ...rural unincorporated lands that are adjacent to designated forest lands of long-term commercial significance, as well as lands where area -wide environmental features constrain development." The quotation is, of course, from the definition of the RR -20 designation. Sincerely, The undersigned members of the Four Creeks Community Association C01014CUw� 02 2_3 U V A N 3 ox 1 CA T -U, LO-." Stilt-, e_J ' ?0,6oc2_ 1 73I Y°V JJ 1 VOL 2 2 w,.- 791 \Dr ®, tzzbx S -aa- c u, c n�•� 4 iiw_ S K79 Y 3 2- 4 2- illnlpe4,ctr ,c Fo), 313 I,;was t U (JA L0 Pa 'a 0-. 5- i � ji,- rq .4 C Yxc C— l � &V A. 7 9.3 a s - V14 o -h c VOL 22 W.,79Z FPAVAk (% IV j r e f d>wv-k, d) "aRel. - o ox sof M 6ANA 732 — qpo2 ZD3(a W 6441 m Acai,\ I Bio -regional Intentional Community concept Brian and Sanda Everette, Dragon Belly Farm 3882 Larson Lake Rd. Port Ludlow Wa. 98365 (360) 7324855 MAR 2 ^ i March 25, 1996 P iFLt '` ' ` The County Commissioners Re: Solutions with G.M.A. P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend Wa. 98368 Dear Commissioners; I am writing to you today to express my deep concern about the proposed ordinance for the 104 corridor stipulating one dwelling per 20 acres. Frankly, it is not appropriate to blanket an area in a designation on a macro level when it all matters on the micro level. One solution is the need to work directly with the private sector, land owners. I would call for an ombusman to personally visit each owner being affected by zoning changes. Set up a structure that allows the public concerns to be brought to the owners without threat of economic lose but rather one that positively brings security and enhancement. That can take many forms. Create a Resource Committee. More than one advisory boards exist now in the form of community plans, etc. now the linking with a resource committee is central to educating everyone to look at all sides for solutions. The resource conunittee is orientated to work within itself to come up from data the ombusman, other public authorities or concerns presents for solutions geared to match the private parties economic, environmental agenda. G.M.A. wants exposure and the public needs to know why? For the environment the bioregions want protection, for the affected owners the economic environment needs planning. Personally, we have since 1989 been in process understanding the relationships about our land, its nature, farm, bio - regional potential and human threshold capacity, for this land. We have continued to educate ourselves about our project as evident by attending workshops like the previous Wetnet, County Public Hearings, University of Washington's Short Course on Waste Disposal, etc. We are here to develop a unique site of land where education is continually a process of lives' purpose. As new technology is brought forward to use it profoundly effect our lives, bringing solutions and awareness to distinguish problems. Every land owner, farmer, individual that has acreage wants to create from their life work, investment, home a place of beauty, security, familiarity. There can not be any take aways we need individuals to do planning, set goals, and adjust the level of public concern to individual wants appropriately to a win-win solution. For our project the question became how to handle the legal parcels and costs. One was to do a Long -Plat, one house per five acres is the original zoning when we brought the properties. To cluster a permacultural village or P.U.D. that is, defined by our interested approach working with Jim Pearson of the planning department, creative way to cluster, the homes. The idea of homes creatively clustered is part of our bio -regional concept. Eco -village is what we wanted to build. Bio -regional is defined by us. It means understanding the unique natured potential of the site an its ecology micro -region. We thus are farming that potential as sustainable and actually enhancing through that human effort that, what is created. We are currently, because of the restrictive approach being considered for this area, considering alternative. We want what works, one dwelling per 20 acres does not, so keep the zoning at its original investment value. The effort to do our project takes time, after seven years of thought, experience and personal sacrifice, I am sure you would react no differently to what you plan to do to this site of ours. To sum it up, zoning will need variances for specific sites in this interim. The cooperation of the current owner's participating with objective educational processes will allow all parameters in the site to be a part of win-win partnerships between private and public concerns. After this interim everyone investing in the area knows the zoning, can get on with it. Sincerely, Brian Everette Owner of addresses 3882 and 3930 Larson Lake Rd. VOL I Olympic Environmental Council P.O. Box 1906, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (206)379-8442 (206)681-2642 Jefferson County Jefferson County Port Townsend, WA 3/25/96 Commissioners Courthouse 98368 Dear Commissioners; The following comments are in regards to Emergency Interim Land Use Controls Ordinance # 05-0214-96. the "Growth Strategy Ordinance." There are a number of aspects of this ordinance that deserve commendation. The first is the land density map itself. It is the first successful attempt by the County to seriously reflect the mandate of the Growth Management Act to establish real rural densities outside of Urban areas. We particularly support the inclusion of low density "buffer" areas around designated commercial forest zones. We also commend you for attempting to define rural centers. Erring on the side of caution in their extent and allowed densities is appropriate at this stage of comprehensive planning. Clearly, such centers must be recognized and included in the overall land use picture in the County --the challenge has always been, and remains, to do so without opening a Pandora's box of "mini UGA"s with no hope of them having sufficient tax base to pay for future infrastructure when it becomes necessary. In the same vein, we support the temporary moratorium on Planned Unit Developments in rural areas. There remain two major problems with this ordinance as written. The first is the lack of distinction between allowed uses in previously zoned commercial and industrial areas outside of Port Townsend. The objectives and policies in Section 2 are well conceived, but bear no apparent relation to the use tables and bulk and dimension tables in Sections 3 and 4. We undersand from comments made at the Commissioners' workshop on March 18, 1996, that you intend to substitute the use tables from the 1994 zoning code into this.ordinance. This is going in precisely the wrong VOL 22 o,).7� Abundant Life Seed Foundation' Admiralty Audubon - Black Hills Audubon' CA..USY- * Friends of Kah Tai lagoon ' Friends of the IIwha ' Friends of Pulah Point *Friends of the Foothills • No Oil Port -Olympic Park Associates' Protect the Peninsula's Future' Quilcene Ancient Forest Coalition' Save Our State Park' South County Coordinating Council' Trinity United Methodist Church' Wash. Native Plant Society - Oly. Chap. ' Wild Olympic Salmon' direction, lessening the distinction between allowed uses in rural, rural center, and urban areas, not clarifying them. As is, there is continued threat of large-scale, regional type development in inappropriate rural locations. The second problem is with Section 5, dealing with lots of record. Given the historical patterns of platting, from the 19th century right up to 1996, is clear that codifying all lots of record as buildable (if meeting minimum health standards) has the potential to subvert entirely the overall strategy of low density development in rural areas, and medium density development in rural centers. With proper provisions for owners of single lots, or owners of just a few lots, there is no good reason not to require consolidation of lots under single ownership, within reasonable limits. Overall, this ordinance is a big step forward --not only in complying with the GMA, but in establishing a realistic framework for future development that recognizes the hidden costs of unrestrained sprawl. We urge you to resist pleas to "go back to the good old days" of allowing market driven sprawl to determine the land use patterns in Jefferson County. Sincerely, Steve Hayden, President VOL 22 ra0, 799