HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 1224 01
W~¡)}J. d1øIOI
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF REVISIONS AND }
ADDITIONS TO THE COUNTY'S UNIFIED }
DEVELOPMENT CODE ASSOCIATED WITH}
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS }
APPROVED THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF }
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1224-01 }
ORDINANCE NO. 07-1224-01
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as
required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., set in
motion and completed the process for proper professional review and public notice and
comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County's
Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), a Plan that was originally adopted by Resolution No.
72-98 on August 28, 1998 and later amended by Resolution No. 27-00, and;
WHEREAS, certain of the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive
Plan, as well as the associated and required revisions and additions to the County's
GMA-driven development regulations known as the Unified Development Code or
"UDC" that must accompany the approved Plan amendments, have been approved by the
Board because that particular Plan amendment was found to be in conformance with the
Growth Management Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners that they approve the following revisions and additions to the UDC and;
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board that they make the following
general Findings of Facts applicable to these revisions and additions to the UDC
associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendments identified AND approved
separately in Ordinance No. 08-1224-01 .
Ordinance No. 07-12 2 4~Jvisions and Additions to the Unified Development Code Associated with the Adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Section 1 - General Findings of Fact for Revisions and Additions to the UDC:
1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development
regulations or UDC in December 2000.
2. The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and
adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the
citizens of this County on a regular basis, although it need not be made available
more than once per year.
4. This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before May 1, 2001, the deadline
for submission of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
5. Some nine proposed amendments worked their way through the entire process laid
out in state statutes for such amendments. Five of these nine proposed Plan
amendments were site-specific, while four were "suggested" Plan amendments,
sometimes also known as policy or text amendments.
6. Those nine proposed amendments went through professional review at the County
and State level.
7. Those nine proposed amendments went through review by the County's Planning
Commission.
8. Those nine proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the
County's Planning Commission.
9. Those nine proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the
Board of County Commissioners.
10. Those nine proposed amendments were the subject of a vote to approve/reject by
the Board of County Commissioners.
11. The elected Board of County Commissioners adopted five Plan amendments,
rejecting the other four.
Page 2 of 6
Ordinance No. 07-12 2 4-~tvisions and Additions to the Unified Development Code Associated with the Adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
12. The five proposed amendments that are described in this ordinance were approved
by the Board of County Commissioners because they were found to be in
conformance with the Growth Management Act and the County's Comprehensive
Plan.
13. Adoption of these five amendments promotes the health and welfare of the citizens
of Jefferson County.
14. The Board of County Commissioners has generated for each of the five adopted
Plan amendments a set of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that relate
solely and specifically to that approved amendment. Those Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law have been detailed in a distinct Ordinance adopting those Plan
amendments, specifically Jefferson County Ordinance # 08-1224-01
15. However, of those five Plan amendments, only three of those five Plan
amendments ALSO required amendments to the GMA-driven development
regulations, i.e., the UDC, specifically MLA#Ol-215 (Multi-family housing),
MLA #01-2017 (Master Planned Resorts) and MLA #01-221 (Changes to Bulk
and Dimension standards in rural industrial zones).
16. MLA #01-225 (changing Plan language relating to LAMIRD's) and MLA #01-
227 (rezone of certain rural residential land) are Plan amendments that can be
adopted without amending the UDC.
17. However, certain findings must be made with respect to any adopted Plan
amendment.
18. Pursuant to Section 9 of this County's Unified Development Code, all proposed
amendments have to be analyzed, in part, through the "filter" of the seven growth
management indicators (or "GMI") listed at UDC §9.5.4(b), although those GMI
represent only some of the criteria that the County Commissioners must use when
deciding whether to adopt or reject a proposed plan amendment.
19. Because of the general nature of the GMI, each and every GMI will not be
applicable or apropos for each and every amendment that this County Commission
has considered.
20. However, the County Commissioners, in order to comply with UDC Section 9,
should and must make generalized findings of fact with respect to the seven GMI
listed there and do so now.
Page 3 of 6
07-1224-01
Ordinance No. Revisions and Additions to the Unified Development Code Associated with the Adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
21. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(1), the County Commissioners find, as an example
of numerous findings they might make with respect to (b)(1), that in the short-term
the population of this County has not increased as quickly as the Comprehensive
Plan envisioned, but this short-term decline in the rate of population growth does
not necessarily mean that the County should abandon the long-term population
forecasts found in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
22. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(2), the County Commissioners find that the
capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not changed, although
expected continued severe pressures on the County's budget may alter this picture
in the coming years.
23. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(3), the County Commissioners find that while
sufficient 'urban' land is designated and zoned within this County to meet
projected demand and need pursuant to the agreed-upon population allocation in
Joint City and County Resolution No. 17-96, that conclusion will, by definition, be
revisited and reconsidered as the County considers establishing an urban growth
area in the Port Hadlock and lrondale neighborhoods.
24. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(4), the County Commissioners find that while most
of the assumptions that supported the policies and goals of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan remain valid, there are at least two assumptions that need
revisiting.
25. The first assumption of the 1998 plan worthy of reconsideration comes about
because of the documented need for additional rural commercial and industrial
land as indicated by the Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast of January
1999 prepared by Richard Trottier, which suggests the County can expect to see a
growth in jobs of some 7,000 to 9,000 in the next decades and must accommodate
them with additional commercially and industrially zoned land not currently in
existence.
26. Secondly, the County always intended to revisit its conservatively-drawn
boundaries around the rural commercial districts, known formally as "limited
areas of more intensive rural development" or "LAMIRD's" and has new
definitions of "built environment" provided to it by the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board to work with as it does that redrawing.
27. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(5), the County Commissioners find that recent
election results indicate not necessarily a change in the attitudes of the County's
citizenry, but certainly a reprioritization of those basic values with an emphasis
now placed on economic opportunity and a healthy economy. This reprioritization
Page 4 of 6
----"
07-1224-01 ,
Ordinance No. Revisions and Additions to the Unified Development Code Associated wIth the Adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
becomes particularly important in the face of increasing unemployment and our
current national recession. While this shift in priorities does not necessarily require
wholesale changes to the goals of the plan, it does and will require some
modification of the plan in order to better achieve opportunity for improving the
economic base in a manner that is consistent with GMA and the County's Plan.
28. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(6), the County Commissioners find that the County
has undergone changed circumstances with respect to the worsening of the gap
between the median income of a citizen and the general unavailability of housing
that is affordable based on such a salary, the listing of salmon species as
"endangered" pursuant to federal statute, new development regulations adopted by
the County to implement the GMA and the County's Plan and additional Hearings
Board decisions which illuminate what the state laws permit or do not permit.
Such changed circumstances may make amendments to the Plan appropriate.
29. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(7), the County Commissioners find that any
inconsistencies between the County's Plan and the GMA exist because Jefferson
County has not utilized or considered every 'tool' found in the GMA 'toolbox,'
including, by way of example only, the establishment of additional Master
Planned Resorts, creation of a process to encourage the siting of Major Industrial
Developments and a full utilization of the newest definition of "built environment"
as it relates to LAMIRD's.
Section 2 - Lan,guage Revisions and Additions to the UDC:
The attached Exhibits A, B, and C are hereby adopted as and reflect the detailed revisions
and additions to the UDC as required by the approval of the related Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
Section 3 - Section 3 - Severability:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or figure of this ordinance or its
application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance
or the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 4 - Effective Date:
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Page 5 of 6
07~1224~01
Ordinance No. Revisions and Additions to the Unified Development Code Associated with the Adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
t',1'" t...; '04
,)..:'~~ tt-,. . ' }aPROYED AND ADOPTED this
~) ,~'" "~J ",
.~: ,y ~E¥\Lf .::~ JEFFERSON COUNrY
~. \\f,:.".J": -; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
<, \ ~ ::"å..~ 1" t\
. >-~ ~~~~ "J,.-
';;..~ 1("
* .' ~
'~
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J)~ l'2-ì21)01
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Qk..
e::o< l' -day of December, 2001.
Page 6 of 6
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENTS
EXHIBITS A - C
c::
(/
~
...
co
a..
( )
E
o
:I:
( )
:.c
o
~
-
"'C
( )
...
::s
....
(,)
CO
-
::s (/
c::"'C
CO CO
,~ e
"'C(/
c:: ~
CO ...
C)U
c:: -
(/ f:!
::s ( )
o c::
:I: ( )
~(!)
"'C
E c::
CO CO
~(/
== "'C
::s CO
~ e
- (/
o (/
B e
c::U
CO ...
~.s
0'-
-(/
<C~
( )"'C
.s::: 0
....0
C).s:::
.= 0
"'C .c
....s:::
COC)
C)._
( ) ( )
o:::z
<C
!::
m
:I:
><
W
10
10
.
M
( )
C)
CU
D..
( )~
"'C
o
U
peOJSSOJ::¡ leJauaÐ
peOJSSOJ::¡ JOJ!sIA
IPOOL JoqL 6!aN
peOJSSOJ::¡ a:>Ua!UaAUO::¡
JaJua::¡ a6ell!^ leJn~
saJ:>'V O?; I na ~
saJ:>'V O~ I na ~
saJ:>'V !ì I na ~
6u!PIOL UI ¡ leJn~
'le!:>JaWwo::¡ - JsaJo::l
e:>0l ¡ le!:>Jawwo::¡
- aJnJln:>!J6'V
o CO 0
Z Ü Z
o 0 0
Z Z Z
o 0
Z Z
o 0
Z Z
o 0
Z Z
o 0
Z Z
o 0
Z Z
o 0
Z Z
(J 0
~ Z
(J 0
~ Z
(J 0
~ Z
(J 0
~ Z
(J 0
~ Z
(J 0
~ Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
o
Z
(J
Q)
>-
.8
Ü
Q)
:õ"
:::J
~
000
Z Z Z
000
Z Z Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
~I
~
~I
~
o
Z
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
z:
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
.8
~ ~
:5" ~
:::J Q)
êi)~ ~ 8
1á~ ~ ~
0... EU)~û) ~
:8 E~ Q)~ c:
::J 800 Eêi) en ~
~ ro (5 :E (5 g "g¡
¡g §~ Æ~ -{g a::
ffi E c:: -g r:: "ëñ
:g 2';" :2';" &
~~-ê~-ê~
a:: go Q) OJ Q) "E
~ -~ ò ~ 0 ~
~i~i~i
üüa...:2a...U5
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
(J
Q)
>-
õ
]j
ffi~
a::<=
-:::>
<=0)
Q) <=
"Ci) ==
<= Q)
~¿;
~
"00
<=
Q)
"C
0)
<=
";;.,
-.::::
Q)
"C
<=
:::J
0)
<=
~
Q)
E
.8
&J
E_
:::J (J
en -
-<=
(J Q)
Q) E
x Q)
Q) .!:::
-:::J
§-g
o~
o
Z
000
Z Z Z
-
c
( )
E
C-
O
ø
>
( )
C
"'C
( )
!E
c
::J
o
z:
000
Z Z Z
o
Z
000
Z Z Z
o
Z
000
Z Z Z
o
Z
000
Z Z Z
o
Z
~I (J
~ ~ :£
o
Z
~I :£ :£
o
Z
000
Z Z Z
(J
Q)
>-
(J (J (J
Q) Q) Q)
>- >- >-
(J
Q)
>-
o (J
Z ~ Ü
(J
Q)
>-
:£ ~ ü
(J
Q)
>-
:£ ~ (.)
(J
Q)
>-
000
Z Z Z
(J
Q)
>-
000
Z Z Z
(J (J
<= <=
o 0
~ ~
2'a...cf
"c LO D
:::> .8 N
+ c...8
(V) :::> CD
2~-¡
"2 en (fJ
:::> ~ ª
]§ TI T5
~ææ
32Q)~
~ æ CO
a::üü
~~Æ
"E ë ë
~ ~ ~
~ "w .~
:2 & a::
EXHIBIT B
MLAOI-00217:
Resorts
Regarding the Siting of Master Planned
Unified Development Code Changes
Master Planned Resort
A self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development in a setting of significant
natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-
term visitor accommodations associated with a range of on-site indoor or outdoor
recreational facilities. A Master Planned Resort may include other residential uses within
its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site
recreational nature of the resort. (cf RCW 36.70A.360)
3.4 Master Planned Resorts - Special Provisions.
"Master Planned Resort" (MPR) is a land use designation established under the
Comprehensive Plan. The only existing officially designated Master Planned Resort in
the County is the Port Ludlow MPR, which is adopted by reference and included within
the Appendix of this Code. The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW
36.70A.362 regarding designation of existing master planned resorts. Designation of any
new Master Plan Resorts -pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 requires compliance with the
provisions of this Section 3.4 and a formal site-specific a ComprchcnsÏ'v'e Plan
amendment to the Comvrehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the rcquirements of
findings required by Section 9.8 of this Code.
1. Allowable Uses.
a. IRitial DetermiRatioR. l..llo·vvable uses and their locations v;ithin a Master
Planned Resort arc detcrmined during the de'v'clopment of the Master Plan. Thc
Administrator shall recommend such uses and any conditions for uscs to bc
considered allowable cOfi3istent with the requirements ofthe Campl'€hensive
I!.l!JJ1. The BOCC then determines these uses as part of the approval of the Master
Plmr.
b. Changes in Uses. Subsequent changes in uses or in thc location of allo'v'lablc uses
at Master Planned Resorts arc handled through amendments to thc Master Plan.
2. Self Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on site urban
level commercial and other services should be contained within the boundaries of the
MPR and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban
,
de';c1opment and land uses arc prohibitcd outside the boundaries of a Master Planned
Resort, except in areas otherwise designated as urban grov;th areas in compliance
v,rith RC\V 36.70A.IIO.
3. l\faster Plan Amendments. The procedures and process for adopting a ne';; Master
Plan arc as provided in Section') of this Code and, in the case of amendments, in the
particular Master Plan (e.g., for the Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort, in the adopted
Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort Code, see the }1.ppendix).
4. Port Ludlow l\laster Planned Resort. The Port Ludlov; Master Planned Resort
Code (Ordinance No.: 081004 99), as may be amended to be consistent \vith thc
provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by refcrence and made a part of this UDC.
(See Appendix).
1. Purpose and Intent. Jefferson County has a wide range of natural features,
including climate, vegetation, water, natural resources, scenic qualities, cultural, and
geological features, which are desirable for a wide range of recreational users to
enioy. New Master Planned Resorts authorized by RCW 36.70A.360 offer an
opportunity to utilize these special features for enioyment and recreational use, while
bringing significant economic diversification and benefits to rural communities. The
purpose of this section is to establish a Master Planned Resort land use district to be
applied to those properties the Board of County Commissioners determines are
appropriate for development as a Master Planned Resort consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW 36.70A.360.
2. Allowable Uses. The following uses may be allowed within a Master Planned Resort
classification authorized in compliance with RCW 36.70A.360:
a. All residential uses including single-family and multi-family structures,
condominiums, time-share and fractionally-owned accommodations, provided
such uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the
master planned resort.
b. Short-term visitor accommodations, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels,
lodges, and other residential uses, that are made available for short-term rental;
provided that short-term visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than
sixty-five percent (65%) of the total resort accommodation units.
2
c. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses, including, but not limited to:
golf courses (including accessory structures and facilities, such as clubhouses,
practice facilities, and maintenance facilities), tennis courts, swimming pools,
marinas, hiking and nature trails, bicycle paths, equestrian facilities, sports
complexes, and other recreational uses deemed to be consistent with the on-site
recreational nature of the Master Planned Resort.
d. Campgrounds and recreational vehicle ("RV") sites;
e. Visitor-oriented amenities, including, but not limited to, (i) eating and drinking
establishments, (ii) meeting facilities, (iii) on-site retail businesses and services
which are designed to serve the needs of the users such as gas stations, espresso
stands, beauty salon and spas, gift shops, art galleries, food stores, real
estate/property management offices, and (iv) recreation-oriented businesses and
facilities such as sporting goods and outdoor equipment rental and sales.
f. Cultural and educational facilities, including, but not limited to, interpretative
centers and exhibits, indoor and outdoor theaters, and museums.
g. Capital facilities, utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and
operate the Master Planned Resort.
h. Temporary and/or pennanent structures to serve as sales offices.
1. Any other similar uses deemed by the Administrator to be consistent with the
purpose and intent of this section, the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding
Master Planned Resorts, and RCW 36.70A.360.
3. Requirements for Master Planned Resorts. An applicant for an MPR project must
meet the following requirements:
a. Master Plan. A Master Plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the
project and provide a framework for project development and operation. This
shall include:
(1) A description of the setting and natural amenities that the MPR is
being situated to use and enjoy, and the particular natural and
recreational features that will attract people to the area and resort.
(2) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR,
including short-tenn visitor accommodations, on-site outdoor and
indoor recreational facilities, off-site recreational opportunities
offered or provided as part of the resort's services, and commercial
and supportive services provided.
3
(3) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities
and intensities of use of the MPR and a discussion of how these
uses and their distribution meet the needs of the resort and its
users.
(4) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR
development, showing the full extent and ultimate development of
the MPR or resort and its facilities and services, including
residential and non-residential development types and location.
(5) A description, with supportive infonnation and maps, of the design
and functional features that provide for a unified development,
superior site design and protection of natural amenities, and which
further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This
shall address how landscaping, screening, and open space,
recreational facilities, road and parking design, capital facilities,
and other components are integrated into the project site.
(6) A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project
and the measures that will be employed for their protection. For an
MPR adjacent to the water and subject to the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Management Act, a description and supportive materials
or maps indicating proposed public access to the shoreline area
pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program.
(7) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties,
and how its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and
promote compatibility among land uses within the development
and adjacent to the development.
(8) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and services which may
be necessary, appropriate, or desirable for the support of the
development will be available, and that concurrency requirements
of the Comprehensive Plan will be met.
(9) A description of the intended phasing of development of the
project, if any. The initial application for an MPR shall provide
sufficient detail for the phases such that the full intended scope and
intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also
discuss how the project will function at interim stages prior to
completion of all phases of the project, and how the project may
operate successfully and meet its environmental protection,
concurrency, and other commitments should development cease
before all phases are completed.
4
b. Development Agreement. A Master Planned Resort shall require approval of
a development agreement as authorized by UDC Section 8.1 L Develovment
Agreements, and RCW 36.70B.170-.210. Consistent with UDC Section
8.11.2(c) and RCW 36.70B.170, the development agreement shall be prepared
by the applicant and must set forth the development standards applicable to
the development of a specific Master Planned Resort, which may include, but
are not limited to: (a) pennitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and
building sizes; (b) phasing of development. if requested by the applicant; (c)
procedures for review of site-specific development plans; (d) provisions for
required open space, public access to shorelines (if applicable), visitor-
oriented accommodations, short-tenn visitor accommodations, on-site
recreational facilities, and on-site retail/commercial services; (e) mitigation
measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW
43.21C, and other development conditions; and (f) other development
standards including those identified in UDC Section 8.11.3 and RCW
36.70B.170(3).
c. Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A Master Planned
Resort shall require a Site-Specific Amendment of the Comvrehensive Plan
Land Use Mav to a Master Planned Resort land use designation, pursuant to
the requirements of Section 9.4, provided that the sub-area planning process
authorized under UDC Sections 3.7 and 9.3, may be used if deemed
appropriate by both the applicant and the County. The Comprehensive Plan
amendment or subarea plan may be processed by the County concurrent with
the review of the Resort Master Plan and development agreement required for
approval of a Master Planned Resort.
d. Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the County, a
Master Planned Resort proiect may be designated by the County as a planned
action pursuant to the provisions ofRCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164
and 168.
e. Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site
urban-level commercial and other services should be contained within the
boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR.
New urban or suburban development and land uses are prohibited outside the
boundaries of a Master Planned Resort, except in areas otherwise designated
as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36. 70A.11 O.
4. Application Requirements and Approval Process. New MPR applications shall be
processed as Type V pennits under this UDC, requiring legislative approval by the
Board of County Commissioners and the following:
a. A draft of the Master Plan shall be prepared to meet the requirements of
Section 3.4.3.a.
5
b. A request for authorization of a development agreement. pursuant to the
requirements of Sections 3.4.3.b and 8.11.
c. A request for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment
necessary to meet the requirements of Sections 3.4.3.c and 9.4.
5. Decision-Making Authority.
a. The Planning Commission, pursuant to its authority specified under Sections
8.1.4 and 9.8.1, shall hear and make recommendations on Master Plans and
site-specific applications for MPR land use designations on the
Comvrehensive Plan Land Use Map.
b, The Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to its authority specified under
Sections 8.1.4, 8.11.4(e) and 9.8.2, shall designate new Master Planned Resort
land-use districts on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, approve the
uses, densities, conditions and standards authorized for site-specific MPRs in
a Development Agreement, and approve Master Plans.
6. Criteria For Approval. An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as an
MPR may be approved, or approved with modifications, if it meets all of the criteria
below. If no reasonable conditions or modifications can be imposed to ensure that the
application meets these criteria, then the application shall be denied.
a. The Master Plan is consistent with the requirements of Sections 3.4 and 3.6.4
et. seq. (Environmentallv Sensitive Areas) of this Code.
b. The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other
applicable sections of this Code and all other codes and policies of the
County.
c. If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, open
space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR
sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed.
d. The MPR will provide active recreational uses, adequate open space, and
sufficient services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and
health services, to adequately meet the needs of the guests and residents of the
MPR.
e. The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and
accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services, and such
services shall be oriented to serve the MPR.
f. Environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement. and
screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are
harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as
feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views.
6
g. All on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully
considered and mitigated.
h. Improvements and activities are located and designed in such a manner as to
avoid or minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and
property.
1. The Master Plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance
the character of the resort.
J. The land proposed for a Master Planned Resort is better suited and has more
long-term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of
timber or production of agricultural products. and the MPR will not adversely
affect adiacent Agricultural or Forest Resource Land production.
7. Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
Code (Ordinance No.: 081004-99). as may be amended to be consistent with the
provisions of this UDC. is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this UDC.
(See Appendix B).
7
8
4. Project Permit Application Framework.
TABLE 8-1: PERMITS - DECISIONS
Type 11 Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Allowed uses not requiring Classification of unnamed and Reasonable economic use variances Final plats under Special use permits under
notice of application discretionary uses under Section under Section 3.6.4(h) Section 7 Section 3.3,5
(e.g" "yes" uses listed in Table 3.2
3-1, building permits, etc,)
Minor amendments to planned Release of six-year FP A PRRDs under Section 3,6.13 and Final PRRDs under Jefferson County
rural residential developments moratorium for an individual major amendments to PRRDs Section 3.6.13 Comprehensive Plan
(PRRDs) under Section single- family residence under under Section 3,6.13,15(c) amendments under Section 9
3.6,13,15 Section 4,16
Home businesses approved Cottage industries under Section Shoreline substantial development Amendments to development
under Section 4.20 4,17 permits for secondary uses, and regulations including
conditional and variance permits amendments to this UDC and
under the Jefferson County the Land Use Districts Map
Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Temporary outdoor use Short subdivisions under Section Plat alterations and vacations under Amendments to the Jefferson
permits under Section 4.38 7.4 Section 7 . 1.3 ( d) County SMP
Stormwater management Binding site plans under Section Long subdivisions under Subarea and utility plans and
permits under Section 6.7 7.5 Section 7.5 amendments thereto
Road access permits under Administrative conditional use Discretionary conditional use
Section 6.8 permits under Section 8.8.4(a) permits under Section 8,8.4(b) [i,e., Development Agreements
[i.e., listed in Table 3-1 as "C(a)"] listed in Table 3·1 as "C(d)"] and amendments thereto
Sign permits under Section Discretionary conditional use Conditional use permits under under Section 8,11
6,15 permits under Section 8,8.4(b) Section 8,8.4(c) (i,e" uses listed in
[i.e., listed in Table 3-1 as "C(d)"] Table3-1 as "C") Master Plans for Master
Boundary line adjustments Minor variances under Section Major variances under Section Planned Resorts
under Section 7,2 8,9.4(a) 8.9.4(b)
Minor adjustments to approved Shoreline substantial development Wireless Telecommunications
preliminary short plats under permits for primary uses under Permits under Section 4,13 and
Section 7.3.7 Jefferson County SMP Ordinance 06-0712-99
Minor amendments to Wireless Telecommunications
approved preliminary long Permits under Section 4,13 and
plats under Section 7.4.8 Ordinance 06-0712-99
Site plan approval advance
determinations under Section
8,7
Exemptions under the
Jefferson County SMP
Revisions to permits issued under the Jefferson County SMP
9
1. Purpose. This Section establishes the mechanism under which Jefferson County
may enter into development agreements as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170. A
decision to enter into a development agreement shall be made on a case-by-case
basis. A development agreement may be appropriate for large, complex or phased
proiects, or proiects which were not contemplated by existing development
regulations or existing application procedures. Development Agreements shall be
required with Master Planned Resorts.
2. Development Agreements - General Requirements.
a. Discretion to Enter Development Agreement. A development agreement is an
optional device that may be used at the sole discretion of the County.
b. Who May Enter. The property owner(s) and the County shall be parties to a
development agreement, provided that if a proposed development is within an
adopted municipal UGA, the applicable town or city shall also be a party to the
agreement. The following may be considered for inclusion as additional parties in
a development agreement: contract purchasers, lenders, third-party beneficiaries
and utility service providers.
c. Content of Development Agreements. A development agreement shall be
prepared by the applicant and shall set forth the development standards and other
conditions that shall apply to and govern the development, use and mitigation of
the property subi ect to the agreement.
d. When Development Agreements May Be Approved. A development
agreement may be entered into prior to, concurrent with or following approval of
project permits for development of the property.
e. Consistency with Unified Develoµment Code. The development standards and
conditions set forth in a development agreement shall be consistent with the
applicable development regulations set forth in the Unified Development Code,
except in the case of a Master Planned Resort (which requires a Site-Specific
Comprehensive Plan Amendment), where adopted standards may be modified by
the development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all proj ect
impacts have been adequately mitigated. Howèver, the minimum requirements
related to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas in Section 3.6.4 et.
seq. may not be varied by adoption of any development agreement.
10
3. Development Standards to be Addressed in Development Agreements.
a. A development agreement shall include, but need not be limited to, one or more
of any of the following types of development controls and conditions:
(1) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential and non-residential
densities, scale and intensity of uses and/or building sizes;
(2) Mitigation ~easures, development conditions and other requirements
pursuant to environmental review under RCW 43.21;
(3) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water
quality requirements, screening and landscaping and other development
features;
(4) Roads, water, sewer, storm drainage and other infrastructure requirements;
(5) Affordable housing;
(6) Recreational uses and open space preservation;
(7) Phasing;
(8) Development review procedures, processes, and standards for
implementing decisions, including methods of reimbursement to the
county for review processes;
(9) Other appropriate development requirements or procedures.
b. A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services,
infrastructure, or other facilities. Project applicants and governmental entities
may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over
time for financing public facilities.
c. Development agreements shall:
(1) Establish a process for amending the agreement;
(2) Specify a termination date upon which the agreement expires;
(3) Establish a vesting period for applicable standards; and
(4) Reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent
required by a serious threat to public health and safety.
4. Procedures.
a. A development agreement shall be initiated by a written request from the property
owner to the Administrator of the Department of Community Development. The
request should describe the project and the specific reasons why the project is
suitable for a development agreement. The request should identify the
development standards set forth in Section 8.11.3 that the applicant is requesting
be included in the development agreement and any other reasonable information
requested by the County.
b. If the Administrator determines in his or her discretion that a development
agreement should be considered by the County, the property owner shall be so
11
informed, except that development agreements shall be required for the approval
of Master Planned Resorts in accordance with Section 3.4.3.b of the UDC.
c: When a development agreement is being considered prior to proiect permit
approvals, the property owner shall provide the County with the same information
that would be required for a complete application for such proiect permits in order
for the County to determine the development standards and conditions to be
included in the development agreement.
d. When a development agreement is being considered following approval ofproiect
permits, the development standards and other conditions set forth in such proiect
permits shall be used in the development agreement without modification.
e. The county shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or
resolution after a public hearing. The Board of County Commissioners may, in its
sole discretion, approve the development agreement. If the development
agreement relates to a proiect permit application, the provisions ofRCW 36.70C
shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development agreement.
f. An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with
the County Auditor.
5. Effect of Development A~reement.
a. A development agreement is binding on the parties and their successors, including
a city that assumes iurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area
covering the property subiect to the development agreement.
b. A development agreement shall be enforceable during its term by a party to the
agreement.
c. A development agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement all or
that part of the development specified in the agreement and may not, unless
otherwise agreed to in the development agreement, be subi ect to an amendment to
a local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation or a
new local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation
adopted after the effective date of the agreement.
d. Permits issued by the County after the execution of the development agreement
shall be consistent with the agreement.
e. Nothing in RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.200 and Section SOL Ch. 374,
Laws of 1995 or this chapter is intended to authorize the County to impose impact
fees, inspection fees, or dedications or to require any other financial contributions
or mitigation measures except as expressly authorized by other applicable
provisions of state law.
12
Unified Development Code, Page 4-19
(2) The following standards apply to uses
within the Glen Cove Light Industrial!
Commercial District (LIfG) and the
Glen Cove Potential Final Urban
Growth Area:
i. VVithin the LI/C District, the
maximum building size cap shall
be 20,000 square feet.
ii. Outside of the LI!C District, but
within the Glen Cove Potential
Final Urban Growth Area, a struc-
ture housing an existing business
shall be allowed to expand up to a
building cap of 20,000 square feet
(subject to meeting the bulk and
dimensional requirement of 4§%
maximum lot coveragcthe
underlvinq land use desiqnation).
iii. Any proposed expansion outside
of the LIfC District, but within the
Glen Cove Potential Final Urban
Growth Area shall only be
approved if the expansion is to
accommodate the structure
housing the existing business
onsite. Expansion in this area for
speculative purposes or to
accommodate a new business
shall be prohibited.
(3) Structures housing legal cxisting
nonconforming uses shall only be
cxpandcd and/or enlarged oncc,
regardless of whether or not the
expansion and/or enlargemcnt was
expandcd and/or enlarged to reach thc
building cap size identified for the
particular district.
EXHIBIT C
MLA01-00221: Regarding Bulk
and Dimensional Standards and
Rurallndusttrial Zones
Unified Development Code Changes
2. Expansion of structures housing legal existing
uses or replacement of structures occupied by
legal existing nonconforming uses shall be
subject to the following criteria:
a, Where a legal existing nonconforming use of
a structure exists, that structure can be
replaced provided the original footprint is not
relocated or altered except as provided for
below,
(1) The original footprint does not meet
current regulations regarding building
setbacks and buffers,
(2) Moving the building footprint positions
the new building in a more appropriate
location on the site to facilitate
pedestrian and vehicular movement
and safety.
(3) The movement of the building footprint
on the site is necessary to ensure
protection of environmentally sensitive
areas located on or near the site,
(4) The original building is being rebuilt or
enlarged under the provision of this
section.
b, A structure housing a legal existing noncon-
forming use may be enlarged and!or
expanded if the structure (in its enlarged or
expanded state) would meet all applicable
bulk, dimensional and lot coverage
requirements for the land use district in
which the use is located.
(1) Expansion of structures housing legal
existing nonconforming uses up to
10% of the existing building size, or
200 square feet, whichever is greater,
shall be subject to a Type I
administrative approval process. More
substantial expansions, up to a
building cap of 3,999 square feet
(measured by the proposed
enlargement and expansion), shall be
subject to a Type III conditional use
approval process to ensure notification
of adjacent property owners.
o
I-
-
en
-
J:
)(
W
f/)
( )
e
0
N
m
.¡:
-
tn
j
"C
e
~
j
a::
"C
e
m
tn
"C
...
m
"C
e
m
-
en
Cü
e
0
f/)
e
( )
E
c
"C
e
m f/)
~ ( ) M
C) I
j e CD
OJ m Q)
C) J: 0'>
() rn
e a..
"C ( )
... "C Q)
m 0 "'C
C) () 0
( ) - ü
a:: e -
( ) r:::
E Q)
Co E
0 c..
'r" ã) 0
N > Q)
N ( ) >
0 C Q)
c¡> 0
'r" "C "'C
0 ( ) Q)
:5 !E !-E
e r:::
::!: ::) :::::>
----
-0
uo!¡eaJ:la~ 'i saAJaSaJd 'sJ Jed 0:: ~ 00 Ln 0 0 Ln ~ ~I ~~
11. Z "" C"') C"') Ln "" C"') ~~
11.
cn
0
w ~I~I"":I -0
z ... ü . ~~
le!J¡Snpu ÁAeaH ~ ~ M aJ:E ßI
:I: 0 0 Ln Ln c:> o u
Z Z "" C"') C"') C"') Iri N :::Jcn 5Eg'" z¡!i
0 co> :::J cn
ü
cn~ z ~I~I"":I
0 ~Il ßI~-~Ii
0_ ¡:: ...
o::cn ü of :::J:E
~ <l:Z 0
le!J¡snpu ¡I B!l ::::¡ OW 0 c:> Ln Ln W ~ ~cn 5Eg'"
z zO "" C"') C"') C"') cn
<1:1- ~ :::J
I-z
1& cnw 0 ~Il ~I~I"":I ß'~~li
(aAO:> ualÐ) z:::¡; w ...
g ~ Oa. '" ¡¡: M :::J:E
0 c:> Ln (3 0
e!:lJawwo:>/le!J¡snpu ¡I B!l --' z ¡::g "" C"') C"') C"') ~ ~cn 5Eg'"
Üw w
a. :::J
f/) w> cn
I-w
~O cn ~Il ~I~I"":I ßI~-~Ii
... e!J¡SnpUI pase8·a:lJnOsa~ i:i2 ~ 0 c:> Ln Ln <I: ...
m z a.o "" C"') C"') C"') w ß :::J:E
--'w cn 5Eg'"
<I: a. :::J ~ ~cn
e I-a. 0:: :::J
m ~ aJ:Ë 0 0
peOJSSOJ:> leJauaÐ u :::¡;w 0 c:> Ln Ln 0
C) Z "" C"') C"') C"') ... Ln 0 ~I 0
ZI z M 0
01- :s Ln C"') '" ó
( ) 0::>- ~
>aJ W
(,) peOJSSOJ:> JO¡ S!A u ~ Zo Ü 0
a Ww 0 c:> Ln Ln 0:: ... Ln 0 ~I c:>
/POOI JoqI B!aN z z "" C"') C"') C"') :::J M Ln
01- Ln C"') '"
z:S 0 roo:
en
<I::::J w
e ~I I(9 0:: 0
~ peOJSSOJ:> a:lUa!UaAuo:> Ü ~ I-w 0 0 Ln LO I- ... Ln 0 ~I 0
8 U --'0:: "" C"') C"') C"') Z M C"') '" 0
z LiScn Ln Ln-
W
I- Ü
s¿~ <I:
-, 0
~ ( ) ffi2: 0
Ja¡ua:> aBemA Il!.m~ C Ln c:> c:> Ln <I: ... Ln c:> ~I 0
",' c:>
e 0 :::JO "" C"') C"') C"') W Ln C"') '" ó
z a.aJ I ""
m w:::J l-
e Ien :::¡;
1-0 0 en
o::~ c:> 1-1- ~J ~I
0 saJ:I'9' OZ / no ~ ~ 0 c:> Ln c:> 0:: Ln Ln 0::1-
0::.;.:. tJ:jç "" C"') C"') Ln LL '" C"') "" wZ
Ln
tn :::¡;::::; 0 I-W
C w <I::::¡;
om 0:: $:w
CI) o::~ 0 1-<1: :3 ~J 0Q;
E saJ:I'9' O~ / no ~ !zu:> 0 c:> Ln c:> 0 Ln Ln ~I z:::J
0::.;.:. ~ WZ "" C"') C"') Ln W Ln C"') "" <1:0
- -0 0:: üW
ü¡:: ~ -0::
~ t:::s ~ ~J b::~
saJ:I'9' !: / no ~ ~~ ;g :::J:::J 0 0 Ln Ó Ü Ln Ln ~I WaJ
en (9 "" C"') C"') Ln <I: C"') "" cn<l:
WW aJ Ln Wü
f/) l- I--
IDO:: ---'
e ::Jç w cna.
en 'a.
( ) c:> --' Z<I:
¡saJO:l BU!PIOI U !:!: £::! <l:Z 0 0 Ln 0 <I: N Ln c:> ~I 00::
, I:::J "" C"') C"') Ln (3 Ln C"') ~
eno Iw
..1 cnü w I-I
Wz a. --'I-
cn LiS 0
I c:> ~o <I: I --'I
¡saJ0:l em~ LL ;! cncn 0 c:> Ln c:> N Ln c:> ~I LL--'
0:: 1-0:: "" C"') C"') Ln Ln C"') ~ 0<1:
CI) OW
--'LL 1-0
. LL ZZ
ow w<l:
m w-, :::¡;w
LL 0 ¡¡:z ~I
¡saJ°:lle!:lJawwo:> !!2 0 0 Ln c:> N Ln c:> I-~
Ü (3- "" C"') C"') Ln Ln C"') ~ 0:: en
w <1:1-
a. a.o
cn w--'
w o _
¡e:l0l- aJn¡ n:l!JB'9' ~It') ;g Z 0 c:> Ln 0 Ln 0 ~I oen
0 LO 1-1-
"" C"') C"') LO C"') ~ Z
Z 1--
ü~
wI-
e!:lJawwo:> - aJn¡ n:l!JB'9' C)o c:> ~I (rlen
~ 0 0 Ln 0 Ln Ln ~ ::::¡Z
c(N "" C"') C"') Ln C"') cnO
ü
~ g¡ ~ ~
u
§ '" '"
m, ,s ¡s N
"E '" c( ( ) l' ü5
ca ,s ~ cn In -ê C>
"'C W ( ) C = œ C
c cn E ( ) 0 ~ :::J ( ) 32
a --' -0 ,j; cn >
~ :::1 .g ü5 C In 0 '5
-0 cð ( ) ~ :::J Ü ID
- :::J '" j~ ~ tj.¡g E 0 g Iii
C e- o -0 is .c: .~~
'" 0:: (ij -ê '" C C ,2> :§
e ~ '" ð ,s'" '" 0>
2! 'C c( ( }--' c ( ) g-~ '5
c. In 0- -ê ~ê æ :§ I
0 c <I: "E 08 (ij 15œ aJ
c;; ( ) õ e <I: ( ) '5 0> Õ
~ c. .~ :::J 0:: C
> 0 0 .12. '(3 ID
'" --' LL 0 ¡ii~ :g '" Q) m
c E E E .S '" .S c E E '5 ~ È)
'C
:::J :::J :::J :::¡; :::¡;:::¡; a. cno:: :::J aJ <1:0 <I:
E E E~ :::J E
'fi§ E=,_
<= :~ æ :~ æ ~
:::¡; :E :::¡;= :::¡;- :::¡;
"C
"C
-
en
en
o
"C
c
~
c
'r"
(Ø
.c
I-
· ,
, .
II~· . '
00
00
Q)
C
:J
ã)
Q)
.....
.
en
Q)
-
o
z
00
00
Q)
C
:J
.5
-0
Q)
<+=
'(3
Q)
00
Q)
00
.~
Q)
.r::.
-
o
00
00
Q)
C
:J
-
co
00
Q)
,§
-0
c:
co
OJ
c:
'õ
c:
Q)
00
c:
o
:¡:¡
co
ü
.¡:
:J
E
E .
02
üa5rñ
cñEë
-Q)Q)
-§"=E
._:J Q)
~g.=
00;:; 5-
...c: Q)
00 OJ....
Æ'ã5:E
O.r::. OJ
00
c:
o
:¡:¡
co
c:
OJ
ëñ
Q)
-0
-0
co
e
OJ
c:
'§:
.Q
:§
Q)
.r::.
-
....
Æ
OJ
co
u::
-0
c:
co
-0
co
&
£ ....
.9 Æ
:J OJ
Ü ~
t
8..9
....
:.:¡:
-0
c:
co
ai
>
ï::
o
>-
-0
o
.r::.
cr:
-0
co
o
cr:
>-
Æ
ro
>
....
Q)
>
co
Q)
Ee.
~~
.....&
~ cr: Q)
cr: C/) 0
C/) 1!1 t5
en O.r::.
1ii Ü '5
ï: Q) 0
Q) = C/)
1:: O.,!.
III U'S
~ ~ ¡g
c: ¡ij"5
:i :::æ a
. .
-0
co
o
cr:
Q)
ro
-0
c:
e
.- .r::.
-OC:_
co'- :::J
000
cr:a..C/)
.e ã5 "
ON-o
.ecoco
coI&
o~
_ 00 ( )
-o( )~
~~-ð'
cr:~E
( ) c: 0
_( ).r::.
>->1-
8<{.¿
· 00 co
c:OJO
oc:cr:
.~~ ~
( ) co ( )
xI>
w-ë8
( ) ~.~
:Jcr:O
c: .
~ëC/)
<{:::J "
0-0
( ) E co
"6Æ&
oOJ>-
ücoQ)
· w c:
-o-ë~
coco.r::.
°o~
cr:cr:
Q;oo:5
-....0
CO( )a..
~ E .
co 0-0
( ) Ü co
0....0
:Jcr:
-ë0~
co I.L. Q)
o . Q)
......-0....
u...coü
( ) & >-
e'( )§
o c: Q)
( )( )a..
0ü
( ) =.¿
a.:Jco
co a 0
üu..icr:
-ë .>-
co -0 co
o co I!)
cr:0Q)
_cr:oo
=.r::.'õ
::i:OOC'O
:::J ...
( ) .e C'O
( )coa..
ID-5 .
. :J -0
~O~
o .cr:
cr: ~ >-
( ) 0 C'O
~cr:1!)
C'Ooo~
...J a. C'O
§'æ0
~~.¿
( )( )CO
-0000
c:ocr:
<{O( )
ui-ë~
.... co co
00...J
ücr:c:
Q) ,0 .
-000-0
Õ ,(¡¡ co
ua.....J 0
.....e .cr:
00-0-
c: .e C'O .5
.- co 0 0
:::æocr:a..
cñ=
( ) C'O
OJ.r::.
~ ~
co OJ
OJC:
-o'õ
.,ê'§
ü.e
J]:;
Q) 0
-0....
oo.E
C'O 00
.r::.~
ü ü
:J C'O
00:8
( )
00 00
~'E
:J co
->-
~ ( )
:J-O
- .-
'SOO
ü-o
.¡:: c:
OJ co
C'O ....
.... C'O
o ~
roE
~E
-0 .-
._ c:
~'E
.... ( )
0:5
.....
00.5
g>~
,- ( )
-o.r::.
'§~
.eoo
'5~
o 1tJ
.9G1
>- '-'
c.~
a.._
co.....
o c:
$~
C'O-
00
ro~
.r::.-
00-0
....
~8
co( )
Æ~
.eo
~2
o
c:-
.- OJ
-oC:
( ):¡:¡
-0 .~
'ð ~
.... ....
a.o
.....
00_
~a.
ü ( )
co ü
.ex
ã)( )
OOcñ
....-0
C'O Q)
~~
-go
co.9
~ 0 .
ëñ .gp3
ro( )~
'(3 ~ íD
( )( )'-'
a.OJ( )
00 C'O >
( )....<+=
.r::..9Q)
I-oo.e
d
( )
.r::.
-
.....
o
~
:J
1:3
:J
....
êií
( )
c:
o
c:
C'O
.r::.
-
-0
c:
co
f'-;
co
c:
o
~
( )
00
ü
o
:J
.5
2J
c:
( )
E
( )
.... ...:
'5 0
(l)~
....-
..... .~
( ) c:
(q~
~-o
E<{
... ( )
.9.r::.
00_
.,ê.e
--0
o OJ
- c:
1:3 'E
OJ ...
:02
:J ( )
00-0
OJ 00
... co
C'O OJ
tPS
._ co
"þ .~
.~ 1:3
o C'O
...
-
( )
~
-
( )
OJ
.....
o
C\J
co
~
( )
>
OJ
Ü
';;:
-0
c:
co
OJ
c:
o
N
....
o
( )
00
:J
c:
( )
~
( )
.e
ro
.r::.
00
~
ü
co
.e
-
( )
00
( )
:5
-
.r::.
OJ
ëñ
OJ
ro
00
OJ
c:
.¡::
ëã
a.
.ê
c:
OJ
.r::.
3:
i
a..
::i:
~
c:
o
~
OJ
00
00
;S
.....
o
00
ë
OJ
E
( )
...
'5
0-
OJ
....
-0
C'O
o
cr:
E
:::J
ü
C'O
E
:¡:
Ü
-0
co
o
cr:
....
OJ
-
c:
OJ
Ü
S'
co
o
cr:
-0
C'O
o
cr:
>-
co
I!)
~
co
°
-0
~-o
cr:co
.... 0
( )cr:
E.r::.
00
üI
....
" OJ
~a.
( )a.
~:J
·
( )
...
o
E
c:
'00
-
c:
8
:J
ü
ü
o
co
( )
....
C'O
-
.Q
c;t)-i
..... .....
..0
.....
co
~
( )
>
Q)
ü
.;;:
-0
c:
co
( )
c:
o
N
....
o
.
~
E
~
OJ
e
a..
....
( )
-
00
C'O
::i:
( )
.5
~
o
.r::.
C/)
OJ
:5
.....
o
c:
o
t5
'õ
00
'¡::
.2,
OJ
OJ
.r::.
-
.r::.
-
"§:
-
c:
( )
-
00
ëñ
c:
o
ü
00
( )
:¡:¡
';;:
~
co
L:.C\ -oCD) ¡JJalofol
QÇ\ )
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING
CERTAIN OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENTS PROPOSED
AND REVIEWED DURING THE 2001
AMENDMENT CYCLE
}
}
} ORDINANCE NO.
}
}
08-1224-01
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as
required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., set in
motion and now completed the proper professional review and public notice and
comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County's
Comprehensive Plan originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998
and amended by Resolution 27-00, and;
WHEREAS, as mandated by the Growth Management Act, the Board has
reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan,
and;
WHEREAS, the following amendments have been approved by the Board
because each of these particular amendment was found to be in conformance with the
Growth Management Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners that they approve certain of the proposed amendments to the County's
Comprehensive Plan, and;
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board that they make the following
Findings of Facts, both general and specific:
· 08-1224-01.
Ordinance No. Approving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
Section 1- General Findings of Fact for Approved Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
The Board makes the following general Findings of Fact:
1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development
regulations or VDC in December 2000.
2. The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and
adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the
citizens of this County on a regular basis, although it need not be made available
more than once per year.
4. This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before May 1, 2001, the deadline
for submission of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
5. Some nine proposed amendments worked their way through the entire process laid
out in state statutes for such amendments. Five of these nine proposed Plan
amendments were site-specific, while four were "suggested" Plan amendments,
sometimes also known as policy or text amendments.
6. Those nine proposed amendments went through professional review at the County
and State level.
7. Those nine proposed amendments went through review by the County's Planning
Commission.
8. Those nine proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the
County's Planning Commission.
9. Those nine proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the
Board of County Commissioners.
10. Those nine proposed amendments were the subject of a vote to approve or reject
by the Board of County Commissioners.
11. The five proposed amendments that are described in this ordinance were approved
by the Board of County Commissioners because they were found to be in
Page 2 of 32
08-1224-Q1 . . C h· PI
Ordinance No. ApprovIng certaIn of the ompre enslve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
conformance with the Growth Management Act and the County's Comprehensive
Plan. The Board rejected the other four proposed Plan amendments.
12. Adoption of these five amendments promotes the health and welfare of the citizens
of Jefferson County.
13. Pursuant to Section 9 of this County's Unified Development Code, all proposed
amendments have to be analyzed, in part, through the "filter" of the seven growth
management indicators (or "GMI") listed at UDC §9.5.4(b), although those GMI
represent only some of the criteria that the County Commissioners must use when
deciding whether to adopt or rej ect a proposed plan amendment.
14. Because of the general nature of the GMI, each and every GMI will not be
applicable or apropos for each and every amendment that this County Commission
has considered.
15. However, the County Commissioners, in order to comply with UDC Section 9,
should and must make generalized findings of fact with respect to the seven GMI
and do so now.
16. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(1), the County Commissioners find, as an example
of numerous findings they might make with respect to (b)(1), that in the short-term
the population of this County has not increased as quickly as the Comprehensive
Plan envisioned, but this short-term decline in the rate of population growth does
not necessarily mean that the County should abandon the long-term population
forecasts found in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
17. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(2), the County Commissioners find that the
capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not changed, although
expected continued severe pressures on the County's budget may alter this picture
in the coming years.
18. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(3), the County Commissioners find that while
sufficient 'urban' land is designated and zoned within this County to meet
projected demand and need pursuant to the agreed-upon population allocation in
Page 3 of 32
08-1224-01
Ordinance No. Approving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
Joint City and County Resolution No. 17-96, that conclusion will, by definition, be
revisited and reconsidered as the County considers establishing an urban growth
area in the Port Hadlock and lrondale neighborhoods.
19. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(4), the County Commissioners find that while most
of the assumptions that supported the policies and goals of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan remain valid, there are at least two assumptions that need
revisiting.
20. The first assumption of the 1998 plan worthy of reconsideration comes about
because of the documented need for additional rural commercial and industrial
land as indicated by the Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast of January
1999 prepared by Richard Trottier, which suggests the County can expect to see a
growth in jobs of some 7,000 to 9,000 in the next decades and must accommodate
them with additional commercially and industrially zoned land not currently in
existence.
21. Secondly, the County always intended to revisit its conservatively-drawn
boundaries around the rural commercial districts, known formally as "limited
areas of more intensive rural development" or "LAMIRD's" and has new
definitions of "built environment" provided to it by the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board to work with as it does that redrawing.
22. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(5), the County Commissioners find that recent
election results indicate not necessarily a change in the attitudes of the County's
citizenry, but certainly a reprioritization of those basic values with an emphasis
now placed on economic opportunity and a healthy economy. This reprioritization
becomes particularly important in the face of increasing unemployment and our
current national recession. While this shift in priorities does not necessarily require
wholesale changes to the goals of the plan, it does and will require some
modification of the plan in order to better achieve opportunity for improving the
economic base in a manner that is consistent with GMA and the County's Plan.
Page 4 of 32
08-1224-01
Ordinance No. Approving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
23. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(6), the County Commissioners find that the County
has undergone changed circumstances with respect to the worsening of the gap
between the median income of a citizen and the general unavailability of housing
that is affordable based on such a salary, the listing of salmon species as
"endangered" pursuant to federal statute, new development regulations adopted by
the County to implement the GMA and the County's Plan and additional Hearings
Board decisions which illuminate what the state laws permit or do not permit.
Such changed circumstances may make amendments to the Plan appropriate.
24. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(7), the County Commissioners find that any
inconsistencies between the County's Plan and the GMA exist because Jefferson
County has not utilized or considered every 'tool' found in the GMA'toolbox,'
including, by way of example only, the establishment of additional Master
Planned Resorts, creation of a process to encourage the siting of Major Industrial
Developments and a full utilization of the newest definition of "built environment"
as it relates to LAMIRD's.
25. The Board of County Commissioners has generated for each of the five proposed
amendments a set of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that relate solely
and specifically to that rejected amendment. They are made part of this Ordinance
as Section 2 below.
Page 5 of 32
08-1224~Ol
Ordinance No. Approving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
Section 2 - Specific Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for specific approved
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The Board makes the following specific Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with
respect to the five (5) proposed Plan amendments they approved.
MLA #01-215 (Multi-Family Housin2)
Findings of Fact:
101. This amendment was originally suggested by a citizen named Craig Durgan
and has been adopted by Jefferson County as a "suggested" or "policy"
amendment.
102. This proposal is intended to allow multi-family housing in all rural
commercial areas in order to provide greater opportunity for affordable housing.
103. Without this Plan amendment, multi-family housing (defined as three or
more dwelling units) is permitted only in the Rural Village Centers at Brinnon,
Quilcene and Port Hadlock.
104. As initially proposed, this amendment would change specific policy
language in the Comprehensive Plan at Land Use Policy ("LNP") 5.4.2, LNP 5.5.2
and LNP 5.6.2 to include multi-family housing as a permitted use in the
Convenience Crossroads, the N eighborhoodNisitor Crossroads and in the three
General Crossroads.
105. Corresponding changes to the Land Use Table found in the Unified
Development Code in Section 3 are part and parcel of this adoption. Limitations
on the maximum square footage of any building to be constructed in a specific
"crossroads" would not be changed.
106. Planning staff recommended that this amendment not be applicable to
Convenience Crossroads.
Page 6 of 32
O d· N 08-1224-p1. . f C h·
r Inance o. ftpptovIng certaIn 0 the ompre enSIve Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
107. As discussed and recommended for approval by the County's Planning
Commission, this amendment would permit multi-family housing in the
NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads and in the three General Crossroads.
108. As discussed and recommended for approval by the County's Planning
Commission, this amendment would permit mixed use residential/commercial
structures within the boundaries of the rural village centers as well as the General
and NeighborhoodNisitor categories of "crossroads."
109. County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A
(RCW 43.21C.010 et seq.) and arrived at a determination of significance when all
the policy and site-specific amendments were considered holistically. However,
county planning staff also determined that the draftEIS of February 1997 and the
Final EIS of May 1998 written as part of the Plan adoption process sufficiently
addressed the potential adverse impacts of this and all other proposed Plan
amendments that were part of the 2001 Plan amendment cycle.
110. The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a
properly-noticed public hearing which occurred on November 7,2001. Four
persons, three of whom identified themselves as representing both themselves and
a citizens' group, testified regarding this amendment, generally questioning if it
would achieve its intended goal.
111. The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding this amendment on
November 14, 2001 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on December 3,
2001.
112. The County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this
proposed amendment by a 6 to 3 vote.
113. The three members of the Planning Commission who voted against this
proposed amendment prepared and forwarded to the elected County
Commissioners a minority report advocating rejection of this amendment.
114. The State Office of Community Development made no comment on this
proposed Plan amendment.
Page 7 of 32
· 08-1224-01. .
Ordmance No. Approving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
115. Housing Goal (or "HSG") 1.0 of the County's Comprehensive Plan states
that the County will "encourage and support efforts to provide an adequate supply
of housing for County residents of all income groups."
116. HSG 2.0 of the County's Comprehensive Plan states that the County will
"promote a variety of affordable housing choices throughout the County through
the use of innovative land use practices, development standards, design techniques,
and building permit requirements."
117. Housing Policy (or "HSP") 2.7 of the County's Comprehensive Plan states
that the County will "encourage and support greater opportunity for the
development of innovative housing types, such as residential units in mixed-use
development and single family attached housing, duplexes and triplexes which are
limited in scale, multi-care facilities and development patterns such as clustering,
in Rural Village Centers provided adequate infrastructure and services are in
place."
118. The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony with respect to
this amendment at a public hearing on December 10, 2001. One person testified at
that time. That testimony was against the amendment.
119. On December 10, 2001 the elected County Commissioners voted 2 to 1 in
favor of adopting this amendment.
120. The Plan amendment, in bill form, i.e., the "line-in, line-out" text changes, is
made part of this Ordinance as Exhibit "A."
Conclusions of Law
121. The County's development regulations, known as the Unified Development
Code (or "UDC") describe at UDC §9.8.2 some of the criteria the elected County
Commissioners must utilize when determining whether to adopt a proposed
amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
122. The above-listed section of the UDC also requires that the elected County
Commissioners base, in part, their decisions regarding proposed amendments on
UDC §9.5.4(b), which lists seven 'growth management indicators" or "GMI" that
should be considered when analyzing the worth of a proposed plan amendment.
Page 8 of 32
O d' N 08-1224-D1. . f h C h' PI
r mance o. Approving certain 0 t e ompre enSIVe an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
123. While many of the GMI, when considered, neither support nor discourage
enactment of this multi-family housing amendment to the plan, the GMI listed at
UDC §9.5.4(b)(6) and discussed in detail at Finding #23 above is directly
applicable to this proposed plan amendment and strongly argues for its adoption.
124. The UDC at §9.81(b) also requires that the elected County Commissioners
consider three additional criteria when determining whether to adopt or reject a
proposed plan amendment.
125. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(1) and (b)(2), the elected County
Commissioners find that the circumstances relating to an absence of affordable
housing in this County have not improved and instead have worsened during the
last three, five and ten years in this county because this County suffers from a
continuing and serious lack of housing that can be afforded by persons making
median or average salaries for this County. In other words, the typical or median
house in this County (as determined by price) is not affordable for the citizen of
this County earning today's median or typical wage or salary and that income to
housing gap is only growing.
126. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), the elected County Commissioners find
that they as the popularly-elected legislative body of this County properly
interpreted and acted upon the will of the populace of this County when they
adopted this amendment as a County-driven amendment, doing so in the belief that
enactment of this amendment will be a positive step towards addressing the lack of
affordable housing in this County.
127. This multi-family housing amendment is at least one step in the right
direction to encourage and generate affordable housing for the citizens of this
County.
128. This amendment furthers HSG 1.0, HSG 2.0 and HSP 2.7 of the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
129. This amendment underwent "early and continuous" public participation in a
manner consistent with the GMA pursuant to sufficient notice to the public.
130. This amendment has been subject to review by the State Office of
Community Development and the County's Planning Commission.
Page 9 of 32
O d· N OB-1224A-Ol. . f h C h· PI
r mance o. pprovlng certaIn 0 t e ompre enslVe an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
131. This amendment has been reviewed for possible adverse environmental
impacts pursuant to the state law known as SEP A.
132. This amendment, as adopted, is GMA-compliant.
MLA #01-217 (Master Planned Resorts)
Findings of Fact:
201. This amendment was and is a "suggested" or "policy" amendment brought
forth by the County.
202. This Board-initiated plan amendment was promulgated in order to enable the
siting of additional Master Planned Resorts (or "MPR's") within Jefferson
County. At present, the MPR at Port Ludlow is the only permitted MPR
within the County.
203. The County Commissioners determined that the current language of the
County's Plan, which states that the MPR at Port Ludlow is and shall be the
only MPR in the County, did not reflect the wish of the elected
Commissioners, specifically that there be opportunities for other MPR's
offering tourist-related activities to locate within this County in a manner
consistent with the GMA.
204. County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A
(RCW 43.21C.010 et seq.) and arrived at a determination of significance
when all the policy and site-specific amendments were considered
holistically. However, county planning staff also determined that the draft
EIS of February 1997 and the Final EIS of May 1998 written as part of the
Plan adoption process sufficiently addressed the potential adverse impacts of
this and all other proposed Plan amendments that were part of the 2001 Plan
amendment cycle.
205. This amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will add new Land Use Goal 26
and would require parallel amendments to Sections 2, 3 and 8 of the UDC.
206. Under the proposed language, the person or entity bringing forward a
proposed MPR for the County's consideration would be required to enter
into a Development Agreement with the County.
Page 10 of 32
08-1224-01.. h . PI
Ordinance No. ApprovIng certaIn of the Compre enslve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
207. The Planning Commission heard testimony from a developer's attorney
stating that developers and local governments such as Jefferson County both
gain when an MPR is built and operated pursuant to a Development
Agreement. Citizens also commented favorably on this requirement.
208. The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a
public hearing on November 7, 2001. About one-half dozen persons
testified at that time, many of whom were in favor of the amendments, while
others asked for improvements in the proposed amendment but did not
appear to oppose the overall purpose of the amendments.
209. The Planning Commission heard testimony on November 7, 2001 that this
County has significant natural amenities already in place that might be good
reasons to build and operate a destination tourist facility in this county, for
example, entrances to national parks and national forests as well as existing
marinas and other shoreline development.
210. The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding this amendment on
November 14, 2001 and, in a rare showing of unanimity, voted 9 to 0 to
recommend that the elected County Commissioner approve this amendment.
211. The State Office of Community Development (or "OCD") commented quite
positively on this proposal in a letter dated December 11,2001.
212. OCD wrote of this proposed amendment that it "does a good job of
implementing the intent of RCW 46.70A.360 (sic-we can assume the intent
there was to write 'RCW 36.70A.360')."
213. OCD also wrote "it also appears to effectively balance the need to protect
natural resource lands while offering a way to benefit from economic
development opportunities."
214. OCD did suggest a technical correction arising from the County's decision
to make it clear in the last sentence of proposed Land Use Policy 26.3 that
an MPR could be located within or adjacent to either an urban growth area
or a 'limited area of more intensive rural development,' when the MPR
statute at GMA Section .360 "does not apply to resorts in UGA's or those
Page 11 of 32
· 08-1224-01
OrdInance No. Approving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
related to rural commercial designations." OCD suggested this technical
correction to make sure there was no confusion in that regard.
215. The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony during a public
hearing on December 10, 2001. Two persons testified and both of them
favored passage of this amendment.
216. The Board of County Commissioners deliberated on this amendment on
December 10, 2001 and on that same date voted for its passage by a 3-0
vote.
217. The text changes in "bill form," i.e., the "line-out, line-in" changes and
additions, are made Exhibit "B" to this Ordinance.
Conclusions of Law
218. The applicable provision of the GMA, codified at RCW 36.70A.360(4)(a)
prohibits the siting of any new MPR' s unless and until a County's
Comprehensive Plan "specifically identifies policies to guide the
development of master planned resorts."
219. Thus, the County could not permit any MPR development until such time as
it passed this plan amendment or an amendment strikingly like this
amendment.
220. The County's UDC, specifically UDC §9.8.2, states some of the criteria the
elected County Commissioners must utilize when determining whether to
adopt a proposed amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
221. The above-listed section of the UDC also requires that the elected County
Commissioners base their decisions, in part, regarding proposed
amendments on UDC §9.5.4(b), which lists seven 'growth management
indicators' or "GMI" that should be considered when analyzing the worth of
a proposed plan amendment.
222. While many of the GMI, when considered, neither support nor discourage
enactment of this amendment to the plan, the GMI listed at UDC
§9.5.4(b)(5) and discussed in detail at Finding #22 above is directly
Page 12 of 32
08-1224-01. . f h C h· PI
Ordinance No. ApproVIng certaIn 0 t e ompre enslve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
applicable to this proposed plan amendment and strongly argues for its
adoption.
223. While many of the GMI, when considered, neither support nor discourage
enactment of this amendment to the plan, the GMI listed at UDC
§9.5.4(b)(7) and discussed in detail at Finding #24 above is directly
applicable to this proposed plan amendment and strongly argues for its
adoption.
224. The UDC at §9.81(b) also requires that the elected County Commissioners
consider three additional criteria when determining whether to adopt or
reject a proposed plan amendment.
225. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(1), the elected County Commissioners find
that the opportunity to site MPR's within this County is a GMA-generated
'tool' from the GMA 'toolbox' that this County has not yet fully utilized and
that by amending the Plan and the UDC to provide policy direction and
review criteria for the siting of MPR' s, this County will now be able to
completely utilize this GMA development tool.
226. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(2), the elected County Commissioners find
that in light of the economic downturn and the need to increase economic
opportunity it has become more important than it was previously to at least
have available to this County every tool for economic growth provided by
the GMA, including the possibility of having new MPR's locate in this
County.
227. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), the elected County Commissioners find
that they as the popularly-elected legislative body of this County properly
interpreted and acted upon the will of the populace of this County when they
adopted this amendment as a County-driven amendment, doing so in the
belief that enactment of this amendment will be a positive step towards
encouraging economic growth.
228. This amendment underwent "early and continuous" public participation in a
manner consistent with the GMA pursuant to sufficient notice to the public.
229. This amendment has been subject to review by the State Office of
Community Development and the County's Planning Commission.
Page 13 of 32
O d· N 08-1224-01. .
r mance o. ApprovIng certam of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
230. This amendment has been reviewed for possible adverse environmental
impacts pursuant to the state law known as SEP A.
231. This amendment, as adopted, is GMA-compliant.
MLA #01-221 (Bulk & Dimensional Standards)
Findings of Fact:
301. This amendment was and is a "suggested" or "policy" amendment brought
forth by the County.
302. This Plan amendment and UDC text amendment was proposed in order to
revisit county policy related to total building size and building height in rural
industrial districts. It is intended to address concerns related to the
limitations placed on existing and potential industrial uses as a result of Plan
language (later reflected in the UDC) which restricts building size to 20,000
square feet in the Glen Cove Light Industrial/Associated Commercial
District, 25,000 square feet in the Light Industrial District and 20,000 square
feet in the Resource Based Industrial Districts.
303. This County Commission has repeatedly expressed concern that the 20,000
square feet limit on building size in Glen Cove prevented successful
businesses in that district from reasonably expanding because, in part, that
rule was always interpreted (at least before the effective date of the UDC) as
permitting only one such building of that size per parcel.
304. The County Commission has repeatedly expressed concern that the strict
interpretation of the building cap size of 20,000 square feet in Glen Cove
that existed before 2001 led to the conclusion that on a one-acre (43,560
square feet) parcel, the maximum building coverage was 46%, on a two-acre
parcel the maximum building coverage was 23% and on a five-acre parcel
the maximum building coverage was less than 10%, thereby causing, in fact,
a wasting of valuable rural commercial land.
Page 14 of 32
Ordinance No. 08-1224-~pproving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
305. By way of example only, the largest building (other than schools) in the
unincorporated county contains 29,590 square feet and is the Quality Food
Center 'supermarket' located in Port Hadlock.
306. This amendment, as proposed by the County planning staff, would eliminate
from the Comprehensive Plan the 20,000 square foot limit on structures built
on parcels located within the Glen Cove "tight-line" boundary, a region
more formally known as the Glen Cove LAMIRD.
307. This amendment, as proposed by the County planning staff, would eliminate
the phrase "Total Building Size" as found in Table 6-1 of the UDC [entitled
"Density, Dimension and Open Space Standards"] and replace the
eliminated phrase with the phrase "Maximum Building Size."
308. This amendment, as proposed by the County planning staff, would then state
inside the UDC that for Rural Industrial districts [the County has four such
districts: 1) Resource Based Industrial, 2) Glen Cove Light
Industrial/Commercial, the Glen Cove LAMIRD, 3) Light Industrial and 4)
Heavy Industrial-the paper mill] there would be with respect to building
caps, "None Specified."
309. Thus, instead of continuing with building caps of between 20,000 to 25,000
square feet for the four Rural Industrial districts, there would be no building
caps for those zones.
310. Building caps would continue to apply in all other zones even after the
adoption of these Plan and the parallel development regulation amendments.
311. At the same time the amendments to the UDC proposed by county staff
would eliminate from Table 6-1 of the UDC any limits on what percentage
of a parcel in those four Rural Industrial districts could be covered by
impervious surface. This apparent lack of a limit is however paired with a
building coverage cap of 60%, thus limiting the total impervious surface that
might occur on any given parcel. Without this amendment, there was
previously in place a limit of 60% impervious surface coverage in these four
Rural Industrial districts.
312. For the four Rural Industrial districts the management of storm water would
be governed, after this amendment is adopted, by the storm water
Page 15 of 32
O d· N 08-1224-D1.. .
r Inance o. ApprovIng certam of the ComprehensIve Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
management rules laid out in UDC §6.7 rather than by an arbitrarily chosen
number of 60%.
313. UDC §6.7 states, among other things, that an applicant must use the Puget
Sound Storm Water Management Manual (soon to be replaced by the
Western Washington Storm Water Management Manual) to prepare its
storm water management plans. Such plans are usually prepared and sealed
by a Professional Engineer and then reviewed by knowledgeable county
staff members who work for the Department of Public Works.
314. Limits on impervious surface coverage would not change for any other type
of land use district pursuant to the UDC amendments brought forth by the
county's planners.
315. However, since there are in places such as the Irondale region of the county
many owners of lots located in rural residential districts that are less than
one acre in size who may find it quite difficult to meet the 25% impervious
surface cap applicable in such rural residential districts, this amendment, as
proposed by planning staff, has a response to that reality. This amendment
requires owners of these small lots to satisfy UDC §6.7 and to meet the
'impervious surface' limits to the "maximum extent practicable as
determined by the Administrator."
316. The amendment to the UDC, as proposed by county planning staff, would
also make clear that for the other zones that continued to have caps on their
building sizes [for example, a 5,000 square foot cap now applies in the rural
commercial zones this county calls 'convenience crossroad' or "CC"] that
such a cap refers to the size of each individual structure and is not a
cumulative measure. Therefore, in a "CC" zone a landowner or applicant
could locate multiple buildings each containing 5,000 square feet, as long as
he or she did not exceed the "area of impervious surface" limit (60% under
the UDC) also found in Table 6-1.
317. The amendment to the UDC, as brought forth by the county planners, would
also create a new line on Table 6-1 entitled "Area of Building Coverage"
that would only apply in the four Rural Industrial districts and would apply a
60% cap in those four districts.
Page 16 of 32
O d· N 08-1224-01 . rt· fth C h· PI
r Inance o. ApproVing ce aIn 0 e ompre enSIve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
318. "Area of Building Coverage" would be defined as "maximum area of
building coverage is measured by the percentage of total lot area occupied
by the footprints of all structures."
319. In sum, then, a new proposal in a Rural Industrial district would be
permitted, pursuant to this amendment, to construct one or more buildings of
any size on his or her parcel or parcels if the cumulative footprint( s) of the
building( s) did not exceed 60% of the parcel's size and if the proposal
complied with the UDC in every other respect, for example, UDC §6.7 on
the management of storm water runoff.
320. It is crucial to note that nothing in this Plan amendment, and its associated
changes to the UDC, alters the responsibility of an applicant in any of the
four Rural Industrial districts to comply with numerous other protective and
performance standards found within the UDC.
321. For example, any applicant with a parcel located upon Rural Industrial land
hoping to take advantage of the new "bulk and dimensional" standards this
amendment creates would nevertheless have to comply with Section 3 of the
UDC, entitled "Land Use Districts" by determining if his or her parcel was
impacted or covered by an overlay district (e.g., critical aquifer recharge
areas, frequently flooded areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas or wetlands).
322. For example, any applicant with a parcel located upon Rural Industrial land
hoping to take advantage of the new "bulk and dimensional" standards this
amendment creates would nevertheless have to comply with Section 4 of the
UDC, entitled "Performance Standards," which delineates performance
standards specific to 41 potential types of land uses.
323. For example, any applicant with a parcel located upon Rural Industrial land
hoping to take advantage of the new "bulk and dimensional" standards this
amendment creates would nevertheless have to comply with Section 6 of the
UDC, entitled "Development Standards," which impose requirements on any
applicant with respect to, by way of example, pedestrian circulation,
parking, off-street loading space requirements, landscaping, lighting,
screening and, perhaps most importantly, setbacks from the parcel
boundaries.
Page 17 of 32
O d· N 08-1224""101. . fth C h· PI
r Inance o. ftpprovlng certam 0 e ompre enslve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
324. County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A
(RCW 43.21C.010 et seq.) and arrived at a determination of significance
when all the policy and site-specific amendments were considered
holistically. However, county planning staff also determined that the draft
EIS of February 1997 and the Final EIS of May 1998 written for the Plan
adoption process sufficiently addressed the potential adverse impacts of this
and all other proposed Plan amendments that were part of the 2001 Plan
amendment cycle.
325. This amendment to the Comprehensive Plan amends Land Use would revise
Land Use Policy 8.5.2 and Section 6 of the UDC.
326. The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a
public hearing on November 7, 2001. About one-half dozen persons
testified at that time.
327. The Planning Commission heard testimony on November 7,2001 that the
existing building cap of 20,000 square feet meant that the typical sawmill
could not be accommodated in this County's Rural Industrial districts
because a sawmill needs more than 20,000 square feet of space to operate.
328. The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding this amendment on
November 14, 2001 and November 21,2001 and voted 6-3 to recommend
that the elected County Commissioners approve this amendment in a
REVISED form, specifically that the limits on "areas of impervious surface"
be eliminated for all Rural Commercial districts and for the Parks, Preserves
& Recreation district [in addition to being eliminated for Rural Industrial
zones] AND that the 60% cap on maximum building coverage also apply to
all Rural Commercial Districts.
329. The three members of the Planning Commission who opposed
recommending adoption of these amendments wrote a minority report
stating their reasons for their opposition to the Commission's
recommendation that the elected County Commissioners adopt the revised
and, in essence, greatly expanded Plan and UDC amendments.
330. The minority report, in part, correctly pointed out that this Plan amendment
had been advertised to the public and discussed as making changes to the
rules only inside the Rural Industrial zones.
Page 18 of 32
Ordinance No. 08-1224Äpproving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
331. The elected County Commissioners agree that the revisions and expansions
to the staff-created Plan and UDC amendments proposed by the majority of
the Planning Commission did go beyond what was "noticed" to the public
and that therefore they could not at this time approve the amendment in the
form suggested by the Planning Commission.
332. The State Office of Community Development (or "OCD") did not make any
comments on this proposal in its letter dated December 11, 2001.
333. The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony during a public
hearing on December 10, 2001. Two persons testified.
334. The Board of County Commissioners deliberated on this amendment on
December 10, 2001 and on that same date voted for its passage by a 3-0
vote. They also directed county planning staff to initiate any steps necessary
to further amend the UDC including, but not limited to, more public
discussion and analysis of the larger issues brought to light by the revisions
offered by the majority proposal that came from the Planning Commission.
335. The text changes in "bill form," i.e., the "line-out, line-in" changes and
additions, are made Exhibit "C" to this Ordinance.
Conclusions of Law
336. The County's UDC, specifically UDC §9.8.2, states some of the criteria the
elected County Commissioners must utilize when determining whether to
adopt a proposed amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
337. The above-listed section of the UDC also requires that the elected County
Commissioners base their decisions, in part, regarding proposed
amendments on UDC §9.5.4(b), which lists seven 'growth management
indicators' or "GMI" that should be considered when analyzing the worth of
a proposed plan amendment.
338. While many of the GMI, when considered, neither support nor discourage
enactment of this amendment to the plan, the GMI listed at UDC
§9.5.4(b)(5) and discussed in detail at Finding #22 above is directly
Page 19 of 32
O d· N 08-1224-01 . . fth C h· PI
r Inance o. A.pprovmg certain 0 e ompre enslve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
applicable to this proposed plan amendment and strongly argues for its
adoption.
339. The UDC at §9.81(b) also requires that the elected County Commissioners
consider three additional criteria when determining whether to adopt or
reject a proposed plan amendment.
340. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(1), the elected County Commissioners find
that since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan it has become more clear
that the building size limits and impervious surface limits imposed by the
Plan and the development regulations are potentially substantial hindrances
that may be preventing certain existing businesses within Rural Industrial
districts from reasonable expansion they might otherwise undertake as their
businesses succeed and grow.
341. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(1), the elected County Commissioners find
that since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan the County has enacted
its development regulations or UDC. The UDC, which has numerous
protections (for example, overlay districts in Section 3, performance
standards in Section 4 and development standards in Section 6), serves to
better mitigate the potentially adverse consequences of more intensive rural
development than did the earlier collection of stand-alone Ordinances.
With better protections in place now than were in place when the
Comprehensive Plan was enacted in 1998 circumstances have changed and
more intensive rural commercial development should be permitted to occur
because better protections are in place.
342. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(2), the elected County Commissioners find
that in light of the new focus on the need to increase economic opportunity it
has become more important than ever to allow landowners in Rural
Industrial zones to use their parcel( s) to the fullest extent permitted by the
GMA and the applicable development regulations.
343. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), the elected County Commissioners find
that they as the popularly-elected legislative body of this County properly
interpreted and acted upon the will of the populace of this County when they
adopted this amendment as a County -driven amendment, doing so in the
belief that enactment of this amendment will be a positive step towards
encouraging economic growth.
Page 20 of 32
O d· N 08-1224A-01. . f th C h· PI
r Inance o. pprovIng certaIn 0 e· ompre enSlVe an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
344. In specific reference to the Glen Cove LAMIRD, which is a LAMIRD as
that term of art is defined in RCW 36. 70A.070(5)( d)(i), such a LAMIRD is
not subject to certain requirements found at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c),
specifically the requirements that rural development must occur in a way
that "assure[ s] visual compatibility of rural development with the
surrounding rural area," and "reduce[ s] the inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land into sprawling low-density development in the rural area."
345. This amendment [as eventually adopted by the elected County
Commissioners] underwent, pursuant to sufficient notice to the public,
"early and continuous" public participation in a manner consistent with the
GMA.
346. This amendment has been subject to review by the State Office of
Community Development and the County's Planning Commission as is
required by state law.
347. This amendment has been reviewed for possible adverse environmental
impacts pursuant to the state law known as SEP A.
348. This amendment, as adopted, is GMA-compliant.
MLA #01-225 (Criteria for Determinin2 LAMIRD boundaries)
Findings of Fact:
401. This amendment was and is a "suggested" or "policy" amendment brought
forth by the County.
402. This Plan amendment was proposed by the County in order to revisit the
county policy related to the criteria that would be used to determine the
boundaries of the rural commercial districts formally known as "limited
areas of more intensive rural development" or LAMIRD's.
403. The concern of the County was that the rules the County chose to impose on
itself at Land Use Policy ("LNP") 5.1 et seq. of its Comprehensive Plan with
respect to delineating LAMIRD' s were either more restrictive than or
different from the rules imposed on this County by either the relevant
Page 21 of 32
O do N 08-1224-Ã01. . f th C h ° PI
r Inance o. pprovmg certaIn 0 e ompre enslve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
portion of the GMA [Section .070(5)(d)(i) and (d)(iv)] and/or published
decisions of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.
404. The proposed amendment, as originally put forth by the County's planning
staff, would have added language to LNP 5.1 clarifying that the minimum
criteria "b" [which stated that no land could be inside a LAMIRD unless it
had been zoned as commercial land prior to the Plan adoption in 1998] was a
criteria that was only intended to apply at the time initial "interim"
boundaries were drawn around the County's LAMIRD's.
405. County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A
(RCW 43.21C.010 et seq.) and arrived at a determination of significance
when all the policy and site-specific amendments were considered
holistically. However, county planning staff also determined that the draft
EIS of February 1997 and the Final EIS of May 1998 written for the Plan
adoption process sufficiently addressed the potential adverse impacts of this
and all other proposed Plan amendments that were part of the 2001 Plan
amendment cycle.
406. The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a
public hearing on November 7,2001. About one-half dozen persons
testified at that time. One person testifying described this proposed Plan
amendment as "quite innocuous."
407. At that Planning Commission meeting of November 7,2001 a Planning
Commissioner asked if the County's Comprehensive Plan was permitted to
be more restrictive about drawing LAMIRD boundaries (or for that matter,
any aspect of GMA-driven planning) than the parallel provisions of the state
law and staff responded that the County's Plan was permitted to be more
restrictive than the state law.
408. Without this amendment the County's criteria for drawing LAMIRD
boundaries would be and are more restrictive than what is required by the
relevant portions of the GMA.
409. The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding this amendment on
November 21,2001. During deliberations the issue arose as to whether the
County wished to continue to impose on itself more restrictive rules relating
to how the County would go about drawing LAMIRD boundaries.
Page 22 of 32
O d· N 08-1224,{""01 . rt· fth C h· PI
r Inance o. .approvIng ce aln 0 e ompre enslve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
410. DCD Director Scalf informed the Planning Commissioners that the intent of
creating and then utilizing the more restrictive County-imposed rules was to
be overly cautious in drawing those LAMIRD boundaries until such time as
the Glen CovefTri-Area Special Study was done. But, once the Special
Study was done the mandatory revisiting of the "interim" LAMIRD
boundaries would and should be performed in conformance with the
applicable GMA provisions rather than the more restrictive County criteria.
411. In light of what they heard from DCD Director Scalf and their recollection
of the Plan enactment process, a majority of the Planning Commission
agreed that the final LAMIRD boundaries should be drawn in a manner
consistent with the state statutes without the extra 'layer' of additional
County-imposed restrictions. There was, however, at that time much
confusion as to what amendatory language best achieved that goal.
412. On November 21, 21001 the Planning Commission voted 6-2 to recommend
that the elected County Commissioners approve this amendment as proposed
and revised by the County planning staff.
413. However, two members of the Planning Commission who had voted against
recommending adoption of the DCD version of this amendment, believed
they could create language which would serve as a much more direct and
straightforward method to achieve the goal of stating that any delineation of
the "final" LAMIRD boundaries would be done pursuant to ONLY the
criteria laid out in the applicable state law.
414. In order to get their more straightforward language before the elected
County Commissioners these two Planning Commission members generated
a minority report and forwarded it to the elected Board.
415. By the time this amendment came to the elected County Commissioners for
their public hearing and deliberation on December 10, 2001 not less than
three members of the Planning Commission had stated in writing that they
agreed with the minority report.
416. Thus, the minority report eventually had five supporters (out of nine persons
sitting on the Planning Commission) on the Planning Commission, making it
a de facto majority recommendation.
Page 23 of 32
O d· N 08-1224-Dl. . f h C .
r Inance o. Approving certain 0 t e omprehensIVe Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
417. The State Office of Community Development (or "OCD") commented on
this amendment in its letter dated December 11, 2001. OCD stated that it
had available to the County a publication that would be very helpful when
the time came for this county to draw its final LAMIRD boundaries.
418. The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony during a public
hearing on December 10, 2001. Three persons testified, including the chair
of the Planning Commission who informed the elected Commissioners that
he was now a supporter of what had been the 'minority' report.
419. The Board of County Commissioners deliberated on this amendment on
December 10, 2001 and on that same date voted for passage of the text
changes proposed in the so-called 'minority' report by a 3-0 vote.
420. The text changes in "bill form," Le., the "line-out, line-in" changes and
additions, are made Exhibit "D" to this Ordinance.
Conclusions of Law:
421. Recently-published decisions handed down by the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board now define the term of art "built
environment" as any and all man-made structures above or below ground.
422. That definition is less restrictive than the definition of the "built
environment" found in the glossary of the County's Comprehensive Plan
which defines the built environment at page G-3 as follows: "a combination
of buildings and related activities along with associated impervious surfaces,
infrastructure, parking and landscaping."
423. The definition found within the Plan's glossary was interpreted at the time
that the interim LAMIRD (rural commercial) boundaries were drawn to
require the presence of both a building or structure AND infrastructure
before a parcel could be deemed to contain or reflect a "built environment."
424. The County's UDC, specifically UDC §9.8.2, states some of the criteria the
elected County Commissioners must utilize when determining whether to
adopt a proposed amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Page 24 of 32
08-1224-Ql . . f th C h· PI
Ordinance No. Approving certain 0 e ompre enslve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
425. The above-listed section of the UDC also requires that the elected County
Commissioners base their decisions, in part, regarding proposed
amendments on UDC §9.5 A(b), which lists seven 'growth management
indicators' or "GMI" that should be considered when analyzing the worth of
a proposed plan amendment.
426. While many of the GMI, when considered, neither support nor discourage
enactment of this amendment to the plan, the GMI listed at UDC
§9.5A(b)(4) and discussed in detail at Findings #19,20 and 21 above are
directly applicable to this proposed plan amendment and argue strongly for
its adoption.
427. The UDC at §9.81(b) also requires that the elected County Commissioners
consider three additional criteria when determining whether to adopt or
reject a proposed plan amendment.
428. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(1), the elected County Commissioners find
that since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan circumstances have
changed, specifically the Western Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board has defined the term of art "built environment" in a manner
that is more expansive than the County's earlier interpretation of the
definition of "built environment" found in this County's Plan.
429. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(1), the elected County Commissioners find
that circumstances have changed, specifically the County has moved past its
initial designation of interim boundaries for its LAMIRD's and will now, as
it always intended, delineate its LAMIRD boundaries in a manner consistent
with the GMA, and that such consistency mandates using the language
found in decisions from our regional Hearings Board that redefines the term
"built environment."
430. With respect to UDC §9 .8.1(b )(2), the elected County Commissioners find
that two of the assumptions on which the Plan was based, specifically that
LAMIRD's should be narrowly and conservatively drawn until the County
finishes an economic forecast (Trottier) and until the regional Hearings
Board fleshed out the meaning of certain terms relating to LAMIRD's, have
changed because the County has its economic forecast and the regional
Hearings Board has more fully defined its perception of what is or is not a
lawfully-drawn LAMIRD.
Page 25 of 32
O d· N 08-1224-01 . .
r mance o. Approvmg certaIn of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
431. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(3) the relative lack of controversy
surrounding this Plan amendment indicates that the amendment does reflect
current widely held values of the County's citizenry.
432. This amendment [as eventually adopted by the elected County
Commissioners] underwent, pursuant to sufficient notice to the public,
"early and continuous" public participation in a manner consistent with the
GMA.
433. This amendment has been subject to review by the State Office of
Community Development and the County's Planning Commission as is
required by state law.
434. This amendment has been reviewed for possible adverse environmental
impacts pursuant to the state law known as SEP A.
435. This amendment, as adopted, is GMA-compliant.
MLA #01-227 (Secord: Rezone of certain Rural Residential Land)
Findings of Fact:
501. This amendment was and is a "site-specific" amendment brought forth by a
landowner on Marrowstone Island and later carried forward by his successor
in title.
502. This amendment, as adopted, rezones from Rural Residential 1 :20 (one
dwelling unit permitted per 20 acres) to Rural Residential 1:10 (one dwelling
unit per 10 acres) an undeveloped waterfront parcel on Marrowstone Island
consisting of 27.86 acres.
503. The 27.86 acre parcel is also known as Assessor's Parcel No. 021 201 001. It
has a street address of 9796 Flagler Road.
504. The County has some 62,000+ acres zoned rural residential. Thus, this
parcel of 28 acres represents less than five/ten thousandths (.0005) of all the
land zoned rural residential in this County.
Page 26 of 32
O d· N OB-1224-Ql . . f h C h· PI
r Inance o. Approving certain 0 t e ompre enslVe an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
505. The property in question is at the northern end of Marrowstone Island and
abuts Fort Flagler State Park.
506. County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A
(RCW 43.21 C.OI0 et seq.) and arrived at a "determination of significance"
when all the policy and site-specific amendments were considered
holistically. However, county planning staff also determined that the draft
EIS of February 1997 and the Final EIS of May 1998 written for the Plan
adoption process sufficiently addressed the potential adverse impacts of this
and all other proposed Plan amendments that were part of the 2001 Plan
amendment cycle.
507. County planning staff wrote a report dated July 26, 2001 and that report
recommended the denial of this Plan amendment. Generally, the planning
staff concluded that the parcel did not meet the criteria laid out in LNP 3.3
for designation as RR 1:10 land. ]
508. The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a
public hearing on September 5, 2001. The Chair of the Planning
Commission obtained from the other members of the Planning Commission
their oral assurances in three regards: 1) the members had not participated in
any ex-parte communication regarding this site-specific proposal, 2) the
members would use only the record before them to reach a fair and objective
decision and 3) the members had not made their decision ahead of time.
509. The applicant, Mark Secord, was the only person to give oral testimony at
the Planning Commission public hearing that occurred on September 5,
2001.
510. Mr. Secord asserted that because much of the shoreline parcels on all of
Marrowstowne Island were less than 10 acres in size that therefore his parcel
should be zoned RR 1:10 because his parcel could and did satisfy the criteria
laid out in the County's Comprehensive Plan at LNP 3.3.2(b), which states
that the County should designate parcel as RR 1:10 if there exists "parcels
along the coast of similar size." In other words, the "universe" that his lot
should be compared to and measured against, he asserted, is the universe of
the shoreline lots of record as found on Marrowstone Island.
Page 27 of 32
Ordinance No. 08-1224Ãwroving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
511. The Planning Commission deliberated with respect to this proposed Plan
amendment on September 19, 2001. Some Planning Commissioners felt that
the WWGMHB decision with respect to Black Point (a change in the
underlying designation from RR 1:20 to RR 1:10 was upheld there) was
precisely applicable to these circumstances.
512. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of this Plan
amendment.
513. The Planning Commission, in its report to the elected County Commission
dated November 7, 2001, made the findings required of it pursuant to UDC
§9.8.1(b) and §9.8.1(c).
514. The two Planning Commissioners opposed to recommending approval wrote
and forwarded to the elected County Commissioners a minority report.
515. The State Office of Community Development sent a letter to this County on
December 11, 2001 regarding the proposed Plan amendments. That letter
was silent with respect to this particular Plan amendment.
516. The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on this proposed
Plan amendment on December 10, 2001. At that time the chair of the
County Commission obtained from the other elected Commissioners their
oral assurances that they 1) had not participated in any ex-parte
communication regarding this site-specific proposal, 2) would use only the
record before them to reach a fair and objective decision and 3) had not
made their decision ahead of time.
517. One person, the Chair of the Planning Commission, testified at the public
hearing before the County Commissioners on December 10, 2001. He
asserted at that time that the criteria found at LNP 3.3 supported either
underlying designation for the Secord parcel, that is to say either RR 1:20 or
RR 1:10.
518. The Chair of the County Commission stated on that date that he would not
cast a vote either for or against approval of this Plan amendment until such
time as he could review the criteria laid out in the County's Plan at LNP 3.3.
Because the Chair needed additional time before he could cast his vote,
deliberations on this matter were carried over until December 11, 2001.
Page 28 of 32
· 08-1224-01. . f th C h· PI
OrdInance No. ApprovIng certaIn 0 e ompre enslve an
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
519. On December 11, 2001 the elected County Commissioners voted to approve
this Plan amendment by a 2-1 vote.
520. A map of the Secord parcel and surrounding parcels is attached hereto as
Exhibit "E".
Conclusions Of Law:
521. With respect to this site-specific Plan amendment, both the Planning
Commissioners and the elected County Commissioners made their decision
in an unbiased and impartial manner based upon only the record before them
and did so without undue influence from either a proponent or opponent of
this amendment as is required by the "Appearance of Fairness" doctrine, a
doctrine that is now codified in state statutes.
522. The County's UDC, specifically UDC §9.8.2, states some of the criteria the
elected County Commissioners must utilize when determining whether to
adopt a proposed amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
523. The above-listed section of the UDC also requires that the elected County
Commissioners base their decisions, in part, regarding proposed
amendments on UDC §9.5.4(b), which lists seven 'growth management
indicators' or "GMI" that should be considered when analyzing the worth of
a proposed plan amendment.
524. The GMI, when considered, neither support nor discourage enactment of this
amendment to the plan. This amendment instead reflects the re-examination
of the proper underlying zoning designation pursuant to agreed-upon and
unchanged (since the Comprehensive Plan's enactment) criteria.
525. It is the criteria listed in the Plan at LNP 3.3 rather than the external forces
or GMI that influence the Plan from the outside (for example, the County's
ability to provide a given level of service, the sufficiency of the urban land
in this county or changes in the County-wide attitudes) that lead this Board
to conclude that this Plan amendment should be approved.
Page 29 of 32
08-1224-01
Ordinance No. Approving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
526. The UDC at §9.81(b) also requires that the elected County Commissioners
also consider three additional criteria when determining whether to adopt or
reject a proposed plan amendment.
527. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(2), the elected County Commissioners find
that the parcels at the shoreline areas of Marrowstone Island have been and
are generally less than 10 acres in size and in that regard the assumptions
about this parcel that are reflected in the underlying zoning designation
provided to this parcel as part of land use map originally adopted when the
Plan was adopted in 1998 do not represent an appropriate underlying density
for the parcel that is the subject of this Plan amendment.
528. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), the elected County Commissioners find
that this Plan amendment did not, despite proper and complete public notice,
generate much testimony (for or against) by members of the public,
suggesting that this Plan amendment is not contrary to the current widely
held values of Jefferson County residents.
529. Because this is a site-specific Plan amendment, the elected County
Commission must also make findings pursuant to UDC §9.8.1(c).
530. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(1), this proposed site-specific Plan
amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not
adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities
and services, e.g., Sheriff, fire, EMS, parks, fire flow and other
governmental services.
531. With respect to UDC §9 .8.1( c )(2), adoption of this proposed site-specific
Plan amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation
strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan, because the Plan (and related land use map) continues to provide for a
variety of rural residential densities, as is required by the GMA.
532. With respect to UDC §9 .8.1( c )(3), adoption of this proposed site-specific
Plan amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to
the County's infrastructure, e.g., transportation network, capital facilities,
parks, utilities and environmental features.
Page 30 of 32
08-1224-01
Ordinance No. Approving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
533. With respect to UDC §9.8.1( c)( 4), adoption of this proposed site-specific
Plan amendment is lawful because the subject parcel is currently in
residential use and the proposed designation is compatible with existing and
planned surrounding land uses. The UDC will ensure that access and
'provision of utilities can be located in an appropriate fashion on this parcel.
534. With respect to UDC §9.8.I(c)(5), adoption of this proposed site-specific
Plan amendment is lawful because it will not create pressure to change the
underlying zoning density or zoning designation provided for other parcels
because this parcel has been compared to smaller shoreline lots.
535. With respect to UDC §9.8.I(c)(6), adoption of this proposed site-specific
Plan amendment is lawful because this proposed Plan amendment does not
materially affect the land use and population growth projections that form
the bases of this County's Comprehensive Plan.
536. With respect to UDC §9 .8.1( c )(7), adoption of this proposed site-specific
Plan amendment is lawful because this proposed Plan amendment does not
materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities or services.
537. With respect to UDC §9.8.I(c)(8), adoption of this proposed site-specific
Plan amendment is lawful because its adoption is consistent with the GMA,
other state laws, federal laws, the County-Wide planning policies, and any
other applicable inter-jurisdictional agreements or policies that might apply.
538. This amendment [as eventually adopted by the elected County
Commissioners] underwent, pursuant to sufficient notice to the public,
"early and continuous" public participation in a manner consistent with the
GMA.
539. This amendment has been subject to review by the State Office of
Community Development and the County's Planning Commission as is
required by state law.
540. This amendment has been reviewed for possible adverse environmental
impacts pursuant to the state law known as SEP A.
541. This amendment, as adopted, is GMA-compliant.
Page 31 of 32
08-1224-01
Ordinance No. Approving certain of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments Proposed and Reviewed during the 2001 Amendment Cycle.
Section 3 - Severability:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or figure of this ordinance or
its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the
ordinance or the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 4 - Effective Date:
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption by the Board of County
Commissioners.
\" \I~\:-'(-} D ~. / /""-
::':;:T~-~'~r~\OVED AND ADOPTED this Ó<~ -day of December, 200l.
.,:," ·~.:X.·~{.r~;'~,~:,·S~,. At1.i'·~~~:,' JEFFERSON COUNTY
. '\" ·.·I":~"'·",'".; '. } , I _I'
" ;\,<:,:\~~". r ' . )1 " .. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
~ :~\!\,~-,,... ':,' :: i
., ',.' ':"-'A'I"T?~~: ~/,.'
'- . ~.f ~ ¡. .
''Fl;;;~il/ P/~ ~m~ ~ ,
Clerk of the Board (j
~~~~FORM:
Deputy Prosecuting ~y
1Z.}2.1)õl
Page 32 of 32
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS
EXHIBITS A - E
EXHIBIT A
MLAOI-00215: Regarding the Allowance of Multifamily
Housing and Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks in
NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads and General Crossroads
Comprehensive Plan Changes
Comprehensive Plan, Page 3-72
LNP 5.5
Designate the following historic crossroads as interim NeighborhoodlVisitor
Crossroads (NC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Chimacum, Discovery Bay,
Four Corners, Gardiner, and Mats Mats.
LNP 5.5.1
LNP 5.5.2
LNP 5.5.3
Designation is based on the criteria of LNP 5.1 and the following
additional criteria:
a. Multiple commercial properties; and
b. Includes limited specialty goods and professional services;
and
c. Serves the local rural population and the
commuting/traveling public.
Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundaries of
each of the designated NeighborhoodlVisitor Crossroads to those
involving basic consumer staples with a limited range of goods
and services and/or serving the commuting/traveling public such
as: convenience grocery/ general store, gas service station/w
garage, espresso, farm and garden supply, video rental,
restaurant, tavern, bar, antiques and collectibles, café, and
limited specialty goods and professional services.
Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of limited
multifamily housing opportunities such as multifamily
residential units and manufactured/mobile home parks.
Designate the following crossroads as interim General Commercial Crossroads
(GC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Ness' Corner, Ironda1e Corner, and SR
19/20 Intersection.
LNP 5.6
LNP 5.6.1
Designation is based on the criteria in LNP 5.1 and the following
additional criteria:
a. Location at a major highway intersection near high density
population in the Tri-Area; and
LNP 5.6.2
LNP 5.6.3
b. Existing commercial uses meet limited regional and
multiple community levels of service.
Limit uses and the scale of those uses within each of the
designated General Commercial crossroads to those involving an
expanded range of commercial goods and services such as:
ministorage, hardware, groceries, bakery, antiques, tavem/bar,
restaurant, RV repair and sales, building supply, farm and
garden supply, motel, auto and vehicle repair with subordinate
auto retail, appliance sales and repair, clothing and accessories,
an expanded range of specialty goods and professional services,
and limited public and social services.
Encourage affordable housing through the allowance oflimited
multifamily housing opportunities such as multifamily
residential units and manufactured/mobile home parks.
EXHIBIT B
MLAOI-00217:
Resorts
Regarding the Siting of Master Planned
Comprehensive Plan Changes
I Comprehensive Plan, Page 3-30
MASTER PLANNED RESORTS
Master planned resorts (MPRs) are large-scale, self-contained developments that are based on an
integrated, conceptual master plan, yet are typically, developed in stages depending on market
demand or other factors. Recent amendments to the Growth Management Act (GMA) allow
jurisdictions to recognize existing (emphasis added) master planned resorts which may constitute
urban growth outside of Urban Growth Areas as limited by RCW 36.70A.362.
Jefferson County currently, contains one existing master planned resort, Port Ludlow;-iffiti
prohibits the siting of any additional MPRs. The master planned resort of Port Ludlow is
characterized by both single-family and multi-family residential units with attendant recreational
facilities including a marina, resort and convention center, and is one of Jefferson County's
fastest growing communities. Located on Port Ludlow Bay and surrounded by an area of
significant natural amenities, Port Ludlow is suited to be designated as a master planned resort.
Port Ludlow is managed by Olympic Resources Management (aRM), a corporation which is
responsible for the phased development of the community and resort. Although Port Ludlow is a
planned development, its overall phased development pattern may change according to changing
market conditions. Any change in the development plan will need to be reviewed for consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan and for compliance with Port Ludlow's FEIS and all applicable
federal, state and local regulations, Currently, a development agreement is being prepared
between aRM and the County that, if adopted, wì11 allow for flexibility in the overall
development of the Port Ludlow master planned resort within the limits of a residential cap of
2250 residential units and a total of 65,000 sq. ft. of retail/commercial development.
The Comprehensive Plan contains policies in LNG 25,0 that help guide development at Port
Ludlow. Many of Port Ludlow's goals and policies were drafted from issues identified by
community residents who, through the establishment of community planning groups, articulated
their desired plan for Port Ludlow's future development. The goals and policies identified by the
community and included in Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan focus on maintaining and
enhancing Port Ludlow's recreational and community amenities, and preserving the community's
lifestyle.
The GMA also authorizes counties to allow for the development of new MPRs in accordance with
RCW 36.70A.360. According to the statute, counties mav permit new master planned resorts "in
a setting o( sif!nificant natural amenities, with vrimary (ocus on destination resort (acilities
consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a ranJ!e of develoved on-site
indoor or outdoor recreational facilities n. The MPR designation provides an opportunity to
encourage economic development that takes advantage of the significant rural
recreational resources and scenic amenities of Jefferson County, particularly in the more
remote areas of the County where the local economy's dependence on natural resource-
based industries has been negatively impacted, or where other economic opportunities are
more limited. For example, in the southern and western portions of Jefferson County,
many of the existing communities and rural residential areas have experienced a
downturn in resource-based economic activities. These areas are gradually transitioning
from primarily a natural resource-based local economy to one that is also dependent on
the tourism industry.
The remote rural areas of south Jefferson County, for example, offer significant
recreational opportunities and scenic amenities including access to the Olympic National
Park, Olympic National Forest and Hood Canal. Popular recreational activities in the
area include boating, fishing, shellfish gathering, hiking, camping, birdwatching and
historical sites. In the peak summer months, it is estimated that as many as 500,000
tourist visitors travel through the North Olympic Peninsula. However, the lack of private
tourist accommodations and services in the south County area often means that potential
economic benefit from tourism spending is lost to other, more developed, areas of the
Peninsula. An MPR designation in this part of the County would help boost local
economic activity and more effectively serve tourist needs in this part of the County.
The economic reasons for siting of a master planned resort, however, must also be
carefully balanced against the potential for significant adverse environmental effects from
such a development. Any proposal must be carefully planned and regulated to prevent
any type of sprawl development outside of the master planned development that would
destroy the scenic and often environmentally sensitive setting. The Comprehensive Plan
identifies policies in LNG 26.0 that help guide development of any new MPR
designation. The goal and policies focus on protecting the rural character and natural
environment of areas potentially impacted by development of an MPR, ensuring adequate
provision of public facilities and services, and preventing the spread of low density
sprawl.
I ComprehensivePla-".,.Page 3..;67
GOAL:
LNG 3.0
Ensure that rural residential development preserves rural character,
protects rural community identity, is compatible with surrounding land
uses, and minimizes infrastructure needs.
POLICIES:
Rural residential densities shown on the Land Use Map shall be designated by
three (3) residential land use densities: one dwelling unit per five (5) acres, one
dwelling unit per ten (10) acres, and one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres in
size and subject to the following criteria:
LNP 3.3
LNP 3.3.1
LNP 3.3.2
LNP 3.3.3
A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5
acres (RR 1 :5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the
County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels
(i.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record;
b. parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller
parcels along the coastal areas;
c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural
Village Centers; and
d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed "suburban" platted
subdivisions.
A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per
10 acres (RR 1: 1 0) shall be assigned to those areas throughout
the County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels
(i.e., 10 acres);
b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size;
c. areas serving as a "transition" adjacent to Urban Growth
Areas; and,
d. critical area land parcels.
A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per
20 acres (RR 1 :20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout
the County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels
(i.e., 20 acres) or larger;
b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size;
c. areas serving as a ("transition" to Urban Growth Areas or. the
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort;
d. critical land area parcels;
e. agriculture resource designated parcels;
f. publicly owned forest lands; and
g. lands adjacent to forest resource land.
I ComprehensiveRlan,Pqge.8-1!1
MASTER PLANNED RESORT
GOAL:
LNG 25.0
POLICIES:
LNP 25.1
LNP 25.2
LNP 25.3
LNP 25.4
LNP 25.5
LNP 25.6
LNP 25.7
LNP 25.8
Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only
existing Master Planned Resort (MPR) authorized under RCW
36.70A.362.
Ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies with County
development regulations established for critical areas and that on-site and
off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth
and development at Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated
MPR boundary.
No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the vicinity of
the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The total number of residential lots allowable within the MPR boundary
shall not exceed the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS total of 2,250 residential
dwelling units.
Port Ludlow shall accommodate a variety of housing types, including
affordable housing, single family and multi-family housing and assisted
living care facilities.
Support efforts to preserve and protect Port Ludlow's greenbelts, open
spaces and wildlife corridors.
LNP 25.6.1 Support the establishment of a Ludlow Creek Nature
Preserve.
No preliminary plats will be processed by Jefferson County for the 200-
acre area south of the Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR boundary
(as depicted on the official Jefferson County Land Use Map) until such
time as a conceptual site plan has been approved by the County.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort commercial area shall be
designated as the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center.
GOAL:
LNG 26.0
POLICIES:
LNP 26.1
LNP 26.2
LNP 26.3
LNP 26.4
Provide for the sitin~ of Master Planned Resorts (MPRs). pursuant to
the adoption of development re~ulations consistent with the
requirements of the Growth Mana~ement Act CReW 36.70A.360). in
locations that are appropriate from both an economic and
environmental perspective.
Master planned resorts are generally larger in scale. and involve greater
potential impacts on the surrounding area. than uses permitted under the
Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses standards. MPRs may constitute
urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by RCW
36.70A.360.
Owners of sites where MPRs are proposed to be located must obtain an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. giving the site a
master planned resort designation prior to. or concurrent with an
application for master plan review. The comprehensive plan amendment
process should evaluate all of the probable significant adverse
environmental impacts from the entire proposal. even if the proposal is to
be developed in phases. and these impacts shall be considered in
determining whether any particular location is suitable for a master
planned resort.
The process for siting a master planned resort and obtaining the necessary
Comprehensive Plan designation shall include all property proposed to be
"included within the MPR and shall further include a review of the adjacent
Comprehensive Plan land use designations/districts to ensure that the
designation of a master planned resort does not allow new urban or
suburban land uses in the vicinity of the MPR. This policy should not be
interpreted. however. to prohibit locating a master planned resort within or
adiacent to an existing Urban Growth Area or within or adiacent to an
existing area of more intense rural development. such as an existing Rural
Village Center or an existing Rural Crossroad designation.
MPRs should not be located on designated Agricultural Resource Lands or
Forest Resource Lands. unless the County specifically makes the finding
that the land proposed for a Master Planned Resort is better suited and has
more long-term importance for the MPR than for the commercial
harvesting of timber or production of agricultural products. and also
makes the finding that the MPR will not adversely affect adiacent
Agricultural or Forest Resource Land production.
LNP 26.5 The master planned resort shall consist of predominantly short-tenn visitor
accommodations and associated activities, but may include some other
pennanent residential uses, including caretakers' or employees' residences
and some vacation home properties, provided they must be integrated into
the resort and consistent with the on-site recreational nature of the resort.
MPRs may propose clustering construction, setbacks, lot sizes, and
building sizes that vary from those nonnally found in the Rural or
Resource Lands designations.
LNP 26.6 The master planned resort may include indoor and outdoor recreational
facilities, conference facilities and commercial and professional activities
and services that support and are integrated with the resort. These
facilities shall be primarily desi~ed to serve the resort visitors, either day
visitors or overnight visitors, but may also provide some limited goods and
services for the surrounding pennanent residential population.
LNP 26.7 The capital facilities, utilities and services, including those related to
sewer. water. stonn water, security, fire suppression, and emergency
medical provided on-site shall be 'limited to meeting the needs of the
resort. These facilities, utilities, and services may be provided by outside
service providers, such as special purpose districts, provided that the resort
pays all costs associated with service extension capacity increases, or new
services that are directly attributable to the resort, and provided that the
nature of the facilities and services provided are adequate to meet the
increased needs of the resort, based on the planned concentration of
guests, structures and other facility, utility and service demands. Plan
approval shall provide that facilities serving the resort, which may be
urban in nature, not be used to serve development outside the resort areas,
except at appropriate rural densities, uses, and intensities.
LNP 26.8 MPRs should only be approved when it can be demonstrated that on-site
and off-site impacts to public services and infrastructure have been fully
considered and mitigated.
LNP 26.9 The MPR shall contain sufficient portions of the site in undeveloped open
space for buffering and recreational amenities to help preserve the natural
and rural character of the area. Where located in a rural area, the master
planned resort should also be designed to blend with the natural setting
and, to the maximum extent practicaL screen the development and its
impacts from the adiacent rural areas outside of the MPR designation.
LNP 26.10 The MPR must be developed consistent with the County's development
regulations established for environmentally sensitive areas and consistent
with lawfully established vested rights, and approved development
pennits.
LNP 26.11 Master planned resorts shall include existing or new Development
Agreements. as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170. to implement these
policies.
LNP 26.12 The County shall prepare development regulations to guide the review and
designation of master planned resorts that include. at a minimum.
compliance with these policies.
LNP 26.13 New or expanded existing master planned resorts must be located in areas
of existing shoreline development. such as maimas and shoreline lodges.
which promote public access to developed shorelines. and/or locations
which promote public access and use of National Parks and National
Forests.
I Comprehensive Plan, Rage 3-93 '
C. MASTER PLANNED RESORT
Jefferson County's strategy is to coordinate efforts with Port Ludlow to support its development
as an existing Master Planned Resort while containing "urban" type development within the
boundaries of the Resort. The County will also develop and adopt land use regulations and
procedures to allow for the authorization of new master planned resorts.
Action Items
1. Establish procedures for monitoring growth to ensure that Port Ludlow does not exceed
its targeted population and housing projections. (Corresponding Goal: 25.0)
2. Encourage the Port Ludlow MPR to provide a mixture of affordable housing types
including single-family, multi-family, and assisted care living facilities. (Corresponding
Goal: 25.0)
3. Allow for the adoption of a Development Agreement between the Jefferson County and
Olympic Resource Management for the Port Ludlow MPR pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170.
(Corresponding Goal: 25.0)
4. Establish land use regulations and procedures to authorize new master planned resorts
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360. (Corresponding Goal: 26.0)
EXHIBIT C
MLAOI-00221: Regarding Bulk and Dimensional Standards
and Rural Industrial Zones
Comprehenisve Plan Changes
Comprehensive Plan, Page 3-80
LNP 8.5.2
A structure housing a legal existing nonconforming use may be enlarged and/or
expanded if it meets all applicable bulk, dimensional and lot coverage requirements for
the zoning district in which the use is located.
8.5.2(a)
Expansion of structures housing legal existing nonconforming uses up to
10% of the existing building size or 200 square feet, whichever is
greater, shall be subject to an administrative approval process. More
substantial expansions, up to a building cap of 3,999 square feet, shall be
subject to a public hearing process to ensure notification of adjacent
property owners.
8.5.2(b )
The following policies apply to uses within the Glen Cove Interim LlC
Zone and the Glen Cove Potential Final Urban Growth Area:
· Within the Glrn Cove Interim L/C ZOfte a
building size cap of 20,000 squa-re feet shall be
implemented in development regulations.
· Outside of the Glen Cove Interim LlC Zone, but
within the Glen Cove Potential Final Urban Growth
Area a structure housing an existing business shall
be allowed to expand up to a building cap of 20,000
square feet (subject to meeting the bulk and
dimensional requirement of 45% maxÍ:ffiUffi. lot
eo·..eragethe underlying land use designation).
· Any proposed expansion outside of the Glen
Cove Interim LlC Zone, but within the Glen Cove
Potential Final Urban Growth Area shall only be
approved if the expansion is to accommodate the
structure housing the existing business on site.
Expansion in this area for speculative purposes or to
accommodate a new business shall be prohibited.
8.5.2(e)
Structures homing legal existing nonconforming uses
shall only be expanded and/or enlarged once, regardless
of whether or not the expansion and/or enlargement '¡¡as
expanded and/or cnlarged to reach the building cap size
idrntificd for the particular :Loning district.
EXHIBIT D
MLAOI-00225: Clarification Related to Initial and Future
Designation of Rural Commercial Areas (also known as LAMIRDs,
"limited areas of more intensive rural development")
Comprehensive Plan Changes
Comprehensive Plan, Page 3-70
GOAL:
LNG 5.0
Establish and maintain the location and size of the County's Rural
Crossroads to provide access to a limited range of non-residential uses.
POLICIES:
LNP 5.1
All rural eommereiallands shall be designated based on the follovling minimum
criteria provisions of the Growth Management Aet CRCW 36.70A).-:-
a. The commercial area cxistcd asa built enT/ironment on July 1, 1990;
b. The existing zoning is commercial; and
e. The existing uscs pro-¡ide basic nccessities and/or multiple commercial goods
tlftd scrvices.
LNP 5.2
Establish logieal outer boundaries on an interim basis. Interim boundaries shall
bc bascd upon all of the follov/ing erit-cria: based upon the Growth Management
Aet CRCW 36.70A).
LNP 5.2.1
Consistency ,'{ith the rural provisions and planning goals of the
Ckowth Management /...c1.
LNP 5.2.2
Crossroad intersection of major and/or local roadways where a
predominately pre July 1990 contained and concentrated
commercial area or use is serving the local rural population
and/or the commuting/traveling public.
LNP 5.2.3
,A....·¡oid 10Vi density sprawl by establishing and maintaining
logical outer boundaries bascd on the criteria in RCW
36.70A.070(5)(c) and (d) and the follO'wing local considerations
pursuant to RCV! 36.70A070(5)(a):
a. Regional transportation conccrns, including volumcs, access,
and safety.
b. Proximity to incompatible uscs.
c. A large parcel that is partially dCT¡cloped for existing uscs
may not be dcsignatcd in its entircty, if such Ii dcsignation
would promotc sprawl.
LNP 5.3
LNP5.4
LNP 5.5
d. Home busines8esfcottage industries should not be used to
determine bOUfidaries.
e. Pl'O,..ide employment opportunitics fOf local resiclents, In
partÍeular in arcas of msufficient economic grovv1h or
economic decline.
f. 8uppert thc eOfflffiUfiity vision and rural eOfflffiUflity
cohesion.
g. .\?oid ereatmg nc';" nonconforming uscs.
Concentrate and contain the existing area of predominantly pre-July 1990 built
environment through development regulations for infill development within the
boundary .
Designate the following historic crossroads as interim Convenience Crossroads
(CC) as shown on the Land Use Map: No~dland, Beaver Valley, and Wawa
Point.
LNP 5.4.1
Designation is based on the criteria in LNP 5.1 and the following
additional criteria:
a. Consists of a single commercial property; and
b. Provides local rural population and commuting/traveling
public with basic consumer goods and services.
LNP 5.4.2
Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundary of
each of the Convenience Crossroads to those involving basic
consumer goods and services, including: convenience
grocery/general store, gas/oil, espresso, video, café/deli.
LNP 5.4.3
The Nordland Convenience Crossroads designation and
boundary may be modified through an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan based on a study developed under the
Shoreline Management Master Program revision, consistent with
LNP 14.7.
Designate the following historic crossroads as interim NeighborhoodlVisitor
Crossroads (NC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Chimacum, Discovery Bay,
Four Comers, Gardiner, and Mats Mats.
LNP 5.5.1
Designation is based on the criteria of LNP 5.1 and the following
additional criteria:
a. Multiple commercial properties; and
b. Includes limited specialty goods and professional services;
and
c. Serves the local rural population and the
commuting/traveling public.
LNP 5.5.2
Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundaries of
each of the designated NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads to those
involving basic consumer staples with a limited range of goods
LNP 5.6
LNP 5.7
LNP 5.8
and services and/or serving the commuting/traveling public such
as: convenience grocery/ general store, gas service station/w
garage, espresso, farm and garden supply, video rental,
restaurant, tavern, bar, antiques and collectibles, café, and
limited specialty goods and professional services.
Designate the following crossroads as interim General Commercial Crossroads
(GC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Ness' Comer, Irondale Comer, and SR
19/20 Intersection.
LNP 5.6.1
Designation is based on the criteria in LNP 5.1 and the following
additional criteria:
a. Location at a major highway intersection near high density
population in the Tri-Area; and
b. Existing commercial uses meet limited regional and
multiple community levels of service.
LNP 5.6.2
Limit uses and the scale of those uses within each of the
designated General Commercial crossroads to those involving an
expanded range of commercial goods and services such as:
ministorage, hardware, groceries, bakery, antiques, tavern/bar,
restaurant, RV repair and sales, building supply, farm and garden
supply, motel, auto and vehicle repair with subordinate auto
retail, appliance sales and repair, clothing and accessories, an
expanded range of specialty goods and professional services, and
limited public and social services.
Ensure visual compatibility and traditional design elements for Rural Crossroads
commercial infill development with the surrounding rural area through the
creation and implementation of community based design and development
standards. Uses within Rural Crossroads shall be scaled and sized to protect the
rural character of the natural neighborhood.
Revisit interim Rural area boundaries following the completion of the Glen
Cove/Tri-Area Special Study and establish final boundaries through an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with LNP 1.4.
LNP 5.8.1 Boundaries for Rural Crossroads and Rural Village Centers shall
be established consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5) and other applicable
provisions of the Growth Management Act.
Map Output
MLA01-00227 Mraz-Secord
.'¡.;~ ,..,~~.-:~N"".>':""'~ "~
, " : ""'9}
.....~:~~""""'-,--_._-, "."".,-,:,' ....j!,
~ ,F!
~,,-f.. ,f'
~("I::.. ¡
:\
.,
j
c
~
--r-""lš ~ ,,~..3>
~. ~,
p.~O :\
~
EXHIBIT E
Legend
D
Pareela
Jeffer Qf) County
Outline
Zoning
CROCCROADS-GC
CROC:::ROADC-NC
CR OC::IROADf:-CC
MPR-:::IN.F.w.TRCT
PORT TOWNSEND UG
RURAL REf:. 1-10
INDUSTR fill
REO. BA::iED INO
LIGHT INDUCTRIAl
WA::iTE FACILITY
NATIONAL FORECT
AIRPOR T
UNKNOWN
MPR·OPEN OPACE
MPR ·RECREAT ION
MPR-RC,:CF
MPR·V1..LG CENTER
RURAL CENTER
RURAL FOREST
MPR·CINGLE FAMIL
MILITARY
AG-:10
MPR·"'UL TIFMfILY
RURAL REI::. 1·20
NA.TIONAL REFUGE
PARK, RECREATION
RURAL REf:. 1·5
INHOLDING FORECT
COM. FORE:::T
GLEN C01Æ LlC
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY·
efferson County does not attest to the accuracy ofthe data contained herein and makes no warranty with
respect to its correctness or validity, Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its
ollection. Features depicted on this map must be verified in the field.
oning information is based on the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Map and does not include changes made
uring the 1999 Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Zoning designations must be confirmed with the
Department of Community Development.
MLAOI-00227: Regarding the Site-Specific Rezone of
Certain Residential Land from Rural Residential 1 :20 to Rural
Residential 1: 1 0
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Change
Legal Description: Assessors parcel number 021 201 001. Section 20 Township 30
Range 1 East. Lot 4 (Less Tax 1). The parcel is located at 9796 Flagler Road
immediately south of Fort Flagler State Park and is 27.86 acres in size.
'. Cc ·,vct> 5 '
~ (1 i.;;t ;¡¡,lo I
,,\\é'05 .
Jefferson County
State of Washington
IN THE MATTER OF REJECTING }
CERTAIN OF THE COMPREHENSIVE }
PLAN AMENDMENTS PROPOSED }
DURING THE 2001 AMENDMENT CYCLE }
RESOLUTION NO. 98-01
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (or "the Board") has, as is
required by the Growth Management Act as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., set in
motion and completed the proper professional review and public notice and comment
with respect to the proposed amendments ("Plan amendments") to the County's
Comprehensive Plan;
WHEREAS, as is mandated by the Growth Management Act, the Board has
reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, certain of the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive
Plan have been rejected by the Board because that particular amendment was found to be
not in conformance with the Growth Management Act and/or the County's
Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following Plan amendments
are rejected and thus not adopted, specifically MLA #01-200 [Thompson], MLA #01-213
[Sexton], MLA #01-224 [Brown] and MLA #01-232 [1. Frank Schmidt & Sons]; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that it makes the following
specific findings with respect to the rejected Comprehensive Plan amendments that are
described in this Resolution:
1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-01
Page 2
2. The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and
adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the
citizens of this County on a regular basis, although it need not be made available
more than once per year.
4. This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before May 1, 2001, the deadline
for submission of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
5. Some nine proposed amendments worked their way through the entire process laid
out in state statutes and the County's development regulations for such
amendments.
6. Those nine proposed amendments went through professional review at the County
and State level.
7. Those nine proposed amendments went through review by the County's Planning
Commission.
8. Those nine proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the
County's Planning Commission.
9. Those nine proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the
Board of County Commissioners.
10. Those nine proposed amendments were the subject of a vote to approve/reject by
the Board of County Commissioners.
11. Five proposed Plan amendments were approved and thus adopted by the Board. In
that regard see Ordinance # 08-1224-01
12. Certain of the adopted Plan amendments also required changes and revisions to the
development regulations of this County, which are formally known as the Unified
Development Code or UDC. These amendments to the UDC have been adopted
through passage of Ordinance # 07-1224-01 .
RESOLUTION NO. 98-01
Page 3
..
13. The four proposed amendments that are described in this Resolution were rejected
because they did not conform to the Growth Management Act and/or this County's
Comprehensive Plan.
14. The four rejected Plan amendments fall into two broad categories: 1) three of
those amendments sought to have certain land now designated as rural residential
("RR") rezoned as rural commercial land, and 2) the fourth rejected Plan
amendment would have changed the designation on certain large "Forest Land"
parcels to a higher density RR designation.
15. The three rejected Plan amendments that sought to have RR land designated as
rural commercial were all site-specific Plan amendment proposals rather than
policy or text chap.ges.
16. The three rejected Plan amendments that sought to have RR land designated as
rural commercial were MLA #01-200 [Francis Thompson, Glen Cove ], MLA
#01-213 [Linda Sexton, Chimacum] and MLA #01-224 (Mr. and Mrs. Brown,
Irondale ].
17. The County planning staff recommended that all three Plan amendments that
would transform RR land to rural commercial land should not be adopted.
18. In furtherance of that analysis the County planning staff recommended that the
County Planning Commission recommend to the Board that the Board should
reject these proposed Plan amendments.
19. The County planning staff recommended rejection of MLA #01-200 because they
concluded the underlying designation for the Thompson parcel should not be
changed until such time as the six-stage Special Study was completed and a
decision could be made as to whether this parcel should be included in either a
Glen Cove urban growth area or a Glen Cove "limited area of more intensive
development" when the interim rural commercial boundaries are revisited, said
revisiting being mandated by the express language of the County's Plan.
20. The County planning staff recommended rejection of MLA #01-213 because they
concluded the underlying designation for the Sexton parcel should not be changed
.'
RESOLUTION NO. 98-01
Page 4
until such time as the County revisits and reconsiders (as it expressly required to
do) all the interim rural commercial boundaries subsequent to the completion of
the six-stage Special Study.
21. Planning staff stated that upon revisiting and reconsidering the rural commercial
boundaries this Sexton parcel might be appropriate for inclusion into the
Chimacum NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroad rural commercial district.
22. The County planning staff recommended rejection of MLA #01-224 because they
concluded the underlying designation for the Brown parcel should not be changed
until such time as the County revisits and reconsiders (as it expressly required to
do) all the interim rural commercial boundaries subsequent to the completion of
the six -stage Special Study.
23. Planning staff concluded that the request reflected in the Brown application for a
Plan amendment should be addressed as part of the urban growth area planning
that is taking place as a result of the conclusion of the six-stage Special Study.
24. Thus, the Brown parcel might someday be included in an urban growth area that is
delineated in Port Hadlock/Irondale and that until such time as such an urban
growth area is delineated by legislative action, this proposed Plan amendment is
premature.
25. If the Brown parcel is not placed inside a delineated urban growth area it might
also be appropriate for designation as a Rural Commercial Convenience Crossroad
in a manner consistent with the applicable Plan language found at LNP 5.4.
26. All three of these proposed Plan amendments, Le., MLA #01-200, MLA #01-213
and MLA #01-224, were, in essence, premature.
27. The Planning Commission, after proper and timely public notice, accepted oral
public testimony regarding these three amendments on September 5, 2001.
Written testimony was accepted also.
28. The Planning Commission held deliberations concerning these three amendments
on September 19, 2001. At that time the Planning Commission voted
RESOLUTION NO. 98-01 Page 5
unanimously [7-0J to recommend to the Board that the Board reject these Plan
amendments.
29. The Planning Commission sent its conclusions regarding these three proposed
Plan amendments to the Board in early November 2001.
30. The Board heard public testimony and deliberated with respect to these proposed
Plan amendments on December 10, 2001.
31. The Board voted to reject all three of these proposed Plan amendments. They
voted 2-1 to reject MLA #01-200 [ThompsonJ and 3-0 to reject MLA #01-213
[Sexton] and MLA #01-224 [Brown].
32. MLA #01-232, as submitted by J. Frank Schmidt & Sons Company [hereinafter
"Schmidt & Sons"] would have changed the underlying zoning designation on
certain parcels in the vicinity of Brinnon from commercial forest, rural forest and
inholding forest to an unspecified RR designation.
33. Planning staff informed the County Planning Commission that adoption of this
proposed Plan amendment would have been contrary to express language now
present in this County's Comprehensive Plan.
34. Specifically our Comprehensive Plan, as now written, contains policy language at
Natural Resources Action Item #13 [found on page 4-43] which directs this
County to convene a citizen task force of many different stakeholders to determine
and investigate legislative and policy options relating to what amount to two
incompatible land uses: residences on small parcels immediately adjacent to
forest land that is or will some day be harvested for timber.
35. The Planning Commission accepted oral testimony from the public with respect to
the Schmidt & Sons proposed Plan amendment on September 5, 2001. Written
testimony was also accepted.
36. The Planning Commission, after deliberating, voted 6-1 to concur with the
planning staff and to recommend to the Board that the Board reject this proposed
Plan amendment. This Planning Commission vote came on September 19, 2001.
'..
RESOLUTION NO. 98-01
Page 6
37. The Planning Commission agreed with the County's planning staff that if the
problem of these two incompatible land uses was to be addressed in a manner
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, then the planning staff needed
to form, initiate and guide a multi-member task force comprised of timber
company representatives, landowners, environmental groups and other interested
parties to analyze this issue and eventually bring forth text language and/or policy
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would serve to address this problem.
38. The Board heard public testimony on MLA # 01-232 [Schmidt & Sons] on
December 10, 2001.
39. The Board voted 3-0 on December 10, 2001 to reject the Plan amendment that had
been proposed by Schmidt & Sons.
40. However, the Board also directed the planning staff, again by a 3-0 vote, to make
formation of the multi-member, multi-stakeholder task force relating to this issue
of the two incompatible land uses part of their work plan for the year 2002.
'7LJ~
Approved this &- day of December, 2001.
..i"';"~~) h ~! ~ ~ ~'"
,,~' ":,f~~ '"
SE..~:(~;..' " "". '" c,
...f:"~ \;../.-,1..,.. -~\~~ ',:, l' ~
0" :,:. J,,);./.).~'\-\f' ~.\:'
a~ ::\ ~,~\~,',.t "I;, -' . ;,'1' /" :~"
.:po,'} \t ,:;,.. '...~...', ., " ~
-:.-,- r'~ ~",;-,,<.~;, )"'-;1 " .,.
¡~, .. :-:~ ,j. ~'~t:"; .": ~
,,~~...
.t-,;.. " . .. v..',
ATTEST.J . '"\ ' ../
rY~'jjM
Lorna Delaney, Clerk of the B~