HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 1224 01
tç: ~í)}JjJkÞI
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:
O· N 08-1224Ã01. . f h C h· PI
rdmance o. rtpprovlng certain 0 t e ompre enslve an
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 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 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
O . 08.,..1224.,..tl1. . f h C h· PI
rdlnance No. ftpprovlng certain 0 t e 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 reject 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
08-1224-01
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 HousinJ?;)
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 NeighborhoodNisitor 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-A.01. . f h C h· PI
r Inance o. pprovlng certaIn 0 t e ompre enSIVe an
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. . f h C h· PI
Ordinance No. Approving certain 0 t e ompre enslve an
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
08-1224-Dl. . f h C h· PI
Ordinance No. Approving certain 0 t e ompre enslve 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 A(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
08.,..1224-01 . f C h· PI
Ordinance No. Approving certain 0 the ompre enSIVe 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 G MA.
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
O d· N 08-1224-A01. . f h C h· PI
r Inance o. pprovlng certain 0 t e ompre 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
O d" N 08-1224-iJl" "f h C h· PI
r Inance o. ftpprovlng certain 0 t e ompre enSIVe an
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
O do N 08-1224-1\:01 ° rt ° fth C h· PI
r mance o. pprovlng ce aln 0 e ompre enSIVe 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. . fth C h· PI
r mance o. Approving certain 0 e ompre enSlVe an
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
O d· N 08-1224...Q1 . 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.
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 do N 08-1224-D1 ° ° fth C h ° PI
r Inance o. Approving certain 0 e ompre enslve an
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· f th C h· PI
r Inance o. Approving ce aln 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"'}.01 . rt· fth C h· PI
r mance o. ftpprovlng ce aln 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. 08-1224-Npproving 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
08-1224-01 . . f th C h· PI
Ordinance No. ApprovIng certaIn 0 e ompre enSIVe 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-Ol. . f h C h· PI
r Inance o. pprovlng certain 0 t 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 Determinin~ 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 d· N 08-1224-Ã01 . rt· f th C h· PI
r mance o. pprovlng ce am 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. ftpprovlng ce aln 0 e ompre enSIVe 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 Coverrri-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 . rt· fth C h· PI
r mance o. Approving ce aln 0 e ompre enslve an
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," i.e., 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
O d· N 08-1224-Ql . . f h C h· PI
r mance o. Approving certain 0 t 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 §9.5.4(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
§9.5.4(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 . . 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.
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 08-1224-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 43.21C.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.
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. 08-1224ACþproving 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. . C h· PI
Ordinance No. Approving certain of the 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 §9.8.1(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 §9.8.1( 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 §9.8.1( 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.
''''.:~~,'':{;1.~~Pl,tOVED AND ADOPTED this o<1'~ay of December, 2OOl.
'¡,,,¿'~~~ot'
fi·>¡". . "'~J ,. 11,
:\V,';;$EAÐ.;Y' ~ '~:; JEFFERSON COUNTY
: ;.':""\~'!...,,:}.:.:~': ,:' : ~ . BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
.J, '. \ ~.. A"TT'E'€''T': . !
" ' ... ./"'\:,.. "Up~. ~ ~
, . -,,, 4" I.'
~ . ",,) ,¡. '. - I. "I
'dI~d! Mj- ~tIn~ r ,
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board .
~;:t~AOI:. FORM:
Deputy Prosecuting ~y
/Z.}Zl}Z>}
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
N eighborhoodNisitor Crossroads and General Crossroads
Comprehensive Plan Changes
Comprehensive Plan, Page 3-72
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
LNP 5.5.1
LNP 5.5.2
LNP 5.5.3
LNP 5.6
Designation is based on the criteria ofLNP 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 ofthe 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, lrondale Corner, 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
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, 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.
Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of limited
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
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,---tmd
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, will 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 may permit new master planned resorts "in
a setting of significant natural amenities, with vrimary focus on destination resort facilities
consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed 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 ofthe 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.
GOAL:
Ensure that rural residential development preserves rural character,
protects rural community identity, is compatible with surrounding land
uses, and minimizes infrastructure needs.
LNG 3.0
POLICIES:
Rural residential densities shown on the Land Use Map shall be designated by
three (3) residentia11and 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: 10) 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. critica11and area parcels;
e. agriculture resource designated parcels;
f. publicly owned forest lands; and
g. lands adjacent to forest resource land.
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
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 FElS 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.
LNP 25.7
LNP 25.8
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 siting of Master Planned Resorts (MPRs). pursuant to
the adoption of development regulations consistent with the
requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 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 adiacent
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-term visitor
accommodations and associated activities, but may include some other
permanent 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 fTom those normally 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 designed to serve the resort visitors, either day
visitors or overnight visitors, but may also provide some limited goods and
services for the surrounding permanent residential population.
LNP 26.7 The capital facilities, utilities and services, including those related to
sewer, water, storm 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 infTastructure have been fully
considered and mitigated.
LNP 26.9 The MPR shall contain sufficient portions of the she 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
permits.
LNP 26.11 Master planned resorts shall include existing or new Development
Agreements, as authorized by RCW 36.708.170, 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.
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 eXlstmg 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 Glen Cove Interim L/C Zone a
building size cap of 20,000 square feet shall be
implemented in dç/clopment 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% maximum lot
covcragethe 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 housing legal existing nonconforming uses
shall only be expanded and/or enlarged once, rega-rdless
of whether or not the expansion and/or enlargement v¡as
expanded and/or enlarged to reach the building cap size
identified for the particular zoning 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 commercial lands shall be designated based on the following minimum
criteria provisions of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36,70A).-:-
a. The commercial area existed asa built environment on July 1, 1990;
b. The existing zoning is commercial; and
e. The existing uses pro'y'ide basic necessities and/or multiple commercial goods
and services.
LNP 5.2
Establish logical outer boundaries on an interim basis. Interim bOUfidaries shall
be bascd upon all of the following critcria: based upon the Growth Management
Act CRCW 36.70A).
LNP 5.2.1
Consistency with the rural proTy'isions and planning goals of the
Growth Managemeflt .L^..ct.
LNP 5.2.2
Crossroad intersection of major and/or local road\vays y,<hcrc a
prcdominately 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
Avoid loy/ density spray!l by establishing and maintaining
logical outer boundaries based on the criteria in RCW
36.70A070(5)(e) and (d) fmd the folloyting local considerations
pursuaflt to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a):
a. Regional transportation concerns, including volumes, access,
and safety.
b. Proximity to incompatible uses.
c. A large parccl that is partially dC'y'clopcd for existÌ:flg uses
may not be designated in its entirety, if such a designation
vfOuld promote spraT",'l.
LNP 5.3
LNP5.4
LNP 5.5
d. Home businesses/cottage indu3tries should not be u3ed to
determine boundaries,
e, Pro'ýide employment opportunities for local residents, m
particular in area3 of insufficient economic growth or
economic dccline.
f. Support thc community vision and rural community
cohesion.
g. .^...'ýoid crcating ncvI 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!d1and, 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 ofLNP 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 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.
LNP 5.6
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.
LNP 5.7
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.
LNP 5.8
Revisit interim Rural area boundaries following the completion of the Glen
Coveffri-Area Special Study and establish final boundaries through an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with LNP lA.
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
"./ .~,~-~~" "'1'''''"9.
..,./'~~ !/fJ
~i:::- ,f
,)~
~-~-l) ~ si/
~ H·1. o~h
~
EXHIBIT E
Legend
o
Parcela
Jeffer80fl County
Outlíne
Zoning
CROS::ROADS-GC
CROSSROADS-NC
CR OS::ROADS-CC
MPR-SIN,FAM.TRCT
PORT TOWNSEND UG
RURAl. RES. 1-10
INDUSTR IAI.
RES.BAZED IND
LIGHT INDUSTR fA/..
WAZTE FACILITY
NATIONAl FOREST
AIRPOR T
UNKNOWN
MPR-OPEN SPACE
MPR-RECREATION
MPR-RC.'eF
MPR-VlLG CENTER
RURAl. CENTER
RURAL. FOREST
MPR-SINGLE FMlIl
MILITARY
AG-2C
MPR-MlJI.. TIFMlIL Y
RURAl. RES, 1-20
NATIONAl REFUGE
PARK, RECREATION
RURAL. RES. 1-5
INHOLDING FOREST
COM, FOREST
GLEN COVE UC
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY-
efferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with
respect to its correctness or validity, Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its
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
De artment of Communit Development.
MLAOl-00227: Regarding the Site-Specific Rezone of
Certain Residential Land from Rural Residentiall :20 to Rural
Residentiall : 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.