Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM082498JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS District No. ! Commissioner: Daniel Harpole, Member District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford, Chairman District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt, Member ITHF- ~iL°,P,T OF TT[F.t~~lYMPlC PENINgULA] Clerk of the Board: Lorna L. Delaney Director of Public Services: Gary A. Rowe Deputy Director of Public Services: David Goldsmith MINUTES Week of August 24, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioners Daniel Harpole and Richard Wojt were both present. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of the weeks of August 10 and 17, 1998 as presented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion with the addition of the following wording to the item on the peat excavation at Cape George "There will be another site visit by the State Department of Ecology and the Army Corps of Engineers this winter. ' The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Larry Fay, Environmental Health Director re: Briefing on Upcoming Water Policy Roundtable Meeting: Larry Fay updated the Board on the agenda for the upcoming Water Policy Roundtable meeting. Commissioner Harpole asked that Larry Fay or Gary Rowe contact the "For Sake of the Salmon" group about whether the County will be receiving funding for salmon restoration efforts. The Board requested that Katherine Baril be asked to facilitate the meeting. The Board met in Executive Session from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. with the Deputy Director of Public Services regarding labor negotiations. Page 1 7_4 2 oo3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The Interim Controls regarding the Port Ludlow Beach Club. A request that the County approve the fee waiver request from the Chimacum School District. A question about the language in the Interim Controls and how the section on Accessory Dwelling Units is handled in the draft Procedural Reform Ordinance. Comments about Chapter 18 of the Interim Control Ordinance and the input by and treatment of Olympic Resource Management regarding this ordinance. A comment that the Tri Area should have been given the same consideration that Port Ludlow has been given. Why ICAN wasn't considered in the recent discussion process on the Comprehensive Plan (Al Scalf reported that this process will continue for the next 60 days and people or groups can call him to set up a time for discussions). A request that the County provide the basis for passing the Resolution that denied the Irondale Incorporation Petition. A request that the Interim Controls be passed as final control so that the public knows what they are dealing with. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve and adopt all of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 70-98 re: Support for the Designation of Lewis County as the Lead Governmental Entity for Purpose of a Salmon Enhancement Grant for WRIA 22 and 23 AGREEMENT re: Professional Veterinary Services for Dogs and Cats; Jefferson County Animal Services; Chimacum Valley Veterinary Hospital CONTRACT re: Recycling Services for Clearwater Shop; Jefferson County Public Works; Murrey's Olympic Disposal CONTRACT re: Remove and Install Guardrail on Dosewallips Road, CR1306; Jefferson County Public Works; Petersen Brothers, Inc. Update Certification Acceptance Qualification Agreement; Jefferson County Public Works; State Department of Transportation Food and Beverage Purchase Request; Pizza & Pop during Truancy Meeting on August 28, 1998; Jefferson County Juvenile Services COUNTY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS/BUSINESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director's Update: Director of Community Development A1 Scalf discussed: · Draft Letter to State Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the intervention at Crocker Page 2 2004 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 Lake: In July the DOF notified the County that they would be poisoning Crocker Lake to eradicate a nuisance species of fish. Commissioner Harpole asked that A1 Scalf add wording to the draft letter to address the impact of the poison beyond the lake since that control wasn't effective. A1 Scalf suggested a meeting with the Board and the Department ofFish and Wildlife to discuss this issue and how similar issues are handled in the future. Draft letter to State Department of Natural Resources on the Mats Mats Quarry: Commissioner Harpole asked that the letter from Representative Jim Buck be attached to the County's letter to Jennifer Belcher. Commissioner Wojt asked that the letter to Jennifer Belcher be as adamant as the letter to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The last hearing on the Comprehensive Plan is schedule for this afternoon. Any final clarifications and changes may be proposed by staff and reviewed at the meeting this Friday where the Plan will be considered for adoption. Commissioner Harpole asked that it be made clear that any changes suggested by staff on Friday will not be substantial, they will only be minor clarifications and corrections. The discussion turned to the more than 400 letters and comments received and how and if they will be answered. Barry Berezowski explained that the Board previously directed that all letters be sent a response after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. The discussion turned to the reason for the meetings being held with people who have made comments. Commissioner Wojt explained that these meetings were not to appease anyone, but to obtain a clear understanding of the issues. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan and Interim Controls: Associate Planner Barry Berezowski explained that the Planning staff will be making suggestions for changes to the Plan at the public meeting on Friday. He requested that if the Plan is adopted, that it not be made effective until September 8, 1998. Commissioner Harpole asked if the Interim Control Ordinance would be adopted effective that date as well, and the subdivision moratorium would be lifted at the same time? A1 Scalf reported that is correct. Chairman Huntingford asked if one week will give the Permit Center staff enough time to learn and be able to implement the Interim Controls? A1 Scalf advised that one week would be enough time. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Discussion re: Request to Purchase Fire Hoses In Lieu of Installing the SEPA Mitigated 15,000 Gallon Water Storage Tank; Fire District No. 6: Frank Hall, Public Works Department, noted that a request has been received from Fire District No. 6 that the County purchase $7,644.48 worth of fire hose in lieu of the negotiated SEPA mitigation established for fire flow. The County Fire Marshall advised that this proposal will not meet the provisions of the Fire Code. Commissioner Wojt moved to reject the proposal from Fire District No. 6. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Director's Update: Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported: The opening ceremony for the Larry Scott Memorial Trail was a success. A subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was formed to review the issue of Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 motorized off road vehicle use areas in conjunction with the Larry Scott Trail. In the last 8 years there have been 105 road vacations finalized with an additional 13 vacations under review right now. Klara Fabry will submit more data and possibly a request that the Board not consider any more road vacations until a Comprehensive Trail Plan is completed. The Board cautioned that there may be areas that vacations would be appropriate especially if all of the adjacent right-of-way has been vacated. The Board asked that there be a way to address this while a Plan is developed. Klara Fabry suggested that a consultant could be hired to develop a Trail Plan within approximately 6 months. Oak Bay Road chip sealing is being started today. A household hazardous materials collection day was held in Quilcene last week and 62 people participated. PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING: Director of Public Services Gary Rowe reported: He needs direction on what is to be done with the money being saved on the UFCW Health benefits. The Board would like the amount that would normally be billed for this expense put in a separate fund and tracked. A Counties on Puget Sound meeting is to be scheduled'to decide what will be done with funding allocated for salmon restoration. A job description has been drafted for the Salmon Coordinator, but recruiting won't be done until the Federal funding for the position is received. Two (2) Applications for Veterans Relief Funds: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve 2 applications for assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund as recommended by the Services Officers' Association in the amounts of $50.00 and $75.00. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Intent to Sell Surplus Property: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing regarding the County's intent to declare as surplus and sell a 30,000 gallon propane tank including 16,500 gallons of propane. Sabrina Hathaway, Treasurer's Office, reported that the tank will be sold by sealed bid. The Public Works Department has researched the value of the tank and recommends a minimum bid of $19,785.00. The tank and propane must be bid on as one unit. Hearing no comments for or against the intent to sell, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to declare the 30,000 gallon propane tank including the propane, surplus and to set the minimum bid at $19,785.00. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. HEARING and Possible Adoption re: Draft Procedural Reform Ordinance: Ted Hunter, Driscoll and Hunter, reported that the procedural reform package consists of 4 elements. The Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 Board will act on 2 ordinances and the other 2 documents will be adopted administratively at a later date. He reviewed the history of the development of these ordinances and Susan Gulick reported on the public process. He stated that they are ready for adoption by the Board. The Citizens Task Force recommended that along with these 4 documents, all of the County's land use documents be combined into one document to be known as the Jefferson County Land Use Code; that there is adequate funding for implementation of the Code; and that staff be adequately trained to implement it. Ted Hunter reiterated that the Procedural Reform Package was viewed by the Board as the fist step in revising the Land Use Code and would become the foundation for making changes to procedures in the permitting process and other portions of the Land Use Code. He noted that this process has not included a review for consistencies or inconsistencies of any development regulations or interim controls. He recommended a coordinated code in one volume to simplify revisions which would also be electronically accessible to the public. Commissioner Harpole noted that the procedural ordinance states that it supercedes any conflicting procedures in other ordinances. The Chair opened the public hearing. Carol Swallow, stated that it is her understanding that this ordinance requires notification of adjacent property owners for an accessory dwelling unit. She asked if that is correct? Ted Hunter answered that there are three types of permits (A, B and C) and accessory dwelling units are considered a Type A, or administrative decision permits. He explained that in the proposed ordinance Section 13 outlines when public notice is required for Type A, B or C permits. Alice King, Associate Planner, stated that notification is not required in the current ADU ordinance. Commissioner Harpole referenced Appendix A of the proposed ordinance which is a matrix showing current application submittal requirements. Ted Hunter explained that Appendix A was developed as an appendix because it will need to be modified. In addition, Appendix A will be adopted administratively because it may be subject to change. Associate Planner Barry Berezowski advised the Board that the concern is that there would be a change in County policy regarding ADUs because of this ordinance and the Board needs to be made aware that this ordinance will change County policy. Carol Swallow, asked what would happen if a neighbor was notified and objected to the building of an ADU? Ted Hunter stated that Type A permits require public notice before an administrative decision is involved and anyone that comments has the right to appeal the administrative decision. Jim Tracy asked for clarification of Section 3 regarding the ordinance superceding "any conflicting procedure that may be found in other chapters of the Jefferson County Code." In Section 20 it states that "This ordinance repeals and replaces Ordinance No. 08-0408-96 (Consolidated Permitting Procedures Ordinance) in its entirety." He explained that the proposed ordinance is half the size of the Consolidated Permitting Procedures Ordinance. He has not had a chance to compare the two to see Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 what has been omitted. He has several concerns: what happens to the nonprocedural elements in the Consolidated Permitting Procedure Ordinance? An Appellant Examiner is mentioned, but their role and who appoints them is not discussed. He thinks that some of the language is vague, ambiguous, and possibly arbitrary. He cited Section 12, C-3 and asked the definition of"substantially revised?" This is discussed in the Consolidated Permitting Procedures Ordinance, but that ordinance would be repealed and replaced by this ordinance. Regarding Section 11, there are 3 opportunities for staff to require additional information on the application. This section needs to be more specific about complete application requirements. This ordinance allows for a 21 day appeal period, the ordinance being replaced called for a 14 day appeal period. He asked which appeal period would be applicable for a permit application submitted prior to the adoption of this ordinance? Jeff Gallant,. P.O. BOX 94, Quilcene, WA 98376, stated that the proposed ordinance assumes that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and because it is not adopted yet, this creates a conflict in Section 6, Type B Applications, because the Hearing Examiner will be relying entirely on existing ordinances and public testimony to make his decisions. He feels the Board needs to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, leave the moratorium in place, and then work on adopting this ordinance and the Interim Controls. David Cunningham, Olympic Resource Management, stated that there is no explanation regarding the Standard of Review in Section 17, Appeal of A Type A Decision. Gene Seton, Four Corners, questioned the discrepancies between Appendix A and the proposed ordinance. He feels that any final appeal should be to the Board of County Commissioners and not a Hearing Examiner. Wendi Wrinkle, Port Ludlow stated that she was a Citizens Task Force member, and at the time the documents were turned over to the Board, one group of Task Force Members had concerns that more work was needed and the ordinance was not complete. There was special concern regarding public input and input from staff who would have to work with the ordinance and the Planning Commission. There may not have been time to make concrete changes before the short deadline, and she does not feel the current document is adequate. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed ordinance, Chairman Huntingford closed the public hearing. He stated that when they hired Ted Hunter and Susan Gulick to do this project, the Board was united about streamlining the process to make it clear for any applicant to understand the requirements and procedures. Commissioner Harpole noted that he agrees there are some issues that need to be discussed further and a workshop with staff, the consultants and possibly the Planning Commission may be the way to proceed. He said he doesn't feel there is a problem with adopting the Comprehensive Plan before these procedural ordinances are adopted. Chairman Huntingford stated that this is a Board driven ordinance and recommended that a meeting be set up with the consultants and staff to review these issues. Ted Hunter asked the Commissioners to make a list of any outstanding issues they would like to review. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 Commissioner Harpole moved to table action on this draft ordinance until 8 a.m. on Friday. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Written comments will be accepted until Wednesday, August 26, 1998 at 5 p.m. HEARING and Possible Adoption re: Draft Code Interpretation Ordinance: A1 Scalf reported that this draft ordinance was also developed by the Citizen Task Force with the help of Driscoll and Hunter. Ted Hunter reported that it is a requirement of the Regulatory Reform Act for local governments to adopt a code interpretation process for consistency in interpretation. The Chairman opened the pubic hearing. Hearing no public comment for or against this draft ordinance, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to table action on this draft ordinance until Friday morning after the discussion of the draft procedural reform ordinance. Written testimony will be taken until Wednesday at 5 p.m. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Comprehensive Plan: Approximately 25 interested residents were present when the Chairman opened the public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan. Gene Seton, Four Corners, stated that he has vested commercial building permits for property at the SR 19/20 intersection. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan mistakenly identifies the only use for the property as auto-related storage buildings. He feels that tightlining the commercial zones in the Plan puts a hardship on property owners and businesses in the County. He asked that the Board not adopt the Plan. Jim Tracy, Attorney representing Courtesy Auto Group at the SR19/20 intersection stated that the final Plan shows the Courtesy Auto Dealership inside the commercial designation and they are pleased with that conclusion. He also represents the Cotton Corporation. He gave testimony at the last public hearing regarding the residential designation in the Plan of the log dump in Port Hadlock that has been there for 45 years. He followed up with staff and was informed that there would be no change in the designation to industrial. The County added wording in the Comprehensive Plan that references industrial uses for property in the Shoreline Management Master Plan which could apply to the log dump. Jim Tracy noted that the County has plans to revise the Shoreline Management Master Plan and this would mean that the Comprehensive Plan would also have to be revised. His clients will appeal the residential designation on this property. Guy Rudolph, Irondale, stated that he feels the Board could have allowed the people in the Irondale area to vote on the incorporation. He is still concerned about the process that did not allow the vote and he asked the Board to do something to remedy the situation before the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Annette Smith Ardell, asked if their request for the designation of their property in Chimacum has been addressed? Chairman Huntingford stated that the Board has chosen not to make changes in that area at Page 7 i*',? 009 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 this time. Commissioner Wojt added that the request would require substantial changes and it has been docketed for future change. Wendi Wrinkle, Shine Community Action Council, stated she testified at the last 2 hearings regarding the changes in the Port Ludlow land use map as a result of meetings with ORM. The Council's concerns remain the same and a major concern is that the map was not made available to Planning staff or the public in time for them to comment and there has not been enough time to review the map to see if it is consistent with the Port Ludlow ElS. The greatest concern is the loss of the aquifer recharge area and forestlands. Many property owners in the area do not like the new Master Planned Resort designation and don't like the influx of traffic. She asked that her previous comments from other hearings be included. Gene Seton, cited a 1995 County study done by consultants, Berryman and Heniger that shows a deficit of building sites in the County. Instead of using that data, information was falsified to show a surplus of building sites. The Plan is based on falsified documents. He added that the community plans are still ignored in the Plan. He suggested that the County put off adopting this Plan. New businesses are going into Clallam and Kitsap County, but this Comprehensive Plan discourages any businesses in Jefferson County. Carol Swallow asked where she can get a copy of Draft 3 of the Interim Controls? A1 Scalf reported that this draft is available from the Planning Department at no cost. Ron Erickson, representing a small railroad company, stated that his company purchased, at full market value from the State, a private railroad easement in West Jefferson County that is undeveloped. The Comprehensive Plan and the Forestlands Ordinance do not allow his company to develop the property. The 200 foot setbacks from commercial forestland make it impossible to use the property. The laws of the State of Washington do not allow local governments to inhibit railroad right-of-way construction rights. This is a takings issue. Associate Planner Barry Berezowski stated that depending on Ron Erickson's plans for development, they could come under an exempt status in the Interim Controls. Guy Rudolph, stated that he is opposed to the reference in the Utilities Section of the Plan regarding the City of Port Townsend and sewers in the Tri Area. He is concerned about increased taxation and decreasing services. He thinks the economic issues are not adequately addressed in the Plan. Larry Lawson, Port Ludlow, stated that his concerns are the same as the issues that Wendi Wrinkle commented on. A major concern is the water issue. Hearing no further comments for or against the Final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan, the Chairman closed the public hearing. The Board will accept written comments until Wednesday, August 26, 1998 at 5 p.m. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 The Board met in Executive Session from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. with the Prosecuting Attorney and the Director of Community Development regarding potential litigation. The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day and reconvened on Tuesday morning. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Harpole were present for an IDMS workshop from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. All three Board members were present for a workshop on Interim Official Controls from 10:00 a.m. to Noon and from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Tuesday meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled workshops and reconvened on Wednesday at Noon. All three Board members were present. Food and Beverage Purchase Request; Board of County Commissioners: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the request to purchase pizza for a working lunch Executive Session with the Prosecuting Attorney and the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session from 12:05 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. with the Prosecuting Attorney and the Director of Community Development regarding potential litigation. The Wednesday meeting was recessed and reconvened on Friday morning at 8:15 a.m. Chairman Huntingford called the meeting to order in the temporary absence of Commissioner Harpole. Commissioner Wojt was present. Adoption of the Procedural Reform Ordinance: Chairman Huntingford explained that this item was tabled on Monday, public comment was accepted until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and the Board agreed to revisit the item on Friday morning. Ted Hunter stated that the purpose of this ordinance is to protect the County from liability exposure that happens with improper procedures. It will also increase the efficiency of the permitting process. He responded to the written comments. The ordinance was developed over several months, reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Hearing Examiner, staff from Planning, the Public Works Department and Environmental Health and the Citizen Task Force. All the Citizen Task Force meetings were open to the public, the Planning Commission held a hearing, and there were updates and presentations to the Board, and the proper public notice process was followed. The definitions for open record hearings are consistent with State law. The reason the submittal requirements for the various permits were not included in the Ordinance is because it is a procedural ordinance, not a substantive ordinance. When the development regulations are prepared, the permit submittal requirements and review criteria will be included. The term "substantially revised" is consistent with the law and is a policy issue that the Board could address if they choose. It is not a legal issue. · A Type B hearing can be continued, however a decision is still required within 120 days from receipt of the complete application. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 The Board can refer a rezone hearing to the Hearing Examiner for the open record hearing. It is a permissible process for the Hearing Examiner to hold the hearing, close the record, and submit the record and a recommendation to the Board. However, the Board is required to make the final decision regarding rezones. Rezones do not have to go to the Planning Commission, however, they can make recommendations on permit applications and rezones. The Planning Commission's role can be defined by the Board through an ordinance. The Administrative Official cannot develop submittal requirements for applications; these requirements must be defined in the substantive regulations. The Administrator cannot add requirements. This Ordinance is procedural and is governed by the Land Use Petition Act. Ted Hunter submitted a template for substantive code provisions for staff to use in preparing development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan. (See microfilmed document.) He stated that staff comments were based on a different understanding regarding the interface between development regulations and procedures. Both this Ordinance and the Code Interpretation Ordinance have a 30 day effective date. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 04-0828-98, the Procedural Reform Ordinance. In the temporary absence of Commissioner Harpole, Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. Adoption of the Code Interpretation Ordinance: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 05-0828-98, the Code Interpretation Ordinance. In the temporary absence of Commissioner Harpole, Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. All three Board members were present when the Board met in Executive Session from 8:40 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. with the Prosecuting Attorney and the Director of Community Development regarding potential litigation. Public Meeting and Possible Adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: Prosecuting Attorney David Skeen explained that there are several items that the Board will need to address at this meeting. Each item will be explained and the Board will vote whether or not to include it in the Plan or whether to modify it prior to inclusion. The Board agreed to vote on each item subject to review of the Land Use Map before final adoption. All commercial areas in the Glen Cove light industrial commercial and the Mill heavy industrial areas are designated as interim boundaries. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the amendment as recommended. Commissioner ltarpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. · Suggested language for forest lands policies by Green Crow. NRP 3.1 will be amended to read, "Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth Management Act and the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Forest Lands of long- Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 term commercial significance based on the quality of the forest environment, the'size of the parcel, the tax status, current use, and distance from populated areas." A1 Scalf explained that staff recommends that NRP 4.2 also be amended to read "Adopt afinal Forest Lands' Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth Management Act and the interim ordinance for conditional uses in Forest Lands." Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the amendments as recommended. Commissioner ltarpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Suggested language for Essential Public Facilities by the Port of Port Townsend. The recommended language for EPP 2.1 is "During the Port 's preparation ora sub-area plan for the JCIA and appropriate surrounding properties, limit new development proposals at the JCIA site on only those uses which are clearly identified as aviation support facilities or aviation related development in conformance with the airport's designation as an essential public facility. " Staff recommends deletion of the listing of uses under EPP 2.1.1 Aviation Support Facilities are those uses which directly support the ope, ration of the Jefferson County Airport and EPP 2.1.2 Aviation Related Development are those uses which are reliant upon the airport for their businesses. The recommended language for EPP2.2 is "Cooperate with the Port of Port Townsend to develop a sub-area plan to guide future development at the Jefferson County International Airport. This sub-area plan may evaluate non-aviation uses and activities that are compatible with the airport facility and surrounding area. The sub-area plan should address the following siting issues for all new uses and activities proposed for siting at the Jefferson County International Airport and all plans for facilities expansion: a. Compatibility with airport operations as an essential public facility; b. The provisions of infrastructure consistent with the requirements of the GA/IA; c. Land use compatibility with surrounding area; d Potential environmental impacts; e. Availability of alternative sites; f. Public health and safety; g. Sub-area plan amendment process for possible future acquisition of adjacent properties. The recommendation for EPP 3.3 is "The County, in cooperation with the Port of Port Townse- nd will develop and adopt a Noise Overlay Zone Ordinance." The recommendation for EPP 3.4 is "Limit and regulate all uses within the Jefferson County International Airport Runway Protection Zone, except for facilities and structures determined necessary to ensure the safe operation of aircraft." EPP 3.10 is a new policy, "Encourage the commitment between Jefferson County and the Port of Port Townsend to seek coordination of individual planning documents to preclude the occurrence of future noise conflict areas. Coordinate with the Port of Port Townsend to explore options in flight patterns to mitigate noise event, as long as options preserve safe aeronautical regulations and procedures. " Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the amendments as recommended. Commissioner Itarpole seconded the motion and added a clarifying comment to correct the typographical error in EPP 2.1 from JC/A site on to JCIA site to. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Suggested language for Master Planned Resort section of Land Use/Rural recommended by CTED. Staff recommends adding policy LNP 25.9, "In the existing Master Planned Resort, the County shall limit uses in commercial designations to those providing recreation and limited Page 11 2 013 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 convenience commercial development serving the daily needs of the residents and guests of the Master Planned Resort or supporting the resort, but which do not provide regional comparison shopping or employment centers." Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the amendment as recommended. Commissioner ltarpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Suggested language for utilities by Jefferson County PUD #1. Staff recommends adding a policy that states, "The County recognizes the authority of Public Utility District #1 pursuant to RCW 54 and other applicable statutes. The County will cooperate with Public Utility District #1 to develop final development regulations consistent with that authority." David Skeen stated that he agrees with this language. Commissioner Itarpole moved to approve the addition of the proposed policy language as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Suggested map change to recognize mineral lands for sand and gravel operation known as the Thorndyke Pit which had a surface mining permit prior to the adoption of the Mineral Lands Ordinance in May, 1995. Staff cites a clerical and administrative error and recommends that it be included on the land use map. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the amendment in the land use map that the Thorndyke Pit be designated as a mineral land of long term commercial significance. Commissioner Itarpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Further recommendations for mapping changes regarding the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort designation include: a. Single family tracts in the NW of M~R be changed from R5 density to R2.5 density. b. Utility property in NT4Z of MPR and real estate office ('previously commercial,) adjacent to golf course be changed to single family residential. c. Twin Islands offshore be shown on map and designatedpermanent open space. d Golf course will be designated recreation area. e. Map statement that M['R is subject to a cap of 2,250 residential units. Commissioner ltarpole moved to approve the amendments in the land use map regarding the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort as recommended. Chairman Ituntingford reiterated that these changes be consistent with the changes that the Board and ORM have been working on for the past few months. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Bruce Laurie, Transportation Manager, explained the Public Works Department's recommendations regarding the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the amendments are listed in a memo dated August 24, 1998. Add the following policy, "TRP 4.9 Ensure that the Level of Service for County roads are met for existing and proposed development concurrent with proposed development prior to issuing development approvals." David Skeen stated that he concurred with this additional policy. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the amendment as recommended. Commissioner llarpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The narrative on Page 7-33 be revised to ensure consistency with the proposed added Policy TRP 4.9. The recommended language is "The capacity analysis and traffic forecasts indicate Page 12 Ot_4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 that at the planning horizon year of 2018 no County facilities are expected to exceed the adopted level of service standard. However if any proposed development were to cause the level of service to fall below adopted levels, the proponents of the development wouM be required to mitigate the deficiency prior to development approval. A number of state route highway segments will exceed their estimated capacity based on the levels of service standards established in this Element. "Commissioner ltarpole moved to approve the amendment as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Addition of a Strategy to be consistent with Capital Facilities Element Strategy D: "Strategy to Ensure Adequate Public Facility Capacity Concurrent with Development." This additional strategy states, "Strategy Action Item 37: Include in ordinances a transportation concurrency management system that requires development proponents to mitigate the LOS' deficiencies for Category A Public Facifities: Rural Road and Designated Tourist Road Facifities. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 4.0)" Commissioner Itarpole moved to approve the additional strategy as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Revision of Policy TRP6.4 to ensure consistency with the requirements of the Essential Facilities Element, particularly siting issues associated with public aviation facilities. The revised policy is "Recognize the existence and current use of private small airfields, private landing strips, and private helistops in land use decisions, and ensure proposed expansions o f these private facifities meet all required development criteria." Commissioner Itarpole moved to approve the amendment as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Revise the narrative on Page 8-12 in the Utilities Element to ensure consistency with the Capital Facilities Element and clarify potential Jefferson County capital commitments. "The proposed listing of salmon and bull trout native to Jefferson County streams under the Endangered Species Act highlights the need to integrate watershed and fish habitat recovery plans. The County will work with local, state, and federal agencies to implement potential recovery projects and develop land use regulations based on these plans to protect the water resources of the County for use by future residents and to recover the salmon and other fish species that are threatened with extinction." Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the revised narrative as recommended. Commissioner Itarpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Add the following bullet item in the Utilities Element under Water Utilities Strategy No. 12 on Page 8-46. "Work as a member of the WUCC, and other organizations and agencies, to address efficient and timely purveryorship of water in areas projected for future growth." Commissioner ltarpole moved to approve the additional bullet as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Revise Policy CFP 3.2 in the Capital Facilities Element to read: "Planning Levels of Service: If the Level of Service standards for Category B or C pubfic facilities are not achieved, the funding will either be increased to achieve the Level of Service Standard, or the Level of Service Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 Standard will be modified through amendment to the Plan, and/or other Comprehensive Plan Elements will be amended." Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the revision of CFP 3.2 as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Skeen explained that this constitutes all of the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. A1 Scalf gave an overview of the Findings of Fact. There are 5 l findings of fact to support the Comprehensive Plan adoption and 18 findings to support the adoption of the of the Land Use Map; 10 findings for the Land Use/Rural Element; 12 findings for the Natural Resources Element; 10 findings for the Housing Element; 13 findings for the Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation Element; 10 findings for the Economic Element; 12 findings for the Environmental Element; 12 findings for the Essential Public Facilities Element; 19 findings for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort; 9 findings for the Capitol Facilities Element and 8 findings for the Utilities Element. David Skeen stated that the record that was used to establish the final document will be an appendices to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Wojt moved to accept the Findings of Fact as presented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Barry Berezowski explained that on the revisions the Board voted on earlier regarding the Master Plan Resort at Port Ludlow, staff is requesting an additional change to the Land Use Map, "Change the Mixed Use Commercial/TVlulti-family designation to Resort Complex/Community Facilities." David Skeen proposed that the Board vote on the change subject to review of the Land Use Map. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the additional change regarding the MPR subject to review of the Land Use Map. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. A1 Scalf stated that staff is requesting an additional finding for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort that the Board approved. The additional finding reads "Concurrence with the requirement of RCW 36 78 360 Master Planned Resorts that #5, the onsite and offsite infrastructure and impacts are fully considered and mitigated that wouM be consistent with the EIS, both with sewer and water, within the MPR that the infrastructure is available for development." Commissioner ltarpole moved to approve the additional finding of fact #20 regarding the Master Planned Resort as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (On further review, staff found that the content of Finding of Fact #20 was already included in Port Master Planned Resort Finding of Fact #7.) David Skeen asked each Board member if they have reviewed the full Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map? Chairman Huntingford stated that he has reviewed the map, although there are still a few parcels where there is concern that criteria has not been properly applied. However, in the Findings of Fact this issue was addressed. Commissioner Harpole stated that he agrees with Chairman Huntingford's comments and asked staff to clarify information regarding the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Map. A1 Scalf clarified the information on the Land Use Map regarding the Port Ludlow Map addressed earlier in a motion by the Board. He stated that the Mixed Use Commercial/Multi-family designation has been changed to Resort Complex/Community Facilities. He recommended that the MPR definition Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 under single family residences should read 4 dwelling units per acre MPR (SF4:1); the multi-family, 10 dwelling units per acre MPR (MF10:1); the resort complex/community facility, MPR (RCCF 10:1) and single family tracts, 1 dwelling unit to 2.5 acres, MPR (SFT1:2.5). Commissioner Harpole and Commissioner Wojt stated that they have reviewed the map and agree with the proposed changes in the Port Ludlow area. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Land Use Map with the changes to the Port Ludlow area. Commissioner Itarpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. A1 Scalf stated that the final map will be generated based upon the changes approved by the Board and the revised map will be issued to the Public. David Skeen added that the Board is required to sign a series of more detailed maps that represent the land designations in the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Huntingford asked if a Commissioner is required to sign a particular map if he is not in agreement, although he is in support of the Comprehensive Plan overall? David Skeen explained that the approval for each map can be shown by the signatures. If a Board member has reservations that have been expressed in the record, that is a separate issue. Chairman Huntingford asked that the record from the workshops noting how each Commissioner voted on the designation of an area be reviewed to show approval of or disagreement with each map. Harriet Beale reported that she will review the record to confirm how each Commissioner voted. Chairman Huntingford chose not to sign the individual maps until after the record is reviewed. Commissioner Harpole and Commissioner Wojt signed the following maps: Port Hadlock Rural Village Center; Interim Commercial and Residential Zone Map. Quilcene Rural Village Center; Interim Commercial and Residential Zone Map. Brinnon Rural Village Center; Interim Commercial and Residential Zone Map. Nesses Comer General Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone Map. Irondale/SR 19 Intersection General Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone Map. State Route 19/20 Intersection General Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone Map. Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone Map. Discovery Bay Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone Map. Four Comers Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone Map. Gardiner Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone and the Mats Mats Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone Map. WaWa Point Convenience Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone, Nordland Convenience Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone, Beaver Valley Convenience Crossroad; Interim Commercial Zone Map. Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, MPR Village Commercial Zone Map. Glen Cove Industrial Area; Interim Light Commercial/Commercial Zone; L/C Quilcene Light Industrial Zone; L/I Center Resource Based Industrial Zone; RBIZ Gardiner Resource Based Industrial Zone; RBIZ West End Resource Based Industrial Zone; RBIZ Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 Port Townsend Paper Mill Interim Heavy Industrial Zone; H/I David Skeen explained that the Board has prioritized several tasks to be implemented immediately after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He presented a resolution outlining these tasks. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 71-98 outlining the priority of tasks to be implemented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Skeen submitted a resolution to the Board for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board reviewed the resolution. Commissioner ltarpole moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 72-98 adopting the Jefferson County Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan, all attachments and findings of fact. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Skeen explained that the next item on the agenda is the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Huntingford asked staff for an overview of this ordinance. A1 Scalf reported that this document is the Interim Control for all goals, policies, and strategies in the Comprehensive Plan. As directed by the Board, the basis of this ordinance is the Interim Growth Strategy Ordinance. All sections were removed that would not be applicable or consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Designations of rural centers have been revised. Other sections of the IGSO that similar to the Plan include rural densities, Level of Service standards for water and sewer, setbacks, lot coverage and heights are consistent. Port Townsend is still the only Urban Growth Area in the County. The use tables and uses are similar, however they now implement the Comprehensive Plan. The bulk and dimension tables are the same. The Planned Rural Community in Port Ludlow is changed to the Master Planned Resort designation. Lots of record will be dealt with as they were in the IGSO. No clustering or lot averaging is allowed. The septic exemptions that the Board passed will be allowed. The subdivision moratorium on plats will be lifted. Chairman Huntingford asked A1 Scalf to print out the information that he outlined and attach it for the record. Commissioner Itarpole moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 06-0828-98 an Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance establishing interim official controls regulating and restricting land use and development through Jefferson County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman Huntingford explained that the Board felt the interim controls just adopted would suffice in the short term and therefore, it would not be necessary to develop another set of interim controls. The Board wants Planning staff to address the development of permanent regulations immediately. Commissioner Itarpole moved to direct Planning staff to prepare a draft document of permanent development regulations with a transmittal letter and to send it to the Planning Commission within a week. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 24, 1998 A1 Scalf stated that the Comprehensive Plan and the Interim Control Ordinance are now in effect and the subdivision moratorium is lifted. Permit Center staff is available, and willing and able to help the public facilitate their permit applications. The Comprehensive Plan will be available to the public on Friday, September 4, 1998 in the Planning Department. Meeting Adjourned JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS anie arpole, Me~r V01. Page 17 Citizen Task Force On Land USe Procedural Reform MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 16, 1998 Board of Commissioners, Jefferson County Ted Hunter & Susan Gulick Response to Planning Commission Review of Procedural Reform Ordinances By memorandum dated March 23ra ~copy attached), you requested our response to the items identified in the March 18~ memo from the Planning Commission via A1 Scalf (copy attached). The Planning Commission first reviewed the four Procedural Reform Documents on March 11a'. We were present at that meeting of the Planning Commission and responded to a number of questions at that time. The Commission then met a second time to review a list of issues prepared by Planning Department staff. The staff memoranda framed the scope of the review by the Commission. This is our fn-st opportunity to respond to the Commission's comments. We note that the issues raised by the Commission were discussed during the development of the Procedural Reform Package by the Task Force, the BOCC, the Hearing Examiner, Long Range Planning, the Permit Center, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Environmental Health and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. We are pleased, however, to respond to the items again at this time. The items and responses are as follows: 1. Appellate Examiner Role: The role of the Appellate Examiner is authorized in Chapter 36.70 of the Revised Code of Washington. That Chapter authorizes the BOCC to establish hearing examiners for land use decisions and allows the BOCC to "specify the legal effect" of decisions made by an Examiner. As proposed, the BOCC would identify a Hearing Examiner to make final decisions for the County if the existing Hearing Examiner is appealed. 2. Types of Processes May Need to be Expanded: Three types of permit processing are identified in the proposed ordinance (Types A, B, & C). The Task Force considered additional categories and several variations of the existing categories. The types are differentiated according to the level of notice provided and the type of hearing provided. The three types in the proposed ordinance represent the best effort by the Task Force to achieve a balance between public review and timely processing of permit requests. Additional categories could be 1 Memorandum to BOCC frora Hunter and Guli~k added by the BOCC if it so desires. It should be noted that the effort of the Task Force was to maintain the status quo for now; recognizing that the County will adopt new development regulations. It was assumed that categorization of the type of review would occur at the time of adoption of those developmental regulations. Another issue that has been raised is that some type A permits (e.g. Accessory Dwelling Units and Shoreline Exemptions) do not presently require public notice. Public notice would be required under the new ordinance. If the BOCC prefers that there be no public notice for these permits, the proposed ordinance can easily be amended to do this. 3. Closed Record Appeals Should Be Heard by BOCC: The Task Force and the BOCC have thoroughly weighed the advantages and disadvantages of BOCC review of land use decisions. The Task Force clearly wanted the BOCC removed fi.om decision making on individual land use applications. The Task Force embraced the concept of the Appellate Examiner as a compromise between a direct appeal of decisions to Superior Court or an appeal of decisions to the BOCC. If the BOCC disagrees with the Task Force recommendation, it could choose to continue to hear dosed record appeals, or could direct appeals to Superior Court. 4. Procedure for Amending Ordinance Needed: Any county ordinance can be amended at any time by a majority vote of the members of the BOCC. Language such as this could be included in the proposed ordinance. It would be unusual to do so, however, as most staff and public should be aware of the amendment process. 5. Involvement of Planning Commission Needed: The authority of the Planning Commission is established in state statutes and case law. It should also be clearly set forth in county ordinances that establish the Commission. An important role of the Planning Commission is to review proposed area-wide rezones and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan prior to action by the BOCC. This helps ensure public input into that process. Area-wide rezones and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are considered matters of legislation; decisions on applications for land use action--including site specific rezones--are considered quasi-judicial. The proposed ordinance is not intended to address the legislative process or alter the role of the Planning Commission. The Commission should continue to operate pursuant to authority granted to it in state law and by other county ordinances. 6. All Land Use Codes Incorporated: The Task Force presented the proposed procedures ordinance as a fi.amework for processing of land use permit requests. The proposed ordinance addresses the necessary procedures in a manner consistent with state law. County ordinances that identify the types of permits required to implement the new comprehensive plan would not also describe the procedures for deciding a permit request. Rather, reference would be made to the procedures ordinance which would identify the permit as a type A, B, or C permit for processing purposes. Citizens could look in one place to learn of the 2 Memorandum to BOCC from _T-Iunter and Guli~k procedures for all land use permits. Inconsistent provisions in substantive land use codes would be repealed. Land use permits identified in all substantive land use codes should be incorporated into the new procedures ordinance as a Type A, B, or C permit process. Numerous requests have been made to Planning Department staff'to identify additional existing land use permits that could be placed within the framework of the proposed ordinance. The BOCC has directed Permit Center staff to provide this information by April 16th. It also should be noted that new development regulations may identify new types of permits that would be placed within the procedures ordinance. 7. Time Frames Must Be Consistent With State Law: There is no inconsistency between the proposed ordinance and state law. The "conflict" identified in a memo to the Planning Commission addresses the difference between 10 days in the Shoreline Master Program and 14 days in the proposed ordinance for an appeal of an administrative decision. This "conflict" may be more imagined than real. Rules of statutory construction require that ordinances be read in a consistent fashion. The 10 days in the master program could be read as 10 working days (the master program does not define this, however). The 14 days in the proposed ordinance specifically refers to calendar days. The time period is nearly identical if the 10 days are intended to mean working days. Also, any appellant would likely comply with the shorter time flame to avoid dismissal of an appeal. The BOCC, however, may desire to amend the master program to be precisely consistent with the proposed ordinance to avoid any uncertainties of appeal time frames. 8. Information Required of Applicant: The proposed ordinance states that the purpose of the pre-application meeting is to identify all the requirements of the application process and requires County staff do so. It is not clear why the Planning Commission felt this was not sufficient. If the BOCC desires, this could be strengthened to require the County to provide the necessary requirements in writing. 9. Consistent Approach & Stable Data Needed: The interviews conducted as part of the Independent Assessment also identified the need for a consistent approach to applicants by the Permit Center and the need for good data. There are many ideas on how to accomplish this. A Citizen Review Board could be established to oversee the Permit Center's treatment of citizens to help ensure fair and equal treatment. The Permit Center could provide a reporting system to the BOCC on how many applications are processed within the required 120 days. The Citizen Task Force also recognized that some reform of the Permit Center is needed to help restore credibility to how the county processes land use permit r~quests. 10. Application Submittal Requirements: It is critically important that the submittal requirements for applications be clearly identified by the Planning Department. These requirements should replace the existing Appendix A of the proposed ordinance. It is recognized that the existing Appendix is incomplete and 3 4/16/98 inaccurate. Yet, that is what is presently used by the Permit Center. Numerous requests have been made of the Permit Center to provide a revised Appendix A that could be relied upon by citizens in Jefferson County. The BOCC has directed Permit Center staffto provide this information by April 16th. This revised Appendix should replace the incomplete and inaccurate table presently used by the Permit Center as soon as it is available. 11. SEPA Planned Actions: This process has always been available under SEPA. Recent rules adopted by the Department of Ecology have more clearly identified when this process may be used. Its primary purpose is for specific geographic areas of a county or for planned resort areas. A SEPA planned action process could be adopted by the BOCC if it desires. Since there is very little experience with this process (and the rules implementing it were only recently adopted), it is not at all certain that this process will result in a reduction of time for permit review. 12. Process for Exempt Permits: The procedures for those permits exempt from regulatory reform should be referenced within the proposed ordinance. The procedures themselves should not be set forth as the procedures ordinance could become unwieldy. Planning Department staff should identify the proper reference for each exempt permit, so that it can be inserted as an amendment at the time of adoption. 13. Standing: The proposed ordinance allows any person to participate in any open record hearing, but restricts the appeal of a decision following an open record hearing to those who participated in the open record hearing. This is to encourage those interested in an application to be present during the open record hearing that helps shape the decision. The restriction of appeals to parties is designed to focus closed record appeals on those issues not appropriately resolved in the decision made after the open record hearing. The proposed ordinance intentionally avoids the use of the word "standing" or "aggrieved person" to identify who can participate in an appeal hearing. Those words have been bandied about in numerous judicial decisions without precise clarification as to who qualifies. Both terms, however, are restrictive. The "any person" standard of the proposed ordinance ensures the broadest possible public participation in an open record appeal hearing. It appears the Planning Commission did not clearly understand this in its brief opportunity for review. If the BOCC desires, the approach taken in the proposed ordinance could be clarified by amending the proposed ordinance to add the words "any person" in the open record appeal section. 14. Public Participation Should Not Be Reduced: The Citizen Task Force agreed with this statement. Although the opportunities for public input may be shifted in some areas, the proposed ordinance does not reduce public participation in land use decision processes. Every land use decision should have the opportunity for public input before it becomes an irreversible final decision. The proposed 4 Memorandum to BOCC from Hunter and Guliek ordinance provides for public input prior to any land use decision (by requiring notice of application and opportunity for comment for every application) for formal review in a hearing context if desired (by requiring pre-decision and open record appeal hearings), and for appellate review if there is a disagreement with the decision maker (through closed record and judicial appeals). 15. Posting of Property: Posting of notice is required for hearings in the proposed ordinance, but is not required for a notice of application. The proposed ordinance requires publication and zone mailing of a notice of application. The current posting requirement is replaced with a requirement to mail to "all interested persons" who have requested notification of land use permit applications. This is designed to enhance the notice requirement by targeting notice to those who are most concerned about land use decisions. Posting of a small sign often does not provide notice to residents in a rural county. Some postings occur far away from public view although they technically qualify as notice. Posted notice does nothing to notify the resident who is away on vacation or out of the area due to job requirements. Nearly everyone, however, reads his or her mail on a regular basis. Mailing notice to the "interested persons" list will enhance notice over that provided by posting. If the BOCC wishes to continue to require posting for notice of application, it may easily do so by amending the proposed ordinance. 16. Planning Commission Role in Site-Specific Rezones: The current ordinance allows the BOCC to send site-specific rezones to the Hearing Examiner for an open-record heating and recommendation. The BOCC may also choose to hold the open-record hearing. The Planning Commission could testify and present a recommendation to either the BOCC or the Hearing Examiner during the open- record hearing. It is possible to amend the ordinance to direct the Planning Commission to hold the heating rather than the Hearing Examiner, but this is contrary to the Task Force recommendations. The Planning Commission may not hold a heating in addition to the Heating Examiner because this would violate state law. The final decision for site-specific rezones must legally remain with the BOCC. 17. Other Solutions to Problem: The Planning Commission states that land use procedures may not be the real problem, and that a different solution may be needed. The Citizen Task Force clearly agrees with the Planning Commission that procedural reform is not going to solve all of the land use problems in Jefferson County. In their transmittal letter, the Task Force states the need for the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan and clear Development Regulations. The Task Force also urged the BOCC to support adequate staffing so that permits are processed by well-trained, objective staff who can implement the Land Use Code in a fair and efficient manner. 18. Clear and Concise Language Needed: It is always desirable to eliminate unnecessary words and to communicate more clearly. Improvements are always 5 Memorandum to BOCC frora Hunter and Gulick '¥o,_ possible. The proposed ordinance contains all necessary permit processing language in about 20 pages of text. The existing ordinance is over 40 pages of text and tables. It is incumbent upon those who seek clarity and conciseness to specifically identify where that can occur without altering the intent of the ordinance or increasing the risk of exposure to liability for the County. 19./20./21. Permit Center Assistance: It is important to note that there are numerous items in the existing ordinance dealing with internal County processes that are not included in the proposed ordinance. This does not mean that they are not important and should not be continued. However, it is neither necessary or desirable to place these in ordinance. If the County wants to continue such practices as the Administrative Review Committee or the current procedures for transmitting applications to affected agencies, by all means continue them. If Staff believes they need to be in writing, we recommend they be adopted as rules or departmental memoranda, not in the ordinance. This makes them easier to amend, and also removes any legal implications if the County does not follow them. The Task Force concurred with the Planning Commission' s observations that there is a need for better public service at the Permit Center. The usefulness of flow-charts, checklists, and user-friendly information sheets was discussed. The Permit Center is strongly encouraged to do this! It is not necessary for these ideas to be placed in the ordinance~and in fact could cause legal problems down the road if they were included in the ordinance. We hope these responses and discussion are helpful to the BOCC. Please feel free to contact either of us at any time if you'd like to discuss these items further prior to your adoption of the Procedural Reform Package. 6 Meraoran~ra to BOCC from Hunter and Gulick !vo,_ 1820 Jefferson Street PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368'. ~len Huntingford, Distr/~ 2 Richard Wojt, Distri~ 3 MEMO TO: I~OM: DATE: Subject: Ted Hunter & Susan. Gulick, Dfiscoll and Hunter and the Citizens Task Force Board of Coun~ Commissioners March 23, 1998 Planning Commission Recommendation on the Procedural Reform Ordinances your review of kerns identified by Planxing staff and noted in the March 18 ~lin..-.,~s reaardina the proposed procedural reform ordinanc,s. 9,'e do nor anticipate -ixat .:he Task Force will re-vmke the proposed ordinances or solve all issues identi~ed, rather that tiey Mil review ahese concerns and We ,,viXen comment back to us as to how, when, and where these concerns could best be addressed. We respect the work of the Task Force and appreciate your further review. We remain in a~eerrient with our or/gnal intent to move forward on procedural reform as previously presented. r.on~ (~o0,o8o-9 i00 / i-$00-83 1-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffooc~codefferson.wa.us Je{'ferson County Planning Commission ~rlURTHm LI~E P[3RT TmWN~END, WA~:HINGTM gB-"I6B March 18, 1998 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners Planning Corn_mission Al Scal£ Diz'ec:.or, Depm-tment of Community Development Concerns of the Planning Commission on the Proposed Reform Ordinances Minutes will be avalIable in the Boards packet on April 6. Procedural MOTION OF THE PLAxN2glNG COM/vIISSION: Remand the documents to the Department of Community Development Staff for further review and revision and then come back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Motion Passed - 8 For; 0 Against; 1 Abstained >lain Concerns and Recommendations Appellant Examiner -concern over the legal status of the Appellant Examiner in non- charter counties in the closed record appeal process. (9 members agree). The types of decisions A,B,C are lumped together; need more categories. (9 agree) The BOCC needs to be hea,dng the Closed Record Appeal. (8 agree) Board of County Commissio March 1 $, 1998 Page 3 The solution to the problem may lie in a different direction than the one taken by the BOCC in hiring the cOnsultants for the Land Use Procedural Reform Project (Land Use procedures may not be real problems?) Clear and concise language, the document could be reduced in overall number of pages (7 a~ee) The applicant needs to understand the process like standard checklists and flow charts with fee schedule so people know what they need to know up front Service .to the People of the County, someone to help you through the process, hold them by the hand and lead them through the process, a change of attitude at the permit center.. would be nice, outreach and public education is needed. Staffing levels may not be sufficient. The staff comments should be given considerable weight. August 25, 1998 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Phil Andrus AUG 2 § 1998 Regarding: Land Use Applications Procedures Ordinance The Ordinance which you now are considering for adoption is significantly more suitable than the earlier draft which I reviewed some months ago. There are just a few issues which I wish to address, referenced below by page number and section: Page 3, Section 6 A 2: An application for an ADU should not include public notification. Page 3, Section 6 A 3: Does "Home-based occupations" include both home-based businesses and cottage industries, as described in the draft Comp Plan and the draft Interim Controls? While an application for a cottage industry should include public notification, I question whether notification should be required for home-based businesses. The small scale of home-based businesses does not justify notification. Page 4, Section 6 A 10: An application for a Shoreline Exemption should not include public notification. However, notification is appropriate for primary, secondary, and conditional uses, and for variances. Page 5, Section 7 B 3: An additional "provided" should be included which states: "The other agency, or agencies agree to holding a joint hearing." Jefferson County cannot compel another agency or jurisdiction to participate in a joint hearing. Page 7, Section 11 D: I understand the purpose of this provision: to protect applicants from sluggish County processing. However, I am concerned that this provision could require the County to process an incomplete application as if it were complete. That is, if the County fails to provide a written determination regarding the completeness of an application within 28 calendar days, it cannot later require the information necessary for the County to make an informed decision about that application. Consider this alternative for Section 11 D: "If the Director does not provide a written determination as to whether the application is complete within the twenty-eight (28) calendar days, the appli- cation shall be deemed complete as of the twenty-eighth day. However, the Director may request additional information from the applicant if such information is necessary for the County to properly review the application." Page 8, Section 11 E: Change the heading to: "Requests for Additional Information" The language in this subsection is more broad than the heading, incorrectly implying that requests for additional information can be made only if "circumstances change". This subsection pertains directly to Section 12 B 1, regarding the exclusion of periods of time from the 120 day calculation. See also my general comment (1), below. Page 9, Section 13 C 1: Add the language in D 1 e, which requires posting at the subject property. In rural areas, this is the most useful means of notification; it is the notification which neighbors are most likely to see. The other methods are often less effective, either because they reach too few people (adjoining property owners), or because they reach only those most frequently active in land use issues. On page 5 of his memo dated 4/16/98, Mr. Hunter addresses this matter, stating, "The proposed ordinance requires publication and zone mailing of a notice of application." I find nothing in the ordinance about a "zone mailing". Perhaps an additional provision should be added to define and require "zone mailings". While Mr. Hunter fairly describes the limitations of posting of notice, he fails to identify its strengths, giving the impression that he has little personal experience living in rural areas. Simply put, a posted notice catches one's attention, if it is properly located. Consider, therefore, the following alternative language, to be added to the notification requirements following a determination of completeness: "Posting the notice at the subject property. The applicant shall post a sign or signs provided by the County containing the information described in subsection (2)(a0 through (g) below, "... Notice Contents," in the manner prescribed by the Director. Such sign or signs shall be posted in a location or locations easily visible to passers-by." Notification is best accomplished early in the process rather than at the time of an appeal. In my experience, the public responds with particularly strong emotion when it is surprised by an application which appears to be already nearing approval. Everyone, including project applicants, are best served by early and thorough public notification. In addition, all public notices should include both the name of the applicant and the name of the landowner. This important information is included in the draft ordinance only for notices of appeal. Why? Finally, I think this entire section could be improved by a more uniform set of requirements for both the means and the contents of notification. Let's avoid writing pointless quirks into this ordinance. General comments: (1) I agree with the testimony which you received at your public hearing regarding the need for a definition of "substantial revisions to a complete application". County staff should help you develop this definition, since they will be working with it in the years to come. A substantial revision should be treated as a new application. (2) The Procedures Ordinance fails to provide means of addressing the following elements of the Comp Plan/Interim Controls: the expansion or change of use of legal non-conforming uses; and complaints regarding home-based businesses and cottage industries. The resolution of some of these issues may begin with the Director, but more complex or intractable cases should go to the Hearing Examiner. (3) ! recall (correctly, I hope) that the Planning Commission recommended that site specific rezones should be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to a decision by the BOCC. I agree with this conclusion only if: (a) an action regarding a site specific rezone is clearly legislative rather than quasi-judicial, and (b) a public hearing regarding a site specific rezone is not considered a public hearing for a project application under the Regulatory Reform statute. If the two conditions stated above are satisfied, I think it would be reasonable to send requests for site specific rezones to the Planning Commission, since they, along with area wide rezones, are changes in the Comprehensive Plan. Reg~ds, Phil Andrus POB 261 Chimacum 98325 732 4085 David Skeen JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Courthouse -- P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385-0073 Paul Mcllrath, Chief Deputy Prosecutor Juelanne Dalzell, Deputy Prosecutor Jill Landes, Deputy Prosecutor Scott Charlton, Deputy Prosecutor Elizabeth Anne Padula, Deputy Prosecutor TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Board of County Commissioner~ Paul E. McIlrat~ September 3, 1998 Land Use Procedures Ordinance On August 28th, 1998 the Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 04-0828-98, referenced above as the Land Use Procedures Ordinance, without our offices' prior approval as to form. I was presented with the ordinance for approval subsequent to the Board's legislative action. However, the ordinance is not set to take effect until September 28th, 1998. There remain a number of relevant issues, identified by the public, the Planning Commission and Long Range Planning staff, which we have been advised may require further amendment to this ordinance. Planning staff has stated that they anticipate this will occur within the thirty day waiting period. Moreover, I understand that Ted Hunter will continue working with County staff to discuss, and implement, the new ordinance. Therefore, since the Board has already approved the Ordinance; and since it is anticipated that further discussion will occur in the preparation of the "corrected" Ordinance, at this point our office will await approval as to form until such time as we see the final amendments an/t changes proposed to be included. Thank you for providing this office the opportunity to participate in the adoption of this important piece of County legislation. JEFFERSON COUNTY PERMIT CENTER 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners A1 Scalf, Director of Community Developmenth~ Marie Harrison, Permit Center Planning Clerk November 16, 1998 Discussion of Designation of Official Posting Places of the County DISCUSSION: The Jefferson County Land Use Application Procedures Ordinance No. 04-0282-98 Section 13, "Public Notice Requirements" requires that "notice of application" shall be provided by the following means: Mailing written notice to adjoining property owners as required by applicable law. The list of property owners and addresses shall be provided by the Applicant based on information regarding current ownership of property listed on tax records and provided by a Land Title Company doing business in Jefferson County. The list shall be certified by the Department. Mailing written notice to those individuals who requested in writing to be placed on a mailing list to receive notice of land use applications and decisions; Posting notice in the official posting places of the County; and Publishing notices in the official newspaper of the County. Issues: Staffhas inquired about the Board located just inside the front doors to the courthouse. This board is primarily full of court information/notices and designed primarily for one-page notices and tall persons. Recommendation: Staff recommends designating the following places as the official posting places of the county: Jefferson County Permit Center; Long Range Planning (bulletin board near front counter); Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (bulletin board located just outside the office in the lower level). Building Building Permits Inspections (360) 379-4450 Environmental Health Development Review Septic Permits Subdivision, Zoning Water Review & Shoreline Permits Public Works Road Approach Permits & Addresses FAX: (360) 379-4451 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Citizen Task Force On Land Use Procedural Reform TO: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners FROM: Ted Hunter & Susan Gulick Report on Task Force Activities Attached is a packet of information provided to the Citizen Task Force prior to our first session on December 12th and a report on the results of that first meeting. The packet provides background information and focuses the mission of the Task Force. The report summarizes the discussion of the Task Force on the procedural reform topics that will be addressed in the procedural reform ordinances. We are now preparing the four procedural reform documents. Our next Task Force session will review these drafts. We are pleased with the ability of the Task Force to move forward and are eager to get the draft material to them prior to our meeting on January 14th. We look forward to meeting with you on December 22nd at 2:00 p.m. to discuss these matters. Citizen Task Force On Land Use Procedural Reform MEMORANDUM December 4, 1997 TO: FROM: RE: Citizen Task Force Members Ted Hunter & Susan Gulick Task Force Meeting # 1 The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has informed us of your appointment to the Citizen Task Force on Land Use Procedural reform. Congratulations and welcome to the Task Force! Our first meeting is December 12, 1997 from 10 a.m. until Noon in the Courthouse Lower Conference Room. The assignment for the Task Force is very ambitious. It is clear that we must all "hit the ground running" in order to accomplish the mission of the Task Force. If all members come to the Task Force prepared for discussion, we will be able to use our time most efficiently. To help us prepare for our first meeting, we have enclosed the following items: 1. An agenda for our first meeting. 2. A roster of the Task Force members and a short description of our backgrounds. 3. A copy of the Resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners A Mission and Assignment Statement. This summarizes the charge given to the Task Force by the Board of County Commissioners. Proposed Groundrules. These are fairly standard groundrules that have been tailored for the Task Force. We hope all participants will agree to these. If you have any concerns about the groundrules, please call Susan before the meeting. Memorandum - Task Force Meeting # 1 A paper entitled Consensus: Discussion Guidelines for Participants. This is a list of tips to help participants of group processes reach consensus. It is supplied for informational purposes only, and will not be discussed by the Task Force. Discussion items for the first meeting. This is the most important item for your careful review and consideration. This paper lists questions that the Task Force will consider during the first meeting. It is not important for the Task Force to reach consensus on each question at the first meeting. However, it will be important that numerous issues and perspectives are voiced. This will allow us to prepare the first draft of the documents in the most responsive manner. 8. A copy of the current Consolidated Permit Review Process ordinance. This should be reviewed so that Task Force members are aware of the current land use procedures. We are available to assist you in preparing for the meeting. If you have any questions or concerns about the agenda or the enclosed materials, please don't hesitate to call Susan at (206) 548-0469. Ted and Susan will both be available to the Task Force between meetings to assist members in understanding the materials or answering questions related to Task Force assignments. This will allow us to ensure that your questions or concerns are addressed, and will make the meetings run much more efficiently. We look forward to working with you on this most exciting project! Citizen Task Force On Land Use Procedural Reform PLANNED AGENDA Task Force Meeting # 1 Friday, December 12, 1997 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM, Jefferson County Courthouse Lower Level Conference Room 1. Introductions (10 minutes) Background Materials Provided: · Task Force Roster · Background of Consulting Team 2. IVlission and Assignment of Citizen Task Force (10 minutes) Background Materials Provided: · CoRy of the Resolution Adol~ted by the Board of County Commissioners · Statement of Mission andAssignment 3. Groundrules (5 minutes) Background Materials Provided: · Prol~osed Groundrules · Consensus: Discussion Guidelines for Particil~ants 4. Presentation: Background of 1995 Regulatory Reform Act: Local Government Responsibilities (10 minutes) 5. Issues (~ hour & 20 minutes) Ordinance Structure and Approach Decision-Making Process Code Interpretation Other Issues Background Materials Provided: · Discussion Items for Task Force Meeting # 1 6. Closing/Next Steps (5 Minutes) C 0 C © Citizen Task Force On Land Use Procedural Reform BACKGROUND OF CONSULTING TEAM Ted Hunter Ted is an attorney who specializes in land use issues. He will assist the Task Force in drafting the documents and giving legal advice where necessary. Ted has been a member of the Washington State Bar Association for 20 years. He was active in litigation at all levels of the state and federal courts for seven years; worked as Legal Counsel to the Energy and Environment Committees of the State Legislature for five years; and for the past eight years has practiced land use mediation and decision- making (as a Hearing Examiner) for many cities and counties in the Puget Sound area. Susan Gulick Susan is a consultant who specializes in public policy and communication issues. Her role will be to facilitate the discussions of the Task Force to ensure that the work is accomplished. Susan has over 17 years experience solving complex public policy problems. Her experience includes six years as the senior Policy Analyst for the Washington State House of Representatives' Environmental Affairs Committee. In this non-partisan position, she facilitated the development of consensus on many controversial proposals. In addition, Susan served for six years as the Waste Reduction and Recycling Manager for King County, Washington. She now owns GEC Consulting, and collaborates extensively with Driscoll and Hunter on land use issues. Citizen Task Force on Land Use Procedural Reform Task Force Meeting # 1, Agenda Item #1 JEFFERSON COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON Creating a Citizen Task Force } on Land Use Procedural Reform } RESOLUTION NO. 125-97 WHEREAS, tile Jefferson County Commissioners commissioned an independent assesslnent of its land use permit system; and, WHEREAS, tile recommendations of this assessment included tile following: Amending ordinances governing land use permitting procedures; Creating an Administrative Determination/Code Interpretation process; Preparing Rules of Procedure for hearings and appeals before the BOCC and the Hearing Examiner; Creating a model format for all Jefferson County land use decisions; and, WHEREAS, the independent assessment also recommended that these documents be prepared with the input and advice of a Citizen Task Force to ensure that revised procedures are responsive to the needs of Jefferson County Citizens; and, WHEREAS, tile Citizen Task Force was recommended to exist for a short period of time to focus exclusively on procedural issues and will not be addressing policy; and, WHEREAS, citizens who were interviewed during the independent assessment were invited to apply for appointment to the Citizen Task Force. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that tile following persons are appointed to serve on the Citizen Task Force on Land Use Procedural Reform: Citizens: Bill Irwin Bill Marlow Marjorie Rogers Sandy Sandmann , Ryan Tilhnan Wendy Wrinkle Staff: Michelle Grewell Monica NIacguire APPROVED AND SIGNED tbi ~of Al Scalf ~ ~-ffS/--'~, 1997. fj . .,:, .:.:: A~EST: Lorna L. Delaney. Clerk o[ the Board JEFFERS~ COUNTY ~Ric~rd E. Wojt, Chairman ~/'~ . ~ , Da,~ie, Har~ole, ~ber Glen Huntingford, Member Citizen Task Force On Land Use Procedural Reform MISSION AND ASSIGNMENT Mission of the Task Force: To reform Jefferson County's land use permit system by developing clear and concise procedures for land use permit applications and appeals. Assignment: The Task Force will send four documents to the BOCC with a recommendation for adoption: 1. A revised Consolidated Permit Review Ordinance that clearly and concisely states the procedures for land use development applications and appeals. o A Code Interpretation Ordinance that establishes procedures to obtain a clear administrative interpretation of land use codes. This procedure will provide one definitive answer, and alleviate the problem of citizens receiving different answers from different persons. These administrative decisions could be filed with the BOCC and be appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Rules of Procedure for all hearings on permit applications and appeals. These rules will clearly state the procedures followed during quasi-judicial hearings before the Hearing Examiner and the BOCC. Guidelines for Decisions for all land use decisions. This document will require a uniform approach to all land use decisions whether by the Administrator, the Hearing Examiner or the BOCC. These guidelines will also ensure that all decisions are based on clear findings and criteria. The decisions could be filed and easily referenced for guidance as to how similar applications or appeals have been decided. Citizen Task Force on Land Use Procedural Reform Task Force Meeting # 1, Agenda Item # 2 Citizen Task Force On Land Use Procedural Reform PROPOSED GROUNDRULES I. Mission of the Citizen Task Force The mission of this Citizen Task Force is to reform Jefferson County's land use permit system by developing clear and concise procedures for land use permit applications and appeals. Participation in the Citizen Task Force A. General All participants in the Citizen Task Force agree to: · Attend each meeting and arrive on time; · Accept the responsibility to come to meetings prepared for discussion, and to educate themselves on issues; · Contact the facilitator as needed between meetings to resolve as many issues as possible without taking up time of the entire Citizen Task Force; · Act in "good faith" in all aspects of the process. This is defined by commitment to the purpose of the group, to the groundrules, and to seeking consensus solutions; · Work in the spirit of mutual problem-solving; · Clearly state their own concerns and interests, listen carefully to others, and explore issues from all points of view before forming conclusions; · Recognize the legitimacy of the concerns and interests of others, whether or not they are in agreement with them; and · Refrain from personal attacks and characterizations. B. Citizen Members As the volunteer members of this Citizen Task Force, the value of each citizen participant's time is strongly recognized. To ensure that this donation of time is used most efficiently, all citizen members agree to enter into dialogue with the intent of reaching consensus on the specific procedural reforms requested by the Board of County Commissioners. C. Professional Staff A primary purpose for convening a Citizen Task Force is to provide government with an opportunity to listen to citizens. To this end, the main role of County stagwill be to listen to the issues and concerns voiced by the Citizen members. Stag expertise is valued, and staff should participate in the discussion to answer questions or clarify issues as needed. Staff should also share ideas for solutions with ordinance drafters between meetings D. Observers Observers are welcome at all Citizen Task Force meetings. In addition, observers are encouraged to provided written comments or suggestions to the facilitator throughout the process. Observers will not be seated at the table or participate in the discussions during the meetings. III. Citizen Task Force Meetings · Meetings will be task oriented with agenda and background materials prepared and distributed in advance. Members will assist in identifying relevant information that should be included. · Meetings will begin and end on time. · Members will seek to share discussion time, encouraging everyone to fully participate. IV. Reports A meeting summary, rather than meeting minutes, will be compiled by the facilitator. However, the primary written product of the Citizen Task Force will be the ordinances and other documents assigned to the Citizen Task Force. Citizen Task Force on Land Use Procedural Reform Task Force Meeting # 1, Agenda Item # 3 Page 2 CONSENSUS DISCUSSION GUIDELINES FOR PARTICIPANTS REACHING CONSENSUS .Support each other. Listen carefully with an open mind. Share discussion time; don't dominate by ,'~,m~dng too much time or repeating pohnns already effectively made. Seek to understand each other's interests. .State your own interests and needs clearly. Avoid premature positions. __Seek out differences of opinion. Discuss underlying assumptions. Identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Avoid procedures which reduce conflict tOo quickly such as voting, bargaining or compromising. Build on those ideas with which you can agee somewhat. Avoid blindly arg-uing for your own point of view. When you get stuck in discussion, look for the next most acceptable alternative for everyone; or table the issue and come back to it later. Ask questions as much as possible, avoid making rhetorical points, this helps others to consider ideas with an open mind. It's OK to change your mind or your opinion. Stay open. Always check for clearness or accuracy of information when it seems fuzzy or wrong to you. Ask for clar/fication. As proposals emerge, state what elements you can support and why and what elements you cannot support and why. Be willing to keep m.Ik/ng a.nd explo~ng solutions to areas of disagreement. __Separate people from the problem. Avoid blaming. Judge ideas, not personalities. __Keep inventing and modifying solutions undl a consensus emerges. Citizen Task Force On Land Use Procedura! Reform DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR TASK FORCE MEETING # 1 There are a number of choices that the Task Force should consider in providing guidance into ordinance drafting. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate your thinking on a few of these issues prior to the discussion at the first Task Force Meeting. It is not necessary for the Task Force to make a final decision on these issues at the meeting; the purpose of the discussion is to provide a clear understanding of the pros and cons of different options. A first draft of the ordinance to address as many of the issues and concerns as possible. The Task Force will then have the opportunity to review and comment on the draft ordinance prior to our next meeting. The following discussion addresses four key areas: the ordinance structure, the decision- making process, code interpretation issues, and the timeframe for decision-making. I. Ordinance Structure and Approach A key finding in the interviews was that virtually every one wants clear and concise ordinances. People want the County's codes to be "user-friendly" and easy to read and understand. In addition, the legal review of the permit review ordinance conducted during Phase I of the Land Use Review Project revealed some problems in the existing Permit Review Ordinance. The legal review also determined that many provisions of the current ordinance need not be in ordinance form. It is possible to replace the existing ordinance with a simpler, more concise ordinance. Each of the County's land use ordinances presently contain procedural provisions that are sometimes in conflict with the County's Consolidated Permit Review Ordinance. For example, both the subdivision ordinance and the permit review ordinance discuss procedures for review of a preliminary plat application. This happened because the Permit Review Ordinance passed in 1995 did not expressly repeal some of the provisions in other codes that deal with procedures. These sometimes conflicting provisions create confusion. Placement of all procedures in one code and removing them from all others would make it easier for all to understand the procedures applicable to permit review. Questions for the Task Force: Should we prepare a new ordinance or amend existing consolidated permit review ordinance? Should we place all procedures in one code or retain procedures placed throughout land use codes including zoning, subdivision, critical area, shoreline and SEPA? Citizen Task Force on Land Use Procedural Reform Task Force Meeting # 1, Agenda Item # 5 Page 1 3. Should we simplify the ordinance by removing unnecessary sections? 4. Are there other ideas for improving ordinance structure and approach? IL Decision-Making Process Many persons interviewed expressed frustration with the length of time taken to arrive at a final decision on permit applications. People expressed a strong desire for predictability--both in terms of who has the authority to make the decision, and when a final decision will be made. A. Decision-Making Authority The State legislature enacted some requirements in 1995 that provide local governments some options as to where to assign decision-making authority. The Regulatory Reform Act authorized local governments to give greater decision-making authority to an Administrator or Hearing Examiner. The Act also limits the number of hearings to only one pre-decision hearing and one appeal hearing by local government. As a result, some jurisdictions have placed greater decision-making authority in the hands of the Administrator. In these jurisdictions, the Administrator is authorized to make a decision on some permit applications without first holding a hearing. The opportunity for a hearing is not eliminated; the hearing would take place as an open record appeal hearing if the Administrator was challenged. Other jurisdictions have given final decision-making authority to the Hearing Examiner with an appeal to Superior Court. There are several reasons for this: One decision-maker is often held more accountable than a board of decision-makers; decisions are made more quickly (within 10 days); and the BOCC is freed to focus on public policy instead of individual decisions. Questions for the Task Force: Should the BOCC make final decisions on most permit applications or should the Administrator and Hearing Examiner make final decisions on most permit applications? Should final decisions of the Administrator be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, the BOCC or Superior Court? Should final decisions of the Hearing Examiner be appealed to the BOCC or Superior Court? Citizen Task Force on Land Use Procedural Reform Task Force Meeting # 1, Agenda Item # 5 Page 2 8. Should all decisions be made after an open record public hearing or should some decisions be made without a hearing with the opportunity for an open record appeal? B. Timing of Decisions The legislature enacted some deadlines in response to concerns about the timeliness of land use decision-making. The Regulatory Reform Act requires that certain land use permit decisions be made within 120 days from the time of an application is complete. This is the maximum allowed. Local jurisdictions may choose to require some or all decisions to be made more rapidly, but local governments may not enact a timeframe that exceeds the 120 days. Similarly, state law requires all appeals to decided within 90 days, but local governments may enact a shorter timeframe. Questions for the Task Force: Should all land use permit decisions be processed in a maximum of 120 days from the time of complete application or should the deadline for some decisions be shorter than 120 days? 10. Should all land use permit appeals be decided in a maximum of 90 days from the time of filing or should the deadline for some decisions be shorter than 90 days? 11. Do Task Force members have any other ideas for increasing the efficiency and timeliness of permit decision-making? III. Code Interpretation Persons interviewed consistently expressed a strong desire for three things: clear and concise ordinances, compliance with the ordinances, and consistency in decision- making. It is 'not always easy to have ordinances that are both clear and concise, and that clearly apply to every situation that may arise. Persons interviewed understood that ordinances cannot be written to address every possible nuance or situation--but people have a genuine need for consistent interpretation of how the ordinances will be applied to certain situations. Code interpretation procedures allow citizens to ask for the "final word". It is a process where questions can be formally asked and answered, and the answers can be appealed. Final answers are then filed and referred to when similar questions are raised. This alloxvs for greater consistency and predictability in decision- making. It is a simpler process than amending the code, and protects the code from numerous "special circumstance" amendments that can clutter and Confuse the code. Citizen Task Force on Land Use Procedural Reform Task Force Meeting # 1, Agenda Item # 5 Page 3 Questions for the Task Force: 12. Should a code interpretation be allowed only during the processing of a complete application or should a code interpretation be allowed with reference to any specific development proposal dur/ng the pre-application process? 13. Should code interpretation decisions be appealed to the Hearing Examiner or the BOCC? 14. Do Task Force members have .any other ideas for effective code interpretation procedures? IV. Other Issues There are undoubtedly other issues that will come up as we begin to prepare the ordinances and other documents requested by the BOCC. These will be highlighted during our second Task Force Meeting when we review the draft ordinances. Questions for the Task Force: 15. Are there other issues we should focus on prior to writing the first draft of the ordinance? Citizen Task Force on Land Use Procedural Reform Task Force Meeting # 1, Agenda Item # 5 Page 4 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD O.F COMMISSIONERS Agenda Item Information/Description .~ Regular Business FOR WEEK OF: March 23, '1998 Description -- a brief description of the agenda item: Please include project, road, contract, grant, etc. number if one is available for the Commissioner Index. Proposed Procedural Reform Ordinances which were reviewed by the Planning Commission. See attached memo and staff comments. Issue -- a short outline of the issue: including policy issue falls within; strategy or objective issue supports; key reference areas (law/policy/regulation): g Opportunity Analysis --What is the type of action Board is being asked to take: Discussion/decision--if decision--what is the range of possible solutions considered by the department in preparing its recommendation. Specific Departmental Recommendation -- why was the action recommended and what would be the impact of not taking the action: What specific action is necessary by the BOCC approval - adoption - deny - remand back to department. Review, discuss, and make possible decision on the Planning Commission recommendation. Review Process -- If this issue was sent back for further review by the Board, please indicate the If the review is simply good business policy-indicate what reviews have taken additional reviews undertaken. place. ~--~ Risk Management ~ Fiscal/Budget [--~ Public Services Director ~-~ Legal/Prosecuting Attorney r-~ Department Head [~ Board Management Team [] Other impacted Departments - Please list Work Plan including What, Who, When and How has been completed. ~ YES (Please provide copy) ~_J NO (Why Not?) (Check one) Jefferson County Planning Commission COURTHOUSE: PORTTOWNSE:ND, WASHINGTON SS~iGB March 18, 1998 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners Planning Commission Al Scalf, Director, Department of Community Development Concerns of the Planning Commission on the Proposed Reform Ordinances Minutes will be available in the Boards packet on April 6. Procedural MOTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Remand the documents to the Department of Community Development Staff for further review and revision and then come back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Motion Passed - 8 For; 0 Against; 1 Abstained Main Concerns and Recommendations Appellant Examiner -concern over the legal status of the Appellant Examiner in non- charter counties in the closed record appeal process. (9 members agree). The types of decisions A,B,C are lumped together; need more categories. (9 agree) The BOCC needs to be heating the Closed Record Appeal. (8 agree) Board of County Commissioners March 18, 1998 Page 2 This needs to include a procedure for amending this ordinance. (9 agree) The Planning Commission needs a role in this ordinance, by incorporating page 14 and 15 (Legislative Decisions) of existing ordinance. The staff needs a comprehensive procedural ordinance including all the land use codes. (9 agree) Time allocated for designated actions differ between codes and state law. (9 agree) Progressively the permit process needs to provide a clear definition of processing data, procedures, time, cost, qualifications of the data (studies and reports); and the applicant be assured that these are the requirements without changes. Section 8 should have an additional subsection D that stipulates what the County's responsibility is to clearly notify the applicant what the process is and what information is required of the applicant. (9 agree) Distrust in government comes from constant change and no stable data for the public. (9 agree) Parcels need to have recorded surveys. (2 agree) Implement SEPA/Planned Actions/SubArea Plan for an entire area and adopt by reference for projects which will expedite the permit review process, in an appropriate comprehensive document. (See page 32, (Categorically Exempt and Planned Actions) of existing ordinance Procedures for exemptions (such as Boundary Line Adjustments) should be included in ordinance. (9 agree) The document needs clarity on who can appeal a decision. (9 agree) Procedural reform shall not have as a consequence any reduction in public participation in permit application review unless required by state statutory or administrative code. (9 agree) Property needs to be posted, and a time limit established for placing and removing. (9 agree) The Planning Commission should be involved in site specific rezones. Board of County Commissioners March 18, 1998 Page 3 The solution to the problem may lie in a different direction than the one taken by the BOCC in hiring the consultants for the Land Use Procedural Reform Project (Land Use procedures may not be real problems?) Clear and concise language, the document could be reduced in overall number of pages (7 agree) The applicant needs to understand the process like standard checklists and flow charts with fee schedule so people know what they need to know up front Service to the People of the County, someone to help you through the process, hold them by the hand and lead them through the process, a change of attitude at the permit center would be nice, outreach and public education is needed. Staffing levels may not be sufficient. The staff comments should be given considerable weight. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA MACGUIRE '~ PROCEDURAL ORDINANCE The Procedural Ordinance that you are currently reviewing contains several errors, which need your consideration. There are also policy issues, which you may or may not wish to deliberate. 1. In Chapter two, section two: Terms, a number of items are listed as being defined elsewhere. This is redundant, since the terms are defined in Chapter one. This section needs to be deleted. There are a number of definitions missing from the proposed ordinance that are in the existing ordinance. Some of the existing definitions should be included in the proposed ordinance. In Chapter two. section six, Temporary Uses, Home Businesses, and AlDUs have been handled as administrative decisions with no notice of application. As the ordinance is now set up, these permit applications will require a notice of application and a thirty day comment pedod before a decision is made. These decisions should be changed to administrative decisions. An extra type should be added that is labeled Administrative Decisions not requiring a notice of application. The decisions are still subject to the 120 day regulatory reform clock, but not the public notice requirements. In the same section, number 5 should read condominium subdivisions of fewer than four (2- 4) lots; this would be consistent with number 8. Likewise, number 6 should read the mobile home parks of fewer than four (2-4) spaces. A short subdivision is the division of land into two to four pieces. It requires a notice of application to be published in the local newspaper, posting of the property, etc. The administrator makes the final decision; no public hearing is required. A long subdivision is the division of land into five or more pieces. Long subdivisions require public hearings and decisions made by either a/cIearing Examiner or the Legislative Body. Jurisdictions are allowed to increase the number of lots that are considered and decided by the administrator--without a public hearing--as long as the notice of application informs the public that any person may request a public hearing. Jefferson County has established a threshold of 14 lots in its subdivision ordinance. What this means is that once the threshold is established, the subdivision is still reviewed to the same standards as a long subdivision, but that we may follow the short subdivision procedure. In Jefferson County, the segregation of 3/16/98 MEMORANDUM: PROCEDURAL ORDINANCE 10. property into fifteen or more lots always requires a public hearing and a decision made by the Hearing Examiner. This is not clear in the proposed ordinance. Another type of permit should be added; for discussion purposes let me call it type Al. Type A1 permits would be those permits (divisions of property into 5 to 14 pieces) that are administrative decisions, but may require a public hearing and a decision made by the Hearing Examiner. Plat alterations are currently reviewed as administrative decisions. This is probably appropriate if the applicant is revising less than fifteen lots, given the definition of alteration. The subdivision ordinance defines alteration as any change to a final plat that requires a reconfigurafion of lot, block, tract, etc. The subdivision ordinance at one time distinguished between administrative and Hearing Examiner decisions on alterations--four or fewer lots being altered would be considered and decided by the administrator and five or more lots would be considered and decided by the Hearing Examiner. If the Planning Commission does not choose to consider this item at this time, it may wish to revisit the issue when they revise the subdivision ordinance. Plat vacations are currently reviewed as legislative or Board of County Commissioner decisions. The proposed ordinance will make all vacations administrative decisions. The subdivision ordinance at one time distinguished between administrative and Heating Examiner decisions on vacations based on the number of lots--the same as the above. The Planning Commission may wish to revisit this issue also when they revise the subdivision ordinance. Shoreline Substantial Development permits for primary uses should be moved to type B. Primary uses used to be administratively reviewed; there was no requirement for a public hearing; they were approved or denied by the Board. The most recent amendment did not move them to an administrative decision, but requires primary uses to have a public hearing and a decision by the Hearing Examiner. If we do not wish to get into yet another shoreline amendment process, primary uses should be moved to Type B. The Planning Commission may wish to reconsider the placement of primary uses when they rewrite the Shoreline Master Program. Primary uses are those uses that are deemed most preferable in the shoreline jurisdiction. Once a use has been identified by ordinance as primary or most preferable, the review could easily be administrative without the added requirement for a public hearing. The review would continue to include compliance with the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Master Program. My co-workers have told me that the Planning Commission wishes to understand their procedural role. If the Planning Commission were charged with making recommendations to the Board about a Comprehensive Plan or an implementing ordinance, it would seem that the same body may wish to have a role in any type of rezone. The Planning Commission may wish to review Planned Unit Developments and Special Uses. These types of developments can have the effect of a rezone. If the Planning Commission wishes to have some rob in reviewing a Planned Unit Development or a Special Use Permit, the most appropriate role would be to hold the public hearing and make a recommendation to the Board. At one time the Planning Commission held all of the public hearings for rezones. This is a policy issue that should be discussed by the Board and the Planning Commission. In Chapter two. section six, C. Type C .(Board of County. Commissioners Decision), there is no indication of who should hold the public hearing for site specific rezones. (Also note that the statute refers to "site specific rezones authorized by a comprehensive plan or a sub-. 3/16/98 MEMORANDUM: PROCEDURAL ORDINANCE 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. area plan") The Planning Commission may wish to hold public hearings on these itz, ms, see above. Refer to page 13, section sixteen; B. Decision Procedures. #1. Hearin~ Examiner ]~s~;alaln~:tffl:i~: The Board of County Commissioners may refer a Type C application to the Hearing Examiner for an open record hearing. Legislative Actions are not covered in the proposed ordinance as they are in the existing ordinance. The Planning Commission should review their bylaws and the land use ordinances to see if responsibilities are clearly defined. If not, then legislative actions should be added to this ordinance or placed into a separate document for approval by the Board. See numbers 9 & 10. The application review committee is missing from the proposed ordinance. The annual review of ordinances is missing from the proposed ordinance. The docketing procedure is missing from the proposed ordinance. The requirements for submittal for a pre-application conference are missing from the proposed ordinance. The timeline for holding a pre-application conference 'is missing from the proposed ordinance. 17. Expiration of pre-application conference is missing form the proposed ordinance. 18. In Chapter two, section eleven. Determination of Completeness, C.; Additional Information, should say within fourteen (14) days..., because that would comply with State law. 19. Criteria to Determine Difference Between Minor and Substantial Revisions to a Complete Application are missing, see page 21 of existing ordinance. This is a critical issue in determining if an applicant must reapply, etc. 20. Vesting Rule is missing, see page 21-22 of existing ordinance. This had been reviewed extensively by our Prosecuting Attorney when the existing ordinance was drafted and adopted. It may not be appropriate in the proposed ordinance, but could use some discussion. 21. In Chapter two. section twelve, Application Time Frames. B. Calculation of Time, #4, there are no criteria for extension of a timeline for review. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss this. 22. Chapter two, section twelve, C. Exception to Time Limits, #3 does not define revision of application, see above #18. 23. Chapter two, section thirteen. C. Notice of Application and Public Comment Period-- Notice to Public. #1 needs to be changed from seven (7) calendar days to fourteen (14) calendar days. Since we operate with a weekly newspaper that has specific times for submission, this allows some leeway for publication. It's also consistent with state law. 3/16/98 3 MEMORANDUM: PROCEDURAL ORDINANCE 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. In the same section as above, the posting of the property is missing. This is an essential element in encouraging public participation and one of the two recommended methods of notice cited in the state law. The "official posting places of the County" are unknown to me at this time. Some checking with the Clerk of the Board needs to occur. The section on SEPA review needs to be examined in light of the new SEPA rules. Chapter two. Section thirteen. C.. #3. Notice of Application Content¢ is missing a statement A description of the proposed project action and a list of project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested. The identification of other permits not included in the application to the extent known by the local government. This comes out of the state statute. See page 23 of existing ordinance; section E. Public Comment on the Notice of Application is missing. The proposed ordinance does not cover review of an application or the routing of comments. See page 23 Referral and Review of Development Permit Applications. This was included in the existing ordinance because there was a history of confusion about referral and review. The proposed ordinance does not cover posting 'of the property except to say that the property shall be posted before the public hearing. The County had a long history of people not posting correctly; when we adopted the existing ordinance with clear posting procedures, this problem was eliminated. The optional public notice section from the existing ordinance has been eliminated. This optional list is taken directly from the state statute. Although it is optional, it is unlikely that an administrator is going to refer to the state statute for this list. It is a matter of convenience that the list be included in the proposed ordinance. Removal of notice boards is not included in the proposed ordinance. On page 12 of the proposed ordinance, section fourteen, F. Effect of Decision, the phrase "with the Hearing Examiner" should be deleted. Moving right along, sections seventeen and eighteen in the proposed ordinance deal with open record and closed record appeals. Of grave concem is the limitation in public participation in the proposed ordinance. Under C. on page 15, participation in the open record appeal hearing is restricted to the applicant, the applicant's representative, the appellant, the appellant's representative, staff, and any witnesses called by the appellant or applicant. This brings a level of formality to the public testimony process that Jefferson County has not yet experienced. Although this is not inappropriate, it is a dramatic departure from past practice. 34. Appeals should be filed at the Permit Center; we have always collected fees, etc. for appeals. 3/16/98 4 MEMORANDUM: PROCEDURAL ORDINANCE TZ~s of Permits: The "types" of permits outlined in the proposed ordinance need to be expanded. The problem occurred with over simplification. The proposed ordinance separates permit types by decision- maker. The division of types needs to consider public notice requirements in coniunction with decision-maker requirements. For example there are two kinds of administrative decisions: those that have no requirement for publishing or posting of public notice and those that do have required publishing and posting of notice. As pointed out in number 5 of this memorandum, there is yet another type of process for those subdivisions of between 5 and 14 lots. They can be either an administrative decision or a heating examiner decision, depending upon whether or not someone requests a public heating. Yet another type of application is indicated. Legislative actions include amendments to plans or ordinances, rezones--in other words, legislative actions are policy issues. It is customary for citizen bodies to be fomaed, the Planning Commission, to develop land use policies and to hold public hearings on proposed land use policies. The legislative body, the Board, is the only body allowed to make decisions about proposed policies. The existing ordinance includes a section on legislative actions; the proposed ordinance contains very little and does not include the Planning Commission at all in a site-specific rezone. This may or may not be the preferred alternative for the Planning Commission, but it is a policy issue that has some relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and all of our implementing ordinances and vearrants some discussion. The other issue is whether or not legislative actions should be covered in this proposed procedural ordinance. The Zoning Code and the Shoreline Master Program contain statements about the role of the Planning Commission. On page 81, section 19.80 of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing all applications for zoning reclassification (rezones), and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. In section eight of the Shoreline Master Program, "the Jefferson County Planning Commission shall develop and/or review any proposed amendments and adjustments to this Master Program and make recommendations relative thereto to the Board of County Commissioners." The Subdivision Ordinance is silent, as are other ordinances. If the Planning Commission is tO have a role in revising ordinances, the procedures for revision should be spelled out someplace. The Regulatory Reform Act requires us toprovide aprocedure for any interested person to suggest plan or development regulation amendments. We must docket the suggested changes. Further, "docketing refers to compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner that will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the county or city and will be available for review by the public." Devdopment regulations is defined and means the controls placed on development or land use activities by a county; this includes zoning codes, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, planned unit development ordinances, etc. At any rate, it seems that this needs to be spelled out for the benefit of the public, the staff, etc., rather than eliminated from our only 3/16/98 5 I%'fP. MORANDUM: PROCEDURAL ORDINANCE procedural document. This could be done in a separate ordinance or included in the proposed ordinance. Site specific rezones need to be discussed and defined. Are they defined in the comprehensive plan? See number All of the rest of the noted concems in the procedural document should be addressed appropriately. Additionally, appendix A needs to be revised; appendix B should be written---see attached example. The Planning Commission may wish to direct the staff to include other permit types. For instance, the "approvals required by critical areas ordinances" is specifically defined in the state statute as a project permit. This means that it is subject to the same rules as all of the other items cited in section six. But, we do not list this in section six. Nor are any of the procedures in the Forest Lands Ordinance, the Mineral Lands Ordinance, the Agricultural Lands Ordinance, etc. listed. In any event, if we are looking at revising our major procedural document, we may wish to be a little more thorough. Recommendation: Remand the document to staff for review and revision. Staff should then correct and route the document to the various affected depaxunents, then bring it back to the Planning Commission for review and comment before giving it to the Board for public hearing and adoption. 3/16/98 6 Appendix B Draft Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E Admin w/o N~mtn wi Hrg Exwl ncr Hrg Examiner Beard of a nolk=e of a ncRice of of app & hrg wi a nolice of .County Subdivision Exemption Short Subdivision (four or fewer) Subdivision (five to fourteen) Subdivision (fifteen or mom) MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: 3/16/98 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSXON MONICA MACGUIRE ~/~ CODE INTERPRETATION ORDINANCE The Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 requires judsdicfons to "adopt procedures for administrative interpretation of its development regulations." The Act gives no further guidance. The Zoning Ordinance contains some provision for code interpretation. On page 79, administrative determinations are outlined. Basically, the adrni.n, istrator "shall review all applications for conformance with this Ordinance, and render an administrative' decision, regarding the completeness of the application.: ." One of the requirements of completeness is consistency with the Zoning Ordinance. Administra6ve determinations can be appealed; this is covered in Section The Subdivision Ordinance contains explicit language about code interpretation: the "subdivision administrator shall have the power to prescribe specific administrative rules and procedures related to the implementation of these regulations, subject to review and recommendation by the Jefferson County Planning Commission, and confmnation by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners." The Shoreline Master Program charges the Planning Department (Pemait Center) to "make administrative decisions and interpretations regarding the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program." (Page 73) The Shoreline Master Program further states on page 84 that "any person who considers their self aggrieved by and administrative decision or interpretation associated with the Shoreline Management Act and the Master Program shall, within ten days of the date of final action, appeal in person or in writing..." The' point is that there is an existing venue for code interpretations to occur in our system. Although this proposed ordinance might be redundant, it is convenient to have it in one place for all the land use codes. ~ Citizens ask for "code interpretations" often. What the proposed ordinance does is put the process into one document. I assume that the applicable sections of the aforementioned ordinances will be repealed with this document. 3/16/98 MEMOKAND~: PROCEDUKAL ORDINANCE If that is the case, then code interpretations will be limited to applicants alone---see section two of the proposed document~ Section three does allow for any other person to apply for a code interpretation, however, they must do so prior to expiration of any appeal period. Is this confusing? Will this confusion in who may apply came a problem? There are numerous problems that can arise with a code interpretation if the petitioner is limited to the applicant. If the applicant had not yet supplied all of the information about the subject property or the proposal, it would be difficult to give a true assessment of the interpretaton. Or, the code interpretation could be too site specific, setting a precedent for future development on inappropriate sites. The role of project review settles ambiguities; in project review we assess the project against the applicable land use ordinances. This is called reviewing for consistency (it is in our existing ordinance and has been removed in the proposed ordinance). As a result of the review, ~,e make findings and place conditions, if necessary, on the permit. We then recommend approval or denial of the project. The open record heating process ensues and gives access to all the citizenry to comment on the issues, whether they are code interpretation issues or not. Another venue that works hand in hand with hhe notion of code interpretation is the docket that we are required to keep. Citizens, staff, elected .officials, etc. are endouraged to outline their concerns about changes to ordinances and submit them to the county for docketing'and annual review. Crhis is a process that needs to be included somewhere in the procedural ordinance.) Let me give you a real life example: I occasionally have citizens ask me a question or a series of questions that indicate a need for clarification. They are not in a hurry for an answer; they are simply interested citizens. This occurs with staff members also. Well, when that occurs, we place the concern or question on the docket for future review. The review will begin when we start writing our new ordinances or each time the comprehensive plan is reviewed (if it ever passes). It seems to me that the code interpretation'process that is briefly outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance makes a lot of sense. First, it allows the administrator to make the interpretation. Second, it allows review and approval by the very bodies that reviewed and approved the ordinance that is being interpreted. The very good parts of the proposed ordinance include sections four through seven, where a process is dearly spelled out. Another thought is 'to investigate the way other jurisdictions handle their procedures for code interpretation before we adopt this document. 3/16/98 2 To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Members Alice King, Assistant Planner~ March 11, 1998 Land Use Procedural Reform: Issues and Concerns CHAPTER TWO Land Use Application Procedures Section Six: Types of Land Use Applications Ao Type A (Administrative Decision) 2. Accessory Dwelling Units; 3. Home-based occupations; 4. Temporary Uses 11. Shoreline Exemptions Section Thirteen: Public Notice Requirements A. When Required All Type A, B and C land use applications require the following public notification: 1. Notice of application and public comment period Is it the intention of this ordinance to require the above permits to publish a notice of application with a 30-day comment period? · Why a 30-day comment period? How does this work with standard SEPA review? Currently long subdivisions of between 5-14 lots and mobile home parks proposing between 5-14 lots have a provision for a public hearing to be requested by a member of the public or at the discretion of the Planning Department. The Commission may want to review RCW 58.17.095 (1) (3) and (4) regarding such a provision in the notice of application. · The Appellate Examiner that takes the Board completely out of the loop. Has anyone looked into what this new contract position would cost Jefferson County? Site specific rezones go directly to the Board. The Board can choose to send the request to the Hearing Examiner (Section Sixteen: B (1)). If a "site specific" rezone requires the amending of the Comprehensive Plan map, should the hearing be returned to the Planning Commission? · The legislative decision process needs to be included in this ordinance as it was in the previous. The ordinance should contain criteria to differentiate between minor and substantial revisions to applications (as did the previous ordinance). "Major revisions" should be considered "new" and comply with all current regulations and standards. concerns CHAPTER THREE Code Interpretation This section seems to create another level of possible procedural errors and substantive appeals prior to an application being submitted. The applicant will take the code interpretation as a blessing of his project although the Director will not have had a complete application and all the information that entails upon which to base his code interpretation. If the project gets hung-up on some other issue after application, the applicant may feel set-up. · Section Five: Procedure for Processing an Application for Code Interpretation B. Notice Contents (5) change to the appeal needing to be filed within ten (10) working days of the date of publication of the notice of decision as opposed to the date of the interpretation. · Section Six: Appeal of a Code Interpretation Decision A. Filing an Appeal. Same change from date of the interpretation to date of publication of the notice of decision Section Eight: Effect of Code Interpretation Code interpretations "shall have the same effect as any provision of the land use regulations" without the benefit of review by the Board, the Prosecuting Attorney's office or the Planning Commission. Should code interpretations be docketed for annual ordinance revisions? Section Nine: Permanent Record of Code Interpretations What does it mean for decision to be "filed with" the Planning Commission"? ¢ollcerrl5 RCW 58.17.095 Ordinance may authorize administrative review of preliminary plat without public hearing. A county, city, or town may adopt an ordinance providing for the administrative review of a preliminary plat without a public hearing by adopting an ordinance providing for such administrative review. The ordinance may specify a threshold number of lots in a subdivision above which a public hearing must be held, and may specify other factors which necessitate the holding of a public hearing. The administrative review process shall include the following minimum conditions: <Picture>(1) The notice requirements of RCW 58.17.090 shall be followed, except that the publication shall be made within ten days of the filing of the application. Additionally, at least ten days after the filing of the application notice both shall be: (a) Posted on or around the land proposed to be subdivided in at least five conspicuous places designed to attract public awareness of the proposal; and (b) mailed to the owner of each lot or parcel of property located within at least three hundred feet of the site. The applicant shall provide the county, city, or town with a list of such property owners and their addresses. The notice shall include notification that no public hearing will be held on the application, except as provided by this section. The notice shall set out the procedures and time limitations for persons to require a public hearing and make comments. <Picture>(2) Any person shall have a period of twenty days from the date of the notice to comment upon the proposed preliminary plat. All comments received shall be provided to the applicant. The applicant has seven days from receipt of the comments to respond thereto. <Picture>(3) A public hearing on the proposed subdivision shall be held if any person files a request for a hearing with the county, city, or town within twenty-one days of the publishing of such notice. If such a hearing is requested, notice requirements for the public hearing shall be in conformance with RCW 58.17.090, and the ninety-day period for approval or disapproval of the proposed subdivision provided for in RCW 58.17.140 shall commence with the date of the filing of the request for a public hearing. Any heating ordered under this subsection shall be conducted by the planning commission or hearings officer as required by county or city ordinance. <Picture>(4) On its own initiative within twenty-one days of the filing of the request for approval of the subdivision, the governing body, or a designated employee or official, of the county, city, or town, shall be authorized to cause a public heating to be held on the proposed subdivision within ninety days of the filing of the request for the subdivision. <Picture>(5) If the public heating is waived as provided in this section, the planning commission or planning agency shall complete the review of the proposed preliminary plat and transmit its recommendation to the legislative body as provided in RCW 58.17.100. [1986 c 233 § 1.] Differences between Old and New Procedural Ordinances Old Type Description New Type Type I Administrative Without Notice of Application Exemption Type II Administrative WithNotice of Application A Type III Notice of Application and Public Hearing before Hearing Examiner B Type IV BOCC - Administrative Review C Type V BOCC - Legislative Review Permit Old New Difference Accessory Dwellings Type I A Type I had no notice; Type A has notice Home-based Businesses Type I A Type I had no notice; Type A has notice Shoreline Exemptions Type I A Type I had no notice; Type A has notice Temporary Uses Type III A This was a mistake in the "pink" ordinance, should have been Type I; Type I had no notice; Type A has notice Subdivision exemption Type I A Type I had no notice; Type A has notice. BLAs are exempt from new ordinance so no change there Short Plat 2-4 Type II A No change except for closed record appeal process MHP less than 4 Type II A No change except for closed record appeal process Condo 2-4 Type II A No change except for closed record appeal process Long Plat 5-14 Type II A Formerly open record pre-decision hearing option; no pre-decision hearing option in new ordinance MHP 5-14 Type II A Formerly open record pre-decision hearing option; no pre-decision hearing option in new ordinance Condo 5-14 Type II B Formerly open record pre-decision hearing option; new ord. requires pre-decision hearing for 5 or more Plat Alterations Type II A No change* except for closed record appeal process Vacation of Plats Type III A HE recommendation to Bd./ Administrative decision SDPs - Primary Type II A Amended to Type III (B); closed record appeal process Long Plat 15+ Type III B No change except for closed record appeal process MHP 15+ Type III B No change except for closed record appeal process Condo 15+ Type III B No change except for closed record appeal process Commercial/Ind. Park Type III B No change except for closed record appeal process RV Parks Type III B No change except for closed record appeal process Camper Clubs Type III 13 No change except for closed record appeal process Zoning Variances Type III 13 No change except for closed record appeal process Conditional Uses Type III B No change except for closed record appeal process PUDs Type III B No change except for closed record appeal process Special Use Type III B No change except for closed record appeal process Site Specific Rezones Type III C HE final decision (Special Use Permit) to BOCC decision with optional HE recommendation to Bd. SDPs - Secondary Type IV B Amended to Type III; closed record appeal process Shoreline Variance Type IV B Amended to Type III; closed record appeal process Shoreline Cond Uses Type IV B Amended to Type III; closed record appeal process Text Amendments Type V Planning Commission recommendation; Area-wide Zoning Not affected by new ordinance Development Regs * We continue to advertise the pre-decision hearing option referenced in the subdivision ordinance March 18, 1998 To~ Fr: Re: Planning Commission Harriet Beale, ~sociate Planner Comments on Procedural Ordinance Issues and questions noted in a review of the February 28, 1998 draft ordinance: Section 6: Types of Land Use Applications 1. Shoreline SDP for Primary Use Under Type A, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits for Primary Use should be moved to Type B, requiring a Public Hearing. The recent amendment to the Shoreline Master Program accomplished this. Primary Uses cover allowed uses which may not qualify as exemptions. Because the SMA exempts a large variety of projects, the SDP for primary uses has been determined to be more than a "small" or "routine" project, which the consultants stated was the purpose of Type A permits. In the recent SMP amendment, these permits were changed to be included in those requiring a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and this ordinance would be inconsistent with the amended SMP. Recommendation: Shoreline Substantial Development Permits for primary uses should be moved to Type B. 2. Legislative actions Section 6.C.2 should include either: 1) a reference to the JCC section in which the process for legislative actions can be found; or 2) incorporate the language of the current Optional Consolidated Review Process JCC 2.15.02.005 which describes the process for legislative action. Recommendation: It seems most appropriate to provide this information in the procedural ordinance, so that all procedures are contained in this ordinance. Incorporating the current ordinance language is recommended. Section 17: Appeal' Procedures - Type A Decision Appeals of administrative decisions are to be filed within 14 days of the decision. The Shoreline Master Program has a 1 O-day timeline for appeals of shoreline exemption decisions. This 1 O-day appeal period is not required in the Shoreline Management Act or WACs, and therefore may be able to be changed to 14 days. However, the 14-day appeal period is inconsistent with the SMP for shoreline exemptions, which are under Type A as administrative appeals. Recommendation: Options: 1) Include separate requirement for Shoreline exemptions to be appealed within 10 days; or 2) Amend the SMP procedurally to allow for 14 day appeal period.. Appendix A - Application Requirements Matrix Shoreline exemptions may include projects which need to be reviewed for evidence of adequate water supply. Under state law, single family residences may be approved under an exemption. Recommendation: Designate "sometimes required" under shoreline exemption for evidence of adequate water supply. SEPA The existing ordinance has a section (2.15.05 JCC) on Consistency with Development Regulations and SEPA. The relationship between permitting procedures and SEPA review is in one place, which is clearer for the applicant. The draft ordinance is somewhat vague and unclear on the SEPA relationship. Recommendation: Include an individual section on SEPA. The existing ordinance language could serve as a basis and be revised as needed for this ordinance. Code Interpretation While the intent is to improve consistency of decisions, it appears to add another level of review. Not only will an applicant and permitting staff have to check the ordinances, he/she will have to research any code interpretations of sites with similar conditions. I have the following concerns: · The language in section 8 implies that the interpretation has the weight of law. These are "filed with" the Prosecutor's office - should they be reviewing and approving them as consistent with the law? · Currently, a land use decision is a "code interpretation," and therefore the law is clarified/interpreted in the decision. The decision can be appealed if there is a disagreement with the interpretation. · A code interpretation in the applicant's favor without the full application may cause problems if the application is later denied for other reasons. A request for code interpretation may not frame the question to include all aspects of the project, and approval could create false expectations. · The extra level of review for a code interpretation and appeal of that code interpretation based on a pre-application or an application, creates another review process, public notice, procedures, and appeal procedures. Appeals of land use decisions generally result in substantial additional work for permitting staff. This could increase the work load and complexity of permitting, not simplify it. It is likely that the request for a code interpretation would be made for sites with complex problems, and there could be procedural and legal argument as to whether subsequent projects that may be similar but are not exactly the same are subject to previous code interpretations. This could creme greater ambiguity and confusion, as well as the additional procedural steps. The County can interpret the code in the land use decision rather than introducing this risk of additional legal actions, as well as additional cost and time to the applicant and the County. If the concern is consistency of decisions, a tracking system for land use decisions could be developed according to the sections of the code the decision is based on, with access for staff and the public. The draft Comp Plan has policies to protect uses in surrounding areas and preserve rural character that are broader than site-specific questions. A code interpretation for one site may not be applicable to another depending on the public comment received during the application process, which could increase the difficulty of applying a previous code interpretation to a new project. It is not clear that creating this new procedural element will promote more consistent land use decisions, but instead could result in multiple legal actions and more confusion about which code interpretations can be applied to proposed projects. The complexity could result in additional work and mistakes in procedures, resulting in possible rulings against the County on procedural grounds. This appears to replace one procedure (land use decisions) with two. I would prefer one procedure based on the full application, and do not see the overall benefit of this process to the County, considering the added work load and legal risk. Recommendation: 1. Examine other means of tracking code intepretations through land use decisions and make them accessible to interested parties. Inconsistencies in decisions under similar circumstances can be raised by applicants in an appeal of the land use decision. 2. If the code interpretation procedures are to be included, the language should include disclaimers to warn the public that a code interpretation alone does not vest a project, that it is not a guarantee of project approval until the full application is reviewed and approved, and that projects with apparently similar conditions may have differences related to (draft) Comp Plan policies about preserving the rural character of the area, or protecting adjacent land uses, which may not always be covered in a site-specific question of code interpretation as framed by an applicant. James M. Driscoll (206) 628-0039 (Also admitted to practice in Montana) January l4, 1999 DRISCOLL & HUNTER ATFORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SurrE 607, OLYMPIC BUILDING ['~'~l SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104-22[~ 7~)dore Paul Hunter Fax (206) 628-0953 JA[4 1 5 19~,q. (206) 628-0700 F^x/MODEM (206) 628-0514 JEFFERSON COUN'rY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Board of Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 The Land Use Procedural Reform Project: Final Report to the BOCC Dear Commiss~o.ners }-!v..ntingf?'d, Wojt & Ho, rpole: We have worked closely with the BOCC over the past several months to help initiate reform of the Jefferson County Land Use Code. With your support and guidance, we focused on identification of liability exposure; revision of permit procedures; legal defensibility of the comprehensive plan; preparation of a code compliance program; and training of your professional planners. The BOCC has implemented many significant reforms. The Procedural Reform Ordinance, Rules of Procedure and Model Decision Format are now in place. This procedural reform package - prepared in consultation with a Citizen Task Force - removes much of the liability exposure that existed in prior codes. You adopted a Code Interpretation Ordinance that gives your Planning Director a helpful tool to clarify ambiguities in your development regulations. You supported the training sessions we designed for your planners to help update them on the law. You responded quickly to the recommendations of the Coordination & Consistency Team in order to timely adopt a legally defensible Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Important work remains to be done. The need for an enhanced code enforcement program was identified as a high priority during the citizen interview phase of our work with you. A prepozed Code '" .... ': ....~" · ~,J,uFuan~e ormnance awaits attention by the BOCC. Also, the goal of an integrated Jefferson County Land Use Code that emerged from work of the Task Force is not yet accomplished. Progress toward this goal is highly dependent upon careful drafting of your development regulations. We provided a template to guide this drafting and recommend it be used to help address liability exposure identified in your current codes. Adoption of revised development regulations is the most important aspect of land use reform that remains to be done. We urge you to move forward expeditiously to accomplish this task. Failure to adopt development regulations continues to expose the county to legal liability in two ways. First, the Growth Management Act states that development regulations should be adopted within six months of adoption of the comprehensive plan. Failure to do so could result in a petition to the GMA Board. Second, a recent Washington State Supreme Court decision holds that development regulations adopted prior to a comprehensive plan will control over the language of the comprehensive plan. Thus, the existing land use codes in Jefferson County will continue to control land use development even if inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Any citizen who suffers harm due to delay could seek damages as well as compliance orders directing the activities of the BOCC. In August, we proposed a six-month schedule for revision of your development regulations to ensure consistency with your comprehensive plan. Our proposal included preparation and codification of an integrated Jefferson County Land Use Code as envisioned by the Citizen Task Force. We presented a substantially similar proposal to you in October. Due to other professional obligations, we must withdraw these proposals. We firmly believe that revision of your codes to implement your plan can be accomplished within the time frame and budget we proposed, but are unable to commit to undertaking that work at this time. We remain available for consultation on land use matters and for on-going training of your planning staff. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Jefferson County. The professional and personal relationships I established over the past several months have been deeply rewarding. Throughout my working relationship with you, you have discussed the issues thoughtfully and treated me with respect. I will continue to be involved in land use matters in Jefferson County and look forward to seeing you again in the near future. Sincerely, Ted Hunter JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Long-~Range Planning and Grow~ th_Managemen~t Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9123 FAX: (360) 385-9357 1-800-831-2678 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: A1 Scalf, Director of Community Development SUB J: Subdivision Moratorium July 8, 1998 Findings · The Board enacted a subdivision moratorium through emergency ordinance #02-0505-97, prohibiting the subdivision of land on April 17, 1997. · The Board extended the Subdivision Moratorium on July 7, 1997 for 180 days. · The Board extended the Subdivision Moratorium on January 14, 1998 for an additional 180 days. · The Board held public hearings on the Moratorium on June 2, 1997 and March 9, 1998. Findings to Support Continuation of the Moratorium · The Planning Commission released their Comprehensive Plan recommendation to the Public and the Board on February 2, 1998 (Green). · The Board released their draft Comprehensive Plan to the Public on May 15, 1998 (Blue). The Planning Department released to the Board and the Public a work plan to adopt a Comprehensive Plan including interim controls allowing subdivision of property on July 8, 1998, for possible adoption of a comp plan and lifting of the subdivision moratorium in August of 1998. Department Recommendation RCW 36.70.A.390 provides that a moratorium may be reviewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public heating is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. The Department requests the Board to extend the moratorium an additional 180 days per RCW 36.70.A.390 and schedule a Public Hearing. David Skeen JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Courthouse -- P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385-0073 Paul McIlrath, Chief Deputy Prosecutor Juelanne Dalzell, Deputy Prosecutor Jill Landes, Deputy Prosecutor Scott Charlton, Deputy Prosecutor Elizabeth Anne Padula, Deputy Prosecutor Date: To.' From: August 18, 1998 BOCC David Skeen, Prosecuting Att6rney~ Interim Controls This memorandum will memorialize my objection to the County's intended action of adopting Interim Controls without first having a public hearing. While it is not legally required that the County have a public hearing prior to adoption of interim controls, I have consistently argued that a public hearing should be held. We have discussed this matter several times. Through these discussions, it was my understanding the BOCC had agreed to hold a public hearing prior to adopting interim controls. I recently met with the Planning Department prior to drafting final notices to adopt the Comprehensive Plan and we discussed this issue. Upon leaving the meeting, again, it was my understanding that the County Planning staff would publish a public hearing notice prior to adoption of interim controls. However, after all these assurances from you and the Planning Department, it is clear that no public hearing will be held prior to the adoption of interim controls and now no time exists to allow for such a hearing prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons why holding a public hearing prior to adopting interim controls is highly advisable, however, I will not attempt to list all of them in this memorandum. The most important reason is the fact that after so many years of debate over the Comprehensive Plan, the Board of County Commissioners re: Interim Controls August 18, 1998 Page 1 public has a right to understand how the Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through interim controls. The public also has a right to at least one public hearing which would allow them to register their comments prior to adoption of the interim controls, whether or not such a public hearing is required by State statute. One of my goals as Prosecutor has been to reduce conflict over the Comprehensive Plan and to seek compromises when possible. It is impossible for me to work with the citizens of this County to resolve their concems over interim controls when they have had no opportunity to comment on interim controls prior to their adoption. In my opinion, the failure of the County to hold one public hearing on interim controls will result in further conflict and more distrust of the County Planning process. As elected representatives of the citizens of this County, you should never be fearful of public comment prior to adopting legislation. Yet, in this instance, you have deferred to your staff's advice to adopt interim controls without a public hearing over this office's objection. I believe this is a mistake and I object to your action. Board of County Commissioners re: Interim Controls August 18, 1998 Page 2 David Skeen JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Courthouse -- P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385-0073 Paul Mcllrath, Chief Deputy Prosecutor Juelanne Dalzell, Deputy Prosecutor Jill Landes, Deputy Prosecutor Scott Charlton, Deputy Prosecutor Elizabeth Anne Padula, Deputy Prosecutor TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM Board of County~rs Paul E. Mcllrath ~Q~.~~ DATE: August 19, 1998 Process for Adoption: Interim Controls and Procedural Reform Ordinances The Board is considering for adoption on August 28th, 1998, interim controls to implement Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan, scheduled to be adopted on the same date. The proposed controls are quite extensive. To meet the County's need to have some level of controls in place to immediately implement the Plan, the interim controls have been crafted in an expedited manner and presented to the Board for adoption without public hearing, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390. However, a number of legal concems have been raised in the public workshops; primarily, in the inter-relationship of this ordinance with the County's Regulatory Reform (which the Board is considering for adoption the week prior to Comp. Plan adoption), and in the definitions contained throughout the interim controls. To adequately address these concems and to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to discuss their concerns, the Board should consider some form of expedited review of publicly disclosed and def'med issues with the Interim Controls. This review should be calendered and scheduled at the time of the interim control's adoption or a time shortly thereafter. This will also provide this office with an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of any amendments, changes or corrections necessary to implement this important legislation and could assist with further development of the final development regulations. This office stands by to provide whatever assistance it can in this process. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. EMERGENCY INTERIM CONTROLS ORDINANCE EICO FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AUGUST 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION .................................................................................................................................................................... PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE .............................................................................................. 1 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 17 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS AND DEFINITION OF BOUNDARIES ................................ 18 IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF INTERIM RURAL COMMERCIAL VILLAGE CENTERS, PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER, INTERIM RURAL CROSSROADS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS ............................................................................................ 24 RURAL RESIDENTIAL--1 DWELLING UNIT PER 5 ACRES DISTRICT (RR 1-5) ..................................... 26 RURAL RESIDENTIAL--1 DWELLING UNIT PER 10 ACRES DISTRICT (RR 1/10) .................................. 28 RURAL RESIDENTIAL--1 DWELLING UNIT PER 20 ACRES DISTRICT (RR 1:20) .................................. 30 INTERIM CONVENIENCE CROSSROADS DISTRICT (CC) ......................................................................... 32 INTERIM NEIGHBORHOOD/VISITOR CROSSROAD DISTRICT (NC) ...................................................... 34 INTERIM RURAL GENERAL CROSSROAD DISTRICT (GC) ...................................................................... 36 INTERIM RURAL VILLAGE CENTERS (RVC) .............................................................................................. 38 GLEN COVE INTERIM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL AREA (LC) ................................................ 40 QUILCENE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA (LI) ................................................................................................ 40 PORT TOWNSEND PAPER MILL INTERIM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA (HI) ........................................ 40 USE TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 46 AIRPORT LAND USES WITHIN THE EXISTING AIRPORT ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY OVERLAY BOUNDARY ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................................................................. 55 REPEALER .......................................................................................................................................................... 55 EFFECTIVE DATE ............................................................................................................................................. $$ ADOPTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 56 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson IN THE MATTER OF AN Emergency Interim } Ordinance being adopted pursuant to } Chapter 36.70.790 and Chapter 36.70A.390 } Revised Code of Washington establishing } "Interim Official Controls" regulating and } restricting land use and development } throughout Jefferson County } Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 Sections: 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 1.100 SECTION 1 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE Statement of Authority Statement of Purpose and Intent Findings of Fact Enactment Title Repeal and Amendment of Existing Regulations Minimum Requirements Level of Service Standards Rules of Interpretation Definitions Section 1.10 Statement of Authority: This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70.790 RCW and Chapter 36.70A.390 RCW which empowers the County to enact emergency interim zoning and provide for its administration and enforcement. Section 1.20 Statement of Purpose and Intent: Based on the policy expressed in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act and its amendments, it is in the best interest of the County to provide for the orderly planned use of land resources. The purpose of this emergency interim ordinance is to act as an interim measure during development of development regulations. Section 1.30 Findings of Fact: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners hereby enter the following findings: Jefferson County is planning under the provisions of the Growth Management Act, codified as RCW 36.70A. The legislative findings and planning goals adopted by the Washington State Legislature when the Growth Management Act was enacted in 1990 support the conservation and wise use of land in order to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by residents of the state. o Jefferson County has adopted a County-wide Planning Policy establishing a policy framework to guide the development of the Comprehensive Plan and development Regulations ensuring locally determined consistency with the provisions of the GMA. 3000 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 1 ., o o o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Jefferson County has adopted an Interim Critical Areas ordinance, an Interim Agricultural Lands ordinance, an Interim Mineral Lands ordinance, and an Interim Forest Lands ordinance that are in compliance with the GMA requirements contained in RCW 36.70A.060, RCW 36.70A.170, and the Minimum Guidelines (Chapter 365-190 WAC). Jefferson County issued a Draft Comprehensive Plan on March 2, 1997. The Draft Plan was reviewed by the Jefferson County Planning Commission for a period of ten (10) months between April 1997 and February 2, 1998. During this time period the Planning Commission held twenty-nine (29) public meetings three (3) public workshops and five (5) "On The Road" meetings held in various communities throughout the County. The Jefferson County Planning Commission submitted its recommended Plan to the Board of County Commissioners on February 2, 1998. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners held eight (8) public hearings, thirty (30) workshops and took two field trips, one to the Glen Cove area and one touring Rural Centers and Crossroads, during its review of the Plan from February 2, 1998 to August 28, 1998. The BOCC directed staffto revise the Planning Commission recommended plan to: · include rural Commercial Crossroads eliminated by the Planning Commission; · add two new crossroad areas; · modestly expand the Rural Village Center for Quilcene and Brinnon; · add three Resource Based Industrial zones; and · make minor modifications to the goals and policies. These changes were based on extensive public comment received by the BOCC, a presentation on RCW 360.70A360 (ESB 6094) by members of the Land Use Study Commission, and minority reports from Planning Commission members. The Plan includes a Land Use Map which graphically details the location of land for various land uses, thereby establishing the character, quality, and pattern of future physical development throughout the County. The County's current interim zoning regulation and official interim zoning map(s) (Ordinance No. 05-0214-96), the Growth Strategies Ordinance (IGSO) does not conform with the land use designations and Land Use Map of the Plan, and must be repealed and replaced by new interim development regulations and a new Official Zoning Map in order to achieve consistency with, and implement, the Plan. Because of the scope and complexity of the changes directed in the Plan, Emergency Interim Regulations are necessary to bridge the gap between regulating land under the Interim Growth Strategy Ordinance and the development and adoption of interim development regulations implementing the Comprehensive Plan. New final development regulations will be prepared and adopted in phases, beginning with the adoption of this Emergency Interim Ordinance and associated zoning maps. The Board of County Commissioners desire that the Interim Zoning Districts as identified in the Plan be immediately implemented through an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance and Official Interim Zoning Map(s) repealing and replacing the existing Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (IGSO, Ordinance No. 05-0214-96.) 2 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 15. If not immediately implemented through the adoption of a new Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, development throughout Jefferson County will occur in a manner inconsistent with the adopted Plan. 16. This Ordinance will operate as an Emergency Interim Zoning control and will remain in effect only until such time as the County can conduct studies, hold hearings, and adopt other interim controls or development regulations. As such this Ordinance is consistent with, and expressly authorized by Chapter 35.63.200 RCW and Chapter 36.70A.390 RCW. 17. The BOCC finds that it is essential to create a stable climate for land development, in order to accommodate and encourage investment in Jefferson County's future economic development 18. The Board intends this ordinance shall apply to all land within Jefferson County to the extent permitted by law. 19. For the reasons stated in the above findings of fact, the BOCC finds that this Emergency Interim Ordinance is necessary to preserve the health and safety of Jefferson County residents. 20. SEPA. The County issued a SEPA determination on August 17, 1998 adopting an existing environmental document (FEIS). Section 1.40 Enactment: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners does hereby ordain and enact into law the following provisions. Section 1.50 Title: This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance, (ELCO). Section 1.60 Scope and Effect: Repeal and Amendment of Existing Regulations: These Emergency Interim Controls shall be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan as adopted until such time as the County adopts other interim development regulations or final development regulations. The Comprehensive Plan shall govern in the event inconsistencies occur between the Plan and existing or interim development regulations. 1.60.1 Amendment: Effective immediately upon its adoption, this ordinance shall amend the provisions of the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 09-0801-94, as amended) as noted in the sections and subsections modifying this ordinance. 1.60.2 Repeal: Effective immediately upon its adoption, this Emergency Interim Ordinance repeals and replaces Ordinance No. 05-0214-96, the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (IGSO) as amended including Ordinance No. 09-0819-96, Resolution//82-96 and repeals the following sections of the Jefferson County Zoning Code: Sections 4, Establishment of Zoning District; Section 5, Overlay Districts; and Section 6.10, Purposes of Districts-Table of Permitted Uses; Section 8, Special Uses; Section 9, Planned Unit Developments; Subsections 12.10 and 12.20, Bulk and Dimensional Requirements; Section 16, Transfer of Development Rights; Section 18, Application for Zoning Reclassification; repeals and replaces Section 3.10 and repeals Ordinance No. 02-0505-97, Subdivision Moratorium Ordinance. Section 1.70 Minimum Requirements: In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Emergency Interim Ordinance, they shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of public health, safety and general welfare. This Emergency Interim Ordinance shall not interfere with, abrogate or annul any easement, convenants or other agreements between parties, provided however, that where this title imposes a greater restriction upon the use of a building or land or requires greater space than is imposed or required by other ordinances or rules, the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 3 Section 1.80: Level of Service Standards: Section 1.801 Rural Water Systems: Rural water system development shall be consistent with County land use designations and comply with all applicable County and State regulations. Section 1.802 Rural Sewage Systems: All proposed development must make provision for disposal of sewage and waste water and meet all applicable County, State and Federal regulations. Section 1.90 Rules of Interpretation: The following rules shall be followed in making interpretation relating the terms and conditions contained herein. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. For purposes of this ordinance, all words used in the ordinance shall use normal and customary meanings, unless specifically defined otherwise in this ordinance. Words used in the present tense include the future tense. The plural includes the singular and vice-versa. The words "will" and "shall" are mandatory. The words "may" and "should" indicates that discretion is allowed. The word "used" includes designed, intended, or arranged or intended to be used. The masculine gender includes the feminine and vice-versa. Section 1.100 Definitions of terms as used in this ordinance: ABANDONMENT: To cease or discontinue a use or activity without intent to resume, but excluding temporary or short-term interruptions to a use or activity during periods of remodeling, maintenance, or otherwise improving or rearranging a facility, or during normal periods of vacation or seasonal closure. A use or activity shall be considered abandoned if the subject use or activity is discontinued without resumption for a period of three years. ACCESS ROAD: A road that links homes and properties to the larger road system. They provide access, privacy, safety, economy, and internal circulation throughout an area. Aesthetics and safety replace speed and volume as the primary concerns for access roads. Access roads that are designed to prevent through-traffic help create a sense of a neighborhood's identity in residential areas because traffic is locally oriented. o ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: An additional dwelling unit either in or added to an existing single-family detached dwelling, or in a separate accessory structure on the same lot as the main dwelling, for use as a complete, independent living facility with provisions within the accessory dwelling unit for cooking, eating, sanitation and sleeping. Such a dwelling shall be considered an accessory use to the main dwelling and be clearly subordinate to the main dwelling. See Section on Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory Dwelling Units shall have a maximum size of 800 square feet including all outside walls. ACCESSORY USE: A use of land or building or a portion thereof that is demonstrably subordinate and incidental to the primary use of the premises. 4 ADJACENT: A lot or parcel of land that shares or touches all or part of a common lot line With another lot or parcel of land. Parcels that are cater-corner to one another also are considered adjacent. August 2g, 199g amended November 9, 1998 ADMINISTRATOR: A duly appointed officer of Jefferson County who administers and enforces this ordinance. AGRICULTURE: Improvements or activities associated with the growing, cultivation, and/or harvesting of crops and livestock, including those activities necessary to prepare the agricultural commodity for shipment. AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING: Facilities and uses associated with high-intensity agricultural activities such as grain elevators, stockyards, feed lots, commercial slaughterhouses, rendering plants or other similar uses. AMATEUR RADIO: The non-commercial operation and use of broadcast and/or radio transmission facilities for public or private uses. No provision of this ordinance shall fail to conform to the limited preemption entitled "Amateur Radio Preemption, 101 FCC 2nd 952 (1985)" issued by the Federal Communication Commission. 10. AQUACULTURE: Improvements or activities associated with the culture or farming of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants or animals, including those activities necessary to prepare the aquacultural commodity for shipment 11. ARTERIAL, MINOR: A road that carries traffic from collectors and access roads to primary arterials; however, direct access to abutting properties may occur in certain situations. 12. ARTERIAL PRINCIPAL: Arterials provide the highest degree of mobility and limited access to local property. Access is primarily limited to traffic from other arterials and collectors; however, some direct access to abutting properties may occur in certain situations. 13. 14. ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY: Residences for the elderly that provide room, meals, personal care, supervision of self-administered medication and other services such as recreational activities, financial services and transportation. ASSOCIATED COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES: Associated commercial activiiies in the Glen Cove Light Industrial/commercial area include mechanical, automotive, marine and contractors/builders equipment and supplies; electrical and electronic equipment or products; warehousing and storage of equipment; commodities and products; and, breakfast, lunch and/or dinner establishments and convenience stores meant to support the workers in this district 15. BED AND BREAKFAST INNS: A residential dwelling unit which is constructed as, or partially or entirely converted into, an overnight lodging facility where rooms and breakfasts are provided. The operator of the inn shall live on the premises or in adjacent premises. A Bed and Breakfast Inn renting one or two bedrooms may be permitted as home-based business. An inn renting between three (3) and six (6) bedrooms shall be permitted as a conditional use in a specific zone. 16. BUFFER: An area, unit or strip of land designed so as to shield, separate or protect one type of land use from another with which it is incompatible or to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Buffers typically consist of open areas, landscaped areas, walls, fences, berms or any combination thereof which help to minimize conflicts from noise, light or other nuisances. 17. BUILDABLE LOT: Whether or not a lot is buildable depends on the ability to either install an on- site sewage disposal system or hook up to an off-site sewage disposal system in accordance with Health Department regulations, obtain an approved source of potable water, comply with the 3004 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 5 Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance and other conditions or circumstances that may be specific to a particular lot. A lot of record is not necessarily buildable. 18. BUILDING: Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy (UBC). 19. BUILDING OFFICIAL: A duly appointed officer of Jefferson County who administers and enforces the Jefferson County Building Code Ordinance. 20. BUILDING LINE: The line, parallel to the property line, that passes through the point of the principal building nearest the front lot line. 21. BUILT ENVIRONMENT: A combination of buildings and related activities along with associated impervious surfaces, infrastructure, parking and landscaping. 22. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR USE: A document issued by the Building Official as the final approval acknowledging that all conditions and requirements have been met and that the occupancy or use of a development is allowed. 23. CHURCH OR PLACE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP: A building or buildings intended for religious worship including ancillary activity and improvements such as schools providing religious education, assembly rooms, kitchen, reading room, recreation hall and may include a residence for church staff. This definition does not include schools devoted to primarily non religious education. 24. CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT: A development design technique that groups or "clusters" buildings in specific areas on a site rather than spread evenly throughout the parcel as in a conventional lot-by-lot development. The remaining land is to remain undeveloped in perpetuity and used for recreation, common open space, and/or preservation of environmentally critical areas. 25. COLLECTOR ROAD: A road that carries traffic from access roads to the larger road system. Rural collector roads generally serve travel of primarily intracounty rather than statewide importance and constitute those routes on which predominant travel distances are shorter than on principal or minor arterial routes. Collectors generally provide equal emphasis upon mobility and land access. Direct access to abutting properties, while not ideal, is more appropriate than onto an arterial because of lower traffic volumes and speeds. 26. COMMUNICATION RELAY OR TRANSMISSION FACILITIES: Telephone, telegraph, television, radio, cable, commercial broadcasting, microwave, transmission or retransmission facilities and substations, and any other communication conveyance for commercial purposes. 27. COMMUNITY PLAN. A document that has been prepared by a group of individuals representing individual communities, that outline the goals and visions set forth by community residents. Community Plans may be adopted or approved by the BOCC and provide guidance for the County- wide Comprehensive Plan. 27. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. A generalized coordinated policy statement of the government body of a city or county that is adopted pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW). A document or series of documents prepared by a professional planning staff and planning commission that sets forth guidelines and policies for the future development of a specific geographical area (i.e., city or county). August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. CONDITIONAL USE: A use that, owing to some special characteristics attendant to its operation or installation (e.g. potential danger, smoke or noise), is permitted in a district, subject to approval and special requirements different from those usual requirements for the district in which the conditional use may be located. CONTIGUOUS PARCELS: Parcels next to, adjacent, abutting, or touching one another. Parcels that are cater-comer to one another also are considered contiguous. For purposes of public notice, contiguous parcels shall include land adjoining and touching other property held by the same ownership including land divided by a public road. CONVENIENCE STORE: Any retail establishment offering for sale prepackaged food products, household items, and other goods commonly associated with the same and having a gross floor area of less than five-thousand (5,000) square feet. COTTAGE INDUSTRY: An accessory use within a single-family dwelling or building accessory to a dwelling and wholly incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property. Cottage industries are limited, small-scale commercial or industrial activity, including fabrication, that can be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment in the vicinity. CROSSROAD, CONVENIENCE:. See Interim RURAL CROSSROAD CROSSROAD, GENERAL: See RURAL CROSSROAD CROSSROAD, NEIGHBORHOOD/VISITOR: See RURAL CROSSROAD DAY CARE FACILITY: An agency regularly providing care for a group of children for periods of less than 24 hours. It includes the following subcategories as defined by RCW 35.63. · FAMILY DAY CARE HOME: A day care home for the care of 10 or fewer children located in the family dwelling of the provider. The home shall meet Washington State child day care licensing requirements. For the purposes of this Ordinance, Family Day Care Homes shall be considered a home business. · M1NI-DAY CARE CENTER: A day care facility for the care of 12 or fewer children in a facility other than the family dwelling of the person(s) providing the care. For the purposes of this Ordinance, Mini-day Care Centers shall be considered a home business. · DAY CARE CENTER: Provides for the care of 13 or more children. If located in a private family residence, the portion where the children have access must be separate from the family living quarters, or that portion where the children have access must be exclusively used for their care during the hours that the child day care is operating. DEVELOPMENT: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, change in use, or extension of the use of the land for any purpose, including, but not limited to: land disturbing activities; structural development, including construction, reconstruction, installation, expansion or alteration or relocation of a building or other structure; creation of impervious surfaces; mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or storage of equipment or vehicles; Class IV - general forest practices that are conversions from timber lands to other uses; subdivisions, short subdivisions and binding site plans, as defined in RCW 58.17.020; and redevelopment of an already developed site. DRAINAGE: The collection, conveyance, containment and/or discharge of surface and storm water runoff. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 7 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. DRAINAGE CONTROL: A pipe, swale, natural feature or man-made improvement for the purpose of carrying and/or retaining drainage. DWELLING UNIT: One or more rooms located in a residential building or residential portion of a building that may be used as a residence with each having sleeping, cooking and sanitation facilities. EASEMENT: A grant by a property owner to a specific person, party, corporation or entity to use the owner's property for a specified purpose. EDUCATIONAL FACILITY: A public or private facility for the purpose of providing education. ENERGY FACILITY: [See UTILITIES] ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES: As required by the State Growth Management Act, the county must create a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. Essential public facilities include airports, State educational facilities, state and regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, and other facilities of a state or regional scope. EXISTING AREA OF MORE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT: As defined by Engrossed Senate Bill 6094, an area that was in existence on July 1, 1990 and that is clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical outer boundary delineated predominately by the built environment. EXISTING USE: The current use or activity of the land or, as defined with regard to existing commercial uses. Under ESB 6094, an existing use is one that was in existence on July 1, 1990. FAMILY: An individual, or · Two or more persons related by blood or marriage, or · A group of not more than 5 (five) persons (excluding servants) living together as a single housekeeping unit and doing their cooking on the premises, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house or rooming house or hotel. GRADE: is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than 5 feet from the building, between the building and a line 5 feet from the building. GRANDFATHERED USE: [See NONCONFORMING] GROSS LOT AREA: Lot area calculation including road rights-of-way, road easements, community well easements and similar community encumbrances or dedications as portrayed on the plat. GROUP HOME FOR THE FUNCTIONALLY DISABLED: A dwelling shared by six or more functionally disabled persons, including resident staff, who live together as a single housekeeping unit and in a long-term, family like environment in which staff persons provide care, education, and participation in community activities for the residents with the primary goal of enabling the residents to live as independently as possible in order to reach their maximum potential, which complies with the provisions of RCW 74.29, and RCW 74.39. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE: Any liquid, solid, gas, sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, which exhibits any of the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as described in rules adopted under RCW 70.105. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 52. HAZARDOUS WASTE: Those solid wastes designated by 40 CFR Part 261, and regulated as hazardous waste by the United States EPA. Any discarded, useless, unwanted, or abandoned radioactive or non radioactive substances, including but not limited to certain pesticides, or any residues or containers of such substances which are disposed of in such quantity or concentration as to pose a substantial hazard to human health, wildlife, or the environment because such wastes or constituents or combinations of such wastes: · Have short-lived toxic properties that may cause death, injury, or illness or have mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic properties; or · Are corrosive, explosive, flammable, or may generate pressure through decomposition or other means; or · Will persist in a hazardous form for several years or more at a disposal site and which in its persistent form; or · Presents a significant environmental hazard and may be concentrated by living organisms through a food chain or may affect the genetic make-up of man or wildlife; and · Is highly toxic to man or wildlife. 53. HAZARDOUS WASTE, MODERATE RISK: Any "solid waste" that exhibits the characteristics of a hazardous waste but is exempt per Chapter 173-303 WAC of the State Dangerous Waste Regulations, due to the fact that it is a Household Hazardous Waste per WAC 173-303-071 (3)(c) or Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Waste per WAC 173-303-070 (8). 54. HAZARDOUS WASTE, MODERATE RISK WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITIES: A staffed and dedicated location with secondary waste containment that is specifically built at a permanent fixed site for the purpose of collecting, treating, recycling, exchange, storage and/or transfer of Moderate Risk Waste. 55. HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITIES: Facilities which treat and/or store hazardous wastes through such means as containers (such as barrels or drums), above ground and underground tanks, and waste piles and surface impoundments that will be cleaned up and not closed as landfills. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities are those facilities which require an interim of final status permit pursuant to Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303- 240 WAC. These regulations apply to hazardous waste generators who produce 2.2 pounds or more of dangerous waste per month. 56. HEIGHT: The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or the average height of the highest gable or a pitched or hipped roof. For purposes of this ordinance, the reference datum shall be selected consistent with the requirements as described in the Jefferson County Building Code Ordinance. 57. HOME-BASED BUSINESS: Home-based businesses are secondary and incidental to the primary residential use of the structure and provide supplemental income for a family. 58. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: A hard-surfaced area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle under natural conditions; a constructed hard surfaced area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to: roofs; walkways; patios; driveways; parking lots or storage areas; concrete or asphalt paving; gravel roads, packed earthen materials; and oiled or macadam surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of storm water. 59. INCIDENTAL (see SUBORDINATE) August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 9 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 10 INDUSTRIAL PARK: An Industrial Park is a facility which has been designed as a coordinated environment for a variety of industrial and related activities. An Industrial Park shall be developed or controlled by a single ownership entity with special attention given to traffic, parking, utility needs, aesthetics, and compatibility with surrounding properties. Industrial Parks shall have appropriate master plans and/or covenants, conditions, and restrictions as required. INDUSTRIAL USE: Any activity that is involved in the production, processing, manufacturing, fabrication, or assembling of goods and materials, including the storage of material used in the industrial process. Warehousing, wash down facilities, blacksmithing, welding, wholesale bakery, recycling facilities and distribution centers are also considered industrial activities. INDUSTRIAL USE, HEAVY: A use engaged in the basic processing and manufacturing of materials or products predominantly from extracted or raw materials, or a use engaged in storage of, or manufacturing processes using flammable or explosive materials, or storage or manufacturing processes that potentially involve hazardous or commonly recognized offensive conditions. Examples include, but are not limited to: log processing facilities, rock crushers, pulp and paper mills, bulk storage of petroleum products, and log storage and handling. INDUSTRIAL USE, LIGHT: A use engaged in manufacturing or storage, typically having low impacts on the environment, in which articles are either produced, assembled, finished and/or packaged from prepared materials made at another location, or raw materials, such as premilled wood, paper, wool, textiles, leather, cork or semi-precious metals or stones. INTENSITY: The degree to which the land is used, or level of concentration or activity of land uses such as, residential, commercial, industrial or recreational. · Less intensive use: Refers to a type of land use that is less concentrated, generally results in a decreased impact or activity, utilizes fewer resources and/or services, or creates less of a demand as, for example, the difference between commercial and residential land uses. · More intensive use: A type of use which generally creates a greater demand for services or resources, generates increased activity and/or in greater concentrations, and has a greater impact upon the land use or its environs. JUNKYARDS, WRECKING YARDS AND RECYCLING FACILITIES: [See RECYCLING FACILITIES] KENNEL: An establishment in which dogs more than six months old are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained, or sold, for compensation. LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY: Any substantial activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to demolition, construction, clearing, grading, filling and excavation. LAND USE: A description of how land is used or occupied. LEGAL EXISTING: A lawful use of land that does not comply with the use regulations for its zoning district but which complied with applicable regulations at the time the use was established. (See also NONCONFORMING). LOT: A fractional portion of land having fixed boundaries, and of sufficient area and dimension to meet the requirements of the Jefferson County Zoning Code. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 71. LOT AREA: The total horizontal area within the boundary lines of a lot. 72. LOT, CORNER: A comer lot is located at the junction of and fronting on the intersection of two or more streets. 73. LOT COVERAGE: The percent of the lot area covered by buildings or structures as vertically projected on the lot, excluding parking areas, driveways and walkways. 74. LOT, DEPTH: The horizontal length of a straight line drawn from the midpoint of the front property line to the midpoint of the rear property line. 75. LOT, INTERIOR: A lot fronting on one street. 76. LOT CERTIFICATION:A process for determining whether parcels were created consistent with applicable state and local law. See Section 22. 77. LOT LINE, FRONT: Any property line of a lot which abuts a public street, private street or dedicated vehicular access easement is considered a frontage and shall meet the minimum front yard setback requirements of this code. On a comer lot, or lot bounded by more than one public or private street or dedicated easement, the front lot line shall be the lot line providing principle access from the adjacent street. In addition to the aforementioned, setback requirements in this ordinance for corner lots shall be measured from all streets abutting the lot. 78. LOT LINE, REAR: The property line of a lot that is most opposite or most distant from the designated front lot line and that does not intersect any front lot line. In the case of a triangular lot, it means line ten (10) feet in length within the lot parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. In the event that the front lot line is curved, then the rear property line shall be assumed to be a line tangent to the front property line at its midpoint. 79. LOT LINE, SIDE: Any lot line that is not a front or rear lot line, or any lot line that intersects a front lot line. 80. LOT OF RECORD: A parcel created in compliance with all applicable regulations at the time of its creation. 81. LOT, SUBSTANDARD: A lot or parcel of land that has less than the required minimum area or width as established by the zone in which it is located and provided that such lot or parcel was of record as a legally created lot on the effective date of the Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance. A substandard lot is a legal lot of record. "Substandard" should not be equated with unbuildable (see BUILDABLE LOT). 82. LOT, WIDTH: The horizontal distance between side lot lines, measured at the required front setback line, or in an irregularly shaped lot, the dimension across the lot at the building line. 83. MASTER PLANNED RESORT, EXISTING: Per RCW 36.70A.362 an existing resort means a resort in existence on July 1, 1990, and developed, in whole or in part, as a significantly self-contained and integrated development that includes short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the property boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. An existing resort may include other permanent residential uses, conference facilities, and commercial activities supporting the resort, but only if these other uses are integrated into and consistent with the on-site recreational nature of the resort. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 11 84. 85. 86. 8'7. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 12 MINERAL EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING: Activities involved in the extraction of minerals from the earth for industrial, commercial, or construction uses. For purposes of this ordinance, minerals shall include, but not be limited to, sand, gravel, shale, rock, coal, soil, peat or clay industrial. Agriculture, road construction, mineral exploration testing, and site preparation for construction shall not be considered as mineral extraction and processing activities. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT: A development in which various uses permitted within a zoning district are combined in a single building. For the purposes of this Ordinance, residential uses contained within a mixed-use development shall not occupy any portion of the ground floor of any building, excepting that accessory uses such as lobbies, which provide service or access to residential uses shall be permitted on the ground floor. MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENT: [See ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT]. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Developments containing structures housing two (2) or more residential dwelling units. Multi-family residential developments are those that are designed and intended for residential occupancy in multi-family structures regardless of the type of building or ownership in which such use occurs. Examples include, but are not limited to: townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, condominiums, apartment houses, boarding houses, and lodging houses. Accessory Dwelling Units, i.e., Mother-in-law and accessory apartments shall not be considered multi-family residences. NET LOT AREA: Lot area calculation exclusive of road rights-of-way, road easements, community well easements and similar community encumbrances or dedications as portrayed on the plat but inclusive of any critical area. Drainage and utility easements may be included as part of net lot area calculation. NONCONFORMING, "GRANDFATHERED" or EXISTING USES: A lawful use of land that does not comply with the use regulations for its zoning district but which complied with applicable regulations at the time the use was established. OFF-STREET PARKING: Any space specifically allocated to the parking of motor vehicles that is not located within a public right-of-way, a travel lane, a service drive, or any easement for public use. OPEN SPACE LAND: Land not occupied by buildings or other structures, and which is set aside to serve as a buffer, provide recreational opportunities, protect environmentally sensitive areas, preserve wildlife corridors, provide viewsheds or to serve as locations for future public facilities. OVERLAY DISTRICT: A specially designated zoning district containing additional standards and requirements, which is applied on top of a basic zoning classification. PARKING SPACE: An area which is improved, maintained and used for the sole purpose of temporarily accommodating a motor vehicle that is not in use. PERMITTED USE: Any use authorized or permitted alone or in conjunction with another use in a specified district and subject to the limitations and regulations of that use district. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: A form of development usually characterized by a unified site design for a number of housing units and compatible nonresidential uses, including provisions for the clustering of buildings and promotion of common open space, and may include density increases and a mix of buildings types and land uses. PUDs allow for the planning of a project and the calculation of densities over the entire development, rather than on an individual lot-by-lot basis. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. PRINCIPAL BUILDING: A building in which the primary use of the lot on which the building is located is conducted. RECREATIONAL FACILITY: Facilities such as trails and pathways, parks, and campgrounds that provide opportunities for leisure-type activities.) RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK: Any lot of land upon which two or more recreational vehicle sites are located, established, or maintained for the purpose of lease for temporary occupancy by recreational vehicles of the general public or for lease for private purposes as temporary living quarters for recreation or vacation purposes. For the purposes of this Ordinance, all recreational vehicles shall be licensed by the State of Washington or other comparable jurisdiction as a vehicle. In addition, mobile homes shall not be considered to be recreational vehicles. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK, SEASONAL: Those Recreational Vehicle Parks that are approved for stays of no more than 180 days (cumulative) within any calendar year. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK, TRANSIENT: Those Recreational Vehicle Parks approved for transient stays of not more than 30 consecutive days. These parks are "tourist oriented" and typically have recreation and other facilities. RECYCLING FACILITIES: Any parcel of land or portion thereof, or building, or structure commercially used for the storage, collection, processing, purchase, or sale of wastepaper, rags, scrap metal, or other scrap or discarded goods, materials, and machinery including junkyards, wrecking yards. Excluded from this definition shall be areas used for the storage of materials or objects accumulated by the manufacturer as an integral part of the manufacturing process, and non- commercial recycling centers or sub-stations established for the collection of materials for transport to a commercial recycling facility. RETAIL SALE: The sale of merchandise, services, or commodities for use or consumption by the immediate purchaser and not meant for resale. ROAD OR VEHICULAR RIGHTS-OF-WAY: A strip of land dedicated or conveyed for a public or private road including the adjoining area designated for road expansion or utility purposes as specified by recorded easements, recorded ownership instruments, or dedications. RURAL VILLAGE CENTER, INTERIM: Small, unincorporated commercial and residential community centers that provide a rural level of services and serve as a focal point for the local population. The interim boundaries of the Rural Village Centers are predominantly defined by the contained, built environment as it existed in 1990 or before. These commercial districts allow modest in-fill development that maintains the character of the immediate area, but cannot expand their designated boundaries. In Jefferson County these centers include: Port Hadlock, Quilcene and Brinnon. RURAL CROSSROAD, INTERIM: Those areas established by virtue of historic transportation patterns and characterized by existing concentrations of small scale commercial uses fronting on, or in close proximity to, major transportation routes and intersections. The interim boundaries of Rural Crossroads are defined by the contained built environment that existed in 1990 or before. These site- specific areas serve an identified existing need for the local community and cannot be expanded in size. The following three types of Commercial Rural Crossroads exist in Jefferson County: Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads, Convenience Crossroads, and .General Crossroads: August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 13 Convenience Crossroads (CC): Those crossroads that provide a limited selection of basic retail goods and services, and serve a lower intensity population base. Convenience Crossroads are characterized by a single convenience/general store. There are three (3) Convenience Crossroads in Jefferson County: Nordland, Beaver Valley and Wawa Point. Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC): Those crossroads which offer multiple uses and services serving both the local community and the traveling public. There are five (5) Neighborhood Crossroads identified in Jefferson County: Mats Mats, Discovery Bay, Four Comers, Chimacum and Gardiner. General Crossroads (GC): Similar to Neighborhood Crossroads, General Crossroads serve a higher local population base and offer a wider variety of goods and services. There are three (3) General Crossroads identified in Jefferson County: Ness' Comer, Irondale Comer and SR 19/20 Intersection. 106. SCHOOL: A school is a building, whose primary use is as a place where instruction is given to persons to enhance their knowledge or skills. Buildings where instruction is given primarily on religious matters are not deemed to be schools. For the purposes of this Ordinance, buildings belonging to churches but used primarily for the education of children ages 5-18, Monday through Friday, shall be considered schools. 107. SETBACK: The minimum distance from the road right-of-way line or any other lot line to the nearest projection of a structure placed on the property, excluding eaves of less than twenty four inches (24"). All setbacks shall be measured from the lot line to the building line. 108. SILVICULTURE: Improvements or activities associated with the growing, cultivation, and/or harvesting of forest products. Silviculture use not associated with silviculture processing as defined here-in shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance. 109. SILVICULTURE PROCESSING: Facilities and uses associated with high-intensity silviculture activities such as commercial chippers and sawmills, and other similar uses. 110. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE: A residential building on a single lot and not attached to any other dwelling, designed for occupancy by · An individual, or Two or more persons related by blood or marriage, or · A group of not more than 5 (five) persons (excluding servants) living together as a single housekeeping unit and doing their cooking on the premises, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house or rooming house or hotel. 111. STRUCTURE: That which is built or constructed. A structure is an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which requires an approval. 112. SUBORDINATE USE: For the purpose of this ordinance, subordinate use shall be a use which is secondary to the primary use. Subordinate uses shall not be determined purely on a calculation of gross floor area, but shall be determined based on the intensity and frequency of use. 113. 14 TEMPORARY ACTIVITIES AND STRUCTURES: Temporary activities are those structures, facilities, or uses that occur on a seasonal or sporadic basis and involve the processing and/or sale of commodities. Examples include, but are not limited to: the sale of farm produce, firewood, fireworks, and Christmas trees; and, temporary rock crushing activities. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 114. 115. 116. 117. TIME SHARE: A building used or intended for use as an occasional residential accommodation by one or more persons who permanently reside elsewhere and who typically share in operating expenditures such as rent and upkeep. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: The conveyance of development rights by deed, easement, or other legal instrument authorized by local law to another parcel of land and the recording of that conveyance. TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS: A building or group of buildings in which lodging or lodging and meals are provided for transient guests for compensation. Transient accommodations include but are not limited to cabins, resorts, hotels, motels, hostels, and campgrounds. For the purposes of this Ordinance, transient shall be defined as being not more than 30 consecutive days duration. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING: As defined by the Federal McKinney Act, transitional housing means a project that: · Is designed to provide housing and appropriate supportive services to homeless persons, . including (but not limited to) de-institutionalized homeless individuals with mental disabilities other homeless individuals with mental disabilities, and homeless families with children; and · Has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless individuals to independent living within 24 months, or within a longer period determined by HUD as necessary to facilitate the transition. 118. 119. 120. 121. TRIP: A one-direction movement, which begins at the origin and ends at the destination. For example, a trip movement from a residence to a work place is a trip from home to work. TRIP GENERATION: The second step in forecasting the number of trips generated by the forecasted land use. The number of trips made to and from each type of land use by day. Trip generation provides the linkage between land use and travel. Trips generated at the home end are generally termed "production." Trips generated by business are generally termed "attractions." UTILITIES: Fixed improvements, including structures' and facilities, that convey, generate, transit or distribute power, gas, oil, water, sewage, surface drainage or communication signals. VARIANCE: The granting of relief from certain provisions of a zoning ordinance when, because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the property, compliance would result in an undue hardship upon the owner. 122. VESTING: The status of a project for which landowners are granted permission to proceed with development after obtaining all necessary permits and meeting all criteria set forth by the appropriate agencies. In Washington State, the time at which the project is vested is statutorily defined. When a complete building permit application for a structure to be used in a manner permitted under the land use regulations in effect on the date of such application is submitted, the applicant will be entitled to improve and use land under the ordinances of the County in effect on the date of the complete building application. A vested right to subdivide is established as of the date a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval has been submitted and determined to be substantially complete. 123. VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER: The zoning classification of Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort's commercial area. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 15 124. WAREHOUSING: Terminal facilities used for handling freight for redistribution. 125. WATER ORIENTED USE: A use or a portion of a use which is either a water-dependent, water- related, or water-enjoyment use, or any combination thereof. · WATER-DEPENDENT USE: A use or portion of a use that cannot exist in any other location and requires a location on the shoreline and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operation. · WATER-ENJOYMENT USE: A recreational use such as a park, pier, or other use facilitating public access as primary character of the use; or, a use that provides for passive and active interaction of a large number of people with the shoreline for leisure and enjoyment as a general character of the use and which, through location, design and operation assure the public's ability to interact with the shoreline. Water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, restaurants, museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves, resorts, and mixed-use commercial enterprises provided such use conforms to the requirement and provisions of the Shoreline Management Master Program. · WATER-RELATED USE: A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location, but whose operation cannot occur economically without a shoreline location. These activities demonstrate a logical, functional, connection to a waterfront location. Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood processing plants, and log storage. 126. WHOLESALE: The sale of materials, services, or merchandise, primarily for the purpose of resale, manufacture, or remanufacture. 127. ZERO LOT LINE: The location of a building on a lot in such a manner that one or more of the building's furthest extensions rests directly on a lot line. 16 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 SECTION 2 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS Sections: 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations 2.20 Intent 2.30 Exemptions Section 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all land, all water areas and all structures in the unincorporated jurisdiction of Jefferson County, Washington. Section 2.20 Intent. No structure shall hereafter be erected and no existing structure shall be moved, altered, added to or enlarged, nor shall any land or structure be used, or arranged to be used for any purpose other than that which is included among the uses listed in the following chapters as permitted in the zoning district in which the structure or land is located, nor shall any land or structure be used in any manner contrary to any other requirements specified in this Ordinance. Section 2.30 Exemptions. The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the regulations of this Ordinance, but are subject to all other applicable Local, State and Federal regulations including, but not limited to, the County Building Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, the Shoreline Management Master Program and SEPA. Wires, cables, conduits, vaults, pipes, mains, valves, tanks, or other similar equipment for the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications, electricity, gas, or water or the collection of sewage, or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained by a governmental entity or a public utility or other County franchised utilities including customary meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, distribution transformers and temporary utility facilities required during building construction, whether any such facility is located underground, or above ground; but when only such facilities are located in a street right- of-way or in an easement less than twenty-five (25) feet in width. This exemption shall not include substation located on or above the surface of the ground or any such distribution facility located in an easement or twenty-five (25) feet or more in width. 2. Railroad tracks, signals, bridges and similar facilities and equipment located on a railroad right-of-way, and maintenance and repair work on such facilities and equipment. Telephone booths and pedestals, underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus shelters, informational kiosks, public bicycle shelters, or similar structure or device which is found by the Director of Community Development is obviously intended to be appropriately located in the public interest. 4. Agricultural buildings used to house livestock, store feed or farm equipment. 5. Minor construction activities, as defined by the UBC, Section 106.2 and structures exempt under Jefferson County Building Code Ordinance #03-0713-98 as amended. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 17 SECTION 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS AND DEFINITION OF BOUNDARIES Sections: 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90 3.100 3.110 3.120 3.130 3.140 3.150 3.160 3.170 Establishment of Zoning Districts and Definition of Boundaries Establishment of Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Map of Zoning Districts Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries Statement of Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Rural Residential Districts Interim Rural Village Center Districts or Rural Village Centers (RVC) Interim Convenience Crossroad Interim Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad General Crossroads Interim Commercial Forest District Commercial Agricultural District Mineral Land Districts Industrial Zones Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Zones, Maps and Boundaries Section 3.10 Establishment of Zoning Districts and Definition of Boundaries: The County is hereby divided into General Land Use Districts or Zones, as depicted on the Official Zoning Map which, together with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. Section 3.20 Establishment of Zoning Districts: Jefferson County is hereby divided into zoning districts of such number and character as are necessary to achieve compatibility of uses within each district, to implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan on an interim basis and related official plans and policies and the official Zoning Map of Jefferson County, and to serve the other purposes of this Ordinance which are detailed in Chapter 1, Section 1.20, Purpose and Intent. The boundaries of all Rural Village Centers and Rural Crossroads are designated by "Interim" Boundaries during the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study. Section 3.30 Zoning Districts: For the purposes of this Ordinance all land and water areas located within the unincorporated territory of Jefferson County, including the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) Boundary, are hereby divided into zoning districts which shall be designated as follows: Agriculture (AG) District, Commercial Forest (CF) District, Rural Forest (RF) District, Mineral Resource Lands, Rural Residential (RR) District, Interim Rural Village Center (RVC) Districts, Interim Convenience Crossroads (CC) District, Interim Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad (NC) district, Interim General Crossroads (GC), Quilcene Light Industrial (LI) District, Interim Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial (LC) District, and the Port Townsend Paper Mill Interim Heavy Industrial (HI) District, and Forest Resource Based Industrial Districts (RBIZs). Within the MPR boundary, Jefferson County hereby recognizes the following zoning districts: Single Family (MPR-SF); Single Family Tracts (MPR-SFT); Multi-Family (MPR-MF); Resort Complex/Community Facilities (MPR-RC/CF); Village Commercial Center (MPR-VC); Recreation Area (MPR-RA) and Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR). Section 3.40 Map of Zoning Districts: The location and boundaries of the zoning districts established by this Ordinance are as indicated on a parcel specific map entitled "Official Zoning Map, Jefferson County, Washington". This map, together with all explanatory materials contained thereon, is hereby adopted as part of this Ordinance insofar as it indicates such designations, locations and boundaries of zoning districts, and shall be deemed to be part of this Ordinance. 18 017 ~August 25, l~8 ~mcnded November ~, l~8 and by Ord No. Section3.50 Interpretation ofZoning District Boundaries: In the event that uncertainties exist with respect to the intended boundaries of the various zoning districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, the following rules shall apply: 1. Where a zoning district line purposely divides a land parcel the parcel shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of the respective districts as applied to each portion of the subject parcel. 2. In the event that districts are overlain by Shoreline Management Master Program designation(s) or any other designation authorized by another regulation, the most restrictive regulations shall apply. 3. In the event that uncertainty exists as to the zoning district boundaries illustrated on the attached zoning maps, the district boundary shall be defined by either the nearest lot line; the center lines of highways, streets, alleys, railroad right-of-way, municipal corporation lines, natural boundary lines, streams and tidal waters subject to the Shoreline Management Master Program jurisdiction, or other lines determined by the scales shown on said map(s). Section 3.60 Statement of Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts: The purpose statement of each zoning district set forth in the following sections of this ordinance shall be used to guide the application of land use regulations applicable to each particular zone. The purpose statement shall also be used to guide interpretation and application of land use regulations within the zones and designations, and any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through amendments to this Ordinance. All administrative and staff decisions shall sufficiently cite the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan showing the specific application is in accordance with this Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (EICO) and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Section 3.70 Rural Residential Districts: The purpose of Rural Residential districts is to allow for a harmonious mixture and variety of rural residential densities which protect and foster Jefferson County's rural character, while preserving open spaces and vistas. Rural Residential areas are not considered major resource areas (timber, agricultural, mineral), but are so situated that they may provide agricultural/timber/mineral value.(See Section 5: One (1) dwelling unit per 5 acres; Section 6: One (1) dwelling unit per 10 acres & Section 7: One (1) dwelling unit per 20 acres) Section 3.80 Rural Village Center Districts: The purpose of Rural Village Centers is to provide a focal point for community identity while providing for most of the essential needs of the surrounding rural population and the traveling public. These areas supply a variety of basic goods and day-to-day services, while also providing a limited range of professional, public and social services. (See Section 11) The nature of commercial activities located within Rural Village Centers include, but is not limited to, groceries, eating and drinking establishments, gas stations and auto repair/parts, building materials, hardware and farm equipment, clothing and accessories, a limited range specialty stores, a limited range of professional services, warehousing and storage if limited in scale, and necessary public and social services (See the attached Land Use Table and Bulk and Dimensional Tables for clearer direction on the types and scale of allowed commercial activities on each zoning district.) The nature of future permitted commercial activity proposed to be sited in existing Rural Village Centers shall be restricted to those uses which are determined and supported by written findings of fact that the use is rural in nature and scale, serves the local or immediate population, does not constitute urban development, and does not require an urban level of service. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 and by Ord No. 07-1109-98 19 Section 3.90 Convenience Crossroad: Convenience crossroads consist of a single commercial property at a historical crossroads. Typically, the existing commercial use is a convenience general store with associated uses such as a gas station, video, espresso, or caf6/deli, and provides basic goods and commodities for the local population and the commuting or traveling public. Future land uses will be limited because these historical locations are typified by a single structure providing multiple uses. Future land uses permitted in these areas shall be characterized by their rural scale and shall not be oriented to markets beyond the local rural population. Areas identified as Convenience Crossroads in Jefferson County include Wawa Point, Beaver Valley and Nordland. (See the Land Use Table and Bulk and Dimensional Tables in each zone for clearer direction on the types and scale of allowed commercial activities in each zoning district.) Section 3.100 Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads: The purpose of the Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad Districts is to serve the nearby rural neighborhood and the commuting or traveling public. These historic areas typically provide an extended range of goods and services by establishment of restaurants, taverns/bars, auto part stores, hotel/motels and a limited range of specialty and professional services. Performance standards for new development will be consistent with the rural character, size, and scale of the existing commercial area and surrounding neighborhood. Rural Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads include Mats Mats Bay, Discovery Bay and Gardiner, Four Corners, and Chimacum. (See the attached Land Use Table and Bulk and Dimensional Tables in Section 9 for clearer direction on the types and scale of allowed commercial activities on each zoning district.) Section 3.110 General Crossroads: General Crossroads are existing historic commercial areas that provide a broad range of commercial goods and services for a higher population base in the northeastern part of Jefferson County. Existing and permitted uses in these areas will include all local/convenience and neighborhood/visitor uses, as well as building material, hardware and farm equipment, auto repair with subordinate vehicle sales, furniture and appliances, clothing and accessories, mini-storage, RV sales, and an expanded range of specialty stores, professional services, and public and social services at sizes and scales of new development larger than those of neighborhood/visitor crossroads, but more limited than those for Rural Village Centers. Jefferson County's General Crossroads include Ness' Comer, Irondale Comer, and SR 19/20. (See the attached Land Use Table and Bulk and Dimensional Tables in Section 10 for clearer direction on the types and scale of allowed commercial activities on each zoning district.) Section 3.120 Commercial and Rural Forest Districts: (See Ordinance No. 01-0121-97) The purpose of Jefferson County's Forest Lands Ordinance is to ensure forest lands of long-term significance are protected from incompatible uses thereby sustaining the ability of forest resource extraction activities to be maintained as a viable commercial activity. The development standards, permitted uses and residential densities allowed in these districts, in addition to classification and designation criteria, are contained in Ordinance No.01-0121-97, the Jefferson County Interim Forest Lands Ordinance. Section 3.130 Commercial Agricultural District: (See Ordinance No. 08-0525-95) The purpose of the Commercial Agricultural District is to protect and preserve areas of prime agricultural soils for the continued production of commercial crops, livestock, or other agricultural products requiring large tracts of agricultural land. Protection of aquacultural resources is included in the Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance. The standards and densities prescribed for this district in Ordinance No. 08-0525-95 the Jefferson County Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance, are intended to preserve the open space character of the area and thereby protect the business and lifestyle associated with commercial agriculture and aquaculture. This district is not intended to regulate agricultural uses, but to regulate and/or protect those uses which threaten agricultural use of the land. 20 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Section 3.140 Mineral Land Districts: (See Ordinance No. 09-0525-95) The purpose of the Mineral Land District is to provide for the conservation of Mineral Lands of long-term commercial significance. In addition, it is the intent of this district to aid in sustaining and enhancing mineral extraction and primary processing activities of long-term commercial significance by protecting designated lands from incompatible development and to allow for the continued contribution of Mineral Lands to Jefferson County's economy. The standards and regulations guiding land use decisions in this district are contained in Ordinance No. 09- 0525-95, the Jefferson County Interim Mineral Lands Ordinance. Section 3.150 Industrial Zones: Section 3.151 Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Commercial: Uses for the Light Industrial/Commercial designation at Glen Cove include commercial and retail uses that are either directly associated with the light industrial use such as commodities and products, mechanical or electrical supplies, warehousing and storage, or provide support services to those who work in the industries, such as a small caf& Light industrial/commercial uses allowed at Glen Cove include but are not limited to: industrial parks, light manufacturing, construction yards, engine repair, metal fabrication or machining, plumbing shops and yards, printing and binding facilities (non-retail), research laboratories, excavating contractors, fumiture manufacturing, software development, lumber yards, vehicle repair and restoration, warehousing and storage, boat building and repair, craft goods, blacksmith or forge, commercial relay and transfer stations, boat storage, and associated commercial as discussed above. Also permitted as conditional uses are those such as: amateur radio towers greater than 65 feet in height, cafe, car wash, electronic goods repair, fitness center, kennels, mini-storage, and nursery/landscape materials. Section 3.152 Quilcene Light Industrial: The existing industrial uses include a sawmill, a machine shop, and industrial storage. Light industrial uses allowed in the Quilcene Industrial Area include but are not limited to those described above for Glen Cove, with the exception of the associated commercial uses. Section 3.153 The Port Townsend Paper Mill Interim Heavy Industrial: This district recognizes the Port Townsend Paper Mill and its ancillary uses. Section 3.154 Center, Gardiner, and West End Forest Resource Based Industrial Zones: The Forest Resource-Based Industrial Zones are limited to forest resource-based industrial uses in order to prevent the establishment of a wider range of industrial uses. Section 3.160 Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort: 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. The Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow also includes a large residential community. The entire resort is served by a Village Commercial Center, which accommodates uses regulated by the County and limited to serving the resort and local population. The Master Planned Resort's internal regulations and planning restrictions such as codes, covenants and restrictions may be more restrictive than County requirements. However, Jefferson County does not enforce private codes, covenants and restrictions. Note: The uses for the MPR-MF and MPR-RC/CF will be developed and implemented in future interim regulations. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 21 Section 3.170 Zones, Maps and Boundaries: District Establishment of Land Use Zones. In order to regulate uses of land and built structures in conformance with the policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Jefferson County provides the following use districts: RURAL RESIDENTIAL Rural Residential 1 unit/5 acres Rural Residential 1 unit/10 acres Rural Residential 1 unit/20 acres Symbol RR 1:5 RR 1:10 RR 1:20 RURAL INTERIM COMMERCIAL Convenience Crossroads Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads General Crossroads Rural Centers (Rural Village Center) CC NC GC RVC RESOURCE LANDS Agricultural Commercial Forest Rural Forest Mineral INDUSTRIAL Quilcene Light Industrial/Manufacturing Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Commercial (Glen Cove) Port Townsend Paper Mill Interim Heavy Industrial AG CF RF LI LC HI FOREST RESOURCE BASED INDUSTRIAL ZONE Center Gardiner West End RBIZ RBIZ RBIZ PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT COMMERCIAL Village Commercial Center RESIDENTIAL Single Family 4 unit/acre Single Family Tracts 1 unit/2.5 acres Multi-Family 10 units/acre Resort Complex/Community Facilities Open Space Reserve Recreation Area MPR MPR-VC MPR SF 4:1 MPR SFT 1:2.5 MPR-MF MPR-RC/CF MPR-OSR MPR-RA 'VOL 22 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Zone Maps. The map(s) shall be filed by the County and be permanently displayed and available to the public. Regardless of the existence of purported copies of the official map, which may, from time to time, be made or published, the Official Zoning Map, shall be located in the Jefferson County Permit Center and the Office of Long Range Planning, and shall be the final authority as to the boundaries of the land use districts. Rules of Construction. When uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of any land use district portrayed on the official zoning map, the rules of construction contained in Section 3.50 (1) (2) and (3) shall apply. In case uncertainty exists which cannot be determined by application of the rules of construction, the Planning Commission shall recommend, and the Board of County Commissioners, based solely on that recommendation, shall determine the location of such zone boundaries. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 23 SECTION 4 IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF INTERIM RURAL COMMERCIAL VILLAGE CENTERS, PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER, INTERIM RURAL CROSSROADS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Sections: 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 Purpose and Intent Designation of Rural Village and Commercial Centers Designation of Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Village Commercial Center Designation of Rural Crossroads Designation of Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Commercial District Designation of Industrial Districts Designation of Forest Resource Based Industrial Zones Section 4.10 Purpose and Intent: It is the purpose of this section to identify those areas within Jefferson County designated as Rural Commercial Village Centers and Rural Crossroads. These districts are intended to accommodate rural commercial development which serves the needs of the rural population. Except for the Port Ludlow Commercial Village Center, permitted activities are required to not be urban in size, scale, intensity or character. These limited rural commercial areas provide for local entertainment and recreational opportunities, provide an activity focus for the surrounding rural area that is appropriate in scale and character and to provide an opportunity for the location of public and private facilities that support the continued function of the designated Rural Village Centers and Rural Crossroads. In addition, some of these areas provide appropriate services to the traveling public, tourists and other visitors recreating at major recreational facilities. Permitted uses are listed in sections 8, 9, 10 and 11. Section 4.20 Designation of Interim Rural Village and Commercial Centers: The following Interim Rural Village Commercial Centers are hereby designated and on the attached Official Interim Zoning Map(s) of Jefferson County: 1. Port Hadlock Interim Rural Village Center.(Interim Boundary) 2. Brinnon Interim Rural Village Center. (Interim Boundary) 3. Quilcene Interim Rural Village Center. (Interim Boundary) Section 4.30 Designation of Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Village Commercial Center: The following Commercial Center is hereby designated as illustrated on the attached maps: 1. Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center (MPR-VC). (Final Boundary) Section 4.40 Designation of Interim Rural Crossroads: The following Interim Rural Crossroads locations have been identified and designated as illustrated on the attached maps: Interim Convenience Crossroads: 1. Wawa Point Interim Convenience Rural Crossroad. (Interim Boundary). 2. Beaver Valley Interim Convenience Rural Crossroad. (Interim Boundary). 3. Nordland Interim Convenience Rural Crossroad. (Interim Boundary). 24 'VOJ. 2/~ lcfii 3I~'~ August28, 1998 amended November g, 1998 Interim Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads: 1. Mats Mats Interim Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. (Interim Boundary). 2. Discovery Bay Interim Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. (Interim Boundary). 3. Gardiner Interim Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. (Interim Boundary). 4. Four Comers Interim Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad (Interim Boundary) 5. Chimacum Interim Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad (Interim Boundary) Interim General Commercial Crossroads: 1. Ness' Comer Interim General Rural Crossroad (Interim Boundary). 2. Irondale Comer Interim General Rural Crossroad (Interim Boundary). 3. State Route 19/20 Intersection Interim General Rural Crossroad. (Interim Boundary). Section 4.50 Designation of Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Commercial District: The following interim Light Industrial/Commercial District has been identified and designated as illustrated on the attached map(s). 1. Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Commercial District. (Interim Boundary) Section 4.60 Designation of Industrial Districts: The following existing industrial areas have been identified and designated as illustrated on the attached map(s). 1. Quilcene Light Industrial District (Final Boundary) 2. The Port Townsend Mill Interim Heavy Industrial District (Interim Boundary) Section 4.70 Designation of Forest Resource Based Industrial Zones: The following existing forest resource based Industrial zones have been identified and designated as illustrated on the attached map(s). Center Forest Resource Based Industrial Zone Gardiner Forest Resource Based Industrial Zone West End Forest Resource Based Industrial Zone August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 · VOL 25 SECTION 5 RURAL RESIDENTIAL--1 DWELLING UNIT PER 5 ACRES DISTRICT (RR 1-5) Sections: 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 Purpose and Intent Appropriate Zone Base Density Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements Setbacks and Minimum Lot Width Zoning Code Standards and Criteria Additional Requirements Section 5.10 Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this district is twofold. First, this district is to allow for continued residential development in areas of Jefferson County consisting of relatively high density pre- existing patterns of development, along the County's coastal areas, and within areas within or adjacent to Rural Centers and Rural Crossroads. In addition, this district seeks to support and foster Jefferson County's existing rural residential landscape and character by restricting new land divisions to a base density of 1 unit per 5 acres. Section 5.20 Appropriate Zone: In order to determine whether or not a proposed use fits within the R-5 District, the use must be specified. Structures without a specific use will not be permitted. Section 5.30 Base Density: The base density for this district is a maximum of one (1) unit per five (5) acres. Clustering and/or lot averaging is prohibited in this district. Section 5.40 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements: The following tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located in the RR 1-5 zone. Section 5.50 Setbacks and Minimum Lot Width: All setbacks shall be measured from the lot line to the building line. Section 5.60 Zoning Code Standards and Criteria: In addition to the regulations contained in this ordinance, please refer to the Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No. 09-0801-94 as revised for additional development standards and review criteria. In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. 26 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Table 5-1 Residential Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Residential Zones Minimums Maximums Zone: RR 1-5 Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Land Front Side (each) Rear Impervious Height Building Minor Major Minor Principal Surface Size Use Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage 5' 5' Subject to Existing, platted 45% 35' lots: One (1) lot, septic and 12,500 square water feet or Health When constraints, Department 20' 30' 35' 50' abutting an lot size and ~ standards, established all other ~ LI Use or 25' -- ~' whichever is applicable ~ greater. Zone: 25' requirements Ability to subdivide is When regulated by the abutting an mapped established development HI Use or 50' density Zone: 50' (Lot averaging When and clustering abutting an are prohibited established during interim Commercial period) Use or 25' Zone: 25' Section 5.70 Additional Requirements: Refer to the following Regulations for additional provisions or development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented above: 2. 3. 4. 5. Ordinance No.05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance; Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance; Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems, Environmental Health Policy No. 97-02; Shoreline Management Master Program; Other local, state and federal regulations as applicable. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 27 Sections: 6.10 6.20 6.30 6.40 6.50 6.60 6.70 SECTION 6 RURAL RESIDENTIAL--1 DWELLING UNIT PER 10 ACRES DISTRICT (uR 1/lO) Purpose and Intent Permitted Uses Base Density Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements Setbacks and Minimum Lot Width Zoning Code Standards and Criteria Additional Requirements Section 6.10 Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this district is provide: a transitional area between the Rural Residential One (1) per Five (5) acre district and the Rural Residential One (1) Unit per Twenty (20) Acre District; preserve open space, protect critical areas, provide for the continuation of small-scale agricultural and forestry, and preserve and retain the rural landscape and character indigenous to Jefferson County. Section 6.20 Appropriate Zone: In order to determine whether or not a proposed use fits within the R-10 District, the use must be specified. Structures without a specific use will not be permitted. Section 6.30 Base Density: The base density for this district is a maximum of one (1) unit per ten (10) acres. Clustering and/or lot averaging is prohibited in this district. Section 6.40 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements: The following tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located in the R- 10 zone. Section 6.50 Setbacks and Minimum Lot Width: All setbacks shall be measured from the lot line to the building line. Section 6.60 Zoning Code Standards and Criteria: In addition to the regulations contained in this ordinance, please refer to the Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No. 09-0801-94 as revised for additional development standards and review criteria. In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. 28 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Table 6-1 Residential Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Residential Zones Minimums Maximums Zone: RR 1-10 Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Land Front Side (each) Rear Impervious Height Building Minor Major Minor Principal Surface Size Use Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage 5' 5' Existing, platted 45% 35' Subject to lots: One (1) lot, septic and 12,500 square water feet or Health When constraints, Department 20 30' 35' 50' abutting an lot size and ~lj standards, established all other e~ LI Use or 25' -- ~ whichever is applicable ~' Zone: 25' ~- greater, requirements ~. Ability to I~ When ,-- subdivide is regulated by the abutting an mapped established development HI Use or 50' density Zone: 50' (Lot averaging When and clustering abutting an are prohibited established during interim Commercial period) Use or 25' Zone: 25' Section 6.70 Additional Requirements: Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions or development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented above: 2. 3. 4. 5. Ordinance No.05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance; Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance; Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems, Environmental Health Policy No. 97-02; Shoreline Management Master Program; Other local, state and federal regulations, as applicable. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 29 Sections 7.10 7.20 7.30 7.40 7.50 7.60 7.70 SECTION 7 RURAL RESIDENTIAL--1 DWELLING UNIT PER 20 ACRES DISTRICT (RR I:20) Purpose and Intent Appropriate Zone Base Density Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements Setbacks and Minimum Lot Width Zoning Code Standards and Criteria Additional Requirements Section 7.10 Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this district is to provide a buffer in areas adjacent to UGAs and designated forest and agricultural lands of long-term significance, as well as protecting areas identified as possessing area-wide environmental features which constrain development such as shoreline areas or areas of steep and unstable slopes. This district also protects land from premature conversion to higher residential densities prior to an established need. Section 7.20 Appropriate Zone: In order to determine whether or not a proposed use fits within the R-20 District, the use must be specified. Structures without a specific use will not be issued a building permit. Section 7.30 Base Densi _ty: The base density for this district is a maximum of one (1) unit per twenty (20) acres. Clustering and/or lot averaging are prohibited in this district. Section 7.40 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements: The following tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located in the R-20 zone. Section 7.50 Setbacks and Minimum Lot Width: All setbacks shall be measured from the lot line to the building line. Section 7.60 Zoning Code Standards and Criteria: In addition to the regulations contained in this ordinance, please refer to the Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No. 09-0801-94 as revised for additional development standards and review criteria. In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. 3O August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Table 7-1 Residential Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Residential Zones Minimums Maximums Zone: RR 1-20 Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Land Front Side (each) Rear Impervious Height Building Minor Major Minor Principal Surface Size Use Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage Existing, platted 45% 35' Subject to septic and water lots: One (1) lot, constraints, 12,500 square When lot size and feet or Health 20' 30' 35' 50' abutting an all other Department established applicable  standards, LI Use or 25' requirements ..~ whichever is Zone: 25' ~, greater. ~. Ability to When ,-- subdivide is abutting an regulated by the established mapped HI Use or 50' development Zone: 50' density (Lot averaging When and clustering abutting an are prohibited established during interim Commercial period) Use or 25' Zone: 25' Section 7.70 Additional Requirements: Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions or development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented above: 2. 3. 4. 5. Ordinance No.05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance; Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance; Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems, Environmental Health Policy No. 97-02; Shoreline Management Master Program; Other local, state and federal regulations, as applicable. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 31 Sections: 8.10 8.20 8.30 8.40 8.50 8.60 8.70 SECTION 8 INTERIM CONVENIENCE CROSSROADS DISTRICT (CC) Purpose and Intent Appropriate Zone Minimum Lot Size Maximum Building Size Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements Zoning Code Standards and Criteria Additional Requirements Section 8.10 Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this district is to recognize existing historic Rural Crossroad Areas which are characterized by providing a limited range of goods and services serving the local population and the traveling public. These areas are typically located at the intersection of local arterials, collectors and State Routes. These areas are often typified by the existence of a small convenience store/gas station. Nordland, Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point have been designated Convenience Crossroads. Section 8.20 Appropriate Zone. In order to determine whether or not a proposed use fits within the CC District, the use must be specified. Structures without a specific use will not be issued a building permit. Section 8.30 Minimum Lot Size: Convenience Crossroads shall not be subdivided. Section 8.40 Maximum Building Size: The maximum building size in the CC district is 5,000 square feet. Section 8.50 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements: The following tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located in the CC zone. Section 8.60 Zoning Code Standards and Criteria: In addition to the regulations contained in this ordinance, please refer to the Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No. 09-0801-94 as revised for additional development standards and review criteria. In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. 32 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Table 8-1 Commercial Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Interim Convenience Commercial Crossroads (CC) Minimums Maximums Zone: Convenience Commercial Crossroads Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Land Front Side Rear Impervious Height Building Use Minor Major Minor Principal (each) Surface Size Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage C~ 5' 5' ~ 45% 35' 5,000 sq. ft. ~ Convenience ~ Crossroads shall e~ not be When ~ subdivided 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an }~ established Industrial 20' Use or Zone: 20' When abutting an established 35' Residential Use or Zone: 35' Section 8.70 Additional Requirements: Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions or performance standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented above: 2. 3. 4. 5. Ordinance No.05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance; Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance; Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems, Environmental Health Policy No. 97-02; Shoreline Management Master Program; Other local, state and federal regulations as applicable. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 33 Sections: 9.10 9.20 9.30 9.40 9.50 9.60 9.70 SECTION 9 INTERIM NEIGHBORHOOD/VISITOR CROSSROAD DISTRICT (NC) Purpose and Intent Appropriate Zone Minimum Lot Size Maximum Building Size Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements Zoning Code Standards and Criteria Additional Requirements Section 9.10 · Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this district is to recognize existing historic Rural Commercial Areas which are characterized by providing an expanded range of goods and services to the local population and traveling public and which are located on, or have immediate access to, a state route or major arterial. An established mix of commercial and industrial uses further characterizes this district. Mats Mats, Gardiner, Discovery Bay, Four Corners and Chimacum have been designated Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads. Section 9.20 Appropriate Zone: In order to determine whether or not a proposed use fits within the NC District, the use must be specified. Structures without a specific use will not be issued a building permit. Section 9.30 Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the NC district is three (3) acres. Existing lots are buildable if they meet County Health Department standards for the specific non-residential use. Section 9.40 Maximum Building Size: The maximum building size in the NC district is 7,500 square feet. Section 9.50 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements: The following tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located in NC zones. Section 9.60 Zoning Code Standards and Criteria: In addition to the regulations contained in this ordinance, please refer to the Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No. 09-0801-94 as revised for additional development standards and review criteria. In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. 34 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Table 9-1 Commercial Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Interim Neighborhood Visitor Crossroads (NC) Minimums Maximums Zone: Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads Land Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Front Side Rear Impervious Height Building use Minor Major Minor Principal (each) Surface Size Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage ~ 5' 5' ~ 45% 35' 7,500 sq. ft. ~ Three (3) acres ~ When ~ Existing lots ,n 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an ¢~ may be ~' established I~ developed if they meet Industrial 20' Health Dept. Use or standards for the Zone: 20' specific use. When abutting an established 35' Residential Use or Zone: 35' Section 9.70 Additional Requirements: Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions or development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented above: 1. Ordinance No.05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance; 2. Ordinance No. 10~ 1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance; 3. Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems, Environmental Health Policy No. 97-02; 4. Shoreline Management Master Program; 5. Other local, state and federal regulations as applicable. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 35 Sections: 10.10 10.20 10.30 10.40 10.50 10.60 10.70 SECTION 10 INTERIM RURAL GENERAL CROSSROAD DISTRICT (GC) Purpose and Intent Appropriate Zone Minimum Lot Size Maximum Building Size Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements Zoning Code Standards and Criteria Additional Requirements Section 10.10 Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the GC district is to recognize existing historic Rural Commercial Crossroad Areas which are characterized by providing an expanded range of goods and services and which are located on, or have immediate access to, a state route or major arterial. Irondale Comer, Ness' Comer and SR 19/20 Intersection. Section 10.20 Appropriate Zone: In order to determine whether or not a proposed use fits within the GC District, the use must be specified. Structures without a specific use will not be issued a building permit. Section 10.30 Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the GC district is three (3) acres. Existing lots are buildable if they meet County Health Department standards for the specific commercial use. Section 10.40 Maximum Building Size: The maximum building size in the GC district is 10,000 square feet. Section 10.50 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements: The following tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located in GC zones. Section 10.60 Zoning Code Standards and Criteria: In addition to the regulations contained in this ordinance, please refer to the Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No. 09-0801-94 as revised for additional development standards and review criteria. In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. 36 30~gust 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Table 10-1 Commercial Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Interim General Commercial Crossroads (GC) Minimums Maximums Zone: General Commercial Crossroads Land Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Front Side Rear Impervious Height Building Use Minor Major Minor Principal (each) Surface Size Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage 45% 35' 10,000 sq. ft. ~ Three (3) acres ~ When e~ Existing lots ,n 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an ~. may be ~ developed if established they meet Industrial 20' Health Dept. Use or standards for the Zone: 20' specific use. When abutting an established 35' Residential Use or Zone: 35' Section 10.70 Additional Requirements: Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions or development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented above: 2. 3. 4. 5. Ordinance No.05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance; Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance; Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems, Environmental Health Policy No. 97-02; Shoreline Management Master Program; Other local, state and federal regulations as applicable. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 37 SECTION 11 INTERIM RURAL VILLAGE CENTERS DISTRICTS (RVC) Sections: 11.10 11.20 11.30 11.40 11.50 11.60 11.70 Purpose Appropriate Zone Minimum Lot Size Maximum Building Size Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements Zoning Code Standards and Criteria Additional Requirements Section 11.10 Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this district is to recognize pre-existing historic Commercial Community Centers that offer a variety of basic daily needs to the local rural population, supplies goods and day-to-day services; and provides limited public and social services. Port Hadlock, Brinnon and Quilcene have been designated Rural Centers. Section 11.20 Appropriate Zone: In order to determine whether or not a proposed use fits within the RVC District, the use must be specified. Structures without a specific use will not be permitted. Section 11.30 Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the RVC District is equal to three (3) acres Existing lots are buildable if they meet County Health Department standards for the specific commercial use. Section 11.40 Maximum Building Size: The maximum building size in the RVC zone is 20,000 square feet. Section 11.50 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements: The following tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located in an RVC zone. Section 11.60 Zoning Code Standards and Criteria: In addition to the regulations contained in this ordinance, please refer to the Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No. 09-0801-94 as revised for additional development standards and review criteria. In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. 38 _August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 and by Ord No. 07-1109-98 Table 11-1 Commercial Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Interim Rural Village Centers (RVC) Minimums Zone: Interim Rural Village Centers Maximums Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Land Front Side Rear Impervious Height Building Use Minor Major Minor Principal (each) Surface Size Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage ~ 5' 5' o 45% 35' 20,000 ~ Three (3) acres sq. ft. ~ When e~ Existing lots ~ 25' 30' 30' 35' abutting an e~ may be ~' developed if established '- LI Use or 20' they meet Health Dept. Zone: 20' standards for the specific use. When abutting an established 25' Residential Use or Zone: 25' Existing, platted lots: One (1) lot, 20' 30' 35' 35' 5' 5' 12,500 square 45% 35' Subject to septic and feet or Health When water Department constraints abutting an standards, established 25' whichever is Industrial greater. Use or Unplatted Lands Zone: 25' Mapped development V~he.n density ~s~a~t?s~ Commercial 25' (Lot averaging Use or Zone: 25' and clustering are prohibited for the interim period) Section 1 1.70 Additional Requirements: Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions and development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented above: 2. 3. 4. 5. Ordinance No.05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance; Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance; Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems, Environmental Health Policy No. 97-02; Shoreline Management Master Program; Other local, state and federal regulations as applicable. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 and by Ord No. 07-1109-98 39 SECTION 12 GLEN COVE INTERIM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL AREA (LC) QUILCENE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA (LI) PORT TOWNSEND PAPER MILL INTERIM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA (HI) Sections: 12.10 12.20 12.30 12.40 12.50 12.60 12.70 12.80 · 12.90 Purpose and Intent Accessory Uses Appropriate Zone Minimum Lot Size Maximum Building Size Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements Port Townsend Mill Heavy Industrial Zone Permitted Uses Zoning Code Standards and Criteria Additional Requirements Section 12.10 Purpose and Intent: Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Commercial District: It is the purpose and intent of this section to provide regulations and standards by which development proposed in the Glen Cove tight-line area can be processed and by which applications for business expansion outside of the LC area, but within the larger Potential Final Urban Growth Area (PFUGA) of Glen Cove may be considered. Applications for new industrial/commercial development outside of the LC boundary will not be accepted for the duration of this ordinance. Associated Commercial Activities: Within the Glen Cove boundary, associated commercial activities are allowed. Associated Commercial Activities are intended to directly serve the needs of the land use activities existing within the Glen Cove Interim District. Commercial uses of a retail or general nature not associated with an industrial use are not allowed to locate in this district. Quilcene Light Industrial District: It is the purpose and intent of this section to provide regulations and standards to guide decisions regarding development proposals for the Quilcene Light Industrial Area. Co Port Townsend Paper Mill Interim Heavv Industrial District: It is the purpose and intent of this section to provide regulations and standards to guide decisions regarding development proposals for the Port Townsend Paper Mill Interim Heavy Industrial District. 40 VOL 24 ' ~(~ _ 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Section 12.20 Accessory Uses: 1. Offices in conjunction with a permitted use. 2. Outdoor storage facilities associated with the permitted or conditional use; 3. Temporary classrooms (portables). Section 12.30 Appropriate Zone. In order to determine whether or not a proposed use fits within the district, the use must be specified. Structures without a specific use will not be issued a building permit. Section 12.40 Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the Glen Cove "Interim" Light Industrial/Commercial District, the Quilcene Light Industrial District and the Mill Interim Heavy Industrial District is equal to that required by the Jefferson County Health Department for the specific industrial activity proposed. Section 12.50 Maximum Building Size: The maximum building size in the Glen Cove Interim LC District shall be 20,000 square feet. The maximum building size in the Potential Final Urban Growth Area (PFUGA) outside of the Glen Cove LC District is 20,000 square feet for the expansion of an existing building housing an existing business. Existing structures shall only be expanded and/or enlarged once, regardless of whether or not the expansion and/or enlargement was expanded and/or enlarged to reach the building cap size. No applications for new structures will be accepted for the PFUGA outside of the Glen Cove LC District. Businesses located within but on the edge of the LC boundary where the option to expand can only be accommodated by expanding across the boundary shall be permitted to expand across the boundary. The 20,000 square foot building/project cap on expansion shall apply and the restriction on expansion is allowed one time only. Any new structure shall meet all Health Department requirements and all bulk and dimensional requirements contained in the bulk and dimensional tables that follow. The maximum building size for the Quilcene Light Industrial District is 25,000 square feet. There is no maximum building size within the Port Townsend Paper Mill Interim Heavy Industrial District. Section 12.60 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements: The following tables shall be used for reviewing and conditioning all development proposals located in LI, LC, and HI zones. Section 12.70 Port Townsend Mill Heavy Industrial Zone Permitted Uses: Activities directly associated with and ancillary to the operations of the Port Townend Paper Mill. Section 12.80 Zoning Code Standards and Criteria: In addition to the regulations contained in this ordinance, please refer to the Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No. 09-0801-94 as revised for additional development standards and review criteria. In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 41 Table 12.1 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Expansion of Existing Non-residential Structures in the Potential Final Urban Growth Area (PFUGA) Minimums Zone: R-5 Maximum Expansion Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Front Side (each) Rear Impervious Height Building Land Minor Major Minor Principal Surface Size Use Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage ~ 5' 5' 20,000 ~ Lot sizes shall When 45% 35' sq. ft. ~' be sufficient to abutting an ~ meet the public ~' established "!. health and }~ environmental 20' 30' 35' 35' Commercial " Use/Zone: protection 20' standards 20' contained in When Jefferson abutting an County established regulations Residential Development or Residential Use/Zone: 35' 35' 42 ¥0L ~,~r~.r - August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Table 12.2 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Glen Cove Interim Boundary Minimums Zone: Glen Cove Maximums Light Industrial/Commercial (LC) Boundary Maximum Building Total Lot Size Required Setbacks Land Front Side (each) Rear Impervious Height Building Use Minor Major Minor Principal Surface Size Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage ~ Lot sizes shall 45% 20,000 e~ be sufficient to 35' sq. ft. ,.,~ meet the public When '!. health and I~ environmental 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an "' established protection Commercial 20' standards Use/Zone: contained in 20' Jefferson County When regulations abutting an established Residential Development 20' or Residential Use/Zone: 35' Lot sizes shall 45% 35' 5,000 sq. ft. be sufficient to meet the public When health and 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an environmental established protection LI Use or 25' standards Zone: 20' contained in Jefferson County regulations When abutting an established Residential 35' Use or Zone: 35' August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 43 Table 12-3 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Quilcene Light Industrial Zone (LI) vlinimums Zone: Quilcene Light Industrial (LB Maximums Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Front Side (each) Rear Impervious Height Building Land Minor Major Minor Principal Surface Size Use Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage ~ 25,000 ~ Lot sizes shall 45% 35' ft. ~' be sufficient to sq. ~m meet the public When ~. health and 1~ environmental 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an established protection Commercial 20' standards Use/Zone: contained in 20' Jefferson County When regulations abutting an established Residential Development 35' or Residential Use/Zone: 35' When abutting an established HI Use or 20' Zone: 20' 44 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Table 12-4 Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for the Mill Interim Heavy Industrial Zone (HI) Minimums Zone: Mill Heavy Industrial (HI) Maximums Lot Size Required Setbacks Maximum Building Total Front Side (each) Rear Impervious Height Building Land Minor Major Minor Principal Surface Size Use Collector Collector Arterial Arterial Coverage ~.~ 50' 50' ~ Lot sizes shall 50% UBC N/A ~ be sufficient to Standards ~ meet the public When 2. health and 1~ environmental 20' 30' 35' 35' abutting an '" established protection LI Use or 20' standards Zone: 20' contained in Jefferson When County abutting an regulations established 25' Commercial Use or Zone:25' When abutting an established Residential Development or Residential 100' Use/Zone: 100' Section 12.90 Additional Requirements: Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions or development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented above: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ordinance No.05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance; Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance; Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems, Environmental Health Policy No. 97-02; Shoreline Management Master Program; Other local, state and federal regulations as applicable. Highway 20 Corridor Policies August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 45 SECTION 13 USE TABLES Key: C = Conditionally Permitted in the zone. ¢ = Permitted Outright in the zone. L -- Essential Public Facilities sited in accordance with RCW 36.70A.200 are a legislation action. Uses for the Jefferson County International Airport are described in Section 15. Note: Crossroads are hierarchical in terms of allowed uses i.e. any use allowed in a more restrictive crossroad is allowed in a less restrictive crossroad unless otherwise noted. The absence of a check mark in a box means the use is not allowed in that zone. Uses not listed in this table or the corresponding section as specifically permitted, outright or conditionally, in a specific zone are prohibited unless: · determined to be similar to a listed use through an administrative clarification, or · added to the table by amendment of this ordinance through a legislative process. Uses shall be strictly interpreted. 46 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Table 13-1 Permitted and Conditional Uses CC NC GC RVC LC LI HI R-5 R- 10 R-20 District Mill ~onven. N'hood ,Qeneral RRral Light Light ~Hegvy Res Res Res Use cross comm. ~/fil.age Roads Visitor center Ind Ind [l[~ 5 10 20 /Assoc section 12.70 Comm p. 41 Accessory dwellings Agencies (e.g. real estate, insurance, travel) C C Agricultural Processing, Heavy Amateur Radio Towers, C C greater than 35 feet but less than 65 feet tall Amateur Radio Towers, C C C C C C C greater than sixty five (65) feet tall Apparel, retail sales (~poPlicpn~, repair 4' usenolo) Aquaculture, in an area regulated by the Shoreline Master Program Aquaculture, in an area not 4' 4' 4' ,/ v~ ,/ C C 4' regulated by the Shoreline Master Program , Art Gallery v~ '/ 4' Assisted Living C C C ssocjqte.d _Re~ail i0 .Gl. en C ove L~ght lnaustnal Area See Section 12.10 Automatic Teller Machines -/ Bakeries/Coffee houses 4' Banks and Financial 4' Institutions Barbers and Beauty Shops Bed and breakfast inns Home Home Home Home Home Home Home Business Business with 1 or 2 Guest Rooms Business Business Business Business Business Bed and breakfast inns 4' 4' '/ C C C with 3 to 6 Guest Rooms Bicycle repair C C C C C C Boat Marinas Blacksmith or Forge August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 and by Ord No. 07-1109-98 47 District CC NC GC RVC LC LI HI R-5 R-10 R-20 Mill Use Conven. N'hood General R~ral Light .Lit~ht iHnedavy Res Res ~(~s Visitor comm. center~/fllgge Indma §~ 5 10 /Assoc section 12.70 Comm p. 41 Boat Building and Repair C `/ `/ Boat Storage `/ Bus stations and terminals 4' Cabinet shop 4' 4' Capning or bottling of food C C or ~everages Car wash C `/ C C Cemeteries C C C Church, or place of C C C C C C religious worship Clinics (medical, dental, `/ mental health, 4' 4' chiropractic) Commercial relay or `/ `/ C C C transfer stations Construction Yards 4' 4' C ,/ `/ Convenience/General 4' 4' 4' `/ stores Cottage Industry C C C C Craft (Hand Made) Goods 4' 4' `/ `/ `/ ~ay [sate less man D charges is ahome business 4' 4' 4' `/ Day Care Center (13 or 4' `/ 4' 4' ,/ more charges) Distribution Center 4' 4' Drive-in Theater C C Electronic goods repairs C 4' `/ C C Ertgiqe,repair (small, non- `/ `/ `/ vemc~e) Essential Public Facilities L L L L L L L L L L Espresso stands `/ `/ `/ `/ Excavating Contractors ,/4 `/ `/ ,/ `/ C C Farnl.Equipment & farm `/ `/ `/ suppnes Fitness Centers 4' 4' C Fire Station 48 _August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 and by Ord No. 07-1109-98 District CC NC GC RVC LC LI HI R-5 R-10 R-20 Use Conven. N'hood General )O,lage Light Ind iL2~ht iHn~aVy Res Res Res Visitor comm. center /Assoc See 5 10 20 Comm ]~c.~sn p. 41 Florist Res , ) Funeral Homes 4' Furniture Manufacture or ~- ~' Renovation Furniture, Retail 4' Garden supply '/ ~' '/ Gas Station '/ ~ ~' ~/ Girl/souvenir shops '/ ~' ~ Golf courses C C C Government Buildings and C offices Grocery Stores ~- ,/ ,/ Group Homes, '/ ~' q' ~' handicapped and other Hardware store (Retail) 4' Home Businesses 4' ~ ~ ~' Industrial park ~' ~ Industrial use, light, not ~ '/ otherwise classified Kennels C C C C Laboratories for research ~' q' and testing Light manufacturing ~ ~ Liquor Store (state) 4' 4' Lock and gunsmiths 4' ~- Lumber Yards C v~ ,/ ~' Metal fabrication and/or '/ ~ machining Mineral Extraction and C C C C C primary processing on lands not designated as Mineral Resource by Ordinance 09-0525-95 Mini-storage ~C1 & 4 4' 4' C C August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 and by Ord No. 07-1109-98 49 CC NC GC RVC LC LI HI R-5 R- 10 R-20 District Mill Use Conven. N'hood ,Qeneral ~,r, al Light Ind Light iHn~tavy Res Res Res Visitor ~omm. ×in.age Ind ~ee 5 10 center 'Assoc 20 section Comm ~.24~0 Nursery, Landscape `/ 4' `/ C C C C C materials Nursing homes and 4' C C C boarding homes for the aged; independent living; assisted living Parcel Delivery Service ,/4/C Photo Studio Pawnshop Pet shop/supplies `/ Pharmacy or dmgstore Plumbing/Electrical shops and yards Printing, publishing, `/ `/ binding and reproduction facilities (non-retail) Printing services (retail) Professional Offices `/ 4' `/ ~rocessin~ & storage of '/ `/ sh shellfish andqther aquhtic plani~' or ammms Public Community Centers C C Public parks, public C C C playgrounds Recycling Facility ,/4 `/5 RV park: Seasonal (up to C C C C C 180 days stay) Public or Private C C C RV park: Transient (up to C 30 days stay) Public or C Private RV Storage `/ C C C }deusilential,Mqltixfamily C pmx or tn-p~ex) Residences, Single Family Restaurants (See Food Service) Schools, local public C C C C C Schools, private/vocational C C C C C 50 , V0I, ;,ct ~l~gAugust_ 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 and by Ord No. 07-1109-98 District CC NC GC RVC LC LI HI R-5 R- 10 R-20 Light MIll Use Conven. N'hood ~eneral Rural .Li~ ~e,aw ?,es Res Res Visitor comm. ~fll.age Ind / center Assoc See. 5 10 20 section 12.70 Comm p. 41 Second hand stores 4' 4' Sign manufacture, C C ,/ `/ painting and maintenance Silvicultural processing `/ `/ C C C Software de. velopment / manulacturmg pta.t~le.s/,na~ng areans `/ `/ `/ rlvate~ Taverns ,/ 4' ~heater/Performing Arts C enter Greater than 65 ft in height Transitional Housing Transient accommodation, (including hostels, hotels ,/2 C and motels) Vehicle Recycling ,/4 `/5 Vehicle repair and service `/ Vehicle repair and service ,/ (w/subordinate auto sales) Vehicle restoration (auto) ~/ehicle ~alv~s, new retail C3 C auto & Veterinary hospitals C ,/ C Video Rental 4' ,/ ,/ Warehousing Water Oriented Uses within areas regulated by the Shoreline Management Master Program Water-Dependent C C ,/ commercial uses Water-enjoyment C C C commercial uses C Water-related commercial C C C uses C 1 Only in Chimacum 2 Only in Discovery Bay 3 Only in SR 19/20 4 Only in Four Comers 5 Only in Ness' Comer August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 and by Ord No. 07-1109-98 51 SECTION 14 AIRPORT LAND USES WITHIN THE EXISTING AIRPORT ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY OVERLAY BOUNDARY Sections 14.10 14.20 14.30 14.40 14.50 14.60 14.70 14.80 14.90 14.100 14.110 Purpose and Intent Applicability Airport Function Permitted Uses Aviation Support Facilities Aviation Related Development Accessory Uses Prohibited Uses Standards Zoning Code Standards and Criteria Notice of Airport Activities Section 14.10 Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of this section is to regulate and restrict land uses within the "Airport Essential Public Facility" overlay boundary depicted on the official Jefferson County land use map for an interim period during the "Special Study," after which time, an "Airport Environs Overlay District" will be established to protect existing general aviation public use airports from conflicting or incompatible adjacent land uses or activities. For the interim period, the overlay boundary consists of land associated with the airport and owned by the Port. (See map) Additionally, this section provides standards to minimize the conflicts between the Jefferson County International Airport and proposed future development proximal to the airport proper. These protective standards prevent the establishment of future incompatible uses and airspace obstructions in airport clear zones, approaches and surrounding areas and shall comply with the standards established in the Federal Aviation Administration's Aviation Regulations (FAR), Part 77 (Objects affecting navigable airspace). Section 14.20 Applicability: Where the standards contained in this ordinance conflict with FAR, Part 77, and/or base zone standards, the more restrictive shall apply. Section 14.30 Airport Function: The primary function of the Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) is to provide Jefferson County and Port Townsend with a safe, efficient link to the nation's air transportation system. In order to accomplish this function, the use of available airport land must be subject to a set of priorities that assure that it is used for this purpose. Section 14.40 Permitted Uses: All new development proposals for the Jefferson County International Airport shall be restricted to uses which are clearly identified as aviation support facilities or aviation related development. Section 14.50 Aviation Support Facilities: Aviation Support Facilities are those uses which directly support the operation of the Jefferson County Airport, and include, but are not limited to: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 52 Passenger service terminals, including food service. Navigational aids. Runway aprons. Terminal buildings. Hangars. Fuel storage facilities. Operations/maintenance facilities. Automobile parking August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 Section 14.60 Aviation Related Development: Aviation Related Development are those uses which are reliant upon the airport for their businesses: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Aircraft repair facilities; Aircraft remodeling facilities; Aircraft sales and related aircraft equipment, services and supplies; Aircraft manufacturing; Airborne freight facilities; Air pilot training schools; Aviation clubs; Taxi and bus terminal; Automobile rental and associated parking; Aircraft related manufacturing requiring taxiway access. Section 14.70 Accessory Uses: The following accessory uses are permitted in the Airport Essential Public Facility Overlay District: 1. On site hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities. Section 14.80 Prohibited Uses: In order to determine whether or not a proposed use fits within the Airport Essential Public Facility overlay, the use must be specified. Structures without a specific use will not be permitted. Additionally, uses or activities that may affect flight operations including, but not limited to the following, are prohibited: 1. Any use that releases airborne substances, such as steam, dust or smoke; 2. Any use that attracts concentrations of birds, waterfowl or other wildlife; 3. Uses that are determined to pose a hazard to the safe operation of the Airport as an aviation facility. Section 14.90 Standards: Electrical emissions. Any use or activity that emits electrical currents shall be installed in a manner that does not interfere with communication systems or navigational equipment. Lighting. New development that creates glare of lighting that interferes with the lights necessary for aircraft navigation, including landing and take-off, shall be prohibited. o Airport Essential Public Facility Overlay. Based on responses from the airport owner, state and federal aviation authorities, Jefferson County shall determine whether a particular proposal causes a significant threat to the health and safety of people on or off the property. Where a significant adverse structural impact is identified, the Planning Director may issue a determination of significance where mitigation measures are not known, or a mitigated determination of non- significance where mitigation measures are known. Height Restrictions. New development or alteration of existing development within the airport's navigable airspace shall be in accordance with "Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77: Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 53 Transportation facilities: All uses shall be served by adequate transportation facilities, including appropriate facilities for transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Where transportation facilities are not adequate to serve a proposed use, the applicant shall make provision for necessary improvements. Transportation facilities shall be deemed adequate if necessary improvements are planned and funded in the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. Transportation facilities shall meet the design standards of the Department of Public Works and Jefferson Transit. These standards include, but are not limited to, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the Washington Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. Section 14.100 Zoning Code Standards and Criteria: In addition to the regulations contained in this ordinance, please refer to the Jefferson County Zoning Code Ordinance No. 09-0801-94 as revised for additional development standards and review criteria. In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. Section 14.110 Notice of Activities in the Vicinity of the Airport: Land division, site plan applications, and building permits within the airport's area of influence (defined in the interim as that area within the airport's 65 DNL noise contour interval ) shall be submitted to the Port of Port Townsend for comment. In addition, these applications shall contain or be accompanied by a notice provided by the administrator. Said notice shall include the following disclosure: "The subject property is near an airport where a variety of airport dependent uses occur that are not compatible with development. Potential discomforts or inconveniences may include, but are not limited to: noise, aircraft take-offs and landings." Such notice to be affixed to the plat and recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. 54 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 SECTION 15 SEVERABILITY If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. These Emergency Interim Controls shall be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan as adopted until such time as the County adopts other interim development regulations. The Comprehensive Plan shall govern in the event inconsistencies occur between the Plan and existing or interim development regulations. SECTION 16 REPEALER Effective immediately upon its adoption, this Emergency Interim Ordinance repeals and replaces Ordinance No. 05-0214-96, the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (IGSO) as amended including Ordinance No. 09- 0819-96, Resolution /t82-96 and repeals the following sections of the Jefferson County Zoning Code: Sections 4, Establishment of Zoning District; Section 5, Overlay Districts; and Section 6.10, Purposes of Districts-Table of Permitted Uses; Section 8, Special Uses; Section 9, Planned Unit Developments; Subsection 12.10 and 12.20, Bulk and Dimensional Requirements; Section 16, Transfer of Development Rights; Section 18, Application for Zoning Reclassification; repeals and replaces Section 3.10 and repeals Ordinance No. 02-0505-97, Subdivision Moratorium Ordinance. SECTION 17 EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety and shall be effective immediately upon the date of adoption and shall remain in effect for a period up to 180 days from the above date. (RCW 36.70A.390) August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 3054 55 SECTION 18 ADOPTION as AMENDED er Adopted as amended by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this ~ day of Novemb ,1998. SEAL: ATTEST Lorna Delany Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Glen Huni~ ~ lepS~tlmf'2 roe;~rom m~ un~ Development 56 August 28, 1998 amended November 9, 1998 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 DATE: October 26, 1998 at 3:00 PM PLACE: Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Do you wishto present testimony? YES NO MAYBE Hearing #1 - EICO Agenda: l. Purpose: Mandatory 60-day BOCC hearing on ELCO. 9 BOCC to consider technical, non-substantive amendments to ELCO. Make reference to the list. [copies have been available to public since date of publication of notice of hearing] Planning Department to read into record summary of all written comments received by County about EICO. 4. Hold Public Heating. 5. Close Public Hearing. BOCC vote on technical amendments. [each amendment approved/rejected should be identified for the record] BOCC vote to continue EICO as an emergency ordinance for six months, or less if final development regulations are adopted earlier. Continue hearing for two weeks to November 9~ so that Planning Department can amend existing EICO, draft amended EICO ordinance and prepare findings/conclusions supporting BOCC action. CORRECTIONS F~) THE ElCO ~ , - I_._0 Section I Sect,~n I 6~) -. p 3 Repeal only subsections I ~ II) ak "" not entire Sections 5.40. 6.40, & 740: add: 'Ex,sting, previously platted lots: One ( I ) tot, [ 2,500 square feet or Health Dept. standards whichever ts greater (per Environmental Health Policy :tO7-02 effective August 26. 1997 establishing Fable VII of Chapter 246-2"/2-20501 as the applicable standard for minimum land area requirements t'or on-site sewage systems unless a Method Il approach is used) Use Table 13-I. Mill Heavy Industrial (HI): Section 12.60. Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements tp. 29) does no_.l list uses For the Mill Heavy Industrial District. Add new Section 12.70: "Activities directly associated with and ancillary to the operations of the Por~ Townsend Paper Mill." and add "Mill Uses & associated activities" to Use Table 13- I. Use Fable 13-I, p. 37: Delete "Industrial use, Heavy (including storage)" from Use Table 13-1. Use Table 13-1. p. 38 & 39: "Recycling Facilities" and "Vehicle Recycling" should be a ,/'5 in General Commercial and ,/4 in Neighborhood/Vistior indicating that such uses are permit'ted in Neighborhood/Visitor only in Four Comers and in General Commercial only in Ness' Comer. Assign one number to each crossroads to clarify exceptions. Use Table 13-1: · conditionally permit Cottage Industry in RVC; · delete home. business in Neighborhood/Visitor · delete Boat storage as conditionally permitted in LC; · reference Section 12.10 for Associated Retail in Glen Cove; Re: "associated commercial" · delete examples of associated commercial in Section 12.10; · delete warehousing as permit'ted in LC as inconsistent with Section 12.10 or add #6 "only as an associated use"; delete Fimess Center as conditionally permitxed in Quilcene L[; add private stables and riding arenas for personal use in RS, 10, & 20 add "manufacturing" to "soft ware development" add "apparel, retail" and "florist" to RVC and GC add pet shops/supplies to NV, GC, and RVC add reference to day care for {ess than 13 charges as home-based business in R-5,10,20,and RVC Repeal and replace Section 3.10 Definitions Delete references to.Viii'age Commercial Center in Section 3 subsection 3.80, Section 11, Table 1 I. 1 & Table of Uses; amend referehce in Section 3.160 to state that "Uses for the MPR will be developed and implemented in a future amendment to these regulations". 9. Section 10.50, p.25: change side and rear setbacks to 5 (five) feet. 10. Section 14.100, p.42: delete map reference I t. Section 3.90, p.8: move last paragraph to Section 3.20 12. Section 3.170 p. 10: Mineral = :~ not M; NVC '"NC; MRP-VCC -- MPR-'v'C and in subsection 3.30; NVC "NC in Section 9, 9.30, 9.40, 9..50 and Table 13-1 and Table of Contents 13. Remove quotes from around the word interim in Table of Contents and in Section 4.5 14. Section 4.40 p. 13: Interim NeighborhooclYVisitor Crossroads: (2) & (3) remove 15. Table 12.1 p.30: Change title to: "Bulk, Dimensional and General Requirements for Expansion or' Existing Non- residential Structures in the PFUGA"; delete "Outside of proposed LC boundary" 16. Fable 12-3 & 12-4: delete (s) from Zone Hearing #2 - Proposed Emergency Interim Ordinance for Port Ludlow. Agenda: 1. Purpose: Public hearing on proposed interim ordinance. [copies have been available to public since date of publication of notice of hearing] 2. Hold Public Hearing. 3. Close Public Hearing. 4. BOCC options: a. Adopt proposed ordinance as published. b. Reject proposed ordinance. c. Take no action but direct planning staffto prepare a report. Purpose of the report is to consider public testimony comments and Planning Commission proposed ordinance, and to insure consistency with Comprehensive Plan. STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON IN THE MATTER OF an Ordinance } Adopting Development Controls } Regulating and restricting land use } And development within the Port } Ludlow Master Planned Resort } ORDINANCE NO. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners enters the following findings: Jefferson County is planning under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act, codified as 36.70A. RCW. 2. Jefferson County adopted its 20-year comprehensive land use plan on August 28, 1998. The Comprehensive Plan designates Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort, based on the provisions contained in RCW 36.70A.362. o The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance ("EICO") concurrent with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that ali future development within the County is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance contains provisions for development throughout the County but omitted development standards for several zoning districts within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The BOCC directed planning staff and the Jefferson County Planning Commission to develop and adopt development standards for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the EICO. The Planning Commission held 4 public meetings, attended by a total of seventy-five (75) members of the public and representatives of Olympic Resource Management (ORM). o The Planning Commission, staff and members of the public toured the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort on September 23, 1998, at the invitation of ORM. At the public meeting of September 30, 1998, the Planning Commission requested to see the Master Plan for Port Ludlow. I0. Representatives of ORM responded that no Master Plan had been finalized and that a resort redevelopment plan was in the process of being worked out with residents of the Port Ludlow community. 11. ORM also stated that, over the years (and prior to its designation as a Master Planned Resort), Port Ludlow had several conceptual plans. _ sGa October 16, 1998 I 12. On October 7, 1998, ORM presented to the Planning Commission a conceptual rendering of a redevelopment plan for the resort complex area of the Master Plan Resort. 13. RCW 36.70A.362 (4) states that the County must ensure that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas and, (5), that on-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated. 14. The Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow has not submitted a master plan to the County for review in accordance with RCW 36.70A.362 (4). 15. Because a master plan has not yet been submitted, the County is unable to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.362 (5). 16. The planning staff advised the Planning Commission that, without an adopted master plan for Port Ludlow which addressed the enviromnental impacts of the proposed new development at Port Ludlow, development standards would have to be adopted that were consistent with the adopted Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement. 17. The Planning Commission voted (six in favor, none opposed and two abstentions) to have staff develop standards and regulations which were consistent with the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement. 18. The Planning Commission and staff, at the public hearings of September 30th, October 7th and October 14th, 1998, reviewed the proposed development regulations against the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. 19. The development regulations are proposed to be adopted as a separate, stand-alone ordinance and shall remain in effect until such time as a Master Plan for the Port Ludlow Master Planner Resort is developed and adopted by the County. NOW, THEREFORE, Be it ordained by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: October 16, 1998 2 SECTION 1 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE Section 1.10 Statement of Authority: This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Chapter 36.70 RCW. Section 1.20 Statement of Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to accommodate development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort consistent with the pattern of development that existed prior to the adoption of the 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and that identified in the 1993 FEIS to supplement the existing pattern and scale of development until a new or revised Master Plan is completed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.362 and adopted by Jefferson County. Port Ludlow is the only Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Jefferson County. In accordance with the 1993 FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement, the MPR is limited to a total buildout of 2250 residential units including single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family, assisted living and congregate care. The Comprehensive Plan lists seven categories of general uses within the MPR. Section 1.30 Rules of Interpretation: The following rules shall be followed in making interpretation relating the terms and conditions contained herein. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. For purposes of this Ordinance, all words used in the ordinance shall use normal and customary meanings, unless specifically defined otherwise in this ordinance. Words used in the present tense include the future tense. The plural includes the singular and vice-versa. The words "will" and "shall" are mandatory. The words "may" and "should" indicates that discretion is allowed. The word "used" includes designed, intended, or arranged or intended to be used. The masculine gender includes the feminine and vice-versa. October 16, 1998 3 SECTION 2 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS Sections: 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations 2.20 Intent 2.30 Exemptions Section 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all land, all water areas and all structures within the boundary of the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow as depicted on the official land use map for Jefferson County, Washington. Section 2.20 Intent. No structure shall hereafter be erected and no existing structure shall be moved, altered, added to or enlarged, nor shall any land or structure be used, or arranged to be used for any purpose other than that .which is included among the uses listed in the following chapters as permitted in the zoning district in which the structure or land is located, nor shall any land or structure be used in any manner contrary to any other requirements specified in this Ordinance. Section 2.30 Exemptions. The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the regulations of this Ordinance, but are subject to all other applicable Local, State and Federal regulations including, but not limited to, the County Building Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, the Shoreline Management Master Program and SEPA. Wires, cables, conduits, vaults, pipes, mains, valves, tanks, or other similar equipment for the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications, electricity, gas, or water or the collection of sewage, or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained by a governmental entity or a public utility or other County franchised utilities including customary meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, distribution transformers and temporary utility facilities required during building construction, whether any such facility is located underground, or above ground; but when only such facilities are located in a street right- of-way or in an easement less than twenty-five (25) feet in width. This exemption shall not include substation located on or above the surface of the ground or any such distribution facility located in an easement or twenty-five (25) feet or more in width. 2. Railroad tracks, signals, bridges and similar facilities and equipment located on a railroad right-of-way, and maintenance and repair work on such facilities and equipment. Telephone booths and pedestals, underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus shelters, informational kiosks, public bicycle shelters, or similar structure or device which is found by the Director of Community Development is obviously intended to be appropriately located in the public interest. 4. Agricultural buildings used to house livestock, store feed or farm equipment. 5. Minor construction activities, as defined by the UBC, Section 106.2 and structures exempt under Jefferson County Building Code Ordinance #03-0713-98 as amended. !VOL October 16, 1998 4 SECTION 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS AND DEFINITION OF BOUNDARIES Sections: 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.50 Establishment of Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Zoning Districts and Definition of Boundaries Establishment of Zoning Districts within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Zoning Districts Map of Zoning Districts Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries Section 3.10 Establishment of Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Zoning Districts and Definition of Boundaries: The Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow is hereby divided into General Land Use Districts, or Zones, as depicted on the Official Zoning Map which, together with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. Section 3.20 Establishment of Zoning Districts within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort: Port Ludlow is hereby divided into zoning districts of such number and character as are necessary to achieve compatibility of uses within each district, to implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and related official plans and policies and the official Zoning Map of Jefferson County, and to serve the other purposes of this Ordinance which are detailed in Chapter 1, Section 1.20, Purpose and Intent. Section 3.30 Zoning Districts: For the purposes of this Ordinance all land and water areas located within the. Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) Boundary, are hereby divided into zoning districts which shall be designated as follows: Single Family (MPR-SF); Single Family Tracts (MPR-SFT); Multi-Family (MPR- MF); Resort Complex/Community Facilities (MPR-RC/CF); Village Commercial Center (MPR-VC); Recreation Area (MPR-RA) and Open Space (MPR-OS). Section 3.40 Map of Zoning Districts: The location and boundaries of the zoning districts established by this Ordinance are as indicated on a parcel specific map entitled "Official Zoning Map, Jefferson County, Washington." This map, together with all explanatory materials contained thereon, is hereby adopted as part of this Ordinance insofar as it indicates such designations, locations and boundaries of zoning districts, and shall be deemed to be part of this Ordinance. Section 3.50 Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries: In the event that uncertainties exist with respect to the intended boundaries of the various zoning districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, the following rules shall apply: 1. Where a zoning district line purposely divides a land parcel the parcel shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of the respective districts as applied to each portion of the subject parcel. In the event that districts are overlain by Shoreline Management Master Program designation(s) or any other designation authorized by another regulation, the most restrictive regulations shall apply. In the event that uncertainty exists as to the zoning district boundaries illustrated on the attached zoning maps, the district boundary shall be defined by either the nearest lot line; the center lines of highways, streets, alleys, railroad right-of-way, municipal corporation lines, natural boundary lines, streams and tidal waters subject to the Shoreline Management Master Program jurisdiction, or other lines determined by the scales shown on said~ map(s). October 16, 1998 5 SECTION 4 PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 4.10 4.20 4.3O 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 Single Family (MPR-SF) Single Family Tracts (MPR-SFT) Multi-Family (MPR-MF) Resort Complex/Community Facility (MPR-RC/CF) Village Commercial Center (MPR-¥C) Recreation Areas (MPR-RA) Open Space Reserve (MPg-OS) Additional Requirements Master Plan Revisions Section 4.10 Single Family Zone (MPR-SF) Section 4.101 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote single family residential areas within the MPR, including opportunities for reasonably priced housing. Section 4.102 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR zone: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Home-based business as permitted by Section 20 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (Ordinance No. 06-0828-98). 3. Accessory buildings, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment.. 4. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. 5. Minimum lot areas of 5,000 square feet approved through a platting process and not to exceed a density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Where an acre of land is divided into lots less than 10,890 square feet (i.e. ¼ acre), the land remaining in that acre shall be dedicated as open space in perpetuity. Existing subdivisions shall not be further subdivided. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8',. 1-8.11 on non-conforming uses. Section 4.103 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-SF zone: Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. Minimum lot areas of 3,500 square feet if approved through a platting process and not to exceed a density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Where an acre of land is divided into lots less than 10,890 square feet (i.e. ¼ acre), the land remaining in that acre shall be dedicated as open space in perpetuity. Existing subdivisions shall not be further subdivided. Section 4.104 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height. Section 4.105 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements for detached dwelling shall be as provided in Tables MPR-SF below. October 16, 1998 6 TABLE MPR-SF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Surface 4 DU/AC 5,000 sq.ft. 40' 20' 5' 5' 45% Section 4.20 Sim, le Family Tract Zone (MPR-SFT), Section 4.201 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote larger, single family residential tracts within the MPR. Section 4.202 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-SFT zone: Single family detached dwelling units. Accessory buildings, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment. Accessory buildings, such as barns, stables and similar structures. Home-based business as permitted by Section 20 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (Ordinance No. 06-0828-98). Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.203 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MPR-SFT zone: 1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. Section 4.204 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height. Section 4.205 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-SFT below. TABLE MPR-SFT Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Surface 1 DU/2.5 AC 2.5 AC 100' 25' 25' 25' 20% Section 4.30 Multi-Family Zone (MPR-MF) Section 4.301 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote within the MPR multi- family housing opportunities, in part to provide lower-cost housing units. Section 4.302 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-MF zone: October 16, 1998 1. Multiple family dwelling units including condominiums. 2. Assisted-Living and long-term care facilities. 3. Accessory uses and structures supporting the residential environment such as garages, carports, storage buildings, pools, and recreation buildings. 4. Home-based business as permitted by Section 20 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (Ordinance No. 06-0828-98). 5. Trails, parks, open spac.e.and~p.!aygrounds app~rgved through a platting process. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.303 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-MF zone: 1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part ora platting process. Section 4.304 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.305 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-MF below. TABLE MPR-MF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Coverage 10 DU/AC N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 55% Section 4.40 Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone (MPR-RC/CF) Section 4.401 Purpose: The MPR-RC/CF zone ils intended to provide amenities and services associated with a destination resort. Uses in the RC/CF zone must be supportive of the recreational nature of the resort. Commercial uses related to the resort are limited to a total for the zone of 2,500 square feet in addition to those structures and uses which existed at the site prior to the issuance of the 1993 FEIS. Kchele Park is located to the north of the RC/CF zone and serve, s as a community park operated by the Ludlow Maintenance Commission. Section 4.402 Permitted and Conditional Uses: For purposes of this ordinance, uses at the resort complex are limited to those uses which currently exist and those which are addressed in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. The following uses are permitted within the MPR-RC/CF zone which are directly related to the resort facilities and/or operations. USES R C/CF Kehele Park Hotel (Inn) and appropriate associated uses -- Conference Center/Banquet Facility -- Parks and Trails as part of a platting process -- Recreation Center/Club Restaurant/Lounge/Bar -- Marina -- Seaplane Dock C Resort Related Retail Use Library/Museum C Interpretive and Informational Kiosks Community Organization Activity Facilities, i.e. club house Muitifamily and Single Family Residential Structures (10 du/ac) Tennis Courts October 16, 1998 ~. 8 Those uses and activities which currently exist at the LMC-owned property (Ludlow Beach Club and Kehele Park) are recognized as valid uses and activities and may continue in accordance with the current use of the facilities. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Residential uses within the RC/CF zone are bound by the bulk and dimensional standards established in their respective residential zoning districts within this section (see Sections 4.10 and 4.30) and are part of the overall 2250 residential unit cap for the MPR. Section 4.403 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards, except for Hotels which shall not exceed 50 feet in height as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.404 Bulk Requirements: The maximum square foot area allowed in the zone dedicated to resort- related land use shall be 48,000 square feet. Uses and structures which were in existence at the time of issuance of the FEIS shall be permitted to redevelop in kind; however, the redevelopment of condominium units into hotel or transient accommodations is prohibited. TABLE MPR-RC/CF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Coverage N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 50% Section 4.50 Village Commercial Center Zone (MPR-VC) Section 4.501 Purpose: The intent of the MPR-VC zone is to provide retail-commercial uses and other services to serve the needs of resort visitors and community residents. In addition to retail commercial uses or services, other uses such as government or community offices and facilities; long-term care facilities; and visitor services shall be permitted within this zone. In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement, the MPR-VC zone is limited to a total of 45,000 square feet of resort- related development in addition to those structures and uses which existed at the site prior to the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. Ali residential uses within the MPR-VC zone shall conform with the residential bulk and dimensional standards identified within section (see Sections 4.10 and 4.30) and are considered part of the 2250 overall residential cap for the MPR. Section 4.502 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in the MPR-VC zone as long as the total amount of built structures does not exceed the cap of 60,000 square feet (15,000 square feet of existing development prior to the 1993 FEIS and 45,000 square feet of new permitted non-residential building square footage): Permitted Commercial Uses · Bank and financial institutions · Variety Stores · Grocery Stores · Hardware Store · Pharmacy and Drug Stores · Liquor Stores(state) · Personal Medical Supply Stores October 16, 1998 Travel Consultant Post Office Dry cleaner/Laundry Florist Shops Specialty food stores Sporting Goods and related Stores Book and stationary Stores · Jewelry Stores · Photographic and Electronic Shops · Computer and Office Equipment and Related Services · Music Stores · Farmer's Market · Barber and Beauty shops · Art Gallery · Interior Shop · General/Business Offices · Professional Offices · Real Estate · Theater · Food Service Establishments · Day care Center · Clinics (Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Chiropractic) · Social Services · Miscellaneous Health · Home Health/Home Care · Vehicle Repair and Gas Station · Car wash Transportation Service · Utility purveyor offices · Recycling Drop-offfacility · Library · Museum · Community Center · Public agency or utility offices · Police facility · Fire Station · Post Office, mailing and packaging businesses · Park Residential Uses: · Multi-family · Assisted living · Single family retail/commercial apartments) in association with uses (i.e. second story Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.503 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MPR- VC zone: · Parking Structure · Meeting Facilities Section 4.504 Height restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.505 Bulk Dimension Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building allowed shall be 30,000 sq. feet. MPR-VC Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Coverage N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC * *Maximum impervious surface coverage shall not exceed two (2) acres in addition to impervious surface which existed at the site prior to the issuance of the FEIS. Section 4.60 Recreation Area (MPR-RA) Section 4.601 Purpose: The MPR-RA zone is intended to recognize, maintain, and promote the existing and future active recreation activities and areas within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. October 16, 1998 : 10 Section 4.602 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-RA zone: 2. 3. 4. 5. Parks and Trails Golf Shop/Club House/Snack Bar Interpretive Center, signage Golf Course and Related Offices/Maintenance Buildings and Facilities Indoor and Outdoor Recreation Club Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.603 Height Restrictions. No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.604 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area for the MPR- RA zone is 6,000 sq. feet in addition to structures which existed at the site prior to the issuance of the FEIS. Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Impervious Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Coverage N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC NA Section 4.70 Open Space Zone (MPR-OS) Section 4.701 Purpose: The purpose of the Open Space zone is to preserve in perpetuity and enhance the natural amenities around Ludlow Bay, the Twin Islands and other natural areas within the MPR. Uses within the Open Space Area shall be low impact and serve to promote or enhance the aesthetic qualities of the Master Planned Resort. No residential or commercial development shall be permitted in the MPR-OS zone. Section 4.702 Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in the MPR-OS zone: Parks, trails, paths, bridges, benches, shelters, and restrooms Directional and interpretative signage and kiosks. Section 4.703 Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted conditionally in the MPR- OS zone: Man-made water features or enhanced natural water features, such as ponds, wetlands, wetland buffer enhancements and storm water detention ponds. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.704 Height Restriction: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards. October 16, 1998 11 Section 4.705 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building allowed shall be 500 sq. feet. Some utility facilities may exceed this cap. Section 4.80 Additional Requirement~ Refer to the following Ordinances for additional provisions or development standards which may qualify or supplement the regulations presented in this ordinance: I. Ordinance No. 05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Stormwater Management Ordinance 3. Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, Subdivision Ordinance, as amended by this Ordinance 4. Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems 5. Shoreline Management Master Program 6. Other local, state, and federal regulations as applicable. The provisions contained within this ordinance are intended to serve as emergency interim development standards and are consistent with the current development plan for Port Ludlow. Final development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort will be established upon completion of the Master Plan for the Port Ludlow MPR and will be consistent with the Master Plan, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and all other pertinent documents. Section 4.90 Master Plan Revisions Section 4.901 Minor Revisions It is recognized that a Master Planned Resort may require small changes to facilities and services in response to changing conditions or market demand and that some degree of flexibility for the resort is needed. Revisions to the resort Master Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine if the revisions are consistent with the Master Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and other pertinent documents. Those revisions that are determined to result in no major change in use, location or environmental impact, and which are consistent with the Master Plan shall be considered minor revisions and will be processed in accordance with all applicable ordinances, procedures and regulations. Section 4.902 Maior Revisions Revisions to an adopted master plan that wiU result in a substantial change of use, scale or have a substantial environmental impact are considered major revisions and will require the submission of a new master plan. The revised Master Plan will identify allowable uses, their locations and their environmental impacts, and will be reviewed by the Jefferson County Planning Commission who will review and submit the revised plan to the Board of County Commissioners for final adoption as a sub-area plan to the Comprehensive Plan. The adoption of the Master Plan as a sub-area plan to the Comprehensive Plan serves as a flexible guide for development of the resort as subsequent changes in uses or their location or impact are handled through amendments to the Master Plan and may occur outside the annual comprehensive plan amendment date. October 16, 1998 VOl. 12 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS P.O. Box 2070 1322 Washington St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9160 Klara A. Fabry, P.E., Public Works Director/County Engineer MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Board of County Commissioners Klara A. Fabry, Public Works Director/County Engineer ~. October 26, 1998 Recommended revisions to the Emergency Interim Control Ordinance The Department of Public Works has reviewed the Jefferson County Emergency Interim Control Ordinance as it relates to implementing the goals, policies, and strategies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Several goals, policies, and strategies of the Transportation Element recognize the need for adequate transportation facilities, including transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities to serve developments. Transportation Goal TRG 3.0 Nonmotorized Transportation: To provide safe, accessible, and convenient routes, trails, and parking facilities that promote the use of nonmotorized travel in a manner that is integrated with other forms of transportation. Transportation Policy TRP 3.7: Promote coordinated bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian way improvements emphasizing access to schools, parks, employment and service centers, and mass transit facilities (felTy, bus, etc.). Transportation Policy TRP 3.12: Promote development of adequate pedestrian walkways and crossings, where appropriate, including facilities separated from the roadway. Transportation Goal TRG 4.0 Land Development Standar&q: To encourage land use types, mixes, and densities that promote efficient multimodal transportation systems. 100% Recycled Paper Transportation Policy TRP 4.6: Require that subdivision and commercial project designs address the following issues: a. Cost effective transit and delivery of emergency service; b. Provision for all transportation modes; c. Dedication of rights-of-way for existing and future transportation needs; d. Motorized and nonmotorized access; e. Sidewalks and bicycle paths; f. Compatibility between motorized vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users; g. Inclusion of transit friendly design elements; and h. Adequate parking for non-peak periods. Transportation Policy TRP 4.6: Ensure that unacceptable safety hazards will be mitigated. The definition of unacceptable will be based on analysis of the existing facility(s) and the current standard for that facility(s) contained in commonly used and adopted transportation publications. Transportation Strategy 4: Develop site design standards for public transit facilities to be incorporated into County land use codes and regulations. Transportation Strategy 11: Develop incentives for developers to dedicate land for expansion of the County's trail network and adopt into land development regulations. Transportation Strategy 12:Develop and adopt bicycle/pedestrian facilities standards compatible with County road standards and those applicable standards of adjacent jurisdictions and require compliance with these standards in the permitting and review process. Transportation Strategy 17: Develop and adopt standards that enhance safety for inclusion into implementing ordinances. Transportation Strategy 20: Review and revise, as necessary, performance standards for the review of proposed developments that ensure the proper functioning of transportation facilities. Transportation Strategy 24: As necessary, develop and adopt land development standards that provide guidance in how to include transit-friendly design elements in developments and require all developments to adhere to those standards. 2 Transportation facilities shall meet the design standards of the Department of Public Works and Jefferson Transit. These standards include, but are not limited to, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the Washington Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. Add to Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Development Control Ordinance for all permitted and conditional uses in all zoning districts. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES: All uses shall be served by adequate transportation facilities, including appropriate facilities for transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Where transportation facilities are not adequate to serve a proposed use, the applicant shall make provision for necessary improvements. Transportation facilities shall be deemed adequate if necessary improvements are planned and funded in the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. Transportation facilities shall meet the design standards of the Department of Public Works and Jefferson Transit. These standards include, but are not limited to, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the Washington Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. SENT BY:OLYMPIC RESOURCE MGMT ;10-20-98 ;iO:ISAM 3606927642;# 4/ $ MINIlT£$ The re=erinE w=s ~ to o~er by ~ai~ Rlc~rd ~ Woj~ ~mmi~ion~ Robe~ Hinton ~d ~mmi~ioner GI~ H~fi~ord w~e pr~cnt. ~s~r l~ W~mr- m~ brief~ ~e Bo~d on ~ing au~ori~ ~d l~ Hmi~fio~. From 9;20 to 9:45 =~. t~ ~ met in ~xc~ti~e ~$fiofl with P~secuting A~om~y M~k Hu~ ~rdt~ portion liti~tion. ~.M_q= A~o~ev_Mark .Huth ~; Dhcuu~n of ~-Pfl ~mmunltl- flon: Pm~ting ARomey Ma~ Hu~ review~ the State hws r~r~ng ~.ni~ of inter~t PU~C .CQ~~ PE~OD: ~e following lopi~ w~ brou~t up W ~e ~ard: ~ion over the budget figur~ for ~e Solid W~ Division; a r~u~t thnt ~e P~niflg Dlr~or write to O~mpi~ ~o~em ~or~t PrOud; ~ avai~bility of w~r to ~ r~td~ ~ ~ ~imac~ Par~ a r=~ off th~ For~t ~eren~ held jR Po~d ~d the n~ for more prote~on of ~on ~d nh~i~ iff ~o ~; ~e d~ Cfifi~ ~m Ordinan~. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMEN'r~: PLANNING ~'D. BUILDING From 10:30 a.m. m 12:30 p.m. the Pl~*tlrling Department conducted a workshop for the Board on ~he new draft Critical Area, Ordinar~ce. ~:o~sideru~ton of Release of the Final Environmeut&l ImDact St4tements rot the Inn at port Lu~t}o,w,, and the Po~-t Ludlow DeveloD~ient Prom~m: Susan Thomas, l~-flvironm~ltal Coordinator, reported tl~t ~11 of the chang~ d/scu~sed with the Board have 5oefl ma~ u rcquc~te.d. Thc Fiscal Impact Analy~i5 has been changed to mc, ct thc ne~ds of thc Co~mty and the Disclaimer was removed. She then reviewed xvording of the mitigation for tl~e Fire Distr/ct, the Chlmacum School District and water. She fmindc~l the Board that thc approval of the~e document~ tod~y is Just one -u~p in this proc. e~. There is a burden on thc County, the re~idc/l~ and the affected a/gcr~¢ies to follow through th~ pha~e~ r~vtc-w of lvrojec/ by project dcv~]npmer~t. She recommends that the Bonrd appro~'e the documents as pr~ented today and that a final, c~mera ready, bound version be submitted to the Cotmty and che. cke~ for ac. cu.racy before tl~ copic~ for the public are made and d/stributcd. Chairman Wojt asked about thc Board l:~arJng on a document that the H~ard ha~ not seen in it~ ~r~ttt~ty? ~.ark Huth~ Pro~:utin~ ARorncy, r~pormd th,~t he feel~ thc Board ca~ r=ly on thc ~tagr r~vl~w of thc document and their r~prcse, ntation that it's ready for ~l~roval or dcriial and the Boa£d% review of the r~cord as it st~nd~. ~-Ic suggested that the ]~oard approve, the document pendin, j~r.ev]ew of the camera ready COlby ;J~J4 [VOl_ SENT BY:OLYMPIC RESOURCE MGMT ;10-20-08 ;iO:ISAM ; Commts~to~' ]~leet/r~E ,~Ainut,~s: We~..k of April $, 1~3 Pag2:2 for a~- Commisusiom~r Huntiglgford mov~l ~o approve ~,F.,,SOLIFrIoN NO. ~ =u~o~zin~ ~ rel~ Of ~e fi~ ~S for ~ ~ st Po~ ~~ pmje~ ~ ~LU- ~ON NO. ~ au~odzing ~e ~n~ ~S for ~a Po~ ~~ ~opm~t Plan on ~ ~ndifion ~t ~ final printing copy is ~~ for a~uI~ by S~ ~~. ~mmi~ionor ~nt~ ~nd~ ~ motion whi~ ~rri~ by s ~mo~ vote. Cz~mmtssioner Hunting~ord ~ked when the copies Would be available to the public? Thomas rel~ot?~l that the nccurncy check and printing should be done and tb~ copie~ available by l~onday April 12, 1993. HEARIN.C~. F,~,: Ai~I~eM of l~estecl De~r~nins_tion of Non~l~conce: 6~ ~o~: peui-gula ~ Mobile Ho~ F~ S~n F. ~. ADDlicmnt~ ~ai~au WoJt ezplEn~ ~ pr~ for ~e ~n~ and verified ~t none of ~e ~rd m~be~ have ~ in~t in ~e pro~y or projec~ stand to ~in or lo~ any ~ci~ b~cfit u a r~ of ~ ou~c of ~c h~ring and ~n hear and ~nsider ~is matter tn a fair n~ ~ive m~cr. ~s~inte P~r Je~ gmi~ ~~ ~nt ~ np~ is of the mitiga~d detn~inafion of non~i~iS~ iss~d by ~e ~nsib~ o~ci~ on the Penl~ Pi~ ~ile Homo ~ ~d the ei~t mitigative m~ur~ We~ l~ued l~ua~ ~ 1~. lo~ and Davis, w~ ~ ~d ope~te L~low Aviad~ st ~e ni~o~ s~mi~ ~ ap~ of ~e ~S be~ ~ey f~ ~ midgadon a~st~ not~ is not ad~te. ~e ~n~m ia ~at ~e r~iden~ of ~is mobile home park whi~ li~ ~re~y undem~th ~n ~i~t ~ ~ffi ~mp~in a~ut the nolsc. ~y arc ~ ~m~ about w~ ~ok~ from ~js mobi~ home p~k ~f~ti~ vi~Rity at ~ ~rpo~. ~mmi~i~cr ~n~n ask~ how f~ away ~e proJ~ st~ is l~a~d from the fl~ ~ro~ m the no~w~t runway at ~c ai~? le~ Smt~ r~o~ed that ~ propos~ m~ile h~c ~rk is lo~t~ ~u~ and ~t of thc at,oR. ~e cl~z ~x~o~ of ~e ai~n to ~e ~o~t ~on of ~ mob~ home park is approximatcly 1/4 ~e. ~ere a~ an o~n s~ ar~ of ~is ptoje~ which is be~n ~e hom~ in ~he p~k ~d ~c ai~. ~~ Wojt ~ o~ned thc public h~fing. Prosing Attorney ~rk Huth swore ~h of the p~ple Jc~ifcr Dav~. sta~ that ~ey a~ not op~sed to ~is proje~. ~ey ~e ~n~m~ mi~tion number 9. ~c 1 1~ a~e ~p~ation ~om ~e al~ really m~s nothln~ bc~ ~c m~ile hom~ park ~ dire~y undcm~ ~ ~l~t p~m. B~ ~cy arc th~ o~y ~a~er ~ ~rvi~ at ~ at~o~ wt~ a publl~d phone number, ~ey ~ivc of ~ n~ ~mp~inm ~r ~c ~. ~ey would Bkc to ~ ~ discl~ure ma~ to ~tinl ~ of ~is p~j~t ~at ~e project is lo~t~ ~y ~der ~e flight ~ of ~mmisstoncr Hinton ask~ if ~ere is any pa~i~r ar~ ~t ~mp~tn~ ~e from? Jennifer Davis ~oncd ~at ~ey ~iwe ~mplain~ from ~ple within n five mRc rndi~ ~ ~e ai~n. ~ey ~ven't ~~ ~y fr~ ~ Point. Jeerer Davis added that ~unty d~ not ~ve any f~ di~losu~ ~ re~r~ng ~is ty~ of activity. ~g aro~d ~e ~n is zoned resid~tt~ ~d ~ ~e nr~ grows mote ~roblcms wi~ noi~ Mark Huth ~ ~at it Isn't up to ~e ~unty to make ~ d~re, nod he ~t ~c ~ty n~ m~ on ~at r~ibifi~. It is up to ~= pe~n seine th~ home sit~ to make ~ digl~um of any dda or ~ndi~ons ~at exist on ~e land wi~ eH~t ~e ownership of ~ ~n buying it. ::VOL 24 - 2881 SHINE COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL '172 Hubbard Creek Road, Port Ludlow, WA, 98365 (360) 437-2575 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, % SHINE COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ON THE EICO FOR THE PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT. WE ASK THAT ALL PREVIOUS COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY GIVEN BY S.C.A.C. DURING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW BE INCLUDED. DURING THE LAST SIX WEEKS,AS THE PROCESS TO CREATE THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN UNDERWAY, IT HAS BECOME EVIDENT THAT THE COUNTY HAS FAILED TO ADOPT MAPPING FOR AN MPR ZONE THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE THE REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 36.70A.362. AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT REPEATEDLY CRITERIA #1, #4, AND #5,HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE COUNTY TO MOVE FORWARD TO ACCOMODATE ORM'S REQUESTS. THE FINDINGS IN THIS ORDINANCE #9,#10,#13,#14,AND #15, ACKNOWLEDGE THE COUNTIES PREDICAMENT RELATIVE TO THIS RCW. THE REVIEW DURING THIS PROCESS HAS ALSO BROUGHT FORWARD EVIDENCE THAT THE FINDINGS PRODUCED IN THE COMP. PLAN,IN SUPPORT OF THE MPR DESIGNATION, ARE IN QUESTION. AFTER REPEATED QUESTIONING ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FINDING #19, WHICH IS A STATEMENT NOT A FINDING,(REFERENCE FINDING #16. The BOCC finds that,...), THERE IS STILL NO RECORD OF A RELATIVE STAFF REVIEW, PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS BY STAFF OF DOCUMENTATION FOR REVIEW, OR BOCC FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 36.70A.362. IN REFERENCE TO CRITERIA #5 IN THE RCW THESPIS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY STATEMENT OR FINDING REFERRING TO "ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS ARE FULLY CONSIDERED AND MITIGATED". S.C.A.C. WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY ON THE RECORD TO ASK THE COUNTY TO DOCUMENT AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC EVIDENCE, IN RECORD FORM, OF THE COUNTY REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 36.70A.362 IN SUPPORT OF AUTHORIZING AN MPR DESIGNATION AT PORT LUDLOW. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS PRODUCED IN A TIMELY FASHION AND TO BE ASSURED THAT IT IS COUNTY GENERATED. IN THE MATTER OF THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH IS AN ATTEMPT TO HOLD DEVELOPMENT TO THE STANDARDS OF THE 1993 FEIS FOR PORT LUDLOW, IT DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH HOLDING TO THE STANDARDS IN THE 1993 FEIS. FOR EXAMPLE: SECTION 1.20,STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT,HAS LANGUAGE THAT EFFECTIVELY ALLOWS A PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT AS EVIDENCED IN THE 1987 PORT LUDLOW PLAN IN ADDITION TO THE 1993 FEIS BUILDOUT. PERHAPS THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THE MANY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE 1993FEIS AND THIS ORDINANCE. IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS A MIX OF LOT SIZES FROM THE 1987 PLAN AND A PLAN UNDER THE 1993 FEIS THAT WAS INTENDED TO REPLACE THAT PLAN. THE COUNTY IS IN A VERY BAD POSITION AT THIS TIME. THE COUNTY HAS ADOPTED MPR MAPPING THaT INCLUDES PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL INHOLDINS, FOR WHICH NO MASTER PLAN HAS BEEN WR'ITTEN. THE COUNTY HAS KNOWLEDGE THAT A POTENTIAL PLAN MAY BE PRODUCED THAT' INCLUDES ORM OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS INHOLDINGS THAT ARE SPECULATIVELY PART OF A CONCEPTUAL BY-EACK PLAN. THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE COUNTIES PROBLEMS OR ORM'S PROBLEMS. IN CLOSING, WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE COMMISSIONERS REVIEW THE ATTACHED OUTLINE REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE AND TAKE ACTION THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH #3a, and b. THE COUNTY MAY FIND REFERENCE TO THE MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 25, 1998 FROM THE LONG RANGE PLANNING STAFF DIRECTOR TO THE BOCC VERY TELLING IN HIND-SIGHT. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING- 10/21/98 PORT LUDLOW MPR ORDINANCE What is the emergency warranting adoption of this ordinance? The ordinance has taken roughly 60 days to develop, has been the subject of at least 5 public meetings, as well as a Planning Commission tour of the MPR. Moreover, the ordinance has been formally noticed for a public hearing PRIOR to adoption. These facts contradict the assertion that an emergency exists. bo Emergency moratoria and ordinances are, under the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70.790) and under the GMA (RCW 36.70A.390) are intended to preserve the status quo, ensuring that the development patterns envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan are not undermined by intervening inconsistent development. Co This proposed ordinance does not preserve planning options, but instead contemplates growth and development in excess of that contemplated in your Comprehensive Plan EIS. A very strange "emergency" indeed. If you really intend to preserve planning options, you probably should do nothing, ensuring that the level of development contemplated for the "preferred altemative" in the 1993 EIS for the Port Ludlow Development Plan is not exceeded. If there is no emergency, why has the County failed to conduct the environmental review required under SEPA (RCW 43.21C)? ao If 60 days can be taken to prepare the proposed ordinance, wasn't there sufficient time to also conduct environmental review? bo If there is no emergency, why are you adopting your final development regulations incrementally, with inadequate opportunities for informed and meaningful public participation? What we suggest you do to extract yourselves from this morass: Adopt an ordinance that allows no development activity in excess of that contemplated in the 1993 EIS for the Port Ludlow Development Plan. bo If you do wish to allow more intense development than that contemplated in your Comprehensive Plan E_IS (i.e., which incorporated by reference the !¥o,. ss3 '93 Ludlow EIS), you must: (i) Have ORM prepare and submit a "master plan" for their properties within the MPR boundary; (ii) Assess, through a SEIS, the impacts of any desired development that exceeds the scope of the '93 EIS; (iii) Adopt final development regulations that are consistent with and implement the master plan and supplemental EIS. 2 6.L, Plo~r~tr~ci ~°1~-$1~i$ LAWYERS Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE CHARLOTTE HONOLULU KATHERINE KRAMER LAIRD (206) 628-7718 E-MAIL: katherinelaird@dwt corn LOS ANGELES PORTLAND RICHLAND 2600 CENTURY SQUARE 1501 FOUR. TH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688 October 26, 1998 SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE WASHINGTON, D.C. TEL (206) 622-3150 FAX (2(}6) 628-7699 www.dwt.com SHANGHAI HAND-DELIVERED Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Master Planned Resort requirements under GMA To the Honorable Jefferson County Commissioners: On behalf of Olympic Resource Management, I am writing to respond to the issues raised by the Olympic Environment Council in a letter dated October 14, 1998. In the letter over the signature ofJulie Jaman, the OEC asserts that the Growth Management Act requires that a "Master Plan" be adopted prior to development regulations being adopted for Port Ludlow. The Growth Management Act does not require that a "Master Plan" be approved at the time of the Master Planned Resort designation. Any suggestion to the contrary is not supported by the statute. Section 362 of the GMA does not refer to a master plan as a designation requirement. However, it does refers to a resort plan in the following provision: An existing resort may be authorized by the county only if: ... (4) The County finds that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas. This general reference to a resort plan does not require a "Master Plan" prior to approval. While the statute does refer generally to a resort plan, neither resort plan nor master plan is a term of art or a defined term in the statute. If the Legislature had intended to require a Master Plan as a pre-requisite to MPR designation, it would have listed it as one of the specific requirements for approving an existing MPR. The statute does not contain such a requirement. Further, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development to guide comprehensive plan adoption do not refer to or require a Master Plan as a pre-requisite to designation of either a new or existing MPR. See generally F:\DOCS,46183\I\00037LTR.DOC Seattle Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners October 26, 1998 Page 2 WAC 365-195-210, 335, 830(3). In sum, other than the general reference to a resort plan, which I believe means an overview of the resort development, including acknowledgement of the existence of the resort, a map showing the proposed uses and zones within the MPR, discussion of future development within the MPR (all of which exist in the Jefferson County Plan), the statute does not specifically require a "Master Plan" as a pre-requisite to approving an MPR. The fact that a specific Master Plan is not required as part of the Comprehensive Plan process is consistent with the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is a general blue print for complying with the GMA and is not a site-specific approval for any particular proposed land use. Now that Port Ludlow has been designated as an MPR in the Comprehensive Plan, the statute mandates that development regulations be adopted that are consistent with and implement the land use designations in the Comp. Plan. RCW 36.70A.040(4). As is true of the Comprehensive Plan itself, the development regulations do not approve any particular development proposal. The development regulations set forth the permitted and conditional uses within each land use zone in the Comprehensive Plan, along with other development- related requirements such as set backs, height limits, lot coverage restrictions, etc. The OEC states that "no ordinance should be created to permit development inconsistent with or that exceeds density and intensity as considered in the original Port Ludlow EIS, 1993 and page 331 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan." As stated above, the development regulations do not approve any development. As for the 1993 EIS for Port Ludlow, that ElS was a programmatic EIS. That is, the 1993 EIS was not prepared for any particular project. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, the Port Ludlow' ElS was intended to be phased review'. WAC 197-11-060. In the future, on a project by project basis, the County will have the opportunity to review and consider an environmental checklist for each proposed phase of development and potential impacts from the particular project. To the extent the proposed project's impacts are not considered in or mitigated by conditions in the 1993 EIS, the County will require either additional environmental review or will impose mitigating conditions. Adopting the development regulations to implement the Port Ludlow MPR designations is not inconsistent with the SEPA process since the development regulations do not approve development. It is unclear how the OEC believes adoption of development regulations is not permitted, but any suggestion that the SEPA process will be avoided for Port Ludlow projects in the future is false. With regard to any argument that the MPR designation for Port Ludlow does not meet the criteria of the statute, we believe the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan contains all of the elements required for designation of an MPR. The GMA requires that the following five criteria be met at the time of an MPR designation: F:\DOCS\46183\ 1 \00037LTR.DOC Seattle Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners October 26, 1998 Page 3 An existing resort may be authorized by the county only if: (1) The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban lands used in the vicinity of the exiting resort []; (2) The county includes a finding as part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long term importance; for the existing resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production []; (3) The county finds that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of the existing resort; (4) The County finds that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and (5) On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated. RCW 36.70A.362 (full text attached). In adopting the Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County included policies for guiding the development of Port Ludlow. The policies appear in Policy LNG 25, on page 3-92 of the Plan. See attached Plan p. 3-92. All of the five GMA requirements are addressed. As for environmental considerations, the first policy adopted by the County relates to critical areas and on-site and off-site mitigation. "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 mitigated." Id. Additionally, in the resolution adopting the Comprehensive Plan, the Board of County Commissioners found that the development of Port Ludlow to date "is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas. The BOCC further found that "All applications for new development are reviewed for critical area concerns." See Res. 72-98, adopted 8/28/98. Thus, the BOCC found that past development has complied with critical area regulations, and that future development will be reviewed for critical area compliance. With regard to on-site and off-site mitigation, potential impacts from development and appropriate mitigation are reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act at the time a development application is submitted for approval. Any suggestion that SEPA mitigation must be in place at the time of the Comprehensive Plan designation is putting the cart before the horse. All the County can do is ensure that future development proposals are reviewed for and mitigate on-site and off-site impacts since, as mentioned above, the Plan does not approve any particular project. In sum, the record does not support any argument that the County failed to satisfy the requirements of RCW 36.70A.362. Port Ludlow was properly designated an MPR. Now that the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted, the Growth Management Act mandates that implementing development regulations be adopted. In the emergency interim Seattle Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners October 26, 1998 Page 4 controls ordinance adopted by the BOCC in August, the County failed to include regulations to control development within the MPR-MF and MPR-RC/CF zones. Without implementing regulations, there is a de facto moratorium. In order to comply with the GMA, the BOCC must adopt an ordinance that includes all the MRP zones. Otherwise, the County will be in violation of the GMA. We urge you to amend the EICO to include regulations that address all of the zones within Port Ludlow or adopt a separate ordinance that relates to Port Ludlow and provides development regulations for each of the MPR zones. Anything short of this will not satisfy the GMA mandate to adopt implementing regulations. KKL/kl Enclosures CC: Sincerely) Dayti~ W/qght Tremain.c/LLP KmCerine K~mer Laird / Gary Tucker, President, ORM Greg McCarry, VP, ORM Craig Jones, General Counsel and VP,ORM David Cunningham, VP, ORM Mike Derrig David Skeen, County Prosecuting Attorney F:\DOCS\46183\1 \00037LTR.DOC Seattle Growth Management--Planning by (d) The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and (e) On-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated. [1998 c 112 § 2; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 17.] Intent--1998 c 112: "The primary intent of this act is to give effect to recommendations by the 1994 department of community, trade, and economic development's master planned resort task force by clarifying that master planned resorts may make use of capital facilities, utilities, and services provided by outside service providers, and may enter into agreements for shared facilities with such providers, when all costs directly attributable to the resort, including capacity increases, a~ fully borne by the resort." [1998 c 112 § 1.] 36.70A.362 Master planned resort,s--Existing resort may be included. Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may include existing resorts as master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. An existing resort means a resort in existence on July 1, 1990, and developed, in whole or in part, as a significantly self- contained and integrated development that includes short- term visitor accommodations associated with a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the property boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. An existing resort may include other permanent residential uses, conference facilities, and commercial activities supporting the resort, but only if these other uses are integrated into and consistent with the on-site recreational nature of the resort. An existing resort may be authorized by a county only if: (l) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of the existing resort; (2) The comprehensive plan and development regula- tions include restrictions that preclude new urban or subur- ban land uses in the vicinity of the existing resort, except in areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A. I 10 and '36.70A.360(1); (3) The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term importance, for the existing resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as for- est land or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170; (4) The county finds that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and (5) On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated. A county may allocate a portion of its twenty-year population projection, prepared by the office of financial management, to the master planned resort corresponding to the projected number of permanent residents within the master planned resort. [1997 c 382 § 1.] *Reviser's note: RCW 36.70A.360 was amended by 1998 ¢ 112 § 2, changing subsection (I) to subsection (4)(a). 36.70A.365 Major industrial developments. A county required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may establish, in consultation with cities consistent with provisions of RCW 36.70A.210, a process for reviewing and (1998 ~1.) Selected Counties and Cities 36.70A.360 approving proposals to authorize siting of specific major industrial developments outside urban growth areas. (1) "Major industrial development" means a master planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business that: (a) Requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or (b) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or mineral resource land upon which it is dependent. The major industrial development shall not be for the purpose of retail commercial development or multitenant office parks. (2) A major industrial development may be approved outside an urban growth area in a county planning under this chapter if criteria including, but not limited to the following, are met: (a) New infrastructure is provided for and/or applicable impact fees are paid; (b) Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are implemented; (c) Buffers are provided between the major industrial development and adjacent nonurban areas; (d) Environmental protection including air and water quality has been addressed and provided for; (e) Development regulations are established to ensure that urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban areas; (f) Provision is made to mitigate adverse impacts on designated agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands; (g) The plan for the major industrial development is consistent with the county's development regulations established for protection of critical areas; and (h) An inventory of developable land has been conduct- ed and the county has determined and entered findings that land suitable to site the major industrial development is unavailable within the urban growth area. Priority shall be given to applications for sites that are adjacent to or in close proximity to the urban growth area. (3) Final approval of an application for a major industri- al development shall be considered an adopted amendment to the comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070 designating the major industrial development site on the land use map as an urban growth area. Final approv- al of an application for a major industrial development shall not be considered an amendment to the comprehensive plan for the purposes of RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time. [1995 c 190 § 1.] 36.70A.367 Major industrial developments--Master planned locations: (1) In addition to the major industrial development allowed under RCW 36.70A.365, a county required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 that meets the criteria in subsection (9) of this section may establish, in consultation wioh cities consistent with provi- sions of RCW 36.70A.210, a process for designating a bank of no more than two master planned locations for major industrial activity outside urban growth areas. (2) A master planned location for major industrial developments outside an urban growth area may be included in the urban industrial land bank for the county if criteria including, but not limited to, the following are met: [Title 36 RCW--page 185] LAND USE AND RURAL MASTER PLANNED RESORT .GOAL: LNG 25.0 Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only Master Planned Resort 0VIPR). POLICIES: LNP 25.1 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. LNP 25.2 The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth and development at Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated MPR boundary. LNP 25.3 No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the vicinity of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. LNP 25.4 The total number of residential lots allowable within the MPR boundary shall not exceed the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS total of 2,250 residential dwelling units. LNP 25.5 Port Ludlow shall accommodate a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, single family and multi-family housing and assisted living care facilities. LNP 25.6 Support efforts to preserve and protect Pon Ludlow's greenbelts, open spaces and wildlife corridors. LNP 25.6.1 Support the establishment ora Ludlow Creek Nature Preserve. LNP 25.7 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. LNP 25.8 The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort commercial area shall be designated as the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-92 August 28, ! 998 Page 1 of 4 OCT. 26, STATEMENT OF DAVID GRAHAM 81 MONTGOMERY COURT, PORT LUDLOW 1998 My wife and I have resided in Port Ludlow for over 5 years At the Commissioner's October 19 meeting, I stated the following: o Expediting the development of a new improved resort at Port Ludlow by taking the step of approving the zoning of Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort is in the best interest of all the residents of Jefferson County o The new commercial resort per se, which is an integral part of the Master Planned Resort, will replace the existing operation which is destined to go out of business if it is not drastically improved o Loss of the resort would mean the loss of valuable revenue which it brings into the County o There would be loss of employment within the County o And, there would be major loss of property tax revenue o Not only would the County suffer, but the residents of the Port Ludlow area would suffer a terrible blow in terms of the loss of amenities and severe financial burden. Specific examples are the following: * Clientele of the resort provides over 40% of the revenue which maintains our golf course Page 2 of 4 * Marina overcrowding would occur without expansion and we would likely lose our fueling facility which is costly to operate * Loss of a major local restaurant and possible loss of other local convenient businesses in the Village which operate on a thin margin * Loss of a major meeting hall, requiring costly expansion elsewhere * Loss of many development advantages planned with ORM by local residents in committee * Reduction of property values in the area - a monumental problem * The overall resultant loss of a bright future for a significant percentage of the residents of the area Today I'm adding the following statements. I wish to point out that the plan for the overall character of a Master Planned Resort development at Port Ludlow was created by the citizens of the community, volunteering their time in 23 different subject oriented committees, working over a period of a year. All residents of the community were welcome at that time to participate in that work. As my previous remarks indicated, a healthy commercial resort at Port Ludlow is the engine that propels such a development. 289 Page 3 of 4 To the few who have recently expressed concern about the effects of future growth on the community, I wish to point out that there will be a detailed review of all the demographic and environmental impacts of this project during subsequent stages of the approval process after a project plan is submitted. To get to that point in logical sequence, zoning must first be approved, giving ORM the first assurance that their spending additional funds to proceed makes fiscal sense. Their receiving that assurance before proceeding is imperative to the future of our community. In a statement to the Planning Commission, one person, relatively new to the community, questioned whether or not the people of the community really want a resort at Port Ludlow. This person stated that he and his wife sought only an active retirement community in which to live. I submit to that statement that due to the aforementioned reasons, if we do not have a healthy commercial resort at Port Ludlow, that active retirement community will return to the ashes from which, like the Phoenix bird, it has presently risen. Statements by planning staff, such as the one made during the Planning Commission meeting of October 14, to the effect that they are concerned about traffic jams and congestion from hundreds of additional vehicle trips due to condominium rooms being converted into hotel rooms, are not conducive to building credibility in the eyes of the public. Those condominium rooms are being used as hotel rooms in the present resort. The issue concerning the effect of the commercial resort on traffic is really one of increasing occupancy by, hopefully 75 rooms per day, for groups whose average stay is three days (we're not talking about a common overnight hotel here - it's a resort). A very simple calculation made by me, based on local and surrounding population and Page 4 of 4 conservative estimates of service vehicle traffic can convince anyone who makes it of the folly of the statement. It showed a maximum increase of 1% due to increased success at the resort. And finally, a member of the Planning Commission at that meeting stated that the main concern was individual quality of life versus corporate profit. Please listen -'no ~esort leads to decreased quality of life and possibly ultimate disaster for the community. An additional statement asked how ORM could assure the community of how they would accommodate growth. Please listen again, the people have been and will remain a party to the preparation of the plan, and assurances on Planning's specific concerns will come during thc normal process of project submittal and approval following approval of zoning. A Pope Resources Company October 23, 1998 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend WA 98368 Re: Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (EICO) No. 06-0828-98 Gentlemen: At your request, ORM has attempted over the past five weeks to constructively work with the Jefferson County Planning Commission and your Planning staff on improvements to the EICO which you adopted on August 28, 1998. Specifically, the objective was to bring that part of EICO pertaining to the "Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort'" into compliance with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. We believe more commonalties than differences exist between the points of view of the various interested parties. We have prepared and attached hereto for your consideration an amendment to EICO (dated October 22, 1998) which: · Acknowledges both process and substantive issues raised by the Planning Commission by utilizing the Commission's October 16, 1998, MPR Zoning chapter and recent staff recommendations as a foundation; · Addresses concerns of local citizens by requiring a new and separate Master Site Plan process prior to any project permit applications in nonresidential zones; · Recognizes the phased-review process established during the 1993 programmatic Final EIS by requiring an additional level of environmental impact analysis. We believe the attached proposal goes favorably beyond a very similar approach which was declared acceptable on September 21, 1998 by senior Planning staff. We are also confident it is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Act, and State Environmental Policy Act. And, finally, we believe it will be supported by a majority of stakeholders in the Port Ludlow community. We respectfully request its adoption as an amendment to Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance No. 06-0828-98. Sincerely, 28 - [}5 Daw Cunmngnam Vice President, Public Affairs & Government Relations ph 19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast, P.O. Box 1780, Poulsbo, Washington 98370-0239 (360) 697-6626, Seattle: /206) 292-0517, Fax: (360) 697-1156 SECTION 1 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE Sections: 1.10 Authority 1.20 Purpose and Intent 1.30 Applicability 1.40 Rules of Interpretation Section 1.10 Authority: This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70.790 RCW and Chapter 36.70A.390 RCW which empowers the County to enact emergency interim zoning and provide for its administration and enforcement. Recreation ~ea. ~e reqmrem~ of ~anted, or for whch a complete apphcafion Section 1.40 Rules of Interpretation: The following rules shall be followed in making interpretation relating the terms and conditions contained herein. 1. For purposes of this Ordinance, all words used in the ordinance shall use normal and customary meanings, unless specifically defined otherwise in this ordinance. 2. Words used in the present tense include the future tense. 3. The plural includes the singular and vice-versa. 4. The words "will" and "shall" are mandatory. 5. The words "may" and "should" indicates that discretion is allowed. 6. The word "used" includes designed, intended, or arranged or intended to be used. 7. The masculine gender includes the feminine and vice-versa. VOl. October 22, 1998 1 SECTION 2 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS Sections: 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations 2.20 Intent 2.30 Exemptions Section 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations: The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all land and all structures within the boundary of the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow as depicted on the official land use map for Jefferson County, Washington. Section 2.20 Intent: No structure shall hereafter be erected and no existing structure shall be moved, altered, added to or enlarged, nor shall any land or structure be used, or arranged to be used for any purpose other than that which is included among the uses listed in the following chapters as permitted in the zoning district in which the structure or land is located, nor shall any land or structure be used in any manner contrary to any other requirements specified in this Ordinance. Section 2.30 Exemptions: The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the regulations of this Ordinance, but are subject to all other applicable Local, State, and Federal regulations including, but not limited to, the County Building Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance',, the Shoreline Management Master Program and SEPA. 1. Wires, cables, conduits, vaults, pipes, mains, valves, tanks, or other similar equipment for the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications, electricity, gas, or water or the collection of sewage, or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained by a governmental entity or a public utility or other transformers and temporary utility facilities required during building construction, whether any such facility is located underground, or above ground; but when only such facilities are located in a street right-of-way or in an easement less than twenty-five (25) feet in width. This exemption shall not include substation located on or above the surface of the ground or any such distri'bution facility located in an easement or twenty-five (25) feet or more in width. Railroad tracks, signals, bridges, and similar facilities and equipment located on a railroad right-of-way, and maintenance and repair work on such facilities and equipment. Telephone booths and pedestals, underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus shelters, informational kiosks, public bicycle shelters, or similar structure or device which is found by the Director of Community Development is obviously intended to be appropriately located :in the public interest. 4. Agricultural buildings used to house livestock, store feed or farm equipment. Minor construction activities, as defined by the UBC, Section 106.2 and structures exempt Under Jefferson County Building Code Ordinance #03-0713-98 as amended. October 22, 1998 '2897 2 SECTION 2 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS Sections: 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations 2.20. Intent 2.30 Exemptions Section 2.10 Territorial Application of Regulations: The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all land and all structures within the boundary of the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow as depicted on the official land use map for Jefferson County, Washington. Section 2.20 Intent: No structure shall hereafter be erected and no existing structure shall be moved, altered, added to or enlarged, nor shall any land or structure be used, or arranged to be used for any purpose other than that which is included among the uses listed in the following chapters as permitted in the zoning district in which the structure or land is located, nor shall any land or structure be used in any manner contrary to any other requirements specified in this Ordinance. Section 2.30 Exemptions: The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the regulations of this Ordinance, but are subject to all other applicable Local, State, and Federal regulations including, but not limited to, the County Building Ordinance, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, the Shoreline Management Master Program and SEPA. 1. Wires, cables, conduits, vaults, pipes, mains, valves, tanks, or other similar equipment for the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications, electricity, gas, or water or the collection of sewage, or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained by a governmental entity or a public utility or other transformers and temporary utility facilities required during building construction, whether any such facility is located underground, or above ground; but when only such facilities are located in a street right-of-way or in an easement less than twenty-five (25) feet in width. This exemption shall not include substation located on or above the surface of the ground or any such distribution facility located in an easement or twenty-five (25) feet or more in width. 2. Railroad tracks, signals, bridges, and similar facilities and equipment located on a railroad right-of-way, and maintenance and repair work on such facilities and equipment. 3. Telephone booths and pedestals, underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus shelters, informational kiosks, public bicycle shelters, or similar structure or device which is found by the Director of Community Development is obviously intended to be appropriately located in the public interest. 4. Agricultural buildings used to house livestock, store feed or farm equipment. Minor construction activities, as defined by the UBC, Section 106.2 and structures exempt under Jefferson County Building Code Ordinance #03-0713-98 as amended. October 22, 1998 2 SECTION 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS AND DEFINITION OF BOUNDARIES Sections: 3.10 Establishment of Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Zoning Districts and Definition of Boundaries. 3.20 Establishment of Zoning Districts within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort 3.30 Zoning Districts 3.40 Map of Zoning Districts 3.50 Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries Section 3.10 Establishment of Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Zoning Districts and Definition of Boundaries: The Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow is hereby divided into General Land Use Districts, or Zones, as depicted on the Official Zoning Map which, together with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. Section 3.20 Establishment of Zoning Districts within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort: Port Ludlow is hereby divided into zoning districts of such number and character as are necessary to achieve compatibility of uses within each district, to implement the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and related official plans and policies and the official Zoning Map of Jefferson County. Section 3.30 Zoning Districts: For the purposes of this Ordinance all land areas located within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) Boundary, are hereby divided into zoning districts which shall be designated as follows: Single Family (MPR-SF); Single Family Tracts (MPR-SFT); Multi-Family (MPR-MF); Resort Complex/Community Facilities (MPR-RC/CF); Village Commercial Center (MPR-VC); Recreation Area (MPR-RA) and Open Space (MPR-OS). Section 3.40 Map of Zoning Districts: The location and boundaries of the zoning districts established by this Ordinance are as indicated on a parcel specific map entitled "Official Zoning Map, Jefferson County, Washington." This map, together with all explanatory materials contained thereon, is hereby adopted as part of this Ordinance insofar as it indicates such designations, locations and boundaries of zoning districts, and shall be deemed to be part of this Ordinance. Section 3.50 Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries: In the even that Uncertainties exist with respect to the intended boundaries of the various zoning districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, the following rules shall apply: 1. Where a zoning district line purposely divides a land parcel the parcel shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of the respective districts as applied to each portion of the subject parcel. 2. In the event that districts are overlain by Shoreline Management Master Program designation(s) or any other designation authorized by another regulation, the most restrictive regulations shall apply. 3. In the event that uncertainty exists as to the zoning district boundaries illustrated on the attached zoning maps, the district boundary shall be defined by either the nearest lot line; the center lines of highways, streets, alleys, railroad right-of-way, municipal corporation lines, natural boundary lines, streams and tidal waters subject to the Shoreline Management Master Program jurisdiction, or other lines determined by the scales shown on said map(s). October 22, 1998 3 SECTION 4 PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 Single Family (MPR-SF) Single Family Tracts (MPR-SFT) Multi-Family (MPR-MF) Resort Complex/Community Facility (MPR-RC/CF) Village Commercial Center (MPR-VC) Recreation Areas (MPR-RA) Open Space Reserve (MPR-OS) Additional Requirements Section 4.10 Single Family Zone iMPR-SF) Section 4.101 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote single family residential areas within the MPR, including oppommities for reasonably priced housing. Section 4.102 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR zone: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Home-based business as permitted by Section 20 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (Ordinance No. 06-0828-98). 3. Accessory buildings, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment. 4. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. 5. Minimum lot areas of 5,000 square feet approved through a platting process and not to exceed a gross density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. 6. Utilities including, but not limited to sewer, storrnwater, water, telecommunication, and power. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.103 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-SF zone: 1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. 2. Minimum lot areas of 3,500 square feet if approved through a platting process and not to exceed a gross density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. 3. Single family attached dwelling including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes not to exceed a gross density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. Section 4.104 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height. Section 4.105 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements for detached dwelling shall be as provided in Tables MPR-SF below. October 22, 1998 SECTION 4 PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 Single Family (MPR-SF) Single Family Tracts (MPR-SFT) Multi-Family (MPR-MF) Resort Complex/Community Facility (MPR-RC/CF) Village Commercial Center (MPR-VC) Recreation Areas (MPR-RA) Open Space Reserve (MPR-OS) Additional Requirements Section 4.10 Single Family Zone (MPR-SF) Section 4.101 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote single family residential areas within the MPR, including opportunities for reasonably priced housing. Section 4.102 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the M. PR zone: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Home-based business as permitted by Section 20 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (Ordinance No. 06-0828-98). 3. Accessory buildings, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment. 4. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. 5. Minimum lot areas of 5,000 square feet approved through a platting process and not to exceed a gross density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. 6. Utilities including, but not limited to sewer, stormwater, water, telecommunication, and power. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.103 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-SF zone: 1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. 2. Minimum lot areas of 3,500 square feet if approved through a platting process and not to exceed a gross density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. 3. Single family attached dwelling including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes not to exceed a gross density of tbur (4) dwelling units per acre. Section 4.104 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height. Section 4.105 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements for detached dwelling shall be as provided in Tables MPR-SF below. October 22, 1998 L VOl. ,.,~ Jr,:, ~:. TABLE MPR-SF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface 4 DU/AC 5,000 sq. ft. 40' 20' 5' 5' 65% Section 4.20 Single Family Tract Zone (MPR-SFT) Section 4.201 Pumose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote large, single family residential tracts within the M_PR. Section 4.202 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-SFT zone: 1. Single family detached dwelling units. 2. Accessory building, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting the residential environment. 3. Accessory buildings, such as barns, stables and similar structures. 4. Home-based business as permitted by Section 20 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (Ordinance No. 06-0828-98). 5. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. 6~ Utilities including, but not limited to sewer, stormwater, water, telecommunication, and power. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.203 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MPR-SFT zone: 1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. Section 4.204 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height. Section 4.205 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-SFT below. TABLE MPR-SFT Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface 1 DU/2.5 AC 2.5 AC 100' 25' 25' 25' 20% Section 4.30 Multi-Family Zone (MPR-MF) Section 4.301 Purpose: This zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote within the IV[PR multi-family housing opportunities, in part to provide lower-cost housing units. October 22, 1998 Section 4.302 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-MF zone: 1. Multiple family dwelling units including condominiums. 2. Assisted-Living and long-term care facilities. 3. Accessory uses and structures supporting the residential environment such as garages, carports, storage buildings, pools, and recreation buildings. 4. Home-based business as permitted by Section 20 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (Ordinance No. 06-0828-98). 5. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. 6. Utilities including, but not limited to sewer, storm.water, water, telecommunication, and power. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.303 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-MF zone: 1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. 2. Single family attached dwelling including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. Section 4.304 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in heights as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.305 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-MF below. TABLE MPR-MF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback __ Setback Setback .Impervious Surface 10 DU/AC N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 55% Section 4.40 Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone (MPR-RC/CF) Section 4.401 Purpose and Intent: The MPR-RC/CF zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote thc existing and future resort development planned within thc Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Uses in the RC/CF zone must be supportive of the nature of thc resort and community facilities. Review. Criteria: The application shall b. October 22, 1998 Section 4.302 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-MF zone: 1. Multiple family dwelling units including condominiums. 2. Assisted-Living and long-term care facilities. 3. Accessory uses and structures supporting the residential environment such as garages, carports, storage buildings, pools, and recreation buildings. 4. Home-based business as permitted by Section 20 of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (Ordinance No. 06-0828-98). 5. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds approved through a platting process. 6. Utilities including, but not limited to sewer, stormwater, water, telecommunication, and power. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.303 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally in the MPR-MF zone: 1. Trails, parks, open space and playgrounds if not part of a platting process. 2. Single family attached dwelling including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. Section 4.304 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in heights as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.305 Bulk Requirements: The minimum lot requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-MF below. TABLE MPR-MF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface l0 DU/AC N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 55% Section 4.40 Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone (MPR-RC/CF) Section 4.401 Purpose and Intent: The MPR-RC/CF zone is intended to recognize, maintain and promote the existing and future resort development planned within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Uses in the RC/CF zone must be supportive of the nature of the resort and community facilities. Section 4.402 Master Si zone, a sufficient , Contents The application shall include: a. b. A October 22, 1998 ~.¥0L A written description addressing the scope of the project, the nature and size of each use. A vicinity map showing site boundaries, and key project features in properties, projects, or natural features. Subject property, streets and intersectionS. floor area, g, A Hearing and Appeal: A hearing Examiner as a Type B Ordinance) Examiner may determine that it elements a generalized Master Site Plan may Ordinance 04-0828-98 Modifications: Since b. Will not c. Does not change Major modific intensity, ~ Within this zone there are two sub areas, RC/CF the Central Resort and Community Facilities area and Kehele Park. Kehele Park is located to the north of the RC/CF zone and serves as a community park operated by the Ludlow Maintenance Commission. USES RC/CF Kehele Park Short term visitor accommodations and appropriate associated uses Conference Center/Banquet Facility Parks and Trails as part of a platting process Recreation Center/Club/Health Club Restaurant/Lounge/Bar Marina and related facilities October 22, 1998 USES RC/CF Kehele Park Seaplane Dock C Resort Related Retail Use Library/Museum C Interpretive and Informational K~osks ,,,' Community Organization Activity Facilities, i.e., club house Multifamily and Single Family Residential Structures (10du/ac) ,,,' Tennis Courts ,/ Youth Activity Center ,,,' Time Share/Vacation Ownership C Emergency Helicopter Pad C Utilities including, but not limited to sewer, stormwater, water, telecommunications, and power. Those uses and activities which currently exist at the LMC-owned property (Ludlow Beach Club and Kehele Park) are recognized as valid uses and activities and my continue in accordance with the current use of the facilities. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Residential uses within the RC/CF zone are bound by the bulk and dimensional standards established in their respective residential zoning districts within this section (see Sections 4.10 and 4.30) and are part of the overall 2250 residential unit cap for the MPR. Section 4.403 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards, except for Hotels and Conference Center/Banquet Facilities which shall not exceed 50 feet in height as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.404 Bulk Requirements: 21~e maximum square foot area per building allowed shall be 30,000 square feet except for Hotels and Conference Center/Banquet Facilities which may exceed this cap. The minimum requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-RC/CF below. TABLE MPR-RC/CF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 50% Section 4.50 Village Commercial Center Zone (MPR-VC) Section 4.501 Purpose: The intent of the MPR-VC zone is to provide retail-commercial uses and other services to serve the needs of resort visitors and community residents. In addition to retail commercial uses or services, other uses such as government or community offices and facilities; long-term care facilities; and visitor services shall be permitted within this zone. In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement, the MPR-VC zone is limited to a total of 45,000 square feet of retail-commercial development in addition to those structures and uses which existed at the site prior to the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. This limit on additional retail- commercial space is specifically reserved to the site studied in the FEIS and does not include residential or other non retail-commercial uses such as government or community offices. October 22, 1998 i¥0r- ~4"rli, ii~ ' ~903 8 USES RC/CF Kehele Park Seaplane Dock C Resort Related Retail Use Library/Museum C Interpretive and Informational Kiosks Community Organization Activity Facilities, i.e., club house Multifamily and Single Family Residential Structures (10du/ac) Tennis Courts Youth Activity Center ,,' Time Share/Vacation Ownership C Emergency Helicopter Pad C Utilities including, but not limited to sewer, storrnwater, water, telecommunications, and power. Those uses and activities which currently exist at the LMC-owned property (Ludlow Beach Club and Kehele Park) are recognized as valid uses and activities and my continue in accordance with the current use of the facilities. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Residential uses within the RC/CF zone are bound by the bulk and dimensional standards established in their respective residential zoning districts within this section (see Sections 4.10 and 4.30) and are part of the overall 2250 residential unit cap for the MPR. Section 4.403 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards, except for Hotels and Conference Center/Banquet Facilities which shall not exceed 50 feet in height as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.404 Bulk Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building allowed shall be 30,000 square feet except for Hotels and Conference Center/Banquet Facilities which may exceed this cap. The minimum requirements shall be as provided in Table MPR-RC/CF below. TABLE MPR-RC/CF Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface N/A N/A UBC UBC LrBC 50% Section 4.50 Village Commercial Center Zone (MPR-VC) Section 4.501 Purpose: The intent of the MPR-VC zone is to provide retail-commercial uses and other services to serve the needs of resort visitors and community residents. In addition to retail commercial uses or services, other uses such as government or community offices and facilities; long-term care facilities; and visitor services shall be permitted within this zone. In accordance with the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement, the MPR-VC zone is limited to a total of 45,000 square feet of retail-commercial development in addition to those structures and uses which existed at the site prior to the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS. This limit on additional retail- commercial space is specifically reserved to the site studied in the FEIS and does not include residential or other non retail-commercial uses such as government or community offices. October 22, 1998 [¥0t_ 24 _ 2903 8 All residential uses within the MPR-VC zone shall contbrm with the residential bulk and dimensional standards identified within section (see Sections 4. !0 and 4.30) and are considered part of the 2250 overall residential cap for the MPR. Section 4.502 Master Site Plan Review: ,, ~,,'?;~. Review Criteria: Prior to the County accepting a specific project development application within a MPR-VC zone, a: project proponent shall prepare and submit to the Hearing Examiner, a generalized Master Site Plan whi~ conceptually depicts those projects or series of projects to occur within the zone. The Master Site Plan shall providi sufficient detail as to uses within the zone; the scale of proposed improvements; the bulk and general improvements and the relationship of improvements to a resort/community facility use. Contents of Master Site Plan: The application shall include, where applicable: a. An Environmental checklist prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). b. A fully dimensioned site plan of the entire site or applicable portion thereof drawn at a scale of one inch equals two hundred ibet (1" = 200') or other scale required by the County. c. A written description addressing the scope of the project, the nature and size of each use. d. A vicinity map showing site boundaries and key project features in relationship to surrounding properties, projects, or natural features. e. Subject property, abutting streets and intersections. f. Approximate location of building footprints and size of proposed structures with an appropriate gross floor area, number of stories and other indices of size and bulk. '" g. A generalized circulation plan illustrating proposed vehicular access points for the site as well as m~ vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle pathways, parking areas and the like. h. Proposed types of uses to be housed in proposed structures. T'~, Hear/ng and Appeal: A hearing to consider a proposed generalized Master Site Plan will be held before the Examiner as a Type B application pursuant to Jefferson County Ordinance 04-0828-98 (Land Use Ordinance) following a SEPA threshold determination as applicable, and publication of public not/ce. The Hear/rig Examiner may determine that it is appropriate to issue a generalized Master Site Plan approval, approve ce,rtain' elements of the site plan, or conditionally approve and/or defer other elements or issues to the administrativ~ pr6ji~;~' approval process, The standard of review for the Hearing Examiner for the generalized Master Site Plan shall be to determine whether the plan is consistent with and supportive of the requirements and conditions of this MPR-VO zone including allowed uses and other height and bulk requirements. The final decision of the Hearing Examiner 6i/ a generalized Master Site Plan may be appealed to the Appellate Hearing Examiner pursuant to Jefferson County Ordinance 04-0828-98 (Land Use Processing Ordinance). Modifications: Since the Master Site Plan approval process is conceptual, substantial flexibility and discretion., is' granted to allow modifications. In determining whether a major or minor modification has been proposed, ,the Director of the Department of Community Development will consider if the basic design plan, overall proj~6/~ intensity and density are changed. Minor modifications will be permitted by administrative determination. A modification shall be a modification that: a. Involves no more than a ten percent (10%) increase or decrease in square footage of the overall floor are[ over that proposed in the Master Site Plan; b. Will not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; c. Does not change the boundaries of the zone. · VOL 2/t _ 904 October 22, 1998 9 Major modffication~ to: Section 4.503 Pemi~ed Uses: ~e following uses are pemi~ed in the MPR-VC zone as long as ~e total amo~ts of built s~c~res does not exceed the cap defined in Section 4.501 above. Permitted Retail-Commercial Uses · Bank and financial institutions · Variety Stores · Grocery Stores · Hardware and Garden Store · Pharmacy and Drug Stores · Liquor Stores (state) · Personal Medical Supply Stores · Jewelry Stores · Photographic and Electronic Shops · Computer and Office Equipment and Related Services · Music Stores · Farmer's Market · Barber and Beauty Shops · Art Gallery · Interior Shop · General/Business Offices · Professional Offices · Real Estate · Theater · Food Service Establishments · Day Care Center · Clinics (Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Chiropractic) · Social Services · Miscellaneous Health · Home Health/Home Care · Vehicle Repair and Gas Station · Antique Store · Travel Consultant · Dry cleaner/Laundry · Florist Shops · Specialty Food Stores · Sporting Goods and related Stores · Book and Stationary Stores · Car wash · Transportation Service · Utility purveyor offices · Recycling Drop-off facility Permitted Government and Community Uses: · Library · Museum · Community Center · Public agency or utility offices · Policy Facility · Fire Station · Post Office, mailing and packaging businesses · Parks and recreation Permitted Residential Uses: · Multi-family · Assisted living · Single family in association with retail/commercial uses (i.e. second story apartments) · Utilities including but not limited to sewer, stormwater, water, telecommunications, and power. Existing legal no-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. October 22, 1998 :' iV01_ ~1 ~Ir,.r - ~O5 10 Ma~or modification to an~. amend~fi;, ,app~calj0t~p inte~i~i~r~l~~~ Section 4.503 Pe~i~ed Uses: ~e following uses are pe~i~ed in the MPR-VC zone as long as ~e total amours of built s~cmres does not exceed the cap defined in Section 4.501 above. Permitted Retail-Commercial Uses · Bank and financial institutions · Variety Stores · Grocery Stores · Hardware and Garden Store · Pharmacy and Drug Stores · Liquor Stores (state) · Personal Medical Supply Stores · Jewelry Stores · Photographic and Electronic Shops · Computer and Office Equipment and Related Services · Music Stores · Farmer's Market · Barber and Beauty Shops · Art Gallery · Interior Shop · General/Business Offices · Professional Offices · Real Estate · Theater · Food Service Establishments · Day Care Center · Clinics (Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Chiropractic) · Social Services · Miscellaneous Health · Home Health/Home Care · Vehicle Repair and Gas Station · Antique Store · Travel Consultant · Dry cleaner/Laundry · Florist Shops · Specialty Food Stores · Sporting Goods andrelated Stores · Bookand Stationary Stores · Car wash · Transportation Service · Utility purveyor offices · Recycling Drop-offfacility Permitted Government and Community Uses: · Library · Museum · Community Center · Public agency or utility offices · Policy Facility · Fire Station Post Office, mailing and packaging businesses · Parks and recreation Permitted Residential Uses: · Multi-family · Assisted living · Single family in association with retail/commercial uses (i.e. second story apartments) · Utilities including but not limited to sewer, stormwater, water, telecommunications, and power. Existing legal no-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. October 22, 1998 Section 4.503 Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted conditionally within the MCR-VC zone: · Parking Structures · Meeting Facilities · Recreation Vehicle Park Section 4.504 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 40 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.505 Bulk Dimension Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building allowed for retail- commercial uses shall be 30,000 sq. feet. Residential uses within the MPR-VC zone are bound by the bulk and dimensional standards established in their respective residential zoning districts within Sections 4.10 and 4.30 and part of the overall 2250 residential cap for the MPR. TABLE MPR-VC Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface N/A N/A UBC UBC UBC 60% Maximum impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 60% for all uses in the entire MPR-VC zone as defined in Section 4.501. Section 4.60 Recreation Area 0VIPR-RA) Section 4.601 Purpose: The MPR-RA zone is intended to recognize, maintain, and promote the existing and future active recreation activities and areas within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. a project proponent shall conc~ b. A equals C. d. A October 22, 1998 2906 11 Heann Examiner a~:ii: Ordinance~ Examiner ma~ approval determine whether.the zorle Ordinance Director of the Dep~ent amended Section 4.603 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-RA zone: 1. Parks and Trails 2. Golf Shop/Club House/Snack Bar/Restaurant & Lounge 3. Interpretive Center, signage 4. Golf Course and Related Office/Maintenance Buildings and Facilities 5. Indoor and Outdoor Recreation Club 6. Utilities including but not limited to sewer, stormwater, water, telecommunication, and power. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.604 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.605 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building for the MPR-RA zone is 15,000 sq. feet except for indoor swimming facilities, pro shop, and maintenance facilities. October 22, 1998 12 h. Proposed types of uses to Hearing and ApP~hl: A heai'ing t6 c°nsi3~'~:~', Examiner as a TYPe B'aPPlication Ordinance) following a Examiner may determine elements of the site plan, ¢ approval process. The determine whether the plan is( consistent with zone including allowed uses and:other a generalized Master Site Ordinance 04-0828-98 (Land Use Proc. Modifications:Since the granted to allow modificationS. Director Of the Department of intensity and density modification shall be a. Involves no more than 'a':'ten, over that propc b. Will nothave a c. Does not_change the Major modifi( amended intensity, density~ Section 4.603 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the MPR-RA zone: 1. Parks and Trails 2. Golf Shop/Club House/Snack Bar/Restaurant & Lounge 3. Interpretive Center, signage 4. Golf Course and Related Office/Maintenance Buildings and Facilities 5. Indoor and Outdoor Recreation Club 6. Utilities including but not limited to sewer, storrnwater, water, telecommunication, and power. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.604 Height Restrictions: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.605 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building for the MPR-RA zone is 15,000 sq. feet except for indoor swimming facilities, pro shop, and maintenance facilities. October 22, 1998 12 TABLE MPR-RA Density Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Impervious Surface N/A N/A L33C UBC UBC N/A Section 4.70 Open Space Zone IMPR-OS) Section 4.701 Purpose: The purpose of the Open Space zone is to preserve in perpetuity anal enhance the natural amenities around Ludlow Bay, the Twin Islands and other natural areas within the MPR. Uses within the Open Space Area shall be low impact and serve to promote or enhance the aesthetic qualities of the Master Planned Resort. No residential or commercial development shall be permitted in the MPR-OS zone. Section 4.702 Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in the MPR-OS zone: 1. Parks, trails, paths, bridges, benches, shelters, and restrooms 2. Directional and interpretative signage and kiosks 3. Utilities such as transmission facilities, utility storage facilities, water reservoirs, sewer, stormwater, water telecommunications, and power. Section 4.703 Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted conditionally in the MPR-OS zone: 1. Man-made water features or enhanced natural water features, such as ponds, wetlands, wetland buffer enhancements and storm water detention ponds. 2. Interpretive Centers 3. Equestrian facilities such as riding areas, shelters, and horse trails. Existing legal non-residential uses are valid land uses in all zones of the Master Planned Resort and shall comply with Comprehensive Plan policies LNP 8.1-8.11. Section 4.704 Height Restriction: No building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in heights, excluding roof projections, as measured by UBC standards. Section 4.705 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements: The maximum square foot area per building allowed shall be 2,000 sq. feet. Some utility facilities may exceed this cap. Section 4.80 Additional Requirements Refer to thc following Ordinances for additional provisions supplement thc regulations presented in this ordinance: or development standards which may qualify or 1. Ordinance No. 05-0509-94, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. Ordinance No. 10-1104-96, Storm water Management Ordinance. 3. Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, Subdivision Ordinance, as amended by this Ordinance. 4. Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-Site Sewage Systems 5. Shoreline Management Master Program 6. Other local, state, and federal regulations as applicable. October 22, 1998 ':VDL . ~'~,r;r-: 13 PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT (scale: I inch = approx. 950 feet) I Single Family - 4 Dwelling Units Per Acre (MPR-SF 4:1) I Multiple Family - 10 Dwelling Units Per Acre (MPR-MF 10:l) ~]~ Resort Complex/Community l?acilities - (MPR-RC/CF lO:l) I Village Commercial Center (MPR-VC) ~ Single Family Tracts -- t Dwelling [Init Per 2.5 Acres (MPR-SFT ~--~ Open Space Reserve ~ Recreation Area (MPR-tiA) ~ Area Requiring Conceptual Site Plan Prior To Development The total number of residential lots allowable within the MPR bour}dary shall not exceed ~, Obmpi~, wA V*'c a~ writt~ to ~iuem 0mt you siva H~qt~sed Holm Bill 20~3. This m~er of th, Dsp~n~ of Community Tr~z~ ~l Economic PZ~m sisn Eag;romd Roufo B~! 208~. Thfnk you. i~usscll I. a~a ~aurie J. Tiiil~mn 03i Griffit~s P~int ~oa~ hor~lan~, WA 9~350 (~60) 3~-13~9 October Zo, 1990 Jefferson County Board of County Con~issioners ~-~len huutingfor~, Chair Daniel ~arpole Richard Wojt lie: ~mergency Interim Control Ordinance i~le following co~ents are ~irected toward the possiule modifi- cation of ~iVC Sections 11.20, 11.30, 11.40, and the possible addition of language to allow Bindi~g Sine Plans and Co~mnercial Pianne~ bnit Developments. Section Ii. ZO requires a specific use be identifiea for the issuance of a building permit. It would seem taat if tae appli- cant agreed to restrict the buildi~,g use to those i~entified in the Ordi~mnce table of uses, he would comply with the intent of this section. This approach would allow tae uses of Co~m~ercial Planned Onit Oevelopments an~ Bin~ing Site Plans. Section 11.30 identifies a minimum commercial lot size as three (3) acres unless t~e lot is existing. Tills does not allow n~e concentration of conm~ercial uses in Rural Village Centers, but promotes sprawl Oy requiring excessive land areas for con~nercial activities. Section 11.4o identifies a maximum comm~rciai ouilding size as 20,000 square feet regaruless of lot size or t~e numDer of busi- nesses within tae building. Again, this requirement promotes sprawl since it seriously limits the concentration of commercial uses on large lots near nne tempter of Rural ~illages. The 20,000 square foot limit could ~e more logically directed to i~ividual busi~esses rather than the Ouilding, allowing multiple busi~esses under one roof. O~e exceptio~ would be modern grocery stores whic~ require 40,000 square feet. Tn= current rule eliminates a~y ~ew grocery stores in t~e entire County and establisi~es a one store monopoly in Port hadloc~i. In sul~ary, ig is recommended that mouifications Oe maoe to ti~e orui~ance to allow the conce~tratio~ of commercial activities aear t~e center of Rural Villages. The G~;~ promotes this approach to Planni~g to create a more iivable enviro~a~ent in t~e long term. ~t is ai~o r~cn,,~mende~ t~a~%.anguage al~owin~ Bin~inO Site Plans ano Commercial Pia~ne~ Onit Oevelopm~t be aOde~. Yours very truly, . ~.aurie J. Tiliman Mike Derrig PORT LUDLOW PLANNING FORUM October 26, 1998 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: EMERGENCY INTERIM CONTROLS ORDINANCE Gentlemen: For the past 26 months I have acted as an independent facilitator with the singular goal of developing an agreement between the Port Ludlow community and Olympic Resource Management (ORM) as to the eventual buildout of their community. While much work lies ahead to complete the many details for future development, the community, represented by the Council of Ludlow Owners Associations (CLOA) and ORM have unified their position as to a conceptual development plan for Port Ludlow, which now needs zoning to allow for entering the many phases of the permit application process. Port Ludlow's core businesses provide a significant source of revenue, jobs and taxes for Jefferson County and our community. In 1997 the three main operating companies at Port Ludlow, (ORM, The Inn at Ludlow Bay and the Resort) contributed approximately the following: Total revenues/sales Total payroll Employee benefits paid by employer Total Employees: 178 average Full time 151 Seasonal 231 Sales taxes collected and paid Jefferson County portion of sales taxes Hotel room taxes to Jefferson County Purchases from local vendors/merchants Payments to local subs/suppliers Port Ludlow Property taxes- 1997 $15,023,000 $3,186,000 $669,000 $443,000 $133,000 $52,ooo $957,000 $700,000 $2,342,000 These figures do not include the several other local businesses that rely on the success of the resort or developmentO . , 781 Walker Way, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 · 360/437-2101 360/437-2522 fax Many of these businesses and their related financial impacts to Jefferson County are at risk and without the reasonable ability to react to changing market conditions, they may fail. Your Comprehensive Plan in part says: "MPRs ..... developments that are based on ..... conceptual Master Plan ..... developed in stages depending on market demand or other factors." "Port Ludlow is a planned development. Its overall phased development pattern may change according to changing market conditions." Since 1993 the northwest resort market has changed and several new, more competitive resorts have opened and taken market share business, from Port Ludlow. If the resort facilities at Port Ludlow can not soon be rebuilt, reconfigured and expanded to be more competitive, they will likely be closed. Olympic Resource management's revised proposed zoning code must be adopted today. It is consistent with the Growth Management Act, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the State Environmental Policy Act and the desires of the vast majority of our community. Respectfully, Michael Derrig Port Ludlow Planning Forum MD:pam 'Emergency Intedm Cor~rols Ordinance" 10-28-98 781 Walker Way, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 · 360/437-2101 360/437-2522 fax DCTED B~TH MBNT HARPER ASSOCIATES 1517 Evergreen Park Lane SW Olympics, WA 98502 April 26, 1997 The Honorable OaW Locke, Governor The State of W~tshing*.ou Legislative Building PO Box 40002 O~ympia, WA 95504-0002 Dear Governor Locke I am writing to urge your support and signing into law Substitute House Bill 2083, which amends the Master Piann~d Resorts definitio~ in the Orowth M~nagement Act. The bill affects resort communities which were in*existefipe at the time the Orowth Matmgempr~t Act became taw in t9~0. [n pa~.icule, r, the bill would allow the Port Ludlow resort communky to complete its development slatted some 29 years ago. '['represented _Pope Resources, the developers of Port Ludlow, on this bill and a similar biil (SHB 2394) in the i996 legisNtive sessio:~. The t~ee, d for this bill became apparent to Port Ludlow when in 199~ there was no fit into any of' the categories o~the GMA, either as an Urban Oro,;vth Area or ~. Master Planupd R~sort. la t 996, we were successful in passing SI-lB 2~94 with strong bipartisan support. In reviewing the bill, however, Governor Lowry determined the bill was too broadly written, and vetoed it. In his veto message, Governor Lown, stated "If Substitute House Bitt 2394 had been limited to existing resort dpvelepment,~ or if'it ha~t achieved the goads of permitting the development of second homes and perme, nem residences while maintairfing the primary focus of development on destination resort f:,tcitifies liar visitors, ~hi$ legislation would be ~cpeptable," The bill before you, SHB 2083, achieves the direction given in Governor Lowry's veto message by limiting the ~pplieation of this GMA amendment to resorts which were in e_x__i~*,tence., when GMA became taw in 1990. A~ such, the bill wa~ supported in testimony in the House And Senate policy ¢ommittee~ by 1000 Friends of Wa~hington, the. Association of Washington Cities, at-.d the Orowth Management Division of the Department of'Community, l~ade and Economic Dewlopm, ent. The bill pass~,x'l unanimously in both the House attd Serrate, Witl~ such strong support both wimin t'he legislature and by outs}de interest groups~ please add your support bk' signing the bill into law. Thank you very much and best c2)im Kelly; Steve Wells Telephone (360) 943-8769 · FAX (360) 943-4670 TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.P~M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE VOL TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residems of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Managemem's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the commuaity in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstTuct the will of the commtmity. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME 'vnl TO THE JEFFERSON cOUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress aH along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor thia planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME ~[,°Il ,vo,. _. 2,,9_ls TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fiflly support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residems of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.P~M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME ]cD TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the commullity. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.1LM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty cotamittees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME /0 TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATUgE TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R_M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served r,n over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the commtmity. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the cur:ent quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME / \ SI~ .~NATURE TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS we the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Managcment's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowl~lge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in thc planning of this facility. We have participated in open public m~tings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine tho final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the commonity. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within tho current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor thi.g planned project. This project is imperativo to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE 'VOL TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current ]aw. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residems of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to deterinine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE VOL TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residems of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. 'VOL I0 TO THE ~FFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME . VOL TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.l~M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. ~ Tnt VOL SIGNATURE TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning oft]tis facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstnlct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE TO THE JEFFERSON CO UNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residems of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law.' We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE '~'OL TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residems of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor thi~ planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATUKE VOL TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current laW. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE VOL TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fiflly support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community ,in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME VOL TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fiflly support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. VOl. TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. VOl_ TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE VOl. 2.4 TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.R.M to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the fmal form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been.updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor this planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME SIGNATURE TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the under signed residents of Port Ludlow fully support and endorse Olympic Resource Management's plan to expand and improve the current resort at Port Ludlow. We would like to encourage the Commissioners to acknowledge the unprecedented effort on the part of O.KM to include the community in the planning of this facility. We have participated in open public meetings and served on over thirty committees over the last two years that have provided the input for the formation of this plan. We have been updated on progress all along the way and participated in a straw vote that was used to determine the final form of the project. Jefferson County governmental agencies can become facilitators of the zoning and permit process or obstruct the will of the community. We hope they choose to facilitate the process within the current law. We strongly urge you to listen to the vast majority of Port Ludlow residents who favor thi,q planned project. This project is imperative to maintain the current quality of life in Port Ludlow. Thank you for your consideration. NAME JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS P.O. Box 2070 1322 Washington St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9160 K/ara A. Fabry, P.E., Public Works D/rector/County Engineer MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Board of County Commissioners Klara A. Fabry, Public Works Director/County Engineer ~. October 26, 1998 Recommended revisions to the Emergency Interim Control Ordinance The Department of Public Works has reviewed the Jefferson County Emergency Interim Control Ordinance as it relates to implementing the goals, policies, and strategies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Several goals, policies, and strategies of the Transportation Element recognize the need for adequate transportation facilities, including transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities to serve developments. Transportation Goal TRG 3.0 Nonmotorized Transportation: To provide safe, accessible, and convenient routes, trails, and parking facilities that promote the use of nonmotorized travel in a manner that is integrated with other forms of transportation. Transportation Policy TRP 3.7: Promote coordinated bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian way improvements emphasizing access to schools, parks, employment and service centers, and mass transit facilities (ferry, bus, etc.). Transportation Policy TRP 3.12: Promote development of adequate pedestrian walkways and crossings, where appropriate, including facilities separated from the roadway. Transportation Goal TRG 4.0 Land Development Standards: To encourage land use types, mixes, and densities that promote efficient multimodal transportation systems. 100% Recycled Paper Transportation Policy TRP 4.6: Require that subdivision and commercial project designs address the following issues: a. Cost effective transit and delivery of emergency service; b. Provision for all transportation modes; c. Dedication of rights-of-way for existing and future transportation needs; d. Motorized and nonmotorized access; e. Sidewalks and bicycle paths; f. Compatibility between motorized vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users; g. Inclusion of transit friendly design elements; and h. Adequate parking for non-peak periods. Transportation Policy TRP 4.6: Ensure that unacceptable safety hazards will be mitigated. The definition of unacceptable will be based on analysis of the existing facility(s) and the current standard for that facility(s) contained in commonly used and adopted transportation publications. Transportation Strategy 4: Develop site design standards for public transit facilities to be incorporated into County land use codes and regulations. Transportation Strategy 11: Develop incentives for developers to dedicate land for expansion of the County's trail network and adopt into land development regulations. Transportation Strategy 12:Develop and adopt bicycle/pedestrian facilities standards compatible with County road standards and those applicable standards of adjacent jurisdictions and require compliance with these standards in the permitting and review process. Transportation Strategy 17: Develop and adopt standards that enhance safety for inclusion into implementing ordinances. Transportation Strategy 20: Review and revise, as necessary, performance standards for the review of proposed developments that ensure the proper functioning of transportation facilities. Transportation Strategy 24: As necessary, develop and adopt land development standards that provide guidance in how to include transit-friendly design elements in developments and require all developments to adhere to those standards. 2 Departmental Recommendation Based on these goals and policies, the Department recommends that the Emergency Interim Control Ordinance should amended to include development standards for commercial, industrial, and multi-family developments that require provision of adequate transportation facilities. These facilities should include roadway segments, turning lanes, intersection channelization, bus pullouts, sidewalks, trails, and bicycle facilities. The proposed standards were previously recommended to the Board in a memo dated June 17, 1998. They were included in Interim Controls Draft 4 dated August 24, 1998. They were not, however, included in the Emergency Interim Control Ordinance. The standards are based on the Department's adopted national standards. They are very general. The Department looks forward to working with the Board, Planning staff, and the public to develop appropriate detailed standards that reflect our community's conditions and preferences for inclusion in the permanent implementing ordinances. The following development standards should be applied to all permitted and conditional uses in Rural Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads, Rural General Crossroads, Rural Village Centers, the Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Commercial Area, the Quilcene Light Industrial Area, the Port Townsend Mill Heavy Industrial Area, and the Airport Essential Public Facility Overlay District. They should also be included for permitted and conditional uses in all districts of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The development standards would require project proponents to provide transportation facilities based on the standards of the Public Works Department and Jefferson Transit. These standards include, but are not limited to, the American Association of State' Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the Was,hington State Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. Add to Emergency Interim Control Ordinance Section 9 Interim Neighborhood / Visitor Crossroad District; Section 10 Interim Rural General Crossroad District; Section 11 Interim Rural Village Centers District; Section 12 Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Commercial Area, Qnilcene Light Industrial Area, and Port Townsend Paper Mill Heavy Interim Industrial Area; and Section 14 Airport Land Uses. TRANSPOI~TATION FACILITIES: All uses shall be served by adequate transportation facilities, including appropriate facilities for transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Where transportation facilities are not adequate to serve a proposed use, the applicant shall make provision for necessary improvements. Transportation facilities shall be deemed adequate if necessary improvements are planned and funded in the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. Transportation facilities shall meet the design standards of the Department of Public Works and Jefferson Transit. These standards include, but are not limited to, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the Washington Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. Add to Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Development Control Ordinance for all permitted and conditional uses in all zoning districts. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES: All uses shall be served by adequate transportation facilities, including appropriate facilities for transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Where transportation facilities are not adequate to serve a proposed use, the applicant shall make provision for necessary improvements. Transportation facilities shall be deemed adequate if necessary improvements are planned and funded in the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. Transportation facilities shall meet the design standards of the Department of Public Works and Jefferson Transit. These standards include, but are not limited to, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the Washington Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. 4 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Long-____Range Planning and Gro~h__Managemen~t Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9123 FAX: (360) 385-9357 1-800-831-2678 Long Range Planning Report to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners November 4, 1998 Response to Public Comment Received at the Public Hearing on the EICO Mr. Russell Tiliman makes three points: Binding Site Plans and Commercial Planned Unit Developments should be allowed in Interim Rural Village Centers Staff Response: Commercial/Industrial Plats, which are reviewed through a binding site plan process, are regulated by the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. They are not prohibited anywhere in the County, however, the minimum lot size for Rural Village Centers in the EICO would require that each lot in a Commercial/Industrial Plat be three (3) acres in size. Staff Recommendation: Currently the County has no standards by which to judge a Planned Unit Development. Final development regulations will contain standards for PUDs. B. The minimum commercial lot size should be decreased from three (3) acres. Staff Response: As an interim ordinance adopted without extensive review or comment, the intent was to remain consistent with how the IGSO dealt with allowable development densities within Rural Centers. Health Department standards vary with the specific use and location. Having no minimum lot size and relying solely on Health Department standards, as we have in the past, results in lots sized for specific purposes and therefore lack flexibility. Proponents tend to design the system for minimum flows required for the original proposal rather than to accommodate a possible change of use in the future, therefore, use conversions are difficult to accommodate. The County currently faces this problem with the "old" Petrick's building. A small sample of area septic systems: Peninsula Video, .90 acres; Hadlock Building Supply, 3 acres; the dentist at 906 Ness' Corner Road, .87 acres; Ferino's pizza is at its maximum capacity on 2.14 acres; QFC needed additional land in order to expand its system and went from 2.26 acres to 4.15 acres; the Village Baker at 1.32 acres could not expand the drainfield to accommodate his food service plans. Port Hadlock, in particular, typically has coarse soils and many of the commercial properties are within a well-head protection area. In such circumstances, the Health Department is unable to grant a waiver to the requirements. Parcels without enough land to expand the system are limited in terms of the uses they can accommodate. Instead of allowing systems designed to minimum specifications, it may be advisable to require maximum septic requirements designed to facilitate future use conversions. The purpose of an interim ordinance is to preserve options while final regulations are developed. Final development regulations should have standards for Planned Unit Developments that would allow for flexibility of design. Minimum lot sizes need to be carefully researched and publicly debated prior to adoption. The Public Works Department together with the Environmental Health Department is currently investigating minimum lot sizes for commercial areas in connection with the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study. They have used the minimum three (3) acres in defining "redevelopable land". It may not be advisable to change this denominator prior to the completion of the Special Study. Staff Recommendation: This change must be considered substantive and should not be included with the non-substantive amendments to the EICO. The time to rethink minimum lot sizes is after the completion of the Special Study, when commercial areas are revisited at the first amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. However, if the Board wishes to increase the allowable density for commercial development, it should do so in a separate amendment to the ELCO. C. The maximum building size should be increased from 20,000 sq ft. Staff Response: This is an interim ordinance that is being adopted without extensive public or Planning Commission review. The intent was to preserve options during the development of final regulations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends against increasing the maximum building size in the interim ordinance. Standards for PUDs in final development regulations should address Mr. Tillman's concerns. 2. Jim Pearson, Department of Public Works: The Public Works Department has requested that language on transportation development standards be included in the EICO. Public Works had submitted the attached comments in connection with Interim Controls '98. The language concerns transportation development standards for Interim Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads, Interim General Commercial Crossroads, Interim Rural Village Centers, Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Associated Commercial, Port Townsend Mill Heavy Industrial Zone and the Airport Essential Public Facility Overlay Boundary. Staff Recommendation: A determination needs to be made whether the proposed amendments are substantive. If not, staff recommends inclusion in the interim ordinance of the language concerning transportation development standards. B. Reference applicable chapters of the Zoning Code in the EICO Mr. Pearson suggested that the EICO reference chapters of the Zoning Code that were not repealed such as: Off-street Parking and Loading Areas, Sign Regulations, Conditional Uses and Temporary Uses. Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with this suggestion. The following statement should be included: In the event of a conflict between standards contained in the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall rule. There is one area where referencing the Zoning Code will cause confusion. There is a conflict between the Code and the Comprehensive Plan concerning home-based businesses, and the Zoning Code is silent on cottage industries. The Prosecuting Attorney may want to advise the Board whether this conflict is of concern or whether the EICO should reference the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and state they are to be used in combination with the existing code. During their review of Interim Controls '98 the Public Works Department suggested that Table 14.4 Required Minimum Dimensions for Off-street Parking Spaces and Section 12.50, Road Classifications in the Zoning Code be amended to bring them up to date. These could be considered clerical corrections. Mr. David Cunningham, Olympic Resource Management: Mr. Cunningham maintains that the EICO is incomplete and amounts to a de facto moratorium on development in the MPR. Staff Response: The EICO does not address a number of zones within the MPR boundary. It treats the Village Commercial Center (MPR-VC) as a Rural Village Center and allows the same uses with the same development standards. Staff respectfully reminds the Board that many policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan are also not implemented by the EICO. For example, small-scale tourist and recreational uses and Resource Based Industrial Zones are two other such areas where a de facto moratorium is also in place, to use Mr. Cunningham's words. While Mr. Cunningham may argue his point, development within the MPR boundary may occur in regard to vested projects and within the other zones consistent with the preferred alternative identified in the 1993 FEIS. Staff Recommendation: The changes Mr. Cunningham desires are substantive and outside the scope of these amendments. Long Range Planning Report to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners November 4, 1998 Response to Public Comment Received at the Public Hearing on the EICO Mr. Russell Tillman makes three points: mo Binding Site Plans and Commercial Planned Unit Developments should be allowed in Interim Rural Village Centers Staff Response: Commercial/Industrial Plats, which are reviewed through a binding site plan process, are regulated by the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. They are not prohibited anywhere in the County, however, the minimum lot size for Rural Village Centers in the EICO would require that each lot in a Commercial/Industrial Plat be three (3) acres in size. Staff Recommendation: Currently the County has no standards by which to judge a Planned Unit Development. Final development regulations will contain standards for PUDs. B. The minimum commercial lot size should be decreased from three (3) acres. Staff Response: As an interim ordinance adopted without extensive review or comment, the intent was to remain consistent with how the IGSO dealt with allowable development densities within Rural Centers. Health Department standards vary with the specific use and location. Having no minimum lot size and relying solely on Health Department standards, as we have in the past, results in lots sized for specific purposes and therefore lack flexibility. Proponents tend to design the system for minimum flows required for the original proposal rather than to accommodate a possible change of use in the future, therefore, use conversions are difficult to accommodate. The County currently faces this problem with the "old" Petrick's building. A small sample of area septic systems: Peninsula Video, .90 acres; Hadlock Building Supply, 3 acres; the dentist at 906 Ness' Corner Road, .87 acres; Ferino's pizza is at its maximum capacity on 2.14 acres; QFC needed additional land in order to expand its system and went from 2.26 acres to 4.15 acres; the Village Baker at 1.32 acres could not expand the drainfield to accommodate his food service plans. Port Hadlock, in particular, typically has coarse soils and many of the commercial properties are within a well-head protection area. In such circumstances, the Health Department is unable to grant a waiver to the requirements. Parcels without enough land to expand the system are limited in terms of the uses they can accommodate. Instead of allowing systems designed to minimum specifications, it may be advisable to require maximum septic requirements designed to facilitate future use conversions. Friends 0f Washingt0n 1000 Friends of Washington 1305 Fourth Avenue, Suite 303 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 343-0681 (206) 343-0683 fax friends~eskimo.com www. 1000friends.org Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 NOV 06 1998 JEFFERSON COUN'I'¥ ~OARD OF COMMISSIONER,':: November 3, 1998 Re: Amendment of the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (EICO) To the Honorable Jefferson County Commissioners; 1000 Friends of Washington would like to offer the following comments on the process and substance of amendments to the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance that would guide the development of the Port Ludlow Resort. The final development regulations to implement the Master Planned Resort (MPR) should be completed after a deliberative public process -- interim or emergency controls are not the appropriate vehicle for changes to the location, mix of uses, or intensity of development on the MPR site. The interim controls should not permit changes from the resort plan established in the 1993 Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement. Any ordinance provisions that would represent a significant departure from current County regulations should only be considered in the process of developing final development regulations. These final development regulations .related to the MPR can and should be developed independent of the Submission of a Master Plan applicatiOn. In that way, the County could work with a broad range of stakeholders to establish the appropriate location and intensity of additional develoPment on the resort site. The County would not be constrained or unduly influenced by a Master Plan submission that was developed in the absence of a set of final development regulations. The regulations would guide the development of the resort proposal, rather than the other way arOund. In addition, it would give greater certainty to all the interested parties. Finally, the regulations that implement the master planned resort designation must include a requirement that all on-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are .fully considered and mitigated. The County cannot m,ake a determination that this requirement has been met before the Master Plan application is submitted. However, both the interim and the final regulations must assure that this requirement of the Growth Management Act is met. 0 Prin~d on recycled paper TraCy Burrows Planning Director STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson IN THE MATTER OF RENEWING } Ordinance No. 01-0208-99 adopted pursuant to } Chapter 36.70A.390 Revised Code of Washington } And amending the Emergency Interim Control } Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 (EICO) to allow the } Siting of Public Purpose Facilities upon all lands } Within unincorporated Jefferson County and } Exempting Public Purpose Facilities from the } Maximum building Cap contained in the EICO } FINDINGS OF FACT The Jefferson Board of County Commissioners hereby enters the following findings of fact in support of extending this Ordinance for a period of six months per the provisions contained in Chapter 36.70A.390 RCW. WHEREAS, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 01-0208-99 as an interim zoning control under 36.70A.390 RCW in order to amend the ElCO Use Table to permit the siting, expansion and remodeling of Public Purpose Facilities, including Fire and Police Stations upon all lands within unincorporated Jefferson County through the Conditional Use process and exempt these facilities from the maximum building cap size contained in Sections 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the EICO; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is currently reviewing permanent zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the intent of Ordinance No. 01-0208-99 will be reviewed and incorporated into final development regulations; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 2, 1999; and WHEREAS, 36.70A.390 RCW allows an interim zoning ordinance to be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, Ordinance No. 01-0208-99 shall remain in effect until such time as final development regulations are adopted or 6 (six) months from this date whichever occurs first. ~VOL f~'~O ADOPTION Approved and adopted by the Board of Commissioners this ,,7~ day of August, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ONLY Je_~ffe~ing Atto me y AI~,'tg~ctor ~_.~unity Development JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS vo,_ 25 ~7654 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Al Scalf, Director ADMINISTRATIVE CLARIFICATION Department of Community Development Zoning Administrator's Ordinance Clarification In The Matter of: An Administrative Clarification Per Section 13 Use Tables; Auto, Commercial and Residential Glass Repair and Service in the General Crossroad Area, (GC), Jefferson County Emergency Interim Control Ordinance as amended, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The Use Tables of Ordinance # 06-0828-98, Jefferson County Emergency Interim Control Ordinance does not clearly articulate whether auto, commercial and residential glass repair and service is a permitted use in the General Crossroad District. However, close analysis of the codes and related comprehensive plan goals, policies, and strategies are supportive of the development of lumber yards in the General Crossroad District. Until the language in the ordinance is clarified the following analysis and conclusion will be applied to circumstances where repair and service of auto, commercial and residential glass is proposed within the General Crossroad District. The question of repair and service of auto, commercial and residential glass within the General Crossroad District lies in the de£mitions section (Section 1.100) and zoning district requirements of Sections 3.10 and 10 of the Emergency Interim Control Ordinance; and the guidelines, strategies, and policy sections of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Emergency Interim Control Ordinance Analysis: The Interim Control Ordinance def'mes Retail Sales as "The sale of merchandise, services, or commodities for use or consumption by the immediate purchaser and not meant for resale." By def'mition, General Crossroads (GC) are "Similar to Neighborhood Crossroads, General Crossroads serve a higher local population base and offer a wider variety of goods and services." Section 3.110 states "General Crossroads are existing historic commercial areas that provide a broad range of commercial goods and services for a higher population base in the northeastern part of Jefferson County. Existing and permitted uses in these areas will include all locaL/convenience and neighborhood/visitor uses, as well as building material, hardware and farm equipment, auto repair with subordinate vehicle sales, furniture and appliances, clothing and accessories, mini-storage, RV sales, and an expanded range of specialty stores, professional services, and public and social services at sizes and scales of new development larger than those of neighborhood/visitor crossroads, but more limited than those for Rural Village Centers. Jefferson County's General Crossroads include Ness' Comer, Irondale Comer, and SR 19/20." Per the Use Tables of Section 13, Lumber Yards are a conditionally permitted use within the General Crossroad District. A lumber yard sells building materials, including commercial and residential glass products. Section 10 states that "The purpose of the GC district is to recognize existing historic Rural Commercial Crossroad Areas which are characterized by providing an expanded range of goods and services and which are located on, or have immediate access to, a state route or major arterial, Irondale Comer, Ness' Comer and SR 19/20 Intersection. Building Permits/Inspections (360) 379-4450 Development Review Division Long Range Planninq FAX: (360) 379-4451 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Land Use and Rural Strategy guidelines provide "The Ness' Comer intersection, located on State Route 19, is a relatively large commercial area with a number of specialized commercial uses and professional services. It serves the higher population base of the Tri-Area, and include some uses that provide several regional, community and traveling public levels of service, as well as services for the local rural population. Existing commercial uses, which have gradually extended along the highway, have been contained by the logical boundary, with limited areas where infill will be allowed. Rural Commercial Policy LNP5.6.2 provides direction "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, and expanded range of specialty goods and professional services, and limited public and social services." The expansion of an existing auto, commercial and residential glass repair and service business is consistent with the intent of this policy. Conclusion: The expansion of an existing auto, commercial and residential glass repair and service business is similar to a Lumber Yard and auto repair, in terms of intensity of use and therefore allowed as a conditionally permitted use within the GC district. Dated this 14th day of December, 1999 Warren Hart, AICP, Zoning Administrator C: I/ Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners Development Review Staff LAND USE AND RtJI~\L NESS' ('ORNER GENERAL CROSSROAD INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE LAND . ,, i SIM~S gTREET SCALE: t' = 450' LEGEND: ST Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-39 August 28, 1998