HomeMy WebLinkAboutMLA19-00013 Wilke Re-Zone ApplicationMACLEARNSBERRY, Inc.
LAND SURVEYORS *CONSULTANTS
1100 NW Thompson Road, 5uile 301,'Poulsbo, WA 98370
prone. 206 842-5514
www.sealandsurvey.com
Jefferson County Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re. Wilke Site -Specific Comp Plan Amendment
(See also CAM18-00718 & PRE19-00009)
To whom it may concern:
March 1, 2019
This submittal pertains to a request by Andrew and Sarah Wilke to have their property
at 240 Sand Road (Tax Parcel oo1184004) re -zoned from RR-10 to RR-5.
Accompanying this correspondence are the following items:
1. General Permit Application
2. Latest on -site septic system data provided by the Health District
3. Site -Specific Comp Plan Amendment Application
5. SEPA Checklist
5. Exhibits A, B, C & D per Supplemental Application instructions
Exhibit C depicts the possible subdivision configuration.
In addition to the above are included the following:
Exhibit E is an existing conditions site map with a general legend (for use with the other
exhibits as well) and a suppemental note regarding setbacks.
Exhibit F is a vicinity map showing access and nearby RR-5 zones.
Exhibit G. in addition to showing the various zones, identifies adjoining and nearby
parcels five acres or less in size that presently remain designated as R-10 areas.
Feel free to call me with any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
JW
ruce MacLearnsberry, PLS, CFS
encl.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Tel:360.379.4450 1 Fax:360.379.4451
Web:=Y,c.n.icFFessnn.nra.us/c<,nmunie deyelo n� Sen[
E-mail:.dc d cr,,ic.Hersonwa,sis
PERMIT APPLICATION
Steps in the Permit Process:
-Review application checklist to ensure all information is completed prior to submitting application.
-Make sure septic has been applied for and water availability has been proven.
-Make an appointment to meet with the Permit Technician by calling 360-379-4450.
-This is not a standalone application; it must be accompanied by a project specific supplemental application.
-Fees will be collected at intake. Additional fees may apply after review and payment is required before permit is issued.
For Department Use Only Building Permit #
Related Application #s: MLA #
Site Information
Assessor Tax Parcel Number: 001184004
Site Address and/or Directions to Property: 240 Sand Road, Port Townsend WA
Access (name of street(s)) from which access will be gained: Sand Road is accessed from Cape George Road
via a short section of Loftus Road
Present use of property: Rural propetty with one primarV,single-family residence and one ADU.
Description of Work (include proposed uses): Re -zone RR-10 property to RR5 then subdivide into 2 parcels.
There are no additional plans for site improvements or modifications.
Wastewater -Sewage Dispasa I
This property is served by Port Townsend or Port Ludlow sewer system? YES NO
If not served by sewer identified above, identify type of septic system below:
Type of Sewage System Serving Property:
Septic Septic Permit #: SEP87-0136 & SEP92-0155
Community Septic Name of System: unnamed Case #:
Are other residences connected to the septic system? No. Each residence has its owns stem.
Additions or repairs to sewage system: None.
Is it a complete or partial system installation: Complete _� Partial
Has a reserve drainfield been designated? Yes No
Date of Last Operations & Maintenance check: 2017 Attach last report to application
Describe or attach any drainfield easements, covenants or notices on title, which may impact the property:
None.
I'rmili .AppII(:.tiIon I'_t i L �,I
The authorized agent/representative is the primary contact for all project -related questions and correspondence. The County will mail
/ e-mail requests and information about the application to the authorized agent/representative and will copy (cc) the owner noted
below. The authorized agent/representative is responsible for communicating the information to all parties involved with the
application. It is the responsibility of the authorized agent/representative and owner to ensure their mailbox accepts County email (i.e.,
Countv email is not blocked or sent to "junk mail").
Applicant/Property Owner Information
Property Owner:
Name: Andrew & Sarah Wilke
Address: 2023 East Sims Way, No. 322, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone #: 360 774-3737 E-mail Address: andrewwilke@icloud.com
Please contact Authorized Agent/Representative with project info. (select only one).
Property Owner Signature: Date: March 1
2019
Note: For projects with multiple owners, attach a separate sheet with each owner(s) information and signatures.
Applicant: Authorized Agent/Representative (if other than owner)
Name: Bruce MacLearnsberry
Address: 1100 NW Thompson Road, Suite 301
Phone #: 206 427-0506 E-mail Address: bruce@sealandsurvey.com
Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO
YES
Engineer Architect Surveyor Contractor Consultant
Name: Bruce MacLearnsberry License #
Address: 1100 NW Thompson Road, Suite 301
Phone #: 206 427-0506 E-mail Address: bruce@sealandsurvey.com
Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO
YES
Engineer Architect Surveyor Contractor Consultant
Name: License #
Address:
Phone #: E-mail Address:
Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO
YES
Engineer Architect Surveyor Contractor Consultant
Name: License #
Address: T
Phone #: E-mail Address:
By signing this application form, the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein, and in any attachments, is true and
correct to the best of his or her knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with
respect to this application packet may result in making any issued permit null and void.
I further agree to that all activities I intend to undertake or complete associated with this permit will be performed in compliance with
all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations and I agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its
employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. Applicant may
request notice of the County's intent to enter upon the property for visits related to this application and subsequent permit issuance.
Signature: M& Print Name: Bruce MacLearnsberry Date: March 1, 2019
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
802 SHERIDAN AVENUE
INSTALLER ti? Lfn PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98365
(206) 385-0722
BUILDER
SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT
•�C P�-o11S-
RECEIPT NO. /O
DATE' - c
r ppe d e- r � Y�'S `-/ 3 .S'
Owner Address Phona
Directions for locating site
1 F
1 _
INSTALL NEW SYSTEM ❑ REPLACE SYSTEM❑ PARTIAL REPAIR ❑ KIDRAINFIELD19•
D
c
ca3
t7
N
z
n fn
0
r-
re
rV
ce
o
TYPE OF NO. OF SITE
G
BUILDING .S° lr, ) BEDROOMS BASEMENT -517-E
rp
i
Previous site evaluation by SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION v-e ( \y"v
Health Department
Yes NoAPR 1992
O
Z
Depth to maximum seasonal Y
water table 66
r
:�t
2) r ix.nr,
Source of potable water supply
Public Private_
Source type: Drilled well
-Dug well
Other 3)
O
to
EVERY APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT OF
p
APPEAL AS PER JEFFERSON COUNTY
Z
ORDINANCE 2-77. 4)
�ll�
>D
1OF
SIGNATURE OF P
Z
_ __
ANY Rff-'O L OF OR �'}0..UOR DISTURBANCE SOIL IN THE PROPOSED OR APPROVED DRA I NF 1 ELD
m
a
AREA MAY C.RCATE SITE CONDITIONS THAT ARE UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE 1NSTALLATIOry OF A
r
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM, ANY CHANGE IN BUILDING OR SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANS ((INCLUDING
PLIU`BING STUBOUT LOCATION) AND/OR LOCATION OF HOUSE OR DRAINFIELD INVALIDATES THIS
PERMIT UNLESS PRIOR APPROVAL IS OBTAINED FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. (call Health Dept.
for final inspection). STUB OUT PLUIBING ABOVE FOUNDATION FOOTING,
O
Drainfield Length _,4, Trench width 3 ° Trench depth Z! l No, lines —Tank size
j
Soil type and application rate used for design '31 GPD/ftz — 0,0
O
4
COIv iIENTS : -
T.
�U.'71/ti,Y
r ,� •�i : i r',i �t.r'- 1 S �r 4'�-s' r )Z C. Cd�- �c� / ii2."a� r- F I 'I'�_ ff...;: �) P 1 t ._t C. i
I . - , �.. j n'�+L.�. Esa.• i,i .. vC q_ -�c:. } % f �`_5 - r ;r_�-� r +r - - / rrl -; , t _ 1 5e, o
... -. ilw)• f eCi.7+. .....� �` i- � � �. f c
(ram
.. . 5t ta3 I�av�r..; 7Jk �ti.:' :� .�4'-'+=•!`C.S Ac �r e•r-��.. f`�.!. •"p,1:!":�;5 '?_.r''�•'" r7 ..�W�e.a �I�!'I.J?Ire nr�..`
4 6 % V _ ? J c ids•-GlJar. i. ! `� tl �i •- C.�
PPROVEO DATE INSPECTED PARTI FINA DATE
n
I certify that this system was installed in a manner approved by the Health Department
m
r
Z
INSTALLER'S SIGNATURE DATE DATE INSTALLED
M
X
icH10f 7-84
FOR OFF,Cr USE ONLY FOR F; V U :.`ISPEC"_' v iVr0R,4AT-C.V ulf� APPRCV IL,
SYSTEM INSTALLED BY
.�Crs,
ABSORPTION AREA:
DRAINFIELD
TRENCH
TRENCH
TANIK �xfsi?�z j
y
LENGTH _-:zc o
WIDTH
DEPTH 2-4 SIZE
PRESSURE TEST OBSERVED
DATE
f
APPROVED
SPECIALIST d.: t .
^. DATE
COMMENTS fe
N
r
`r
-pa-r-lC-
_ �3l x/ W, -J7se
67--4-7 ofi1R k -ik
� e r �l `--� �' �'�`�.�h �r� ��-�� = -ram rrC.� �+cc�.-.d •�� ;.� d�sr �.�,� �
�..,:.77 ,vere ,3,si��Ps� r1��r�5
I i .
I r
I �
,r
i I
I i
r i
I r
r �
I =
� F
1 �
I I
i..LA
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT �0L3
802 SHERIDAN AVENUE `--
INSTALLER PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON 98365 RECEIPT NO.
(206) 385-0722
BUILDER - SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT DATE
--r- - . , e' ''
Owner
Directions for locating site
Address C✓ Phone
bu
INSTALL NEW SYSTEM REPLACE SYSTEM ❑f PARTIAL REPAIR ❑ TANKIDRAINFIELD(J-
6R.
TYPE OF RD a9 - 2-7 I NO. OF SITE
RUILDING `Irrwa BEDC
Previous site evaluation by
Health Department
Yes_,Z No
Depth to maximum seasonal
water table
Source of potable water supply
Public Private /
Source type: Drilled well
,Dug well
Other
EVERY. APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT OF
APPEAL AS PER JEFFERSON COUNTY
ORDINANCE 2 .77.
r C
SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION
G2. 1) C�-r 2 —r vasn•,�
4- -Coa r! tee_
A t4 y`! W1 his? L $4-4% +e -,aO r s r Sc).,j q, t
2)
3C- *� 1nlf�•.e�:-, Goi.rS� �ec.nzyr.
4�- 7A- Tao C"Av-
73 3) n-- f.z
/ ra'c':'0'3
f 2- `24
/15
"1 d-�l j�IP1 Cl..' 94"C, •� peg- j 7'tLJ C�.
z-4 - 7!'C'
„L� S , i of -9a.,
3(,- 7a�;,e+
is frurs" �/
4)
f -4 3
'i0 Coa..i'Si
q � -Y" nL Sa-r1O�
ArW-RpryO ~L OF MAJOR DI51URBANCE OF SOIL IN THE PROPOSED OR APPROVED DRAINFIELD
AREA MAY C.StEATE SITE CONDITIONS THAT ARE UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTET'1. ANY CHANGE IN BUILDING OR SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANS (INCUIDING
PLUvBING STUBOUT LOCATION) AND/OR LOCATION OF HOUSE OR DRAINFIELD NTINVALIDATES TlHISDe t.
PERMIT UNLESS PRIOR APPROVAL IS OBTAINED FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTME. p
for final inspection). STUB OUT PLLIBING ABOVE FOUNDATION FOOTING,
Drainfield Length Tag + Trench width^,Iq." Trench depth 3�No.lines Tank size
Soil type and application rate used for design ' e z GPD/ft- +
COMMENTS;
1A.Si ALL PF-a BF_RE JT -E& t sf;�Ou j OAF.s.f-A) j0I'1). (0- 16-f-)
S€E /4-irACN,60 cavh►vw0--/TJ
0
O
Z
W
�i
r
O
-4
ce
M
O
:Z
4
2
Z
Q
0
C
m
—27 � �
APPROVED DATE INSPECTE ARTIAU INAL DATE
I certifythat` this system w 's ins.Ialled in a manner approved by t a th Deparimen 1vr r
'SiALLEFS SIGi�IATURE DATE DATE INSTALLED
' m
JCH
ASBUILT INSPECTION REPORT
NSTALLER -PLL - �� ... PARCEL #_ CWlf9'LA COC�
►BSORPTION AREA:
)RAINFIELD TRENCH TRENCH TANK # OF
,ENGTH WIDTH DEPTH SUE REDRMS__L_
'RESSURE TEST OBSERVED
►PPROVED SPECLMGIST K,ADATE 10-22 —19
•nn,ra►R�.�as�r�
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
\Av -INDA. Gu\FOIMS�AsBCO,N.
PERMIT NUMBER
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, hurt Townsend, WA 98368
'I'el: 360,379,4450 1 1`ax; 360.379.4451
Web; www.cu jetlenlun,tvn.ur/cunnnunil�develul uLciH
+.-.nail: dcd nco.jefferson.wn.us
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION
FORMAL SITE -SPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / UDC AMENDMENT
-- poa /
MLA r-Pr*-Ap]�'9-00009—
PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: Andrew $ Sarah Wilke
J
For Comprehensive Plan amendments, applications must be completed and submitted to the Department of Community
Development by March 1 of the current calendar year in order to be considered during the annual amendment process.
Completed applications that are received after March 1 will be placed on the docket for the following calendar year.
Applications for UDC amendments may be considered on a rolling basis. Applications that are incomplete (i.e., that do
not Include ell of the information required below) will be returned to the applicant.
Submittal Requirements
1. A completed Permit Application, completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist, and comprehensive
Plan/UDC Amendment application fee (as applicable), as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance, as amended.
Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner.
2. Any additional Information deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment.
3 Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A," a vicinity map showing the following:
a. The location of the area proposed to be redesignated;
b. The land use designation of all property within five hundred (500) feet of the site; and
C. The uses of all properties located within five hundred (500) feet of the site.
4. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit B," a description of the proposed Plan/UDC amendment and any associated development
proposal(s), if applicable. Applications for project -related formal site -specific redesignations must Include plans, and
information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and improvements. Applications for such
radeslgnstions that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the
environment and publicfacilities and services,
5. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit "C," a map that depicts existing conditions on the site and within the general vicinity [i.e.,
within a three hundred (300)-foot radius]. The exhibit must depict topography, wetlands and buffers, easements and their
purpose, and means of access to the site. The intent of the exhibit is to clearly illustrate the physical opportunities and
constraints of the site.
6. The current land use designation/zoning ofthe site is: RR-10
7. The proposed land use designation/zoning of the site is: RR-5
8. The current use of the site is: The site presently has a primes single-family residence and an
accessolly dwelling unit.
9. The proposed use ofthesite is: The proposed use is to remain the same as at present --two single-
family dwellings --except that the two could be under separate ownerships.
10. If changes to Comprehensive P)an or UDC text are required, please prepare and label as "Exhibit D," proposed amendatory
language (I.e.. to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in "hilt" format, with text to be added
indicated with underlining (a.g., unde0inlnol, and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., etdkeauls ,
SITE SPECIFIC APP DOC REV.2/1412019 Page 1
11 Please prepare and label as "Exhibit E," a thorough explanation of how the proposed mdesignation/rezone and associated
development proposals, if any, meet, conflict with, or relate to the following Inquiries:
a. Is growth and development as envisioned In the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or
Is falling to materialize?
b. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or Increased?
c. Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
d. Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or is new
Information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
e. Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County?
f. Do changes In county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied
within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
g. Do changes In circumstances dictated a need for amendment?
h. Do Inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County-
wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County?
I. Does the proposal most concurrency requirements for transportation?
J. Doss the proposal adversely affect adopted level of servlca standards for public faclilties and servlcas other then
transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parka, fire flow, and general governmental
services)?
k. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and Implementation strategies of the various elements of the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
I. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse Impacts to the county's transportation network, capital
facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated?
M. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? .
n. How Is the subject percel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use
development Including, but not limited to the following:
(I) Access;
(it) Provision of utilities: and
pll) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses?
o. Will the proposal, If adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer
Is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term beet Interests of the
county as a whole?
P. Does the proposed site -specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are
the bases of the Comprehensive Plan?
q. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the
proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the Immediate areas and the
overall UGA?
r. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the
Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, and other applicable inter -jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws?
BITE SPECIFIC APP.000 REV.7114r2018 Page 2
12. Please.provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, If
necessary.)
The subject property is the primary residence of the Wilke family. The Andrew and
Sarah Wilke wish to convey property to their children and would like a separated
parcel from the present whole to be such a property.
That is the extent of the proposal. While a subdivision would facilitate the enlargement
of the ADU (accessory dwelling unit) as a primary residence or the construction of
another ADU on the other parcel, neither option is part of the Wiilke's plans.
This is not the case of a developer exploiting a piece of someone else's neigborhood.
As residents themselves, the Wilkes have no desire of disrupting the rural character of
the locale. This is an opportunity for another family to enjoy that same pleasant and
healthy lifestyle in which they and their neighbors thrive.
13. The appltcant hereby cerdfres that the statements contained In this application are true and provide an accurate
mpmsentalfon of the proposed amendment, • and the Wpllcant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approval Issued on
this application may be revoked If any such statement is Ibund to be false.
APPLICANT'S StONAT RE DATE I
++
3 / 1�
PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
PROPERTY OWTEWSIGNATURE DATE
PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
[NOTE: For all required signatures, representative authorization is required if application is not signed by the owner.]
SITE SPECIFIC APP.00C, REV.2114=19 Page
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of checklist.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization
or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental
impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal.
Instructions for applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please
answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult
with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or
"does not -apply" only when you can ex lain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown.
You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate
answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision -
making process.
The checklist questions apply to all of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal
or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your
answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant
adverse impact.
Instructions for Lead Agencies:
Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to
evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse
impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to
make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is
responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable
parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please
completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or
site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead
agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements —that do not
contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal.
A. Background
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Wilke Site -Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Subsequent Short
Subdivision
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 17
2. Name of applicant:
Andrew & Sarah Wilke
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Owners Andrew & Sarah Wilke
2023 East Sims Way, No. 322
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Agent: Bruce MacLearnsberry
MacLearnsberry, Inc.
1100 NW Thompson Road, Suite 301
Poulsbo, WA 98370
4. Date checklist prepared:
February 27, 2019
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Jefferson County
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
We will know if this Site -Specific Comp Plan Amendment is successful when the
collective decisions are issued in January 2020. If it is successful, the plan is to
submit a two -lot short subdivision immediately thereafter. Plans are indefinite
beyond that.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No. Assuming the subdivision of the property is successful, the present plan is to
sell a lot. Eventually, what is presently an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) could then
be enlarged as a primary, single family residence, but we have no plans for that.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Thus far, public domain aerial and topographic data have been compiled, both to
access feasibility and to fulfil the amendment requirements. If the amendment is
successful and we proceed to the subdivision stage, we will then retain a wetland
specialist to delineate and categorize any on -site wetlands. Soils studies will likely
be conducted to evaluate on -site septic system upgrades.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 17
We will need approval of the Site -Specific Comp Plan Amendment as a prerequisite to
submitting a short subdivision. As part of the latter process, a grading permit may be
required from Public Works to bring portions of Sand Road up to present standards.
If the existing well continues to served to residences or if a new, separate well is
drilled for the second residence, in either case, the Health District will be involved in
permitting that, as well as any necessary improvements to the on -site septic systems.
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project
description.)
The subject property is a ten -acre parcel in an RR-10 zone, adjoining an RR-5 zone to
the north, and with several five -acre parcels in the immediate vicinity. The property
presently has a primary, single-family residence and an ADU (accessory dwelling
unit). This proposal is to, first, get the property re -zoned to RR-5 via the Site -Specific
Comp Plan Amendment process. Following that, the plan is to subdivide the property
into two parcels to separate the primary residence from the ADU as separate
properties for eventual conveyance of one of the resultant parcels.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and
range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic
map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you
are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist.
The Wilke property (Tax Parcel 001184004) is located about a mile -and -a -half
southwest of the southwesterly city limits of Port Townsend, on the west side of
Sand Road (address 240), its northeast corner being a quarter mile south of the
intersection with Crutcher Road.
B. Environmental Elements
1. Earth
a. General description of the site:
(circle one): Flat, rolling hi ly, teep slopes, mountainous, other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
17%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any
agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in
removing any of these soils.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016
Page 3 of 17
The majority of the site, including most of the developed and developable portions of
the Wilke property, are classified as Hoypus gravelly loamy sand. Portions of the site
in the northeast corner and on the west end are Clallam gravelly sandy loam. Hydric
soils associated with the on -site pond are classified as a wet variant of Belfast silty
clay loam.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of
any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
n/a None proposed.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Highly unlikely.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Same as at present. We have measured about 3,500 square feet presently occupied
by buildings. No further construction is planned at this time.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
n/a
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction.,
operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and
give approximate quantities if known.
Public Works has advised us that portions of Sand Road may need to be brought to
current road standards with possible widening, grading and resurfacing. If
confirmed, these activities would, temporarily, generate varying quantities of dust
and engine exhaust fumes from heavy equipment operation.
There are presently four drivers in the Wilke household, so we anticipate negligible
gain in vehicular trips as a result of the proposed subdivision.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 17
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
None.
3. Water
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
Yes. There is a pond on site, roughly 1.5 acres in size, which the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources has classified as a Type 3 water body. The
Jefferson County GIS indicates a Type 9 stream flows in and out of it. These are part
of a chain of unnamed surface waters in the valley which appear, not to drain into a
larger surface body, but recharge the aquifer. If the re -zone application is approved,
the site will be studied as to wetlands presence, limits and categorization, and the
appropriate protective buffer applied.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
None.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b. Ground Water:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so,
give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities
withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016
Page 5 of 17
The site presently has a single well serving the two, existing residences. No
additional wells are under present consideration, though we have been advised by
the Health District that another could be permitted. Withdrawl quantities are
presently unknown.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Domestic sewage from two, existing, on -site septic systems, each serving a single-
family dwelling, is discharged into the ground. One occupies about 1,300 square
feet; the other about 715 square feet. The systems presently serve six persons.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Runoff will be primarily from the flow of storm water. Any measures to manage it will
be coordinated with Jefferson County Public Works.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Drippings from motor vehicles could, conceivably enter ground or surface waters,
but this is thought to be negligible. Furthermore, no increased load is anticipated
with this proposal.
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If
so, describe.
No. It is possible that an emergency vehicle turnaround, if required by the Fire
District, may entail drainage modification. If so, that will be coordinated with Public
Works.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage
pattern impacts, if any:
No new construction is anticipated in this sequence and, therefore, no new storm
water management measures.
4. Plants
a. Check the types of vegetationfoundon the site:
_�ntree
e de ]�bine,
spen, other
eeit cedarother
!;rass
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 17
pasture
crop or grain
D ney ar rZmi
crops.
wet soil plants cat#ai uttercupllrush skunk cabbage, other
water s: wa#e I y, ee ss, ,other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None.
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
As previously noted, the subdivision process mandates the site be studied as to
wetlands presence, limits and categorization, and the appropriate protective buffer
applied.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
None.
5. Animals
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known
to be on or near the site.
Examples include:
birds: Iw o��gle arigbirds other: ducks, geese
mamma deer bear b ther: skunk, opossum, squirrel,
chipmunk
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
All of the temperate rural and semi -rural portions of this region are part of the
migration route of many bird species. The Wilke property is no exception.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 17
None.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
None.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
The Wilke property is served by Jefferson County PUD power for domestic use.
Heating is likely with propane, though it can be supplemented with wood.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
No new construction is anticipated. At such time as it is, it will meet the current code
for insulation. The site presently allows for passive solar heating.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk
of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?
If so, describe.
1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
None.
2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development
and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines
located within the project area and in the vicinity.
None.
3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced
during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating
life of the project.
No new construction is anticipated. At such time as it is, the usual finishes, solvents
and glues common to residential construction will be present.
4) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
No special emergency services beyond the ordinary will be required. The usual fire
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016
Page 8 of 17
and police protection and medical aid may occasionally be requested.
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
As previously noted, any wetlands found on the property have a buffer imposed on
them as part of the subdivision process. The Health District will review on -site septic
systems for compliance to assure they are not hazardous.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Being a rural locale, noise is relatively minimal. Some is low traffic noise generated
by the for drivers presently residing on the property. Some will be from property
maintenance such as leaf blowers, rototillers, etc.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi-
cate what hours noise would come from the site.
Any improvements to Sand Road will entail short term noise from heavy equipment
between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm. Long-term, modest, residential traffic can
be anticipated mainly between 7:00am and 6:00pm.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Trees and other vegetation along the roads will continue to buffer noise.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current
land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
Most of the surrounding lands are in non-commercial forest, with intermittent clearing
and pastures. All of them are zoned Rural Residential and are utilized as such except
for a couple parcels which remain undeveloped at this time. This proposal will have
no affect on current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties, but will comport with
the same.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe.
How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to
other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated,
how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or
nonforest use?
The Wilke property and many nearby were converted from commercial forest lands
decades ago. This proposal involves no conversion of farm or forest land use.
1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal
business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides,
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 17
tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:
No.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The is presently one primary, single-family residence and one accessory dwelling
unit on site, along with non -habitable accessory structures. The primary residence
has a 1,300 square foot footprint and the accessory dwelling has a footprint of just
over 700 square feet.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
RR-10.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Rural Residential
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
n/a
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify.
As noted above, there is a pond on site, roughly 1.5 acres in size, which the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources has classified as a Type 3 water
body. The Jefferson County GIS indicates wetlands associated with it and a Type 9
stream flowing in and out of it. This is based on remote sensing. No on -site ground -
studies have yet been conducted.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Six persons presently reside on the site. We anticipate the number to not to exceed
that in the near future, but could well eventually increase to eight or more.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
n/a
L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016
Page 10 of 17
All aspects of this proposal will be conducted under the direction of the governing
local agencies and compliant thereto.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term
commercial significance, if any:
The pond and configuration of the property lines will ensure much of the land
remains as is. Those who live in this locale, including the Wilke's, chose it for its
rural character and, as ongoing residents, are invested in maintaining that character.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid-
dle, or low-income housing.
No.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
Because no new construction is anticipated, no new residential units are being
contemplated at this time. However, the subdivision would accommodate the
eventual enlargement of the present ADU and could, if the physical constraints allow,
support a total of two primary dwellings and two ADUs for a total of two more units.
However, that is not part of the current proposal.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
No new structures are proposed.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
No new development is proposed, so there will be no additional light or glare
produced. What does and will continue to be produced will mainly come from vehicle
headlights in early morning and early evening during the darker months. However,
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 17
the residents generally maintain their own vegetative screens. This and the
combination of the large lot sizes keeps impacts negligible.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
None.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Large, rural tracts such as the Wilke property afford many informal recreational
opportunities. Both the forest and open areas are assets in this regard, and the pond
Is a particularly special feature in this regard. Nature walks, watching the abundant
wildlife, fishing and lawn games are all possibilities.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
lid
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None. No off -site recreational opportunities will be affected. The on -site ones will
remain as they are.
13. Historic and cultural preservation
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years
old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so,
specifically describe.
No. According to the Assessor's data, the primary residence was built in 1982.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation?
This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts,
or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies
conducted at the site to identify such resources.
No evidence of aboriginal use or occupation has been recovered on this site.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 17
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources
on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of
archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.
n/a
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance
to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.
n/a
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Sand Road is a private easement which connects to Cape George Road via a short
section of Crutcher Road to the north of the property. Cape George Road connects
with State Route 20 to the east, which is the main arterial access to the Quimper
Peninsula.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally
describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Typical of rural locales, this one is not currently served by public transit. The nearest
bus service is on State Route 20.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal
have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?
No changes are anticipated involving parking.
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian,
bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
Public works has advised us that resurfacing and, possibly, slight grading and
widening of the driving surface of a portion of Sand Road may be required as part of
the subdivision process. The provision of an on -site emergency vehicle turnaround
is also a possibility. Beyond that, no further improvements are anticipated.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
Given that the property already has two dwellings and no new ones are proposed,
use of public transportation infrastructure will remain as is for the foreseeable future,
commensurate with typical single family residences.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal?
If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would
be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation
models were used to make these estimates?
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016
Page 13 of 17
Because there are already four drivers residing on site, vehicular trips per day can be
expected to significantly exceed the average Jefferson County (comparatively
geriatric) household. For this reason, we anticipate no change in trip generation as
an imminent result of the proposed Wilke subdivision.
Looking beyond their plans, we can presume a second parcel would eventually have
a full-size, primary residence. At that time, we could apply the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) standard of ten daily trips per household.
According to a the 2008 Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model Documentation
study by Transpo Group, peak weekday afternoon travel volumes occur between
4:15pm and 5:15pm. We do not have documentation readily available on the morning
peak, but estimate it as occurring between 7:15am and 8:15am.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and
forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
No.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Modest improvements to Sand Road as described above are anticipated. No other
measures are under consideration. It should be noted here that the close proximity
of the Wilke property with Port Townsend considerably mitigates transportation
impacts as compared with similar, but more distant subdivisions.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
The Wilke plans entail no increase in unit size or density. However, because the
subdivision will accommodate either the enlargement of the present ADU or the
construction of a separate primary residence, this project can be exected to have
eventual, very modest impacts on public services.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Because new rural properties such as this tend to be the residences of those with
greater than average income, their contribution to the tax base and the general
economic vitality of the County can be expected to be greater than the average as
well, helping disproportionately with the costs of public services.
16. utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
electricity natural gas wat rere , efuse s_ervs a elephone anitary sewer, Eptic system
Ole;
a propane
SEPA Environmental checklist (wAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 17
d. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might
be needed.
No additional utilities are proposed for this project.
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Name of signee Bruce MacLearnsberry
Position and Agency/Organization _President, MacLearnsberrv. Inc.
Date Submitted: March 1. 2019
D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions
(IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or
at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general
terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro-
duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Because this proposal involves no new construction, there will be no additional
discharges, emissions, releases, productions or storage. Eventually, the proposed
subdivision could involve increased storage or emissions, though the latter might
well decrease with the ongoing proliferation of electric and hybrid vehicles. The only
additional discharges will involve storm water, which will be governed by applicable
regulations and best practices under the direction of Jefferson County public Works.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Compliance with applicable regulations.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016
Page 15 of 17
This proposal will have no adverse affect on plant or animal life. A positive affect will
be the imposition of a development buffer around any wetlands.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
See above comments regarding wetland buffer.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
We do not view this proposal as depleting any energy or natural resources.
Population growth is what generally does that, and that growth will occur as it will
without regard to to this project.
As an example of comparative impact, the sewerage on this site and those like it is
handled by gravity septic systems needing no power to operate and very little
maintenance. This compares with public sewer systems which consume
considerable energy in pumping force mains, operating the sewage treatment plants
and regular transportation of solids to distant silvacultural sites.
Sites such as this, though not always used in this manner, are capable of yielding
considerable, local produce, as opposed to being totally reliant on food transported
from great distances.
The energy and natural resource use will depend on the lifestyles of the residents,
but the site itself has the potential for contributing to environmental sustainability
rather than detracting therefrom.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
At such time as unit expansion occurs, if it does, it will draw on existing
infrastructure. Hopefully, the on -site septic systems can continue to be energy -free.
Any new construction will comply with robust insulation standards and utilize more
efficient appliances than those previously available.
5. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The question as to the use of environmentally sensitive areas on site has been
addressed previously. As for any off -site that are legitimately accessible, their use by
the residents of this property will be commensurate with what is available to the
general public.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
As discussed above, the surface waters on site have no protective buffers. If the re-
zone application is approved, the site will be studied as to wetlands presence, limits
and categorization, and, at the time of subdivision, the appropriate protective
buffer(s) applied.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 17
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
n/a
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
n/a
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The US Census Bureau calculated that, in 2010, the average household size in
Jefferson County was 2.08 persons and the average family size 2.67 persons, both of
these figures declining since 2000. Because the subject property already has six
residents, it is statistically more likely the property will experience a decline in
residents and decreasing demands on transportation infrastructure and public
services and utilities, even after being subdivided.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Given the above, no measures are under consideration as necessary.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
As far as this consultant and County staff have determined thus far, this proposal is
fully compliant with all applicable local, state and federal laws and requirements for
environmental protection.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 17
610779 Page 2 of 3 09/20/2017 03:45 PM
EXHIBIT "A"
A portion of the North % of the Southeast y of the Southeast'/. of Section 1 p 30
Range 1 West; W.M., more particularly described as follows:
Begimaing at the.scuthcast corner of said North % of the Southeast'/. t�e`5 east.! and taming
thence Westerly along a line parallel to the south line of section 18, 5 S� pdir
Running thence Northerly parallel.to the east line of said S 18, f�a Pomfi
Running thence Northwesterly to a point which lies 250 f c northerly Brie of said
North % of the Southeast V4 of the Southeast y, on a line to the y tint of said
Section 18;
Running thence Westerly on a line drawn parallel to the 'd Section 18, 700.8 feet to a
point; e
Running thence Northerly parallel to the a asted life. of said Section 18,250 feed, more or less to the
nordwrly tine of said North'r2 of the Southeast',/ of#ze southeast % of said sectjon 18;
Running thence F.astYly parallel to the south sia3�n 18,1,150.8 fed, more or less, to the
easterly }ins of said Section 18;
nn And ruing thence Southerly along teaat ' on to the point of beginning.
Situate ift the County of Jefferson, State A
�n
SINCE SFR
5.1 AC
1976 RR-10
SFR
5.0 AC
RR-10
M
UNDEVELOPED
20.4 AC
RR-10
a
3.3 AC
RR-10
4J61. NVq !•.
32439
���lO F. gyp•
,A�ll Grr75iiT��..• '
212712019
SFR
6.8 AC
RR-10
a MACLEARNSBERRY, Inc.
o. LAND SURVEYORS • CONSULTANTS
1100 NW Thompson Road, Suite 301, Poulsbo, WA 98370
phone: 206 842-5514
voww.sealandsurvey.com
Exhibit A
SFR
10.3 AC
RR-10
S F R
10.1 AC
RR-10
0 100 200
Client Andrew A Sarah Wilke
240 Sand Road
Site -Specific Comp Plan Amendment
Drawn by: BAM Date February 27, 2019 Job No. 18066
Checked by: BAM Scale 1:2,000 Sheet 1 of 2
500
Scale = 1:2,000
GFR
20.5 AC
RR-10
SFR = Single Family Residential
SFR I
5.1 AC
RR-5
f
- E
I
I
i
SFR fm
5.1 AC
RR-5n
1000
SIFR
37.4 AC
RR-10
I
f
f
nn
SFW
5.9 AC
®�
IM
RR-10
®I
M
y
�I
�I
PEDD
UNDEVELOPED
5.0 AC
I
RR-10
I
5.0 AC
I
I
I
RR-10
i
� I
i
+
SFR
5.0 AC
i
RR-10
MACLEARNSBERRY, Inc,
LAND SURVEYORS + CONSULTANTS
1100 NW Thompson Road, Suite 301, Pouisho, WA 98370
phone: 206 842-5514
www.sealandsurvey.com
Wilke Site -Specific Comp Plan Amendment
for 240 Sand Road
Exhibit B
The Wilke property at 240 Sand Road (Tax Parcel 001184004), at which the Wilke
family resides, is a rural, ten -acre parcel with an existing primary single-family residence
and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Though adjoining an RR-5 zone to the north and having four five -acre parcels adjoining
and many others in close proximity, the Wilke property is presently zoned RR-1o.
The Wilkes wish to subdivide their property into two five -acre parcels so that they can
legally separate the two dwellings and be able to convey one under separate ownership
from the other.
The goal of this Site -Specific Comp Plan Amendment is to re -zone the Wilke property to
facilitate the subdivision, while retaining the property's rural character and maintaining
consistency with the surrounding environs. A possible subdivision configuration of the
property is depicted on accompanying Exhibit C.
As a consultant, I am averse to taking on a project unless I consider it to have both merit
and reasonable viability. My willingness to carry this case thus far is based largely
favorable input from County staff, combined with my own investigation of title issues,
verification of property size, access and evaluation of environmental constraints.
In response to CAM18-oo718, the Department of Community Development issued the
following statement:
Staff recommends approval of this proposal. Changing the zoning of the
rural residential mo parcel would not directly create pressure to up -zone
parcels immediately adjacent to the property and it does not contain
significant critical areas.
The subsequent February 14 pre -application conference (PRE1g-0000g) was
encouraging as well. So, while I as a consultant can see real merits to the Wilke's
proposal, as well as, after careful analysis, the apparent absence of fatal impediments, it
is not my assessment that carries the day, but whether Jefferson County Staff and the
Board of Commissioners are supportive.
The Wilkes have advised me that they do not have development plans for the property.
My answers to the questions in Exhibit D reflect this fact. However, they also speak
frankly to the actual development potential a subdivision would create beyond the
Wilkes plans, and the broader impact of that potential.
If this amendment request is successful, the Wilkes plan to commence the subdivision
process early next year.
Prepared by:
Bruce MacLearnsberry, PLS, CFS
March 28, 2018
SINCE
1976
0
� 1
R
C
DAT�TM
a
-41
NAVD881991
Puaet Sound LiDAR Consortium
0 50 100 � 200 � � 00 � 400 500
Scale = 1:1,500
Exhibit C a - ,4/
� N
ELL
�Z
12
0 .L
O
Q �I
N 89°26'07" E 1150.86'
ay
Lfine_
building setback (typ.)
AI , A, A, A, A, ILMa
N 89°24'57" E TU9.8U'AL A,
M
M
x
Ingress/egress easement per
— — — — — — — � — —Auditor's File No. 21244
NO ROAD
M
b N 89°24'57" 359. '
cn
--------------
0
Client Andrew & Sarah Wilke
MACLEARNSBER RY, Inc.
v LAND SURVEYORS • CONSULTANTS 240 Sand Road
1100 NW Thompson Road, Suite 301, Poulsbo, WA 98370 Site -
Specific Comp Plan Amendment
?� phone: 206 842-5514 Drawn by: BAM I Date February 27, 2019 Job No. 18066
www.sealandsurvey.com
�+anrrt,+o'r lGheckedby: BAM Iscale
1:1,500 1 Sheet 1 of 2
B
0' 1 I
M
r�o
I
G
MACLEARNSBERRY, Inc.
LAND SURVEYORS + CONSULTANTS
1100 NW Thompson Road, Suite 301, Poulsho, WA 98370
phone. 206 842-5514
www.sealands u rvey.co m
Wilke Site -Specific Comp Plan Amendment
for 240 Sand Road
Exhibit D
Consultant's Note
All the responses to the questions below are provided by the consultant of the
landowner. While they do reflect our conferring with County sta , they are somewhat
independent, good faith answers based on our research of avails Ie data, merely
representing our understanding, and are in no way intended to contest or refute
County staff f ndings, who have their own expertises and familiarity with the data
distinct from ours.
a. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring
faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize?
It is our understanding that, over the last decade, growth and development have been
occurring somewhat slower than past projections indicated. Much of this is attributable
to the last recession, which depressed the real estate sector catastrophically. It appears
the frenetic growth in the Puget Sound basin of the last: six years has occurred
overwhelmingly in the wealthiest sectors and closer to the highly urbanized centers with
much more robust economic engines than we have in Jefferson County.
b. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased?
We have been unable to find sufficient hard data to answer this question definitively.
On the positive side, we understand Washington State made significant additional
drinking water resources available to the county back in 2004. We also note that it was
reported that the Jefferson County PUD ran a $5 million profit in 2017. These are
obviously positive indicators of increased public service capacity. On the other hand,
there are demographic trends highly indicative of disproportionately greater demands
on public services by a population less able to pay for them. U.S. census data indicate
that, in the year 2000, about 7.20% of Jefferson CounWs families and 11.30% of its total
population were below the poverty line. Ten years later, about 8.9% of families and
13.5% of the population were below the poverty line. Additionally, in the year 2000, the
median age was 47 years. By 2010, the median age had risen to 53.9 years.
Of course, the question is quite general as to the County overall and, in our opinion, of
limited relevance to the Wilke property. It is served by an on -site well and two on -sate
septic systems. While these will likely need to be upgraded in the event of a subdivision,
no new public services will be required. This is commensurate with Section 1.2 of the
Comprehensive Plan in describing "Rural Character" areas as those, "that generally do
not require the extension of urban governmental services."
The above matters observed, it should also be noted that the Wilke site (240 Sand Road)
enjoys close proximity with the present Port Townsend city limits, being only a mile -
and -a -half therefrom. It, therefore, draws from the designated locale slated by the GMA
to accept the most public services enhancements.
c. Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
The answer to this is no —nor are the urban growth areas (UGAs) intended to shoulder
the full demand. While a goal of the Growth Management Act (GMA) is certainly to
bridle growth in rural locales, focusing the bulk of it within existing municipalities and
UGAs, the latest Comprehensive Plan, adopted just two months ago, states that 30% of
Jefferson County's growth over the next twenty years is allocated, not for urban areas,
but for rural areas. The re -zoning of the Wilke property could represent a small
contribution to this allocation.
d. Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is
based no longer valid, or is new information available which was not considered during
the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan?
Given the new Comprehensive Plan is barely "out of the gate," the assumption is there
have been no conditional charges nor has new information come to light that would
bear on its validity. However, there is a readily apparent and longstanding reality to
which the present and previous iterations of the local zoning configuration have not
comported. In the main, the zoning reflects clusters of higher density lots that were
subdivided into smaller lots when the zoning standards were much more lax. Yet, as
depicted on the accompanying Exhibit G, we have identified 24 properties, 5 acres or
less in size, within a half mile of the Wilke property, all in groups, most of them
conterminous with RR-5 areas, that do not reflect this de facto acknowledgement. It is
important to consider this when evaluating the potential impact of the proposed Wilke
re -zone. When we contemplate the rural character of the immediate environs, we are
observing largely five -acre tracts.
e. Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents
of Jefferson County?
The values of Jefferson County's residents are diverse, so we would not claim to meet all
expectations. Yet we do believe that nearly all would consider this a very modest,
unobtrusive, low -impact proposal. The RR-5 re -zone would still retain the locale's rural
character.
f. Do changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan
and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
2
Again, with the ink barely dry on the new Comprehensive Plan, it reflects the latest
deliberations of Jefferson County staff and citizens. Of course, that is the broadest
overview. The GMA also provides for the periodic amendments such as this on the
comparatively microscopic level at the initiative of landowners which simply would not
make the radar of the less -focused, County -wide process.
It is our view that the Wilke proposal indeed reflects current community attitudes and
values. To afford another family the quality of life this locale and this property offer
with such low impact is a relative rarity. It reflects the general kind ofifestyle the
County's residents wish to lead, and it does so in close proximity with the County's
economic engine.
g. Do changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendment?
So far as the larger scheme goes, we cannot claim this proposed amendment as a need,
nor does it involve new circumstances. However, from our perspective, the
opportunities for these amendments are relatively infrequent, so it makes sense to
consider this application as a measured accommodation of new, distinct residential
parcel. Also, as previously noted, while much of the present zoning reflects actual
conditions on the ground, that is not generally the case in the immediate vicinity.
h. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County?
We defer to Planning staff on this question as it is beyond our expertise. In terms of the
Wilke proposal, the goal is an incidental growth allowance of a rural character. On this
we know the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA to be in sync and, we believe, our
proposal as well —that is, to accommodate modest growth while preserving the rural
character of the locale.
L Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation?
At the February -i pre -application meeting (19-00009), we were advised by Public
Works engineer, John Fleming, that this proposal does meet transportation concurrency
requirements. He stated that the potential load on Sand Road is so far below the
upgrade threshold (400+ units) that concurrency will not be an issue and, moreover,
would not be an issue were the other property owners to follow suit.
j. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public
facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical
services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services)?
Approval of the Wilke re -zone proposal will not adversely affect any public services. At
present, there is a primary, single-family residence and an accessory dwelling on the
site. If the proposal is approved, there will be the potential for one more single-family
residence and one more accessory dwelling, so the potential increase of residents will
remain very low.
As has been previously noted, the site is self-sufficient with regard to drinking water and
sewerage. If the re -zone is approved, the Wilkes or their successors will be compelled to
provide emergency vehicle turnarounds as part of the subdivision process and to assure
that the driving surfaces meet appropriate standards. Law enforcement, fire protection,
waste collection, emergency medical and all other general governmental services are
located very close at hand in Port Townsend, so service trips will be little more than they
would be within the city limits —certainly as compared to more distant candidates.
k. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of
the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
We believe the answer to this is an emphatic "yes." If approved, the Wilke proposal
would fall in the 30% of the total growth allocated to rural areas without sacrificing the
rural character of the property or its environs.
1. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features
that cannot be mitigated?
This proposal will have no adverse impacts on any services or infrastructure. Its
especially close proximity with the city limits of Port Townsend entails no far-flung trips
for goods and services —certainly well less than the vast majority of rural parcels in the
County.
Whereas the residents of urban parcels are dependent on parks and public open spaces,
rural parcels have their own open space and offer outdoor recreation opportunities,
placing a lesser strain on public places.
If this re -zone request is approved, it will be followed by a subdivision application to
divide the Wilke property into two parcels. There is a pond on the property and, likely, a
wetland associated with it. As part of the subdivision process, the Wilkes will be
compelled to retain a wetland specialist to delineate and categorize and wetlands, after
which a protective buffer will be imposed on the property, being noted on the plat and
set to title. Thus, this environmentally sensitive area will have protections as a result of
the subdivision —protections it does not presently have nor will otherwise be established.
As noted elsewhere, drinking water and sewerage are available on site with no need of
connecting to public services.
m. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service
capabilities?
So far as we can determine, this proposal will place no uncompensated burdens on the
community or its services. The subdivision process typically involves payment of
substantial school community impact fees for each new lot created, and this will be no
exception. Public works has advised us that resurfacing and, possibly, widening of the
driving surface of a portion of Sand Road may be required at theproponents' expense.
Once the property is subdivided, the aggregate property taxes will increase
commensurate with those of other, similar parcels.
n. How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation
and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following:
(i) Access;
(ii) Provision of utilities; and
(iii) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses?
With regard to access, the property is currently and adequately served by Sand Road.
Review by Public Works engineer, John Fleming, as disclosed at the pre -application
meeting noted above, has determined that the capacity of Sand Road is well beyond the
proposed additional parcel that the Wilke proposal would ultimately create.
As discussed above, the property is fully and adequately served by all necessary utilities.
There is no need to upgrade the public utility infrastructure to accommodate the Wilke
re -zone proposal.
Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses has already been
discussed. (See §d above.) However, to remove some abstractions, additional
observations are noteworthy:
We count about 140 parcels wholly or partially within a half mile of the Wilke site. Of
these, we count 28 five to exceed 5 acres in size. Expressed another way, about So% of
the parcels of the parcels wholly or partially within the 1.1 square miles surrounding the
Wilke site are no more than 5 acres in size. Only 20% of this sampling of parcels exceed
5 acres in size. Of course, the cumulative land area of the larger parcels is more than
20% of the total acreage within the 1.1 square mile area, but still well less than 50% of
the whole. We also observe that most of the properties in this locale which exceed 5
acres in size are between 10 and 20 acres; relatively few are between 5 and 10 acres.
In summary, we can say that the character of the vicinity is mixed, though decidedly
inclined toward five acre parcels. Thus, the re -zoning of the Wilke property to RR-5
would certainly be compatible with the surrounding land use.
The Wilke site is certainly not without development constraints. This consultant has
considerable experience in feasibility analysis. This includes preliminary assessment
prior to engaging other specialists such as wetland, soils and geotedmical specialists.
Some sites are so heavily burdened by environmentally sensitive areas precluding
development that a preliminary review will reveal the futility of ppaying consultant fees to
confirm the obvious. This consultant has, therefore, examined the physical suitability of
this property for subdivision, for, absent that, this application would involve
considerable expense, all pointless.
As has been noted above, the pond on site likely has associated wetlands which, in the
event of a subdivision, will be assigned a robust buffer. This we can discern without a
wetland specialist. Because the site has not been significantly irrigated during the dry
season, from aerial photogrammetry, we can also very roughly determine the likely,
approximate wetland perimeter. We won't know the actual buffer width until a wetland
study is completed and the wetland is properly categorized, but we can apply a generous
ioo foot buffer to the approximate perimeter for a conservative assessment. When we
do this, it appears the buffer would approach no closer than about 140 feet of the west
edge of Sand Road, and this close for only a small area. This leaves ample room building
sites, including on -site septic systems.
w01w aom4
The topography is gentle and accommodating, so that will not be an issue.
The remaining constraint reviewed was the L-shape of the property, which is less than
ideal for subdivision. However, the County's dimensional standards do not preclude the
creation of two L-shaped parcels within the larger L. We have determined that the two
existing dwellings can thus be isolated on separate, five -acre lots, as depicted on the
exhibit submitted herewith.
o. Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of
other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on
other properties be in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole?
There are seven properties sharing common boundary lines with the Wilke parcel. Four
of these are five acres in size or slightly over. The other three are ten -acre parcels. So
for four of these seven, there can be no pressure to up -zone.
It can be generically argued that just about any density increase, aside from the very rare
"in -filling" re -zones, sets a precedent for others in the vicinity. In this case, such
pressure is already inherently present with the abundance of five -acre parcels in this
locale. In fact, we are calling attention to that as part of the basis for reasonable viability
of this application and serious consideration of it. Thus, we don't see the up -zoning of
Wilke parcel as creating pressure, but more as conforming to it, though we can assume it
will lend some additional weight to existing impetus.
Should other nearby properties eventually be similarly re -zoned, we can see this type of
case being in the long-term best interests of the county. All the surrounding parcels
share very close proximity with Port Townsend. Wherever increased density is
accommodated to conform to the GMA, there will be the issue of some increase in
demands on services, incremental or rather abrupt. Re -zones in this vicinity will involve
gradual load increases and less of a shock to County residents than developments
involving many units. The closer such parcels are to the Port Townsend UGA, the less
will be the duration and impact of regular service trips.
p. Does the proposed site -specific amendment materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan?
Based on population projections published by the Washington State Office of Financial
Management (OFM), the December 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
(Exhibit 1-2) indicates the. present County -wide population at 31,667. It forecasts an
overall population increase over the next twenty years to be about 0.98% to 39,221
persons. For the Rural and Rural Resource areas, the present population is estimated at
15,452 with a twenty-year increase at o.63% to 17,38o, an increase of 2,445 persons.
The comfortable, present occupancy capacities of the primary, single-family residence
and ADU on the Wilke property are 6 and 2, respectively.
We do know that, if subdivided, the existing ADU could be expanded into a larger,
primary residence. Though the most recent U.S. census data (see below) indicate the
average household in Jefferson County is but 2 persons, we suggest that expansion of
the ADU as a primary residence could likely and comfortably accommodate an
additional 4 persons.
10
In theory, a subdivision of the Wilke property would enable an eventual total of four
units --so an additional primary residence and an additional ADU. While we are
confident an ADU could be constructed on the southern of the two, divided lots, we are
less so regarding the potential northern lot due to the pond. Only after a wetland study
is conducted as a part of the subdivision process and review of the well and viable septic
system designs will the actual development potential of the northern lot become
apparent.
If an additional ADU is built on the southern lot, we can anticipate the accommodation
of two additional persons. If it happens the northern lot can, indeed, also support an
ADU along with a primary residence, we can anticipate yet two more persons. If the
primary residence on the northern lot is expanded or constructed to accommodate six
persons, we could eventually see the potential addition of perhaps eight persons to the
overall site. This is a very generous estimation, but conceivable, if the soils and
environmentally -sensitive areas will accommodate.
As noted above, the December Comp Plan estimates the Rural and Rural Resource areas
absorbing an additional 2,445 persons over the next two decades.
If we use double Jefferson County's average household size and apply that to four -lot
short subdivisions as a measure, it will take 204 separate short subdivisions to meet that
capacity —on average, ten per year. Given that the easiest short subdivisions have been
long ago completed due to unfavorable environmental conditions or zoning on the
remainder, the assumption that short subdivision will yield, on average, the additional
capacity for twelve persons may be overly optimistic. ADUs will certainly shoulder
additional load, but likely a small and delayed percentage.
Expressed reciprocally, the theoretical addition of six persons would represent 0.3% of
the growth mandated to be absorbed by rural areas in the next twenty years.
In our estimation, it is the population growth projections underlying the Comprehensive
Plan that influence the possibilities of the Wilke re -zone and subdivision, not vice versa.
7
According to the 2010 census, there were 29,872 residents in 14,049 households, yet
there were 17,767 housing units --presumably indicative of 3,T18 vacant housing units.
That is a remarkable 20% in vacancies. Data we have reviewed indicate the national
vacancy average is less than half that. (The 2000 census data for Jefferson County
indicate just under an 18% vacancy rate eighteen years ago.)
We can presume the typical vacancy rate is due to a combination of people in
transition and damaged and/or derelict homes that are no longer habitable. It is our
estimation that the much larger vacancy rate in Jefferson County is related to its aged
population, with a relatively high percentage of persons entering group housing and
leaving their single-family homes vacant from departure to death. Younger and
middle -age households in transition will readily feed the ongoing demand for units,
while real property of the elderly will typically go unused for years and, due to lack of
maintenance and occupancy, will actually detract from the number of habitable units.
Of course, our primary concern is the impact of an additional or additional pair of
dwelling units. These parenthetical observations, while they provide context, are
mainly a snapshot of how existing units relate to the present population.
q. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban
growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of
urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA?
The Wilke property is outside a UGA, the nearest one being the city of Port Townsend.
Though, unlike the typical urban property, as to water and sewerage, it will be self-
sufficient. As for power, telecom, propane and garbage collection, these will be
"imported," just as the are within the city limits. Draws will be on the remaining
services, but whether Prawn from the city or from further afield, the additional draw will
be insignificant as to adequacy or availability.
r. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter
36. 7oA RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, and other
applicable inter jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or
federal laws?
The Wilke re -zone and subsequent subdivision proposal are fully compliant with all
applicable laws and policies. There are no intervening, contrary agreements affecting it.
The only question we see is as to allocation of allowable growth. We might safely
surmise that, if every viable subdivision candidate came before the County within the
next twenty years, some would have to be rejected, not necessarily on the basis of lack of
individual merit, but simply to avoid exceeding the overall growth allocation.
Depending on how many subdivisions occur over the next two decades, perhaps a bridle
will be necessary toward the end of the current comp plan's life -cycle. However, given
both where we are in the present cycle and the dampening effects of the recent economic
disruption, we see the present scenario as a favorable time for this proposal.
8
SINCE Note
Development setbacks are depicted hereon as dotted lines near the
1 9 property perimeter and access easements. They are 5 feet off the
property lines and 20 feet off the easements. The pond depicted
hereon does not presently have any setbacks. Setbacks for it and any
wetlands that might be associated with it will be determined by a
wetland specialist in the event the property is subdivided.
�r Q
N ��^
r
N
LU
a rsS
r
Z rho
Exhibit E
N 89020'07" E 1150.80'
...i --.-. 11..1 .,.-.. ...�..-�.. ... .....
N 89024*57" E 700.80'` AN -
I
Legend 1
Likely wetlands
0 Existing dwelling
DATUM `�\�`Septic drainfield (approximate)
® Well head (approximate)
7 1 1 1 1 1 �=— I I
0 25 50 100 200 300
N"D88 1991 Scale = 1:1,000
212712019 Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium
'0',,,,,nIr'�� Client Andrew & Sarah Wilke
7 17MACLEARNSBERRY, Inc.
'a LAND SURVEYORS • CONSULTANTS 240 Sand Road
I 1100 NW Thompson Road, Suite 301, Poulsbo, WA 98370 Site -Specific Comp Plan Amendment
.� phone: 206 842-5514 Drawn by: BAM Date February 27, 2019 Job No. 18066
y www.sealandsurvey.com
Checked by: BAN► I Scale 1:1,000 Sheet 1 of 2
IN
V �
W
O
o �
t
z I
I
60 1
a
N 89°24'57" E 350.00'
�=L — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — —
f99@6.
RR-5
RR-5
RR-5
RR-2 0
Areas of lots 5 5 acres in RRA 0 or RR-20 zones.
EPFiNM
11:61C
RR-5
Prepared by
I \C'L, �� Q Sal�Y, r ,0
1100 NW 7hemp%nn Road, Suite 301 PouIsho, WA 98370
phone: 296 427-0506 www.seAmd"rvey.com