HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 1213 02
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING FOUR }
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS}
REGARDING 'LIMITED AREAS OF MORE }
INTENSIVE RURAL DEVELOPMENT' }
SPECIFICALLY, MLA #02-36 [Regan], MLA }
#02-243 [Chimacum], MLA #02-244 [Discovery }
Bay] and MLA #02-245 [Four Corners] }
ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-02
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board")
has, as required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.01O et
seq., set in motion and now completed the proper professional review and public
notice and comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the
County's Comprehensive Plan originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on
August 28, 1998 and as subsequently amended and;
WHEREAS, as mandated by the Growth Management Act, the Board has
reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive
Plan or "CP", and;
WHEREAS, four proposed CP amendments known as MLA #02-36
[Michael Regan], MLA #02-243 [Chimacum], MLA #02-244 [Discovery Bay] and
MLA #02-245 [Four Comers], collectively either "these amendments" or "the
LAMIRD amendments," have been approved by the Board during the second week
of December as laid out in the County's Unified Development Code or "UDC,"
therefore
The Board makes the following Findings of Fact with respect to the
LAMIRD amendments:
1.
The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its
development regulations or UDC in December 2000.
Ordinance No, 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
2.
The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County
generate and adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place
3.
a process to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the
citizens of this County [including corporations and other business entities] on
a regular basis. In accordance with RCW 36.70A.130, CP amendments can
4.
be considered "no more frequently than once per year."
This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before May 1, 2002, the
5.
6.
deadline for submission of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
These amendments were all timely submitted.
The CP always intended that all rural commercial districts, fonnally known
as "limited areas of more intensive rural development," or LAMIRDs, would
be revisited. One merely has to refer to LNP 1.4, which states: "Commercial
land use designations countywide and the Glen Cove and Port Townsend
Paper Mill industrial designations shall be interim designations that shall be
7.
revisited through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan upon completion
of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Study."
The Tri-Area/Glen Cove Study, sometimes called the "Special Study,"
8.
completion of which was a pre-condition to any re-examination by this
County of its LAMIRDs, was completed in December 2001.
The County staff did not have the resources to study all of the County's
LAMIRDs in this CP amendment cycle and so has begun that revisiting
process by studying and analyzing four of the LAMIRDs.
9.
MLA #02-36, as offered by Michael Regan, would grant an underlying rural
commercial zoning designation (Rural Commercial-General Crossroad) to a
parcel owned by Mr. Regan that is some 12,225 square feet (0.28 acre) in
size. The parcel is located at 51 lOth Avenue in Irondale.
2
Ordinance No, 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
MLA #02-243, a CP amendment suggested by the County, relates to the
Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad or LAMIRD. As adopted, this
amendment would redraw the Chimacum LAMIRD boundary to include
approximately three and a half (3.5) acres of land comprised of three discrete
parcels (Assessors Parcel Numbers 901141008, 901142022, and 901142007)
located on the eastern comer of the intersection of Route 19 and Chimacum
Road (across the Route 19 from the fire station).
The amendment would also drop the word "interim" from the fonnal title of
the Chimacum LAMIRD.
Inclusion of these parcels is based upon recent Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board decisions related to the GMA tenn of art "built
environment" and criteria allowing for rural commercial designation.
While the parcels in question are not characterized by pre-1990 structural
development, the three parcels proposed for inclusion inside the Chimacum
LAMIRD each have a commercial water tap connection that has been paid
by the property owner since the purchase of the properties in the 1960s.
Based on this fact and based upon continued consistency with the intent of
the rural commercial area, staff is recommending revision to the existing
boundary to include these parcels.
MLA #02-244, a CP amendment suggested by the County, relates to the
Discovery Bay Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad LAMIRD. The proposed
changes for this amendment involve the revision of the existing boundary to
include approximately eight (8) acres of land comprised of a single parcel
(Assessors Parcel Number 902243009) located directly east of the existing
eastern boundary of the commercial area.
MLA #02-244 would also drop the tenn "Interim" from the fonnal name of
the Discovery Bay LAMIRD.
3
Ordinance No, 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Inclusion of this parcel is based upon recent Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board decisions redefining the GMA tenn of art
"built environment" and criteria allowing for rural commercial designation.
While not characterized by pre-1990 commercial above ground structural
development, the parcel proposed for inclusion contains in-ground
infrastructure known as the Moa-Tel Water System. The Moa-Tel Water
System was installed in 1946 and serves as a water source for both
commercial and residential properties. Based on this fact and based upon
continued consistency with the intent of the rural commercial area, staff is
recommending revision to the existing boundary to include this parcel.
MLA #02-245, suggested by the County, would not change the boundary of
the Four Comers Neighborhood/Visitors Crossroad, but would drop the word
"Interim" from the fonnal title.
Cumulatively, these four amendments, adopted unanimously by the elected
County Commissioners, would add some 11.78 acres to the County's
LAMIRDs, eight acres in Discovery Bay, 3.5 acres in Chimacum and .28 of
an acre in lrondale. The Four Comers LAMIRD would not change in size.
DCD, the County's planning staff, recommended approval of three of the
four of these LAMIRD amendments in the staff report/Draft SEIS dated
August 21,2002.
DCD did not recommend approval ofMLA #02-36, finding that approval of
this change in zoning designation to rural commercial would not be
consistent with the GMA. DCD recommended approval of the other three
amendments that are described in this Ordinance.
MLA #02-36 was the subject of a public hearing before the Planning
Commission (or "PC") in the fall of 2002.
4
Ordinance No, 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The proposed CP amendments relating to the LAMIRDs at Chimacum,
Discovery Bay and Four Comers were the subject of a public hearing before
the PC on September 4, 2002. One person each spoke with respect to the
LAMIRDs at Chimacum and Discovery Bay. No one spoke with respect to
the Four Comers LAMIRD.
The PC, at its meeting of October 16, 2002, voted to approve all four of these
LAMIRD amendments.
If the PC recommended approval ofMLA #02-36 (Regan), it was because it
found that there was sufficient adjacent infrastructure to the Regan parcel
and a water tap (albeit for a home that is approximately 40-50 years old) to
the parcel, both constituting, in the collective opinion of the PC, "built
environment" as that tenn of GMA jargon has been recently redefined.
These amendments constitute four of the 19 proposed amendments that
worked their way through the entire process laid out in state statutes for such
amendments.
Those proposed amendments went through professional review at the County
and State level.
By way of example, the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (or
"WDFW") commented on two of these LAMIRD CP amendments in a letter
dated October 1,2002. WDFW stated that both Chimacum Creek in the
vicinity of the Chimacum LAMIRD and the Snow and Salmon Creeks in the
vicinity of the Discovery Bay LAMIRD were the subject of current projects
"to recover[y] the Endangered Species Act listed Hood Canal summer chum
salmon." Thus, the WDFW added, "[a]ny additional increase in commercial
property should be scrutinized for potential impacts to the listed salmon."
Despite its concern that additional environmental analysis be done, WDFW
5
Ordinance No, 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
did not expressly state their opposition to these two LAMIRD amendments.
They were silent on the other two LAMIRD amendments.
These amendments were discussed in some detail in a combined County staff
report/Draft Supplemental EIS dated August 21,2002 and a Final SEIS dated
November 25,2002, portions of which are described in more detail below.
The Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS were undertaken and generated pursuant
to the State Environmental Protection Act (or "SEP A") and a detennination
by the County planning staff that the 19 proposed CP amendments warranted
a threshold "Detennination of Significance" and thus environmental review
for any potential significant adverse environmental impacts, although they
were all non-project actions as that tenn of art is defined in SEP A.
The FSEIS dated November 25,2002 included staff responses to 71 different
categories of questions, comments and concerns expressed orally and in
writing by the public regarding the FHM application during the public
comment period. It represents a detailed response to the concerns of the
citizens, precisely what is intended by SEP A.
The County Commissioners conclude, pursuant to Finding #19 above, that
there are no cumulative negative impacts that will arise as a result of
adopting these four proposed LAMIRD-related CP amendments.
These LAMIRD amendments must be considered in light of certain criteria
laid out in Section 9 of the UDC, the first seven of which are described in
UDC §9.5.4(b) and are also known as the Growth Management Indicators or
"GMI."
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(1), which asks whether assumptions
regarding growth and development have changed since the initial CP
adoption, the Board finds that the amount of land inside any particular
LAMIRD boundary cannot, pursuant to GMA, be a function of economic or
6
Ordinance No, 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
population growth or the lack of it and therefore finds that this GMI is not
relevant in the context of LAMIRDs. The Board would note that while
census data indicates that the population growth rate in this county has
slowed in the last two to four years, it may increase again during the
remaining years (until 2016) that are covered by this CP.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(2), which asks whether the capacity of the
County to provide adequate services has diminished or increased, the Board
concludes that the County's ability, in general, to provide services will not be
diminished and that, specifically, the addition of 11.78 acres of rural
commercial land will not impact the ability of the County to provide
servIces.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(3), which asks if sufficient urban land is or
has been designated within the County, the Board concludes that this GMI is
not relevant to any analysis of a CP amendment relating to rural LAMIRDs.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)( 4), which asks if any of the assumptions on
which the initial CP was based have become invalid, the Board concludes
that the assumptions upon which the CP is based have generally not changed,
except that the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
has provided a more detailed definition of "built environment," a GMA tenn
of art, and now equates the GMA definition of "built environment" with that
found in SEP A.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(5), which asks if any of the county-wide
attitudes upon which the CP was based have changed, the Board concludes
that the county-wide attitudes have not generally changed.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(6), which asks if there has been a change in
circumstance that may dictate the need for an amendment, the Board
7
Ordinance No, 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
concludes that the new definition of built environment constitutes a changed
circumstance.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(7), which asks if inconsistencies have arisen
between the CP, the GMA and the County Wide Planning Policies, the Board
concludes that these LAMIRD amendments do not reflect any such
inconsistency, since they only add 11.78 acres of rural commercial land in a
county that holds more than 1,800 square miles.
Any amendment to the CP must also be considered in light of three other
GMI listed in UDC §9.8.l(b).
With respect to UDC §9.8.l(b )(1), which asks if circumstances relating to
the proposed CP or the region impacted by the proposed CP have changed,
the Board would refer any reader to Findings #37 and #39 above.
With respect to UDC §9.8.l(b )(2), which asks if the assumptions used for the
CP are no longer valid or if new infonnation has arisen since the CP's
adoption that would necessitate any particular CP amendment, the Board
finds that the change in the definition of the "built environment" represents a
major shift in the assumptions of this County, since the County previously
assumed that only above-ground structures constituted the "built
environment. "
With respect to UDC §9.8.l(b)(3), which asks if the proposed CP
amendment represents "current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County," the Board notes that there was little or no public
testimony either for or against these LAMIRD CP amendments, suggesting
the populace holds no particular opinion about these amendments.
With respect to UDC §9.8.l(b )(3) it should also be noted that the Board
represents the populace, since they are directly elected by the populace, and
8
Ordinance No, 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
the Board adopted these four LAMIRD CP amendments by a unanimous 3-0
vote.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b )(3) it should also be noted that the CP always
intended that these rural commercial boundaries would be revisited and that
the language in the CP indicates popular support for eventual revisiting of all
the rural commercial boundaries.
The Board concludes that these LAMIRD amendments, particularly MLA
#02-36 [Regan] are site-specific, or nearly site-specific, in nature, and that
therefore these LAMIRD CP amendments must also be considered in light of
8 "additional required findings" listed in the UDC at UDC §9.8.1( c).
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(1), the Board finds these LAMIRD
amendments will not impact the concurrency requirements that this County
must satisfy because at most they involve less than 12 new acres of rural
commercial land.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(2), the Board finds these LAMIRD
amendments are consistent with CP goals and policies for all the reasons
outlined above.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(3), the Board finds these LAMIRD
amendments will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the
County's infrastructure or environment because they are in many cases
already served or "burdened" with infrastructure and thus it is unlikely they
will require additional infrastructure or expense of public dollars.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1( c)( 4), the Board finds that the parcels that gain
an underlying zoning designation of rural commercial as a result of the
adoption of these LAMIRD CP amendments are suitable for such a
designation.
9
Ordinance No, 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1( c )(5), the Board finds that these parcels are not
like most rural residential parcels because they have sufficient adjacent
infrastructure with either paid-for water taps or infrastructure on the parcels
and thus adoption of these LAMIRD amendments should not lead to a flood
of other rural residential parcels seeking an underlying zoning designation of
rural commercial.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(6), the Board finds that these LAMIRD CP
amendments will not materially affect the land use and population growth
estimates found in the County's CPo
The Board finds that UDC §9.8.1(c)(7) is not relevant to these LAMIRD CP
amendments because UDC §9.8.1(c)(7) discusses urban growth areas.
The Board finds, with respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(8), that these LAMIRD CP
amendments are consistent with the County Wide Planning Policies, the
GMA and the CPo
The Board finds that these proposed LAMIRD CP amendments comply with
the substantive provisions of the GMA.
The Board finds that these proposed LAMIRD CP amendments have been
processed, debated, reviewed and decided upon in a process that was
procedurally compliant with the GMA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows:
Section One: The word "Interim" is eliminated and shall be eliminated from the
fonnal titles of the following rural commercial districts or LAMIRDS: Chimacum,
Discovery Bay and Four Comers.
Section Two:
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shall be amended and is
amended to reflect the following: that 1) Parcel No. 961808901 (Regan) shall have
a zoning designation of "Rural Commercial/General Crossroad," 2) Parcels No.
10
Ordinance No. 16-1213-02 re: Four LAMIRD Amendments
901141008,901142022 and 901142007 shall have a zoning designation of "Rural
Commercial" and are made part of the "Chimacum NeighborhoodNisitor General
Crossroad Commercial Zone," and 3) Parcel No. 902243009 shall have a zoning
designation of "Rural Commercial" and is made part of the "Discovery Bay
NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroad Commercial Zone.
Section Three: If any part of this Ordinance is invalidated or found unlawful, then
that determination shall not impact or alter the validity of any other section of this
Ordinance.
Approved and adopted this 13th day of December, 2002.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BQ,ARD~ COMMISSIQNERS
/' . /' ; "
!
SEAL, : ~? ~ .:
. ',.J" -.,,1:.' , ' ..
:~~' <~(~,
( :~' : r i' ; , "/':~ , .~ \.
',0' ~.-,<' -"O!
\"0:" ~ ,,;
.. . iII"O <:- ¡ ~ .
, " L".~ -:::..J'.' /
ATTEST-:,. ;.", ' '.
fA
r '11Cî~/~
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
Dan Tittemess, Member
11