HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 1213 02
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THREE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
RELA TING TO ALTERING DENSITIES IN
CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES,
SPECIFICALLY MLA #01-580 [Madden],
MLA #01-613 [Thornburg] and MLA #02-182
[Poll]
}
}
)
)
)
)
)
ORDINANCE NO. 17-1213-02
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, three proposed CP amendments known as MLA #01-580 [Robert
and Georgia Madden], MLA #01-613 [Elaine Thornburg] and MLA #02-182 [David
Poll], collectively either "these amendments" or "the RR 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,"
The Board makes the following Findings of Fact with respect to the RR
amendments:
1.
The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development
regulations or UDC in December 2000.
Ordinance No, 17-1213-02: Amendments Altering Densities in Certain Residential Zones
2.
The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and
adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the
3.
citizens of this County [including corporations and other business entities] on a
regular basis, although it need not be made available more than once per year.
4.
This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before May 1, 2002, the deadline
for submission of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
5.
6.
These amendments were all timely submitted.
MLA #01-580, as proposed by Robert and Georgia Madden, as approved, grants
to the 33 acre parcel known as APN 001174001 an underlying density of Rural
Residential 1:5 instead of what existed before the CP amendment was sought,
Rural Residential 1 :20. This represents the ability to subdivide and create up to
six lots of record rather than one, as was possible before this CP amendment.
7.
MLA #01-613, as proposed by Elaine Thornburg, as approved, grants to the 22
acre parcel known as APN 921301003 an underlying density of Rural Residential
1:5 instead of what existed before the CP amendment was sought, Rural
Residential 1 :20. This represents the ability to subdivide and create up to four
8.
lots of record rather than one, as was possible before this CP amendment.
MLA #02-182, as proposed by David Poll, as approved, grants to the
approximately 25 acre parcel known as APN 601323003 an underlying density of
Rural Residential 1:5 instead of what existed before the CP amendment was
sought, Rural Residential 1 :20. This represents the ability to subdivide and create
up to five lots of record rather than one, as was possible before this CP
amendment.
9.
In sum, these three RR amendments, as adopted, allow for the creation of twelve
(12) extra lots.
2
Ordinance No, 17-1213-02: Amendments Altering Densities in Certain Residential Zones
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Despite the surplus of legal lots of record located at or upon the Quimper
Peninsula as noted in the CP, the Board finds no deleterious cumulative impacts
arise from the adoption of these RR amendments to the CP.
DCD, the County's planning staff, recommended approval of all three of these RR
amendments in the staff report/Draft SEIS dated August 21,2002.
The County's Planning Commission (or "PC"), at its meeting of October 16, 2002,
and after providing opportunity for public comment earlier, voted to approve all
three of these RR amendments. The PC recommended by a 6-2 vote the proposed
CP amendments #01-580 and #01-613. For the Poll CP amendment, #02-182, the
PC voted 7-1 to recommend approval.
Little, if any, public comment was received relating to these three RR
amendments, suggesting they are not contrary to the public's viewpoints and
wishes.
These amendments constitute three of the 19 proposed amendments that worked
their way through the entire process laid out in state statutes for such amendments.
Nine of the 19 amendments (including this one) were specific to a particular site or
region, the remainder are and were known as "suggested" amendments because
they would implement or memorialize a policy decision made by the elected
Commissioners of this County.
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 this CP amendment in a letter dated October 1,2002.
WDFW generally discouraged so-called "upzoning," which creates the potential
for greater rural residential densities, a generic threat to habitats of priority
species. WDFW stated its conclusions regarding whether any of the parcels that
were the subject of these RR amendments contained or were in proximity to either
habitats of priority species or streams as "typed" by that agency.
3
Ordinance No, 17-1213-02: Amendments Altering Densities in Certain Residential Zones
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
In a similar vein OCD expressed concern about increasing residential densities in a
letter to the County Commissioners dated October 1, 2002. That agency expressed
its worry that the county would eventually lose its variety of rural residential
densities, although the agency added that it had not yet occurred.
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 continues to have a sufficiently adequate variety of rural residential
densities in the 62, 200 acres, approximately, that hold that underlying zoning
designation in this County.
During the 2000 CP amendment cycle, the PC saw a statistical breakdown of the
underlying designations provided to those 62, 200. Some 26,544 acres, or about
42.7%, are zoned Rural Residentiall:5. Similarly, some 7,222 acres,
representing 11.6% of all the acreage zoned Rural Residential, is zoned Rural
Residentiall: 10. Finally, 28,424 acres, representing some 45.7% of all the lands
in the rural residential zones possess an underlying designation of Rural
Residential 1 :20
4
Ordinance No, 17-1213-02: Amendments Altering Densities in Certain Residential Zones
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The Board concludes that the phrase "a residential land use designation of one
dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1 :5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the
County with a) an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e. 5
acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record" as found within LNP 3.3.1 ( a) is an
ambiguous phrase subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.
The Board finds that the ambiguous language of LNP 3.3.1 ( a), which is stated in
full in the prior Finding of Fact, can be reasonably read to require them, when
considering an amendment that touches upon that LNP, to consider the entire
"area" where a lot or lots or located. Thus, they must consider more than merely
the lot or lots that are the subject of the particular Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
The Board makes those findings listed above in reliance, in part, on the language
found in the Comprehensive Plan at LNG ("land use goal") 3.0, which states, in
relevant part, that it is a policy of the Comprehensive Plan that land use decisions
made by this County "[ e ]nsure that rural residential development preserves rural
character, ....... is compatible with SURROUNDING land uses, and minimizes
infrastructure needs."
The County Commissioners find the inclusion of the word "surrounding" in that
LNG quite instructive in this regard.
The County Commissioners have utilized surrounding densities (as opposed to the
densities extant for the parcels that are the subject of any specific Comprehensive
Plan Amendment) when making decisions with respect to other CP amendments in
the 1999 CP "cycle," specifically the Johnston proposal (CPA #99-04), the Hilton
proposal (CPA #99-12) and the Bailey proposal for nearly 200 acres (CPA #99-
13).
These three CP amendments to increase the Rural Residential densities are in
compliance with the CP because these specific parcels are surrounded by legal lots
of record that possess (or represent) more intense residential densities, i.e., smaller
lots.
5
Ordinance No, 17-1213-02: Amendments Altering Densities in Certain Residential Zones
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
For MLA #01-580 (Madden), the subject parcel and the area in which it is located
are characterized by an established pattern of smaller sized existing lots of record
located to the north, east and west of the subject parcel, according to the Draft
SEIS at p. 2-10.
For MLA #01-612 (Thornburg) the subject parcel and the area in which it is
located are characterized by an established pattern of smaller sized existing lots of
record located to the north, east, and southwest of the subject parcel. This parcel
is located adjacent to Commercial Forest land (to the west and south).
Because of the pattern of less than five-acre surrounding lots, the presence of a
parcel of similar size located directly across the road which holds a RR 1:5
designation and the coastal location of the property, the Board finds that the RR
1:5 designation is appropriate for the Thornburg parcel. See the Draft SEIS at p.
2-12.
With respect to MLA #02-182 (Poll), the Board finds that the subject parcel and
the area in which it is located are characterized by an established pattern of smaller
sized existing lots of record located to the north and east of the subject parcel. It is
also in a coastal zone. For these reasons, a designation ofRR 1:5 is appropriate.
The Board of County Commissioners conclude that their interpretation of the
ambiguous LNP (land use policy) 3.3.1 is consistent with the interpretation they
have applied to other sites prior to adopting the Comprehensive Plan in 1998 and
consistent with the methodology they used when analyzing and deciding upon the
resolution of the distinct amendments during the 2000 CP amendment process.
The Board of County Commissioners, as the legislature for Jefferson County with
respect to these proposed CP amendments, is authorized and mandated to read an
ambiguous statutory section, specifically LNP ("land use policy") 3.3.1 in a
manner that is consistent with and does not render meaningless other closely-
connected statutory sections, specifically LNG ("land use goal") 3.0.
The County Commissioners conclude that after the enactment of this proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment there remains extant in Jefferson County a
6
Ordinance No, 17-1213-02: Amendments Altering Densities in Certain Residential Zones
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
variety of rural densities, as mandated by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b) and LNP ("land
use policy") 3.1 of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The County Commissioners conclude that approval of this proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment is compatible with and satisfies the language of
LNP ("land use policy") 3.3 and more specifically LNP 3.3.1.
The County Commissioners conclude, pursuant to relevant decisions of the
Western Washington GMHB, that zoning at a density of one dwelling unit per 5
acres (known in this County as RR 1:5), which follows from enactment of this
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, does not equate, per se, with a zoning
density that rises to the level of a suburban/urban nature.
These RR 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
concludes that census data indicates that the population growth rate in this county
has slowed in the last two to four years, but may increase again during the 20 year
planning horizon (until 2016) that is 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
these RR amendments that hold, at most, the potential to add nine rural residential
lots if fully subdivided, will not impact the ability of the County to provide
services and thus this particular GMI is not relevant to these RR amendments.
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 residential parcels.
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
7
Ordinance No, 17-1213-02: Amendments Altering Densities in Certain Residential Zones
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
an unexpected ambiguity in LNP 3.3 of the CP has been revealed and needs
further attention from the County and until such a 'fix' is implemented, the
individual applications for greater rural residential density must be considered on a
case-by-case basis.
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 concludes
that the unexpected ambiguity in LNP 3.3 of the CP does indicate precisely such a
change in 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 amendments do not reflect any such inconsistency, since a
variety of rural residential densities is maintained even after adoption of these RR
CP amendments.
Any amendment to the CP must also be considered in light of three other GMI
listed in UDC §9.8.I(b).
With respect to UDC §9.8.I(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 #38 and #40 above.
With respect to UDC §9.8.I(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 notes that LNP 3.3 of
the CP is ambiguous and is causing the Board to look at each CP amendment
application for an "upzone" on a case-by-case basis. And the Board would note
that any and all "site-specific" proposals for a CP amendment go automatically to
the final docket so that they can receive that case-by-case analysis by staff.
8
Ordinance No, 17-1213-02: Amendments Altering Densities in Certain Residential Zones
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
With respect to UDC §9.8.I(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
RR CP amendments, suggesting the populace holds no particular opinion about
these amendments.
With respect to UDC §9.8.I(b )(3) it should also be noted that the Board represents
the populace, since they are directly elected by the populace, and the Board
adopted these RR CP amendments by a unanimous 3-0 vote.
With respect to UDC §9.8.I(c)(1), the Board finds these RR amendments will not
impact the concurrency requirements that this County must satisfy because at most
they involve, if fully subdivided nine new lots.
With respect to UDC §9.8.I(c)(2), the Board finds these RR amendments are
consistent with CP goals and policies for all the reasons outlined above.
With respect to UDC §9.8.I(c)(3), the Board finds these RR amendments will not
result in probable significant adverse impacts to the County's infrastructure or
environment because of their de minimus nature.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1( c)( 4), the Board finds that the parcels that gain a RR
1:5 underlying zoning designation as a result of the adoption of these RR CP
amendments are suitable for such a rural residential density.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1( c )(5), the Board finds that altering the underlying
densities on the parcels affected by these RR CP amendment will have little
likelihood of opening the floodgates to future CP amendments that upzone other
RR parcels.
With respect to UDC §9.8.I(c)(6), the Board finds that these RR CP amendments
will not materially affect the land use and population growth estimates found in
the County's cr.
The Board finds that UDC §9.8.1( c )(7) is not relevant to these RR CP
amendments.
9
Ordinance No, 17.1213-02: Amendments Altering Densities in Certain Residential Zones
The Board finds, with respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(8), that these RR CP amendments
are consistent with the County Wide Planning Policies, the GMA and the CP.
58.
The Board notes that when the precise issue of whether or not the presence of
surrounding more densely-zoned RR lots could fonn a legitimate basis for
granting a CP amendment that upzoned an adjacent region or parcel that held a
less dense underlying RR density was litigated in 2000 before the Western
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board or "WWGMHB," the
WWGMHB upheld the County's decision to upzone 200 acres for the Baileys in
59.
CP #99-13.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows:
Section One:
The following parcels are hereby granted an underlying zoning density of
Rural Residential I: 5 (also known as "RR 1: 5")
APN 001174001 (Madden)
APN 921301003 (Thornburg)
APN 601323003 (Poll)
Section Two: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended to reflect the
adoption of these new underlying zoning designations for the parcels listed in Section
One above.
Approved and adopted this 13th day of December,2002.
-,
. \\ ì '( C., If" ".
. ~<~'l~;1.~.,'
. (:\ . - ..... 6-...:.
SEALY:, ~~t 1>"/:;,
"~,, I,~.;}
... .," ',- "
It ~.. .. .)
,-.r.,_.,. -',',,':
ATTEST:,A ^ ., " .
" ".
~71~~
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
10