HomeMy WebLinkAbout057 19 CC -� 11 .4'/
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
In the Matter of Documenting the Process } RESOLUTION NO. 5 7-19
of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and Unified }
Development Code Annual Amendment }
Cycle which Resulted in No Amendments. }
WHEREAS,the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners("the Board") has, as required by the Growth
Management Act("the GMA"), as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., set in motion and now properly
completed professional review and public notice and comment with respect to the 2019 proposed
amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan("the CP")originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98
on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently reviewed and updated; and the Unified Development Code("the
UDC"), adopted December 18, 2000, and as subsequently amended; and
WHEREAS,the GMA, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and adopt a CP and implementing
regulations, requires that there be in place a process available to amend the CP and UDC on a regular
basis, which is codified in Chapter 18.45 JCC; and
WHEREAS,four suggested text amendments: MLA19-00018, MLA19-00019, MLA19-00020, and
MLA19-00023; and one site-specific zoning amendment proposal,MLA19-00013,were received on or
before the annual amendment cycle deadline of March 1, 2019; and
WHEREAS, On March 27,2019, Community Development released the Department of Community
Development's Review and Recommendation on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Preliminary Docket.
Community Development recommended against placing any suggested text amendment on the 2019 Final
Docket in consideration of need, urgency, appropriateness,DCD staff capacity to substantively review
and manage the suggested text amendments, and anticipated DCD cost and budget for processing the
suggested amendments; and
WHEREAS, On April 17, 2019,the Planning Commission held a public hearing to accept public
comment regarding the four suggested text amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
Unified Development Code on the 2019 Preliminary Docket; and
WHEREAS, On May 1, 2019,the Planning Commission completed its review of the four suggested text
amendments on the Preliminary Docket in a Special Meeting, and transmitted the Planning Commission
Report and Recommendation on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket to the Board of
County Commissioners, recommending all four proposals be placed on the Final Docket.
WHEREAS,the Board held a public hearing on June 10, 2019, for the purpose of taking oral and written
testimony regarding whether or not to include any of four proposed text amendments MLA19-00018,
MLA19-00019, MLA19-00020, and MLA19-00023, previously considered by the Planning Commission,
on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Final Docket; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2019,the Board deliberated and voted on what items to include on the Final
Docket,the prevailing motions which were no suggested text amendments will be placed on the 2019
Final Docket, and leaving one site-specific zoning amendment proposal that is automatically included on
the Final Docket pursuant to JCC 18.45.060(4)(b)(i); and
WHEREAS,the 2019 Final Docket was established containing one formal site-specific amendment
proposal: MLA19-00013 Andrew and Sarah Wilke, a proposal to re-zone a 10-acre Rural Residential 1:10
parcel to Rural Residential 1:5 for subdivision; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2019 Community Development issued an integrated Staff Report and State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)Addendum analyzing the one site-specific proposal on the Final
Docket and offering a recommendation for approval.
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2019,the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to
receive spoken testimony related to proposed site-specific amendment, and written comments were
accepted from September 4, 2019 through the close of the public hearing.
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended denial of the rezone proposal
outlined in MLA19-00013 (Wilke)to change zoning of Parcel#001184004 from RR1:10 to RR1:5, in the
Planning Commission's October 22nd transmittal of their October 16, 2019 Report and Recommendations
to the Board; and
WHEREAS,as mandated by the GMA, and through the process codified in Chapter 18.45 Jefferson
County Code, the Board has reviewed the proposed site-specific zoning amendment to the CP; and
WHEREAS,the Board adopts herein, and as their own,the Planning Commission's findings and
conclusions from their October 16, 2019 Review and Recommendation on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Final Docket and are augmented by Community Development's September 4, 2019
integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum findings and conclusions, except when and as noted below;
and
WHEREAS,the Board makes their own findings based on the record, as follows:
A) Growth Management Indicators 18.45.050(4)(b)(i)through(4)(b)(vii)
(i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring
faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize.
Growth and development are occurring as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The
countywide population projection used in the current Comprehensive Plan(2018-2038)is
0.98%, lower than the previous comprehensive planning period which estimated a 1.78%
growth rate.
(ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or
increased.
The capacity of the county to provide adequate services has remained the same, as shown
in the analysis of the Capital Facilities Plan Technical Document,Appendix D, Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan.
(iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and
need.
As demonstrated in the Port Hadlock/Irondale Land Capacity Analysis,Appendix E,
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and as discussed in the September 4, 2019 Staff
Report at p. 2-4, sufficient urban land is designated and zoned in the Port
Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area to meet projected demand and need.
(iv) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer
found to be valid.
The assumptions upon which the recently reviewed and revised Comprehensive Plan is
based are still valid.
(v) Whether changes in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan
and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement.
The Board finds that countywide attitudes have not changed and amendments are not
needed to the goals of the plan, or values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan
Vision Statement.
(vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments.
There are no changes in circumstances dictating a need for the amendment.
(vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth
Management Act or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policy for
Jefferson County.
There are no inconsistencies that exist.
B) Required Findings: 18.45.080(1)(b)(i)through (iii)
(i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is
located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
Circumstances relating to the proposed amendment or the area in which the amendment
proposal is located have not substantially changed since adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Board finds that additional historical information gathered during the public
comment period demonstrates that there is a known flooding issue in the area, and the
seasonal flooding in the proposal area is tied to the larger valley hydrologic system and
stormwater drainage and flooding issues, although it is not identified on flood maps.
(ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer
valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the
adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The planning assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based, and upon the
goals and policies to which the analysis refers for this analysis are still valid. There is no
new information suggesting assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan are not valid.
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County.
The Board finds that the proposed amendment does not reflect current widely held values
of the residents of Jefferson County, as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan's
Framework goal V, "Meet projected community needs for housing, commercial, and
industrial growth through appropriate zoning and capital facility investment."; in the
Vision Statement describing rural character; and reviewing the definitions of rural zoning
designations for Rural Residential 1:5 and Rural Residential 1:10 in CP Exhibit 1-11. The
Board finds that the current zoning of Rural Residential 1:10 is the most appropriate to
match the environmental conditions of the site, and a variety of residential densities are
already in place,with regard to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Strategy, p. 1-15.
C) Site-Specific Required Findings: 18.45.080(1)(c)(i)through(viii)- Site Specific Findings
(i) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation
and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities
and services.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation
on Sand Road. The proposed site-specific amendment does not adversely affect adopted
level of service standards for other public facilities and services.
(ii) The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board finds that the proposed site-specific amendment is not consistent with the
goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds that under consideration of Comprehensive Plan
Section 1.2 Rural and the definition of rural character,that the proposal for rezoning and
subdividing the subject parcel does not comply with the GMA definition particularly at
(d)"land use compatible with habitat", and(g)"consistent with the protection of natural
surface water flows and groundwater and surface water recharge and discharge areas."
The Board also finds that the proposal is not compatible with goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan including Goal LU-G-7 "preserve the functions and values of
critical environmental areas and protect development from the risks of environmental
hazards;" and LU-G-18 "encourage residential land use and development intensities that
protect the character of rural areas, avoid interference with resource land uses, and
minimize impacts upon environmentally sensitive areas."
(iii) The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse
impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and
environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated
burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities.
The Board finds from the record that there is reasonable concern that the proposal will
have impacts to environmental features such as wetlands, and environmental processes
such as surface water attenuation and storage,that cannot be mitigated; and can increase
risk to future development.
(iv) In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map,that the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use
development, including but not limited to access,provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land uses.
The Board finds that the current zoning of the parcel as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan is the most appropriate, and that the subject parcel is not physically suited for the
proposed change in zoning, and not compatible with the surrounding physical
circumstances of the area such as surface water drainage.
(v) The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other
properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole.
The Board finds that the site-specific amendment will create a pressure to change the land
use designation of other properties, and would not be in the long-term best interests of the
county. The Board finds that there is no compelling County reason to rezone properties
similarly situated as the subject parcel.
(vi) The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population
growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board finds that this individual proposed zoning change will not materially affect
and growth projections and comprehensive land use plans but may still not be advisable
in consideration of other findings.
(vii) If within an unincorporated urban growth area(UGA),the proposed site-specific
amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to
the immediate area and the overall UGA.
The proposed site-specific amendment proposal is not within an urban growth area.
(viii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act(RCW
36.70A),the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County, any other applicable
inter jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws.
The Board finds that the zoning amendment proposal is not consistent with the Growth
Management Act RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c)provisions and measures for rural development
in a comprehensive plan rural element; and Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson
County(Res. 128-92) addressing rural areas and development commensurate with the
character of the local community, and providing opportunity for higher residential
densities in urban areas.
D) Findings Regarding the Record
1. The Board's recommendation is based upon the record, including the guidance provided
by GMA,the County-Wide Planning Policies,the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan,
Jefferson County Code, Comprehensive Plan, September 4, 2019 Integrated Staff Report
and SEPA Addendum, and hearing records.
2. The Board finds that assertions in the record can be confirmed by information from other
sources.
3. The Board finds that the recommendation satisfies legal criteria.
4. The Board finds that the recommendation is limited to the specific amendment proposal
at hand.
WHEREAS,the Board has reviewed the record, deliberated on the site-specific proposal on October 28,
2019, and voted unanimously to deny the rezone proposal outlined in MLA19-00013 (Wilke)to change
zoning of Parcel#001184004 from RR1:10 to RR1:5; and
WHEREAS,the 2019 annual amendment cycle resulted in no amendments to the CP or UDC for which
to require an adopting ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on October 28.2019,the Board unanimously approved a motion to direct staff to write a
resolution to memorialize the process of the 2019 amendment cycle and their final action;
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that:
1) the preceding findings and conclusions document that all procedural and substantive requirements
of the GMA,through the JCC (Title 18)and the Planning and Enabling Act(RCW 36.70), have
been satisfied;
2) based on the preceding findings and conclusions,the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation, and hereby denies the 2019 Docket
rezone proposal outlined in MLA19-00013 (Wilke); and
3) this final action by the Board concludes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and UDC Amendment
Cycle.
APPRQ PIYttis / —day of November,2019.
-09-1 JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOA OF COMMISSIONERS
Ci -
j K to Dean, -it
s 1
..7 .
Davis ATTEST: 74101S1110110-
Ne
(aGreg Broth rton, Member
Carolyn'Gallaway, CMC 7
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Consent Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: Patty Charnas, Department of Community Development Director
Joel Peterson, Associate Planner,DCD
DATE: November 4, 2019
SUBJECT: Resolution Documenting 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket consisted of one site-specific rezone
proposal MLA19-00013 Andrew and Sarah Wilke, 240 Sand Road, Parcel #001840004,to
rezone a 10-acre Rural Residential 1:10 to Rural Residential 1:5 for the purpose of
subdivision.
On October 16, 2019, during their regular meeting, the Planning Commission recommended
that the Board of County Commissioners deny the proposal. On October 28, 2019, during
their regular meeting, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the record and
unanimously voted to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, and directed DCD
to draft a resolution documenting the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development
Code Amendment Cycle process.
ANALYSIS:
Because there were no changes made to the Comprehensive Plan or Unified Development
Code that would require an adopting ordinance, the Board directed DCD to draft a resolution
that will serve to document the 2019 annual amendment process that occurred.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Cost of work associated with the County's Comprehensive Plan and related activities under the
State Growth Management Act are largely supported by the county's general fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
DCD recommends the Board adopt the resolution.
REVIEWED BY:
0/3/7;c7-
Philip Morley, Co my Administrator— Date