HomeMy WebLinkAbout027 00
œ.- Dti). 4.~¡.to
- ~'
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
In the Matter of Approving Certain
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Proposed During the 1999-2000
Amendment Cycle
}
}
}
}
27-00
RESOLUTION NO,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as is required by
the Growth Management Act as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., set in motion the proper
professional review and public notice and comment with respect to the proposed amendments to
the County's Comprehensive Plan;
WHEREAS, as is mandated by the Growth Management Act, the Board has reviewed
and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, certain of the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan
have been approved by the Board because that particular amendment was found to be in
conformance with the Growth Management Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners
that it approves certain of the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that it makes the following general
Findings of Facts applicable to all of the adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments that are
described and listed in the attachment to this Resolution.
1.
The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998.
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.
3.
The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the citizens of
this County on a regular basis, although it need not be made available more than once per
year.
4.
This particular amendment "cycle" began in mid-1999, the deadline for submission of a
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
5.
Some 14 proposed amendments worked their way through the entire process laid out in
state statutes for such amendments.
6.
Those 14 proposed amendments went through professional review at the County and
State level.
7.
Those 14 proposed amendments went through revIew by the County's Planning
Commission.
Resolution No.2 7 -0 0
Page 2
8,
Seal:
,..I';;;~~:::":-~
.';f<~; '( C 0 MI./~"
",.:",".- ' ~ ItJ:<"
.. ,,)...- . /"
, . ."".. ", 0 "
,'.' "" ,.,,-,-~ . ..', 'I.
I ;: , i!§!Bfr~~ ' y~
:-"'!-ò> ~,;(.',> 4}! ~,
" ';\~:t~~' -j ~ ~.\
. , ,>... .¡-J;"tc J' - d.
" " . '~ .
".- ,',";", " ,- )°'l-',::'S':";¡'
ATTEST:" ,
--.\ j} ~ r~
X 0'VVt C( ~~/
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
9.
10.
Those 14 proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the County's
Planning Commission.
Those 14 proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the Board of
County Commissioners.
Those 14 proposed amendments were the subject of a vote to approve/reject by the Board
of County Commissioners,
11.
The eight proposed amendments that are described in this attachment were approved by
the Board of County Commissioners because they were found to be in conformance with
the Growth Management Act.
12.
The Board of County Commissioners has generated for each of the eight proposed
amendments a set of Findings of Fact (marked as "FF") and Conclusions of Law ("CL")
that relate solely and specifically to that approved amendment. They are attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A.'
13.
County personnel have organized and collected the record, i.e., those documents that
were relied upon by the Board in reaching the decisions that are memorialized within this
Resolution,
14.
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for each of the specific approved
amendments are hereby incorporated in this Resolution as if stated in full here,
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of
April
2000.
'chard Wojt, Chair
!J~
Dan ~~le:~e~ \
Ä'
Glen Huntlllgford,
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
o{)~ ~ 3)3ð)~
Prosecuting Attomey ~
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 1
CP A #001 (Smith) Findings of Fact~ Conclusions of Law:
This amendment would change the zoning of 3.57 acres ofland located at the northwest
comer of the Chimacum intersection from Rural Residential 1:5 and would include these acres
within the boundary of the Chimacum NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroad. (FF)
County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW
43.21c.Ol0 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF)
County planners determined that this project has probable impacts that can be mitigated
under current County regulations, specifically storm water management. (FF)
The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing
on November 17, 1999. (FF)
The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-01 on
January 5, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19, 2000. (FF)
The County Planning Commission was unable to form a majority opinion on this
proposed amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. (FF)
The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended
that the County reject this amendment. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on
February 9, 2000. (FF)
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County
Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide
upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open
record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would
decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the
Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they
did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an
amendment. (FF)
Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that
they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or
learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the
public record relating to this amendment. (FF).
Two persons provided oral testimony at the public hearing before the County
Commissioners. (FF)
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 2
There was no written testimony submitted at the public hearing or by 5 :00 p.m. on
February 11,2000. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-
01 on February 14,2000. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners entered upon their record information that this
applicant possesses at present certain indicia of a commercial property, specifically a water tap
or taps and fire flow of potentially sufficient quantity (as measured in gallons/second) to be
deemed commercial rather than residential in nature. (FF). '
The 3.5 acres (more or less) that are the subject of this proposed amendment were
included in at least one of the three proposals considered by the Board of County Commissioners
when the Board reviewed and discussed creating boundaries for non-incorporated Urban Growth
Areas. Thus, the land in question has always been considered suitable for designation as
commercial land. Any designation to the contrary undertaken when "logical boundaries" of pre-
existing commercial areas were drawn in 1998 was a step taken as a matter of caution: the goal
then was to not overstock (as compared to the needs of the County over the next 20 years) the
County with undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (FF)
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by
the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had
the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of
fairness" doctrine.(CL).
The Board of County Commissioners concluded that inclusion of the 3.5 acres (more or
less) that are the subject of this amendment will not cause an overstocking within the County's
Comprehensive Plan of surplus (when compared to anticipated population and commercial needs
for the next 20 years) undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (CL)
The Board of County Commissioners concluded that inclusion of the 3.5 acres (more or
less) that are the subject of this proposed amendment as well enactment of other amendments
that increase commercial acreage in unincorporated areas will not cumulatively lead to an
overstocking within the County's Comprehensive Plan of surplus (when compared to anticipated
population and commercial needs for the next 20 years) undeveloped commercial acreage in
unincorporated areas. (CL)
The County Commissioners decided that approval of this particular proposed amendment
would direct future rural commercial growth to a pre-existing (July 1, 1990) limited area of more
intensive rural development in support ofRCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). (CL)
The County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve this amendment, finding it in
conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL)
Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00
Page 3
CPA #002 (1\1oa) Findines of Fact. Conclusions of Law:
The amendment changes the zoning of7.62 acres ofland located at the foot of Discovery
Bay from Rural Residential 1:5 and would include these acres within the boundary of the
Discovery Bay NeighborhoodlVisitor Crossroad. (FF)
The Commissioners took legislative notice that this real property is located at one of the
"gateways" to eastem Jefferson County and thus is and will be an excellent site for a tourism-
based enterprise. (FF)
County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW
43.21c.010 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated detennination of non-significance. (FF).
This project has probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations,
specifically stonn water management and protection of critical areas, as that tenn is defined and
regulated by County Ordinance. (FF)
The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing
on November 17, 1999. (FF)
The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CP A 99-02 on
January 5, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19, 2000. (FF)
The Planning Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that
they rej ect this amendment. (FF)
A minority report supporting adoption of this proposed amendment was signed and
forwarded to the County Commissioners by two members of the Planning Commission. (FF)
The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended
that the County rej ect this amendment. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony during a public hearing on
February 9, 2000. (FF)
Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that
they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or
1eamed of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the
public record relating to this amendment. (FF).
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County
Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide
upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open
record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would
decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the
Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00
Page 4
Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they
did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an
amendment. (FF)
Approximately one half-dozen persons provided oral testimony at the public hearing.
(FF)
The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-
02 on February 14,2000. (FF)
The family-run business located on the real property in question existed prior to July 1,
1990 and is and was always a legal use at that site. (FF).
The County Commissioners orally noted that prevention of overly-intense development
of the real property which is the subject of this amendment is assured because pursuant to the
current County development regulations the applicant is limited to a structure of no more than
7,500 square feet. (FF)
The real property in question has been historically perceived as commercial land, e.g., the
County's 1979 Comprehensive Plan and the 1992 Interim Zoning Ordinance both gave it a
commercial designation. Thus, the land in question has always been considered suitable for
designation as commercial land. Any designation to the contrary undertaken when "logical
boundaries" of pre-existing commercial areas were drawn in 1998 was a step taken as a matter of
caution: the goal then was to not overstock (as compared to the needs over the next 20 years) the
County with undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (FF)
The subject property is adjacent to a parcel that is presently zoned commercial. (FF)
The County Commissioners decided that approval of this particular proposed amendment
would direct future rural commercial growth to a pre-existing (July I, 1990) limited area of more
intensive rural development in support ofRCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). (CL)
This proposed amendment will advance Comprehensive Plan policy goal EDG
(Economic Development Goal) 8.0, to "promote the development of tourist and tourist-related
activities as a provider of employment" because it promotes a tourist-related business. (CL)
This proposed amendment will advance Comprehensive Plan policy goal LNG 8.0, to
"support the continued existence and economic viability of legally established land uses which
become nonconforming as a result of the Comprehensive Plan," because it removes the
nonconforming aspect ofthis tract. (CL)
This proposed amendment will advance Comprehensive Plan policy LNP 8.3, which
encourages expansion or replacement of pre-existing commercial and industrial uses in rural
areas because it directs rural commercial growth to a site where such commerce is already
transacted. (CL)
-'
Exhibit A to Resolution No.2 7 -00
Page 5
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by
the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had
the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of
faimess" doctrine. (CL).
The County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve this proposed amendment,
finding it in conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL).
...
Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00
Page 6
CP A #004 (Johnston) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law:
The amendment removes parcels totaling approximately 276 acres located along
Dosewallips Road in Brinnon from a Commercial Forest designation and instead zones those
acres "Rural Residential I :20." (FF)
County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW
43.21c.Ol0 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF)
This project has probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations,
specifically storm water management and protection of critical areas, presumably through
generation of a geotechnical report. (FF).
The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing
on November 17, 1999. (FF)
The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-04 on
January 12, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19, 2000. (FF)
The Planning Commission voted unanimously for the approval ofthis amendment. (FF)
The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended
that the County rej ect this amendment. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on
February 9, 2000. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-
04 on February 14,2000. (FF)
With respect to this amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open
record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment
without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide
on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the
evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual
Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest
in the outcome of this particular amendment. (FF)
Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that
they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or
learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the
public record relating to this amendment. (FF).
The Board of County Commissioners found that these two parcels, one of 148 acres,
another of 128 acres, were improperly classified as commercial forest of long-term significance
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 7
because the total acreage (276 acres) falls short of the minimum 320 acres needed to meet the
Commercial Forest designation found within the County's Forest Land Ordinance. (FF)
The northern most parcel is bordered on the west by land zoned RR 1 :20 (Rural
Residential 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres) and national forest land. The southern parcel is
bounded by national forest land and land zoned RR 1 :5. (FF)
Designation of the two parcels mentioned in this application at the zoning density of RR
1:20 complies with LNP 3.3.3 of the County's Comprehensive Zoning Plan because the tracts are
adjacent to other 20 acre parcels and adjacent to national forest lands. (CL)
Table 3-8 of the County's Comprehensive Plan indicates that land adjacent to national
forest lands should be zoned at RR 1 :20, precisely the zoning density requested by this applicant.
(CL)
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by
the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had
the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of
fairness" doctrine. (CL)
The Board of County Commissioners is empowered by the County's Comprehensive
Plan to rescind and correct mapping errors. (CL)
A majority of the County Commissioners voted to approve this amendment, finding it in
conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL)
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 8
CP A #005 (Spi2arelli) Findin~s of Fact. Conclusions of Law:
The amendment would change the zoning on a five (5) acre parce110cated adjacent to the
northwest comer of the Ness' Comer General Commercial Crossroad ftom "Rural Residential
1 :20" to instead include these acres within the boundary of the adjacent commercial crossroad.
(FF)
County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW
43.21C.OI0 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF)
This project has probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations,
specifically a Critical Aquifer Recharge Report as required by the Critical Areas Ordinance. (FF)
The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing
on November 17, 1999. (FF)
The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-05 on
January 5, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19,2000. (FF)
The County Planning Commission was unable to form any type of majority opinion with
respect to this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (FF)
The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended
that the County reject this amendment. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on
February 9, 2000. (FF)
Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that
they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or
learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the
public record relating to this amendment. (FF).
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County
Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide
upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open
record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would
decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the
Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they
did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an
amendment. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-
05 on February 14, 2000. (FF)
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 9
Some eight people provided oral testimony at the public hearing. (FF)
The five (5) acres (more or less) that are the subject of this proposed amendment were
included in at least one of the three proposals considered by the Board of County Commissioners
when the Board reviewed and discussed creating boundaries for non-incorporated Urban Growth
Areas. Thus, the land in question has always been perceived as suitable for designation as
commercia11and. Any designation to the contrary undertaken when "logical boundaries" of pre-
existing commercial areas were drawn in 1998 was a step taken as a matter of caution: the goal
then was to not overstock (as compared to the needs of the County over the next 20 years) the
County with undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (FF)
The parcels under consideration in this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment have
been zoned commercial in prior incamations of the County's Zoning Code, specifically the 1992
Interim Zoning Code and the 1994 Zoning Code. (FF)
Assuming that the five acres that is the subject of this proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is added to the commercial acreage at Ness's Corner, the tight-line logical
boundaries drawn in the wake of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan still represent a 41 % reduction
from the commercial areas as they were drawn in the earlier 1994 Zoning Code. (FF)
Enactment of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would further the intent of
LNP 5.2.3, the policy of directing future commercial growth in rural areas to avoid low density
sprawl in those areas. (CL)
Enactment of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would further the intent of
LNP 5.3, the policy of concentrating and containing commercial growth into areas that were
predominantly built as of July 1, 1990 by promoting in-fill through development regulations.
(CL).
The Board of County Commissioners concluded that inclusion of the five acres (more or
less) that are the subject of this amendment will not cause an overstocking within the County's
Comprehensive Plan of surplus (when compared to anticipated population and commercial needs
for the next 20 years) undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (CL)
The Board of County Commissioners concluded that inclusion of the five acres (more or
less) that are the subject of this proposed amendment as well enactment of other amendments
that increase commercial acreage in unincorporated areas will not cumulatively lead to an
overstocking within the County's Comprehensive Plan of surplus (when compared to anticipated
population and commercial needs for the next 20 years) undeveloped commercial acreage in
unincorporated areas. (CL)
The County Commissioners decided that approval of this particular proposed amendment
would direct future rural commercial growth to a pre-existing (July 1, 1990) limited area of more
intensive rural development in support ofRCW 36.70A.070(S)(d). (CL)
"
"
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 10
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by
the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had
the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of
fairness" doctrine. (CL).
The County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve this amendment, finding it in
conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL).
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 11
CP A #012 (Hilton) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law:
The amendment would, if approved, change the zoning of a twenty (20) acre parcel
located between West Valley Road and Center Road from "Rural Residential 1 :20" to "Rural
Residential 1: 10." (FF)
County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW
43.2Ic.01O et seq.) and arrived at a determination of non-significance. (FF)
The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
("DCTED") stated in a letter dated December 1999 that it had no concerns with this amendment.
The County Commissioners decided such a statement constitutes silence on the part of DCTED
with respect to this amendment. (FF)
The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing
on November 17, 1999. (FF)
The Jefferson County Planning Commission determined that rezoning this subj ect
property to RR 1: 10 would not jeopardize the status quo with respect to any adj acent agricultural
or forest resource lands. (FF)
The Jefferson County Planning Commission determined that rezoning this subject
property to RR 1: 1 0 would not jeopardize the status quo with respect to any adj acent residential
lands. (FF)
The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-12 on
January 12, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19,2000. (FF)
The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, recommended that the
County Commissioners approve this amendment. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on
February 9, 2000. (FF)
Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that
they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or
1eamed of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the
public record relating to this amendment. (FF)
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County
Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide
upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open
record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would
decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the
Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 12
did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an
amendment. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-
12 on February 14, 2000. (FF)
The Commissioners find that the real property that is the subject of this Comprehensive
Plan amendment is a region of the County where the largest lot in proximity to the subject real
property is 9.16 acres, which is less than the proposed RR 1: 1 0 (one dwelling unit per 10 acres)
zoning that is requested in this amendment. (FF)
The County Commissioners and the County's planners have jointly reached the
conclusion that designation of the subject parcel at RR I :20 was the result of an erroneous
interpretation of the rural area criteria as applied to this parcel. (CL)
The County Commissioners, upon the written advice of the County planners, decided that
approval of this amendment would support LNP 3.3.2 of the County's Comprehensive Plan
because the lot in question can be up zoned to RR 1: 1 0 since the lots nearby are between 1.83
acres in size and about 9 acres in size. (CL)
With respect to this particular amendment, the statements provided by the County
Commissioners at the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote
on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance offaimess" doctrine. (CL)
Determining this Comprehensive Plan amendment conforms with the Growth
Management Act, the County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve it. (CL)
Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00
Page 13
CP A #013 (Bailey) Findines of Fact. Conclusions of Law:
The amendment would change the zoning of approximately 200 acres located between
Cape George Road and South Discovery Road (which includes the Chevy Chase golf course)
from "Rural Residential 1: 1 0" to "Rural Residential 1:5." (FF)
County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW
43.2IC.OI0 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF)
This project has probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations,
specifically by mandating a transportation study, a storm water management plan and a Critical
Aquifer Recharge Report at the time when a site-specific application is made to the County's
Department of Community Development. (FF)
The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
wrote to the County in December 1999 recommending rejection of this proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. (FF)
The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing
on December 1, 1999. (FF)
The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-13 on
January 12,2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19,2000. (FF)
The County Planning Commission, by a bare majority vote of 5-2, voted to recommend
rejection of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (FF)
The two dissenting members ofthe County's Planning Commission provided the County
Commissioners with a "minority report" explaining why, in their joint opinion, this amendment
should be approved. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony regarding this amendment at
their public hearings on February 9 and 10, 2000. (FF)
Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that
they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or
learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the
public record relating to this amendment. (FF)
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County
Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide
upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open
record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would
decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the
Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they
.'
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 14
did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an
amendment. (FF)
Some dozen or so persons provided oral testimony with respect to this amendment at the
public hearing held before the County Commissioners. This testimony reflected both support for
and opposition to this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. (FF)
The public record regarding this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is also
extensive and includes documents advocating both approval and rejection of this amendment.
(FF)
The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-
13 on February 14, 2000. (FF)
While the Baileys' holdings of some 195-200 acres are denominated as several parcels,
all of those parcels are held in fee simple title by the applicants and have one common use at
present, the Chevy Chase golf course. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners 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. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners finds that the ambiguous language ofLNP 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. (FF)
The County Commissioners make the finding of fact listed above because of 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. (FF)
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 both the Johnston proposal (CPA 99-04)
and the Hilton proposal (CPA 99-12). (FF)
The County Commissioners stated that in July and August of 1998, prior to the enactment
of the County's Comprehensive Plan, they and the staff of the County's Department of
Community Development were required to examine some 40 sites throughout the county to
determine what zoning (e.g., should it be zoned at RR 1:5, RR 1:10 or RR 1:20) would be
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 15
appropriate for those sites. Some of these 40 sites involved multiple Assessor's parcels in single
or unified ownership. Some of these 40 sites involved a single parcel with (obviously) single
ownership. In each case the Commissioners examined and considered the zoning density that
had been applied to adjacent lots and parcels. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners received evidence from the County's planning staff
(Department of Community Development) that approximately 4/5ths of the lots that surround or
touch upon the Bai1eys' tracts are five acres or less in size. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners received evidence from the County's plmming staff
(Department of Community Development) that more than 9/10ths of the lots surrounding or
abutting the Baileys' tracts are ten acres or less in size. (FF)
The County's Comprehensive Plan, more specifically Table 3-2 on page 3-7, included 95
buildable lots at the site of the Baileys' tracts because the Baileys then had pending with the
County a formal development application to subdivide their tracts, which would have permitted
the eventual construction of 95 homes. (FF)
Thus, the County Commissioners took notice when deliberating regarding this
amendment that within the figure found in the column entitled "Existing Supply of Vacant
Buildable Lots of Record" for the Quimper Peninsula (again see Table 3-2 on page 3-7) that
figure includes and assumes there are 95 buildable lots on the Baileys' tracts. (FF)
The upzoning of the Baileys' tracts to RR 1:5 would create no more than 40 buildable
lots and thus with respect to the column entitled "Existing Supply of Vacant Buildable Lots of
Record" for the Quimper Peninsula the net result of approving this proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment is to REDUCE the total number of "vacant buildable lots" by approximately 55.
(FF)
The County Commissioners received written testimony from the applicant that the
upzoning of these tracts to RR 1:5 serves to at least, in small part, guarantee the continued
existence of the existing use, the Chevy Chase Golf Course, a golf course open for the public's
use which is also a source of employment and tourism dollars. (FF)
There has been a golf course in continuous operation at the Chevy Chase site for some 75
years, or three-quarters of a century. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners concludes that if one assumes that this specific
Comprehensive Plan amendment will be enacted, it should be noted that Jefferson County will
continue to have a variety of rural residential densities, i.e., RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20. (FF)
This proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, to the extent that it serves, in any
manner, to preserve and maintain the existing golf course known as Chevy Chase at the site of
this proposed amendment, also serves to promote and further goal 9 (encourage the development
of recreational opportunities) of the Growth Management Act as codified at RCW
36.70A020(9). (CL)
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 16
Adoption of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment may serve, in some manner,
to preserve the Chevy Chase golf course which has been in continuous existence for 75 years at
the site that is the subject of this amendment, and preservation of that golf course serves to
support planning goal #13 ("historic preservation") listed in the Growth Management Act and
codified at RCW 36.70A.020(13). (CL)
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 methodoloy they used
when analyzing and deciding upon the resolution of the distinct Johnston and Hilton
amendments. (CL)
The Board of County Commissioners concludes that because some 4/5thS of the abutting
and adjacent lots contain some five acres or less and that ratio increases to above ninety per cent
(90 %) when the cut-off size is increased to ten acres or less, that as a matter of fairness, i.e. in
order to not act in an "arbitrary and discriminatory" manner towards these applicants, the land in
question should be rezoned to RR 1 :5, i.e., one dwelling unit per five acres. To the extent that
such a decision to rezone to RR 1:5 promotes fairness for the applicants as landowners, then goal
#6 (property rights) of the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.020(6) has
been promoted. (CL)
The Board of County Commissioners, sitting in their quasi-judicial capacity with respect
to this specific Comprehensive Plan amendment, 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. (C1.)
The County Commissioners conclude that after the enactment of this proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment there remains extant in Jefferson County a 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. (CL)
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. (CL)
The County Commissioners conclude, pursuant to relevant decisions of the Westem
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. (CL)
The Commissioners find that this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would serve
to reduce by at least 55 the number of excess buildable lots for the Quimper Peninsula as
tabulated in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. While the tabulations for the Quimper Peninsula
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 17
included the 95 residences the Baileys then intended to build at the Chevy Chase golf course, the
Bai1eys would be, with this amendment, now eligible to build at most 39 or 40 residences.
Reducing the official number of buildable lots located within the unincorporated portion of
Jefferson County (as opposed to what is listed in the Comprehensive Plan table) serves to
promote and further goal 2 (the reduction of low-density sprawl) of the Growth Management Act
as codified at RCW 36.70A020(2). (CL)
The specific interpretation of LNP ("land use policy") 3.3.1 undertaken by the
Commissioners in examining this Comprehensive Plan Amendment (as well as the amendments
separately proposed by Johnston and Hilton) does nothing more than implement and follow the
plain language of LNG ("land use goal") 3.0 found in the Comprehensive Plan, which mandates
that any land use decisions should be made in such a way to "ensure that rural residential
development preserves rural character, protects rural community identity [and] is compatible
with surrounding land uses." This land use goal includes the word "surrounding" and the
Commissioners considered that in deciding how they should interpret and utilize the ambiguous
LNP. (CL)
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by
the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had
the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of
fairness" doctrine. (CL)
Determining that this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment conforms with the
Growth Management Act, a majority of the County Board ofCornmissioners voted to approve it.
(CL)
"
'.
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 18
CPA #014 (Olympic Property Group) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law:
The amendment would change the zoning of Ludlow Point Village Division 2 located
along Paradise Bay Rd in Port Ludlow from MPR-MF ("Master Planned Resort-Multi Family")
to MPR-SF ("Master Planned Resort-Single Family.") (FF)
The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
("DCTED") stated in a letter dated December 1999 that it had no concerns with this amendment.
The County Commissioners found that this constitutes tacit approval of the amendment on the
part of DC TED. (FF)
County planners analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EPA (RCW 43.21c.Ol0 et
seq.) and arrived at a determination of non-significance. (FF)
The County's Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public
hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF)
The County's Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-14
on January 12, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19, 2000. (FF)
The Jefferson County Planning Commission concluded that redesignating the real
property that is the subject of this amendment from MPR-MF (Master Planned Resort-Multi
Family) to MPR-SF (Master Planned Resort- Single Family) more accurately reflects the
improvements in existence at present at the site. (FF)
The Jefferson County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the
approval of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on
February 9, 2000. (FF)
There was neither written nor oral testimony on this amendment at the public hearing and
up to the submission deadline of 5 PM on February 11,2000 for written materials. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-
14 on February 14, 2000. (FF)
Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that
they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or
learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the
public record relating to this amendment. (FF)
Regarding this particular amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the
open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment
without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would decide on
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 19
this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence
presented and the applicable criteria found in the Plan. The individual Commissioners also
stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this
particular application for an amendment. (FF)
The impact of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is to limit the potential
intensity of the lots in question, since it would only pennit a less intense use, specifically single-
family homes rather than multi-family dwellings. (FF)
Twelve of the fourteen lots involved in this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment
presently have single family homes located on them. (FF)
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is in compliance with and would further
the Growth Management Act because it reflects the actual developed intensity of the lots within
Ludlow Point Village Division 2. (CL)
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by
the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had
the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of
fairness" doctrine. (CL)
Because the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would neither alter the
population forecasts as they are found within the Plan nor alter the allocated non-urban
population distribution, this amendment is in compliance with the Growth Management Act.
Thus, this amendment was unanimously approved by the County Commissioners as being in
confonnance with the Growth Management Act. (CL)
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 20
CPA #018 (Public Works) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law:
This is a "text" amendment. If this amendment were adopted, the Utilities Element
would be amended to add goals and policies implementing UTP 8.1: "Promote the wide spread
availability of telecommunications technologies in cooperation with other public and private
entities, to facilitate communication among members of the public, public institutions and
businesses." (FF)
County planners reviewed this proposal pursuant to the State EPA (RCW 43.21c.OIO et
seq.) and arrived at a determination of non-significance. (FF)
The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
("DCTED") stated in a letter dated December 1999 that it had no concerns with this amendment.
Silence from DCTED, the Commissioners concluded, provides them with discretion to decide as
they feel is appropriate. (FF)
The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing
on November 17, 1999. (FF)
The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-18 on
December I and formulated findings on December 15, 1999. (FF)
The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by a 7-1 vote with one abstention, voted to
recommend approval of this amendment. (FF)
The Board took public testimony at a hearing on February 9, 2000. (FF)
Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that
they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or
learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the
public record relating to this amendment. (FF)
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County
Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide
upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open
record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would
decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the
Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated that they did not hold any
financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application. (FF)
There was neither oral testimony nor written testimony from the citizens with respect to
this amendment either at the public hearing or until the submission deadline for written
testimony, the close of business on February 11,2000. (FF)
The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-
18 on February 14,2000. (FF)
Exhibit A to Resolution No.
27-00
Page 21
Jefferson County, because much of the county has low (or rural) population densities, is
considered a "high cost" region by the various businesses and firms that provide
telecommunications services for the Olympic Peninsula. (FF)
Adoption of this amendment would make the "Action Plan Principles, Goals and
Strategies" of the "Jefferson County Technical Advisory Steering Committee" part of the
Comprehensive Plan and by doing so furthers and implements UTG ("utilities,
telecommunications goal") 8.0 of the Comprehensive Plan. (CL)
Adoption of this amendment would make the "Action Plan Principles, Goals and
Strategies" of the "Jefferson County Technical Advisory Steering Committee" part of the
Comprehensive Plan and by doing so furthers and implements UTP ("utilities,
telecommunications policy") 8.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. (CL)
Only through "aggregating" the broad-based information technology needs of this
county, work that can be promoted and encouraged by the Jefferson County Technical Advisory
Steering Committee, can the citizens and businesses of this County put themselves in the "best
position for future negotiations and partnership with [the] telecommunications and cable
television industries." This unified planning strategy is most consistently represented in the
document entitled "Action Plan Principles, Goals and Strategies," the specific document that this
amendment would fom1ally make part of this Comprehensive Plan. (CL)
With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by
the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had
the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of
fairness" doctrine. (CL)
Acting in their legislative capacity, and finding that the proposed amendment is in
conformance with the Growth Management Act, the Board of County Commissioners
unanimously voted to approve this amendment. (CL)