The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM111405 District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of November 14, 2005 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David W. Sullivan and Commissioner Patrick M. Rodgers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the minutes of November 7,2005 as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the statistics for the Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center at the Quilcene Ranger Station on Highway 101 were presented to the Board showing over 30,000 tourists visiting from May to October; the residents of Port Ludlow are beginning to focus on the need for broader medical and health services located in their community; and the County needs to work with the businesses on Highway 101 at Discovery Bay. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT Amendment No.1 re: Developmental Disabilities Community Access Services; Jefferson County Public Health; Concerned Citizens of Forks 2. AGREEMENT re: Developmental Disability Educational and Therapeutic Services for South Jefferson County Families and their Children Age Birth to Three (3) Years; Jefferson County Public Health; Concerned Citizens of Forks 3. AGREEMENT NO. 2006-715, Interagency re: Project Management for the Castle Hill Annex Improvements; Jefferson County Central Services; Washington State Department of General Administration 4. AGREEMENT re: Pavement Marking on Various County Roadways in 2005, Project No. 180542 1692; Jefferson County Public Works; Apply-A-Line Page I Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14,2005 .',','''''0, ~.. ':,,~i If.; <....;i,. ~"" -I'fl"('\ .. 5. BID AWARD re: Courthouse Site and Landscape Project; Jefferson County Central Services; Lakeside Industries 6. Advisory Board Reappointment; Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; Two (2) Year Term Expiring October 24,2007; Rick Tollefson HEARING re: 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing and read the hearing procedures. Josh Peters, Senior Planner, explained that there are nine site specific applications on the docket and an amendment for proposed changes to the land use map and text corrections in the Comprehensive Plan. Kyle Aim, Assistant Planner, gave a brief description of each amendment and noted the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Staff. MLA05-39 Applicant: Nelson/Monroe; To rezone an approximately 16.47 acre parcel in the Dabob Valley near Quilcene from RR 1:20 (1 dwelling unit to 20 acres) to RR 1:5 (1 dwelling unit to 5 acres.) The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve the amendment and the Staff recommendation is to deny the amendment. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA05-39. Claudia Monroe, Quilcene, submitted and read her statement into the record. (See permanent record.) Hearing no further comments for or against MLA05-39, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the amendment. MLA05-51 Applicant: Kirkpatrick/Skurdal; To rezone an approximately 20 acre parcel on the west side ofthe Coyle Peninsula from RR 1:20 (I dwelling unit to 20 acres) to RR 1:5 (I dwelling unit to 5 acres.) The Planning Commission recommendation is approval for RR 1 :20 to RR I: 10 without conditions. The Staff recommendation is to deny the amendment to go from RR 1 :20 to RR 1:5. Staff had originally suggested that if there was to be a rezone, an alternative recommendation would be RR 1: 1 0 with the condition of the Planned Rural Residential Development. The PRRD was not a condition of either final recommendation. The Chair opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on MLA05-51. Hearing no comments for or against MLA05-51, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the amendment. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14,2005 MLA05-59 Applicant: Olympic Property Group (OPG); To rezone an approximately 40 acre parcel near Shine on the north side ofSR 104 from RR 1:10 (1 dwelling unit to 10 acres) to RR 1:5 (1 dwelling unit to 5 acres.) The Planning Commission recommendation was to approve. The Staff recommendation was to approve. The Chair opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on MLA05-59. Jon Rose, representing Olympic Property Group, noted that he is available to answer any questions that the Board might have. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA05-59, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the amendment. MLA05-60 Applicant: Olympic Property Group (OPG); To rezone approximately 25 I acres just east of Port Ludlow at Tala Point from RR 1:20 (1 dwelling unit to 20 acres) to RR 1:5 (1 dwelling unit to 5 acres.) The Planning Commission has recommended approval. The Staff recommendation is to deny. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA05-60. Jon Rose, representing Olympic Property Group, stated that OPG owns 40,000 acres in the County. They are requesting density changes on 400 acres because they feel that a different landuse designation on these parcels would be more appropriate and reflect good community planning and good real estate practices. Tala Point is directly across the bay from Port Ludlow. In the original master plan for Port Ludlow, proposed in 1968, the landing strip was to be located there; and at some point, the company gave up ownership of 200 acres to the DNR. OPG wants to focus their efforts in locations where they can add population or densities that could be supported. This application is to rezone 250 acres from 1 dwelling unit to 20 acres to I dwelling unit to 5 acres. This would add density in an area that will have the most beneficial impact and the least impact on demand for services and unnecessary road building, etc. This area has been developing for the past 30 years and adjacent to it there is almost an urban level of service. It is a mile to the fire station and the general store, and there is a four star golf course and retirement community close by. All ofthe community amenities and services are within a mile or two. To keep the property in 20 acre lots is inefficient. Paradise Bay Road services the general area and East Ludlow Ridge Road services a development of3-5 acre lots at the end of Tala Point. The proposed zoning doesn't create a conflict with other surrounding land uses because it is adjacent to a Master Planned Resort (MPR) that has an average lot size in the residential area of 10,000 square feet. Five acres meets the GMA requirements for a lot size in a rural area and the property is surrounded by 5 acre lots. The waterfront on the peninsula, which surrounds 3 sides of this property, is already divided into lots that create an average density of 4 acres. OPG would put in a community well for the development; and depending on the study, they may be able to work with other Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14, 2005 .",~,,,,,,,,, ;' ."" ~ . -: - 1'\lll ,,(,\~' residents in the area on water rights. They plan to overbuild the well. One argument that has been presented against the amendment was that once an area is upzoned, upzoning would continue to other areas. Jefferson County has always controlled its' destiny regarding landuse. This area would have the most positive impact if density is added, especially because of the highend taxbase. There will be some clustering on the property because of the topography. They would feel comfortable if the Board wanted to condition the approval so that OPG would not be able to come in with another request for upzoning to the south of the property for another 5-10 years. Nancy Dorgan, representing the Olympic Environmental Council (OEC), submitted and read their statement into the record regarding all the rural residential upzone applications and the comments specifically for MLA05-60. (See permanent record.) Hearing no further comments for or against MLA05-60, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the amendment. MLA05-06 Applicant: McDiehl LLC; To rezone a 0.89 acre site located at the northeast corner of Osprey Ridge and Oak Bay Roads in Port Ludlow from MPR (Master Plan Resort) Residential to MPR Village Commercial Center. The Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on MLA05-06. Nancy Dorgan, representing the Olympic Environmental Council (OEC), read their statement into the record regarding MLA05-06. (See permanent record.) Jon Rose, stated that the Olympic Property Group has no interest in this property, but they were instrumental in setting up the Master Plan Resort (MPR). A MPR is recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as a stand alone landuse designation that is neither urban or rural. The LAMIRD conversation doesn't bear relevance to property inside the Port Ludlow MPR because the MPR designation is very different than a LAMIRD designation. The reason this property wasn't designated commercial when the MPR was first set up is because the landowner never showed an interest in designating it as commercial property. If you visit the property today, you can sit at a gas station and look around at a bank site, a high density Trendwest site, and another commercial site. It isn't an appropriate location for a residence because it is in the middle of a crossroads. The Board always has the discretion to rethink what was legislated in 1998 and there is no such thing as "final" when it comes to Comprehensive Plans. This is a 20 year plan that is supposed to be dynamic and changing and not something that stays static. The land capacity is supposed to serve the need so even ifthere may be a surplus oflots today, it may not be that way in 20 years. Page 4 ------l -- Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14,2005 '~';:"c~'" , '", ",';," i :;'.,< ...'....\:: 1t(;'II; I';":"~"" Hearing no further comments for or against MLA05-06, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the amendment. MLA05-53 Applicant: Widell; To rezone an approximately 6.10 acre site on the west side of SR 20 adjacent to the Glen Cove LAMIRD from RR 1:5 (1 dwelling unit to 5 acres) to Light IndustriaVCommercial. The Planning Commission recommendation was to approve. The Staff recommendation was to deny. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA05-53. Hearing no comments for or against MLA05-53, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the amendment. MLA05-70 Applicant: Pepper; To rezone an I I acre parcel at the northeast intersection of Four Corners Road and SR 20 from RR 1:10 (1 dwelling unit to 10 acres) to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood Crossroads). The Planning Commission recommendation was to approve. The Staff recommendation was to deny. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on MLA05-70. Chairman Johnson disclosed that he built a house for the applicant 10 years ago. Kelly Delaat-Naher, Attorney for Pam Pepper, stated that she emailed testimony to the Commissioners today and also sent a comment letter dated August 24, 2005. She urged the Board to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation. Ms. Pepper seeks to rezone 11 acres from RR I: 10 to a Rural Commercial Neighborhood Crossroads and inclusion in the Four Corners LAMIRD. The property is virtually surrounded by the requested zoning. There are commercial uses present to the south, southwest, and west ofthe property that include the Four Corners Gas Station and Store, a mobile home park, Stan the Movers, an auto repair shop, a Puget Sound Energy service facility, a nursery, a mini-storage, a regional distribution center for United Parcel, and more. A change in zoning will not significantly affect the area. Ms. Pepper has indicated that one of the uses that she has contemplated for the location is senior housing which is allowable under the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA. Pursuant to RCW36.70(A).070, undeveloped lands can be included in a LAMIRD as long as certain provisions are followed that are outlined under the statute including preservation of the character ofthe existing natural neighborhood and community. This change in designation will preserve the neighborhood. There already are commercial uses. This property is one corner of an intersection that already has commercial use. In addition, the physical boundaries need to be considered. The property is the southeast corner of an intersection where there are already commercial uses and it is a natural boundary for the LAMIRD. In preventing abnormally irregular boundaries, the same reasoning applies, this is an intersection where two corners already have commercial uses and the other Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14,2005 ~'''''''''' i .1':'i;-~ "f\I;'r~("('''' corner is vacant. Changing the designation of this property will not permit low density sprawl when providing public facilities and services. In the August 3, 2005 staff report, criteria outlined under the UDC is vague: Has there been a substantial change in circumstances? Has there been an assumption on which the Comprehensive Plan is based that is no longer valid? Is the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Act and Jefferson County's rules and regulations? This change in zoning does not run afoul of those considerations. As outlined in the Planning Commission's recommendation, this is consistent. Infill of property is allowable into a LAMIRD. The logical outer boundary of a LAMIRD should be structured to allow for infill and under the Four Corner's LAMIRD, there is currently no infill. Allowing the property into this designation will not run afoul ofthe Growth Management Act or the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. One ofthe changes that has occurred, as outlined in the Planning Commission's report, is a need for senior housing in Jefferson County. One major issue that hasn't been mentioned is the choice ofthis site for Jefferson Transit Authority headquarters. At some point, the zoning of the property is going to change, either as a conditional use permit or a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Ms. Pepper's proposed use is less intense than the proposed Jefferson Transit headquarters. Nancy Dorgan, representing the Olympic Environmental Council (OEC), read their statement into the record regarding expansion ofLAMIRDs and specifically MLA05-70. (See permanent record.) She added that the Jefferson Transit proposal would not require a rezone as an Essential Public Facility. Kellv Delaat-Naher, Attorney for Pam Pepper, added that this is not the applicant's first application for a rezone. When she purchased the property, it was designated commercial but the designation was changed prior to 1997 which is when she submitted her first application for a rezone to commercial. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the County Commissioners sit on the Jefferson Transit Board. Commissioner Rodgers added that the Transit Board has made the decision to site the Transit headquarters on the Pepper property. Phil Andrus, Chimacum, stated that he was on the Planning Commission in 1998 when this property was discussed at great length. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended that it not be designated as commercial. He is familiar with the area and doesn't know of any changes that have taken place at Four Corners since that time. There isn't a lot in common with Four Corners and other commercial areas such as Chimacum because only one corner at Four Corners is an active commercial area. The mini-storage is as active as mini-storages tend to be. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA05-70, the Chair closed the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on the amendment. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14,2005 el;2',',".".,""',. ....... "-...;.1 :::' :::;: -t'f ., ,". ,-,- .1//,,,(,\ MLA05-61 Applicant: Olympic Property Group (OPG); To rezone three parcels comprising approximately 158 acres near Shine on the north side ofSR 104 from CF 1:80 (Commercial Forestland; 1 dwelling to 80 acres) to a combination ofRR 1:10 (1 dwelling unit to 10 acres) and RR 1:5 (1 dwelling unit to 5 acres.) The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve. The Staff recommendation is to deny. (Re-zone only the portion ofthe subject area that is within the final boundary of the water service area to RR 1 :20) Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA05-61. Phil Andrus, spoke against the idea of rezoning a portion of the property because of the inclusion of the water service area. There have been 4 amendments to upzone from I :20 to 1:5 today. His recommendation is that all of the commercial forest land stay in the Commercial Forest Land designation. Jon Rose, OPG, stated that when the company did the Bywater Bay development in the late 1980's, they over built the water system to support all of the lands in that area that they thought would reasonably change from Commercial Forest Lands to some other designation over the long term. They gave the well to the PUD and ran a line across DNR property to service the Bywater Bay area. It seemed logical that the area would grow over time, and so they reserved a number of taps. There are about 50 taps remaining. This property has been part of a planning process for many years and the water service area is very relevant because they put the hard costs in the ground to develop that system. Nancy Dorgan, representing the Olympic Environmental Council (OEC), stated that this is the really big one as far as the OEC is concerned. OEC was involved in successfully appealing the County's original inadequate Forest Resource Land designations. OEC is adamant that the current compliant designation is not converted to Rural Residential. They concur with the August 3 staff report that any such rezone ''would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan." There is a policy in the Natural Resources Protection Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan that says, "Prohibit the subdivision of designated forest lands for residential purposes, except for lands that have been designated as forest transition overlays." She noted the 2002 changes that created the forest transition overlay and said that they only refer to some small parcels south of Brinn on. The remainder of her testimony was read from the letter that was submitted from the OEC. (See permanent record.) She added that the water service area history in this area remains unclear and OEC is requesting that the comment period for this particular amendment be extended to give staff the opportunity to add the history to the record. She also included maps of the PUD' s Bywater Bay Water System service area changes that were adopted in 2004. She noted that DCD did not comment on those changes on the record during the process and now they are saying that the existence of this water service area is the basis for their recommending a partial rezone. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA05-61, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the amendment. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14,2005 i"i:-...t~' rr-~r. MLA05-38 Applicant: Hopkins/Barber Family Associates; To rezone an approximately 90 acre site on the Coyle Peninsula from Commercial Forest (CF) I :80 (I dwelling unit to 80 acres) to Rural Residential 1 :20 (1 dwelling unit to 20 acres.) The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve. The Staff recommendation is denial. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on MLA05-38. Phil Andrus, reiterated that he was on the Planning Commission in 1998 and was involved in planning issues prior to that time. Ever since the Growth Management Act was passed and the County began implementing the forest land protection aspects, forest land owners have generally wished to convert and argued against those protections. Historically, timberland has been a source of economic vitality for the County, and it will continue to be in the future. It is of utmost importance that all of the forest lands that are designated as commercial forest land continue in that designation. Jim Lindsay, Seattle, stated that he represents the Barber family. (See permanent record for submitted statement.) They believe this property was inadvertently designated as Commercial Forest Land in 1998 through a mapping error or poor interpretation of data. They have provided staffwith information to demonstrate that the soils do not meet the most significant criteria to designate a Commercial Forest Land of long term economic significance. This means it has to have some commercial value over a very long period oftime. The best way to determine forest land oflong term commercial significance is to use the best available science (BAS) which is the 1975 Jefferson County Soil Survey. This document contains soil ratings for all woodland groups to show how productive a soil type is for a particular woodland and its ability to produce wood on that soil. He referred to Table I of his handout. Ofthe 90 acre parcel, 62% is rated at low to very low productivity and 6% has no productivity. The remaining 32% of the site has medium to high productivity; but that soil type contains Type 5 and 4 waters and is within 200 feet of the shoreline so it can't be logged. If a piece of property can't be logged, how can it be commercially viable? There has been a lot of confusion about how the original forest land grade maps were created with the current site classes. This data was used to create the PFLG file in 1980 by the Department of Revenue for forest taxation. There is also a MET A file of site classes to define riparian zones. No one has ever questioned the validity ofthe information and it is the best available science. There are 2 definitions of site class, one is found in WAC 222-19-010. (See permanent record.) He pointed out a memorandum from Sue Casey, Policy Analyst for DNR (See permanent record.), stating exactly what the META files are used for and how the site classes were derived. There is also a lot of confusion about Ross Goodwin's memo (See permanent record.) and whether the DNR felt this land was productive soil. Goodwin based his analysis on information provided in a forest practices application. He made some wrong calculations. It is a 90 acre site. 730,000 board feet come out of it and that is an average of8,111 board feet per acre, not 18,000 board feet per acre. He made a mistake in his interpretation because he thought they only logged 40 acres of the site in 1997 when the 90 acres were logged. This land is not forest land of commercial long term significance. The site is characterized by very steep slopes, there is an established pattern of lots to the north Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14, 2005 e',',~:',\,',','" f;'-'\_-~ +", 'C'," ..~ '\llr..,,\ and south of it, RR 1:5 and RR 1 :20 and it is bordered on the east by Hood Canal. He asked that the Board approve the Planning Commission's recommendation. Under current rules, not even half of the site could be logged because of the environmentally sensitive areas. Nancy Dorgan, representing the Olympic Environmental Council (OEC) read their statement into the record regarding MLA05-38. (See permanent record.) Phil Andrus, reiterated that he supports keeping timberland as timberland. He is opposed to conversions. If the soil classes were solely used in East Jefferson County to determine commercial forest land, very little commercial forest would be designated. However, these soils do grow trees. If this property is too steep for growing trees, it is too steep for residential development. Jim Lindsay, responded to Nancy Dorgan's comment and noted that this property was under the ownership of Barber Family Associates long before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Mr. Barber is a commercial real estate developer. He holds large tracts of timberland in the County that he has cut and reforested and he has done a good job of managing these forests. He isn't asking to increase the density on the property. There are only 4 residential locations that can be developed on 105 acres. A lot ofthe land in East Jefferson County is not good land for commercial forestry. This shouldn't be a way of "bottling up" someone's property and zoning it RR 1:80. If the designation would have been done correctly, the zoning would have been 1 :20. The Planning Commission spent a great deal oftime reviewing the data to evaluate whether this property is good commercial forest land. Phil Andrus, stated that when forest land was designated in Eastern Jefferson County, it was well known that there was some Class 3, and a lot of Class 4 and 5. The decision was made at that time that the land so classified was perfectly suitable for growing commercial timber. History proves it, and ifthere was a way to pull the numbers for how much wealth has been taken offthe ground in East Jefferson County, the number would be mammoth. The soils aren't as good as the soils in the west end ofthe County but they are certainly suitable. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA05-38, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the amendment. MLA05-66 Applicant: Jefferson County; Suggested amendments for Comprehensive Plan housekeeping involving map anomalies and text and table corrections. The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve. The Staff recommendation is to approve. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14,2005 e~""'.';"',' ;"'..j "1""".". '\llp..('\~ Assistant Planner Kyle Aim stated that this consists ofleftover zoning applications from local agriculture lands and there were several small parcels identified by the GIS Technician that weren't designated on the map. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA05-66. Hearing no comments for or against MLA05-66, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the amendment. Nancy Dorgan asked the Board to keep the record open for MLA05-61 to give staff a chance to supplement their staff report with information regarding the water system service area. Jim Hagan, Planning Commission Chair, asked if it would be appropriate to reopen the public testimony on MLA05-51 because the applicants have arrived? The Chair reopened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA05-51. Linda Skurdel, stated that she and Steve Kirkpatrick own the property. They originally applied for the 1:5 (1 dwelling unit for 5 acres) but they both agree that 1:10 (1 dwelling unit for 10 acres) is acceptable. A condition of approval could be a cluster designation because that is what they want to do with the property. Jim Hagan pointed out on a map that clustering techniques would still be available at I: I O. There was some confusion but clustering is still present with the 1: I 0 split. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA05-51, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Sullivan stated that there was a request to keep the record open on MLA05-61 regarding the water service area. Josh Peters explained that the next step in the process is for the Board to deliberate on the proposals. Staffwill be drafting an ordinance to reflect the Board's decisions. It isn't necessary to extend the public hearing for staffto generate more information, because staff can do this outside ofthe public hearing process. Regarding the water system service issue, staff has already submitted information from the PUD and the Department of Health with added documents, notes, and maps, the Hearings Examiner's decision from 1997, and the final letter that established the boundary. He is unsure about what other information is necessary. Commissioner Rodgers noted that the presentations and information from applicants and the Planning Commission hearings and minutes has produced a total product that is as good as it gets from beginning to end. He doesn't know what additional information they would gain on MLA05-061. Staff seems to think that the Board has the information or access to it. Commissioner Sullivan asked Nancy Dorgan what specific information she found lacking in the record that the Board needs? She answered that her request Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 14, 2005 ,~"""o, "'.'1"')t, :;0'::--"'-'- "-(\l{\~'~:'''~'''' was that the record be kept open, not that the public hearing be kept open. She added that the staff report stated that the history on the water service area was unclear. What was unclear to staff? Commissioner Rodgers stated that he would like to close the public record unless the other Board members are unclear on MLA05-061. Commissioner Rodgers moved to close the public record and the hearing. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a urlanimous vote. Community Development Director Al Scalf noted that the Board needs to schedule approximately two hours on their agenda to deliberate on each amendment in consideration ofthe Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Rodgers moved to schedule 2 hours on the Board's agenda on Monday, November 21. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (liLu I(~ CYllL Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board (j{JvL---- Phil J o~~n, Chair l ~ jJ // Dav#~Z:~ ~~ Page II cc: ~CD JO/:2-~/()S TO: Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader [legals@ptleader.com] LEGAL NOTICE Please publish one (1) time: Wednesday, November 2, 2005 in 7-pointfont BILL: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend W A 98368 (Josh D. Peters; 360-379-4466) DATE: Monday, October 31, 2005 [Deadline: Monday 3:00 PM] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON THE 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for Jefferson County will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 14,2005 to take oral comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments under consideration as part of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. The hearing will occur at 2:00 PM in the BoCC Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1821 Jefferson St., Port Townsend. Following are brief descriptions of each of the nine (9) proposed site-specific amendments to the map of Comprehensive Plan land use designations and the one (1) set of suggested amendments to correct map and text anomalies. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for and Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) for reference. Each amendment has a County Department of Community Development (oCD) staff recommendation arid a County Planning Commission (PC) recommendation (see Availability of Documents below). Site Specific Amendments: 1. MLA05-06 proposed by McDiel LLC (APN 821117005): Rezone a 0.89-acre site located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Osprey Ridge and Oak Bay roads in Port Ludlow from MPR Residential to MPR Village Commercial Center. 2. MLA05-38 proposed by Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP (APN 601224001): Rezone an approximately 90-acre site on the Coyle Peninsula from Commercial Forest (CF) 1 :80 to Rural Residential (RR) 1 :20. 3. MLA05-39 proposed by Elizabeth K. Nelson & Claudia Monroe (APN 801213014): Rezone an approximately 16.47-acre parcel in the Dabob Valley near Quilcene from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 to permit division into two parcels and development of an additional building site. 4. MLA05-51 proposed by Steven G. Kirkpatrick & Linda J. Skurdal (APN 601031007): Rezone an approximately 20-acre parcel on the west side ofthe Coyle Peninsula from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. 5. MLA05-53 proposed by Kevin Widell (APN 001212001): Rezone an approximately 6.10-acre site on the west side of SR 19 adjacent to the Glen Cove Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) from RR 1:5 to Light Industrial/Commercial. 6. MLA05-59 proposed by Olympic Property Group (OPO) (APN 821343005): Rezone an approximately 40-acre parcel near Shine on the north side of SR 104 from RR 1 :20 to RR 1:5. 7. MLA05-60 proposed by Olympic Property Group (OPO) (APN 821152001): Rezone an approximately 251-acre area just east of Port Ludlow, which is divided into seven separate parcels, from RR 1 :20 to RR 1: 5. 8. MLA05-61 proposed by Olympic Property Group (OPG) (APNs 821332001, 821331005 and 821331001): Rezone three (3) parcels comprising approximately 158 acres near Shine on the north side ofSR 104 from CF 1:80 to a combination ofRR 1:10 and RR 1:5 (approximately 79 acres in each designation). 9. MLA05-70 proposed by Pamela Pepper (APN 001332009): Rezone an 11 acre parcel at the northeast intersection of Four Corners Road and SR 20 from RR 1:10 to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood Crossroads). Suggested Amendment: 10. MLA05-66 proposed by Jefferson Courity: Comprehensive Plan housekeeping amendments involving map anomalies and text and table corrections. Public Comment Period: The BOCC will accept oral comment on each proposal at the public hearing November 14 and written comment from November 2 until the close of the public hearing. Written comments on the proposals may be submitted to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368; via email toplanning@co.iefferson.wa.us; or delivered to the BoCC at the public hearing. Legislative Decision: The BoCC is expected to approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny each of these proposed amendments anytime between the November 14 public hearing and the BoCC Regular Agenda on Monday, December 12, 2005. BoCC meeting agendas are available on the County website. Availability of Documents: For more information or to inspect or request copies of the original applications for the proposed amendments, memoranda describing the DCD and Planning Commission recommendations, DCD staff reports and memoranda to the Planning Commission, previously submitted public comments on the proposals, and existing environmental documents or other related information, contact DCD Long-Range Planning at the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where documents and notices are posted in Portable Document Format. The 2005 Docket webpage can be accessed through the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us. Approved this 24th day of October, 2005. qa q. fJ.;.~ John Fischbach, County Administrator On behalf of Phil Johnson, BoCC Chair 2 CC: "Dc '\) 5 II'N: ?l~CC , /I 10 L"J Nr<L5f'\f'(~. . ~ ,.". ~tfL"\~ (}~be h N IsonJCI di dE. M ?"J,,,", \~ c;<,; 'I;:{~~~'~ t e au a an rlc onroe """ ~, ", .. '<' ,t , ' ,. ir ~~\",~ \\,,'e;P 1801 Dabob Rd. \i. .:t, ~>~ - .~-- ;,',' -!~. ~ ;., 'r"', .,- ~,< <;1'; Quilcene, W A 98376 (360)732-4624 12 November 2005 To: Board of Count Commissioners From: Elizabeth Nelson/Eric and Claudia Monroe Re: MLA05-39 Nelson/Monroe Dear BoCC Members, We are applying for a rezone of approximately 16 acres in Dabob Valley, near Quilcene. from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Currently, on this parcel, there is a single-family residence in which Elizabeth Nelson and her husband reside. The rezone would allow their daughter and son-in-law, Claudia and Eric Monroe, to build a home on the eastern 8 acres, which would provide for a 4th generation family on the original homestead. The parcel in question is a portion of the homestead acreage of one of three centennial farms located in Jefferson County. Throughout the years the farm has been divided into several smaller parcels allowing many members, making up several generations of the family, to reside on portions of the original farm.! Both Eric and Claudia were raised in Jefferson County, graduated from Quilcene High School, went away to attend college, and then chose to return to Jefferson County to live and work. Claudia has been employed by Mobilisa Inc. of Port Townsend for 2 1/2 years while Eric works for Nieman Construction operating out of Quilcene. It is the wish of Claudia and Eric Monroe to share in this heritage by living and raising their family on the land that her ancestors settled. 1 Reference: Letter dated 22 August 2005 to Jefferson County Planning Commission from Elizabeth Nelson and Claudia Monroe. . We agree with the decision of the Jefferson County Planning Commission to approve the application for this rezone. It has been agreed upon by both the planning commission and the DCD staff that this rezone will not have an adverse impact on service for public facilities, transportation, utilities, parks, or environment. We also agree that the subject parcel is suitable for residential use and will not affect the land use and population projections. 2 We agree with the planning commission in their statement that an established pattern of same or similar sized parcels does exist in this area which is consistent with the proposed rezone to RR 1:5 (LNP 3.3.1 a). Though parcels to the North, Northwest, and West are zoned RR 1:20, their actual parcel sizes range from 0.15 acres to 8.92 acres.3 As stated by Jim Hagen4, "Although the parcels to the north and northwest of the parcel are zoned 1:20, the language in the policy states 'parcel size,' not 'zoning designation'." Therefore the rezoning of RR 1:5 and subsequently the division into two 8 acre parcels would fit with the current established pattern of parcels. At the BoCC meeting of 24 October 2005, Jim Hagen said that he had personally counted over 100 parcels of similar size to what we're proposing, in similar situations, in Jefferson County. We believe that these other parcels are indicators that our proposal is reasonable and acceptable and that it falls within already-established standards. We agree with the planning commission and Jim Hagen's statement at the 24 October 2005 BoCC meeting that this proposal is consistent with the GMA goals four and six. These goals state: Goal 4 - Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. Goal 6 - Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. 2 DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum 03 August 2005 pages 2-10 through 2-12 3 Parcel Map MlA05-39 NelsonIMonroe (attached) 4 BoCC Meeting Minutes 24 October 2005 Page 4 Given the information we have shared in this letter and the information in all related documents, both those referenced here and those previously received by you, we respectfully request that the members of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners approve our application, MLA05-39. Sincerely, ~~. Elizabeth Nelson ~ 1f/Dmt<- Oaudia Monroe 5.2 ITEM 2: MLA05-39 NELSON/MONROE N + . .,..~ ",. ;.....; : -, : S:~.. . :' ';':(':.:" ...:..... .~..'....: .'. 20M <.:" ....; o 200 400 ,... - Legend Comprehensive Land Use _ COh~ fcnIt 1:80 MASTER ~ CommeCdIIAG 1:20 l},r~b1 Rural Re&1den1811:20 ~ t.oclIIAG 1:20 _ Rural Fontst 1:40 s-s ..:...... :.~~ :.:. ~:<. :.:",:..:. ........,.... . .:..,....."' ...::-~..~.../.i:":';.::>-.~:.:.::. " 800 1,200 1,600 Feet CC'.1X-q. -~?\I'IF)I/)5 'oeXL '\. V I ''f'' A R .~ Ne~~~ Htl1.' '~~G REf;QDn Proposal: MLA05-38 HopkinslBartier tate ~~Cific. Jefferson County Public Hearing, 11/14/05. Purpose: Combine 3 lots totaling 105 acres and create 4 lots with an average size of 26 acres. StA.b~);1tC'd by: J:vn L.{IQ<5a-Y Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: Designate Forest Land as Forest Land of Long Term Commercial Significance. The applicant believes this property should not have been designated commercial forestry (CF-80), and had this error not have occurred the designation would have been RR 1 :20. What is the best way to determine if a site is FOREST LAND OF LONG TERM COMMERICAL SIGNIFICANCE? · USE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE Best Available Science: Soil Survey Jefferson,Co. Area Washington; U.S. Dept. of Agr. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), August 1975, (See attached tables from SCS soil survey). This is the source data that has been used to create subsequent data files for specific purposes. What does this data tell us about the productivity of Forest Lands? · It defines by soil type the capacity of a soil to produce volumes of wood. What does this data tell us about the Hopkins/Barber property? (See attached table 1 and SCS soils map). There are six soils types on the 90 acre site. · 62% of the site or 56 acres are rated as low to very low productivity for the soils capacity to produce volumes of wood. · 60,'0 of the site or 6 acres has no capacity to produce volumes of wood. · 320/0 of the site or 29 acres are rated as high to medium productivity for the soils capacity to produce volumes of wood. 14 of the 29 acres contain a type IV or V water (stream) and the majority of this area is within 200 feet of the shoreline and cannot be logged. . The site is characterized by steep slopes. THE DATA CLEARLY ILLUSTRATES THIS SITE IS NOT FOREST LAND OF LONG TERM COMMERCIAL SIGNFICANCE. How has this SCS data been used in the past? . Source data for the Private Land Grading System (PFLG) that was developed in 1980 for the purpose of forest land taxation by the Dept. of Revenue. . The META file was created from the PFLG file for the purpose of implementing new Forest Riparian Management rules in 2000. This file is used to determine environmentally sensitive areas that will be protected. The factors used in this file are bank stability, woody debris, leaf litter fall, nutrients, sediment filtering, shade, etc. Site specific maps generated from this file are currently being used by local DNR offices. CONFUSION: With the term "SITE CLASS". (See attached Planning Commission Minutes, 9/21/05). . Soil Conservation Service Definition: A numerical means of expressing the quality of a forest site that is based on the height of the dominant stand at an arbitrarily chosen age and the capacity of a soil to produce volumes of wood. Source: SCS Soil Survey Jefferson Co. Area, WA August 1975. . Dept. of Natural Resources Definition: Means a grouping of site indices that are used to determine the 50 year 1 00 year site class. In order to determine site class, the landowner will obtain the site class index from the state soil survey, place it in the correct index range shown in the two tables provided in this definition, and select the corresponding site class. The site class will then drive the RMZ (Riparian management Zones). See attached WAC definitions. What is the META file used for? . "The META file contains 5 site classes for Western WA is used by DNR Forest Practices specificallv for Riparian Management zones. Each site class has a designated minimum and maximum buffer width which is used to determine the area needed to provide the riparian functions for the aquatic resources and identifies the applicable harvest restrictions for each zone. Site class is defined by Forest Practices rules in WAC 222-16-010 as well as in the Forest and Fish Report which is tied to RCW 76.09. Forest Practice rules apply to state and privately owned land in WA as defined in WAC 222-19-010 "Forest Land". Source: Sue Casey, Policy Analyst, Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA (See attached Email). Confusion with Forest Practices Application, FPA 02-15306 (attached). Also see attached Planning Commission Minutes, 9/21105. How was the information that Ross Goodwin's refers to in his email (attached) to staff was generated? . The information contained in FPA 02-15306 was generated by the applicant (Barber Family Assoc.) . The permit shows that the applicant estimated that 40 acres of trees equaling 730,000 board feet would be removed from the entire 90 acre site. This would yield an average of 8,111 board feet per acre NOT 18,250 BOARD FEET PER ACRE as suggested in Mr. Goodwin's email. The permit has an accompanying map showing the entire site was proposed to be logged. Property should be zoned RR 1:20 for the following reasons: . It is not commercially productive forest land of long term significance. . The site is characterized by very steep slopes. . The area in which the site is located is characterized by an established pattem of smaller lots. The area to the north is zoned RR 1:5 and the area to the south is zoned RR 1 :20. . . The site is bounded on the east by Hood Canal. The vast majority of land (with the exception of one parcel) on the Toandos Peninsula that abuts the salt water is zoned residential not commercial forestry. ATTACHMENTS: JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING PROPSAL: MLA05-38 HOPKINS/BARBER SITE SPECIFIC DATE: 11/14/05 BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE DATA FROM SOIL SURVEY, JEFFERSON CO. WA U.S. DEPT. OF AGR. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, ISSUED AUGUST, 1975 - '0 (I) >- ....Q .!~ .Q .~ ~13 :s ~ Do. U e o II. ~ I e Do. .. c: :;: Q. o :r:: I ~ I/) ~ !~o( .- t '10- o j;, c_ :r:: A- ~~ CD- Q. - 1ft - ~ > 1; .; ! ~ ~ - ... - '0 (I) .. c I A- - .. .. . UQ -C ! >><.- (I)~i ~ >- ! :s (I) '0 (I) . ! c( ! :s o U c o r! I! Q) -, &~.c'E ~ f!c'iCUCD CDCeOCD >c(c>mu. 0( CD - i ~i ~CD)(CU CD~ CD- >(/),,0 <( .E- 'gN' cu- -Q. 8e ~e" 8.- o~ Ci5- =t 0>- (1)1- I/) ! (,) CU .... ..... '# III ..... ~ > U :s 'a e A- s::. Q % " o CO CO ~ ..... J, III ..... N -0 N #. o ." S o ('t) - . - W ;: e (,) CU ." ..... I/) ! (,) CU ~ #. .... ..... '# ~ ~ '> U :s '1:J e A- E :s :s Q) :IE ~ > U . :s .~.~ 'g 1313'" :s:sA- ",,~ eeo Do.A-..J ~~~ 00>_ ..J..J '" ~~IO o .... ." 000 ~~(O ~ .... I III N ..... ." ........0) NN~ ..........e> J,J,- 0)(>> ~ N 'C ('t) NN..... 'CI/)~ ........." 'f1. o ." o - o ('t) #.'f1.'#. 000 C')C')('t) 000 --- Ill."." .... .... .... w .. U UQQ c c .. (I)-a I/) ~ CU III '# (I) ~ > 13 :s '0 e A- o Z - c o z CD C o Z CD C o Z CD C o Z '# o o U .. ! c.I .. o . it o o ... ! I/) I/) ~ - c_:2 0 o 0-- e ..... :;;; I/) c -.!! or> w-.- CD__ ~E~E=~ :I:~'5 tS.,=!cu E-"G) ::s1;)....-1/) CDCD.c ~cuO~~ 1;):aiCD Q.~~I., ~1~ O,2CU'Ci)'.c ...~CD Vi i &1-:: ~.e ~ ~ CD .c ~ 0 .- cu CD cu !cuc~g ';'O=~ _C3.!!.cfj .!!>-cDo. - N ...::s C):t:: is.." '0 en ::-~8.eno ::SCieoO o c I/) E -- O::s 0 ~ ., III .- .c CD 0 CT CU CD ~ 8 ECDliS lD~~i''O .!! S ::s ,,= .c - ... CD ~ CD'O~Ofj i~.2s: en ~ ... 1ii e :s .2 'ia & 1ii ~ g .,.2Si.5 !!cu'gC; 1ii t:.5~tSc cu~icu> ~ '2 .- "C:., I/) CD I/) 1;) a I ~~!~j ~~~~.; g CD '5. tS .!! CD .c c 2:- (,) e o '5.if!c'E ~:iiQ. '0- ECD.c-_ ...e:2~.s (/) ~.Q:~: OCi€s= ~ ~!~it: ~.g~,;~ If ,2.co::'c CCDcuc:cu _ -1/)--00 ce '-"", o ~=e""""- CU::slirno Q. ii.!=~ .&;'g~~ CD ECD!CUEOf! CU-u c .,S g=OCD'!!1iScClS 'ft. Q; I/) 6' ::s cu c ~ en _ cu Q. VI -- Q-OCC. ::> CD=cCl.!.!!I!!'CCI)~Eu . ~.Q"cCD~i>-'e-o! ~ -I/)E.,>CDX.o "- > oS.!!Ef!-'CDi.gso . I/)CCDCDOe-gCCD .. 8 1;)O-oi'SCD'-~.c-gt! C 'i) '8cil/)1iS~~::cu.! ~IIlC-o EI/)CUI/) 0__ .....SCII) CUW I/)_Ct;. 0) curn...ocCDCU.cCU_ ~..... Q.'8 II) o.c - i'-9.5 = II) _::s~.....cIl),~=...fgCDe. ..,1;)e~ rnwCUCDcu.co_ >-::sc>...o::S'g!~~~'C~ ~ g'-o,2o'g cu cu 5 )(-~= ::so( i.!! c.!! c~.... CD 5-0'0 eni~ 0 ~'8.2= =~'2 ~.5 ,,=::Scs0.,p! ::SCD;)CiS ~~=~~i~EI~V51Jii) S~ - ,-- - en- ~ ~ C1) -.5 ~ -d ,g o III ~ ~ - '5 '0 : a> .5 e ~ "C ::s 0 ~ '0 0 :::l > N ~ . . .5 C1)eg ~...:.:5 II- " . "i 1Il00.1Il 1~a-!'; .o~o-e -as"~as ~0=-311l c:-oc:E c:.c...-- as~ca.1I- c:6"",:t:::0 cu '- 0 '. ~ c: a >- . 'c: o a; :I:: &. .2- _:::lu"cu ~~!.'ie J::;cuca=C1) lI-C1)uca.c. oa.u- 8.e?=S'g :>. C1) .... ._ cu ->ocn'- _ cu . 'C C1) III 0 D. ca 1ii .~~~~~ C1).....-0> Q. C'I) .. III .-: 0 U :s _ocn.. [0 >-.e~ 'u c: .a 'E 8- 'E~fca~ ~! ,2: 'g cu .g~g!.~,; se"ca.s& .- C1) e c: 0) 'gUSD.S8.2 '8~=sg.~.8 5..5!"~o - calC1)C: .~ '5'- Q. c: _ ._ 't!! >0 as C:.c.r:.a~u S.t.=-c ~'=D.;~i - - - ~ !!!. e ..... j 'E as .8 iHINGTON - SHEET NUMBER 66 ~l,,'!i:," .....L,.. --'~<'.~-r...-,'~--"~-"-',LJoins,~, ..._..~~J..._, -..- ,-_.. .'-."f-'-.'..----.-. 'I:: '.':C ~ ,':: ,,' '1..~::t:: ,,',' ,~.' I " "',';''','~, .. ,".' '. ..~,'.. .. , .. "', .. 1,;r. " '.' ,'\:." i'D'!P"I" , " ~(::~r-_. _ .._ -'.'" '. :'f .;:.,'. ~~.A""C~' "on ~ -.:-. ,', .:'\~; .. . DeC '. ))i - MAP 7 ' ' " ....a .. ~SOIL TYPES FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA . "\ Eft', f tpRO?~:r:l::rT- J " ~ c c ~ "Y ~ ~ ~ CJ '" lL c 2 -" ~ ~ i .. .. c 'E 8 S ~ ~ ~ .. -" g Ii i e i .. ~ l c .. 0 1 e 0 ~ '" i a. ~ 1 $ e .. '" I ,g .., .. e ~ .. e ~ .. E ori' 8 'l; ~ .. c ~ ~ .., i 1 j i I 0 .c a. ;; 'l: :: .. ., ~ .., li ~ ., ~ E g : I .. ~ on "" '" Z \0 N ~ MAPPING UNITS 1 series to which it belongs. A technical de!Jcription of a profile that is representative of the soil series is part group, read the introduction to the section it is in for general information about its management. The capability e soils is discussed by capability units, beginning on page 48. Dashes in a column mean that the mapping unit was not *CkE ClC CID ClE Cmc CmD *o&CW Cu nac *DaD DcC IMF Eve EvD EvE GoC GoD GoE GrC GrD HF, HH HKC HKD lIKE HLE HMC HNB HoC HoD HpC HrD HuC Hun Woodland, tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, pages 53 through 59. Engineering uses of the soils, tables 8 and 9, pages 64 through 91. Map symbol Mapping unit Cassolary-Kitsap complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes----------------- Cathcart gravelly silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes--------------- Cathcart gravelly silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes-------------- Cathcart gravelly silt loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes-------------- Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes--------------- Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes-------------- Coastal beaches--------------------------------------------------- Cut and fill land------------------------------------------------- Dabob very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes------------ Dabob very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes----------- Dick loamy sand, 0 to 15 percent slopes--------------------------- Dimal very flaggy silty clay loam, 50 to 9Q percent slopes-------- Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes--------------- Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes-------------- Everett gravelly sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes-------------- Grove very gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 15 percent slopes------------ Grove very gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes----------- Grove very gravelly loamy sand, 30 to 50 percent slopes----------- Grove very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes------------ Grove very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes----------- Hoh fine sandy loam-----~----------------------------~------------ Hoh silt 1oam----------------------------------------------------- Hoko gravelly silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes------------------- Hoko gravelly silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------------_--- Hoko gravelly silt loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes------------------ Hoko-Snahopish association, hilly--------------------------------- Hoko-TealWhit association, gently rolling------------------------- Hoko gravelly silt loam, wet variant, 0 to 8 percent slopes------- Hoodsport very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes-------- Hoodsport very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes------- Hoodsport gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes------------------- Hoodsport-Grove very gravelly sandy loams, 0 to 30 percent slopes- Hoypus .gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 15 percent slopes---------------- Hoypus gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------------- Capability Woodland unit group Page Symbol Page Number 15 VIe-1 51 3132 15 IIIe-l 49 4d2 15 IVe-3 50 4d2 16 VIe-1 51 4d2 16 IVe-1 50 4d2 16 VIe-1 51 4d2 16 VIIIw-1 51 16 VII Iw-1 51 17 VIe-1 51 5f2 17 VIe-1 51 5f2 17 VIs-1 51 4s2 18 VIIs-1 51 4d1 18 VIe-l 51 3f2 20 VIe-1 51 3f2 20 VIe-1 51 3f2 20 VIs-l 51 4f2 21 VIs-l 51 4f2 21 VIs-1 51 4f2 21 VIe-1 51 3132 21 VIe-1 51 3132 23 IVw-2 51 301 21 IVw-2 51 201 23 VIe-l 51 3d! 24 VIe-l 51 3d! 24 VIe-l 51 3d! 24 VIe-l 51 3d! 24 VIe-l 51 3d! 24 VIw-l 51 3w1 25 Vl;e-l 51 3132 25 VIe-l 51 3132 25 IVe-l 51 3132 25 VIe-l 51 3132 25 VIs-l 51 4f2 26 VIs-l 51 4f2 Map symbo~ HuE HvC HW InC ~InD IoC IoE ITD ITF KAB KCC KsC KsD KtC KtD ~E KGD KGF nJ) ILF KND mc Lu LyC MID. Mu OeD OeE OlD QnD OpD OrF PHF Mapping unit Hoypus gra~ ~oBmY sand, 30 to 50 percent slopes------------- Hoypus gra~ sandy ~oam, 0 to 15 peX'cent slopes-------------- Huel loamy fine sand-------------------------------------------- Indianola loamy sand, 0 to 15 percent s~opes-------------------- Indianola loamy sand, 15 to 30 peX'cent slopes------------------- IndianolA sandy ~oam, 0 to 15 peX'cent slopes-------------------- Indiano~a sandy loam, 15 to 50 peX'cent slopes------------------- Itswoot very cobb~y silt ~oam, 0 to 30 peX'cent sl.opes----------- Itswoot very cobbly silt ~oam, 30 to 60 peX'cent slopes---------- Kalaloch loam, 0 to 8 peX'cent slopes---------------------------- Kalsloch gravelly ~oam, 0 to 15 peX'cent s~opes------------------ Kitsap gravelly ~oam, 0 to 15 peX'cent slopes-------------------- Kitsap gra~ loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes------------------- Kitsap silt loam, 0 to 15 peX'cent slopes------------------------ Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes----------------------- Kitsap silt loam, 30 to 50 peX'cent slopes----------------------- Klone gra~ silt ~oam, 0 to 30 peX'cent s~opes---------------- Klone gra~ silt ~oam, 30 to 60 percent slopes--------------- Klone cobbly loam, 0 to 30'peX'cent slopes----------------------- Klone cobbly loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes---------------------- Klone-Hoke association, modeX'ately steep------------------------ Klone-TealWbit association, sloping----------------------------- Lummi silt loam------------------------------------------------- Lystair fine sandy ~oam, 0 to 15 peX'cent slopes----------------- McMurr~ and MUkilteo peats------------------------------------- Mukilteo peat, moderately shallow variant----------------------- Olete very gravelly silt loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes----------- O~ete very gravelly silt ~oam, 30 to 50 peX'cent slopes---------- Olete-Alderwood complex, 0 to 30 percent slopes----------------- O~ete-Clallam complex, 0 to 30 percent s~opes------------------- Olete-Hoodsport comp~ex, 0 to 30 percent s~opes----------------- Olete-Rock outcrop complex, 50 to 90 peX'cent slopes------------- Phelan gravelly silt loam, 30 to 80 percent slopes-------------- I I I I , GUIDE TO MAPPING E Capability Woodland 't1ni t group Page SplbOl. Page NlDber 26 VIs-~ 51 4f'2 26 vte-1 5~ 4f'2 26 VIw-1 51 3f'J. 27 VIs-}. 51 4s2 27 Vl$-1 51 4s2 28 IVe-2 50 302 28 VIe-1 51 302 28 VI....J. 51 3f'J. 28 VIS-l. 51 3f'J. 29 VIe..! 51 201 29 VIe-]. 5~ 301 30 ~.l-' 50 3d2 30 Vte-l. 5~ 3d2 29 rtI~l. 49, 2d2 30 ,,~~, .50 2d2 30 n.-i:\i, ,..~ 2d2 30 VIe";! Sl. 2f'J. 31 VIe..! 51 2f'J. 3~ VIe..l sa. 3f'J. 31 VIe";~ 51 3f'J. 31 VIe-l 51 3f'J. 31 VIe..1 51 3f'J. 31 Illw-I 50 4w2 32 IVe-2 50 482 33 IIw-2 49 --- 33 IIw-2 49 34 VIe..~ 5l", 3d2 34 VIe..~ 51 3d2 34 VIe-I 51 3d2 34 VIe-~ 51 3d2 34 VIe-I 51 3d2 34 VIIs-I 51 3d2 35 VIle-I 51 4d1 'ITS--Continued Map symbol Capability unit Page Symbol Page 35 IVw-2 51 36 IIIe-l 49 31 IVe-3 50 31 VIe-l 51 31 VIIIw-l 51 31 VIIs-I 51 31 VIIIe-l 51 31 VIs-I 51 38 VIw-l 51 38 IIw-2 49 39 IIw-2 49 39 IIw-2 49 39 IVe-l 50 40 VIe-l 51 40 VIe-I 51 40 IIw-2 49 42 VIe-l 51 42 VIe-I 51 42 IVw-l 50 43 IVw-l 50 43 IVw-l 50 43 VIw-l 51 44 VIIIw-l 51 44 IIIw-l 50 4s IVe-l 50 44 IVe-l 50 4s VIe-l. 51 4s VIIe-l 51 46 IVe-l 50 46 VIe-l 51 41 IIIw-l 50 41 IVe-l 50 48 VIe-l 51 Wood1.and group Mapping unit Number QT Queets silt 10am----------______________________________________ QuC Quilcene silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes-------_______________ QuD Quilcene silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------_____________ QuE Quilcene silt loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes----------___________ IRh & RW Ri verwash----------____________________-:________________________ Rk Rock land-----------____________________________________________ Ro & RY1 Rough broken land----------_____________________________________ SaB San Juan gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes------_______ SC Sekiu cl~----------------------------------____________________ Se Semiahmoo muck----------________________________________________ Sh Semiabmoo muck, moderately shallow variant------------__________ 8m Semiahmoo muck, shallow variant------------_____________________ ~C Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes------______ SnD Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes-----______ SPD Snahopish silty clay loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes--------_______ So Snohamish silty cl~ loam-----------____________________________ SSE Solleks channery silty clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes------_ SVE Solleks-Hoko association, steep.------__________________________ StB Swantown gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes----------___ SuB Swantown gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes-------____________ SWC Swantown-Alderwood complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes-------_______ TEE Tealwhit silty cl~ loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes-------__________ Td Tidal marsh----------___________________________________________ Th Tisch silt loam---------________________________________________ TIC Townsend tine sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes-------~________ TnC Townsend gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes---------_________ TrD Triton very gravelly loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes---------______ ,TrF Triton very gravelly loam, 50 to 10 percent slopes-.-----_..'______ TuC Tukey gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes--------_____________ TuD Tukey gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------____________ Wa Wapato silty cl~ loam--------__________________________________ WhC Whidbey gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes--------_____ WhD Whidbey gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------____ 301 3d2 3d2 3d2 4x2 5f2 4d2 4d2 301 2:fl 3d1 4112 4w2 4w2 4wl 5f2 5f2 4d2 4d2 4d2 4d2 , 4w2 4d2 4dZ: 100 are expressed thua: pH Extremely acid_____Below 4.li Very strongly acid.. U to li.O Strongly acid_______li.l to li.li Medium acid_d____li.6 to 6.0 SJightJy acid________6.1 to 6.li pH NeutraL______________6.6 to 7.3 Mildly a1kaline___u____U to 7.8 Modera~Ir~~~ine-----7.9 to 8.4 Strongly . h __ _ __8.5 to 9.0 Very strongly a1ka1ine__9.1 and higher x\ Relief. The elevatiOll8 or inequalities of a land 81D'fICe, considered collectively. Runoff (hydrauIies). _The part of the precipitation upon a drainage area that is discharged from the area in stream channels. The water that flows off the land 81D'face without sinking in is called 81D'f1Ce nmoff.; that which enters the ground before reaehin! surflCe stre&m8 is called ground-water nmolf or seepage flow from ground water. Sand. Individual rock or mineral fragments in a lIOn that ran~e in diameter from 0.05 to 2.0 millimeters. Most sand grains conaist of ~~., but they may be of any mineral composition. The textural ' name of any lIOil that contams 8li percent or more sand and not more than 10 percent clay. Series, lIOiI. A. group of lIOils developed from a particular type of parent material and having genetic horizons that, except for texture of the sunlCe layer, are similar in differentiating characteristics and in arrangement in the profile. Silt. Individual mineral particles in a soil that range in diameter from the upper limit of clay (0.002 millimeter) to the lower limit of very fine sand (0.05 millimeter). Soil of the Bilt textural class is 80 percent or more silt and less than 12 percent clay. Site index. A numerical means of expressing the quality of a forest site that is based on the height of the dominant stand at an arbi- trarily chosen age; for example, the average height attained by / SOIL SURVEY ~ dominant and eodominant trees in a fully Itoeked stand at the age of SO years. SOU. A natural, three-dimensional body on the earth's sunlCe that supporte plants and that hu propertiee resulting from the inte- pated effect of climate and livmg matter acting on earthy parent material, &8 conditioned by relief over periods of time. Solum. The upper part of a soil profile, above the parent material, in which the pr0ceB8e8 of soil fOl'lD&tion are active. The~um in mature soil mcludes the A and B homons. Gen~l~ the character-- istics of the material in these borizoos are . thoee of the underlying material. The liviq I'OOtII and other plant and animal life charaCteristic of the soil are ~ confined to the dum. Structure, -no The &l'I'aI1geIIlent of primuoy lIOil particles into com- pound particles or clusters that are 8llparated from ad.ioinina: agregates and have properties unlike thoee of an equal mass of unaggrepted pr!mar1 soil particles. The principal fOl'lll8 of soil structure a.re-plaIy (laminated), prVmanc (vertie81 axis of agre- P.'~ longer than horizontal): columtaar (prisms with rounded. tops), 0UJCICf{ (angular or subangwar) , and granular. SWudurelea soils are eIther lingle grain (each ~ by itself, &8 in dune sand) or mauirIe (the particles adhering topther without any regular eleav~, &8 in many claypans and hardpaml). Sw-il. Technically, the B hoIUon; rougbly, the part of the solum below plow depth: Suhetratum. Tecfmically, the part of the lIOil below the IIOlum. Surface ~. The ~ ordinarily mo~ in ~, or its eqllivalent in uncultivated BOil, about li to 8 mches m thickness. The plowed Tel(~e:'80u. The relative proportions of sand, lIilt, and clay plU'ticles in a JIl&88 of soil. The basic textural classes, in order of increasing proportion of fine pal'tieles, are 1IJRd, loomy 8afId, IIGndr loom, loam, Iii' . loam, sill, IIGndr elGr loam, clar loam, IilJv clar loam, 8afIdr elGr, siUr clar, and elGy. The ll&Ild, loamy sand, and san~ loam cla8ees may be further divided by specifying "coarse," "fine, ' or "very fine." Total merchantable volume per acre Trees 0.5 inch and largerl Bite index Age Trees 1.5 in. in Trees 6.5 in. in Trees larger than Average Number Basal area diameter and larger! diameter and larger1 11.5 in. in diameterl diameter per acre per acre (International rule) (Scribner rule) ISO c..Inc 1_ I B~/_" &.4,_ . r fIdIM 8<LtuIr_,eet 20. 2,800 -------------------- -------------------- 3.3 2,660 16- 30 6,400 17,000 -----.-------------- 5.5 1,360 22f 40 10,600 47,000 20,000 8.9 610 26~ 50 14,600 82,000 60,000 12.4 350 29i 60 17,200 111,000 86,000 15.0 255 31~ 70 19,000 127 ,000 101,000 17.2 205 32i 80 20,400 137,000 116,000 19.0 172 33{ 190 20 3,000 -------------------- --.----------------- 3.4 2,600 16€ 30 6,800 19,000 ---.---------------- 5,6 1,310 22:i 40 11,400 51,000 23,000 9.1 585 264 50 15,500 90,000 66,000 12.7 335 295 60 18,300 119,000 92,000 15.4 245 315 70 20,100 135,000 109,000 17.6 195 328 SO 21,600 145,000 123,000 19.5 165 339 200 20 3,200 ---.---------------- -------------------- 3.4 2,550 168 30 7,300 21,000 -------------------- 5.8 1,270 225 40 12, 100 55,000 27,000 9.3 565 266 50 16,500 97,000 72,000 13.0 325 297 60 19,300 127,000 100,000 15.7 235 316 70 21,200 141,000 118,000 17.9 187 330 SO 22,800 152,000 132,000 19.9 158 341 I Diameter of outside bark and tnmk of tree at a point 4.5 feet above ground. S Stumpe and tipe included. I International ruie: volume of all stems 6.5 inches and larger diameter at a point 4.5 feet above ground to a top diameter of 6 inches. <<Scribner rule: volume of all stems 11.5 inches and larger diameter at a point 4.5 feet above ground to a top diameter of 8 inches. to a degree. Attempts to measure the relative effects oN height of a specific tree on a specific area or soil. Vanous individual soil properties have met with limited success, tables of site indexes are available ($, 6, 6, IS). but the combination of all soil factors has a marked effect Seedling mortality.-Ratings are based on soil-caused on tree growth and management. The woodland interpreta- mortality for naturally occurring or planted seedlings as tions in this report are based on the combined effects of all follows: Slight if expected mortality is 0 to 25 percent, soil factors. moderate if it is between 25 and 50 percent, and severe if it is Tables 3, 4, and 5 show some of the more commonly used over 50 percent. woodland production data. In table 6 soils of the Area are Plant competition.- The rating for this limitation is ,rated for their suitability for floral greenery. Other minor Blight if competition does not prevent adequate natural 'forest products, harvested in addition to the evergreen regeneration and early growth and does not interfere with huckleberry, salal, and swordfern rated in this table, are adequate development of planted seedlings. The rating is eascara bark, cedar boughs, and small rhododendron shrubs. moderate if competition delays natural or artificial regenera- Management interpretations for woodland groups are tion and affects both establishment and growth rate but does presented in table 7. The limitations for use and management not prevent the eventual development of fully stocked, nor- given in that table are explained in the paragraphs that mal stands. Severe is used when competition can seriously follow. _ impede natural or artificial regeneration without intense site Potential Boil productivity (Bite index).-This refers to the preparation and maintenance such as seedling and brush capacity of a soil to produce volumes of wood. It is based control. . upon a standard for comparison called the "site index." The Equipment limitations.-The rating for equipment limita- site index of Douglas-fir and western hemlock is based on the tions is 8liglu if equipment use is not restricted in kind or height the dominant and codominant trees attain at 100 time of year. It is moderate if equipment use is moderately years of age. For red alder, the site index is based on the restricted in kind or operations by one or more factors, suc~ heights dominant and codominant trees will attain at 50 as slope, stones or obstructions, seasonal soil wetness, phYSI- years of age. To obtain the average site index for a specific cal soil characteristics, injury to tree roots, and soil structure tree on a specific soil, the ages and heights of several trees and stability. It is severe if special equipment is needed.. and must be taken. Preferably the Douglas-fir and western its use is severely restricted by. one or more of th~ Items hemlock will be between 50 and 100 years of age for the site listed for moderate limitation and by safety in operatIOns. index determination. Determinations for red alder are for ErOBion hazard.-The hazard of erosion is described as stands between 20 and 45 years of age. Site index can be Blight if problems of erosion control are unimpo~tj obtained from tables through the use of the average age and moderate if some attention must be given to preventmg ., "- [ i ] f ! 1 =0 i I .~ ! t l ~ v .f :8 11 ~ ~ II g go i:!. '" " :l ::Ii ] I ~ i !:l ~ E-< =0 1 f ,,8 :l ] .. ~ i " '11 ." ~ i. ~ . a. 1:'. 3 i b , ~ j i or -lfi j 'i! -" '11' l ~1 1 t f l : .~~ ..; .-i,,;"'l:!! i j l ] f .: i 11 ~ ~ If ~ .s e E .i ~iI f i ~.-a : ~. . . . .!.g:!!.>I:iI i.~l ~ J f il~j~j! i U) nfdi~f i fi~f~lJ~=lli [ ;!!.cj ~ ~ 1!1 C11:! ~ iUr=.~~11f! ,~ f~~~1j{ijrnH :J:a-l.;.i 12; 3J t:j D'J;j;>coCQJJ OJ t i 3 3 .ll .li ~ j S S iii=O~~ ~ 1 ""jli!f ~ I.. ~ ~~~Jl5]g. fl:E'i.s~~"!:it' H~n~g :IE";; il I ~ t' 'tS'.;:J'-"d "2::E :;~.15_ clC:;O' >- t) ~ s C::8 -:;3 ..s a. 'Q ... ~ ~ t:- t E j{!15~~s '5~:E;O";Cl-g~O ~:]~;!~ i~EIi.~ _€ f,sf' Ii I 'i! j ge.!i,l!.'" .. :lil~IIp.!':::" :l! ii' " ::]5 "e!l'~~ "2 je.l: 'tI;"I i Ii ~s~:sjJ~ .ajc5';:!9iJ~...:.:s~.;lj~~ -S~fe-! "U. ~ Fl'. :il11 ...5aLl.>1t-<O l1",;"il:;:-o--OCl:"'~" .s".s '0,,"-= t . 11 ,;....... E p ;S !!l .. ~",.. 00'" 0 c ,,- O.:l 11'- 6- -5 "'S :iI ~ f . l.i 1 >: I~ale:i.:i t--rr~t.CE-~~Kl5e'E'= .~.~~ as-.S> it= .=0 ~ &==11 f! e ~:S:g~ ls 5.$ ~':.s';C'ls;:..:gi ~-5.!= ~jd.~ l1~:g<::.g~S n ]a.. f i ~,;.c~~f- f' ll-. ""~..!!1l- ~~ .:l~_'O ~:p'l:r;;; e.:!;,.!I ",s,g"",3].a:--: e ~I ..0"0 ..eI.D e I:! =3 8 !C1Q CI 00s..- lt~oiili.!!o.8"2.S~!d...:.5o-Q..c:d ;j~ ~~ 1 1 I j :a~ ~ .lj,3-5il ::;;~6 ~'5-g-g;:-;.: E" " ..S.!!II:~-5'Q .;,";;... 0 IE -11= -= .. o~::aI - d 8S.1t .8-o>-e:s--.-- ..o>':Z:) :..c1!-! .~ IDill :a - "j -5;1 u ~ ~ l..lI""E~'~ ~1l",.5B"'.sS:E-,,:.aPI.:~g-!iil.a:;;... fi~1[: ~ '8 -...!!.cl~ ""I=' 1.! ~git-=oi~ .~i"i~~:S:SgJi-Sc~Jr~~~eo~o.ij.s~ .w li~ i ~:s -g j J~]~l.!lr g~~a~~~~.~1~.;"O~~ilt!g:]si!r.5g ~d~l~ p 1 ~;~ ~. ~ -:. lj~';;E-<"i;8: 1l,-~~JJ~h,U~'ii~gE~r.;iH~5~,~8~~Ell 00.6.... i ;: .. t' 1: Ii I: ~ E s: .. 0 '1:1'" iO vOS: ::J ::J 0 d >. 0- S C ::J ....- e is '3 ~ ~.E 5 U 'i! · i!ij ;j ;j ~~ e" c p.~'O "sll ""'>11-.!I:O:..!!""= ~'V.5~ ..JJ'" .:l e .51'ilt~ .~. ~ :h. 1 1 .!ii ..:l!'Sl~g~..1i .!ll::I""]!lt:Q.t-'~~~!lE.2jiil-;;o-;;-JJfe:;; :. -..! '" lil,!i !,ll.e ill,; ol!-ll.ll" P.l~P.1O ~ JJ g a~ g!; 1I.2'~C.s 1I1!.5"]-~:l !-....!!..-9'I~ft f. "II!' , ~E'~t Ii !1"~"'Q.I"" I:: '" 0- >1" .. iI'-!I... ~ t.i lid: j - c: Ii Ii ~ ~ ....1 [-9 "... ol!jg {-:! ;-e'i:;;~;; l:: ,,05 ~~,.;! 1]'53:" .: ~ ~",:~frii ~ ~ 'II I ~Io~l J 1iiil:!]; ~~ ~t:l:a E:!'~ 1i~.!!il~~;:~~~~~Jlt~ 6...- d~ fIj D5 ! d 6 d !'- =: IS a?J: e e iii'Q. C;~.. ~"o"O i~Z:a .s..!!:!:! ~-tfQ ~ ';;J"O t! i :i S :I! l 11 s d~ .... fijiij .liJi ~ H 3U js:: ]i~~ '" 17.i0J ~i ~ ~ ~ i U 3 33 ~ ~i fii fiiYi iE 1: ~3 i 3i ~ ;C~ :S ~:S i f t E l 3 3 3 d ' ~ i~ iiJ ::SiiJ (:) 00 oSZ: ~ t;~ t:;~ ;l; ;l;;l; ;l;C!; ~ ~~ ~~ , . :Ji .is ~I i i i d .9 i 3 !i :i ; jJjji~~ i i i ~ i i l!~lii 33333 0 ~ i ~ ij &i t1j ~ j . i 1! ~ 3 Ji S S 'g 1! ::s ::!! l! 5 & i f 3 3 l! Ii i i f 3 3 ~~~:i is ;j VJ ijj ~i if 33 il ~ .:d .s:: 'ii! 1 "" g '~ .. ~-ea ii jj , . is ji E3 38 -s I~ ; i s f f i . 3 ~ S l! : ~ : !~j:&1ii g j ] II E .~ r[ Ii Ii Ii . if iE~ 35 333 c s i i i -gj~~ii :s ;:; Ui ~ ::E ~ :Ji is 11 33 ;~ 'g.. ::siii :Ii :& :s :8 :e ii iiJ::S Ii i g :i! i e 8 = 0; Ii Ii i i 3 i ~ ~ .g 'g 'g =0 =0 ::s 3 3 Ji 3 8 .li .ll .li 8 ;CSSSJf 1! ] 1! 'g 'g " i ::!! '" ill =0 ::s =0 )! Ji ~ 2! i 1 3 3 .s ~ ~ j~il~~l :: ~ :: ~ ~ ~ g 1C C!; C!; 1C C!; C!; :!l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ i ~,...:~.- ~ 1 ~ ~1 ~i~ 1 j ~ i 1 1~ ~ 1 .. E . a Ii ~ i:Jlo 11'1 t · 1 ell 1 3 i!"" i! 1f:' 11'; 2 ~ .. .l! "" 1 i! j t = ~ j! t Ei E ji ll- ~ t ~ ili j f ~ 2 = '11 = r ~ 5. l~ hi' ~ ['i1 . = = i I It ~ i! . Ii'll . ~. "'f ~ :j.!fC .':..!l- .;. f .:; 1 :i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.12 i 1 ~i =!l Ji ~.1 i OJ 3- 1! ,i! ,n .!f r..~H.!f 1 11= Iii! ll~ · .Ii 5. i!i.:U-i ~ 1.i=!l fit j:Jloli ~oOi ..rl i i i ~~i~~;li 1 i:~lil i =~ 1JI 1ir e . '-i 'l~i~ e :Jlo ""'" 8 .:.:! . li21 I nr iloO I di~~f;U i ItftU "'j ~i1iUbni ftili~~~tii' j fiUU jJ1j.;t:tUff ~:r:l!I7.i!5l~1i : l:;~~~:=!llj:Jg!gegel 1" I Jl i ~ & : ~ ~ "~~ ~~ i! ~ ~ ~ s ~ 3 i Ji .ll e e e i i i )! =0 :!! ~ ':i 1: ~ .. Jj 1 Ii i 3 ~ jiii~j VlJ is 05 :2 rn U) tnl~~~g~f;; "IIl!_;e .. ~3M ~.;;~ .., .S 01: :: 01: ;:I; ;:!; ;l; ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ .1 ~ ;; g. '6 i Ii i f 'i s { j ~ '8 . 1 1. .0 . 'C g. ! .S ] ,!! 'I ! ~ ~ .!! S ~ . tl. 'a il ~~ U ~i 1= h,: .e . ~.e ".I 11 JEFFERSON CO. PLANNING COMMISSON MEETING MINTUES 9/21/05 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:30 P.M. WSU Community Learning Center, Port Hadlock 6:30 Call to Order (Roll Call, Quorum, Approve Minutes [August 31 and September 7, 2005]) Jim Hagen Chair Starr updates CommltllBe Reporis Public Comments (Note: Pubic Comments to the Planning CommIssIon on the zaos Amendment Docket.... cIoRd. The CommIssIon wit accept general (lOIIII.......1Ibout the process or comments on oilier topics. Comments on the Docket should be dlNClled to the Dept. or Community Development. They wit be made part or the NCOrd and focwarded to the Board of County Commissioners.) DeliberationslRecommendations on 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket MLA05-60, Olympic Property Group (Site SpecifIC) MLAOs.38, HopklnslBarber (Site Specific) MLA05-61 , Olympic Property Group (Site Specific) Public Comments Summary cA tonights meeting and forward look at agenda issues for the next meeting 9:30 Adjournment [NOTE: TI.... 8bove Me ......1IecI to help guide the meeting. The CommIssIon may extend the line for. topic (and subtract from Mother) as needed. Also, the Planning CormIIssIon may adcI-.d take action on o4her ItIIms not IsII8d on this agencIa.) . For publication on County Web site '* ~ ~ MLA05-38, Hopkins/Barber (ToaDdos PeniDsuJ.a area): The amendment application was for a redesignation of an approximately 90-acre parcel located on the Toandos Peninsula from CF 1:80 to RR 1:20. Kyle A1m stated that the proponent's argument related to the designation criterion concerning Forest Land Grades 1 through 4. He stated that the Forest Land Grades map was incorporated into our Comp Plan and clearly showed that the subject property met the criterion for Land Grades 1 through 4. He stated that the agent's contention was that the property could not be logged at certain places because of physical constraints. That was not one of our criteria, however. He stated that the only criterion the agent listed that may not be met was specifically the soils. Mr. Alm stated that the three soil types the agent listed were also shown on the Comp Plan map. Those soils^were present throughout East Jefferson County commercial forest lands. Kyle Alm stated that there had been a lot of discussion about the Woodland Groups and Site Classes. He stated that both were derived from the same original measurements. He stated that Site Index was measured by the USDA using core samples, measuring tree height and estimating their growth rate. They then projected that out over 50 and 100 years. He stated that the soil types were included in the Site Indexes. He stated that what the agent had shown in his memos was the Woodland Groups and the Woodland Groups matched up to Site Classes and Forest Land Grades. He stated that it really did not match up like that. He stated that the WAC also used the Site Classes and the Site Index based on the Soil Survey to determine those designations. In short, this parcel met every criterion for designation as Commercial Forest land [CF 1:80]. He stated that every soil type on the property was very productive for commercial forestry. He stated that the DNR forest practices application showed that it was very productive for the amount of acreage that was logged. He stated that it was at least as good as any site for growing forest products according to the information supplied by the DNR. Mike Whittaker asked about the contention that the soil types were used by the DNR to tax land as opposed to the quality of the soil for raising trees. Kyle AIm responded that was not necessarily true. He stated that Forest Land Grades were no longer widely used. He stated that he did not speak with anyone at the DNR or the Department of Revenue that was actively involved in using them. They now used Site Class instead, which depicted productivity based upon the soil type. The forestland was taxed based on the productivity of the land. Regardless of whether or not that was the original intention, the county did use them for the Comp Plan designation criteria. That was adopted policy. 1 Bud Schindler asked about the Site Class for the specific parcel. Kyle A1m looked through the application materials but could not immediately find an answer. Mr. Schindler stated that his question concerned whether there was a conflict between the way the applicant portrayed the parcel and the way the state portrayed it in terms of Site Class. Mr. Schindler stated that staff was saying it was a reasonable piece of forestland and was a reasonable producer. The applicant was saying that it was not and that it should not have been classified as forestland in the beginning. Mr. A1m responded that the USDA Soil Survey grouped soils into Woodland Groups. He explained the coding for the forestland group's numbers related to the specific parcel. Those codes related to Site Classes. That matched up with the Site Classes 1 through 4 in the WAC. 11 Jim Hagen stated that, as he read all the information on the debate about Site Classes, etc., it raised the concern with some of what he was referring to about flexibility in conjunction with the long-term commercial significance issue. He stated that the commission should consider what it was like on the ground to harvest the trees. One discrepancy that jumped out to him was the difference between the county's figures and the applicant's figures of the average board feet [bf] per acre and how it was calculated. The applicant had said that 40 acres had been logged. The county used it as a 40-acre portion of the whole parcel and came up with an average of 18 thousand board feet [18 mbf] per acre, which was an acceptable average on the Toandos Peninsula. However, the applicant said that the 40 acres that was harvested was over the entire 90-acre parcel, so the average should be about 8 mbf per acre, which was really under the average for the Toandos. Josh Peters responded that he would characterize the argument by saying that staff consulted with the DNR forester for the region. He told staff that this land was equally as productive as any other forestland in the area. He stated that Mr. Alm had shown the Planning Commission a soils map showing that the soils on the subject parcel were the same as the soils on the other forest lands. He stated that staff's contention was that this land was equally as productive as any other forestland. Kyle A1m stated that the DNR application was an estimate. It was not a total of what was actually harvested. He stated that it did not say anything about how much of the property was logged at the time. He stated that staff did supply an aerial photo of the j, property, which showed that it had been pretty significantly thinned. Mr. ~ A~ stated that, although it was a 90-acre parcel and the estimate only ~ showed 40 acres being logged, the DNR still used the same methodology for determining the productivity of other applications. So it was still comparable to the other forest parcels. In answer to Edel Sokol's question, Mr. Hagen explained that the 40 acres in the DNR application was actually 40 acres spread over the entire 90 acres. Dennis Schultz stated that the contour map indicated to him that property was probably not log-able anyway. Kyle Alm stated that agent's contention was that the land was physically constrained. that you really did not know that until you applied for a permit. that was not a criterion in the Comp Plan either. He stated that property was constrained by steep slopes or other critical areas, direction was to downzone it and not upzone it. a lot of the much of the He stated He stated if a the policy l Bud Schindler asked about the criteria for the RR 1:20 districts, stating that it seemed to suggest that it would be unique to this property. Jim Hagen read the designation criteria which indicated the RR 1:20 designation was appropriate as a buffer in areas adjacent to UGAs and designated forest 'and agricultural lands of long term commercial significance as well as protecting areas identified as possessing area-wide environmental values which constrained development, such as shoreline areas or steep and unstable slopes. The district was also used to protect the land from premature conversion to higher residential densities prior to its normal use. Mike Whittaker stated that the proposal was to make four 26-acre pieces with one home site each. He stated that he had not gone for a site visit, but from the material provided, he thought it was.predominately steep slopes. He offered the opinion that one home site per 26 acres was probably about all the land could handle. Jim Hagen stated that something he heard at critical areas workshops and at the DOE open house was that there was not only pressure to protect forest 12 lands from residential use, but there was also environmental pressure to protect forest lands from being used as forest lands because of runoff, the inability of the aquifer to recharge, damage to habitat, etc. So the presence of steep slopes on this property might keep it from being used for commercial forestry. Dennis Schultz stated that the applicant specifically stated in the application that they wanted to combine this 90-acre parcel with two other smaller parcels and re-divide the combined property into four building sites. He thought the two smaller parcels were basically unbuildable. He stated that we were not talking about one house on 20 acres. Jim Hagen stated that the applicant's plan would create four parcels out of 105 acres. Staff and the commissioners discussed the steep slopes issue for the applicant parcel and the adjoining smaller parcels that ostensibly would be combined. Josh Peters stated that the map indicated that the two smaller parcels were within a moderate and a slight landslide hazard feature. That suggested that, while there were slopes, it would be surprising to say they were unbuildable on a moderate and a slight landslide hazard area. Dennis Schultz noted from the application that about half of the subject parcel was constrained by either steep slopes of up to 50% or by a stream,. which effectively prevented much of the parcel from being logged. Jim Hagen stated that the issue came down to a ~he said, they said" issue. He stated that all that information about soil grades was related to productivity and connected GMA statutes. He read the GMA definition of forest lands: ~Forest lands means land primarily devoted to growing trees for long term commercial timber production on land that can be economically and practically managed for such production." While he appreciated the work of the DNR and one heard about the massive profits derived from commercial forestry, it was really a pretty risky venture. He thought it was a lot safer to put your money in a CD. Dennis Schultz stated that the definition and description implied that the owners wanted their land to be in forestry. If someone had commercial forest land but did not want to be in the forestry business, they could very easily say it did not apply; that they were not practicing forestry on the land. He stated that forestry required a certain amount of stewardship of the land for the long term. If people did not want to do that, then ostensibly it would no longer meet that criterion. In that case, anyone who wanted out of forestry could just stop practicing forestry on the land and say it was not a viable forest anymore. Josh Peters pointed out that, in this case, the property was enrolled in the forest tax program and they were practicing forestry on the land, at least until now. Jim Hagen stated that another thing he considered about conversion was the issue of more intense uses on the land. He offered the opinion that building four houses on the land was no more of an intense use than logging it. He supposed that was a debatable argument. Bud Schindler stated that logging could be really tough on the land if it was not done right. He thought that if it was developed with houses under the applicant's suggestion, it would not be as harmful as logging it would be. Josh Peters stated that staff, in the staff report, did not argue against the rezone based on the fact that there would be more environmental impact because of housing development, although it should be noted that a significant portion of the soils were not suitable for home development. 13 What staff was saying was that the property was much the same as much of our other forest lands and so, from staff's perspective, recommending approval of this rezone would have implications for the county's forestlands policy. Peter Downey stated that staff was essentially saying that the reasons the applicant gave that the land was not adequate land for forestry due to the soils was not a valid argument. Josh Peters responded that staff was suggesting that, based upon the information we had, the argument was not valid. Not only that, if that argument was accepted in this case, the circumstances would be remarkably similar to much of our other designated forestlands. He stated that staff would anticipate having other applications making the very same argument, which would make it difficult to say "No" to those arguments if we said "Yes" to this argument. Peter Downey moved that the Planning Commission recommend denying this application. Dennis Schultz seconded the motion. Edel Sokol asked whether the other two lots were unbuildable. Kyle AIm stated that one was a 5-acre parcel. Josh Peters stated that the two parcels were not technically part of this application. He stated that, while it waS possible that what the applicant was saying was true, there was really no way to know if they were unbuildable without going through development review. Jim Hagen stated that the application materials proposed combining the two smaller lots with the 90-acre parcel and re-dividing in order to get four lots. He assumed from that, that the two small parcels were uDbuildable. Kyle Alm stated that was their assertion in the application, but we did not have to go by that. Mr. Peters pointed out that the landslide hazard map indicated only a slight hazard on one of the parcels, so potentially that parcel was developable. While it was possible the applicant was correct, he would not recommend going on their assertion without further investigation. He did not think there had been an attempt to develop those properties. If there had been an attempt, the Planning Commission had not been shown that information as evidence that the smaller parcels were unbuildable. Peter Downey stated that, according to the topographic map, the larger lot of the two appeared to have some more flat ground on it. The smaller lot might be difficult. Jim Hagen stated that, meaning no disrespect to the conclusion staff came to in their recommendation, he thought this was a legitimate gray area about whether or not the parcel should be designated forestland. He thought it was debatable and that each side could make arguments that the parcel qualified. Something else he heard reference to throughout all of the recommendations was that granting the rezone would trigger a domino effect. He was not certain, stating the belief that it was speculative. He stated that, going back to the three 1:20 to 1:5 upzones that occurred three years ago, he did not know that had triggered a mad rush of upzones. Dennis Schultz countered that we were seeing a domino effect with this years amendments. He stated that we had done it with the other OPG amendments in Tala Point and the Shine areas. He questioned what would prevent anyone from coming in next year with a similar application. Mr. Hagen stated that we were talking about thousands and thousands of acres in this county in forestland. He supported keeping our forestlan~s. However, the notion that it would all be gone-WOUld not happen. Mr. Hagen pointed out that the staff analysis found that, because the proposals were not geographically close together, the cumulative impacts were less than they could otherwise be. 14 Peter Downey stated that the difference with the Shine and Tala Point amendments was that they were in areas of higher development. This application, however, was in a very remote part of the East County. As such, it might be a better use for the land to stay in forestry. Mike Whittaker asked for Mr. Downey's reasoning for his motion. Peter Downey replied that there were two reasons. First, their supposition that the soils on the property would not support forestry had been shown to be a false supposition. The soils did support forestry, had supported forestry, and probably will support forestry in the future. Second, this was a very rural, remote part of the county and forestry was a good use for this property. He thought the highest and best use for this property was probably forestry. Bill Miller stated that he understood that the property owner had put the property into an open space, forestry type use commitment. Kyle Alm stated that the property was currently enrolled in the open space timber tax program. Mr. Miller stated that he recognized that when he went into any business, he probably had a greater opportunity to fail than he did to succeed. It was not the Planning commission's job to make the applicant a good forester; he had to work at it. Allen Panasuk asked for clarification about the tax program. Josh Peters stated that the property was enrolled in the open space timber tax program to gain tax benefits because the property was being used for commercial forestry. Then the applicant made a commercial forestry forest practices application to log the property. He explained that there were two types of forest practices applications. One was a commercial forestry application where you committed to replanting. The other was called a conversion where the owner said they were going to convert the land to some use that was incompatible with commercial forestry. The county got involved in the conversion applications. In this case, when the landowner did that process just a few years ago, they did a commercial forestry application rather than a conversion. Mr. Panasuk asked what benefit the property owner got from that. Mr. Peters replied that they benefited through lower taxes because the property was enrolled as open space timber. Also, it was a much less cumbersome and expensive application process for the forest practices permit rather than doing a conversion. Dennis Schultz stated that if they converted the land out of the open space timber program, they would have to pay back taxes. Kyle Alm read a portion of the DNR foresters e~mail to the county that said that tree-growing conditions on the Toandos Peninsula were at least as good as anywhere else in East Jefferson County. Mr. Alm stated that one of the goals of the GMA was to preserve productive commercial forestland. He stated that the Comp Plan laid out the designation criteria and this parcel clearly met all of them. He read the designation criteria from the Comp Plan. Allen Panasuk asked about the property ownership at the time it was enrolled in the timber tax program. Josh Peters stated that he did not know. He stated that the current owner was a local property ownership group. Kyle Alm stated that the property was originally enrolled in the timber tax program in the 1970's. f Jim Hagen stated that the crux of the whole debate seemed to be the soils ~ criterion. Josh Peters asked for the specific reasoning for that opinion. Mr. Hagen thought there was a dispute about what percentage of the land was Forest Land Grade 4 or better based on the soils maps the applicant had 15 ~ -.t supplied. Bud Schindler stated that the applicant supported the position that the land may not be suitable as forestland. Mr. Peters stated that there was no analysis besides a conversion table that had any backing to it. There was no theoretical foundation for converting from a certain table to another as presented in the application. He stated that he was curious about why that was compelling compared to other information. Mike Whittaker discussed a healthy forest, stating that you could tell by looking that a tree was not a viable, healthy tree. He stated that the land grade situation certainly cast some doubt in his mind. He also thought it was important to put some perspective on the open space forestry situation. He stated that going way back to the 1930's or so, people invested in land. The best way to defer taxes was to put it in the timber tax program. He stated that anyone who had land of a certain size and could get it in an open space tax program typically did so in order to lower their taxes. If it was not viable land in ter.ms of commercial forestry, and there was certainly a question about whether this land was, he questioned whether the county should hold the owner hostage if he did not want to continue in forestry. If the property was not good forestland, then what was the point? Conversely, if it was good prime growing forestland, the request should be denied. Peter Downey stated that they had already logged the property. It was a matter of whether they would replant and continue to manage it. Jim Hagen stated that he was making a connection between soil types and productivity, which he believed was what the criteria inferred. He stated that we had this number of 18 mbf, which was average for the Toandos Peninsula. That had been disputed. He referred to a DNRSite Index chart showing tree height at age 50. For a Land Grade 4, the height would be 90 to 95 feet and they were talking about 20 to 25 mbf per acre. That was clearly in excess of the productivity for this site. He thought that was another of those gray areas. The question was whether the Barber parcel was 18 mbf or 6 mbf. Kyle Alm stated that chart was for a 50-year growing period, which was not typically practiced. Josh Peters stated that Mr. Hagen's original statement was about the soils and whether they were productive or not, but Mr. Hagen kept going back to the forest practices application. Mr. Hagen stated that they were inter-connected. Mr. Peters agreed, but added that the classification criteria was the soil grades vis a vis forest production. The information we had clearly showed that the soils were graded moderate to high for forest production. Mr. Hagen stated that the criteria, the whole reason for having forestlands, were for long term commercial significance. He thought the discussion was getting side tracked. The question was whether this parcel was really a viable forest parcel. While you had to consider the soils, you had to connect that to productivity, because productivity was the criterion for designation. Mr. Peters stated that staff referred to the charts and tables because that was what was presented to the county by the applicant. He stated that his question was why, in the end, Mr. Hagen found the soils argument to continue to be compelling. The question was called for. The motion to deny the application failed with four in favor, five opposed, and no abstentions (4-5-0). In order to complete the Planning Commission's action on this amendment, Peter Downey then moved that the Planning Commission approve the proposal as stated. Mike Whittaker seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion carried with five in favor, four opposed, and no abstentions (5-4-0). 16 . DEFITINIONS FROM WAC 222-16-010 . META FILE INFORMATION . EMAIL FROM SUE CASEY, POLICY ANALYST, DNR >r De/I1dtJ4u , CIuIIIIJer 222-16 "Salvage" means the removal of~ down logs, windtbrow, or dead and dying material. "ScarB1cadoa" means loosening the topsoiland/or disrupting the forest floor in preparation for regeneration. "SeasitiveJites" are areas near or adjacent to Type Np Water and have one or more of the following: (1) BeacIw.u seep is a seep located at the toe of a cliff or other steep topographical feature and. at the head of a Type Np Waf<< whidl CODI1CICts to the stmIm channel netwoJt via overland flow, and is cb.aracterized by loose substnte and/or fiactured bedrock with pereIiI1iaI water at or near the surface throughout the year. . (2) SklHlope Ieep isa8eq) within 100 feet of a Type Np Wat<<Jocatedon side -slopes which are pter than 2Opereent, conJ1ected to the stream channel aetwork via overland flow, and characterized by loose substtate and &actuted bedrock, CJ[cludiug muck with perennial water at or near thesurfacetbroughout the yar. Wilta' ctelivery to the"Type Np dJannel is visible by someone standing in or neartbe 'stremL (3) TypeNp Jatenecdoll is the intencctionoftwo or D10IeType Np WateR. (4) Headwater sprJaa meansapeDP~ spring at the heldofapenmnia1 cbatllJet. Where a headwater .springcan be found, it win coincide with the ~ extent o(1)pe NpW". (5) AJluriaJrumeansadepositionalJand ronn 'cons.isting otconc-shapeddeposit ofwatet- borne, often coarse-sized~. (a) The upstteam end of the fan (cone apex) is typicallycb.aracterized bya distinct increase in channel width where a stream emerges from a nmowvalley; (b) The dowDstreamedgeof the fallisdeDned as the ,sedimf:ot contlllence with a higher order ~l;,and (c) The lateral marginsota fim 8I'e chanlcterizcd by clistinctJocalchanges in sediment elevation and often show distu1bed vegetation. Alluvial fan does not includcfeatu:rea th8twCR formed under climatic or geologic conditions which arenotcurreotly present or that are DO longer'dynamic. "Sltonlill. ortJae state" shall bavethe same meaning as in RCW 90.58.030 (Shoreline Management Act). "Side cutiJlg", means the act of moving excavatedmatcrialtothe side and depositing sueh material within the limits of construction or dumping over the side and outside the limits of construction. "Site class" means a grouping of site indices that are used to determine the 50-year or 100-,.. site class. .In order to determine site class, the landowne:r will obtain the site cl_index fi:om thcstatc soil SUIvey,place it in the comet index range shown inthc two tablesprovicled in this definition, and select the corresponding site class. The site class win thai drivefheRMZ width. ,(See WAC 222-30-021 and 222-30-022.) (l) For Western Washington Site duI I D m IV V so.y,*,.ate "durn. (ft8te toiIllU'Vevl 137.+ 119-136 97-118 76-96 <7S ~ 16-15 a.tu 222-16 (2) ForEastem Washington t OO-YeaF liteiDda race Site e"', (_felOn Rrvev) I 120.+ n 101-120 m 81-100 IV 61-80 V S60 ~-712"1 5O-yearlite ladex rale (.tate lollnrvev) 86.+ 72-85 58-71 44-57 <44 ,( (3) For pmposes of1his ~ the site index &till)' location wilt:bethesiteindexrepolted by theWashiJlgton State Deparirnem .ofNatund ResOf,lTCe3 State&1ilSiirYey, (soU survey) aaddetai1ed in the I$IOCiated forest soil SUIImUIty sheets. lObe soil survey does notrepQlt a site index for the loca1ion<<in<Jicatcs ~ or m..l fbrtwt JaDd.. or the major species table 'indicate$ red alder, tbefQllowingapply: <a> Hthe 8itcinclexinthe 8Oilsurvoyi$lor ftld alder,lDdthe whole lMZwidth is within that site index. then use site class V. Hthered aldetsite iMexis Only foI'aportionof the RMZ width,. ortheteis on ..me evidence that the site has histmical1ysupported coni.fer,thei1 use thcSiteclassfQr cooifa' intbcll1C)Stph)'$iograpbicallysimilar adjacent JJOilpolygon. (b) In WestemWasbington, ifIto site index isl'epC)rtecl in the lic)il survey,usethe ,site class tor comer in the most physio,.,mca1lylritnilar adjacent BOil ,polygon. (e) InBastern W~ if no siteitKtcxis,~inU.8t)i1survey, assume~ class m, UI11cs.t'site spccjficinfunnation indioates othcnriae. (a) lfthe site index is ~ or JIIarSiIlaUy COIl1Il'leI'Ci~ then use site cla$s V. See also section 70f the board manual. "Site prep""""" means those adivitiesassociated with the~va1 of slash in preparing a site tbrplmtinsand $ball include scarificationand/or sIasIlbuming. "Skid traIJ"means a route used by tracked or wheeledslddders to move loSS to a landingOJ' road. "S.......' meanspiecesotwoodymaterial (:OOtainins mote tban 3 cUbic feet resWtmg ftont ,forest practices.aeti'Vities. "SOSEAloaIs" means the goals specified for aspottedowlllpeCial emphasis area as identified on the SOSEAmaps (lee WAC 222-16-(86). 808M goaisprovidefor 'demognphiellldlordispersal support 8$~ tocomplemeotthenortbem spoUectowl protection JtrategieB on(cderalland within or a4iacebt tGthe 808M. "SpoII"meaus excess material removed as overburden or 'gen.erated duting toad or landing eonstnlction which ,is not used witbinlimits ofconstruction. "SpouedOWl cUspenaI.abItat" see WAC 222-16-085(2). "Spotted OWl apedalempUsls .... (SOSEA)" me8DS tho geographic ,areas as mapped in WAC 222-16-086. Detailed maps of tile SOSEAs incficatingtho bOundaries and goals are available &om the department at its regional offices. "Stop workonler" means the "stop work onJer- defined in RCW 76.09.080 of the act and may be issued by 1bedepartmentto stop 'Violations of1be forest praccices ~ or to prwattdamage and/or to correctandlor compeusate fordamap to public,~ resulting ftom forest practices. 16-16 DttII1eldiI., ' a...,.". 12J.il' "Pnfernd.tree spedeJ" means the following species listed in ~ftg order ofprioiity for each timber habitat type; POIIcleJ'OIa piaellabitat type all hardwoods pon4erosa pine western 1areb Douglas-fir western red eedar MiDcI eoder IlIabltattype all bantwoods westen1'lard1 po~pine western red cedar western white pine Douglas-fir lodgepole pine "lablie ......." mC8I1Swater" fis~and wildHfeand in addition means.tal improvcmcutsof the state or its political subdivisions. "Qta.......rveyor" meaus an individual who bas suceessfhllycompleted the marbled Il'lurrelet field trair1i.nJ 'coutBe offered by the clepar1rnem of filh and wildlife or its equivalent. ............" Dle80Ithe '~, of rcnewin&Oi' malring usable and refoiestingforestlanCl which was poorly ltoCkedor previously IlOIIStOCbd with commercial species. flReleun:edlaraetealsda" JDCIDSthefoll9wiq spcci1icmeasutabledJar8etetisti(;8 offish, water, and Cijpitalimpro\'Cl11etltsofthe state or nspoliticalsubdiviaions: For fish and water: Physicalfishbabitat, mclu4ing temperature and tmbidi1y; Tlttb, ,',," 'U4,',iiv' "in1o.....-"'....," 'water,"" ',,' '. ',', 'Ii,' ",and," " a_J -J ,,' ',', sgpp", es; 1l.ubidityaadvoJumc, for..of~JUPP1y. For .,ital DnpmvemeDts oCtile stateot itspolitica1 subdivisions: PhySical or structural integrity. If the tnethQdologyis developechnd added to the I1l8Iillal toanalyt.e the cumulative effects offorest practices on othor cbaracteristicaof fish, water, and capital improvemeo.tsofthe .state. or its sulxtivisioJl$,theboanlsball emend this list to include these cbaracterislice. "Rip...... '..dieHI" includes baokstability,the recnUwentofwoody c:ldms, leaflitt<< fall, nutri~ sedimentfilteriD& shade, and other riparian feature8tbat areintportant 10 both riparian f'tnst and aquatic'S}'Steb1 CODditions. ..Rip...... ....._t zoae (RMZ)" means; (1) F.r\VeateraW....... <a) Tbearea protected OIl ead1side of a Type S <<FWater measured horizontaIlyfiotn the outer edge ofChe bankfu1lwidth <<the outer ecJae of tile CMZ, whichever is lsee tabtobelowl:and ~I t Westen W....- Site ~ Total RMZ wlcla I 200' n 170' m 140' IV . 110'. V 90' (b) The'atea protected on each side of Type Np Wat~measured horizontally fi'omthe outer edge of the b,nldVll width. (See WAC 222-3Q..021(2).) (2) ForEutera W.......- 16-13 CUl1ter 212-16 DeIbIItltIIII- 712(J(J1 (a) The area protected on each side of a Type S or F Water measured horizoDta1Jy from . the outer edge of tile bankfull width or the outer edge of the CMZ, whichever is greater (see table below); and Site CIIIs I n m IV V EIStenl W........ TotIIRMZ Wid.. 130' 11(1 90' or 100'* 7S' or 100- 75' or 10<r' · Dependent uponst:ream size. (See WAC 222->>022.) (b) The ''',protected on each side of Type NpW*"'nv-aswed horizontally tom the outer edge oftbebankfullwidth. (See ,WAC '222-30-022(2)~) (3) For exempt 20 aere~ a$pClCified area alonpide type S _tF Waters where specific mcasuresare taken to ,protect water ~,and 'fi$b. and wildlife habitat. "RMZ eon zolie" means: 'V (1) F'orWestenl Waslala..., the SOfbot Wferofa Type S or FWater.measuled borizomaUy If' fi'Oln the outer edgeoftbe '-lcfWlwidthorthe outer edge of the c"nehnigration ZOIle, wbichover is~. (See WAC 222-30-D2L) , (2) F'or....tera W......gtoD,the30 foot ~()faTypeS()l'F Water, measuredhorizolltaUy fi'Oln,1J1e.01Jter. edge:. of the. baDk1Wlwidth or the outer 'eclgeofthecbalmelmigl:atiol1 zone, wbicbeveris gtcater. (See WAC 222-30-022.) "RMZ laaer ZOIIe" means: ) (1) ForWesterIi WaslllagtCJa, the,'&J:ea,measured horizonta1ly 'fIom,tbe outer boundary oftbe ~ ~ ""'" o.fll1)lle ~"or,F Waterlo,""the~Iimi,., 'tofthe, ,mner,.,. '~,' ',The outer"",l,imit of the ltUlerzone IS determined based on the Wldth of the atlCcted water, Slte class and the management option chosen for timber harvest within the inner zone. (See WAC 222..30- 021.) (2) For E81tera W.........., the area measured horizontally iom the out<< boundary of the core zone 45 feet (for streams less than 15 feet ~) or 70 ieet (lor streams ~than IS feet wide) ftotn the outer boundary of tile, c::ore zone. (SeeW AC222-3Q-022.) "RMZoaterzoae" means the 'ma,l'lle8SURJd ho1i7.ontally between the outer, boundary ofdleitmer zoneandthe.RMZ width, as specified inthe.ripari811managernent,ZOJle clc6tition above. .lMZ width,u. measured from the outer edge ofthe"bankfbllwidth or theouteredseofthe ,~ migration zone, whichever is greater.(Sce WAC 222..30-021 and 222.30-022.) "Roacl coutndlOll" meaDS theestab~ ofmy new sub .... including widening. realignment, or modification of mexisting 1'OlIdprism, with the ex<:eption of replacing orinstJll11iQg drairulge stl'UettIreI, for the purposes ofmanaging mrest land under Title 222 WAC. "Road ....teIl..~" means any toad wmt: .specifically related to ~ntairting water control or road safety and visibility (such as; grading. spot rocking; resurfaciJ1g, roadside vegetation eontml, water baning, ditch clean out, replacing or installing rc1ief eulverts, cleaning culvert inlets and outletS) on ~ foresf; roads. "Rod,eatldde" mean8any substance or mixture of substances intended to JmM'Dl, destroy, repel, or mitigate rodents or any other v<<tebJate sunmal which the dim:tor of the state department of agriculture may declare by regulation lobe a pest. 16--14 Source scale denominator: 24,000 Type of source media: online Source citation abbreviation: WADNR SOILS LAYER Source contribution: WADNR SOILS LAYER INFORMATION LAYER: SOILS GEN.SOURCE: State soils mapping program CODE DOCUMENT: State soil surveys CONTAcr: NA COVER TYPE: Spatial polygon coverage DATA TYPE: Primary data *- Information for the SOILS data layer was derived from the Private Forest Land Grading system (PFLG) and subsequent soil surveys. PFLG was a five year mapping program completed in 1980 for the purpose of forest land taxation. It was funded by the Washington State Department of Revenue in cooperation with the Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), USDA Forest Service and Washington State University. State and private lands which had the potential of supporting commercial forest stands were surveyed. Some Indian tribal and federal lands were surveyed. Because this was a cooperative soil survey project, agricultural and non- commercial forest lands were also included within some survey areas. After the Department of Natural Resources originally developed its geographic information system, digitized soils delineations and a few soil attributes were transferred to the system. Remaining PFLG soil attributes were added at a later time and are now available through associated lookup tables. SCS soils data on agricultural lands also have subsequently been added to this data layer. Approximately 1100 townships wholly or partially contain digitized soils data (2101 townships would provide complete coverage of the state of Washington). SOILS data are currently stored in the Polygon Attribute Table (.PAT) and INFO expansion files. COORDINATE SYSTEM: WA State Plane South Zone (5626) . (N.zone converted to S. zone) COORDINATE UNITS: Feet HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD27 PROJECTION NAME: Lambert Conformal Conic **** MAJOR CODES USED FOR SITECLASS DATA***** PFLG DATA: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/datalsiteclasslsiteclass_meta.h1m1 8/912005 I ~.uVV: 1".uu1 - I1U;:UH"\,UjJ"uvv."vu. hSOO!" MAIL Print - Close VVindow Dete: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:15:13 -0800 "SUE CASEY" <sue.casey@wadnr.gov> hdsllc@yahoo.com From: To: Subject: Re: DNR use of site dass In Western Washington ~ The META file which contains 5 site classes for Western Washington is used by DNR Forest Practices specifically for Riparian Management Zones. Each site class has a designated minimum and maximum buffer width which is used to determine the area needed to provide the riparian functions for the aquatic resources and identifies the applicable harvest restrictions for each zone. Site class are defined by Forest Practices rules in WAC 222-16-010 as well as in the Forest and Fish Report which is tied to RCW 76.09. Forest Practices Rules apply to state and privately owned land in Washington as defined in WAC 222-16-010 "Forest land" >>> jim lindsay <hdsllc@yahoo.com> 10/7/2005 11:05:12 AM >>> Sue, The META file which contains 5 site classes for Western Washington is used specifically for Riparian Management Zones for forest practices. They are environmental tools for logging practices. Each site class has a buffer (RMZ) width that are used to determine those areas that are protected from logging. Site class are determine by Forest Practices rules (Chapter 222) and by law RCW 76.09 and WAC 222-16-010. Site class are not used to determine "Forest Lands of long term commercial significance". The site class is used to drive the RMZ width. Please indicate whether or not the above interpretation of site class and their use by the Dept. of Natural Resources is correct. A reply would be appreciated Thank You Jim Lindsay Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com http://us.f536.mail.yahoo.comlymlShowLetter?box=lnbox&MsgId=4349_1150245_35886...11/1/2005 FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION FP A-02-15306 APPLICANT: BARBER FAMILY ASSOCIATES """ FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATlONlNOTlFICATION PROCESS AND CONDITIONS 0. ~ . RewieW Ct,rioiJ.... Due: FinIII Due 0IIII: 03-11-15 1./ - /,-r;. ~f ..02-15306 J ~ SIUdcMn ZDM: IllS : " ... OIF lNIDQI1II!Il IIAR8ER FAIIL Y ASSOC. '.0. ..__ Ln&m1ao. ... - .... aF T1MIIM CMII!It. BARBER FAJa Y ASSOC. IWE 0IF~11M BARBER FAIILY AS~ -r~P SECt1ON(.J 1WPN , RCJ& &111 Q.ASS OF APPUCA110N o ClASS II o CLASS. DE c;J. ;;... W b.ASS moP [] ClASS IV-G C ClASS IV-S COUNTY WHERE PROPOSED ACTMTY WILL OCCUR: , CAT10N APPROVED cONDITIONS TO THIS APPI.JCA TION I NO'11FlCA TION THIS OPERATION IS SU8JECTtO: a ...,.....PftIIIcI~ D ........-"'I....6c:t a CnftllliIMNII~ a CGJRII.'" FPA FcIIlII_ a ~ ~ MIdlIIIII C 0IJIr .:Jod APPROYAL(X)NIXnONS: 1. EXISTING CULVERT t<<JST BE REPt.ACE BY ia" CULVERTS. SkIDOER DOZEPS NO 2. 3. AS APPLI ARE RESTRICTED TO SLOPES F 40% or L 5S. 4. WATERBAR ALL SKID ROADS/SKID TRAILS SO AS TO PREYElT SURFACE RUNOFF/EROSION ONTO BLUFf'S AND SLOPES ABOVE SAlT lATER. 5. 6. T ALL ROADS/SKID ROADS UL ROAD} SHALL BE C PM.AJ!.....~ C APPl.ICA11ON1MC~1'1OIt~ C APPLICATION ON HOLD C APPLICATION DISAPPROVED TtTl.E; 411-: o:r~/ t -.,~ - ~ -W::;,s'7.'o ~-..n~su 4t':.i.t-95 ~~;7 JOH a"'411l8 R&GION: STPT- OL YIIPIC I.DC'AL OOQRIJlIl!M': I.OCAL. 00\....".. LGC:AL Q04IIu.....~ JG HOl. T NONGAME o WlI.DUI'I! ~~ 0"": 01MEIIS: REVENue l&l eOJllESDI~ TO: CAt ~,. ~1IlI:IIM""" PT. GAMBLE ~"""1IIR: AFFICT1DlN&lWI ~ CRONIN tl eco&.OCIY _ .- oa ~, (5-,n ..... ....,............ '''''.'''.1 -J.n .,IIAG -/ ~'l ~,c1 0 vi FOREST PRACTICn' ~, APPLICATION I NCmFICATION I. . GENERAL INFORMATION 8EenOM .. t'O lit! lIIS1tIUC1ICIII1O AISIIT 1M ... ~ ", MlIIGMI. ftN 0lIl ,.., . JI.uI I.1f' - I ~ 'Wa___"--'" IIr 1Icdual."h.~'. I, NJ. ...... .... .., I OR COMtMrf' IOMIlON ~ (Nt ClHM11:M J. FULL ...... ..... -'-'OR COIIIhMt I..... ... OfIIlMDOI .. oRmlNAL ~:;}~ { ~~ ~~- , NOT YET JOENTIFJED ".1' '''11, Anoclatn' II NL ...... _,M CClIIP....... ...... or 1--' 0iIlIe larWl' f'..lly AnGci,t.es 1TA1I! DO .- 98OJ& , m-8XD ....................... - J' . ., _ stII NIl 0fII ~ enm' UQ~- IlIaU!"'A-,~ .. ..... -. , II --.... llitl 111-. -.J11U.'~ .....IT_ PO Baa 6JliJ PO .. 8363 an STAft ,. CIf'r Lm .....s CRY l. .... .. , , .._ _ 9lIDI5 ' flttGM& ----..-,..,.- -.. -- ,.,..tI'~-'" . U ~- n ....__..41.10. ...~n.~.. ,... , . _ _ 11-""- .. -. .......................... .. II .. ,.,.. 0fII~...-rY n~ u.....~~.- II ""'.IIL II --...... '. ....-....lWGAfM.4IOCCIUIft' .. " ~-3'1J FOR'TAX~r~~_TAX"'7' ~CMLt_"I_ . ' .. [JYU .._. II T.GlWlAlGf....Grium'Cf ....~ [Jva II NO . .",~"'__A"""1WICt .,...aUll_...11 (J YII II NO . .,. OPIM....,.. - PaTfJ/I A ~..AM7 u.. all ,~ . U!GAL........O/II ~ W awddIIt It .....,. f. I.. ~(UI. .. -=tal .... s ! lit. ,....,CIRaDr..... Uftl ._:.~~JNa""'t,"...jII...,...~~~~_.-.. uftl 1l1IOr'~ ~al""""'UMl__~1 ND1'E: 1..C....._".... .Lb..l. WCt'IV- _..~ '1:a....~~r::&~tI_.~.."=-- ' . . . . . ~.t .. '_ THlIIa 1'..-IIJ'.~fICII"tw 1JbllrJ'ftCIIr ...,...-=&;...a. T ....==IIIlt....~ ......tI--.._....~~....!J-~ ~~~ . -.--"-- =..."....-.., ~~IIr.:n;;;..,. .. ., .. .~unde ACW"\e~~D.WM:~...1ft&e. . ff. P~n:L.,;J?fI"?J:r..=:'~!~~~~~ 4FarIlPA........1f.. n..... b.~'lu.....1 .. tt. ,0. 0. ~t....... 1 ~-~ -- _.. --- ..'T ..U.,I~:J.. laUT..I ~~tJ \uaQ -, 11. I, ~. ROAD $ECl1ON _m. _ll'!'-::==.::o....~_tW.~~ga,..-.:=:.~'= ir\VOIWIg ~ . SIcIlGn v.) , . ~INS., 1530~ .... ~ ~ "" AC1MTf IOTAL l.!NQ1N ~ .&rldr III ntT' ccIIfIA!II- tRaiiIeII (lit..... --:l.iM r 1....c)llO~ 1,200 . ]51 11~.aIIO~ ,II o.1IIIlI.... ~r..l -=- I, ZlII . 3S~ I" MIiIlO ."llIur....., .~.... 111MM:IIIM~ .....-...-- ...... ...- ....-. .. v. TIMBER tWlVEST SECTION .. II" '1::..- ~WJU......al-- - ........,..PlllJNIM., .....- ft,TAt .. -1MIiI-........, ",..,.... ..M1..A.~.... II .... .....l11li. JW II 10 8ecIart 'A) )f' UNIT ..". t:# ....... .,iE' ..., I ,... .. --- . "'~6 Ulo- 111 .... .., ,,' fle,-. ~~~ ,-r~ ~ MIlt ~~= 1& ..........a:- - ' ........- 1 I!VI!n aaed . 1 Alder -- N:IbII~ tlnd 5 1DD '7S 1 ... - .. 1nn .,.. 1 Fl. - 2ft 1M .,< 1 .. c.daS" - 18 1011 21S ~ 111.~lr,......-- ......_.rl(...-- .. .- 11. (JYD cIlI.ua.......,,=~,~~~~...:P~r=.:~DPMY 22. ~~\a,~~=~~g::........--. aMlNlIlIr- -...... .Jt -.----~ M!I! IlttR.. ~1!IIr.~ ".IIII.~~ 'a:-' m~Df~:=.~~..:itTIIiiiT,':I....~..j~.....:'" ~AI""-"'='" U. IJ"" 8,.. ~a.r~~r*~M"'~V-I\PP . M. . ~.rA11OII_."'" ~=:n II..........~ .-..-, t. =:s .1ItIWft"'* WAC22244410(Wlllllaf SUlMll).orWII'C222 ale... ~ flT'Q nPf.NlT1NO auF~I_' ~ NA L . .-an f_'" Me .J ~='srAnON NOT Re ....WIkC 222-340010. 222..34002D<< 222-34410. fOMIoNA QQ.l.ll~. ....... ......., ft~.. l ",'T..J . in 1 uaQ ~ .., _ e ; .. . - j-.... - ,\ " . ~ ~, ...... , i I - - \ --, ~ f .... - ...' ;':)1'4'3'" :: 'j J ~ - ~ . ; 'i I " . 153~ : ~ ': ; :: :" .- .. .t : " .. \: . . II ; : . . . . .-.... .:; .. f , " ' I I 111 : ~t /1'/' r I "" I: ': I I , :::r 1 ar r-- c:::: 1 SCJU! o 1000 ~">""~,~~. lIClOO . ~""",~",~ I({\J .. _...1 ...ft..'-__ _DArE: t14~ I'KT tiln.3lq~~ S IfS I. - ... 40 Feet I..ECrNO: Se~ :"s~'...c', :-: CQn!our 11t!rvol: ~AD 2i J!st;~'\i~ER' S t '! : r: " . . . : . ' ;. , '.f c/C a68~!~~. ~!nd6o:~ so/eo/eo !SLLC: SLL Sc:tr ~I N~3!S3M !SHI~ :Aq ~U8S EMAIL FROM ROSS GOODWIN TO JEFFERSON CO. STAFF Ke: .1 ue,'" .I. VA ., Kyle, This is probably late, but our office just found the archived permit yesterday afternoon. The permit shows a total hmvest of 40 acres with a estimated volume to be removed at a total of 730,000 board feet This gives an average board ~ feet per acre of 18,250. In way of comparison I picked three other applications near the Barber property. Owners include ANE and Pope Resources. The estimated board feet per acre numbers were 18750, 17000 and 18819. There are other parcels - notably DNR and some Pope Resources lands - that show volumes per acre almost double that figure, and there .are some other properties that show volumes per acre almost half of the same figure, So, in short the Barber parcel(s) fall well within the average productivity of land on the T oandos Peninsula. In my professional opinion it is by no means a "poor" site for the area. If you would like a copy of the old Forest Practice Application let me know. If there are other questions I can answer, give me a call at (360) 732-7175. Ross Goodwin Forest Practice Forester Olympic Region >>> "Kyle AIm" <kalm@co.jefferson.wa.us> 7/29/2005 4:11:19 PM >>> Ross, Are you still planning on writing a short letter regarding the Barber property and its suitability for Timber production? We're hoping to get it into our staff report. if we have it before Wednesday we can integrate it into our report. Cheers, Kyle AIm Assistant Planner Jefferson County http://us.f536.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/file.html?box=Inbox&Msgld=9552 _2696726... 8/9/2005 ~.'10 ~- 4 HEARING RECORD /\_, .LNovember 7,2005 U} 5'<\'M e-f\\. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 t..: 0' \/ (', r, ?n"'~ !) ;) (.LU:) RE: Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Port Ludlow Commercial Re- designation, McDiehl Properties, MLA 05-06 Dear Sirs; I have represented McDiehl Properties in the process of amending the comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, due to a scheduling conflict, I am unable to attend your public hearing on the above referenced amendment. The proposal is to complete a process that was begun many years ago. Prior to GMA, properties located within 600 feet of the intersection of two or more arterial roads were designated commercial, unless otherwise specifically restricted. When the County completed its original GMA plan, the property in question was not included as part of the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. It appears that the original GMA commercial designation for the Port Ludlow Village Center was based on what was built at that time and/or that which was planned as part of Olympic Resource Management's Port Ludlow Master Plan. The attached sheet, titled McDiehl Commercial Re-designation, provides a summary of characteristics exhibited by this property as a logical extension ofthe Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. Testimony in front of the Planning Commission supports this re-designation as does the recommendation of both your staff and Planning Commission. I trust, after your review ofthe supporting information provided with the application, and your staff and Planning Commission recommendation, that you too will concur the above referenced site specific amendment should be approved. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this testimony. @.~~ David GO~h, DRG Sound Solutions Cc: Bryan Diehl Attach: McDiehl Commercial Re-designation r I I. w L! NOV 8 2005 I L : JEFfERSON COUNTY J OEPT. Of COMMUNITY OEVELOPME~!. , . McDiehl Commercial Re-designation What: The proposal is to re-designate a .89 acre parcel from residential to commercial. Where: The parcel is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Oak Bay Road and Paradise Bay/Osprey Ridge. Why: The proposal would complete and logically extend the commercial boundary to encompass this parcel, which otherwise is orphaned; being isolated from residential property to the north and west. It is the characteristics of the site which drive this request. Initial Designation Process: The parcel appears to have been given little, if any consideration, during the process for designating the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. The record does not indicate this parcel was discussed during the initial designation process. It appears that the criterion used for the initial designation of the PL VCC was: 1) built environment (that is, was there existing commercial development on the ground or in the permit phase), and 2) the Master Plan for Port Ludlow. As this parcel was not commercially built upon and the parcel was not owned by the developer of the master plan or shown as part of the master plan commercial area, it was not part of the initial designation. However, the comprehensive plan does anticipate revisiting initial land use designations. Site Characteristics: The site meets all the criteria consideration as a logical extension of the existing boundary: I) It is located adjacent to a major road intersection which has commercial development on all sides except for this parcel. 2) The parcel is isolated and contained on the north by a permanent greenbeltJbuffer associated with a residential plat. 3) The parcel is isolated and contained on the west by a ravine and intermittent stream, part of a protected reserve. 4) All utilities and infrastructure needed to support commercial are located at the intersection and were at the intersection since the original designation. Conclusion: The resignation of this parcel would be a logical extension of the commercial designation of the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center without setting precedence, as no other parcel contains these site characteristics. HI!"" ~ lr\'.~I.lh or'CORD ~{~ tJ' tt I . ;'" , : ~.. , '~ r'~\:{r,.' g\;if,""'~ JJ~"'" oR \\;..~,! f,l:J (!\. .~(j.1fI " Olympic Property Group MLA 05-59, MLA 05-60, MLA 05-61 . ()lynlPJtj_QlXUY (-;rouIT A P.lts R..,,,.retss C"",t""" A Pope Resources Company November 9, 2005 H'~~DJ~J~ D~CO' RD' ~i Jnd \h,J \i\h./f Jefferson County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: MLA 05-59, MLA 05-60 andMLA 05-61 Honorable Commissioners: Enclosed please find our detailed Comprehensive Plan Amendment materials for MLA 05-59, MLA 05-60 and MLA 05-61. These materials contain information that is important in understanding our request. We are submitting them to you as we are unsure what or how much infOlmation will be conveyed to you by planning staff. A great deal of thought has been put into our proposals and we believe it is important that you have as much information at YQur disposal as possible to assist in your decision making. We look forward to discussing these matters and answering any questions at the upcoming hearing on November 14. on Rose President Olympic Property Group c: John Fischbach, Jefferson County Administrator Josh Peters, Jefferson County Department of Community Development Tom Goeltz, esq., Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle Olympic Property Group - 19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast, Poulsbo, WA 98370~7456 (360) 697-6626 . Seattle: (206) 292-0517 · Fax: (360) 697-1156 MLA 05-59 """oIll;M,'ii~~:" MLA 05-59 Pope Resources Olympic Property Group - Teal Vista II Property - IHoOOC,"a1r- Bndge en c: 3 3 III -< . Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA 05-59 Pope Resources/Olympic Property Group TEAL VISTA II FACTS Property Size: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Tax Classification: 40 Acres 1:20 1:5 Forestland SUMMARY . 1. It is located in an area of similar, or more intense, development. This proposed designation better reflects the existing development pattern in the Shine area. 2. This request meets the criteria for RR 1:5 in Table 3-2 of the Comp Plan. 3. Zoning to the east, west and south has RR 1:5 zoning. Most lots are less than 1 acre. Many are less than 5 acres. 4. There is an inconsistency with the, comp plan with regard to the surrounding lots. 5. 5-acre zoning is compatible with the surrounding uses. 6. The Village Center is approximately 6 miles from site. This center provides goods, sundries and gas. They also have a transit stop, recycling center, bank, post office and visits from the library bookmobile. 7. Due to concentrated growth within our UGA's, new smaller rural lots are needed and are in great demand. 8. The parcel lies within water service area of pun No. 1. 9. The adjoining parcels lie wholly within the water service area of pun No. 1. This service area was agreed to by Jefferson County in an Interlocal Agreement executed with PUD No.1 on August 8, 1995. The boundaries were later approved and adopted by the Washington State Department of Health in the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan. 10. The parcel contains a water main and well system constructed by Pope Resources. There is an existing well and water main constructed by Pope Resources and now owned and managed by PUD No. 1. Pope Resources maintains numerous connection rights to this system. 11. There is an existing electric line located on site. 12. The site can access existing telephone service in Teal Lake Road or the fiber optic cable in State Highway 104. 13. A short distance from the property a person can access Teal Lake Road, State Highway 104 and the Kingston Ferry Terminal. 14. The parcel lies approximately 1.5 miles from the headquarters of Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3. . .... (;) .... - o c.n en c CT 3 iii' en o' ::s . e . January 31, 2005 ( ) h1l1! ~~;-( lpcrt) (, ;n Hip '\ JAN 3 1 2005 A Pope Rrso"ras COn/paIlY ~1L 1~ CJ~) -sq Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 ( RE: Application for Formal Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment Parcel No. 82 I 343005 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed are the application materials for a comprehensive plan amendment for OPG Properties LLC rural residential property adjacent to State Highway 104 in the Shine area. We believe the property was given an erroneous Comprehensive Plan designation. We are requesting the designation be revised from Rural Residential (RR I: 10) to Rural Residential (RR 1 :5). We believe this request meets the criteria set out under Comprehensive Plan ohjective as shown below in Table 3-2, Summary of Land Use and Zoning Designations: Laud {.~t'Zouiug Dt'~i!?l1atiol1 RESIDE:\TL-\L Rnr.'J R~.;,id~III1;11 1 lI11it ~ .l~r~~ IRR l'~) Tablt' 3-1 Summa!'y or Laud {\e llud Zlluiuj;! Dt'~i211atil)lI\ Criteria for de')lgllatiou Pl'iUfipaJ Laud {"'It' I L:,;;.wd III :11~;l~ (If ~1II11\;1I ,kwl'~]'lllC>llT ;'1I~;1' \\'ilh .;;ill:::k t;lllu]:: ~lll;111~1 ~Xi"IIIl,~ h:'h \)1' r~,l)1l1: ,'t!,)1l2 lh~ "';'1'1;11 ;He;l, I r;;-'llkJlli,'11 atl.J.l;;~m h) RmaJ \'il1:lge C~IlI~] ;Ilh! Rm;-d <: n:',~r\);ld d~,i~II;1!it:>ll': I)\'~rby d~'I;;ll;HJ"ll 1':'1 pIC-<:\I'-till~ pl;Hlcd "-lIbdiYbl,)lb, Enclosed please find the following materials: l. 2. 3. 4. 5. Application for Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment Exhibits A - E, as required by the Application A check in the amount of $2,348.00 for the Ices associated with this request SEPA Master Permit Application - Olympic Property Group -- J ')245 Tenth Avenue Northeast, I'otll,ho, \VA 'Hni'O-/lf ~(; (360) (l'.J7-662(j · S<:anle: (206) 292-0517 · 1'.,1);; !.1(l(J! (N7-11')(j . . . If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 360- 394-0560. Sincerely, Xl J ~ ftA1t7t'/tt/;---. ~~roader Project Manager . . . JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend, Washington 98368 360/379-4450' 360/379-4451 Fax www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Application for Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment1. t'1- ('C-f. t. AJ c. 82/ ,j '-I 3 [!((:;-- . X4f"/C/ F?t!s/ci 'OhCi/ fh /(:''1 /) . ) (/'-- . ) '? . 'j 'l MLA# PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: Applications must be completed, signed and submitted to the Department of Community Development by February 1 in order to be considered during that calendar year's amendment process. Completed applications that are received after February 1 will be placed on the docket for the fol/owing calendar year. Applications that are incomplete (i.e., that do not include aI/ of the information required below) will be returned to the applicant. Please note that formal site-specific amendment applications requesting expansion of existing rural commercial areas are subject to a November 22, 2000 Growth Management Hearings Board decision and subsequent Superior Court decision which prohibits the County from expanding existing rural commercial areas if the rationale for the proposed expansion is that the area existed prior to July 1, 1990. Submittal Requirements 1, A completed Master Permit Application, Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner. 2, A completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist, including the non-project action supplement. Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner, 3. Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment application fee, as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance. as amended, 4, Any additional information deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment 5, Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A." a vicinity map showing the following: a. The location of the area proposed to be re-designated; b, The land use designation of all property within five hundred (500) feet of the site; and c. The uses of all properties located within five hundred (500) feet of the site, 6, Please prepare and label as "Exhibit S," a description of the proposed amendment and any associated development proposal(s), if applicable, Applications for project-related formal site-specific re-designations must include plans and information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and improvements, Applications for such re- designations that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services. 7, Please prepare and label as "Exhibit .C," a map that depicts existing conditions on the site and within the general vicinity [Le" within a five hundred (500)-foot radius). The exhibit must depict topography, wetlands and buffers, easements and their purpose, and means of access to the site, The Intent of the exhibit is to clearly illustrate the physical opportunities and constraints of the site, , See UDC Section 9 4 SITE SPECIFIC APP DOC REV' 1/1612004 Page 1 . 8. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets. if necessary,) --1 j . j f /,.11.'.;> tll)-'t::,"J/t'IJlt:,II, is Oi(r)('(.}f"'{' -l:c l'-LlOflt:~ Cc. Lit) Cd' y-{ /Jlij("; I ,-A-.C 1'\'1 ' I )~ll /0 +0 / (Ill) ,L) /.) 1/ , , . , L.)u r r l' L J 1'1 r..l in) Z to n / I ) ~-l -12:: /ji..{~ (t j !-', t. '- '/< s'r" tI.. /) c"/ ,., 1-1 . .. , J-./ .- - 1 (. I /.- " . . < .L) i '.L '71' . . (, ~ c. n . f .. , .i ( r.t..J ' '" ) - l ~ ('c {.1 " , "/" .. '/'/ t.11I::> i){j ""Cl'/ (' I'Tl'd-t" S (I ru z ~ I 5 (( il (,' II Lc.J,' J) tILt , (ltJl.l/J 'If 1r;'1 -"l~ r (i1tl Is C/O {/ .Jt'; I ~ le~ S ....);pe [::' xh . , E Thecurrentlandusedesignation/zoningofthesiteis: /:'UI::"/11 l2eS,,)e./)7'IIfi..- i DLi lie, '. The proposed land use designation/zoning of the site is:/{' I. f.2 191 Q i S I ,1 ('n 7PJ L I /')L/ I 5- The current use of the site is: f!..a Lu LaJJ I) 9. 10. 11, 12. The proposed use of the site is: I~ e S I ,)t 1\) 771) '- I A j ? fA TUI2 t- 13, If changes to Comprehensive Plan or Unified Development Code (UDC) text are required, please prepare and label as "Exhibit 0: proposed amendatory language (i.e" to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in "bill" format, with text to be added indicated with underlining (e,g" underlinina), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e,g., 6trike9~t&). . 14. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit E," a thorouah explanation of how the proposed re-designation/rezone and associated development proposals, If any, meet, conflict with, or relate to the following inquiries: a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment. and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? c, How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? d. Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and serVIces other than transportation (e,g" sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services)? f, Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? g, Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network. capital facilities. utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? h, Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? i, How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following: . (i) Access; (ii) Provision of utilities; and (iii) Compatibility With existing and planned surrounding land uses? j. Will the proposal. if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole? SITE SPECIFIC APP DOC REV 11/16/2004 Page 2 . k, Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? I. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA? m, Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36,70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, and other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws? 15. The applicant hereby certifies that the statements contained in this application are true and provide an accurate representation of the proposed amendment; and the applicant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approval issued on this applicatio'!., may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false, I /~I It,)-- //13/ Ir' ~ DATE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE . (NOTE: For all required signatures, representative authorization is required if application is not signed by the owner,] . SITE SPECIFIC APP,OOC REV 1"16/2004 Page 3 . EXHIBIT..!. Exhibit Depicting Surrounding Land Uses Parcel No. 821343005 + NTS N ..:"i ,II i ! i ;;, I / I . t _ ...~...u.~,,::.;: ........~....... .!. '" i.................'. .... .. .. . . I .' ' ....f..............:...............] ~.~:.~r !! i ,r- i I ~ ,;-<! i I +-i ': ~---__L_~::cL~~_]~ -L.:__ ........ i._ ~1, ~<JL> Subject Property . EXHIBIT B This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendment/site-specific amendment/map correction to COlTect an erroneous Comprehensive Plan designation for a parcel owned by OPG Properties LLC. It is proposed to change the designation from Rural Residential (RR 1: 10) to Rural Residential (RR 1:5). This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity. It would result in an increase to the development potentials of the property. . . . EXHIBIT C I' '1 .~( ~ . J ',0' / r- f. / / -......,./ ~, ) I.,... t-.l 'It. ".",,,!' .Jf..9. .." Ij\ ~~ ---- '!41 ~J,!t~\~~_''1lf.........l':.':: ~.:.r ~(17.F!: --;-- ._~ '".11::;----= ~~~:IIJ1....~~..j.ur.l,l!.. T ' J.......1till~..1 ~ ~-~~ ;~~J~'J:~!: ~.~;.:~,~~ig!1i'~~~~::~:r~, '''-..:' . '.t:~;;H..r", t-Il~.n '~"'.l~'-' -- -~- --- .W~1lt ~J'::,.,,:.::3, i' :,;r ~';; ~~'.J~t;5i'Z':"" ct"__....t~. Cs:"'ll;!1 ::ii:r:: ~S( OIS o. . Access from Teal Lake Road - Easement AF No. 366301 . No known wetlands . . EXHIBIT D This request does not propose amendatory language to the text of the Comprehensive Plan or UDC. . . . EXHIBIT E a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? No. b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and since January of2005, fast foot ferries are now servicing Seattle from Kingston. As a result, there has been, and will be, an increased demand for residential housing in the area close to the Hood Canal Bridge. This amendment will provide a reasonable means to plan for and accommodate that increase. . It is of our opinion that the subject parcel was erroneously zoned I du/lO from the first adoption of the Comprehensive Plan since all sUlTounding properties to the east, west and south are zoned I du/5 or smaller. The proposed designation better reflects the existing development pattern in the Shine and Bywater Bay areas. Nearly all of the developments in this area have created lots less than 5 acres. Several have created lot sizes less than .5 acres. c. How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count)'. In our opinion, the proposal will obtain positive responses from the residents of Jefferson County in keeping with the current zoning patterns of the area. This property is also accessed from Teal Lake Road and not from SR I 04 which will mitigate many concerns regarding public safety. d. Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? Yes. e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, tire flow, and general governmental services)? . . . . Anticipated impacts could include development of rural residential housing that is compatible with the existing residential development patterns. Accompanying impacts would include a slight rise in the demand for public services. f. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comp Plan? Under the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 3.3.1 it states: "A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR1 :5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: . An established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of records . Parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas..." This application for a rezone from I dullO to I du/5 c1earlv fits within the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comp Plan since the existing zoning to the east, west and south is currently I du/5. The prope11y under this submittal is currently zoned 1 du/ I 0 acres. The Jefferson County Comp Plan states under LNP 3.3.2: "A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 1 0 acres (RR1: 10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: . An established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10 acres); . Parcels along the coastal area of similar size; . Areas serving as a "transition" adjacent to Urban Growth Areas; and; . Critical area land parcels" The applicant's prope11y clearly does not meet LNP 3.3.2 as none of the surrounding zoning reflects the 1 du/l 0 acres requirement. g. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? No. h. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? No. . . . . The parcel lies within water service area of PUD No. I (see Attachment No. I) . The adjoining parcels lie wholly within the water service area of PUD No. I. This service area was agreed to by Jefferson County in an Interlocal Agreement executed with PUD No. I on August 8, 1995. The boundaries were later approved and adopted by the Washington State Department of Health in the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan. . The parcel contains a water main and wen system constructed by Pope Resources. There is an existing wen and water main constructed by Pope Resources and now owned and managed by PUD No. I. Pope Resources maintains numerous connection rights to this system. . There is an existing electric line located on site. . The site can access existing telephone service in Teal Lake Road or the fiber optic cable in State Highway 104. . A short distance from the property a person can access Teal Lake Road, State Highway 104 and the Kingston Ferry Terminal. . The parcel lies approximately 1.5 miles from the headquarters of Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3. i. How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following: (i) Access The road approach for access is on Teal Lake Road. There is an existing 60' wide easement that traverses OPG Properties LLC property to the north, across State owned property and onto the subject parcel. This is perfectly suitable for the property now and will be for a future land use development of up to eight residential units. The topography is suitable for Jefferson County Road Standards. (ii) Provision of Utilities See response to Question No. "h" above. (iii) Compatibility with existing and planned sUlTolmding land uses? The zoning to the east, west and south of the subject parcel has 5-acre zoning. The current land use is residential. The development pattern in this area includes a variety of lot sizes from less than Y2 acre to 5 acres, j. Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term best interests of the community as a whole? . . . No. The surrounding zoning to the east, west and south is already under 5-acre zoning. The property to the immediate north is owned by the State and is managed as timberland. The applicant owns the properties to the northwest and northeast. k. Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? No. It will add up to eight residential units to the area. I. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an incorporated urban growth area (VGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall VGA? The proposed rezone is not located within an UGA. m. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County and other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws? Yes. See responses to Iff' and "h" above. f.~-l-I.At h li!:!!~-~_L ,.:.:"'~-_."~ SUB,JECl PARCEL . '" " " '" r "'="r c... ~J:5~t'GC Ii.S O$P6ii. ~ '. W6lla'te ~@4 J( ...'" ... ...: ...:\ .. ....... . .. .. ..~.-:. ... '.. . ,.,~::, .. .. ._2. " ~ .~;::! ': ~::; & STA"~ PARCEL 821341002 (WEST) APPROVED GARTEN EST ArES PLA 1i' ~ . lIB G:==\'l!:!:O SUBJECT PARCEL LIMITS OF PUD NO. 1 WATER SERVICE AREAS (fROM FINAL JEFFERSON COUNTY COORDINATED \/\fA TIER SYSTEM PLAN) EXISTING PUD WATER MAINS PROPOSED PIlJD WAfER MAINS (R,JJfOJ~lIl1) ~Ql\IIlI:!) . . . ',~~,().'- ',~., ,-.c. :... , , .... I' JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street. Port Tov'insend . Washington 98368 360/379-4450, 800/831-2678' 360/379-4451 Fax ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge, In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: SR104 Rural Residential Rezone 2. Name of applicant: Olympic Property Group 3, Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 19245 Tenth Avenue NE, Poulsbo, WA 98370 AUn: Sue Schroader, Project Manager 360-394-0560 . . . 4. Date checklist prepared: January 21,2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: Jefferson County 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a non-project application. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. No new environmental data has been gathered for this current proposal. Prior generated environmental data includes a topographic map and soil logs. By reference this application incorporates all the environmental data contained in Jefferson County's EIS prepared for the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Approval is sought from Jefferson County for a site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan due to a mapping error. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site, There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) , This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendment/site-specific amendment/map correction to correct an erroneous Comprehensive Plan designation for a parcel owned by OPG Properties LLC. It is proposed to change the designation from Rural Residential (RR1:10) to Rural Residential (RR1 :5). This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity. It would result in an increase to the development potentials of the property. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known, If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by . the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Address: Legal: Teal Lake Road. Shine, WA That portion of the NW ~ and the SW ~ of the SW ~ of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, lying north of State Highway 104 N/A 821343005 Approx, 40 acres Subdivision: Tax Parcel: Land Area: The property lies adjacent to the north property line of State Highway 104 in the Shine area near the Hood Canal Bridge in Jefferson County. It is roughly square in shape and is undeveloped except for access roads and water and electric mains. There is a 1-acre square shaped parcel owned by the Jefferson County PUD No. 1 lying within the boundary of the affected geographic area. This parcel contains a water well and pump house, B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Rolling, hilly, steep slopes . b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Located in the northwest portion of the site, it has an approximate slope of 15 - 20% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat. muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Swantown gravelly sandy loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed, Indicate source of fill. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in filling or grading. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. f, Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe, Not for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for erosion. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. . g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? . . . None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for impervious surfaces. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None for this non-project application. Any future proposals will include erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with DOE best management practices. a. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for emissions from construction and residential uses. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None for this non-project application. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Not to our knowledge. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None to our knowledge. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. . None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for construction of storm water drainage systems. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 DO-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for collecting and discharging storm water run-off from impervious surfaces such as roads and roofs. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for groundwater withdrawal to support residential activities. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. . 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for discharges from residential septic systems. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known), Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe, None for this non-project application. In the future flows from on and off site sources would be treated and detained in accordance with the DOE Storm Water manual for The Puget Sound Basin. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for storm water to enter into the ground. Such residential runoff would be expected to contain typical amount of landscaping related compounds such as fertilizers, etc. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. . d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. . . . 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs _grass _pasture _crop or grain _wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for vegetation removal to support residential activities. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None for this non-project application, Future proposals may include such provisions as perimeter buffering open space set asides. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: _birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: _mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: _fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None for this non-project application, . . . 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for electricity for heating and other typical residential needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe, Not to our knowledge. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not to our knowledgd. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for emergency services. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None for this non-project application. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise levels in the area are characteristic of a low-density rural area. Sources of noise include Teal Lake Road and SR104. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long- term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site, None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for generation from residential and construction activity. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? . The property is currently undeveloped. Rural residential lies to the east, south, and west of the property. North of the property is forestland owned by the state, b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe, Not to our knowledge. c, Describe any structures on the site. None. d, Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e, What is the current zoning classification of the site? Rural Residential RR 1:10 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rural Residential RR 1: 1 0 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? -- Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" or critical area? If so, specify. Those portions of the property in excess of 15% slope would classify as environmentally sensitive under the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for residents. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. J. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The purpose of this proposal is to eliminate an inconsistency between the text and map portions of the Comprehensive Plan. . 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. . . . None under this non-project application. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? None under this non-project application. Any future residential development would comply with adopted development standards. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None for this non-project application, 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for light or glare from streetlights and other typical residential sources. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None for this non-project application. Future developments could be slightly impacted from State Highway 104 and Teal Lake Road, d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None in the immediate vicinity. However, to the east is a boat launching ramp and State park site, South of the subject parcel is Hicks County Park. To the north is the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow. . b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe, . . None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None to our knowledge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans. if any. The site is served from Teal Lake Road. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, however, Jefferson Transit buses stop at the intersection of Paradise Bay Road and SR104. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? This non-project application will not create or displace any parking spaces. Potential future development could result in increased potential for construction of residential parking spaces. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. d, Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Not for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for development of residential roads. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f, How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. . . . None for this non-project application, Potential future development could result in increased potential for traffic generation. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 15, Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. Potential future development could result in increased potential for services. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None for this non-project application. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Water, electricity, refuse service, telephone. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None for this non-project application. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision, ~.,_'n ", J'" / .' /) Signature:.: l/ /'/) Il':/?L(t\." ,.', 1."2(~:;.r ._' I ,~/ " /-' /1..... (:'/_ Date Submitted: /,/'~ / L. " "7)j'dC' 'J .~.'l ( '-.1. I...' . . . ('~~ :i.J ";..; \-,';,,-< \,~~~ "1 .0 silrNO'\ Master Permit Application JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend' Washington 98368 360/379-4450' 360/379-4451 Fax www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment MLA: Project Description (inclu e separate sheets as necessary): .~ '\ /' ... ,,' ~~'.... I Property " ; Size: it ) 1/ L,x' . L/ f.. /-Sf L-''/''( Site Address and/or Directions to Property: />; j' 't L,' I ~~;, ,/: Property O~ner(s) of Re~ord: r !.~f:.~ i! 6/'Jt ," Fk': '\ LL/';_ ._ Telephone: .~,.C ~' .3(1 LJ -() Ct.: I..! Fax: <.6..:[. -ts;.t; 7.. / / '-) ,-~ Mailing Address: It.;. )<.-/ '-,' T'i"1'7 t j) Ii L't" III t: r1' L l / -~ h(". , Applicant/Agent (if different from owner): Telephone: Mailing Address: email:~:)L//..~tJl.tI))ll.lL..CC }'} L I., '/J L/'f/ '-?7r !J} Hn .', SL iI" ,5(/;" ~b..'-, 1 r()JtY-' t' 11'1/.. I U: ~j c" 0 . email: Fax: What kind of Permit? (Check each box that applies) :;i Building ,'j Demolition Permit I~ Single Family I : Garage Attached / Detached ~-I Manufactured Home n, Modular , , Commercial' ,] Change of Use IJ Address i Road Approach II Propane C Allowed 'Ves' Use Consistency Analysis ~, Stormwater Management ! Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) . ::" Temporary Use ;') Wireless Telecommunication. IJ Forest Practices Act/Release of Six-Year Moratorium . May require a Pre -Application Conference i'l Vanance (Minor, Major or Reasonable Economic Use) ,; Conditional Use [C(a). C(d), or CJ .. : Discretionary "0" or Unnamed Use Classification ; I Special Use (Essential Public Facilities).o : Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat .. ,j Binding Site Plan .. I Long Plat .. ., Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD)/Amendments .. Plat Vacation/Alteralion .. j I Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions .. 1"1 Shoreline Management Substantial Development .. , CJ Shoreline Management Variance )($:omprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map Amendment '1 Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment .. Requires a Pre-Application Conference Please identify any other local, state or federal permits required for this proposal, if known: I hereby designate DESIGNATION OF AGENT to act as my agent in matters relating to this application for permit(s) OWNER SIGNATURE Date: By signing this application form, the owner/agent attests that the Information prOVided herein, and m any attachments, IS true and correclto the best of his, her or it's knowledge Any matenal falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in thIS permit bemg null and void I further agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities, Judgments. court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granflng of this permit I I further agree to prOVide access and fight of entry to Jefferson County and Its employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application " review and y reqUired ter inspections Access and righ~f entry to thIS property shall be requested and shall occur only during regular bUSiness hours .. '7". -0 ,/ '--) , /') ,i' ~ ,." '. , ..... . . . h' . / .. ~ --- Signature:, , " ;' " '/ /. -, . ". . V J) ~ Date /, '_-')" ~" ( , The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively Impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potentIal "take" of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the . Endangered SpecIes Act" or "ESA" Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the achons that will be undertaken because thiS permit has been issued will not violate the ESA Any indiVidual. group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s) even If ,ou ~re in compliance With the Jefferson County development code The Applicant acknowledges that he, she or it holds IndiVidual and non.transfe~. Ie r,e~po i~~lit. o~ a?henng to'and COm~IYI~wlth the ESA The ,~pplicant has read thiS disclai~r and s ,ns and dates It below SIgnature: ..... 7, , .', _' , .';'''It,) , ,/)( (/) Date: ;'/.". , I -- , , '..,,'" . (:"\ 1)1 )(UIl'll'nt:<o: :IOO S,,:'rtInl.t~ \l1lllclul\l)",':-.ktl 'p\f\I:1..ll'r I'clmu :\pphc;IUt In 7 .H.(l~ dllC . OWNE' BUILD" STATEMeNTf The signer of this statement does hereby certify that they are the Owners of the parcel refl:renced herein. that they are not licensed contractors and at they will be assuming the responsibility of the General Contractor for the proposed proJect. Signature: Date: / GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLER: PHONE: FAX: )/ ( ) ( MAILING ADDRESS: EMAIL: / CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE WAINS / NUMBER: NUMBER ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: PHONE ( ) /FAX:( ) MAILING ADDRESS: EMAIL / Project Type: Frame Type: Bathrooms: s:~ Type of Sewage Disposal: 0 New o Wood Existing: o Sewer 0 Addition 0 Steel Proposed: Bank o Community System 0 AlterationlRemodel 0 Concrete Total: Heig : o Individual System 0 Repair 0 Masonry lA:back: SEP Permit # 0 Demolition 0 Other: Bedrooms: Water Supply: Existing: fJ Private well ~1 Two Party Type of Heat: Proposed: -I rJ Public Total: Name of System: / / --- --- If this is a Commercial Proiect YOU must answer the followina: / i Number of Parking Spaces: Current: Proposed: Number of ADA Parking Spaces: Number of occupants (includes owners, tenants, employees, etc) cutnt Proposed I IBC Occupancy: IBC Type of construction: Will you have Food Service? Yes / No If this is a ProDane Tank and/or ADDliance Installation Dermit...6.ark all items below that aDDlv: 1 Unde'll"'""" Tank 1 Above ground Tank ::1: of P",pane Tank, I Heat Stove i Cook Stove i Wood stove I Fireplace In rt 1 Hot Water Tank i Pellet Stove i Other Is this aDDliance beina installed in a Manufactured / M lie Home? Yes / No When applying for a permit to install a propanet:;fa~u must also submit a site plan showing all of the buildings, all property lines, tank location and size, distances from the pTJ pane tank to all property lines, buildings and septic system components, including the reserve area. I Sauare Footaae /For Office Use Only I I Current ProDoseell Amount Main Floor 7 Consistency Review: 2NU Floor / Base fee: 3'0 Floor I Additional Section: J Mezzanine: / Plan Check fee: Heated Basement / State Surcharge fee: Unheated Basement 7 Pot Water Review fee: Other Unheated // 911/Rd Approach fee: Garage/carpoy TOTAL: $ Decks / Receipt Number: Other // CashlCheck Number: 1-, E~ATED COST (REQUIRED) Date: - t ir market value 01 all labor and malenals foundation to fmish Initials: I . . ,- c\n(l~llInl'nb. :tnJ S\,'t[l!1g~\mochll\n~!ool...hlp\;\b"'fl'r PI.:r1l111 .\ppll\.:lIlilll 7.H.1I~_d,~ ~ . ATTACHMENT 1 This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendment/site-specific amendment/map con-ection to correct an erroneous Comprehensive Plan designation for a parcel owned by OPG Properties LLC. It is proposed to change the designation from Rural Residential (RR I: 10) to Rural Residential (RR 1:5). This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity_ It would result in an increase to the development potentials of the property. . . m >< ::T c: ;:;: . J '<-t'." ....,.::::. '- ::=:~.. '.. "- \) ....... .... . ". - ...... ... '< ~ I. I .... "'Or(<j . \ ~ I ". l"\)\S~ - .~<.,... ~ _: AV'M~31.V'MA8, . t>-~ ~\ '. _', , ).., '? t --r->" ','., ,\' . / ' --1\----,'1 '" \, '\ \ II I . 'o.. ... ' ", . r \ '\ '., " \ \. I '\ '" \,;' :r- I I ) I \ I' '-, >--\. \ j ... \, ... ',\" 1r-1. I', " i~-- I - r1 " \ \_--- \- I ~ " 1 """ 'j l '\ \ \ ~~3N'd]~'"i \ o ......-I ......-I ~ ~ ......-I . \0 o I ...... ro = ro U '"d o o :::c: (I) b1) '"d ..... $-; o:l r I ~ 0'\ \,0 . V) I o I II) z t3 I = ~<t::I~< ro....:l!;J~ U:E :0 ~ I~ '" ~~ I~ .n I~= I~< I~~ ~~ o. I ~ rJJ ~i u ~ ~ rJJ ~ ~ ~U ~~ 0=sJ = ... = o N L__ . EXHIBIT A Exhibit Depicting Surrounding Land Uses Parcel No. 821343005 + NTS N 82'341002 . ~~~.~ = I I I 1/ I: ~. .,,,,~-:- ~1 '';''E I.;.:l>>"'/ ,-.""~ ~'i 1 _ J J~ = I 821343009 ~ - ~ '. - -- - ~ 8~~~,;J I =------~~~1~~~~~~'i1 ~yml-3.....11 I J= .1 -' J.- - j = LI iJ4iOO.li: ~~? . 821334:JO~ · .....---.- -! - - I j ~ · J -' I' II -1 . · a21>>1~ ~- .. · M...J I . - - !.2!33-!.~ 82133-.098 '- _ . 82134-,039 J~ f.-=-:i133..iiif..l · I J - ~"3~~~ 1-J _.1-- · -- .r--L- 82!:I-"~~38 8213:1-10211. - 8213];1026. J I --- ~ · ---t_J ..:..~',:. .".- -I ; ~: -'--. HUCKL.!!lE':!RY.LN _L ._ ~ I _~- ._~_;... -~__ _ 1....J:821334047j 1~1_--:C- .l::.X- - -1_--.J __ _-----1'821343023 L-=t==:82~~ 8~~lOO2 f1-'---' ,82.33<10016:r.-'-18213:1-.018_",8213WlO<l1.- ;;;-3':":=-' [21301~ ---- rr-- ~II ~--. I [-"'-r'"~ c=-iI'j[ 1.82133-1000.--- 82. 33-1'i10,r- 821334010 ~1 ~,~ _---- --'1--1 ~ - 970300008 I 82133-'00;. 821334067J: 'r - . L' J_::::r:---1.-~-- - _.---,.------1"'1 I I t !!.O]OOO.!.u r-. -I ....1- '- J '''''''''''821334011.........L - - -- -----f--- I ~ d U . R 1.5 t--- \ - J82~13O~ 721031023..' . 821,334049_8213340'~rr .... __-=:~ an se.. -'--1";;-"'7 - .- t!2'03'023_82'3-1,,023 l~~8j--_- SR 10- ~' \9,.1Q70C>010 ...._ I I, I I. . - - 9 O~ -Tl8213401064~ -- :....J 1l30100007;1.l.:J;;:::.i;":: 82.!,3-1303ClWwnt Use: jSldentl l~o~~' I. 'j:-:i ,- rJhl"?~3 .---'--1~- :~~~~ I l' ~':t'3028 I I .-- ~113-~~;~~=;ll:'.'-;/,. f -:.J------r.- I ,930700006 93070C>0j'2. I I I j ,e213<.3022, r "_i!97030001~_ - -;;:;'82133402~ ~ - - - - "___ . 1"82133-1031-. ~ ,._, I ~1~ 930700013:- - J- -l----I J 8213-1302l1.L ,97030000~ !f ,.821..3034. ___ _ 8213-1<1026 - .8213301018_ ~I~..!.oe;~. - -.- r:"'~~ -I !1~~,!,~3:'.~Ji I -- _ - - -.82.3-.30111' f1'~ "'970~11 · ~ 82!.3-~1029" --1", ~ iFJ.: ::l- · -- - \ 82'334007 >- --....--, ~ ,-.- -- ~f'" -.,.... ,. - - ~. -. - I - ~,. ,--.:: '1~ .... ~~3-~f:-'~E~':'lr' -- -9;i~ ~j I l.rs2I,.'i303y---l I I I _bo$'l9io~.i :--- ---,822~F~8 -~ 821!~~!J '8i1"~' 11 ...~J~$j _~ .I, - - r- 9703OCW3:S. -~I 82t3ll303!1 I. I ,... .~2.!.330~O.:;~ -I ".,.-. .1..."... .lIQIc.:tI:~.. ..,........ .1"..... .W...li08'..... r. ..... .sft~Il" .'.'i; II. ...~11-I4O:-tOll. ,-------.., ."" ...1] ~'''''''''- . ~L~J:- 'i a2~oo;; L - 621.343026 j ". '...1. 9 03000..,!:1 - -;::::-.!r'l~.' ';_J '%~82ii'J4001.....SHINERD~1001~-_ ----'~:r.. '1 I J;;;;97030000197030001~_ -1,.1..1.. ~:~'~0~'3-,:;o:;;1 82133-100!>"82~182i3.13OOa _ __::::.- _;;-- ~__ w,iOi', ~2134~_ 970:;OOO'S~102O<lOO21 82'~;SZ ill,.. ..:L 82'343030821343026~- _~ ~ - ~c::-;'970200004.f"':.I. 82.34301S, 1'82134'1049 _.1. -~~. ..-- - - ~~- --~_..~- 62 302 ----.....-.... 821J..13014.~1~91020(00)1 ~ - rl l&il 82tJiM027 Maos 134 0 '''-'----'' ,-"- ~'-_" '-'-~mll.97~~1 82'3-~1O<19 .' ~~1~ \ Vicinity Map - East Jefferson County ~ SR104 Near Hood Canal Bridge ~~-..-_ I I i' W' I '" I ! -.! ~ L ,'LBll ~I' .,.t2f 11 ~' >~ , ~_fIt '" .,.l. ---I t",:" . \':1 , ~" I', '1'.' I I ,. J..__,__~ I Subject Property . EXHIBIT C r 9E6OOO36 tit ~\ - -- - - -- =-1 M~ ~.~.~ty Central S""''''.. ~ o . Access from Teal Lake Road - Easement AF No. 366301 . No known wetlands . MLA 05-60 .;!~c"""""'~;;-:-_.':;,;;,;:,'.:-__..:.:..:..:~~:-:.::.:?":,,;;;;:_:,;;;~~:c::,s:rc-~~:,_,e_~---~ MLA 05-60 Pope Resources Olympic Property Group - Tala Point - Current Zoning: RR 1:20 Proposed: RR 1:5 Current Zoning: 1:5 Current Use: Residential Current Zoning; RR 1:20 Current Use: Raw Land State Owned " Olympic Property Group Zoning for Case No. MLA 05-60 ,..,., en c: 3 3 I>> ~ . . . Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA 05-60 Pope Resources/Olympic Property Group TALA POINT FACTS Property Size: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Tax Classification: 250.75 Acres 1:20 1:5 Forestland SUMMARY 1. Surrounding and adjacent to Tala Point there are 92 out of 142 lots that are less than I-acre in size. 2. The average density pattern in the Tala Point area is 1 :4, which is similar and consistent with the 5-acre lot sizes OPG is requesting. 3. The zoning of the surrounding properties, just like the actual lot sizes, reflects a "pattern" which supports 5-acre zoning for the Tala Point property (reference Comprehensive Plan Policy LNP 3.3.1). 4. 5-acre zoning already exists on the north, east and west of the OPG property. 5. The rezone request provides a needed choice of rural lot sizes. Due to concentrated growth within our UGA's, new smaller rural lots are needed and are in great demand. 6. The proposed amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks or environmental features (see Staff Report, page 2-19). 7. The property is currently served by roads and utilities. 8. To the west and adjacent to the property is the high-density Master Planned Community of Port Ludlow. 9. Services, i.e., bank, gas station, store, fire department, etc. are less than 3 miles from the site. 10. If amendment is granted, County tax revenue will increase significantly. Current taxation for the entire 250.75 acres as forestland is $4,650. Property taxes have the ability to increase significantly per annum. Also, sales tax on construction could be a significant revenue source (50 homes x $150 sf x 3,000 sf = $22.5 million). ~ -- w ~ -- o (11 en c: tT 3 fir f/I o ::s . ( )I\'I11P/\,( )peny ( ;roup JAN 3 1 2005 A Pupe ResuII"es COll/pa"J' January 31, 2005 (Y\ L-A (J5 -toe) Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 RE: Application for Formal Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment Parcel No. 821152001 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed plea$e find the application materials for a comprehensive plan amendment for Pope Resources rural residential property adjacent to the Port Ludlow Master Planned . Community on Tala Point. We believe this request meets the criteria set out under Comprehensive Plan objective as shown below in Table 3-2, Summary of land Use and Zoning Designations: Table 3-1 Summan' of Laud {",f- and Zouino Dt',ioufltiou, .. ~ Laud l\e'Zouiug Criff-ria for c1('~ignatiou Priufip.ll Laud l\f- Df'~i2n:Hioll RESIDE~TL\L Rl1r:l1 R~~idelHl;11 U'(al~d 111 m~a~ (\f ~llll1Ll1 dewk)j.'1lJe11l: ~'llCtl" ',yilh Sin::de t;1JJuJ\' 1 unif ~ a(re~ ~lll;iJkJ exi~lnl~ I(lh M' Je((l]d: ;1 ]')I1~ ih~ (,);'I'I;'iJ :ne:1. re~idelHi;'d IRR l~) ndJ;1(enl r,) Rural \ 'i11n:;:c C~lller nud RtII ;'11 Cn)-'i-1\),h'j de"isu,Hi('m: (l\'erlny de~I:211;HWn f')1 p1e-e\I~lil:~ pInned 'll1.lt1i\"i~h)Jb, Enclosed please find the following materials: 1. Application for Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Exhibits A - E, as required by the Application 3, A check in the amount of $2,348.00 for the fees associated with this request 4. SEPA 5. Master Permit Application . - Olympic Property Group - I <J245 '!enrh Avenue Norrhe~st. J>olll~ho. WA ')H,170,74';() (360) 697-6626 . Seattle: (206) 2')2-0"517 . bx: (360) 6')7-] J';() . If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 360- 394-0560. Sincerely, ~(/fhll-(({lt>v- ~~Throader Project Manager . . . . . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The benefit that the county will see in tax revenue is significant. Please see the table below for information: Subject Property Facts: . Acreage Total: . Tax Classification: . Current Use: . Current Zoning: . Current No. of Parcels: . Current Per Acre Annual Taxes: . Current Annual Tax Total: 250.75 Forestland Forest Management - Timberlands RR 1 :20 7 $18.53 $4,646.40 Total Annual Property Taxes/Acre Taxes Uses Zonin2 Lot Size (Approx.) (Approx.) Comments Forest Mgmt RR 1:20 250.75 $18.53 per $4,646.40 If subject Contiguous acre property Acres stayed "as_ is" Residential - RR 1 :20 20 Acre Lots $145.66 per $36,524.25 If subject Vacant Land acre property were In vacant land and subdivided Residential - RR 1:5 5 Acre Lots $410.00 per $102,807.50 If subject Vacant Land acre ' property were 111 vacant land and subdivided * Residential - RR 1:5 5 Acre Lots $1,300.00 $325,975.00 Full build- Full build- per acre out of 5-acre out w/homes lots w/homes ** NOTES: A verages are based on approximate fair market values. * Based on an approximate average value of $200,000.00 - 5 acres, raw land ** Based on an approximate average value of $600,000.00 - 5 acres with home --~ . !)-. JEFFERSON COUNTY ( "i < ",:< DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \~1 ~,& 621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend, Washington 98368 <SllINO'\ 360/379~4450 . 360/379-4451 Fax www.co.Jefferson.wa.us/comfndevelopment Application for Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment~,_ 'L MLA# PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: I Applications must be completed, signed and submitted to the Department of Community Development by February 1 In order to be considered during that calendar year's amendment process. Completed applications that are received after February 1 will be placed on the docket for the following calendar year, Applications that are incomplete (i.e" that do not include all of the information required below) will be returned to the applicant, Please note that formal site-specific amendment applications requesting expansion of existing rural commercial areas are subject to a November 22, 2000 Growth Management Hearings Board decision and subsequent Superior Court decision which prohibits the County from expanding existing rural commercial areas if the rationale for the proposed expansion is that the area existed prior to July 1, 1990. . Submittal Requirements 1. A completed Master Permit Application, Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner. 2, A completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist, Including the non-project action supplement. Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner, 3. Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment application fee, as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance, as amended. 4. Any addition?1 information deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. 5. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A," a vicinity map showing the following: a. The location of the area proposed to be re-designated; b. The land use designation of all property within five hundred (500) feet of the site; and c. The uses of all properties located within five hundred (500) feet of the site, 6, Please prepare and label as "Exhibit S," a description of the proposed amendment and any associated development proposal(s), if applicable. Applications for project-related formal site-specific re-designations must include plans and information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and improvements, Applications for such re- designations that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services, 7. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit "C," a map that depicts existing conditions on the site and within the general vicinity (i.e.. within a five hundred (500)-foot radius]. The exhibit must depict topography, wetlands and buffers, easements and their purpose, and means of access to the site, The intent of the exhibit is to clearly illustrate the physical opportunities and constraints of the site. . , See UDC Section 94. SITE SPECIFICAPPDOC REV.'1I16/2004 Page 1 . . . .. 8. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) .' , / ,. I' - f}t, ,.' / err tL f ( (' (' Yl '-', "J 9. The current land use designation/zoning of the site is: n1 t,,-k ;cr I' 'J ;" . ....c' I: ') 10. The proposed land use designation/zoning of the site is: (j ;' '; " ( 11 , The current use of the site is: ". d [,....: , ~ (. 11. 12. The proposed use of the site is: f e S i c.lc I) I; (l { In l Li. lu r-r? 13. If changes to Comprehensive Plan or Unified Development Code (UDC) text are required, please prepare and label as "Exhibit 0," proposed amendatory language (Le., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in "bill" format, with text to be added indicated with underlining (e,g., underlinina), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., strikeellts). 14, Please prepare and label as "Exhibit E," a thorouah explanation of how the proposed re-designation/rezone and associated development proposals, if any, meet, conflict with, or relate to the following inquiries: a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid. or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? c. How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? d, Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e,g" sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services)? f, Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? g, Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? h. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? L How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following: (i) Access; (ii) Provision of utilities; and (iii) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses? j. Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be In the long-term best interests of the county as a whole? SITE SPECIFIC APP DOC REV 11/1612004 Page 2 . . . k, Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? I. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA? m. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36,70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, and other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws? 15. The applicant hereby certifies that the statements contained in this application are true and provide an accurate representation of the proposed amendment; and the applicant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approval issued on this application may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false, PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE ! I~) If) ~--- DATE / ~;rl Ie c;- OATE DATE DATE [NOTE: For all required signatures, representative authorization is required if application is not signed by the owner] SITE SPECIFIC APP,DOC REV 11/16/2004 Page 3 . EXHIBIT A Exhibit Depicting Surrounding Land Uses Parcel No. 821152001 N ~ NTS MPR SF 4:1 Approximate 500' Boundary Current Zoning: RR 1:5 Current Use: Residential ~ilE Current Zoning: RR 1 :20 Current Use: Raw Land State Owned .~~~nll Port Ludlow Master Planned Community Subject Property Current Zoning and Use: Open Space . . . . EXHIBIT B This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendment/site-specific amendment to rezone parcels owned by GPO Properties LLC. It is proposed to change the designation from Rural Residential I :20 to Rural Residential 1:5 on 250.75 acres located on Tala Point adjacent to the master planned community of Port Ludlow. This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity. It would result in an increase to the development potentials of the property. . EXHIBIT C Parcel No. 821152001 ~ I .11l')~~ . Access from Paradise Bay Road/East Ludlow Ridge Road . No known wetlands . Steep slopes on west portion of property . . . . EXHIBIT D This request does not propose amendatory language to the test of the Comprehensive Plan or UDC. . . . EXHIBIT E a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? No. b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and since January of2005, fast foot ferries are now servicing Seattle from Kingston. As a result, there has been, and will be, an increased demand for residential housing in the area close to the Hood Canal Bridge. This amendment will provide a reasonable means to plan for and accommodate that increase. The proposed designation better reflects the existing development pattem in the Tala Point area. Nearly all of the developments in this area have created lots less than 5 acres. Several have created lot sizes less than .5 acres. c. How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. In our opinion, the proposal will obtain positive responses from the residents of Jefferson County in keeping with the current zoning patterns of the area. d. Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? Yes. e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services)? Anticipated impacts could include development of rural residential housing that is compatible with the existing residential development patterns. Accompanying impacts would include a slight rise in the demand for public services. f. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comp Plan'? . . . Under the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 3.3.1 it states: "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: . An established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e.. 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of records . Parcels of similar size (i.e.. 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas..." This application for a rezone from RR 1 :20 to RR 1:5 clearlv fits within the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comp Plan since the existing zoning to the west, east and north is RR 1 :5. See Exhibit A. g. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? h. No. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? No. · The site can access existing telephone and electrical service in East Ludlow Ridge Road. . A short distance from the property a person can access Paradise Bay Road, State Highway 104 and the Kingston Ferry Terminal. . There may be a slight rise in emergency services and school impacts which would be handled under SEP A for allY future proposed developments. i. How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following: (i) Access The road approach for access would be on Paradise Bay Road and onto existing East Ludlow Ridge Road. Driveways would then access the individual parcels. (ii) Provision of Utilities . . . See response to Question No. "h" above. (iii) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses? The zoning to the west, east and north of the subject property has 5-acre zoning. The current land use is residential. The development pattern in this area includes a variety of lot sizes from less than Y2 acre to 5 acres. j. 'Viii the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term best interests of the community as a whole? No. The zoning to the west, east and north is already RR 1 :5. The applicant owns the subject property and the state and applicant own the properties to the south. k. Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? No. Due to the concentrated growth within our UGA's, new smaller rural lots are needed and are in great demand. I. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an incorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA? The proposed rezone is not located within an UGA. m. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County and other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements. and any other local, state or federal laws? Yes. See responses to "r' and "h" above. . . . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The benefit that the county will see in tax revenue is significant. Please see the table below for information: Subject Property Facts: . Acreage Total: . Tax Classification: . Current Use: . Current Zoning: . Current No. of Parcels: . Current Per Acre Annual Taxes: . Current Annual Tax Total: 250.75 Forestland Forest Management - Timberlands RR 1 :20 7 $18.53 $4,646.40 Total Annual Property Taxes/Acre Taxes Uses Zonin2 Lot Size (Aoorox.) (Aoorox. ) Comments Forest Mgmt RR 1 :20 250.75 $18.53 per $4,646.40 If subject Contiguous acre property Acres stayed "as- is" Residential - RR 1 :20 20 Acre Lots $145.66 per $36,524.25 If subject Vacant Land acre property were III vacant land and subdivided Residential - RR 1:5 5 Acre Lots $410.00 per $102,807.50 If subject Vacant Land acre property were III vacant land and subdivided * Residential - RR 1:5 5 Acre Lots $1,300.00 $325,975,00 Full build- Full build- per acre out of 5-acre out w/homes lots w/homes ** NOTES: A verages are based on approximate fair market values. * Based on an approximate average value of $200,000,00 - 5 acres, raw land ** Based on an approximate average value of $600,000.00 - 5 acres with home . ," ... ,-,\.)~'. ...~. , -.;;.., .'-<. ...... , ....' i" JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street. Port TO\"o/nsend . Washington 98368 360/379-4450' 800/831-2678' 360/379-4451 Fax ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can, . You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts, If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you, The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Tala Point Rural Residential Rezone 2. Name of applicant: Olympic Property Group/Pope Resources 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: . 19245 Tenth Avenue NE, Poulsbo, WA 98370 AUn: Sue Schroader, Project Manager 360-394-0560 . 4. Date checklist prepared: January 21, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: Jefferson County 6, Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle 7, Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a non-project application. , 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. No new environmental data has been gathered for this current proposal. By reference this application incorporates all the environmental data contained in Jefferson County's EIS prepared for the adopted Comprehensive Plan. . 9, Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Approval is sought from Jefferson County for a site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description,) , This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendment/site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation for a parcel owned by Pope Resources. It is proposed to change the designation from Rural Residential (RR1 :20) to Rural Residential (RR1 :5). This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity, It would result in an increase to the development potentials of the property. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site . plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available, While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Address: Paradise Bay Road, Port Ludlow, WA . Legal: S15 T28 R1E I LT1(LS PT TX2-5)2(LS I PT TX2,3)4(W30A)5&61 (W22.32A)SENW,W1/2SW N/A 821152001 Approx. 250.75 acres Subdivision: Tax Parcel: Land Area: The property lies adjacent to the north property line of Paradise Bay Road in the Port Ludlow area near the Master Planned Community of Port Ludlow on Tala Point in Jefferson County. It is undeveloped except for access roads and electric mains. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Rolling, hilly, steep slopes b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Located in the west portion of the site, it has an approximate slope of 30-50% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. . Cassolary Sandy Loam (CfC and CfE) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. Possibility of unstable soils in the west portion of the site, e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in filling or grading. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for erosion. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review, g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for impervious surfaces, This would be addressed under a separate environmental review, . h, Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None for this non-project application. Any future proposals will include erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with DOE best management practices. a, Air . a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for emissions from construction and residential uses. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. c, Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None for this non-project application. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. . The subject property is located on Tala Point which is situated between Port Ludlow Bay and Hood Canal. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for work within 200 feet of Port Ludlow Bay. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None to our knowledge, 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for construction of storm water drainage systems. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 OO-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. . Not to our knowledge. .;.! . 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for collecting and discharging storm water run-off from impervious surfaces such as roads and roofs, This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for groundwater withdrawal to support residential activities. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc,). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for discharges from residential septic systems. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. . c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known), Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe, None for this non-project application. In the future flows from on and off site sources would be treated and detained in accordance with the DOE Storm Water manual for The Puget Sound Basin. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for storm water to enter into the ground. Such residential runoff would be expected to contain typical amount of landscaping related compounds such as fertilizers, etc. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 4. Plants . a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other . . . shrubs _grass _pasture _crop or grain _wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _other types of vegetation b, What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for vegetation removal to support residential activities. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None for this non-project application. Future proposals may include such provisions as perimeter buffering open space set asides. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: _birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: _mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: _fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b, List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. c, Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None for this non-project application. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for electricity for heating and other typical residential needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so. generally describe. . . . Not to our knowledge, c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 7. Environmental health a, Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe, Not to our knowledge. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required, None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for emergency services. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None for this non-project application. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise levels in the area are characteristic of a low-density rural area. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long- term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for generation from residential and construction activity. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None for this non-project application, 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The property is currently undeveloped. Rural residential lies to the east, north, and west of the property, South of the property is forestland owned by the state. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. c. Describe any structures on the site, . . . None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Rural Residential RR 1 :20 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rural Residential RR 1 :20 g, If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not known. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" or critical area? If so, specify. Those portions of the property in excess of 15% slope would classify as environmentally sensitive under the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for residents. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The purpose of this proposal is to eliminate an inconsistency between the text and map portions of the Comprehensive Plan, 9, Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None under this non-project application. b, Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None, . 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? None under this non-project application. Any future residential development would comply with adopted development standards. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 11. Light and glare a, What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None for this non-project application, Potential future development could result in increased potential for light or glare from streetlights and other typical residential sources. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. . b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c, What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None for this non-project application, d, Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a, What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow lies immediately to the west. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. None, c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. .13. Historic and cultural preservation . . . a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe, Not to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None to our knowledge. c, Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served from Paradise Bay Road. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, Jefferson Transit buses stop at various points on Paradise Bay Road. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? This non-project application will not create or displace any parking spaces. Potential future development could result in increased potential for construction of residential parking spaces. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Not for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for development of residential roads. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. e, Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No, f, How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for traffic generation. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review, g, Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 15, Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. . . . Not for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for services. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any, None for this non-project application, 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, refuse service, telephone. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None for this non-project application. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. ....-. ...... I ~/ / / ,. (,.t.,,1 /r;~{'I'" ,( Signature:r'" ,/.t. -f,,'{. l.'{,i. t. LL Date Submitted: I !i; / /t>iC) ~--------- !J~ JEFFERSON COUNTY . I ~ ~~ '. ~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT t..., ..'- .,.-< 621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend' Washington 98368 \. ~ ~ ~ 360/379-4450' 360/379-4451 Fax \""IS . ,'\.0;/ www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment ~ Master Permit Application MLA: Proiec.t D,eSCriPl!r (i~C~Ude se Tax Parcel r. Number: ;5 J. I Site Address and/or Directions to 'property: '-r?":( 'c L Property Owner(s) of Record: .' ) .' ( -" ':':-', ': ~, Telephone: ;"'Y.L: (; " :os q q - r ',,({' r. Fax: ~' Mailing Address: \ c..1:) q, s '-i-i:' t ~ -f h A \i' (-" Applicant/Agent (if different from owner): Telephone: Fax: Mailing Address: }le:'lf; / ; email: What kind of Permit? (Check each box that applies) fJ Building , Demolition Permit "i Single Family Garage Attached / Detached :.1 Manufactured Home ~I Modular , I Commercial. ~; Change of Use IJ Address i Road Approach I J Propane :~ Allowed "Ves" Use Consistency Analysis [J Stormwater Management i." Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD). lJ Temporary Use 1'1 Wireless Telecommunication. o Forest Practices AcURelease of Six-Year Moratorium . May require a Pre -Application Conference l1 Variance (Minor, Major or Reasonable Economic Use) ;, Conditional Use [C(a), C(d), or C] .. :' Discretionary "0" or Unnamed Use Classification Special Use (Essential Public Facilities).. i; Boundary Line Adjustment ~'! Short Plat .. ! Binding Site Plan .. Long Plat .. :', Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD)/Amendments .. U Plat Vacation/Alteration .. :1 Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions.. 1'1 Shoreline Management Substantial Development .. I~ Shoreline Management Variance ~omprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map Amendment ~! j ~fferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment . .. Requires a Pre-Application Conference Please identify any other local, state or federal permits required for this proposal, if known: I hereby designate DESIGNATION OF AGENT to act as my agent in matters relating to thi~ application for permit(s), OWNER SIGNATURE Date: By signing this application form, the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein, and in any attachments, is true and correct to the best of his, her or it's knowledge, Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void, I further agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities. judgments, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and an ttquired lat!!r inspections Access and right of entry to this property shall be requested and shall occur only during regular business ~ ,~:1 - / /' ... / _/ _, 1 ....~ - I !:.h .. .. "}"", ~ . -~', . .-- Signature: . " '/, 1:.' ,-' /: '/ .. '/,' Date:! ::? //C ~ , . The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential "take" of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the "Endangered Species Act" or "ESA,' Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions that will be undertaken because this permit has been issued will not violate the ESA, Any individual, group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your acllon(s) even If you are in c~Pliance with the Jefferson County development code The Applicant acknowledges that he, she or It holds ,ndiv,dual and non-tra'l..5fera Ie, r "sm 11lrty for adhenng and co g With the~~, The Applrcant has read 1hls dlsc.lal rand gns and dates It below S. t / ,/ / ,v /7 /1--1'.. . '1 {,. " W-1 0 / ' } Igna urtV ,,{.:. - " , ' ,l.. ate," : ." ...... - t.,...,/" J <>\I)IIClIl11cnts :llld Scttll1g~\m()chil\Dcskt"p\~bsrc..'r Pcrmir "rrlic:1IHUl 7.H-04 deu.: . OWNER BUILDER STATEMENT I The signer of this statement does hereby certify that they are the Owners of the parcel referenced herein, that they are not licensed contractors and t t they will be assuming the responsibility of the General Contractor for the proposed project. Signature: Date: // , / GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLER: PHONE: FAX: )./ ( ) ( MAILING ADDRESS: EMAIL: / CONTRACTOR'S liCENSE WAINS 7 NUMBER: NUMBER ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: PHONE ( ) / FAX: ( ) .- MAILING ADDRESS: EMAIL / / Project Type: Frame Type: I Bathrooms: IS~? Type of Sewage Disposal: 0 New 0 Wood Existing: o Sewer 0 Addition 0 Steel Proposed: Bank o Community System 0 Alteration/Remodel 0 Concrete Total: Heig : o Individual System 0 Repair 0 Masonry "z:back: SEP Permit # 0 Demolition 0 Other: Bedrooms: Water Supply: Existing: 0 Private well n Two Party Type of Heat: Proposed: I o Public Total: Name of System: / / If this is a Commercial Proiect YOU must answer the followina: / Number of Parking Spaces: Current: Proposed: Number of ADA Parking Spaces: Number of occupants (includes owners, tenants, employees, etc) curtt Proposed IBC Occupancy: IBC Type of construction: Will you have Food Service? Yes / No If this is a Prooane Tank andlor Aooliance Installation oermit nlark all items below that annlv: 1 Uode",,,,"nd Took 1 Above 9"'"" Took :!:: of P"'",'. Took' i Heat Stove i Cook Stove i Woodstove i Fireplace Inse i Hot Water Tank j Pellet Stove i Other Is this aooliance beino installed in a Manufactured I Mob e Home? Yes / No When applying for a permit to install a propane ta~~ must also submit a site plan showing all of the buildings, all property lines, tank location and size, distances from the pro ne tank to all property lines, buildings and septic system components, including the reserve area. I Sauare Footaae yr Office Use Only I I Current Prooosed Amount Main Floor / Consistency Review: 2NU Floor / Base fee: 3l<f Floor / Additional Section: Mezzanine: / Plan Check fee: Heated Basement / State Surcharge fee: Unheated Basement / Pot Water Review fee: Other Unheated / 911/Rd Approach fee: Garage/Carport / TOTAL: $ / Decks / Receipt Number: Other ./ Cash/Check Number: E~1!ATED COST (REQUIRED) Date: oFai market value of aI/labor and materials foundation /0 finish / Initials: / . . <:-\Documellt" :md S.,;uings\mochll\Dc:-;k(op\M:1su.:r Permit l\pphC:llIOll 7-H.()4Joc . . . A TT ACHMENT 1 This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendment/site-specific amendment to rezone parcels owned by OPG Properties LLC. It is proposed to change the designation from Rural Residential 1 :20 to Rural Residential l:5 on 250.75 acres located on Tala Point adjacent to the master planned community of Port Ludlow. This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity. It would result in an increase to the development potentials of the property. 00 t3 w (3 (11 (") o 3 3 CD ::s - f/I . . . LAWYERS RECEIVED AU6 262005 1m Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE LOS ANCELES NEW YORK PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANCHAI WASHINGTON, D,C, T H () ~I A S f\ CaE L T Z DIRf,CT (2116) 628-7662 thoma<goel'7.@d\\"t com TEl (206) 622-3150 FAX (206) 628-7699 www.dwt_com 2600 CENTURY SQUARE 1501 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688 August 23,2005 Jefferson County Planning Commission Long-Range Planning Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Olympic Property Group Rezone Request - MLA 05-60 (Tala Point) To Jefferson County Commissioners: These written comments are submitted on behalf of the Olympic Property Group to supplement my testimony at the August 17,2005 public hearing. Requested Rezone. OPG respectfully requests that the Planning Commission recommend a zoning change for approximately 250 acres located north of Paradise Bay Road. OPG requests 5-acre zoning (RR 1: 5) to replace the existing 20-acre zoning. This would result in a net increase of only 37 lots (13 lots allowed under the existing 20-acre zone; 50 lots under the proposed 5-acre zone). Tala Point Planning Area. At the hearing, we submitted map exhibits showing the logical Tala Point planning area bounded on the north, east and west by water and lots substantially less than 5 acres, The southern boundary is Paradise Bay Road. That map (Attachment I to this letter) includes a cha11 showing the average density pattern in the Tala Point area is 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres, which is similar and consistent with the 5-acre lot sizes OPG is requesting: SEA 1682711vI 46183-102 . . . Jefferson County Planning Commission August 23, 2005 Page 2 Ii Number of ExistinR Lots: Less than 1 92 Acre 1 to 2 Acres 16 2 to 5 acres 18 5 to 10 Acres 5 Over 10 Acres 11 Total # of Lots 142 Total Acreage 581 Average 1 unit per 4 acres Consequently, the proposed zone for 1 unit per 5 acres is entirely consistent with the pattern of existing lots and is a logical extension of these smaller lots. Surrounding Zoning. The zoning of the surrounding properties, just like the actual lot sizes, reflects a "pattern" which supports 5-acre zoning for the Tala Point property. Attachment 2 to this letter shows that 5-acre zoning exists on the north, east and west of the OPG property. Rezone Provides a Needed Choice of Rural Lot Sizes. Five-acre zoning at Tala Point area is a logical way to provide a variety of rural densities to Jefferson County residents, as allowed by the GMA. Specifically, the GMA and Growth Management Hearing Board decisions allow each county to give a choice of rural lot sizes to their residents. Since all of the surrounding areas are less than 5-acre lots, the Tala Point area is a logical place for the County to offer additional 5-acre zoning to Jefferson County residents. Agree with Staff Report on Key Conclusions. OPG agrees with a number of key conclusions in the Staff Report for the OPG property. Specifically, we agree with Staffs conclusions as follows: · The subject parcel is suitable for residential use, though the presence of steep slopes would require project level mitigation. Access to the property would be provided by an existing road (Staff Report page 2-19). · The Proposed Amendment is not likely to adversely affect the level of service for public facilities (Staff Repo11 page 2-19). · The Proposed Amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features (Staff Report page 2-19). SEA 1682711vl 46183.\02 . . . Jefferson County Planning Commission August 23,2005 Page 3 Ii · The project does not materially affect the land use and population projections (Staff Report page 2-20). Consequently, this modest increase of 37 lots, which would result from the 5-acre zoning, will not have any significant impacts on land use, surrounding properties, services or facilities. Instead, the Staff Report is primarily concerned with trying to "prevent pressure" in the future for other nearby owners to request rezones. But as discussed further below, GPG can remove any pressure due to the special circumstance ofOPG's ownership and control of the substantial acreage immediately to the south of Paradise Bay Road. Comprehensive Plan Policy LNP 3.3.1. Despite these conclusions, the Staff Report recommends denial of the rezone on the purported basis of an inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan Policy LNP 3.3.1 (Attachment 4 to this letter). That policy states the following: LNP 3.3.1 A residential land use designation of 1 dwelling per 5 acres (RR I :5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar size parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or smaller size to existing lots of record; b. parcels ofsimilar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas; c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural Village Centers; and d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed "suburban" platted subdivisions. GPG's property at Tala Point meets both Criteria a. and b. The map and the computation of density clearly show there is "an established pattern" of the same or similar sized parcels (Criteria "a"). Likewise, the map shows there are parcels of similar and smaller pre-existing size along the coastal areas (Criteria "b"). Incorrect and Unauthorized "50% Rule." Despite what is a clear application of policy LNP 3.3.1 to OPG's land, the Staff Report has created a new criteria which is inappropriate and not expressed nor implied in Policy LNG 3.3.1. Specifically, the Staff Report has added a new requirement that each tax parcel comprising the rezone request must have at least 50% or more of its perimeter touched by smaller lots. This is incorrect. Nowhere in LNP 3.3.1 is there any reference to measuring perimeters or any type of 50% or other percentage standard. Rather, the clear, express language in LNG 3.3.1 is "pattern and similar sizes." SEA 1682711v146183.102 . . . Jefferson County Planning Commission August 23, 2005 Page 4 1m As mentioned at the hearing, the "50% rule" would remove all judgment and discretion from the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners as to whether property fits within a "pattern of similar sized lots," We do not believe the Board of Commissioners meant to have a simple mathematical test like Staff "50% rule." In other words, the Staff Report's view would be that property bounded by 49.5% of smaller lots would not meet the criteria, whereas property surrounded by 50.1 % would qualify. We do not believe that the Comprehensive Plan was ever intended to have such a mechanistic result. Rather, the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners are to exercise their judgment to review the surrounding areas and determine whether there is a "pattern or similar lots" in the vicinity. Also, the Staff Report's approach of separating each of the 7 tax parcels that comprise the rezone request is incorrect. OPO did not submit 7 applications, but rather 1 application for a rezone. The fact that the rezone request happens to include various tax parcels is not relevant to evaluating the rezone under LNO 3.3.1. The property was submitted as a unit and should be evaluated as a unit. Removal of any future "pressure." OPO has volunteered to address the Staff Report's concern about this rezone "creating pressure" for future rezone requests for nearby properties. As shown on the Exhibits at the hearing, OPO has the special opportunity to preclude any rezone applications for the substantial area south of Paradise Road for a mutually agreeable period of time. Attachment 3 shows the OPO ownership south of Paradise Bay Road. OPO has volunteered to restrict any rezoning through a development agreement or a recorded covenant for a mutually approved period of time. Critical Area Regulations Address Steep Slopes. The Staff Report, as an additional justification for rezone denial, also noted there are steep slopes within the property,. However, the County has adopted steep slope regulations which would apply to the property. The County's critical areas regulations address this type of topography. Denial of a rezone is wholly unnecessary to protect steep slopes. Summary. In summary, LNP 3.3.1 should be applied based on its express terms of "an established pattern" or "similar sized" parcels, This policy cannot be read or interpreted to add a new "50% rule" as stated in the Staff Report. There is no basis for the Staff Report view that you must measure the actual perimeter of each tax lot and then apply a 50% rule. Here,OPO's Tala Point property meets 2 of the 4 rezone criteria, and one criteria alone is sufficient for the rezone. OPO respectfully requests the rezone to 5-acre zoning (RR 1 :5) as requested. We appreciate your consideration, SEA 1682711\146183-102 . . . Jefferson County Planning Commission August 23, 2005 Page 5 1m Respectfully submitted, ~ Thomas A. oeltz Attorney for OPG Attachments: Att. 1: Map showing surrounding lots Less than 5 acres in size Att. 2: Map showing surrounding zoning Att. 3: Map showing OPG's ownership south of Paradise Bay Road Att. 4: Copy of Comprehensive Plan Policy LNG 3.3.1 cc: JO!yl Rose ~e Schroader SEA 168271IvI46183-102 . .s -8 ..... ~ CIl .j t:: ..... i ca Egf ~ e g 't:l~ ~ o .. Q.l CIl 01) ~.i 't:l .... = .s g .;: ~ .... ~ c:o Q.l= J'" :a = Q.l !Jl o 9 .:l~~ ~ ~ s.c:o "'0 0 M\OOO CIl't:l ~ om Q\............<n......M .s'a.... N.b/) ]01) ......~ ...... ~ 00 e.,...::Ie.,... ~ ~. .~ II II II .... <n o c:r 0 , 0.5 II .Q.l.c ll) ~ < ~ m ~ II Q.l CIl .... ~ CIl .- < .c t CIl ~ ~ ..- at:\.. e u = ~ I. ~ ...... CIl CIl ~ ::I ~ ~ . .J:: "'0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 = e.,... ~ ~ ~ lrl.'"d ca 0 ~ 01)0 · ..- CIl ~~~~~ ~~ u ~ <1.> ]& ~ = . ~ u I~ ...... ~. ~ '.0 Q.l ~ ll::l .- ca 8 CIlN<n~""" < .CIl ~ 01) ~ ~ 8.~ Ut:\.. ~BBB~3 ... =. 3 ~ ::I 'S Q.l < .~ ......N<n E8 E8 Q.l = = c.. -=Q.l~~ ~~ ~-=-= .... c.. ::I oo~ S~ ~o c= . ~~ ~ ~~ ~ lj *1 ~~ c.~ - = Q) 8 ~ ..l:: Jf u oo~ ('j - - -= -< .... ':E ----- . . bb 8 dJ"a 'oi:: '" ~ ... ... ..-I '15 N...........(1) j~j] bb .S s::o o~ N...... .....~ ~ dJ '"t:l ~]~ ~ ~ (1) ~ "'l ~ u~C15 ~ rl ~ ~~~r5+--" ..:-r, ,~:-t",' '," ','., N.' NOONOO' L.~t~~"...: ~ . . . . I .X?'" <)-,'"" "[ 1 '. I, ,,' 7<:/ F ...,.,.o""~ ~""VT," ' ::j" .,' ,'.. " ~',' .I d N' A~='.IO~lNO~" Old ~J ,,' r Q;' IS . :,:.":''', ~. ,,) "70' ;: . I ,:,:. ,','" : ~~. ,; '"'~~"~ ~~ ~vo "7" -r,::::fl !Ii' . I ,';',\;"loE~R 0\1:, ~: ,:~( , "'~4;i'~~}~' _,,~It:~ "t.~, :_.:.(:~ ~- 1<; .'::',~;';'; :}l:~.~1 "!';;": '~":'l ^ T.T~~-~;' ~..-~, . ',' .. _~ ..;:',;,!L{ ;:'. ;:;~;J~~~i \,\f<.. , ._-';.....ljl~:J'?~';:..;:;".N10NWI\":) · . ,',J,'Q ~.. 'ER'LN I I' 1 " . q:: ~ ,; RA\N\ .' I <f. ~ ,':", ,~<::.'~ IJ j i ~,~~:.,;, , '.'~!$:t;, ~, , ' , . I ~ . ~"../"",'fu ,": " -,~, . 'I / '[ TAL:~~TT:"l~t)' : ..., I, ~~I "L P; I Jl 'il'~,.~~~!i_, ~ ., J't I, a~ ~J,~~~.~1:" t I h1':~:T ~ bb .~ (1) ~~CZl 15 '"t:l s:: (1) ~ (1) ~ 8" o \0 . I Q.l(') =0 e< ~~ e. ~ Q Q.Z ~ ~ ~u .- J...i ~~ - = o .a ~ (' bb .~ 0 ..c;lr) 0 ~ (1) " N ...... ~...... . ]~ e-~ ~ ... t: Q. E ..c c.. C\ t: <l lr) r. . . L__ --1 . ......-''\ .... \ Tala Point Legend Roads - County HWY: Highway - Minor C"') ~ s::: (1) ] u ro ~ ~ <r: "- r,",~~\... i ''\ I l\ , \) I (/ -\ -((, " ~\~ -;" w.' S - Interstate --- RR - Mainline _ Pope Resources ..:.>:..'; ,.: :,.: :., :::' ....: :. . ',_ " .. ':, ,'" ,.'i:: , . . . LNP 3.3 ........ ~.;~ . .. .~:. " _.~ "'1 Rural residential densities shown on the Land Use Map shall be designated by three (3) residential land use densities: one dwelling unit per five (5) acres, one dwelling unit per ten (10) acres, and one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres in size and subject to the following criteria: LNP 3.3.1 ~ LNP 3.3.2 LNP 333 A residendalland use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1 :5) shall be assigned to those areaS throughout the County ~ s. an established pauem of me same or similar sized parcels (i.e.. 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record; b. parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas; c. parce s immedIately a lJacen( to the boundaries of [he Rural Village Centers; and d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed "suburban" platt~d subdivisions. A rural resideritialland use designation of one dwelling unit per 10 acreS (RR 1: 10) shall be assigned to [hose areas throughout the County with: a. an eStablished panem of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10 acres); b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a "transition" adjacem to Urban Growth Areas; and. d. critical area land parcels. A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 20 acreS (RR I :20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e.. 20 acres) or larger; b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a "transition" to Urban Gro~h Areas or the Master Planned Resort; d, cridcalland area parcels: e. agriculrure resource designated parcels: f. publicly owned forest lands; and g. lands adjacent to forest resource land. F Attachment 4 & m >< :T C" ;:;: f/I . bb .. .S ~ Ci3 - ~-- ......V),....,...... . Q . - c:: N..............iU ="0 c: cz::: iU 'Vi iUcz:::t:iU t: = cz::: = u u bb .. "0 c:: iU "0 iU -a 0 ffJ @ ~ ~~~~6 c: cz::: ~ ~ B ~ cz::: = cz::: s = u CI) u ~ M I' . bb c:: -a 0 ~~ c=cz::: ~cz::: = u --dV) iU .. ffJ........ &cz::: 8cz::: 0..., !:l = \0 I Q.cl/) == e< ~~ 1:: 0 ~Z Q.c~ ~ ~ ~U -.. - ~~ - = o -c ~ l::: :>.. I :.a -= ......l::: "- 01) ! ~:..= I -0 on ..... ..... I o 0 . ...... u " Q,) '- 0.) u ..... <I) .... C) C) I'--;b~ , 4=1 0._ ::l ..c::: I on..l::: U 01)' ...... C) .... :>.. u I C) l-< 0_ e<l I::: "'0 ~ 1: Q,) '''-; I::: I l::: 01)..0 € I::: I 0 l-< ";::.= 0 0 N 0 en on on .... N I u ...... ,- <I) <I) C) C) C) C) 0 en I ~..o~ 0.. C) I l-< l-< l-< ..4 ,......; ,.,g~E 0 u ~ U en en C) l-< ~ < ...... ...... en ~ U I 0 en U ''::: E ~ I 01) 0 0 en ...... C) l-< < V) en I::: .....-I en ..4 en ..4 C) 0 l-< ~ o ~ ~ en I I ...... '''-; .....-I C) C) l-< ..4 u ~ 01)0 ...... V) C) 0 ~ I::: V) l-< ('r') l-< r- u < l:::- '5. I::: I -B ,......; < .- '- E ~ .....-I U C'l U .....-I V) C'l C 0 ~ 01) 01)..9 ~ < < 0 B u I::: I II II II 0 II II ::l ..... I::: .S "0 .....-I o <I) 'ii3 ...-; ...-; '''-; C'l V) .....-I u..o ,......; ...... I -B ,......; ,......; ,......; ~ l-< ,......; u E :>.. 0.. en t.i~ en ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 C) ~ e<l ::l ~ 0.. ...-; I '''-; ...... C) en ...... ...... ...... ...... ;> ...... < :><: ~ :><:..c::: .3E8 ...... E8 ...... E8 ...... ~ o~ I B l::: > r.Ll I .....-I C'l V) e<l <I) W C) ...... 'E..l::: l "x E-< d I 0 "~ ..... <I) 0 o.c..l::: I 0. 0 on e<l N C ~ ~ . e<l U..l::: I .~ '? : on In <I) ,- <I) ~ . ..l:::..l::: 0 -..-... t ~..::- C~ . EXHIBIT C Parcel No. 821152001 ~ . Access from Paradise Bay Road/East Ludlow Ridge Road . No known wetlands . Steep slopes on west portion of property . 199211 . . . <1l ::l C <1l > <1l 0: x ell f- >, t <1l a. e 0... >, C ::l o () c o III .... 2 Q) ...., LO o o C\l III <1l X ell f- >, C ::l o () c o III ~ - <1l ...., <1l ::l C <1l > <1l <1liii 0: E x Ox ell 0 f- .... (tja. c a. .g ~ '6 Gi "tJ III <x: <1l "tJ ::l <1l(tj 13> <1l 'e 0... ~1:: C 0 i5 0... ex) I"- ()C~g~ C CIl.Q - o-:5"OT"""W l!!Cii.3ex)~ <Il.c ~u) l30 ..., \\ "~ ~\ , ; o 0 000 0 0 o 0 000 0 W o 0 000 0 000000 o 0 000 0 000000_ cO LO '<:t C') C\l ,.... wwwwww 1:: o a.. CIl M ~ 0<( ".:; ~ ..... 0 lIl_ o-g ~...J u:: <1l c~ o <Il N <Il <Il E II: 0 'EJ: ,- -... 0"0 a.. c CIlj (tj~ I- <1l c~ 2-g &j EE 00 ~ a.. CIl CIl> (ij~ I- ex) I"- ex) OJ T""" ~ U)W C') T""" C\l. ~ u) e l"- e OJ e ~ u)~ C\J ~ C') u) e l"- e OJ e ~ u)~ T""" ~ T""" u) CIl <Il ~ >-(ij .0 0 ~ l- x x CIl CIl I- I- >- >- E E ::l :J o 0 () () c c o 0 l!! <Il ~ 2 (D Cii ..., ..., . 0 ~ o I'"- I'"- ~ o C') C\l ~ o (0 ~ o C\l (tj (5 I- a <1l Ol ell C <1l () .... <1l 0... MLA 05-61 , --""':';"~"~!::::::'-'-'.--~-~_",,:",,:"'.:,:,:,:~~ MLA 05-61 Pope Resources Olympic Property Group - Teal Vista Property - IHoodc'mlC Bndge <n c: 3 3 SIl -< . Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA 05-61 Pope Resources/Olympic Property Group TEAL VISTA FACTS Property Size: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Tax Classification: 158 Acres 1:80 Transitionall:5/l:10 Forestland SUMMARY . 1. It is located in an area of similar, or more intense, development. This proposed designation better reflects the existing development pattern in the Shine area. 2. This request meets the criteria for RR 1:5 and RR 1:10 in Table 3-2 of the Comp Plan. Please note criteria in RR 1:10 which requires "transition density" between RR 1:5 and RR 1:20. 3. Zoning to the south has RR 1:5 zoning. Most lots are less than 1 acre. Many are less than 5 acres. 4. 5-acre zoning is compatible with the surrounding uses. 5. The Village Center is approximately 6 miles from site. This center provides goods, sundries and gas. They also have a transit stop, recycling center, bank, post office and visits from the library bookmobile. 6. Due to concentrated growth within our UGA's, new smaller rural lots are needed and are in great demand. 7. The parcel lies partially within water service area of PUD No. 1. This service area was agreed to by Jefferson County in an Interlocal Agreement executed with PUD No.1 on August 8, 1995. The boundaries were later approved and adopted by the Washington State Department of Health in the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan. 8. The site can access existing telephone service in Teal Lake Road or the fiber optic cable in State Highway 104. 9. A short distance from the property a person can access Teal Lake Road and State Highway 104. 10. The parcel lies approximately 1.5 miles from the headquarters of Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3. 11. This request clearly does not meet the criteria for Commercial Forestlands (as it is currently zoned) in Table 4-1 of the Comp Plan. . ..... - Co) ..... (:) UI en c: u 3 ;n" UI 0" ~ . . . ()lyml1~,( )pert) (;rollP ,\ I JAN 3 1 2005 January 31, 2005 A Pope RtsOU,'ceI Company Jefferson County Department of Community Development 62 I Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 1\;1 L A O~-~ (/; 1 RE: Application for Formal Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment Parcel No's. 821332001, 821331005, 821331001 To Whom It May Concem: Enclosed are the application materials for a comprehensive plan amendment for OPG Properties LLC rural residential property adjacent to Teal Lake Road in the Shine area. This property is currently zoned Commercial Forest (I :80). This property abuts property to the south that is currently zoned Rural Residential (I :5). We would like to request a tiered (transition) approach to the rezone request as follows: 1'/( Area STR Old Zoning New Zoning SY2 of the SY2 of the NW1f4 S33,T28N,RIE CF 1 :80 RR 1:5 I I Parcel Nos. 821332001 and I i 821331005 i SY2 of the SY2 of the NEJI4 S33,T28N,RIE CF 1:80 RR 1:5 lying Wand E of Teal Lake Rd Parcel Nos. 821331005 and 821331001 NY2 of the SY2 of the NWII4 S33,T28N,Rl E CF 1 :80 RR 1:10 Parcel Nos. 821332001 and 821331005 N~2 of the SI/2 of the NEI/4 S33,T28N,Rl E CF 1:80 RR 1:10 lying Wand E of Teal I Lake Rd Parcel Nos. 821331001 and 821331005 We believe our request meets the criteria set out under Comprehensive Plan objective as shown below in Table 3-2, Summary of Land Use and Zoning Designations: .- Ol;'mpic Property (;,-oup -- 1924'; Icnrh A\'('nll~ Northeasr, I'olllsbo, WA 9H.,70-l4';6 (,ClU) 6\)7.6(,2(, . Sc;urle: (206) 2')2-0=,) 7 · fax: OM) 697,11 'j(, . " , . . ',. ~ . LllIul r~t'Zolling ('rilt-ria for clt'~igllatioll Prillripal Land ht- Df'~12I1atioll RESIDE;\T!AL Rlu'al Rc~idcnl1;l! L<:'\:ared III :1l'::b <)1' ~1lI111,11 lkHI"l-'llicnt. ;Uc.b \\'jtll ';;in~k l;l1Iuly I unit :: ;tC1(,~ ~Ill;lller e:\i~llllg !(lh of lC\:(lJd: ;l!.)ng Ill.: \:<:1;1'1;11 t'li~~l. rc,id~IJli;ll IRRl :'1 .ld.1;KellT TO Rilla] \'il!;l:;e ( ~1ll tl and Rill ;'d CI\I'~I,)ad dc,ignariom: (1\'Crl"IY Ik~I,:;!ll:H101l 1(11 J11e-C\hl1n~ nlalle,1 '1l1x1iyi~J01b Rural R~~idcnl1a! L);;med 1II all mea \\ nil ~il111l:ll dt\'d<)plll':ln J1;HT~llh, Sill::!k !;llll.ily llUlif 10 a\:1'c' adpcellT to T."lb..1ll Gll)WlIl ,-\.Jcn. rramllwn (kll~1TY rc,idcllli;'11 IRRl 101 bel\\'ccll RR 1::' ;lnLl RR 1 ::0: P;11Wh ill (<XblaI ar~;l, (If ~llllibr ,lze: IJ1dll(k~ l;llld.l1'fcO:ltd by \:nlK;11 ;U'~,h. Tahlt' 3-2 summ'n\' of L'md {\t- ;lI1cl ZOllino Dt',ioll'llioll' As you will notice on the exhibits attached to the application, our request to rezone the south half of our property as RR 1:5 meets the criteria in Table 3-2 of the Comprehensive Plan. We also believe that by zoning the north half of our property into the RR 1: 10 that this also meets any applicable transition density criteria. . The property also lies wholly within the Jefferson County PUD No. I water service area. In order to meet the elements and guidelines for the Comprehensive Plan, and to stay in the current zoning designation of Commercial Forest, certain criteria must be met. In the Natural Resource Conservation Element Section of the Comprehensive Plan, Table 4.1, the last bullet states: "A majority of the parcel should be located outside any community water system area, /' As indicated above, this parcel lies wholly within a community water system area and clearly does not meet this requirement. Enclosed please find the following materials: 1. Application for Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Exhibits A - E, as required by the Application 3. A check in the amount of $2,348.00 for the fees associated with this request 4. SEPA 5. Master Permit Application If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 360- 394-0560. Sincerely, . (i ~" ,.. /1 I' . I,.... "." {f L "It' {' [ (l ({ i [ e Schroader Project Manager . . . JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend' Washington 98368 360/379-4450 . 360/379-4451 Fax www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Application for Formal Site-Specific fl ,',:; 1'- I. )'.' O/J 1.;.?.;1~'.r!1. .(;)/~ ) . 1 rtll C.r ICt, 5. ()---- , .) ) I (l ., ,J-, .. ,JILt Comprehensive Plan Amendment 82/,'-j,'3IC(.2. 8',21_'~J'lCt:._'1 .5)2I3~1t.>(?c.; ....- ,f '-""/ ') i.J. ... . '\ }-ff),., .../ (.' MU\ # PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: .7 _. ) y Applications must be completed, signed and submitted to the Department of Community Development by February 1 In order to be considered during that calendar year's amendment process, Completed applications that are received after February 1 will be placed on the docket for the following calendar year. Applications that are incomplete (i.e., that do not include all of the information required below) will be returned to the applicant. Please note that formal site-specific amendment applications requesting expansion of existing rural commercial areas are subject to a November 22, 2000 Growth Management Hearings Board decision and subsequent Superior Court decision which prohibits the County from expanding existing rural commercial areas if the rationale for the proposed expansion is that the area existed prior to July 1, 1990. Submittal Requirements 1. A completed Master Permit Application, Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner. 2. A completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist, including the non-project action supplement. Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner, 3. Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment application fee, as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance, as amended. 4. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. 5. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A: a vicinity map showing the following: a. The location of the area proposed to be re-designated; b, The land use designation of all property within five hundred (500) feet of the site; and c, The uses of all properties located within five hundred (500) feet of the site 6, Please prepare and label as "Exhibit S: a description of the proposed amendment and any associated development proposal(s), if applicable. Applications for project-related formal site-specific re-designations must include plans and information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and improvements. Applications for such re- designations that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services. 7. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit "C," a map that depicts existing conditions on the site and within the general ViCinity [i.e., within a five hundred (500)-foot radius]. The exhibit must depict topography, wetlands and buffers. . easements and their purpose, and means of access to the site, The intent of the exhibit is to clearly illustrate the physical opportunities and constraints of the site, , See UDC Section 9.4 SITE SPECIFIC APP DOC REV' 111612004 Page 1 . . . 8, 9, The current land use designation/zoning of the site is: r!F l "'Ii' () RR I ,::;- PI!.., / : /D ct. I' '7 (J 10. The proposed land use designation/zoning of the site is: The current use of the site is: rl) (,0 la,/? (I 11, 12, The proposed use of the site is: f-';'()'/ lit' / I {Ill' / (l/ r.A i {/1 (j""C {i 13. If changes to Comprehensive Plan or Unified Development Code (UDC) text are required, please prepare and label as "Exhibit D," proposed amendatory language (Le" to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in "bill" format, with text to be added indicated with underlining (e.g., underlininQ), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g" stFikeal:lts), 14. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit E," a thorouah explanation of how the proposed re-designation/rezone and associated development proposals, if any, meet, conflict with, or relate to the following inquines: a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? c, How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? d, Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services)? f. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? g, Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? h. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? L How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following: (i) Access; (ii) Provision of utilities; and (Iii) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses? j. Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole? SITE SPECIFIC APP DOC REV 11116/2004 Page 2 . . . k, Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? I, If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA? m. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36,70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, and other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws? 15, The applicant hereby certifies that the statements contained in this application are true and prOVide an accurate representation of the proposed amendment; and the applicant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approval Issued on this application may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false. fi' ( " " ,; 1 i,r '. ' ., '. '.' . . /1; ...'. l, ,) , '.. " ( ". ,C{ rJL../ {" lL{;' ,r;{( -'I !/~'{(~:<r t' rr :lJ ( (;~) ;!it' S~NhT RE J ~ ( f ,. , "v .,; .' / ...7."1 ""/(" /('>l 1- ,4 ,~;... ,.. ,1 .' I , (.. . t C.( (L. l ... t., ,.' ~, L OPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE /13/lc; \'-- DATE . . I /illt~ )'-- DATE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE [NOTE: For all required signatures, representative authorization is required if application is not signed by the owner,] SITE SPECIFIC APP DOC REV 111'6/2004 Page 3 . EXHIBIT A Exhibit Depicting Surrounding Land Uses Parcel Nos. 821332001, 821331005, 821331001 N NTS .~~ W ~,,~ ~,NV.)~ I Current Use: Raw I Land RR 1-20 ~- ~ I I Subject Property . EXHIBIT B This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendment/site-specific amendment to rezone parcels owned by OPG Properties LLC. It is proposed to change the designation from Commercial Forest 1 :80 to a transition rezone of Rural Residential 1 :5 on the southern portion and Rural Residential 1: lOon the n011hern portion of the subject property. This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity. It would result in an increase to the development potentials of the property. . . . EXHIBIT C I r ( [ \ J. ') ,> I \\..,_ Ir\ .. S'a ,I ~ l', i,' , ,- '" r .I l: .' ) \jVJ fl. -, JI , I I ' ,'f', . Access from Teal Lake Road . No known wetlands . . EXHIBIT D This request does not propose amendatory language to the text of the Comprehensive Plan or UDC. . . . EXHIBIT E a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? No. b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and since January of2005, fast foot ferries are now servicing Seattle from Kingston. As a result, there has been, and will be, an increased demand for residential housing in the area close to the Hood Canal Bridge. This amendment will provide a reasonable means to plan for and accommodate that increase. . The proposed designation better reflects the existing development pattern in the Shine and Bywater Bay areas. Nearly all of the developments in this area have created lots less than 5 acres. Several have created lot sizes less than .5 acres. c. How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. In our opinion, the proposal will obtain positive responses from the residents of Jefferson County in keeping with the current zoning patterns of the area. d. Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? Yes. e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services)? Anticipated impacts could include development of rural residential housing that is compatible with the existing residential development patterns. Accompanying impacts would include a slight rise in the demand for public services. . f. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comp Plan? . Under the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 3.3.1 it states: "A residential/and use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR J :5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: . An established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of records . Parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas... " The Jefferson County Comp Plan also states under LNP 3.3.2: "A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 1 0 acres (RR 1: 1 0) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: . An established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10 acres); . Parcels along the coastal area of similar size; . Areas serving as a "transition" adjacent to Urban Growth Areas; and; . Critical area land parcels" . This application for a rezone from CF 1 :80 to RR 1:5 and 1: 10 clearlv tits within the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comp Plan since the existing zoning to the south is RR 1 :5, to the southeast, RR 1: 10, to the east, RR I :20, and to the ,north RF 1 :40 and CF I :80. See Exhibit A. This property is currently zoned Commercial Forest. Table 4.1, as found in the Natural Resource Conservation Element Section of the Comprehensive Plan, and as depicted below, also shows that the property does not currently meet the strategies or implementations of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: . These parcels are located wholly within the Jefferson County PUD No.1 'Vater Service Area. In order to be considered a Forest Resource Area, a majority of the parcel should be located outside any community water system area. . This area also has three individual parcels that are under 40-acres in size. Another component for consideration to be a Forest Resource Area is for the property to consist of predominately large parcels. This property clearly DOES NOT meet the criteria for Forest Resource Land. Other elements in this section that do not meet the criteria for Forest Resource Land have been pointed out below. . . ~ ,', ~ -L ~(i, . Table 4.1 GlIldt'IlII(,~ for Cl;w,it1('afioll of fore~f R('~(tlll"(,(, LilI)(h ill .Jt'fft'r~oll ((I11I1t~ Illdi(<1W! I. :\, \';'t1lal.)ililY of l.mbhc ~el \'lCc", and fncilirie~ c,)ll(h1CI\"~ ro rile ';-('Il\'cr.;,i('1l of t~)rc't Innd.;, , Pr(IXlllliry (If ti)re~r I:md 10 mb;lll ;1I1d <,ulHlJbnn ;uc;:!',. alld ll11;'11 ~~rrkmellb. ( (Illllllcllh Sillce hllld.;, wirhill 1.-lb<"ln (;w',nh :\.I~a~ dXi:~ ~ I ;"Ire ill! ell.:kd r,' bc ~c1\'ed l)y pllbhc l~'I':lhllC~ ~Illd ~Cl\'ice", \\"llllJll <"I m"ellly-ye;tr pcnlxl. ti:'le.;,r 1:1ll(1-, 1)1' h)l1g-1enll (('uuller-:l.11 "'!~1Iif1':';H1( ~ ~Ill.!uld be j('(,Hed (,tlhidc (.11.1(;_-\ b(ll llllli1JJ6 , To pwrccl ti)le.,r I;md, of l,mg-rc11ll ':.)llllI1C!('inl "l,~lliij(";"i1h::e ti<:llll elKJ(1.KlullcllT hy IllC(lLllpnribk Ibe~, lliey 'olh)llld h~ Ilx ,)fed (l\lbl(lc rhe urlXlll ;md ':>\1hlll b<"lu al ~<1' <111d mUll ,,~rrkmellb F('le,r blld.,. (If klng-rerm (('llUl1~I':li11 ~lglliIic<111(c ",IWllhl C(lll'>hT ,)1' pn:,'lOJlUll<1m!\' b!z~ p<1lceh. h)l"e,:>r Ialld" (If IOIl:.Hc1"1ll cOllllllcrci.:1! .;,igllltic:UKt ~Il(luld be ndp(cllT w Inl~~ pnJ"(d~ ro all,)\\" 1'('1 a.:kqtl:)fe b\1ft'elJll~ ;mil "'erb<1d~~ ti.)Jll porcllTinl llK(llll)1;'ilibk Ibe'" ;md ~e{!kmelll l)<Htcm~, f(.re"l hmLl", (If j('1l2-rCJ111 ':(lllllllC!(,i;'il ,igmtl':;lllce ~]Jt:lllld be eh,~lhk t~)r ~1"'~cSmlcllT a" ,)pell "'p.Ke 01 f(lle':>l I;md ptlhtl;'ll11 r(, RCW ~.U~ (.1' S-I .3-1, F ('r':'.r l:m,h oi k'n~-rCl llJ .:,llll111Cl ci..1I 'o1:::111f1( ;Ill': e -11':'111<1 11':.1 l',c d61,~Wl1e,1 III al.;-.h ll11dcl dewl,)pmClll ]11 e"'olll'': tlla I ,lie likelY r(, COJl\"~n I,) Ill:i!ll~r 1lI1~1hiT': land Ibe", IUI)ldel T<:I C(IIl':>C]ye tll~ ti:'re,r l"c"o\IJc~ laml h~I"'e m kffcr"('ll C.:1llllr:; ,llHlmnml.1ill llle r~)lc'ony llhhbl1Y \\'llIk 1Cc')~l11zing rhc di\.er~ity (If forc~l Jaud(1\YUel". ir \\';1'> dcrellmllcd lhM F.)le~l L1J1d~ ',\"(lllld ((11;>1'1 ,:If tlllc~ dn'~e~: SlZ~ ()f rhc p31 c~h C omp3ribiliry nlld lIlTC!blly ,)1' llci~lll),)nn,~ Iml.:l lbe~ 31111 ~~llkJllellT p.menb WJlh f01e':>l laud", of hmg-renn ~izuiticaucc. pJ'(.perty lax dn<;~itkarion, Hi~r')IY (Ii laud (k\"elt:l'm~nr ].'c1ll1ir~ i~"'lIed ut:alby, . CmlUll.:r':la! FOlc~1 L31l(!.;, ICF-:>O): . RluaI Foreq Lllhh IRF.,WJ: ~I!ld, . Inlh)lding F(ll"e~t Lmr.:b I IF I 6)1 pal"(ch ~1ltlrdy ,lln<:11ll11kd by C(lUUll~l(lill 01 R\Il.11 h)lC~1 Lllllh IIUIe"" tlie pn1.:el I' Ie~", rllnll rW~1HY 121)) .1(Je, ill ,izc .)1 if lhe ;"1 de\'d':1I,)1lle11l ;'I1-'pl1(';'llh)ll ti:.1' llie P,ll(d b \'e<,red, Tile laudl)\\"Il~r 11l1N ~lIbllur ;1 wrmell 1cqllc~1 10 h;H'C rll~ IX1l(el 1clll(,wd tl\llll F 01c.,1 Rc"'O\ll(,~ Iu.Jl(lILlI1l,~ de':>l~U,lTil)n, :\1l~" p.1](d rh.lT Ulc~r~ rll~ ti:,lk)\YillS CrircllJ \\"111 bc d;h~if1td ;h F('re,r Lllld ,111.1 .:k~i:m;'tTed .1' F ,)l'c'ol LlIld (If L('ll";!- T eml CmlUller':l:11 Sl~l1if1(;1IKe ~. . Thc Lllld ,IWIIld U'll,jq Plllli.U'ily ('1 F('re,r Lllld G!;hk, (llle II ) llU\\II~1l t~:l\l1 '-II :1' lIJ;"lj'ped b:, 111~ Depal IJll~1l1 (,f :\rtf 111 a I Re ,('llr(t~ :\IinmlllJll pnr..:d ~lze "i-Iwuld l.)e a llll1~iuJ\\m (If 1l,)lJlin;llly <;,i~hry I SUi ;"i(JC~ rig (<:IIlUll<;,l(W! F')IC'1 lnlld~ ti:lllY ,-10.1 ;ld';-~ f,:>! RIIl,11 F 1'l'e"r LHld. \\'irh p;'i!'(cb 'olll;llkr lh.1ll lhe nlluiulIl111 jll.:lllded \\'hell tile ;K1e~ (.1';11 k;l~1 rh~ millimllllJ 'lze ;11": C')lll1~Ih"l\hl:, i)\\"lle.:l ;uhl1lJe laud 1'0 111 n det'cne.-1 r;:'I~,r ,)1 cxempl lax ,wm'o, Tile p;1J..:~1 ,h,)III.l1,e pail ,)i ;'1 F'''l~,l Lnlld Bh)d~ ,If k;hlllue.: III llld 1'e, 1 1\\ till:' I ~2(J I ;l.:tc, 111 "IZ<:, lh:1I IIlce!'> rh~ de,ig1l:l1ion (nrena, Thc Fi:>lC,,1 Lmd BI<:l.:b \\"ill (('11l111l1t' tl) c\hl c\"cll llJ<:tu~h 11ld1\'1.111~d Ixu..:.:h JlJ;IY \.),.: JCmi.w~d il: rlle til!l1Je ]lCCilll'o';- lhey 11..' 1')ll~e1 meer llle e"t:ll'.Ii,h~d de'ol:ll1,lIJ"1l (llr':Il:1 The F (11 e'l L.u:d Bll).:k ,hall ,'pply 11' rile <Hll..'ll1H (If ,le,i";!Jl;11ed f ,'] c~l Lllld ill rile bI,)(k r:lIl, l',d.'\\' rluc.;-llIIJldred f\WlllY i~2(l) ,1(le',\'I\l!llot iflllc ,1(re;1~e .:.illle I.)I(..:k f;'dl,!t:> zel(l ,(I) . . . . . . \,,) p:lll .){tlle l'ilJ.:-ell1e" \\illlill(llle h:'dfil 2i llllle ,)f ,lJl [:11,1,111 Gl'.I\nll .\le;II'1 \\"Jllllll .'lle Il;dfi 12, llUle (If the' llllee de,i:?ll~l1e(1 R\IIJI \-illn,~e Cellteh 01 '.\"ltlllll :1J.1P1('\lJll:Hdy ('Il~ kdt 11 2) llUIe (,t" llle \II h1l1izet! bOllll(bJ Y l)f llle PUll llldt.:l\\" 1\ [a,le1 PI:II111ed RCO,,')1 r . The IX1J\d i, -:l1l1clllly III n Lidelle,! t~:I!e~1 Tn:'\: ,1;lllh 1,l\I1~:l~ll11 h:' RC\\" 8,U~ ('r RCW S.+3.+ ('I (I;l~"itkd (II de~i~1l:tled Timbe! Tax 1;111d, {)r Srale ('I Fe.kl;'iJ !:lIlt! ('l1hllk tlle \';'t!h)ltl] f,'l"e,l S~1 \"l(<;' J.,(llllldm ,'. :md ~ . :\ 1Il:1Jf'liry .)fllle P;11(d ~1J<:1\lld l'e ]('';;"il~d ,)l1h!de ;1IlY (('IlUlllI1lIlY \\",11co1 ~:;~relll ~e1\'I(e ,1Ie:'1 g. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? No. h. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? No. . The parcel lies wholly within water service area of PUD No. 1 (see Attachment No.1) . The adjoining parcels lie wholly within the water service area of PUD No. I. This service area was agreed to by Jefferson County in an Interlocal Agreement executed with PUD No. 1 on August 8, 1995. The boundaries were later approved and adopted by the Washington State Depa11ment of Health in the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan. . The site can access existing telephone service in Teal Lake Road or the fiber optic cable in State Highway 104. . A short distance from the property a person can access Teal Lake Road, State Highway 104 and the Kingston Ferry Terminal. . The parcel lies approximately 1.5 miles from the headquarters of Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3. i. How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following: (i) Access The road approach for access would be on Teal Lake Road, The topography is suitable for Jefferson County Road Standards. (ii) Provision of Utilities See response to Question No. "h" above. . (iii) Compatibility with existing and planned sun'ounding land uses? The zoning to the south of the subject property has 5-acre zoning. The current land use is residential. The development pattern in this area includes a variety of lot sizes from less than Y2 acre to 5 acres. The area to the southeast is currently zoned RR I: 10, to the west RR 1 :20, to the north RF 1 :40 and CF 1:80. j. Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term best interests of the community as a whole? No. The zoning to the south is already RR 1 :5. The applicant owns the property to the west and the state and applicant own the properties to the north, east and southwest. k. Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan'? . No. Final build-out will total up to fifteen 5-acre residential units and up to seven lO-acre residential units to the area. The existing site already has three existing parcels. l. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an incorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA? The proposed rezone is not located within an UGA. m. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County and other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws? Yes. See responses to "f' and "h" above. . A.tf-4.t. ~ !N\ t: ft1.-f; r. ~_...........--.._...------'-~- ~l!JJ~J~cr PA~C[EIL . j " " , " r\.co;trl== ~r.!$Q.Ut:2<::~S . . Wil1o~~ ~@o i ,~;("l J::.":.. "i. .:~:~~ '~l \l}~J ) I" .. I: ::::. .. .,'.. ..) '!~~~ '. .. .~ .";:f: .. .._.~ $'fA'f~ $YA'iI'@' PARCEL 821341002 (WEST) , APPROVED GAlRr~N E5)TATES ~lAr 'W2J": I~" SUEJ~Cr t9JARC~l . LIMITS Of' pun NO.1 WATER SIE~VijClE AREAS (FROM fiNAL JEFFlElRSON COUNTY COORDINA TiED WA YlElR SYSTEM PLAN) EXISTING flUD WArrElR MAINS ~=\!J!!;:;O ~~ PRO~OSED IPlDD WATER MA~NS (lijlOJ~11) . '<;-od:'o. '. ~' ..... ..... . .' -, I' JEFFERSON COUNTY :-~ 'I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street. Port To';-msend . \/'Jashington 98368 360/379-4450' 800/831.2678' 360:'379-4451 Fax ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. . You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts, If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can, If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you, The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. A. BACKGROUND 1, Name of proposed project, if applicable: Teal Lake Road Rural Residential Rezone 2, Name of applicant: Olympic Property Group 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: . 19245 Tenth Avenue NE, Poulsbo, WA 98370 Attn: Sue Schroader, Project Manager 360-394-0560 . . . 4. Date checklist prepared: January 21, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: Jefferson County 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle 7, Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a non-project application. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. No new environmental data has been gathered for this current proposal. Prior generated environmental data includes a topographic map. By reference this application incorporates all the environmental data contained in Jefferson County's EIS prepared for the adopted Comprehensive Plan, 9, Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. 10, List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Approval is sought from Jefferson County for a site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 11, Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description,) This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendmenUsite-specific amendment for parcels owned by OPG Properties LLC. It is proposed to change the designation from Commercial Forest (CF1 :80) to Rural Residential (RR1 :5) and Rural Residential (RR1:1 0). This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity. It would result in an increase to the development potentials of the property. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. . . . Address: Legal: Subdivision: Tax Parcels: Land Area: Teal Lake Road, Shine, WA The South Y2 of the North Y2 of Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 1 East N/A 821332001,821331005,821331001 Approx, 158.00 acres B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Rolling, hilly, steep slopes b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approx. 80% in limited areas on the property - see contour map - Exhibit C of application. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat. muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland, Swantown gravelly sandy loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill, None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in filling or grading, This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe, Not for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for erosion. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for impervious surfaces, This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. h, Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None for this non-project application. Any future proposals will include erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with DOE best management practices, a. Air . . . a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors. industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any. generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for emissions from construction and residential uses. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None for this non-project application. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names, If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into, Not to our knowledge. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes. please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None to our knowledge, 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description. purpose. and approximate quantities if known. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for construction of storm water drainage systems, This would be addressed under a separate environmental review, 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 OO-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan, No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge, . . . None for this non-project application, Potential future development could result in increased potential for collecting and discharging storm water run-off from impervious surfaces such as roads and roofs This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known, None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for groundwater withdrawal to support residential activities. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc,). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems. the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for discharges from residential septic systems, This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe, None for this non-project application. In the future flows from on and off site sources would be treated and detained in accordance with the DOE Storm Water manual for The puget Sound Basin, This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe, None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for storm water to enter into the ground. Such residential runoff would be expected to contain typical amount of landscaping related compounds such as fertilizers. etc. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground. and runoff water impacts. if any: None for this non-project application. 4. Plants a, Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen. other _evergreen tree: fir. cedar, pine. other shrubs __grass _pasture . . . _crop or grain __wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other __other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for vegetation removal to support residential activities. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site, None to our knowledge, d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None for this non-project application, Future proposals may include such provisions as perimeter buffering open space set asides. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: _birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: _mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: _fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None for this non-project application. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc, None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for electricity for heating and other typical residential needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. . . . c, What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge, 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required, None for this non-project application, Potential future development could result in increased potential for emergency services. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review, 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None for this non-project application. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise levels in the area are characteristic of a low-density rural area. Sources of noise include Teal Lake Road and SR104, 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long- term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for generation from residential and construction activity. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 8. land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The property is currently undeveloped, Rural residential lies to the south, North and east of the property is forestland owned by the State and by the applicant b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. c. Describe any structures on the site, None, . . . d, Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No, e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Rural Residential CF 1 :80 f, What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rural Residential CF 1 :80 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" or critical area? If so, specify. Those portions of the property in excess of 15% slope would classify as environmentally sensitive under the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for residents. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The purpose of this proposal is to eliminate an inconsistency between the text and map portions of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Housing a, Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None under this non-project application. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None, c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. . . . 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s). not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? None under this non-project application. Any future residential development would comply with adopted development standards. b, What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None, c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 11. Light and glare a, What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for light or glare from streetlights and other typical residential sources. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None for this non-project application. Future developments could be slightly impacted from State Highway 104 and Teal Lake Road, d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts. if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None in the immediate vicinity. However. to the east is a boat launching ramp and State park site South of the subject parcel is Hicks County Park. To the north is the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe, None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant. if any: None. 13. Historic and cultural preservation . . . a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None to our knowledge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. Transportation a, Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served from Teal Lake Road. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, however, Jefferson Transit buses stop at the intersection of Paradise Bay Road and SR104. c, How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? This non-project application will not create or displace any parking spaces. Potential future development could result in increased potential for construction of residential parking spaces. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Not for this non-project application, Potential future development could result in increased potential for development of residential roads. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None for this non-project application. Potential future development could result in increased potential for traffic generation, This would be addressed under a separate environmental review, g, Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None for this non-project application. 15. Public services a, Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. . . . No, Potential future development could result in increased potential for services. This would be addressed under a separate environmental review, b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None for this non-project application, 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Water, electricity, refuse service, telephone. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None for this non-project application. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: /. ~....., Date Submitted: / /~. , /~; ~- ! .". I, i .. . . . --- II{~~;~SO: C~~~ -",!:" . l~ ~ \ ..., .. , -< \~} <~o:-:\65/ fIN . Master Permit Application JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend' Washington 98368 360/379-4450' 360/379-4451 Fax www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment MLA: I Site Address and/or Directions to ~.r~~e~y:.,~~~ l ? j,' . Property Owner(s) of Record: {1ft, f.- ('/ /HL' J'f/r'''~ j"..L{', Telephone:~ ~-5C/<I. -LS rr.-:(:. v Fax:. :f(i;'{" ~;(.) 7 - I / S' ~'. email:, V"il'...) ~"I{)I-lJ 111](;. (iCI JI . Mailing Address:/Cf.':+'L/ () '72 r) fit l1Vt~ A..'f:- , /1"/1 I~h(), 11.-11- qg llt.) Ii fin i)l u: y:hr(kLC ."/- Applicant/Agent (if different from owner): i7"{i II"tV ./) h IJti..! ': !-- Telephone: Fax: email: . ,-.I c Mailing Address: What kind of Permit? (Check each box that applies) Ci Building i.l Demolition Permit r! Single Family Li Garage Attached / Detached "I Manufactured Home Il Modular '; Commercial" !.1 Change of Use I~ Address 1 Road Approach [j Propane C1 Allowed "Yes" Use Consistency Analysis iJ Stormwater Management ; J Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) . .j Temporary Use c:: Wireless Telecommunication" Ll Forest Practices Act/Release of Six-Year Moratorium . May require a Pre -Application Conference f'j Variance (Minor, Major or Reasonable Economic Use) ..; Conditional Use [C(a), C(d), or C) .. Discretionary "0" or Unnamed Use Classification i i Special Use (Essential Public Facilities)" : Boundary Line Adjustment " Short Plat .. 1'.1 Binding Site Plan .. c' Long Plat .. U Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD)/Amendments .. ,~j Plat Vacation/Alteration .. CI Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions .. U Shoreline Management Substantial Development .. ! i $horeline Management Variance .,(Comprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map Amendment IJ "'Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment "Requires a Pre-Application Conference Please identify any other local, state or federal permits required for this proposal, if known: I hereby designate DESIGNATION OF AGENT to act as my agent in matters relating to this application for permit(s) OWNER SIGNATURE Date: By signing this application form, the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein, and in any attachments, is true and correct to the best of his, her or it's knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save. indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities. judgments. court costs. reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of thiS permit I further agree to provide access and nght of entry to Jefferson County and its employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and ny'requlred ''!.ter inspections. Access and right of entry to this property shall be requested and shall occur only during regular bus>ness hours '/; i /) --- I b ....1" '1.1.',-;", '.'.' '';J .",,,- Signature/' , ... / r ~.... ) '," ',' '/... " t '. Date / I ~-) II (.' S The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively Impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential "take" of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the "Endangered Species Act" or "ESA " Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions that will be undertaken because thiS permit has been issued will not violate the ESA Any individual. group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s) eVe,I)'if.?OU are iI(, c.Oniance with tho .e. Jefferson :~y developmen. t code The Applicant aCknoWle.dge.s that he" she or it holds mdlvldual and non-tra.l'lsfer~le. ,>es~o~~ ...,ity ,tor, adJ)en.,iW"IO and CO!;,!! :~, with trnyrJA, The Applicant has read thi~. di~~im~r ~~ SiWI5-and dates It below Signature:::0"L/' ,(--.. ,Y;''/;/?r.{t.{ . .':'u->r.'l/({JJ ' Date! I,-~I .If, \ . /I " " . ('.\ D(ICLJllH:ms anJ SCtllll~:--\mochil\Dl:sl.:(llfl\M;t~rl.:r Pcrrnu l\pphC:ll1un 7-8.04.Juc Signature: Dale' PHONE: FAX: OWNER BUILDER STATEMENT . The signer of this statement does hereby certify that they are the Owners of the parcel referenced herein, that they are not licensed contractors and they will be assuming the responsibility of the General Contractor for the proposed project. GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR MANUFACTURED HOME INSTAllER: MAILING ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR'S liCENSE NUMBER: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS: EMAll: WAINS NUMBER PHONE ( EMAll Project Type: o New o Addition o Alteration/Remodel o Repair o Demolition Frame Type: o Wood o Steel o Concrete o Masonry o Other: Bathrooms: Existing: Proposed: Total: Type of Sewage Disposal: o Sewer o Community System o Individual System SEP Permit # Water Supply: o Private well '~Two Party o Public Name of System: Type of Heat: Bedrooms: Existing: Proposed: Total: If this is a Commercial Proiect YOU must answer the following: Number of Parking Spaces: Current: Proposed: Number of ADA Parking Spaces: Number of occupants (includes owners, tenants, employees, etc) Curr; Proposed IBC Occupancy: IBC Type of construction: Will you have Food Service? Yes I No If this is a Pro ane Tank and/or A Hance Installation ermit ark all items below that a I: i Underground Tank i Above ground Tank e of Propane Tank: i Heat Stove i Cook Stove i Woodstove i Fireplace Ins i Hot Water Tank i Pellet Stove i Other Is this a Hance bein installed in a Manufactured / Mo Ie Home? Yes / No When applying for a permit to install a propane tank u must also submit a site plan showing all of the buildings, a/l property lines, tank location and size, distances from the pf1 ane tank to all property lines, buildings and septic system components, includin the reserve area. S uare Foota e Current Pro osed Amount . Main Floor Consistency Review: 2 Floor Base fee: 3' Floor Additional Section: Mezzanine: Plan Check fee: Heated Basement State Surcharge fee: Unheated Basement Pot Water Review fee: Other Unheated 911/Rd Approach fee: TOTAL: $ Decks Receipt Number: Cash/Check Number: . Other ESTI A TED COST (REQUIRED) -Fa' market value of all labor and matenals foundation to fmish Date: Initials: (:\DIIClIl11l.:nr", and Sl'ltll1g:-\I1Hlchd\l)nd,llJp\r\IaslL'T Pl't"Il1H .\pplll.jJ[Il11l 7.H.(I-i ,.!i,( . ATTACHl\1ENT 1 This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendment/site-specific amendment to rezone parcels owned by OPG Properties LLC. It is proposed to change the designation from Commercial Forest I :80 to a transition rezone of Rural Residential 1:5 on the southern portion and Rural Residential I: lOon the northern portion of the subject property. This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity. It would result in all increase to the development potentials of the property, . . co oN o~ 30 3U1 CD:E :J :!. -- III- CD :J . Olyrn~pert. GrouIJ A POPIS R.lSsoMrt:lSs Co.,..y August 22, 2005 planning@co.iefferson.wa.us VIA E-MAIL (1 Complete Set) Josh Peters, Senior Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 VIA U.S. MAIL (10 Complete Sets) . RE: Written Comments for MLA 05-61 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Honorable Commissioners, Thank you for your consideration regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for MLA 05-61 by Olympic Property Group. The intent of this letter is to provide you with information already discussed and written responses to the Staff Report. The attached Addendum A will provide you with the testimony given at the public hearing on August 17, 2005, with the appropriate exhibits and other pertinent documents. Attached as Addendum B you will find written responses to the Staff Report and SEP A Addendum dated August 3, 2005. Sincerely, (-, ~:' I ) l.'i II l.- ., r:, /; Ii ~~ -~ __.--_ ,,-,-1..'{).!./ . ,\.//1 V i..() /J. {:{J!/v Sue Schroader Project Manager Olympic Property Group . 19245 Tenlh Awnue NE, Poulsbo, W A 98370 (360)394-0560 . ADDENDUM A MLA 05-61 "Teal Vista I" Testimony at Public Hearing 8/17/05 Facts: (Refer to zoning map) . State of Washington owns property to the north and east of the proposed rezone area . Pope Resources also owns property to the north and west of the proposed rezone . We are asking for zoning to allow us to develop 15, 5-acre parcels and 7, 10-acre parcels . 158 acres, 79 acres for 5 acre zoning and 79 acres for 10 acre zoning Case: . . When UGA's or more intense rural developments are immediately adjacent to commercial forestlands, we as commercial forest growers find it hard to continue to manage the property as a commercial unit, producing healthy harvestable timber. Why? Because we believe this property, if kept in a commercial forest designation and being located where it is, doesn't allow an adequate buffer from the effects of future commercial forest activities such as logging and the spraying of herbicides due to the more intense rural development immediately south. (refer to zoning map) . The Guidelines for Classification of Forest Resource Lands table in the comp plan (Page 4-3) states that forest lands of long-term commercial significance should not be designated in areas under development pressure that are likely to convert to higher intensity land uses. It also states that forest lands of long term commercial significance should be adjacent to large parcels to allow for adequate buffering and setbacks from potential incompatible uses and settlement patterns. This property is entirely bounded on the south with a high-density rural settlement where most lots are less than I-acre in size. (refer to surrounding lot map) . We believe that this proposal follows Jefferson County's Comp Plan Land Use Policy 3.3.1: LNP 3.3.1 states that a residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5- acres 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; b. Parcels of similar size (i.e., 5-acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas. 2 . . The property under discussion is immediately north of an existing 5- acre zone with most existing lots sized at I-acre or less. The existing 5-acre zone is coastal. (Refer to zoning map with water service boundary) . Our original submission stated that 100% of the proposed property was within the Bywater Bay Water Service Area. To my knowledge we were not informed as a property owner of the change that pulled nearly half of the proposed area out of the water service area, and we apologize for the discrepancy in our original submission packet. Throughout the staff report it states that less than '12 of the subject site sits within the Bywater Bay Water Service Area. In the same staff report it states in a footnote on page 2-29 that "The adopted and approved Bywater Bay Water Service Area includes within its limits a little more than approximately one-third of the proposed rezone area." According to the proposed boundary map by the Jefferson County PUD, it looks to us as if approximately 50%, or slightly more, of the property lies within the water service area (see Exhibit A). . As you will notice the Bywater Bay Water Service Area bisects the property along the same line that we've proposed a change from CF80 to transitional 5 and 10 acre zoning, respectively. It makes sense to us to have higher density zoning within the water service boundary. We also have a letter from Jim Parker at the Jefferson County PUD, dated April 12,2005, (see Exhibit B) that states the PUD will honor its commitment to provide a source of water for development of Pope Resources property in the vicinity of the Bywater Bay Water System. This is in agreement with the transfer documents between the PUD and Pope Resources, dated November, 1995. This document allows us up to 76 additional connections. . For the northern '12 of the property we believe that 10-acre zoning is appropriate. According to the comp plan, the intent of the 1 du/ 1 0 district is to provide a transitional area between 1 du/5 and lower-density zoning. It is designed to preserve open space, protect critical areas, provide for the continuation of small- scale agriculture and forestry and to preserve and retain the rural landscape and character of Jefferson County. We believe that by asking for transitional zoning, it allows a proper buffer between rural housing and the existing State commercial forest operations to the north. We also believe that the water service boundary is a good tight line that if kept inside, higher density zoning can be kept at bay. . 3 . EXHIBIT A . N I 2000 2000 4llOO 1;.1 I:] PUD Future _ PUD Current APPLICANT'S PROPERTY Jefferson COlmty PUD Water Systems PROPOSED Bywllter (Shine) Selvice Area Boundaries Map 2 of2 March 2004 /Rees =~~I~ Engineenng III ....... ~~ '7r9' ........ ~" . 4 . EXHIBIT B Public Utility District #1 Of Jefferson County EXIIIBIT B l\1LA 05-6 I RF.C[/V[ 04PR1Jl~ 2 April 200S t\oard 01 Coouni$SiOnelS Dana Roberts. Oismct 1 M Melly Hays. DtsIridI 2 Wayne G. KIng. OIStricl 3 Jon Rose 19245 10" Ave NE Poulsbo Washington 98310 Jam.a G, PlrlcClt. Manage! near Jon: The purpose of this lener is to sta:c 11ll1t :bl.' !)HD "i!! M'K\r its commitment to provide source of water for development of Pope Resource property in the vicinity of the Bywater Bay Water system. This is in agreement with the transfer docwnents between the PUD and Pope Resources. Any costs of extendina the water mains and for additional storage to meet pressure dernands will be at your cost. . Additionally, we see no adverse effects to our editing wells as a result of additional develc.\pment in that arca, siven development follows Federal. S1ale and COWlty regulations. U')UU have any QllestiOM. pl~ call. ~ (y;'7 '\~/\ ,(-- , ) I i].tm', (,. Parker ~'IHnl1gcr . 5 . MAP EXHIBIT 1 This map was an easel exhibit shown at the public hearing. This map shows the applicant's property, surrounding zoning, and the Bywater Bay Water Service Area. . e 6 . MAP EXHIBIT 2 This map was an easel exhibit shown at the public hearing. This map shows the applicant's property, surrounding zoning, and the number of surrounding lots and lot SIzes. Less Than I Acre Total = 171 Lots I to 2 Acres Total = 43 Lots 2 to 5 Acres Total = 108 Lots 5 to 10 Acres Total = 33 Lots Over 10 Acres Total = 6 Parcels . "_......<o(~~r...#lr~.-..--Gr:i SURROUNDING ZONINGILOT SIZE EXHIBIT-TEAL PROPERTIES III I J -t---------}--yL---r-------- I , .z."'tlt ___ 0 _ ~ _:J "'''' . 7 . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TEAL VISTA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. MLA05-6l OLYMPIC PROPERTY GROUP April 6, 2005 STATISTICS Acreage Total: Current Zoning: Approximately one mile west of the Hood Canal Bridge on and North of SRI04. Within the Shine area. Approximately 158 acres, 3 parcels Commercial Forest 1: 80 Location: PROPOSAL This application is a comprehensive plan amendment - map amendment/site-specific amendment to rezone parcels owned by OPG Properties LLC. It is proposed to change the designation from Commercial Forest 1 :80 to a transition rezone of Rural Residential 1:5 on the southern portion and Rural Residential 1: 10 on the northern portion of the subject property. . This is a non-project action that will not result in any construction or land development activity. It would result in an increase to the development potentials of the property. SUMMARY POINTS . . It is located in an area of similar, or more intense, development. This proposed designation better reflects the existing development pattern in the Shine area. . This request meets the criteria for RR 1:5 and RR 1: lOin Table 3-2 of the Comp Plan. Please note criteria in RR 1: 10 which requires "transition density" between RR 1:5 and RR 1:20. . Zoning to the south has RR 1:5 zoning. Most lots are less than 1 acre. Many are less than 5 acres. See Surrounding Zoning/Lot Size exhibit. . 5-acre zoning is compatible with the surrounding uses. . The Village Center is approximately 6 miles from site. This center provides goods, sundries and gas. They also have a transit stop, recycling center, bank, post office and visits from the library bookmobile. . Due to concentrated growth within our UGA's, new smaller rural lots are needed and are in great demand. . This parcel is situated 50% or more within the water service area of PUD No. 1. . The site can access existing telephone service in Teal Lake Road or the fiber optic cable in State Highway 104. . A short distance from the property a person can access Teal Lake Road, State Highway 104 and the Kingston Ferry Terminal. 8 . . The parcel lies approximately 1.5 miles from the headquarters of Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3. . This request clearly does not meet the criteria for Commercial Forestlands (as it is currently zoned) in Table 4-1 of the Comp Plan. . . 9 . ADDENDUM B Responses to the Staff Report dated August 3, 2005 I. Page 1-12/Staff Report . # ..\PPLICA TION PROBABLE SIG~"IFIC.~",," SUMl\iA.RY RECOMMENDATION! NUMBER & E:NVIRONME..1\'TAL PROPOSED MITIGATION! DESCRIPTION IMPACTS? CONDmONS 8 MLA05-61 .. OPG: Yes. Approval of the proposal Deny the proposed rezone. Shiue: upzone CF 1 :80 would be likely to result iu ToRR 1:10 l1ndRR 1:5. indirect and clUuulative Altel'1l."ltively. pat1ially approve the significant adverse iulpacts to the proposed rezone request. with envll'oluuent iu tIle form of modifications. includiu~ the followill~: increased pressure to com-'el1 · Rezone those portions oftlte subject COlluuercial Forest Resource site lying within the Bywater Bay Lands to higher iutensity n11'll1 Water Senice .<\rea from CF 1 :80 to use; this would likely erode the RR 1 :20; overall plUpose lllld effect of the · Require funu'e subdivision 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). development to COnf0l'111 to the I'e$idential cluster provisions of the UDC': llnd · Conuuit to developing Rud adopting clearer policy ~uic1ance !lOVemiJl~ ConIDlerci111 Forest and Rural Residential upzone proposals as noted above. RESPONSE: Probable Significant Environmental Impacts Response: 1. OPO disagrees with the opinion of probable significant environmental impacts. The property is bounded on the south by 5-acre zoning. To the west by Pope Resources property (our parent company), partially to the north by Pope Resources property, and other areas to the north and east by the State of Washington. The likelihood of increased pressure to convert to a higher intensity use is minimal due to ownership. OPO will agree to covenant or enter into a development agreement minimizing the growth on Pope Resources land surrounding the proposed area for a reasonable amount of time. Summary RecommendationIProposed Mitigation/Conditions: 1. OPO disagrees with the staff recommendation of denial. . Bullet 1: OPO disagrees with the recommended alternatives. Bullet 2: Residential clustering may be an agreeable condition but OPO would like the ability to decide this issue through intelligent land planning practices. 10 . Bullet 3: OPG believes that it should not be the proponent's responsibility to commit to developing a clearer policy, nor do we believe this proposal should be denied due to lack of clarity with the current policies. II. Page 1-17/Staff Report # APPLICATION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Al'IJD UNCERTAINTY NUMBER & DESCRIPTION S MLA05-61: OPG: The sequence of procedlul11 eveuts slu1"ounding the ef.tabli~lullent of both the Shiue: CF 1:80 to RR initial CF 1 :80 zoning. as well a, the water selvice area bOlludmy, remains 1:lOandRR1:5. somewhat unclear (please reter to the analysis of the propof.nl. below). That said. CF I :80 zoning wa, cleady applied to the su~iect site under iutelull forest land regulations that pre-date both the establishment of the water service area bOU11dary and the Comprehensive Plan, It should be noted that less than 112 of the subject site lies within the Bywat'er Bay Water Sel\'ice Area. indicating that. regardless of the timing and sequence of zoning and water service area bolUldalY designation. the parcel has been appropriately zoned CF 1:80. Both the GMA and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan discourage the redesignation of fore,>t lands, RESPONSE: . 1. OPG disagrees with staffs opinion. It is debatable that less than half of the subject site lies within the Bywater Bay Water Service Area. OPG has supplied the latest water service area map as produced by the PUD. We feel that at least half if not more of the subject site lies within the water service area. It is not clear as to why staff states that "regardless of the timing and sequence of zoning and water service area boundary designation, the parcel has been appropriately zoned CF 1:80". It is not indicated above what part of the comprehensive plan, GMA or the Jefferson County Code staff is basing the appropriateness of the current zoning on. We feel it was an error when land use designations went into effect. The fact that the GMA and Jefferson County Comp Plan discourages the re- designation of forest lands, does not, in effect, make the proposal unjustified. . 11 . III. Page 2-7/Staff Report - # APPLICATIO APPLICMIIPARCE GE~~RAL STAFF N NUMBER L NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMEl\"1)ATION PROPOSAL 8 j\n.A05-61 Olympic Propeli)' Group Rezone tIu'ee (3) parcels Deny tIle proposed (OPG) comprising approximately redesignation!rezone: 158 acres near Shine on the The subject site is APN 821332001 n01th side of SR 104 from productive forest land, APN 821331005 CF 1 :80 to a combination Moreover. less than 50%) APN 821331001 ofRR 1:10 andRR 1:5 of the parcels involved (i.e.. approxinlately 79 lie within the limits of acres in each designation), the Bywater Bay Water 8enice Area. which appears also to post-date the original CF 1 :80 zoning applied to the parcellUlder both the IFRL Ordinance and the 1G80: no persuasive argtuueuts have been presented to suggest that the propeli)' was incoll'ectly designated as CF 1 :80. RESPONSE: Staff Recommendation 1. OPG disagrees with staffs recommendation. The subject site is not, in fact, productive forestland. This area is too close to a high-density area to manage the stand in a non-invasive manner to neighbors. A typical commercial forest needs to be sprayed with herbicides periodically to keep invasive species at bay. Neighbors generally oppose spraying in areas close to their home. Once again, we feel that the 50% figure that staff is quoting is debatable. . It is stated above that "no persuasive arguments have been presented to suggest that the property was incorrectly designated as CF 1 :80". OPG feels that many persuasive arguments have been presented. Table 4-1, Indicator No.4 in the comprehensive plan states, "Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be adjacent to large parcels to allow for adequate buffering and setbacks from potential incompatible uses and settlement patterns." The subject site directly adjoins 5-acre zoning to the south where most lots are less than I-acre. 12 . Within the same table under Indicator No.2, it states, "To protect forest lands of long-term commercial significance from encroachment by incompatible uses, they should be located outside the urban and suburban areas and rural settlements. " The subject site adjoins an intense, small lot (less than I-acre in most areas) rural settlement. When the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations went into effect it is evident that the subject property was zoned CF-80 in error. We feel that by locating a rural settlement next to a commercial forestland it creates an evident encroachment and is an incompatible use in itself. Small lot development and commercial forests should not be adjacent to one another - these two zones are totally different and are incompatible with one another. This is why we believe "transitional" zoning, as proposed, is the best way to map the area and resolve these incompatible uses. . . 13 . IV. Page 2-29 to 2-32/Staff Report NOTE: All responses to this section will be attached as a "Response Table" and will be responded to in accordance to the numbered areas below: 2.3.2.2 Reference Number: ~n.A05-61 (Olympic Property Group) Applicant: Olympic Property Group (OPG) Assessor Pat'cel NumbeI"(s): 821332001; 821331005: and 821331001 Location: Shine 2.3.2.2.1 General DescllPtioll and Site-Specific Ellvirownental Infonuatiou The aboye-mentiOlled parcels are north of State Route 104 in Shine near Teal Lake Road. Parcel has portions within a wellhead protection area aud crirical aquifer recharge lU"ea as weU as sligbt to lUodentte landslide htlzards, The parcels ill question total approximately 158 acres. The Bywater Bay Water Sen'ice arell includes somewhat less than one-half of the tlu'ee parcels in question,1 ~ 2.3.2.2.2 C1.wudative Impact Analvsis P\U'Suaut to UDC ~9,8.l.b and 9.8.1.c. the Plmuling Conuuission aud Boanl of C01Ulty COlwwssiollers shall deyelop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria. and staff evaluations. foUow, . Cumulative Imoact Analysis - MLA05-61: Olympic: Pt"Operty GrouD UDC Crltl'lion StAff E'''llluation TIle circ\Ullstances related to area 1l<1ye not changed substantially since tbe adoption of the Comprehensiye Whether circ1uustances related to the proposed Plan, The CF 1 :80 pre-dates adoption of the amendment and/or the area in which it is located ha\'e Compreheu..ive Plnn. Although the parcels appeal'ed to substnntially changed since the adoption of the lie wholl>' within a "n1tlu'e water seni.ce area" depicted Compreheusive Piau in earlier plalUung dOC1UllenT$, the parcels actually lie only pm1iaUy within the limits of the water sel'\i.ce area lIpproved by the Depm:tment ofHelllth (see footnote below). Whether the ass\uuptious Up011 which the The majority of the aSSlullptions upon which the Cotllpreheush-e PIau is based are no louger valid. 01' Compreheu..ive Plan was adopted l"enUlin valid, whether new info1UUltion is available which wa. not There has been 110 new infunuatiou presented related to con..idered chu~ the adoption process or any a1U1ual lImeudtnentli to the Jefferson Couuty Comprehemive this specific propo$\'\l thnt bas l10t been considered Plan d1U111g the adoption process or auy of the l\Iumal amendmeut cycles. Please also see the footnote below. Whether the proposed amendment l'eflects c1Ul'ent TIle "i.dely held 'dew of the l'esidents of Jeffersou widely held va illeS of the residents of Jefferson COlUlt County will become wore \n-lcent d1u1n8 the public process. The proposed site-specific amendtuent UIeet. The propolied lIu1e1ldtuent i... not likely to adversely COnCtU1'eucy requirelllenT$ for n'allsportatiou aud does uot nd\'ersely affect adopted le\'el of .e1'\lce standards affect the le\'el of sel,\tice tor pt1blic facilities, for other public facilities and services . .. A di~cy ..l<i,ts boet\\'eoeIl the information .tlbmined b)' th.. applicant. \\iu.ch deplC:t.> lb... oeDtirel)' of lbe paroel.. PfOPO~ for roezou.. within thoe Bywllroer Bay Waloer Soen'ice Ar..a. and !he official map ohM.,..,a a. deptctN ill FigIn 1.1 ofVoluwoe! ofm.. Waroer $)'StemPIM for Public Utility Di.triet No.1 of leffenon COUIlty. Febru.1t). 2004, The PUD Wll~ Soen'i~ Plan \\'11$ appro,-,.d br the State Ooepartmmt of Health on Februuy IS. 2005. The adopted and appro\w Bywater Bay Water $en'ice Area inc1ude\ \\'ithin ill limits a Iitt!,e _ than approximately one, third of th.. pr<lpoW ....zone area. Ioformation ,,1bmined by !he npplican' WlIS apparoenlly cIra\\ll fuxn II ".~ \\1l~ \en'ice a....a.. propo,ed in earli.er p1111l1ling cIocumelll\. but nOl adopted. 14 . . Cumulative ImJ)act Analysis - MLA05-61: Olyml)ic PI"Opel"ly Gl'oun, continued UDC Critpriou Stllff E"lllulltiOU The propos~ site-specitic alllendnlent is consistent with The C\l11'ent zoning appears to be consistent with the the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the C'ompreheusi\'e Plan policies for designation of various elements of the Comprehensive Plan conullercial fore.t land. Mor~\'er. a majority of the parcels involv~ lie outside the limits of the Bywater Bay \Vater Sen'ice Area, which was falUl311y created after the original CF 1 :&0 zoning was applied to the parcel uuder both the IFRL Ordinance aud the IGSO: no persuasive lIl'glUlleuts have been present~ to s,uggest that the property was ulcOlTecdy designated as C'F 1 :80. TIle propos~ site-specific amendmellt will not remit in The proposed amendmeut will not result in a probable probable signiticant ach-erse impacts to the county's significant ad, "erse impact to the tl'anspoltationnetwork. ulIn.spoltationnetwolk capital facilities. utilities, parks. capital facilities, utilities, parks, or emirolUllental and emiroWllental feanu'es that cmillot be mitigated, and feanu'es, will uot place lUlcoutpensated blu'dens upon existing or ulluilled set'vice capabilities In the case of a site-specific amenWllent to the land use mllp. that the subject parcels are physically suitable for TIle parcels UI question are s,uitable for \lSe as residential the requested llUld use designation and the anticipated land, land me development. including but IlOt limited to access. provision of utilities and compatibility with existiu2 mId ulluUled SlUTOlUldill2 land uses TIle proposed site-specific amendment will not create a Appl'Oval of the proposal would be likely to increase pl'eSSlU'e to chmlge the llUld use designation of other pressure to com'ert Conuuet'Cial Forest Resolu'ce Lands pl'opelties. \ulless the change ofland use desiplc1tion for to hi!!her ultensity nll1l1 use: this would likely erode the other properties is ill the long-term best interests of the oye1'llll plUpose aud effect of the 1998 Comprehensive COlUltv as a whole Plan (C'P), TIle proposed site-specific awendment c10es not The propo:;ed does not nl3tet'ially affect the 1ll11d use and 11latet1ally affect land use and population growth population Pl'ojections, l)1'Oiections that al'e the bll$es of the COlUl)rehensive Plan Ifwithill an lUunC011'0rated lU'bau p'owth area (UGA). the proposed site-specific IImencbllent doe. not affect the Not applicable, adequacy 01' availability of lU'ban facilities and services to the inullediate lll'ea and the overall UGA The proposed autend1l1ent is 110t cOllsisletlt with the TIle proposed antendlllent is consistent with the Gt'o\\ih C0111prehen;i,'e Piau polices and desi!!1latiou criteria Manl1~lltent Act (RCW 36,70A), the COIUlty-wide !!Oyemini cOllUllel'Cial fOl'est lands lUld nUlS contrary to Plalulutg Policies fOl' Jefferson COlUlt)'. any other Plan and GtYlA provisions wlul:h disfu\'or com'elosion of applicable iuterjlu'isdictional policies or agreements. and prodllcth-e couuuel'Cial fol'est lauds to l~he.r intensity allY other local. state 01' fedet'allaw. lIses, . 15 . . . ~ Following is em'iro1ll11.entalIUlalysis presented ill the fOllnat of the ~oll-Project Actil'lll Supplemmml Sl1eet to the LJ Enviro1llnental Checkli"t de\'eloped by the Depll1tlllenl of Ecology pnrsnaur to the Stnle Euvil'olllllet1fal Policy Act (SEPA), Discussion of each change according 10 questi01l5 set fOlth in SEPA Rules: S~ction D. Suppleln~ntlll Shft't for ~onproj~ct Actious Qu~stiOll #1: How would the Pl'oposnl b~ Ul<<>l~' to incl'~ns~ dischnl'g~ to wnt~l'; ~mbsiolls to nh'; pl'oduction. stornge. or r~lt'nst' of to :Dc 01' haznrdous subStllUCt'S; 01' production ofnobt'? The proposal would likely result in the const1l1ction of twenty-two (22) additional dwelling unit;; because a pOltion of the subject site is located \\ithin the limits of R public water system operated by 1effel~0Il Couuty PUD #1. it would appeal' unlikely to that the proposal would result in a signiticant increase in water withdrawal 01' discharge. Qu~stion #2: How ''rowd tht' proposnl b~ Ul<<>l~' to llff~ct plnnts. nuimnls, tbh, 01' mnline Ofe? The proposal would Dot be likely to affect plants. a11.imak tish, 01' marine life. Proj~l-$pecific devdopment thllt lllay OCC1U' ns a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federaL stnte. and local protectlous. for plants. animals. fish. and DllUlne life. Qut'stion #3: Hon" ''rowd tht' propOSAl bt' Ul<<>I~' to dt'plett' t'nt'I'~' 01' nnnll'nlrt'solU'ces? The proposal is lmlikely to deplete energy or nann-al reSOln-ces: nIl subsequent project specific de\'elopnlent proposals will be subject to applicable federal. state, and local energy conservation standards, QUt'stion #4: How would tht' proposal bt' Ukt'lr to ust' 01' Afft'ct t'mil'onmt'ntaD.v s~n$itin Areas 01' AI'~ns d~$igunt~d (01' eligible or undn stud~') for gonl'wnentnl PI'ott'ction; such as pnl'lts, ,,1Idel'O.ss, wild nnd scenic rh'el'$. threntent'd 01' endangered sp~de$ habitAt, historic 01' cultul'nl "ites. wetlands, Doodplain$, or pliwe fnl'mlnnds. TIle criticaltu'ea Ulap shows the presence of II sea~onal $u'ea1llS and a Critical Aquifer Rechar~ A10ea for Wellhead Pl'otection. Question #~: How would the pl'OpOSlll b. Iik~l~' to llff~ct land llnd shol'ellne U$e. hlduding wh.thel' it would nllow 01' encourllge bllld 01' $horelin~ uus incompatible "ith ~:d$ting }lllln$? No POl1iOU of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. To the extent that approval of the pl'OpO-'~ rezone appears appropriately zon~ as commercial forest land use the Comity's designlltion crite1ia and polides. rezoning the pl'Opeliy to higher density 1\\l1\1 residential use would appeal' to encourage nse that i, im:ollsistellt with the Comity's adopted Piau. aud eucolu'a~ similar rezones that are inconsi$tent with C01Ulty policy, Qlu"$tlon #{): How would the proposftl b~ Uk~l~' to IDCI'~a$e demnnds on trnnSpoI'tllUon 01' publk $4.'1"ic.$ nnd utlliti~$? TIle proposal is luilikely to generate auy noticeable additional demand for public services,] Question #7: Id.ntif.\'. if possible. whethel' the PI'oposlll mny connlct "ith lOCAl, stft". or ~..ftllnws or rt'quirements fOl' th. pl'Ott'Ction of the en,iJ.'onmt'nt. TIle proposed COlllpl-ehensi\-e Piau amendment appears to be inconsistent \\ith COlupl-eUenSlye Plan narrative, desi~lation cliteria and policies govenUng c01lllllercial forest lands (see Comprehem,h-e Piau. Natw'nl Resolu'ces I The DepllrtU1~nt of Health ai_ ~ about !be a\1li1l1bihry of wftr~r r~>O\lrc~. for the Bywater Bo.}' Wll~ S}'i\'em durin! ~ 2m ~\'ie\\' proce.. of pl"OpO$ed PUD \VlIter \en';'<:\'! area amendment. in a ~lter dared A\1g\\~t 9. 200*. 16 . . . Element. PI" 4-2 through 4-5 aud NRGs 1.0 and 3,0 and the policies thereunder), The proposal would al.,o appear ~ to clearly contlict with the nanu-al resource industry ~oal of the GMA (see RCW 36,70A.040(8)). 3 ., ... ., ,... S ff'R .J. . . _,;.l,_,_,;.l . ta eCOllllnellll<'lTlOll Staff reconullends denial of the proposed re~one. Th~ sub~ec,t site i~ p~'odu~tive forest land. ~Ioreo::er. ~ess than 50~o of the area of each of the tlu'ee parcels UlvolYed lies wltlun the 11llutS ot the Bj,yater Bay Water Sernce Area. which also appears to post-date the original CF 1 :80 zouing applied to the pm'cel under both the IFRL Ordinllnce aud the IG80: no persuasive argtuueuts have been presented to suggesr that the propeny was inCOll'ectly ~siguated as CF 1 :80, It should be noted that the Jefferson County Interim Forest ReSOlu'ce Lands Ordinance (#01-0121-97) initially designated and zoned the property CF 1:80 on July 5.1994. applying forest land desiguotion criteria nearly identical to those in the Cluunt Plan (i.e.. including the water service area criterion), On August 8. 1995 the Jefferson COtulty Water Utility Coordinating Conunittee (WUCC) and Jefferson COlUlty PUD No. 1 filed an illterlocal agreement regarding the water service area bOlUldary. In November of 1995. Pope ReSOlu'ces transfel1.'ed dleir private water system to Jefferson COlUlty PUD #1, On Febnuuy 14. 1996. the Interim Gro,vth Strategies Ordinance (#05-0214-96) replaced the IFRL. but retained the CF 1:80 zoning for the subject site. again applying designation critel'ia neady identical to those used lUlder the IFRL including tIle water service 8l'lea criterion. On May 21. 1997, the owner/applicant petitioned JefIerson COlUlT)' to have the suqiect parcel remoyed from forest l-eSOlu-ce land designlltion. The Jefferson COIUlty Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the petition becalLse. amou~ otllel' reasons, the CF 1 :80 zoning predated the establishment of the water service area boundalY, TIle BoCC adopted the Examinel"s reconullendation and denied the petition (see File No, ZON97-0015), On AUglLst 28. 1998. the Jefferson COlulIy Comprehensive Plan was adopted. again ratifying the CF 1:80 desiglllltioll, TIle owner/npplicant failed to appeal either the BoCC petition denial or the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property, In March 2004. the PUD. tlu'ough the WUCC'. submitted a set of proposed water sen'ice area plans and maps to the WlIshington State Department of Health (DOH) for approval. .~1l101lg the water sen'ice IIreas in qne:>tion was the Bywater Bay Water Sen'ice Area, DOH renUlled an approval letter dated Febnuuy 18. 2005. approving the boundary as depicted in FiglU'e 1.1 of Vohulle 2 of the PUD Water Service Plan. Febl'llalY 2004. (Fig\u'e 1.1 is dated January 2004.) TIle approved bOIUldary includes only some-less than 50%--ofthe area proposed for rezone 17 . . . RESPONSE TABLE 1. OPG has responded to this area in its entirety in other areas of this document. There is also a discrepancy with percentages that staff quotes in Footnote 2 under UDC Criterion 1. Staff throughout the staff report states that less than half of the proposed area is within the Bywater Bay Water System Area. This footnote states that it is "a little more than approximately 1/3 of the proposed rezone area." OPG feels that at least half if not slightly more of the proposed rezone area is within the water system area. 2. Question 1 OPG agrees. Question 2 OPG agrees. Question 3 OPG agrees. Question 4 OPG agrees. Question 5 OPG disagrees with staff because the property is bounded on the south by 5-acre zoning. To the west by Pope Resources property (our parent company), partially to the north by Pope Resources property, and other areas to the north and east by the State of Washington. The likelihood of increased pressure to convert to a higher intensity use is minimal due to ownership. OPG will agree to covenant or enter into a development agreement minimizing the growth on Pope Resources land surrounding the proposed area for a reasonable amount of time. Question 6 OPG has a letter from the PUD stating that we have water connections that will service the proposed lots within the Bywater Bay Water Service Area. See Exhibit B on Page 5 of this document. Question 7 OPG agrees that the proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The comp plan is very clear about where commercial forest properties SHOULD NOT be. These areas are mentioned throughout this document. 3. OPG disagrees with staff regarding the recommendation of denial. It is also difficult for the subject site to be "productive forestland" due to the proximity to the adjacent rural settlement of parcels that are I-acre or less. No other comments. Thank you. 18 m >< ::r c: ;:;: Ul ti\ \\~l?fl ni 't <<l\.L~ ~Nld1V_ j \. ___ ___ I...L_~ . 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ I~ ~\O ~ . =In ~Q =< ~~ ~~ ~"O N = .~ O.n ~Q ~< Z~ ~~ Z o N ~ Z ~ Q Z ~ o ~ ~ ~ 00 -~ ~- ~ -~ ...............~ en ...... (l.) 's...c: OJ)...... c::: t) ..;:: (l.) .;!Z 1:;::::: (l.) ><: ~ .. ...c:(l.) OJ) ......(l.)"Ec::: c:::...c: 0..... ..... ...... U ~ ...c: (l.) (l.) 0 ......c:::\-;..- ~2b:8 (l.) \-; . (l.) \-; en U ...... ~j ....... ....... c:::r--- ~....... ~ II enc; en ...... j~ en ...... o en....:l ~~ U"<j" ~ II N..- o .::g ...... 0 .......~ ! en ...... o ....:l en 00 ~O U ....... ~ II If) ...... o .::g ...... 0 N~ lJ-i ~"/lg~ Nj~. .i I~ n ~~L~ ~\~, --j--- 71' :1I~~1J';~ I if, , -~ ,: .....1 /~b---!: ~ - - - i ~.~b ruth~_fi: Q..,s." ~ /,z, II .I Ls- ~ . ~7} ~)f~rl.S-- .i. . l!!!:1 ' r 1-1= /f -I~' . 7' I I {~ r-(J \ f.:.d.... r 0'1 I;r, .. I ~ / 'r- ~~ .,i I I ' (' F ;)1lJ I ("1 . c >. ~~ .~ .~ "Vi ... ... o 0 ~ ~ oj '- ..c ~ b.~ :3 en.o U ~ >. u 0_ CI:l ~o..E aJ c OJ).o .~ ~ 9 i'~ ~ ~ CI:l .,g~E .;: E ~ o en ". OJ) '0 ;> .:: ;:: i5.. C 0 E I 0::3 ~ ~ I u.o <;l u E >. CI:l ::l ~ I~~~ .5 ES ...: I >< - I e Q) ~ 0. C 0 0.0.0 <:l N en C aJ @ ~t3-5 I'~ .A ~ .- aJ ~ ES-5E - 1 I I I . I - __-l__ I o '\ I" 1 . ~\~ .U . \\\ . j~\ . ~~ I. . r-.' \!! . I L J It"-i\ l (;i. (r _ Q: ~ 3>1\>',,'J':'J\"31 fl -l OJ) i : ~~~~~ ~ ~ J: . ---:~ lIE-" g. b. : I -_~)~~ ~ ~: : ~ b ~t ] i:. I : l'tAh~$ h/~~. ..... ~ ~E~....' ~ I .1:::/"~l _ ;', .,~; ~~ lr~' i, "'- ;~'.:..~- -':.. .~~ ;;_~~I~\ · ! _ ' · \l\1 \),\\\1\\ \ I,\~-- - r~ _~_~il.~~..aliP""- lJ Ut '~~~ .g Jl 'h ~ '" ~ <3 j- 1;- l " .-=!!!~ i ::<1 Ul ~ onN en ...... en 0 ~....:l u~ ~~ o II ....... ..- o .::g en ..- en (l.) (l.) U \-; \-; U ~ ~o.... \0 S II ;)c; 5;S ...... 0 If)~ . EXHIBIT A Exhibit Depicting Surrounding Land Uses Parcel Nos. 821332001, 821331005,821331001 N NTS . 82'32.'002 I Current Use: Raw J Land ,RR 1:20 ~ I I ''''''2''. I '- III I i :,:;:::::!L 1;;;;-,.;., 1 i i /. Ii -~.....-........._... 1 . --l2.3ii0.6'. ~ l82iil3032 82i3i3040 ei'3m,5ii2'33lO-13 '''..~ /"82~~,I-_---=-:::':'~ '. 1'\...--.......... '." '."'" ... 8~.lOO7~~.333012..r--..]..- -1'.- -,--.-. 8ID3:..m3.L 13- 'J .~3J.ioei':!i.!1j:'o3i~.'i1!;;oa:il.~.'. \ _ ~-' >, Curren. t m~ Residential _[ _ t./. -y-. ' ~ .e2_.'33-!09!l, L 1 ,! I : 821 324006 J.:-... .-'. [I -I 82133401l0l - ' '! ---. j I I ...:.____~ 8213.33013, '-. -~ .,..--~ 82133-1102 jig ~ _ _ '_ _' ... __' 8;f~0~'j' 'c-:=-'l'... . ,.RR 1:5. - . / .. [=fE-IV ~ ce2'33-!.~~; I J.--l~CEN'c...v~E. W~LN ii:... .-a~~:= ~,= r..."'-- !.82~33~_ ~ ~3~='03W_ d- ,_' 'I ~.... J 1._ --.... '..~ ~j- '~- t' 821UJQ.\2j02''''^''.'.,-7' 14i-<'-~:':';~. 3" 00"" - - - l .J r~ ~ . ,,8213330.9' ',- i ,- . .".= ..---.... .1~_82I~.:. 82133-1.0'.1' __..-1___ _, L .. . 1,.-. - - -, 9.. ... . . L, -.'J '.;" -- .....J.. " . ,)__ {821.3.34.'OG_L.' -:::- 182133-'~82133-'086... 82'..33-. 108 . 82.!.32~~2 'f,. _ _ /.. <t a:~3.!30t4)....." /' /t~a2..!E:!'03~~ :-;,,1;; 821334027-itJ,. 1--- ....,... --:&2~3~-- ~ tlill 82i;W029 '!I. .82133300<1 i '-. "-~. "'-'" I .. /.::- - .821334'05 82133402,! 82'3~O~" I I 1 'J J ,.t__ ~-J~ - . en - --~~,333003';-" 821~2,_ .:.t-..-.~=.d:.'82133-I()o'ot;I~~~.~lJCI(LEBERRy LN': -' .. !r- I '\ 82132.1009 ~ -- ~"'1 -,If' _~-'- - 82133-1O!>8:!1"' 82133-10.'2~' ~"-.. t. "1. -.. - 821334009,1-"""" ...L-. Maps ~1SOOJ()J - '~'. .-.- .~133~,:!. - 82~~;33-1062-'r_~~~3-1O'16_ _ _ l_'1 __,.~t~t?:-~~ _ . _~_'_~;'OO! . .1~i1---25~~, \ Vicinity Map - East Jefferson County ~'- -\- SR 104 and Teal Lake Road ~ ~\~~tT _L+___~~ -'/i-_._....-jl.-.J--~r: _. 1" ~ I I I j . i . t= ,'~ :'~; ',. '-t.:)lIll ,~J1 ", . ~ I 11---------- ,- ~ .!~ I II'. -~;~ I "". . I I -, . Subject Property . EXHIBIT C . Access from Teal Lake Road . No known wetlands . Q) Ql u.. o ~r o o c:::l N ---=.:! Z-~S ~~ :;C--L-- is ~::JI~ II ~ ~ I ~ ~ nr~ i\ ): ..... \ ,. L I iii. ~ ~~ rr "( :; '-, )l.~ J! ~ '" ~ 1 .~ :llJ1 11Il\-) ~ 'rO'(ffi\W0 /Ii I m ~~ I r- ~I~ Ij r 1 ~15~!I r ~ ~..l ~>-- ro Lj I D I -0 ~ ~ ~ I -/1 ,or 1 ei.\! 2~ s;-./ CS ~..-- IT1:J r;;: c.. =:l=\Jj' "til ,~ h..:rxl i. ~ I ==i I < "," ~ ---l -l ~ M11h ~ ;--~ ~~~ y ~f!ll I ~~r q I~ o g ~ o N - d \1\ - ~~ u >-~ s ~ / /Y' V I , fA /I I I J L --'- - J \ ,f,? c:T' t 1JJ V .- 1JJ :-t ~ co ~ ] >. .-' W ~ 51 co +-' V ~ Q ~ ('01 PJ.Llvt.+-l Qwuo ::J 0 .- N ....~ ~ ~ -ovec O,ovlw~ S I-L.t --.. ~ .....~ ~ 8 :E ~ ~ o :-t 1JJ Q) O-l ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ - - - w I VI ~ roo ,.: .... E <D <D ~ c 0> .. w i "OCUc C g ro_:u u _> .;::: ~ a g.~ ... c 2: ;>: O<D"; -.:::t ~ (J) :1: o o ]1 ~ - Q) C ~ Q) ::J t: - ::J .to 00 ::J::J Q..Q.. DO -I I ~ ~ Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Subject: Lorna Delaney Monday, November 14, 200510:24 AM Leslie Locke FW: Pepper Ur High H' E ~ 'I~~' ~,'" ~r'f'O RD . ;,'" }! . h~ ~ ~~ ;.~.!.<t'.IP' ~... . ' P ,i \iJ t'r:J# ,'\ b;. \".,~ . Importance: ;\JC\/14 '100') l... .. '" Untitled.pdf Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 -----Original Message----- From: Josh Peters Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:05 AM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: FW: Pepper Ltr Importance: High Re: This afternoon's public hearing. -----Original Message----- From: Kelly Delaat-Maher [mailto:kdmaher@dmi-law,com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:07 AM To: #Planning Department Subject: FW: Pepper Ltr Attached please find a letter addressed to the Board of County Commissioner's for today's hearing, which I would like included in their documents for consideration. Thank you. Kelly DeLaat-Maher Dickson Maher Ingels LLP 1425 Wells Fargo Plaza 1201 Pacific Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 Tacoma - (253) 572-1000 Facsimile - (253) 572 -1300 Seattle - (206) 621-1110 E-mail: kdmaher@dmi-law.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION MEANT ONLY FOR THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. 1 '" -----Original Message----- From: Jessica Ether Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 9:59 AM To: Kelly Delaat-Maher Subject: Pepper Ltr This PDF file was created using the eCopy Suite of products. For more information about how you can eCopy paper documents and distribute them by email please visit http://www.ecopy.com <<Untitled.pdf>> 2 ;,..........''''~ :- ;".-'l -~ DICKSON / MAHER / INGELS ;4i~': ,,- f7-'= (:" '-~'! \'~ _. 1-'--' . ir---.I ~ I ._ " REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE: 1401 WELLS FARGO PLAZA 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE TACOMA. WA 98402 TELEPHONE: (253) 572-1000 FACSIMILE: (253) 572-1300 SEATTLE OFFICE: 4201 BANK OF AMERICA TOWER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 621-1110 FACSIMILE: (253) 572-1300 J',iCl\j 14 2005 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,~ L THOMAS L. DICKSON KELLY DELAAT-MAHER CASEY R. INGELS. MBA JASON M. WONG. MBA KEVIN T. STEINACKER CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTENSEN JORDAN K. FOSTER CONOR E. McCARTHY VERONICA E. SHAKOTKO C. TYLER SHILLlTO SCOTT O. L^FRANCHI November 14,2005 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 HF. ,!\ D!~.~ .. ;;~~,~ .~, ~) i....N '~. \ .~. r\f"CORD ~(~';; '. J... ~ ., &.. "JA . ., Sent via email toPlanning@co.Jefferson.wa.us Re: Pamela Pepper. MIA 05-70 Dear Board of County Commissioners: This letter is submitted as further public comment, and in support of Pamela Pepper's application for an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, identified above as MLA 05-70. These comments are made in addition to a previous comment letter dated August 24,2005, previously forwarded and made a part of the record by memorandum addressed to the Board from Cheryl Halvorson, dated October 24,2005. Ms. Pepper seeks to rezone her 11 acre parcel from RR 1: 1 0 to Rural Commercial Neighborhood Crossroads. Her property is located at the northeast intersection of Four Comers Road and SR 20. It is located immediately adjacent to the currently designated Four Comers Rural Commercial/Neighborhood Crossroad designation. The Property Is Surrounded Bv Commercial Use. As outlined previously, Ms. Pepper's property is virtually surrounded by current commercial use. Her use would be consistent with that which currently surrounds her. As outlined previously, the following nearby uses are noted: · Four Comers Gas Station and Store; · Stan the Man Movers, which is a moving and hauling company; · An auto repair shop at which general auto repair services are conducted; · Puget Power service facility and offices along with a warehouse and shop facility. Included at this site is a fuel pumping station, trash disposal facilities, and the storage of major industrial supplies; · The Gardens at Four Comers which a commercial nursery; Board of County Commissioners November 14,2005 Page 2 of 4 · The Four Corners Mini Storage containing 272 storage units IS located within the intersection area; · The regional distribution center for United Parcel Service; · A construction company is located within the immediate vicinity, which includes workshops, storage facilities, and a parking and staging area for trucks and construction equipment; · An auto wrecking operation is also within the immediate vicinity; . A recycling facility; · Olympic Village Mobile Home Park which leases up to eighty-eight mobile homes; Ms. Pepper has contemplated senior housing or low-income housing for the site, which is certainly permissible within the requested designation of Rural Commercia1lNeighborhood Crossroads, and is also in keeping with Land Use Goal (LNG) 5.3, which specifically applies to Four Corners. As noted by the Planning Commission, such a use also meets the provisions of Housing Element Policy 1.2, as the need for affordable housing represents a change in circumstances since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Penner's Site Was Previouslv Zoned Commercial. As discussed previously, Ms. Pepper is of the strong opinion that her property was not properly considered for inclusion in the commercial designation. Upon purchase, the property was zoned C-2 under an Interim Zoning Ordinance, and was included within the boundaries of the Four Corners Commercial Area, This fact is recognized by the Planning Commission in their recommendations dated October 19,2005. In August of 1994, the property was excluded from the Four Corners Commercial area when the County redrew the zoning map for the area. No notice was given to Ms. Pepper of the change in her zoning. Inclusion of the property within the commercial designation in 1994 would have made sense, as would inclusion in the LAMIRD under the GMA in 1998. When the location of the property on one corner of the Four Corners intersection is considered, as well as the surrounding uses of properties within the zoning designation, inclusion in the Rural CommerciallNeighborhood Crossroads designation would simply have been a logical outer boundary of the LAMIRD. The GMA Allows Minor Adiustment to an Outer Boundarv of a LAMIRD. As recognized by the planning commission in their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, a LAMIRD boundary, if determined to be flawed, must be subject to adjustments. Further, the GMA does not prohibit minor adjustments to an outer boundary of a LAMIRD, Minor adjustments can be made to the logical outer boundary consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)(A-D). Those provisions require that the following be considered: (1) the need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities; (2) physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and landforms and contours; (3) the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and (4) the ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that will not permit low-density sprawl. The statute does not require the presence of a built environment in July 1990 to be the determining criteria for a specific parcel. Board of County Commissioners November 14, 2005 Page 3 of 4 As outlined in my August 24, 2005 letter, making a minor adjustment to include Ms. Pepper's property does not run afoul of the considerations enumerated under RCW 36.70A.050: (1) The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities. The Four Comers cross-roads already has properties within the near vicinity and having the same comer frontage as Ms, Pepper with the desired zoning. Thus, her property will not change the character of the existing community. (2) Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and landforms and contours. Four Comers consists of the crossroads of Four Comers Road/Discovery Road and SR 20. Ms. Pepper's property is located on the northeast intersection, and thus inclusion in the Four Comers LAMIRD is not illogical when the physical boundaries of the property and LAMIRD are considered. (3) The prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. Inclusion does not create an abnormally irregular boundary, simply because the requested zoning is located to the south and southwest, on the opposite side of SR 20, and further is located on the same side of SR 20 from Ms. Pepper several lots to the west. (4) The ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that will not permit low-density sprawl. The ability to provide public facilities and services will not be altered. Transportation facilities already exist to the site. A bus stop and rider shelter was constructed just north of the intersection several years ago, Certainly, inclusion of the parcel in the Four Comers LAMIRD will not affect those services, as the intersection is well defined with a traffic light and the roads are well serviced and maintained. Further, the site is serviced by a water line and electricity. A LAMJRD Should Be Structured To Include "Jnlill." As noted by the Planning Commission in their recommendation dated October 19,2005, the logical outer boundary of a LAMIRD should be structured to provide for infill, which would thus prevent any further low density sprawl. Here, the Four Comers LAMIRD lacks any undeveloped lands required for infilI. When the boundaries were designated, apparently no acreage was provided for infill. Thus, expansion to allow for the Pepper property as infill would not be inconsistent with the requirements of the OMA. The Site Has Been Chosen For Jefferson Transit Authoritv Headquarters. Ms. Pepper applied for this amendment (as well as previous amendments and requests for a rezone) due to her desire to use the property to its best advantage. Due to its location and proximity to the airport and transit facilities such as the bus stop and shelter, she anticipates it would be suitable for senior housing, a use that is consistent with the Four Comers Rural Commercial/Neighborhood Crossroads designation, At the time of this application, the site was under consideration for Jefferson Transit Authority's new headquarters. The property has not been selected as the headquarters. Nonetheless, pending acquisition cannot play any part in the determination of whether the amendment should be adopted, with limited exception. That exception requires the Board to consider that when the site is constructed as the Transit Authority Headquarters, the use of the property will be in a manner that is much more intense and Board of County Commissioners November 14,2005 Page 4 of 4 inconsistent with surrounding properties than that ever contemplated or proposed by Ms, Pepper. If site acquisition is fmalized, the zoning of this property will change, either through another comprehensive plan amendment granted in favor of Jefferson Transit, or a conditional use permit. To deny a change to Ms, Pepper, but grant it to a County Agency is disingenuous at best. Conclusion The use of the property with a re-designation of Rural Commercial will allow for reasonable use of the property. It is not an appropriate site for a home in its current designation, It is located on two busy streets next to commercial usage, and that commercial usage is certainly more appropriate due to the location and its proximity to an intersection, as well as to the airport, Sincerely, DICKS9N MAHE~GELS L ! / / / ~f{//~ Cc: client / 111405 pepper 5020 "Ie ct'o DCD /1-IO,-Q5 , J ... l. ~..~A ' ,j~" ..~ 'J~~,. ~~A nrf'1 , ~...." ,..,\O~...v "",~.q.,..c' ~..,...~'mC.... 0 RD · e f~M j~ '), ~ \*i6Eit i1.,.",/f MLA05-53 NOVEMBER 14, 2005 \! 1 I) 20D5 This request for a site-specific:ath~rldin~rii caine\jut~gfa need for my business to move to a larger building and storage yard. We were unable to find an area and/or large enough building to use; we then purchased a property that had pre-existing infrastructure (a permitted Commercial access road onto Highway 20) under the GMA. This gives this parcel a commercial use that existed before July 1, 1990. This in its own borders on "vested use" as per Washington Law. GMA has determined that a LAMIRD must have infrastructure that pre-dated July 1, 1990 and be contained by natural or reasonable outer boundaries. My parcel and the parcel next door which is used as Light Industrial qualify as a stand alone LAMIRD. These parcels are contained and limited by their outer boundary with a commercial road down the middle, the other lots around these two parcels do not qualify under the GMA, and will not be able to gain a commercial highway approach as the state wants frontage roads for highway access now. When Glen Cove was established by the county it set its criteria for the boundaries as to where the water system was and where county roads were. The parcels I have mentioned do not have either ofthese so they should be a LAMIRD of their own. Other counties have LAMIRDS that border up to other LAMIRDS. It is hard to comprehend how other counties try to use every opportunity afforded them under the GMA to gain employment and/or retain existing business, but in Jefferson County the Community Development Department chooses not to, unless they are sure it will not be contested/or appealed. This in itself is unfair to the citizens of Jefferson County. Even in their own words, "It has very good merits under GMA" but they feel it would be too difficult to revisit. It was my understanding that they worked for the citizens of Jefferson County to do what is right for them and not to pick and choose what is easy for them. The GMA states that counties have broad discretion in allowing local businesses to expand and retaining them, but our local building department doesn't want to put any effort into trying to establish or recognize an existing LAMIRD. Instead, they say it is part of Glen Cove when it is its own LAMIRD and "Not subject to any agreements with the city". This counties own Comprehensive Plan stipulates that this should happen, as well as in its Economic Plan (EDG1.0 & EDP1.1) (see attached). So again, I ask you to vote YES and establish this parcel along with the adjoining one which has a binding Commercial Site Plan in place as a stand alone LAMIRD. If we are unable to get the Site Specific Comp Plan Amendment as requested we will be forced to do one of the following: " .. 1. We will have to proceed with Legal Action to secure Legal Commercial Status under the Vesting Rights of Washington. This is the last resort, one of which we don't want to do as residents of Jefferson County and would be wasteful of monies for all involved. 2, Proceed with building a larger store outside of Jefferson County, preferably North Kitsap, This would cause A+ Equipment Rentals, Inc, to have to layoff four full- time employees and hire people at the new store in Kitsap County. A+ Equipment Rentals, Inc. would still retain its current customers and income from Jefferson County as the small rental store still located here would receive the phone requests and forward the rentals to the store in North Kitsap. All the tax income would then be going to Kitsap County instead of Jefferson County. As the owners of A+ Equipment Rentals, Inc., we would hate to do either of these options. We chose to move here and raise our family and be part of this community back in 1996. We purchased a business that had been the only rental store since 1974 in Port Townsend and at that time the store employed only two employees, the owner and his wife. Now A+ Equipment Rentals, Inc. employs eight full-time employees with full benefits and two part-time employees. We only wish to be able to grow and continue to be a part ofthe community as well as the attached signatures of other citizens of Jefferson County. Please help us do this by voting FOR the amendment. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, .. ?"Z~~ ~Oa)~ Geri A. Widell Attachments: #1 - Commercial Road Permit #2 - Site Plan of new building #3 - Customer Support Signatures #4 - Finding Rural Lands #5 - Jefferson County Comp Plan and Economic Goals #6 - GMA RCW's #7 - Vesting Rights O~~~~/2~05f 11:56 FAX 380 417 1408 "SOOT PA JlAIN.fEl\lANCE ~OOl/OOZ ~I State rbnent of Transp.-t.... ' Facsimile Transmittal 1U: Iit.\ 01' JWilE8" ...... 2.. Deal . for Pickup 0 Deliver evj)() - -fh~.s I I Ls 1'1- ,;: 1>1'Y1 ~ e II' c. i J4 I 1'1 eel!? .5...5> ~. NOTlCr4: Some fax ~ produce c:opIes Gn themtar peper. The Image produced is highly unstable and will j!eterlorate sIgnIficanUy In a few)188lS. This I8Cord shcUd be copied on a plain paper copier prior to iffing as a reconi. .' 03/17/2005 11:56 FAX 360 417 140$ WSDOT P A JlAINTENANCE l{lJOOz/OO: . > .-..' . : ... C.S. 16Q5 SR 20 STATE Of WASHINGTON llEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION @j~~rnrmA\~' (f)~~l~}J~tr N<1llll,; it d Address of ApptiC".J.m: lundqren i~// DISTRKT NO. 3 I'ERMI NO: t181-200 404 ~cott Stre t WA 98368 Th . applicant, hereifUlfler referred 10 fJS the "GTflnree", Itnvillg QPplied for a pcrmillCJ ~ons truet, ,yse . d for lots 2 and f olat at Mile Jp.Qlted in ~.l;lQrt~est ~ of the Northwest ~ of Section 21. em a po tiOIl of Sfale Route No. ..1U.-. ill .]eff~r~nn COUIII.!'. Wu.fllill/:ltm, tIlt' hlLls/lingloll StaIr: D XJr/melll of TmllspOT!l1tirJ/l or its dl!.'rigl1f~t', 1,,~rf:iIlQflt:r rc-fr.-rrr:d ffl e/~ ,1,,: h/)l!flurtlllt''''''' IIC'rf:b," ordC'I:" t/tal Ihi.1 fJr!l'l1/il bc' ,:rall{c'd. subject /() /lIe' 1ftI'm," all,1 /w(1l'isiwIs slared ul'm/ lhe ,c.'J'c'rse hat.of "ml l:.:"ltibil.: otTached Ilf:rftiO and by l/Jis Tt:Ji:rcm:t: madt: u IHlr, Itenuj:' xhibit "A'\ Standard Provisions for Highway Encroachr.lents. No wor provided fOf herein shall be performed until the' Grantee is authorized by the State's representatl\'e: Mr. Tr ls This per it shall be void unless ttte work herein contcmpl:1ted shall have been complet~d b~rore ~pri 1 30. 19~", This per it is ill.'(.:C~lh,'d ~md approved by the Gr-.mtce ubjccl to (hI: terms and provl'iion,. as herein ~et forth. CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-562-6478 Tille: j~U~~ r By: ...."....,..-;;:>..... .,' D~1l C ; By: .}>, ,_.:v.~-:r ':r. ~-V" rqnc;S Thompson- Date: g -I () ,.~ 1 Th E~i~er I tc:~~ .;24, /~;[:'/ 1.1.1'-- ., ,-,,-.,.n... L 1'-...... I -;, I f\. L L () i\ K i ~ .. -:: ~.:..:.._~ -- ~4~ 4fz il""1 ""('..'. ',:':1;' ~q, j..;, L, i'~:."F.q hI h- ~;.;:..;;;. I" I iL, ~ 1 I' j'll P:, c f_ . I LA N 0 Jj \ ~("--w._..,~-& ,....'V'\-,..-\ 0:.:",,~ - {. l'\ 411"c,^<-- C --I.......... ." H L...:' '. 1.1.." ~'if)f. C-C' t-J..l~- tCe (.:, . W-',- n:..J. ~ v ~ t: ~ '~i . ::'+r<e:i L l'}'" t c - p~,\.::. ~j"'ci....,~{.,-l \'/ c_ ~ j LA. , -;.. ,+ . ~\ '- ' Ii l~' L VINe, ~ ~ \ ..J...L - r~cl-'_-:'''':-'l -\- ,:- Iii" ~lJ. C. ....."'~t\\:.;.,,\. ~. 'J '-f' ,.A. ' C ~ J ";--' ~. ...-'- J' c -~-........ J. .:01 'J .j "1 '-."'- t.h-i...4, ~14,...ll ;-:).{\. -4...) <':"""-I,,.-\.""""-"-JC"o V'. c..... ,VI,..,:,. \",-~,..."",,..,. -{~,. <: v"'\ll~.(...l ~! ~ ;1 . 'v w - ~"'-\..( lA.;,4"'-.. (c ""-\<'''',\N:'c:..( W(-~~\ AV-<L-\ i<.e...:'j '.' \w" ".:.-,3 ..+t:c '^", +':':' l.J '1 ~......~~ 'E.~~. \'\.e~".i.""""""^~': ._ --____~_4 ....1 ~... ~....~., ) , ';".~~ 'i~f'''''''\ ..-'1 ..., I .; '" ..J v '-! \; '5 f'\\.c c. '" '.':1 '- '" (- - - I ~ I "vV i l----L ,J' ..-" " ! J < ... i- -<i ~ ;; ) n~. · 1...-'~~'f-~ ~.~. ! ~-_ J' _ 71,r. ~ i ~ ! ~..-4. ".__4t..,- n .j -I ~ .. L_ ..__~~-.-='::~_.'~L~/~~~"'.:"f(.'\_~-=-H;~"<~~ ~;.~ ~~;~i=- ,:>.. '.... 0<- <: .-t t/ F-.... -t" "C ~t-f' ,,", ~ lC ..,,<.: " A"" ~lf,...'''':f~'''-'''\..+ ,,",,';. tJ......i..}t~~.i (-,~......'l((..'-.. l~"j lV~ :o..Ll-\' , ':J ~ ~. .t. x- :i- Q ~..:;.. :< ~ ,I I~ - r..t; fCS( ('.... S A.<-lF'C:" -k "] t.L v..~<' ~.",. y\<\....~.:. 1 c:-\A ~ '"~ "-,, p vv.~~;:: ~",....~.\. ~I'-fl<"'''''~'c.", H W U\ .2-.G http.iiww''',9''rle\illlc\ hams l'(U~:/Y1G:.:,~ ..,,,,I ~ nJ. '-Vi -; lid- l l~ ~;.(1O\~1{ wc~ ~"",J.. f. I f.....OH t · w" the u~.. ~.". our$~~W sig....this ~.to aIIo\Y. the ftIZOIl8 of IIIeir pro krcatbMI at u ~__ JI. 20 and Seton Road. This wigl allow for safer ~"~--J4 ~. __larger reo"l store. ..' , - · ~~~ /,AAL. J/~J' ~ cr PrWIII- ~ : [.:;4" rkt(' j?tJ. 'trrJ; /31-11 ~~t ~- '~ "/~7//4if ,. ,L.s~"f1.g~ 4/_~i_~ ~~ "l.(~ Iphf'.r .---., ~. ..A ~ :U:;:'I?:.. ___......J ~.j::-=- .''5'-,~,J L~",-:a{ '1 !.;;'j--..'7" t'.&,' ., ilA_ P - ~~ i - // of ~ . ~ .l !d-L ~ ,j", 71(' \' L rIl~ i/./ rl P4:~"':J~I!/ . ~ ..-::~r;;~ .X/'~l...~ I;: .z?:,~,~,,'q<.;.'1 ! jl ;(? 1'{/3 f- ....., i?..L j:;"'l!.. '.r1~AJi"';c>--~~ * e-~-/~ ~)L 7::'1' -. '; -:......J~~~~!j/~,f;z,.~.-i -r~~ i./ -- . :.~~:~~ -~ : ~~~,r/hr./~~ .~~ ~~~~~.~;~:v h __7 ~~<~ * tt (.0 w (. f {?Jz. Ln; ~ 11 {II If},~ f, '((t.,.""4._'~ tJ..t- d /' ri II fh..- . ~'" ~- ~- I"... - -- - -' ~ I ~:~( '4' _Jc::'"> I '1~ a;..i..,. - Ii ()"." Ir--:::-)! X-."-.'..-- . -'" "'~ . . :: -- .. I W SrICf il..tI1 <. ~ p-- . ~=-=- JZ;.M- .. -----:: . "A ...."rR7.. I . /~. 7 ~ <' ~_ _ /.A 5,- 'jJ<;-, _, ~.1: - _=-1;::,,-,,-7" ~ ~:;?~ 1. r..l/~'J .v. ~ ~_ - r, '-"'VMl!f - u./~ .. .. ~:~"]~.J I.. lJ\-~ _ ,~~/' ~/~,"'~"1JLlrJD p~' ~/A ~;IL ~~~~"I : _@;;';;/~!!!;~_I1~ ~:~.Eit;~~: i~. '-r~.;'. '~~~............b...:.,..~: i' J.,.,....-tlL.J. /V r ~:.- "c-,.,/ - ~F~$' ~20/.d"c /:",,,-,.. 1t !~'\! f 'I "J _ J '2./r>,/NC -rk. I - (T::-. - d. ',I"; f ~.~_~::;. I' H.I..A-.l I ; i _ ___ .- ~ Il~... '* ~ n'l--' . A ~/l r ~lh-' 'v --1/~.: r'\"I'.A",,""1l~ 6_R...'L ;. ~,;~.;' ,,-IY '* "-t~--'jr~~ ,; !.... ,. b ..SC'M.. 'i~~ : -r'T F - ~....-; A':" 'L-\ ....,;;, ~ ~. ~;'E:2JL'; , ll"-'-(\~,,,~+ ; v"' ~i~S IIJJr ;- * i/i. '- --.: · ~",p ! ~......--.; N'..,.,_'~ * . ." 'ff.' ~-- I\. \ b~7 'i,- l.JI) A ,..,.. ~ * ~,~ 71:1 AJ:a..~.... xA/7/fi ~ if' p'. .j--;'( ;'AJ\...2: ..,}A, .. 1011 - L./ ..ji ~t,.. ":"IIJ;I~/i ~1rA- JU./'~ .j..JJfx' .... :hnu,: ~ t ~.. H. : II "-LA ~ '.la."'I' -; _ P l/~ j / ~ ^.JjI/ , * ~.~,'_~~~~'''>~ f?;((!'~i;?"'{ l\..,tL ~LtiJ~.A> ri.,.. ~ ,~~ . ~~"'""'S'<L. 4^ - HttHt~ 7<>._<-;;;/c:.'u;!c;'~~ * j(~f)Sl /'~~~~"_ I~,;) /:J ~I",~L ~,'I' r'~. ~~ IA. ! .~:...,.. .;..';~::~ '4' - 't'1.S . '- I d'k. +to _ ~tf, Jr.l L+- P, I"'~' -..-,;~,/,--,---~ CRF.L J.. !l wki ~ ""l...7ItJ!(J~L .1._ il I.\l.fr. dl":, ~ .t~~1 :~~?: fl' (:i\, fJ . ~ r- If L.,. 'to ~ ....t.l..' D' .~_ - -fJ2>=. " -7ff-- /. ..., '~ : .. ~/~ '__ ,r _ __~ :1. ....-;. rr-., Af ~ i .~., ~ I, T . .'~ 1i''-T''Tr ~;t'Jr. ~,_ ill ~..;.~ .~~ ~ ~A t;~ Y. ~ ',a /).# ..-: ~ -H. -.\~ _ il ~ c;:'_3.s . IV ~....--.,.. _0;:- - ~-i- 'fA?! tJ . ,~M'J)__ ___ \J l, 'P^ t\.""V'Ia.'l .."''G !:~~~ -..lQ!:" Ro.l,.,)~ I I', :>-:.\J ~e.."f~-:3~ -i.i-,~~ltL"'J 53tt c.. ~~ p,.-r-' a~ J. _, ,~~' I ~.k~ -', '. i/ ...p\~~ I~ · -l'~ :Jcl !r'\Jl~- v i 202....D .>>' jT- . f' \ . I. I;' - ! ''')( .;-:- J. ';--,:~ L ~ ' "r - -....~-, :, ~ "'-,- f -4l! o .. '" ~ :* .. 3b ~ . i ___ ... -::ft. J '~ t.,:" ~. (~5!j '~<<< 4oh. _. . · ~ voice our sulnlftftrt hv \i1~e>> YJfge, . .. . . , IUNii!'~J1 ' . . _ ~~ ~"?J1 sig. this petition to allow the ...... of their pro.~t!.Jf located at ::wv.u. 2Oand.$eton Road. This wil! ..Iow for ~ HighWay ~ and , Ia~ .~ mrrn~1 store.. , ~~l ~ ... , - ,,~.!\~- ij - ~~'. ~* '~(cllfJf~, J -F-AlL F") f - , 'c- i " " ( " ::. , - :;. . / . / , We,1fM JI~ig_ ~ ~our~PP9rt Pn sig - _ this petition to allow thel8ZOll& of tlleir proll ':.0 located at Hwy. 21 and SeIDn Road. This wiSS ,11ow for safer Highway aa;..'and .. ~r ren.. store. ~ fL',. i -L r ~-~~_.. (,: ",,,:,. I- i"_ _~~_ -t :pe~...,." J 'K-....J f ' f'-';~'li j l) &'C1t'~> / 1>......., ~I I@' ;' ~ I v!-_.. r:)'~>' i.. ~~:,. \ ,,/ II;',,' ; ,.} _ l~ 'J)":JH . C J""'k,f~ ~i_ ~.... r ....-'- . A.... ~i.l \& ....fli A. '. 1- ~ A<. t/ ... 1(1 J ~1"2.. ... r - ..1- - A/.p~7' ! I "':'). ,........, I;' i/ _ 1'.7./' Lr. _J Ii ." '-~ ~ I k?~mc 'E-Moll! ~\, ...,.,;.. ..-j .1 ~ '"=\ ~,' u ~. .. - .:: lIiJ... L,1,.~ Sl J''i ~ . j v;, .' ~'i f .;{ S "'''-'' ,.- -- '.; ..... ~ & i._ ~ !e::: -- ~L.v:r. . ~ 'i1 J .\.~ fX;';: t , G.[ ,,,... ";~ -- ~ S Ott.. r-l' p.. - "'.U ~~ HI-~ it1\. ~ : it ... '* " ':t .... * * ... ~ .... .... * '* ... '* * .. .... '" 11< t* ... * * ol: '* 2 * * * -;: ... ~ .. ,'II' I i.. * . Pi I l/)fi} , 1Iv?;;;...~.:. to' t. ~~.r..... ' j; ..;;""j ~.!- ~J~a ~,~ I<~ >-.- ~ ~/o ~ 1~,4 I A!.:/~:~4L..- I m.' ill f.a.Att. PALl "'r,.. ~~.... ~ " ' J' ''I'' -:ll ""J ~ ~ ~~ i ~~#~ - ~ , -it' _ l::-::Y-r U . ~ '~- .~-, - ',,-- '/1. '11.., A.rA V. .I ~ I If>, ' - !\.i~~~~(;..~r ~ :J'-LJ - \ 'A' ",,, L.- f;;~.. ':AI lJ t~ - - " ___,...~..., ,U. ~~>._ \ '77" II i !~.- '.,;-- - ~~.. S"'_~'_.~' Ci.42,:'" ....1 1::-...."" l. (',.. . . .r:z, ., I .' " 71~. tC ADDRESS _, .. ~~ru-RE ! j '">iC;, ill-c.;> sr .;::; r' J( . ;--vt0.i2~(.~ "'-~:Zi .~ .~~ "-"" ..~ 'fLA.d;,'?:.; ~j . ,i~, -C-L.%~ .!>.~'ltt:SR. ~ \ ... ..,Ai " -'j,' -" ~: l_D,... p,., ~:\ fl.l .I~~ lU~: · .I~M1. t~~q,~ &.dI"'CG~..t<cJl.A", ..7,,7..... '"h~~ I ~t), 1~~ !!1tf(' L{'j.~~~;==' i ; 'I :<f" " ,~/'j-'-.f ~: -,-ye~ .'- ' -':-'-- ~_(_<:""eZi:r-;r;in ~ t'/.t~, ^ '?L::?./ /d,,~ y~ ! &'V 4c.:o ~_~f/:~~ ~, 7' 7 ~<:;~ .,' ,,?, ~C'-'-- .-1l.~ ~11- -RI ~ 'flo 2~l::J Xl. ""1..A2-<~~ 10 Je:x:. .--( aL ~r Itr ~r: ~~{ /'~~4j~~~~,:~;:}" ~ "l;tl> ~. -- MI~..L-P ?r'ifj 'if' 'I.' -~.~~; . =- 7:--- Sq,~ t~':J. , ~,.r...~t 'ff y:...; (iC~.:;r( '/.." . '1 ~r-":'",{:/ )' . # ~.~, J . L..l;,'-12 ~ f :::;{::f":;; 1'", '~" ,Y \')lQ(;,,-di-a' P;O ,.'l~<1,.,'~..n/.< fJ;.'\......h. ':"~.'~~......-.. .:.~. - - IkJ Va-~J~ ..JJ .;.;'~';7.'.. t \~~; -i.~i _.~~~ . riD t I~. 1 J ri- p, I I j/~.A"i~) c~ / 1,,- .~~ -:>. ('.J <._ i-Jl " . ~j I ,l(:.",,,, , .!~- '-Jl':-('".st>_ !';'1'r;.~~ fe'L 3J'l'. ij\,""" .~.. I q{';-:5- t.0.~4...;'''''-.~. '~..~. ".'ffi.'...:"...;:;;;:._,. . ilTbtJ ...... ~'... -..-\ A""'" L.... ~]1.. *~",'~.._i'C~>~ ; IT I r:-' 7 ~ ,~~~ ~ i 7 -;:--:'{ , ..)"':",""'0.:..:.::- i.~"'"-- .'~ ~~i_'~. ~ t?'-(-:-_'~-. ! ~"l ..e; "1~ ) I r'<<'i. ,,~, ...~~~~ '. v ~ _ S A. ~ t.t..) Pr, ' ~ >:~/. . IL.~ 1.<" /, ' ." J-: . ) r....n I II f1'1 tn ...I.! '-.. ItA ' &-.t..__ f ~ ~ti ;; '. It ~ ~ 8'J'~~ l~ ~ . U U - - ,r.;.. 'JIi:$j ~~~.- A.lJp 'PT V'" 'i ;,,). ~ _ 1.J1rl :i;'V' ...... J i 'Afl;j, 'i>r ,",- '-.L -no ~~a.,i~'-~ D'r..n, I[~, . / 4~ .v. ~'-"~ ~__ L ..:1.'- _..-!. __ ,) ~~, . .. . 11..... -.p' .. ........... ..... .... .,-~ t\"" __.l I) ; I)~'"L .J... iotr;-.. ~ r 9 ~ ......<gl. 'X-I ~-' '.?-:') C. /' .. I ' '-/h a ~~ ~ -,cV! I.f.. .t.....I. ~ ~vt :)/,- .c,.:. '. ...1 [;~ -' ~. .......,P,~.l. ...., ~ .... I '" Z'!1 . t.. .'-'-' ..... . ",< 'J {"" t ~.. ~JW'N /J"r" - T'V""'" 7 ~~.~ f 1~ ~ v' ...hvt ~r De ; U I. yv" r V' J , f'A- "7'., -~ '~. ..;:..y ,. ~ r.,..L I' ,-" . fJf! &>(. 'I J ;110.1 I J,r-. '18'..$).~ . rJ~/LtJ ~- ~ 1!tJrJ ~ jR /--.~ \\ "S:. n I uv. ''-+. . \oJ. \ 11\ J,),.o I " ~'._ . -.....;7 .., - · ~,,, otJ"'- ~ ~~ / o 1 ~e\? ~.IJ~. - n) ~ " l:?M7 ~{~~ ~,," . t../ . "-We . r r _ J .. ~: S u~!ld"'_. ~_~, this petllleDlo.... .,UORe ef tbeir IIocaIed at 20 and Seton Road. This willa for.... access"ande" -'r - ~_~ ~ __.~_~... 4'''' nHIta store.. ," ....-.-. , .. 1_" --~~ ~ -- SIGNA'tURE 'i ":'<':;;.. ,;- -2:- , -~ I r:)o-, .. - --- --~. -"--.~...._-- -~----~ "-- ---,"",--- / ~ .3l ;': ~ L .. ~ ~~ 'J,::; ~)"" '. " O. 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9, 0.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5. 7. o. [). ,. 2. 3. t ). ). , -" t t. I. . ~.. J. . ....1-...........~'"'X.. .... ! . 1* 1~,.JT!<J r .'. ~--:-- t. .,} JC,,-:'~ &.,1 l!r~/)'/V./h 4/" ...." ~ .i .C-C,7l'v.; f-/~'i~4_~J__ ;, - ~~V-:' -:' _ _' _ -'_ ~ _ -.-.-_-:----_-:-.-- ___-_~ . ... ...... . .. .. t.... tRbret~~~E , - -- -..."""~ ...-".. ", }-::: ". C\". ."~ '2 * j ....'^.F__II._~;i................. --,.:.( :ft......... ~'Vft:.... i~' .,. _ RIInII........ - ',:....;.......'" Tfie~1ature finctSttillt1his ~ is:". ..dcd. ~7P-1he ~...,.aCC~nnI.... audrulal ~tD~...'5~~,.~~.~.~.~.~.~,,~~~~~ bnII................ -~ics ~LJIIII~ 1IIeClC>~ _iilWlily ."'liIliIIB,'Mip.., ~'~ ~: traditional economic actiYiIics. ...~~~~~~~~~ .. . . ,. !'.i:~,;;;_r~~~itt_~: .;: r~...~~l1i~f~;.-.........>...............~~.t9~'Jtia'~~~i1.ei ,. ~oot~lrlitlS~~.-.....~.~'~elOf~~_~~ ;> .B ~~.iQlu..~~~~ ~~.~..4t~~f&tI..~.:Urlit. Jl~ty...dle..~~.....iIt.~~~!~~~..~36.~~5),.~sbOuJd......' . fostet~~pa~~.....~!f~~-.i)~~....(WiJli.~~~>....................,' ~...~................. ...".............. - '~~thCtec:onom~proJperit)ofJ'QQIJ~~...' '~~Wt:.' ...............~_.~~pen,it..t.be..~.of;niraJ... '~.>"..... '.. .. ihe uac of * I8nd by wiWlife .... for fish and wildlife babhat; foster tbeprivafe stewards.hip oCtile IIIld and pteIervation of open space; IIId enhance the nuaI sense of community and quality of life. l2OO2c212f I.] :tr LJ bttp:llwww_leg_wa..govIRCWlindeLcfin?fi~36.7OA.011&printv,.. 1124/2005 ~ '1er 36. 70A, 0 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 2 of 5 " ... 4f~ d~~),Growth management act goals and Iocaf circumstances, Because circumstances yary from ~urity to county, in establishing pattema of Neal densities and uses, a county may consid~ local circumstances, but shaH develop a written record explaining how the ~ral element hannomzes the planning goals in RCW ~]Q8,Q?Q and meets the requirements of thIS chapter, (b) Rural development The rural element shall pennit rural develop~nt, forestry, and, a~ricu~ure in rural areas. The rural element shaD provide for a variety of rural densities, uses, essential public facilities, and rural governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and uses. To achieve a variety of rural densities and uses, counties may provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character, (c) Measures governing rural development. The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area, as established by the county, by: (i) Containing orothelwise COIrboffirlg rural devekJpment; (ii) Assuring visual compatibiity of rural development with the surrounding rural area; (iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of UIldEM!Ioped land into sprawling, Iow-density development in the rural area; (iv) Protecting clitical areas, as provided in RCW ~.79A,Q9(), and surface water and ground water resources; and (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW ~,ZQ.AJZQ. (d) Umited areas of more intensive rural devdopmo::,;t Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise specifk;aIIy provided in this subsection (5)(d), the rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows: (i) Rural development consisting of the infiII, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments, (A) A commercial, industrial, residential, shorefine, or mixed-use area shall be subject to the requirements of (d)(iv) of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the requirements of (c)(ii) and (ni) of this subsection, (B) Any development or redevelopment other than an industrial area or an industrial use within a mixed-use area or an industrial area under this subsection (5)(d)(i) must be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population, ~ (C) An de or in teems of build' size, scale, use, or inte" . ~ ................ CO..nst.. 'stentwit.'hthe. ................ .. ... e ..... ............................. ... v mentmayinclude ..... ,eha In use from vacant land or a pnMousIy existing Use so lOng as new use to the ~Irements of thIS SUDSeCtJOn (~l; (ii) The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses, including commercial ~tities to serve those recreational or tourist uses that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development. A small: sea.1e recreation or tou~ use is not required to be principaly designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. Public services and pubfic facifities shan be limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not pennit Iow-density spraw{; (iii) The intensification of development on lots containing isofated nonresidential uses or new de~ of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide http://www.lcg.govIR.CW/index.cfin?~on-36.70^.070&fu3eactiuu ~tion 3/1612005 . It is n t the role of a GMHB to "balance the equities" in deciding a case. The GMHB role is to detenn e compliance. If noncompliance is foun~ a GMHB remands the issue and is not authorized to direct specific decision on the merits of the case. ~ gov~ts ate afforded ~ "broad range of disc n" in determining a methodology for comphance, A petitioner must sustain the burden of - showin that the action of the local government did not comply with GMA under the clearly erroneous S of review. Vines v. Jefferson County 98-2-0018 (FDO 4-5-99) must appropriately balance the need . to minimize and contain AMIRD boundaries with the prevent abnonnally irregular boundaries. The delineation of such boundaries does not require a 'c circle or a squared-otfblock. Vines v. Jefferson County 98-2-0018 (FDO 4-5-99) CW 36,10A.32011ocal governments have discretion to find ways to comply with the GMA and local conditions as a cornerstone of such compliance, Smith v. Lewis County 98-2-00 II (FDO -* 6, 70A, 140. provides a local government with greater discretion to limit public participation "as 'ate and effective" in dealing with a response to a determination of invalidity. Hudson v. County 96-2-0031 (CO 12-11-91) lishment of a proper JUGA is not simply an accounting exercise, Cities and counties are afford discretion under the GMA to make choices about accommodating growth, C. US. T.E.R v. Whatc m County 96-2-0008 (FDO 9-12-96) Within the parameters of the goals and requirements of the GMA, local governments have wide d' to make localized decisions. TRG v. OaJcHarbor 96-2-0002 (FDO 1-16-96) ISmg scretion a local government must consider alJ aspects of public filciJffies and services e a reasoned decision as to which are necessary and how to subject those facilities and services y requirements. TRG v. Oak Harbor 96-2-0002 (FDO 7-16-96) government has the discretion to determine which public facilities and services are necessary to development. In exercising its discretion a local government must consider all aspects of public and services and make a reasoned decision as to which are necessary and how to subject those and services to concurrency requirements. TRG v. Oak Harbor 96-2-0002 (FOO 1-16-96) government has the discretion within the parameters of the GMA to determine proper phasing of ey. TRG v, Oak Harbor 96-2-0002 (FDO 1-16-96) There no discretion for local governments to allow new urban growth outside UGAs, WEC v. Whatc m County 94-2-0009 (CO 3-29-96) A loea government does not have the authority to change the def"mition of urban growth found in the GMA. WEC v. Whatcom County 94-2-0009 (CO 3-29-96) A loca govemmen! has the .right to prioritize and emphasize the goals of the GMA. A local government does n t have the nght to dIsregard 12 of the goals and focus entirely on the property rights goal. WEe v. com County 94-2-0009 (CO 3-29-96) . early and continuous public participation in the planning process but grants local nts WIde latitude in designing a public participation process based upon local conditions. my. SanJuanCounIy95-2-OO81 (FDO 1-3-96) DIGEST OF DECISIONS 81 -ro EDITION REVISED 2002 GOALS AND POLICIES Economic growth with job creation. diversity, sustainability, and environmental protection constitute the focus of the following goals and policies. ~,; PO~~qES: ""'~il*n,*~ ~~,t5~';E~P"~_~'" :, ...:'< EDPl.2 GOAL: EDG 2,0 POLICIES: EDP2.1 EDP 2.2 EDP2.3 EDP2.4 J\lake JeffersonCtllll)ty the best pla~e to live, work,. and condlld hlldnes~ fly creatin~ a diverse sustainable economy. .~upport opp(}rtuniti~s. for retention, llI!d ... expaJ1$iQ,Q ..of .~'fl"tmg ....10..." l\:lIJ~Itlesses, ~mpIQYmentopportuniti~ ~ reatJitJtIent of f1ew~inesses that provide living-wage job~, that preserve and eohaOCeJeffcison Coonty's Qpali(y oflife . Encourage a range of opportuniti~ economic activities. and businesses that serve both the needs of local residems and visitors to Jefferson County. EDaHlrage programs aimed at provid~ apprenticeships. mentonhips. education, job traia~ aad retraiaiag, aad skills eabaRCe.ent that are responsive to the eha~n~ needs of IDeal businesses alld residelUL Promote the fuU use (after hours) of schools, community centers, and other public facilities to expand education opportunities. Encourage public and private agencies to expand existing programs and establish new occupational programs for high-school students to experience the culture of work. Create a consortium of adult education provide-rs to coordinate cla:ss offerings, facilities, and staff resources available to Jefferson County residents who seek high school degrees, G.E.D.. remedial education, vocational training and retraining. skills or knowledge enhancement, professional certification. two-year degrees. four-year degrees, and advanced ~. Encourage programs aimed at providing education, job training and retraining, mentorships. apprenticeships and skills enhancement that are responsive to the changing needs of local businesses and residents. 7-4 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 4S " J In the February 24, 1997 Draft Comprehensive Plan ("Draft Plan"). rural commercial levels of service ."...... AAh-...A hoc..A "".. &... !'!!'n...s..... ""f &...-... """"""'L' and --""ces to ............. ..-... defined hu Aftv'" tim' .... of ","".I,",U,",U'''\A.l-uu.:M..fUUU-UI",y..UYI.R.lUV ~""'6~ ""'....... ~yl.""""'CU~ '" V~Ul.l "" "'~ I 0 and 20 minutes. The Draft Plan did not recognize the existing variety of uses in commercial areas or the level of service that exists to meet of the number of visitors and commuters traveling through areas of Jefferson Co!ID1Y. . The 1991 GMA amertdrrKiiiS ow County to recogmze (existing areas and uses of more itlfa:ive COIIlIIlen:iaI development, and to provide for limited infill within boundaries that contain commercial activities ~ \'l{.J~..J '.fll'" ...ml". -'n" n(.," r""Tlj,~., 'Ii 7FAt",':,<,..'-".....c".:-..."\., '''''/'~'' ..,Iii;,... '. ~.......". .....,"l:::....... ,-...,.-.,:."'-,.,,,:::'"";:~,-.,:,,,J:..t~.""',t ,-.'_c-">........,'.--. td,._,~ .pesigpatin& rural commercial areas and l~ 1JSe classlfiCaiio~"gllided bye"istin&leveIsofservIce; ,'* ~,.,,,. ...... ./.<.,'~":;'~~~'l .' ._,H ,'"'' ''''~I..i~~".l".",' ".~_' . 'Designating a UGA in the trOndatelPort ltadtock to recognize areas already characterized by urban growth and to provide new urban economic development opportunities. Designation and Classification of Kltnl eo.lHreial LaRds The commercial areas proposed in the 1997 Draft Plan included Rural Village Centers at Port Hadlock, Port Ludlow, Quilcene, and Drinnon. The Draft Plan proposed Rural Crossroads at Chimacum, Discovery Bay, Four Comers. NordIand. Mats Mats. Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point In the final Plan, Jefferson County applied 1997 GMA amendment language to reoognim existing oommercial areas and uses at Ness' Comer, lrondale Comer, Gardiner, and State Route 19120 Intersection, in addition to the crossroads originally proposed in the 1997 Draft Plan. The designation for the commercial area of Port Ludlow was changed from Rural Village Center to Village Commercial Center within a Master Planned Resort. A discussion of Jefferson County's criteria for designation and classification of commercial areas follows, while a discussion of criteria for drawing logical boundaries for those areas begins on page 3-15. The criteria used to designate rural commercial areas are: Thecom1J1~l'cial area existed as an area or use of more intensive commercial development on July I, 1990; .The~ Qr tlSepresently has Cl<X>uun.erciai zoningdesi~natiof4 and · The area provides basic necessities or multiple commercial servicesto theJocalcommunity. Classification of rural commercial areas was based on a Rural Commercial Level of Services (RCLOS) analysis2. The study included an inventory of commercial development and an analysis of the nature of the service area for existing rural commercial areas. The study reoognized fOur rumI commercial levels of service: . Local - supplies basic goods and services with a limited selection. · Community - supplies a large variety of goods and day-to-day services and a limited range of professional, public, and social services, 2 Jefferson County Rural Commercial Zones, Madrona Planning and Development Services, September, 1996. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-10 Amended by Ordinance ) 9-12 13-02 VESTED RIG I AND ZONING: AVOIDING ALL-OR-NOTIllNG RESULTS Page 5 of 13 use upon the issuance of the special use permit and his reliance on it. 1 13 *7 The court first ob rved that site plans had effectively displaced building permits as the crucial documen~ in ~he de~elopment process.114 It po' out that site plan applications require detailed information about the propo~ ~roJect, l~cJudmg maps, surveys, and studi ,l l5 The court found that when a site plan was approved, a later request for buildmg permIt approval was granted almost as matter of course. I 16 Without any further explanation, the court went on ~ hold ~~,.~~,a ~veloper has received a special permit, filed and pursued approval of a site plan, and incurred substantial expeni - i..!b;~'k.i]dltures m good faith before the zo ing changed. that developer gains a vested right to pursue the permitted land use.117 In the companion permit for a gas s same conclusion adoption of the mi the minority rule's , Cities Service Oil Co., the same county bad denied site plan approval for a developer with a special use ion, on the grounds that gas stations were no longer permitted in the district. 1 18 There, the court reached th~ . above, and quoted from Medical Structures in its decision. 1 19 Although neither decision articulates an exphclt rity ruit; the outcome implies that the court rejected the uuYoritY nUe building permit requirement in favor of lier vesting scbeme.120 Almost twenty ye later, when presented with the opportunity to adopt an even more liberal vesting rule, the Virginia Supreme Court instead cho to draw the line clearly at permit approval. 121 In 1990, in Notesteinv. Board of Supervisors, the Virginia Supreme Court re to grant vested rights in the absence of a government approvaJ.122 The Notesteins had secured financing and began conduct g engineering studies for a private landfill, based on verbal indications from the county that their project would be approv l23 Meanwhile, the county adopted a new ordinance prohibiting landfills in tbat district.124 Citing Medical Structures and Cit s Service Oil. the court denied the Notesteins' claim for relief, distinguishing their case on the grounds that no significant gove ental act had occurred.] 25 The court disregarded the Notesteins' financial investment because their application had no yet been approved-in other words, they had not obtained a government approval upon which to rely,126 The Virginia Sup me court has continued to apply its approval-based minority role, even to large-scale multi-stage development projects.] 27 In ] , in Board of Supervisors v. Trol/ingwood Partnership, the court refused to protect the final stage of a development proje t from r'PG9~)=-'ia change in the zoning law, where plans for that stage had not yet been approved. 128 When the new zoning 0 inance became effective, the developer had only submitted plans and received approval for the first two stages of his project. 129 FinaJly, in ] 998, rginia amended its zoning ordinance enabling statute to codifY and expand upon its common Jaw minority rule. 130 The act n w provides vested rights status when a landowner "(i) obtains, . . a significant atJJrmative governmental act. . . , (ii) relies i good faith on [the act}, and (iii) incuts extensive obligations or substantial expenses . . . in reliance on [the act]."131 Distingu shing itselffrom what otherwise sounds like a mere recitation of the majority rule, the statute goes on to list things that it deem , without limitation, to be "significant affirmative governmental act[ s]. "132 The list includes approval of any of the following a lications: I) rezoning for a specif're use or density; 2) special exception or use pennit; 3) variance; 4) preliminary subdi sion plat, site plan or development plan; and 5) final subdivision plat, site plan or development plan.133 By granting vested ri ts protection on approval of applications submitted in advance of the building permit stage, the statute clearly falls into the mino' rule camp. 134 c. The Early Vesting Rule A second minori~ Ie or "early vesting rule", has ~erged, which grants vesting even earlier than the traditional minority ru~e.135 Un~er thI.~~~'t-'~ .developer can obtam vesting as of the date of appli~ion for a sit~-specifi~ pennit.136 States following thiS rule, whIch ,.......-iL~",..imclude Colorado, Massacb~ T~ and Washmgton, tend to IDlpose It by statute, not common !aw. 1 37 The state f Washington, however, is somewhat unique in having developed this rule by common law, and later codifYing It.138 The Washington S preme Court rust departed ftom the pennit approval standard of the m~ and minority roles over fifty years ago. 139 In 1 5-' . ..". nl[ 1-_ .' '- .' ',. -' , . .'....- , ....~/._".,. ..... . .. ., .'-., ....... . ... .... '. . ..',' ulrv. Hunt the Washington Supre e Court reconsidered the merits oftbe majority roTe, but then reaffirmed its choi~ of earti~r vesting, Th~ court wrote: http://WWW.bc.edschoolsllaw/lawreviewslmeta-elementsljownalslbclawr/434/04TXT.htm - - 3/20/2005 VESTED RIG AND ZONING: AVOIDING ALL-OR-N01HlNG RESULTS Page 6 of 13 Notwithstan . ng the weight of authority, we prefer to have a date certain upon which the right vests to construct in accordance ith the building permit. We prefer not to adopt a rule which forces the ~urt to search thr~~gh " . . the 'moves and uotermoves of.. . parties' ... to find that date upon wbich the substantial change ofposilion IS made which finall vests the right.l41 The court dismis the argument that such early vesting would resuk in speculation in building ~its, finding that the substantial costs in olved in preparing the applications would ensure that developer had a g~ f8lth l~te~t to p~eed.142 The court also noted th t because such permits expire after six months, applicants would lose their protection IftheY,dJd not proceed with construction mptly.143 Despite the popularity of the m2Uority rule, the court clearly preferred Ja rule that granted vesting upon the fi ing of a permit application, oot the time of its approvaL \44 In 1987, the Wash gton legislature codified and expanded Ogden's early vesting rule.145 The statutes grant vesting as of the time of submission of aHd and fully complete" applic:ation for a building permit or for a preliminmy or short plat approval 146 Local governments may etermine what constitutes a complete application, 147 Once vested, a developer is protected wm any changes in the applicable nnit ordinance, zoning ordinance, or other land use control ordinances,148 ".,.- '...p( . rights are now particular demon v. Pierce County, In the first case, th Washington Supreme Court identified a point in time that was too early, even in Washington, to grant vesting. 152 In 199 , in Erickson & Associates, the Washington Supreme Court held that the filing of a master Use permit did not trigger vested righ protection,153 After the developer submitted a master use permit application, but before it was approved, the city adopted. an or inance restricting development in environmentally sensitive areas.154 First, the court observed that review of master use penn' is a process r<~C?9f'210f evolution.155 1be developer begins the process with a general idea, refining it over time in response the city's feedback.156 Second. the court explained that its vested rights rule does not require local governments to re iew aU permit applications in light of the law in effect at the time of filing. 157 Finally, the court noted that granting vested ri ts too easily subverts the public interest. I 58 in consideration, the court found that master use permit applications were submitted so early in the development p that the developer would not have yet demonstrated the necessary commitment 1D complete the project. 1 59 That lack of com . ent undermined the doctrine's goal of avoiding permit speculation.l60 In add~ at such an early stage, the developer's pI were not concrete enough to deserve protection fi'om enforeement of new community needs, 161 Therefore, the court held that Iy when accompanied by a building permit application would a master use permit application possess the requisite commitm nt and detail to warrant vested rights protection.162 In its next import t vesting case, the Washington Supreme Court began its more recent trend of expanding the early vesting rule through its interpr 'on of the statutes. 163 In 1997, in Noble Manor Co., the court held that when developers vest under the statute, they gain right 1D develop their land according to the use discloSed in their application. 164 Noble Manor Company ("Noble Manor") led a short plat application for subdivision which stated its intention 1D build residential duplexes. 165 Before approving the appl cation and subdividing the land, the comrty enacted a new zoning law which increased the minimum Jot size for duplexes, 166 Noble Manor tried to submit building permit applications, the county denied them on the grounds that the lot sizes were inad quale for duplexes. 167 On r'PG963]appeal, Noble Manor claimed that when it submitted the short plat application it gain a vested right to develop the land, whereas the county claimed that Noble Manor had only vested in the right to subdivide the I . I 68 The court first reit rated that the purpose of the early vesting role was to give developers certainty as to what zoning laws would be applied to their eveIopment projects, and to protect their investment. 169 Concluding that the rigbt to subdivide would be ?Ieaningless .witho the right to ~velop, ,~ court held that the legislature intended the statutory vested rights protection to mclude the ngllt t develop, not Just SubdiVIde, land 1 70 The court then found that applicants with vested rights only gained the right to develop disclosed in their applications.17J The court based its decision on the statutory language which granted developers the rig to have "their application" processed according to the existing zoning law, and the legislature's intent to schools/lawllawreviewslmeta-elementsljownaJslbclawr/43 _ 4I04_lXT.btm 312012005 cc. :1X-:D C ) i ?( <;~" 'J < < fi II!I /~,c~) {/I..J t ""-,, I' ;~\i't I') r\'I"\.1 1 A 20"r.: , ""../ d . ,~":: ,UJ . f\~&~~ ~~;WNMeNTAl ,- Post Office Box 1906 Port Townsend, WA 98368 November 14, 2005 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: Proposed 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezones Commissioners : Olympic Environmental Council offers the following comments for your consideration. I. Forest Resource Land De-Designation General Comments: Olympic Environmental Council successfully appealed the County's original inadequate Forest Resource Land designations. We are adamant that current compliant designations not be converted to rural residential. We concur with the August 3, 2005 Staff Report that any such rezones "..,would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1. 998 Comprehensive Plan (CP)." Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Rural Element narrative (Page 3- 6) reveals the County's commitment to preserve its forest resources: Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 1 of 12 "Subdivision of large parcels for residential purposes in designated commercial forest lands is not oermitted except in the Forest Transition Overlay district. " "Forest Resource lands have a forty (40) acre and eighty (80) acre minimum parcel size (see Natural Resources Element), In 2002, a Forest Transition Overlay district was established to address potential conflicts between forest resource lands and pre-platted high density residential parcels of one acre or less in size. This overlay district has a density of one dwelling unit per five acres (1:5) and requires utilization of the Planned Rural Residential Development provisions contained in the County's development regulations." This narrative directive is incorporated in Natural Resources Element policy: NRP 4.1: "Prohibit the subdivision of designated Forest Lands for residential purposes except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay..," The Forest Transition Overlay language in the CP and parallel changes to the UDC was adopted by the County in response to MLA02-232 by ], Frank Schmidt & Son & Company. The speCific changes are included in the attached pages from the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket FSEIS. The new zone is very limited in applicability, and in 2002 Staff concluded that there was only one area in the County where it could actually be used, an area south of Brinnon. So the exception for the Forest Transition Overlay is not relevant to the proposed 2005 requested de-designations to residential. MLA 05-38 (Hookins/Barber Family Associates, LP) Barber Family Associates are real estate developers, not forest managers, They speculated and took their chances when they bought this commercial forest property, hoping for a residential up- zone. It should be denied for the resource-related reasons clearly and thoroughly documented in the Staff Report. Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 2 of 12 MLA 05-61 (OlvmDic Property GrouD) Reducing the scope and density of the rezone to the areas within the water service area, as now recommended by Staff, is hardly a mitigation of the damage to the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan, which Staff had originally defended: "Approval of the proposal would be likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert Commercial Forest Resource Lands to higher intensity rural use; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP)". (Aug. 3, p. 1-12) OEC disagrees with Staff's modified reversal. Any rezone of this parcel would set a dangerous precedent that CP designation requirements and known criteria for forest resource lands can be set aside under "unique circumstances". Staff's deference to the water service area as a "changed circumstance" fulfilling a rezone criterion is misplaced, especially since Staff said that the history of the inclusion of these Forest Resource Lands into the PUD service area "remains somewhat unclear" (Page 1-17). There is no mention of water service areas in the Land use and Rural Element or in the Natural Resource Conservation Element. There are no CP policies related to allowing Forest Lands to be rezoned as residential if they are located in a water service area. Everything in the Comprehensive Plan is the opposite of that assertion, except for the very limited Forest Transition Overlay applicable only to the small area south of Brinnon referred to above in general comments. CP policy NRP 4.6, however, is very relevant to understanding MLA 05-61 : NRP 4.6 "Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire districts, or sewer, water, or public Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page3of12 utility districts into designated Forest Lands except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay." OEC agrees with Staff that the water service area history in this area remains unclear, but is because the Staff Report did little to clarify that history from the extensive and important record available to DCD, some of which is summarized in the attached DCD Cases Associated with a Parcel printout from the DCD database for Parcel 821331001 in the rezone package. The relevant history includes previous Hearings Examiner litigation that occurred prior to adoption of relevant Comprehensive Plan policies. That history is significant to this precedent-setting rezone proposal. OEC requests that the comment period for this amendment cycle be extended to give Staff the opportunity to add this history to the record and explain it to the BOCC and the public in the context of this rezone. Having a former PUD Commissioner now on the BOCC will also be helpful in that clarification and the Board's deliberations. When the PUD submitted its draft 2004 Water System Plan update to the County for a land use consistency statement (a prerequisite of Department of Health approval), DCD did not respond to the request and did not analyze the attached Bywater Bay water service area changes in terms of NRP 4.6 (above) or any other aspect of County planning, That 60-day non-response by DCD allowed the PUD to lawfully sign its own land use consistency statement. Nor did any DCD land use consistency analysis inform the April 2004 Bywater water service area approval by the Water Utilities Coordinating Committee as part of the amendment process of the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan. Land use planning and designations should determine water service areas . . . not the other way around. The final Staff recommendation reverses the proper order of things. It is irrelevant to now cite the existence of the water service area as the changed circumstance that fulfills an amendment criterion. This Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 40f 12 backwards justification is an insufficient basis for such a serious rezone and precedent. OEC urges the BOCC to reject both the Planning Commission and amended Staff recommendation. This rezone should be denied in its entirety. II. LAMIRD Expansions General Comments: The County's 1998 "interim" rural zoning was involved in a series of GMA appeals, beginning with Vines v. Jefferson County, Case no. 98-2-0018, In that case, the Hearings Board ruled that: "Regardless of the characterization by petitioners, and even the County, the RVC designations are permanent for Growth Management Act (GMA,Act) purposes. H "... for GMA Purposes, the CP is not considered interim. H Later, in Olympic Environmental Council et al v. Jefferson County, Case no. 00-2-0019, the Hearings Board ruled that: "There is no provision in the Act for interim LAMIRD outer boundaries. H Despite these prior Board interpretations of GMA, the County sustained its Glen Cove LAMIRD expansion, which had been challenged in People for a Liveable Community v. Jefferson County, Case No. 03-2-0009c. The Hearings Board generously accepted the "special circumstances" involving the existing CP language about "interim" commercial designations being "revisited" upon completion of the "Special Study" completion. In its first Order in the PLC case, the Hearings Board stated that: "Our only finding of noncompliance deals with language in the comprehensive plan which provides for ongoing changes to boundaries of commercial/industrial LAMIRDs. LAMIRDs are intended to be a one-time recognition of existing areas and uses and are not intended to be used continuously to meet needs (real or perceived) for additional commercial and industrial lands. H Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 5 of 12 This "one-time recognition" is not explicit in the Statute, but it was applied to Jefferson County's LAMIRDs, On remand from Thurston Superior Court, the Hearings Board second ruling on November 24, 2004 stated that: "In order to comply with the Act, the County must revise the language of pages 1-19 and 3-10 and LNP 5.8 of its C-P (Ex. 17-2 at 3-72) to reflect that final LAMIRD boundaries have been permanently designated. Only if the GMA legislation were to be changed would further expansion of LAMIRDs be appropriate. " Several weeks after receiving that ruling, the County finished its 2004 GMA Update and Plan amendment cycle by adopting Ordinance 17- 121304 (and a corrective resolution for ordinance errors), which included all the CP changes necessary to obtain GMA compliance. Ordinance Finding no. 97 stated: "By way of example only, the staff proposals delete references in the CP to the County reexamining in the future the boundaries of Type I (pre-July 1, 1990) LAM/RD." During that important 2004 GMA Update amendment cycle, the Planning Commission's extensive recommendations to the BOCC included a PC-authored 1S-acre expansion of the Highway 19-20 General Crossroad LAMIRD. This expansion had not been proposed by the property owner nor been normally docketed. As part of the PLC compliance effort, the BOCC had no choice but to reject that recommended LAMIRD expansion, including a "nay" vote by Commissioner Rogers, If the BOCC had approved this LAMIRD expansion, it would probably have resulted in a more serious ruling of invalidity, given the other CP changes to finalize "interim" LAMIRDs , Now that the County has achieved GMA compliance at great taxpayer cost and Staff effort, it would be disappointing, indeed, for the current BOCC to approve doubtful expansions in 2005. Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 6 of 12 MLA 05-06 (McDiehl LLC) The issue that the Staff Report did not examine is whether the MPR- Village Commercial Center is an urban designation because of the MPR in which it is located or whether it is a LAMIRD designation located within an MPR. Does GMA allow a LAMIRD within a pre-July 1, 1990 "existing" MPR? This determination would govern the GMA process needed for rezone analysis and approval. The August 3, 2005 Staff Report and SEPA Addendum concluded that the CP is "silent" on the issue of expanding the VCC boundary on any basis: "The proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, LNG 25 and LNPs 25.1 through 25.8 are silent on the issue of expanding village commercial boundaries lying within the limits of the Port Ludlow MPR. Therefore, expansion of the existing designation and zone would appear to be a matter of legislative discretion." However, CP 3-15 does address the issue of the VCC boundary and refers to it as Final: "Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center - Final Bounf/ary The Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow has a large residential community that is served by a Village Commercial Center. The designated commercial area is consistent with the 1993 programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and has been agreed to by community planning groups. Land use activities and performance standards will be regulated by the County, but may be limited to a somewhat greater degree by the Master Planned Resort's internal community codes, covenants and restrictions. " Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 70f12 The McDiehl parcel was not included in this CP "Final Boundary", and it cannot now be a matter of "legislative discretion" to contradict what is described in the CP as a "Final Boundary". While all of the other 1998 CP rural commercial maps were labeled as "interim", the VCC map was not, a distinction corresponding to the "Final" reference cited above, Elsewhere in the CP, however, in text deleted during the 2004 Update, the VCC was included with other "interim" LAMIRDs: "The ,'nter/m comme,"'ck1! bound;J,""ies des/gnated in this P/;Jn ;Jre represented in the p."o(Joscd zORmg maps for Rural Crossroads, Rur;J/ Vi/!;Jge Centers, ;JnG the Port Ludlow ViNage Commercia.' Center OR p;Jges 3 36 to 3 47)." (Ordinance 17-121304 Attachment, page 3-32) CP Table 3-8, "Summary of Land Use and Zoning Designations", also included the VCC with all other "Interim" rural commercial LAMIRDs. During the 2004 GMA Update, this table was renumbered as Table 3- 2 and amended by the removal of the "interim" column heading above the LAMIRD list: CC (Convenience Crossroads) NC (Neighborhood Crossroads) GC (General Crossroads) RVC (Rural Village Center) VCC (Village Commercial Center) HI (Heavy Industrial) LI/MC (light Industrial-Manufacturing) LI/C (light Industrial/Commercial) RBIZ (Forest Resource-based Industrial Zone), In 2005, the VCC remains on that list of no-longer interim, but 2004- finalized and permanent Type I pre-July 1, 1990 LAMIRD types, This is a significant indicator that the CP designates the VCC as a LAMIRD within an existing pre-July 1, 1990 MPR. Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 8 of 12 If this rezone were an expansion of MPR urban commercial acreage and not a LAMIRD expansion, the GMA review and approval process would have been different, but there has been no accompanying supplement ,to the commercial areas identified in the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS nor does the 2005 Staff Report/SEPA Addendum include a consistency analysis with the square footage retail/commercial cap in the County's Port Ludlow development agreement or provide indicators that additional commercial acreage was required. In sum, if it is not a LAMIRD, then the VCC as an MPR internal urban commercial boundary has always been a final CP boundary that would be CP and GMA inconsistent to expand. If the VCC is some oddly located LAMIRD within the MPR, it now has another kind of final boundary that may not be expanded as legislative discretion. GEC recommends denial of the rezone on either basis. MLA 05-70 (Peooer) GEC concurs with the Staff recommendation for denial based on lack of pre-July 1,1990 built environment .., and the fact that the County has finalized its Type I LAMIRDs. The purpose of the applicant's rural to commercial rezone request is solely to obtain a higher appraised value prior selling the parcel to Jefferson Transit. Selection of the site by Jefferson Transit for its relocated base of operations is enough good fortune, As a public entity, Jefferson Transit operates under rules governing the price it can pay for property, and taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize additional personal gain. The County defending a GMA challenge to this kind of enabling rezone would be a second taxpayer cost. There is no GMA basis for this rezone request. Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 9 of 12 MIA 05-53 (Widell) The applicant purchased this parcel in August 2004 from Francis Thompson, who had applied for a LAMIRD expansion in 2001. Mr. Widell has operated his equipment rental business across from the Glen Cove LAMIRD for a number of years and surely was aware at the time of his purchase that there were serious issues -- including pending litigation -- about expansion of that LAMIRD. As an outcome of the PLC case and 2004 Plan revisions, a second expansion in 2005 is clearly not possible. At the time of the County's Glen Cove Study, it might have been, because that study identified the site's access road as pre-July 1,1990 built environment. However, the BOCC chose not to include that area within the expanded Glen Cove logical outer boundary. That was a legitimate exercise of legislative discretion within the scope of GMA's LAMIRD designation criteria. Inclusion of this parcel is not consistent with either the CP or GMA. III. Rural Residential Density Up-zones: General Comments: The last thing the County needs to do is create more legal lots of record when an excess of lots already exists that affects a sustainable water supply in an era of climate change. The 1998 CP designated rural densities with applied criteria that were carefully considered. OEC supports the Staff recommendation to deny each of these rezones as inconsistent with the Cp, MLA 05-59 (Olympic Property Group) The critical aquifer recharge area and wellhead protection area within the area of the rezone are two good reasons for limiting surrounding residential density. This density protects groundwater recharge by limiting the amount of impervious coverage of future development and by reducing the amount of disturbance to water-retaining natural vegetation. In applying CP density criteria, the RR1: 10 zoning was a Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 10 of 12 reasonable choice that should be retained, rather than maximizing density at RR1:5, MLA 05-60 (Olymoic Prooerty Group) The applicant's and Planning Commission arguments on patterns of parcel size are the sort of "domino effect" that OEC briefing warned about in its Chevy Chase appeal. The Hearings Board declared that the interpretation of zoning density criteria was within local legislative discretion, but OEC urges the BOCC not to let the dominoes fall again, this time in Port Ludlow with a "re-interpretation" of already legitimate criteria, The RR1:20 density should be retained. MLA 05-39 (Nelson/Monroe) OEC agrees with the Staff recommendation to deny this spot rezone, but we oppose the Staff suggestion that an area-wide legislative rezone could be appropriate next year. The historic farm is best preserved by not subdividing it. MLA 05-51 (Kirkpatrick) OEC concurs with the Staff Recommendation to deny this density up- zone. CP criteria have been correctly applied to the parcel. The important Staff finding below should also be considered applicable to the suggested alternative of a lesser up-zone with a Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD). Even with the PRRD, the County will continue to lose valuable RRl-20 parcels, rezone by rezone as originally predicted in the Staff Report: "Approval of the proposal would be likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to upzone RR 1:20 areas to higher rural residential densities; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP)." (Page 1-10) Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 11 0(12 MLA 05-66 CP Housekeeping Amendment Staff still needs to clarify the location of the narrative contents of CP Appendix G (REVIEW OF DRAINAGE, FLOODING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES & POLLUTED DISCHARGES), a 41 page document added to the CP as a result of litigation. While the goals and policies of Appendix G were relocated in 2004 to the CP Land Use and Rural element, Appendix G narrative was not proposed for deletion in 2004 but nevertheless appears to be missing. A revised Table of Contents is also still missing. Thank you for your consideration of these comments, Sincerely, ~ O""r' Nancy Dorgan Board Member Olympic Environmental Council Attachments: 1. Bywater (Shine) Service Area Boundaries (2 pages) 2. 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket FSEIS (3 pages) 3. Cases Associated with Parcel No. 821331001 (3 pages) Olympic Environmental Council Comments 2005 Jefferson County ComprehenSive Plan Proposed Amendments November 14, 2005 Page 12 of 12 ~."....... ~ I 10m i ~ 8 _.::1 f 00 i m 2. <- 0 ~5"1D !I 0::1 o' a. J ~ to I i' ... ::!. "- ::! i to [JI "'U "'U C C o 0 " 0 c C r+ .... C (jl (jl a s: m a ::r ~ o .J:o. to ~ ~ ~ M- loC ~ ~~rJJ ..-.. 0 tf.) :::s gSn OJ 00 a;:: ~ c: S ~ tf.) tf.) ~ ttjeDt'"-4loC ~s.~c oO:>tj ~~~~ (I) :::0 ~ p) 0 (J) to<~ otyjtf.) c: tj~ ~ ft !j. ~ eD rJJ (---------"" ! ''-------,..-' ! I I 1..;- ?--t \,,{ r i I ! i 1- h t I I I L I , I I II pO fL;;~, ! ,;~~ ~ ----0---- ! ~i .~~ -r I I --/1j I ~~ /. ./ I ! : ---r---1/ Iii I /.'/ I I i I ~ I ~'/ Ii! I ~ ~, ! I I -r ! ~ ; I I _ '\ I' )~ i i I i ,.. ~- ! I j 'I /'/i I ' _+-_ I i ! /?T!! I I I // I, '! i #' I! i __':---.. I ! I~ i r( I' \.__. /"':~~ ! ~{I I ! ilL--' \_ ~ I i1; I ; '---1 I ii', r---!,. -< 11 '! i J' ( \i, ! IV Ii! O------'--r----' I II I [j~ I i I -L I ( ..---;;:! '-4-, I I! 1"/'.1\ \ \ /" I ! 1,- ;,' (' '\._~_/~" Y ~) I ,.---~ '. J -J\.... , ~.A h i i f I ! I , I I ! f-i I r ---............. : 1<---\ '--11 <~, ~- ~l !/.~ I " j 1/1 . : , 1\1 ! " N 0 0 0 0 K: 5!!! Z ~ 0 0 .... g " I AHA c-J, ..", ~ "'" f' ".. () . I (0' (I ( ~ I :!: Q) o :::r I\J o o If[ ~ -'0 f ~ 3 ~,!I) o' !-Q) I ::J ::J o P 0- J ~ to I $ ..... j ~ 10 -0-0 CC 00 0"'11 cs. .., c @ .., :J (J) .... to ~ ~ ~ ~ ;1 ~ g ~ () er 0 G t-g t:: a=~ ~q ~ g togs t-g IV :::. 0 OOen ~~~~ (I) a ~ ~ to en g ~ ~ I (I) 00 i i . I t- i I P i r t ! i I If, __. ~! I , , ' , !~ L -, I ---~--'-1 ,~.,! I .. ~~ . I .?/ i i, :,f r-~ I i ,j; '" !) I -~~___ __; -/i-''' I ." I ~~. I ! #~ I I ! \. I i r7 i! I'" . '''!, , 1 k" ! j 1 I ,,~/ I I i ",,>;;"":.J I ! i ./ j I I 1,1'/ I I , :tZ 1 , I I' ~/~ -f--1 I 1, =ij~ - . ! 1- f-<. I I, ' r- fl I . I rt . i..-....-_,. '. ~ t l 14---1 I -4;; i i Ail I I "r''''iS:/f/-i ---1-__ i i i I hI I 1 " i I ! I I I i I --"------ -, f fh \.{ L-__ N o 8 o b:: .. z ~ ~ 8 -n CD !!. AHAc.J,.- .......f- '" r'''' (.... d./~ 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket FSEIS November 25, 2002 2.5 FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: INITIATED SUGGESTED AMENDMENT CITIZEN- 2.5.1 Request for Amended Definition of Forest Land Designation Criteria (1) 2.5.1.1 Reference Number: MLA02-232 (Forest Land Designation Criteria) Applicant: J. Frank Schmidt & Son Assessor Parcel Number(s): N/A Location: N/ A Affected CP Chapters: Chapter 3 (Land Use Element), Chapter 4 (Natural Resources Element), Glossary, and potentially Land Use Map Affected UDC Sections: Section 1 (Introductory Provisions), Section 2 (Definitions), Section 3 (Land Use Districts), Section 4 (Performance and Use-Specific Standards), Section 6 (Development Standards), Section 8 (Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation) 2.5.1.1.1 Additional Information and Analvsis As proposed in the August 21 Staff Report and DSEIS, this amendment suggested Unified Development Code (UDC) changes only. This suggested revision would amend Comprehensive Plan narrative and policy language to provide consistency with the proposed UOC changes. In addition, this revision would add clari:tying language to proposed UDC Section 3.6.14(3) further defining the criteria for designation as "Forest Transition Overlay" district. This amendment is intended to be limited in scope. The establishment of forest land designation criteria occurred in 1997 and was highly controversial. Further, it was the result of a negotiated settlement between a number of parties including forest landowners, the state of Washington, and representatives of environmental groups. Based on this fact, staff was reluctant to take an approach that redefined the criteria for designation. The approach proposed establishes a process for applying an overlay designation. This amendment would not automatically attach the "Forest Transition Overlay" district to any parcels. Rather it would establish a process by which commercial forest parcels meeting specific criteria could apply for the overlay designation and develop at a density of one dwelling unit per five acres. Approximately 88,500 acres are currently designated as forest lands in eastern Jefferson County (Commercial Forest, Rural Forest or Inholding Forest). Based on DCD analysis, this amendment has the potential to allow 120 acres currently designated as forest land to be developed at a density of one dwelling unit per five acres. The proposal requires that applicants for the "Forest Transition Overlay" utilize the Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) provisions of the UOC in order to design subdivisions that accomplish effective separation between residential development and adjacent forest land. 2,5,],],1.] Proposed UDC Changes The following change is suggested: Rename the district as "Forest Transition Overlay" in place of "Forest Resource Protection." The following change is suggested to Table I-I (Comprehensive Plan Land Use District Designations) on page 1-6 of the UDC: 2-56 ,A If c.. c., t, A"Y\o ~ "1" J"'\ 0, ~ r" '/'?; 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket FSEIS November 25, 2002 Include "Forest Transition Overlay" District in the table under "Overlay Designations." The following change is suggested to the language proposed in the August 21, 2002 Staff Report (on page 2-109) at Section 3.16.14(3): 3, Criteria For Designation. Only those Forest Resource Lands that meet the following criteria are eligible for FTO designation: a. The parcel must be designated Commercial Forest or (CF-80) or Rural Forest (RF-40). b. The parcel. as it existed at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption on August 28.1998, must abut land characterized by pre-platted lots of a density greater than or equal to one dwelling unit per acre on 25% of the total perimeter of the parcel boundary lines. Forest Land l'arcels separated from lots by a public right-of-way shall not be considered abutting. c. The minimum parcel size shall be ten (10) gross acres; and d. The maximum parcel size shall be two hundred and twenty-five (225) gross acres. 2.5.1,1.1,2 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Language Staff is proposing that the following language be included in the Comprehensive Plan in order to provide a policy basis for the proposed ODC changes. Proposed language is shown in line in/line out format. Chapter 3 (Land Use and Rural) Page 3-32 Jefferson County is proposing three residential land use densities ranging from five (5) acres to ten (10) acres, to twenty (20) acres in size. Agricultural Resource lands have a designated twenty (20) acre minimum density. Forest Resource lands have a forty (40) acre and eighty (80) acre minimum parcel size (see Natural Resources Element). In 2002. a Forest Transition Overlay district was established to address potential conflict between forest resource lands and ore-olatted high density residentiall>arcels of one acre or less in size. This overlay district has a density of one dwelling unit per five acres (1:5) and requires utilization of the Planned Rural Residential Development provisions contained in the county's develooment regulations. Regulations will be developed to encourage residential "clustering" in the rural areas of Jefferson County (see LNG 23.0). Residential clustering may occur in agriculture production districts if several criteria are met (see Natural Resources Element). Subdivision of large parcels for residential purposes in designated commercial forest lands is not permitted except in the Forest Transition Overlay district. The criteria for designation of rural densities are provided in Table 3-8 below. Table 3-8 includes various land use and zoning designations, criteria used for such designation, and the principal land uses: Page 3-68 LNP 3,3,1 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; b. parcels of similar size (Le., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas; c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural Village Centers; and d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed "suburban" platted subdivisions. e. parcels designated as Forest Transition Overlay. 2-57 AH~ c'"' ~ ~",,-I >"\0.;L ~o.7 ~ ~/3 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket FSEIS November 25, 2002 Chapter 4 (Natural Resources) Page 4-5: Since the adoption of the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance in January, 1997, the County has heard from both timber owners and adjacent landowners regarding conflicts over forest lands activities adjacent to residential lots that were previously platted in sizes too small to provide an adequate buffer from effects of activities such as noise and the spraying of herbicides. In 2002, a Forest Transition Overlav district was established to address potential conflict between forest resource lands and pre-platted high density residential parcels of one acre or less in size. However, this Forest Transition Overlav was limited in scope and does not preclude the necessity of convening a task force to explore potential incompatibility issues. These issues regarding limited and distinct areas raised in the public planning process will be addressed by reconvening the parties that negotiated the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance, including timber owners, environmental groups, landowners, and other interested parties to discuss measures to mitigate these effects. This public process is intended to result in recommendations that may include mitigative measures the timber owners can implement, as well as site-specific solutions. Any change in the Forest Lands Ordinance or Forest Lands designations would require full public review and should be based on agreement of the parties involved. Policy NRP 4.8 provides for convening the group of parties to initiate discussions. Chapter 4 (Natural Resources) Page 4-33: NRP 4,1 Prohibit the subdivision of designated Forest Lands for residential purposes except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlav. Allow one dwelling unit on each legal lot of record in accordance with State law. NRP 4,6 Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire districts, or sewer, water, or public utility districts into designated Forest Lands except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay. Page G-13 (Glossary) Forest Transition Overlay (FrO): An overlay district designation that creates a transitional area between Forest Lands and pre-existing high density residential land uses in order to minimize the potential for conflict and incompatibility. 2.5.1.1.2 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission Recommends Approval (6-1 vote): Accept the Department of Community Development recommendation and findings and conclusions related to the proposed amendment as contained in the August 21 Staff Report and DSEIS and revised through the November 6 DCD memorandum to the Planning Commission. 2.5.1.1.3 Final Staff Recommendation Consistent with the August 21 Staff Report and DSEIS and the November 6 staff memorandum to the Planning Commission and based on reference to the Comprehensive Plan. the Growth Management Act, and review of the criteria contained at UDC section 9, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 2-58 AHc..c.~ ,.,..."c"""+ "o,~ ~o. S '" 3/3 Cases Associated with a Parcel Page 1 of 2 Cases Associated with Parcel No: 821331001 Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images ZONOS-OOOlS CaMP PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE ZONING FROM CF 1 :80 TO RR 1:5 & 1:10 OPG PROPERTIES LLC 2/7/2005 ZON98-00023 Construct a 135,000 gallon water tank on property designated as Commercial Forest land, PUD #1 6/18/1998 CAR98-00l4l PUD WATER RESERVOIR POPE RESOURCES 5/21/1998 BLD98-00302 PUD WATER RESERVOIRj131,000 gallon POPE RESOURCES 5/21/1998. ZON97-000lS Request by Pope Resources to remove two (2) parcels from forest land designation on the Jefferson County Forest Lands Map, Request is to remove a 196 acre parcel (parcel #821331001) from the designation of Commercial Forest (CR- 80) and a 68,86 acre parcel (parcel #821341002) from the designation of Rural Forest (RF-40), POPE RESOURCES 5/21/1997 http://www.co.jefferson. wa. us/commdevelopmentlPPQuery/cm.asp?value=8213... 11/14/2005 I/a A H ... e I., .- ~ ~ +- ...... t:) ,3 ;0- Cases Associated with a Parcel Page 2 of2 Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images Case Number Description Last Name Received Date No Images SDP97-00002 This Public Hearing is a continuation of the Public Hearing held on October 14,1997, whereby the record was left open for submittal of further information, Information submitted by the applicant indicates modification to the original proposal. The proposal is to extend the Bywater Bay Water System to include the Shine area, The modified project description consists of installation of one new water reservoir with a capacity of 150,000 gallons, and 8"diameter pipe along the entire water main line, PUD # 1 2/18/1997 ZON97-00006 to extend the Bywater Bay Water System to include the Shine area, Consists of installation of two (2) new water reservoirs (30,000 & 150,000 gallon), and approximately 20,000 feet of less than 8" diameter water main, PUD #1 2/18/1997 PRE96-00029 shoreline substantial development permit PUD #1 11/21/1996 LPA92-00003 36 lot long plat, POPE RESOURCES 3/9/1992 BLD90-00721 pump house POPE RESOURCES 10/24/1990 HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6,0 or later If! Windows - Mac http://www.co.jefferson. wa. us/commdevelopmentlPPQuery/cm.asp?value=8213,.. 11/14/2005 A H ~ e'" ...... , '" f Y') c}, 3 YJ' #3 5.7 ITEM 7: MLA05-61 OLYMPIC PROPERTY GROUP N + Legend Comprehensive Land Use Water Service Areas _ Rural Residential 1:5 0 Current L-_l Rural Residential 1:10 D Future .1 Rural Residential 1:20 D PT-Current,NA _ Rural Forest 1:40 lml PT-Future-NA _ Commercial Forest 1 :80 o 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 Feet - - 5-10 A~c..."'""", ~.... t ",",C).:3 r" 3/3