HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 1212 05
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING SIX
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS,
FILE NUMBERS MLA 05-06 [McDIEHL],
MLA05-39 [NELSONIMONROE],
MLA05-51 [KIRKPATRICK],
MLA05-59 [OLYMPIC PROPERTY GROUP],
MLA05-60 [OLYMPIC PROPERTY GROUP],
MLA05-66 [JEFFERSON COUNTY]
}
}
}
} ORDINANCE NO. 10-1212-05
}
}
}
}
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as
required by the Growth Management Act ("the GMA"), as codified at RCW 36.70A.OI0 et
seq., set in motion and now completed the proper professional review and public notice and
comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive
Plan originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently
amended, and;
WHEREAS, as mandated by the GMA, the Board has reviewed and voted upon the
proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan ("CP") that composed the 2005
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket ("the Docket"), and;
WHEREAS, of the ten (10) proposals that compose the Docket, the Board has
approved or approved with conditions six (6) of those proposals-MLA 05-06 [McDiehl],
MLA05-39 [Nelson/Monroe], MLA05-51 [Kirkpatrick], MLA05-59 [Olympic Property
Group], MLA05-60 [Olympic Property Group], and MLA05-66 [Jefferson County]-and
an adopting Ordinance is required to formalize the Board's legislative action, and;
WHEREAS, the Board makes the following Findings of Fact with respect to the
2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle and these six amendments:
1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development
regulations or Unified Development Code ("UDC") in December 2000. The CP was
reviewed and updated in 2004.
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2. The GMA, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and adopt a CP requires
that there be in place a process to amend the CP.
3. The amendment process for the CP must be available to the citizens of this County
[including corporations and other business entities] on a regular basis. In accordance
with RCW 36.70A.130, CP amendments can generally be considered "no more
frequently than once per year."
4. This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before February 1, 2005, the
deadline for submission of a proposed CP amendment.
5. All of the amendment proposals were timely filed by February 1, 2005.
6. Nine formal site-specific amendments and two suggested amendments were placed
on the Preliminary Docket through the CP amendment process contained at UDC
Section 9.4.
7. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Preliminary
Docket on March 2.
8. The Planning Commission and the Board held a joint workshop on March 10
concerning the Preliminary Docket.
9. The Planning Commission completed its recommendation on the Preliminary Docket
on March 16, later revising its recommendation upon advisement from the Board.
10. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners held a joint
workshop on April 6 to provide an opportunity for the site-specific CP amendment
applicants to make public presentations on their proposals.
11. The Board established the Final Docket on April 18 as the nine site-specific
amendments plus one suggested amendment limited to "housekeeping" map and text
items only.
12. The Department of Community Development ("DCD") issued an integrated Staff
Report and State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A") Addendum on August 3
analyzing the proposals on the Final Docket and offering preliminary
recommendations for each.
Page 2 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
13. All of these amendments have been subject to a SEPA-driven analysis through the
DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum dated August 3, 2005.
14. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 17. Oral
public comment related to proposed amendments was taken during the public
hearing and written comments were accepted through the close of business August
24.
15. DCD provided the following memoranda to the Planning Commission to supplement
the record:
a. August 11: Additional information on 2005 Docket.
b. September 7: Response to public comments and additional information.
c. September 21: Planned Rural Residential Developments.
16. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments at regularly
scheduled meetings on September 7 and September 21, completing deliberations on
September 21.
17. The above statements indicate that the proposed CP amendments were and are the
subject of "early and continuous" public participation as is required by GMA.
18. The Planning Commission recommendation was transmitted to the Board through
formal memorandum dated October 19, 2005 and is part of the record for the
legislative decision.
19. The Planning Commission recommended approval of nine of the ten proposals,
exactly as requested by the applicants, specifically MLA05-06 [McDiehl LLC],
MLA05-38 [Hopkins/Barber Family], MLA05-39 [Nelson/Monroe], MLA05-53
[Widell], MLA05-59 [Olympic Property Group], MLA 05-60 [Olympic Property
Group], MLA05-61 [Olympic Property Group], MLA05-66 [Jefferson County], and
MLA 05-70 [Pepper].
20. The Planning Commission recommended to the Board a modification to one
proposal, MLA05-51 [Kirkpatrick/Skurdal], whereby in lieu of the applicant request
to rezone from Rural Residential ("RR") 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres (1 :20) to RR
1 :5, the property in question be rezoned from RR 1 :20 to RR 1: 1 O.
Page 3 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
21. The final DCD staff recommendation was presented to the Board during the same
October 24 public session in which the Planning Commission recommendation of
October 19 was also presented.
22. The final DCD staff recommendation matches the Planning Commission
recommendation for two of the nine site-specific applications and for the one
suggested amendment. For the other seven site-specific applications, the final staff
recommendation differs from the Planning Commission recommendation, in that
DCD recommends denial while the Planning Commission recommends approval.
23. The Board held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Docket on November 14.
24. On November 21, the Board deliberated and decided upon the proposals composing
the 2005 Docket, except that a decision on MLA05-60 was deferred to December 5.
25. All procedural and substantive requirements of the GMA have been satisfied.
26. Pursuant to UDC Section 9.8, for all adopted amendments the Board shall develop
findings and conclusions which consider the growth management indicators set forth
in a) UDC Section 9.5.4.b(l) through (7), and b) items (1) through (3) in UDC
Section 9.8.1.b.
27. UDC Section 9.8.1.c, which contains eight criteria from which the Board must
generate findings, is applicable only to site-specific Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
28. Inquiry into the growth management indicators referenced above was begun for the
2005 Docket through the DCD integrated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum of
August 3. The Board's findings and conclusions with respect to the growth
management indicators are augmented by the August 3 staff findings and
conclusions, except when and as noted below.
29. With respect to UDC 99.5.4.b(I), which asks whether assumptions regarding growth
and development have changed since the initial CP adoption, the Board concludes
that census data indicates that the population growth rate in this county has slowed in
the last two to four years, but may increase again during the 20-year planning
horizon (until 2024) that is covered by this CPo
Page 4 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
30. With respect to UDC ~9.5.4.b(2), which asks whether the capacity of the County to
provide adequate services has diminished or increased, the Board concludes that
these CP amendments will not impact the ability of the County to provide services
and thus this particular GMI is not relevant to these amendments.
31. With respect to UDC ~9.5.4.b(3), which asks if sufficient urban land is or has been
designated within the County, the Board concludes that this GMI is not relevant to
any analysis of any of the CP amendments made effective by adoption of this
Ordinance.
32. With respect to UDC ~9.5.4.b(4), which asks if any of the assumptions on which the
initial CP was based have become invalid, the Board concludes that the assumptions
upon which the CP is based have generally not changed, except that the ambiguity of
Land Use Policy 3.3 of the CP has again impacted the decision-making process of
another CP cycle and undoubtedly needs further attention from the County
Commission. Until such a "fix" is implemented, the individual applications for
increased Rural Residential density must and will be considered on a case-by-case
basis. By the same token the Board is aware of its obligation to maintain a variety of
rural densities and expressly concludes that adoption of certain CP amendments
relating to increased Rural Residential density during this CP amendment cycle will
not trigger a "Domino Theory" of upzoning in which neighboring parcels will
necessarily and automatically receive the same treatment.
33. With respect to UDC 99.5.4.b(5), which asks if any of the countywide attitudes upon
which the CP was based have changed, the Board concludes that the countywide
attitudes have not generally changed since these CP amendments were generally not
controversial or the subject of much opposition.
34. With respect to UDC 99.5.4.b(6), which asks if there has been a change in
circumstance that may dictate the need for an amendment, the Board concludes that
there have not been any overarching or countywide change in circumstances that
would dictate or require a shift in the policies reflected in the CP, but that such
absence should not negatively impact a proponent who comes to the County with a
Page 5 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
proposal for a site-specific amendment to the CP based on facts and evidence
particular to her, his or its parcel(s). That site-specific application is entitled to a
careful review by the County if the CP is to remain a living document.
35. With respect to UDC 99.5.4.b(7), which asks if inconsistencies have arisen between
the CP, the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, the Board concludes that
these amendments do not reflect any such inconsistency, since a variety of rural
residential densities is maintained even after adoption of these CP amendments.
36. Pursuant to UDC Sections 9.8.2.c and 9.8.1.b, the Board enters the following
findings and conclusions for each of the adopted amendments on the Docket, except
when and as noted below:
(1) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is
located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based
continue to be valid; however new information related to rural residential
designation criteria is available which was not considered during the adoption
process of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Based upon public testimony, the proposed amendment appears to reflect current
widely held values ofthe residents of Jefferson County.
37. In addition to the required findings set forth in UDC Section 9.8.1.b, in order to
recommend approval of a formal site-specific proposal to amend the Comprehensive
Plan, the Board must also make eight (8) findings as specified in Section 9.8.1.c(l)
through (8).
38. Pursuant to UDC Section 9.8.1.c, the Board enters the following findings for each of
the proposed site-specific amendments, excepted when and as noted below:
(1) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for
transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for
other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire, and emergency medical
services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services).
Page 6 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(2) The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and
implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
(3) The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant
adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities.
(4) The subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation
and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to the
following:
1. Access
11. Provision of utilities; and
iii. Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses.
(5) The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the
land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use
designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as
a whole.
(6) The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific
amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA.
(8) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act
(Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County,
applicable inter-jurisdictional policies and agreements, and local, state and
federal laws.
39. With respect to the six individual amendments adopted by the Board, the Board
enters the following case-specific findings and conclusions.
Page 7 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
40. MLA 05-06 for Parcel Identification Number ("PIN") 821117005 is submitted by
McDiehl LLC. The parcel is located at the northeast corner of the Osprey Ridge and
Oak Bay Roads within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort ("MPR") and the
applicant seeks to rezone this 0.89-acre site from MPR Residential to MPR Village
Commercial Center.
41. Amendment of an internal land use designation within the Port Ludlow MPR is
correctly achieved through legislative action in conjunction with the annual CP
amendment cycle, pursuant to Jefferson County Code ("JCC") 17.05.060 Revisions
to Resort Plan.
42. Parcel 821117005 is not owned by Port Ludlow Associates, LLC, the successor in
interest to Pope Resources, and thus the 2000 Development Agreement between
Pope (now Port Ludlow Associates) and the County is not applicable to that parcel.
43. With respect to MLA05-06, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts as if
stated in full here the findings and conclusions in favor thereof of the Planning
Commission and the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum (August 3,2005)
which discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its
environmental impacts, if any.
44. Master Planned Resorts ("MPRs") are governed under a distinct statutory provision
within the GMA. They are not Rural Lands, and thus are not Limited Areas of More
Intensive Rural Development. Instead, RCW 36.70A.360 provides that MPRs
" . . . may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this
section."
45. Since an MPR is more akin to an urban area, approving this CP amendment that
allows additional commercial development to occur at an intersection in that urban
area where commercial development already exists is supported by both state law
and public policy.
46. MLA05-39 for PIN 801213014 is submitted by Nelson/Monroe and seeks to rezone
an approximately 16.47-acre parcel in the Dabob Valley near Quilcene from RR 1:20
to RR 1:5.
Page 8 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
47. With respect to MLA05-39, having considered and reviewed the DCD staff
recommendation to deny the applicant request, the Board, in a vote of 2 to 1 in favor
of the application, adopts as its own findings and conclusions and incorporates them
herein as if stated in full those portions of Planning Commission recommendation
that discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its
environmental impacts, if any.
48. With respect to MLA05-39, exactly what constitutes "an established pattern of
similarly sized parcels," a Rural Residential land use designation criteria under
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 3.3, is ambiguous.
49. The subject property is bordered by a significant number of parcels that are five (5)
acres or less. Approval of this rezone request would create a logical transition from
smaller parcels of five acres or less to larger parcels often (10) acres or more.
Approval of this CP amendment is consistent with a reasonable reading of Land Use
Policy 3.3.
50. This CP amendment establishes a Rural Residential density in which two additional
lots can potentially be created in a short plat subdivision permit process. As such,
the county continues to have a sufficient variety of rural densities as it has
legislatively created RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 zones and has a substantial
inventory in each of those three categories.
51. The applicant's proposal requests a change in density, not use. Allowing a family
member to build a home on land owned by the family for generations is not
incompatible use.
52. MLA05-51 for PIN 601031007 is submitted by Kirkpatrick and Skurdal; the
applicant seeks to rezone an approximately 20-acre parcel on the west side of the
Coyle Peninsula from RR 1 :20 to RR 1 :5.
53. With respect to MLA05-51, having considered and reviewed the Planning
Commission recommendation to rezone to RR 1:10 rather than RR 1:5, and the DCD
staff recommendation to deny the applicant request and its alternate recommendation
to rezone the subject parcel to RR 1: 1 0 with the condition that a Planned Rural
Page 9 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Residential Development ("PRRD") be the method by which land division would
occur through the permit process, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts
the findings and conclusions of the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum (August
3,2005) that correspond with this alternate recommendation for approving this CP
amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any.
Those findings and conclusions from DCD are incorporated herein as if stated in full
here.
54. RR 1:10 zoning is more appropriate for the subject parcel than RR 1:5, as this
property serves as a transition from smaller parcels along the Coyle Peninsula
marine shoreline and the designated Forest Resource Lands of the Coyle Peninsula
interior.
55. Land division through a PRRD application will best allow development on the
property that is properly buffered from neighboring commercial forest operations on
designated Forest Resource Lands and from geologically hazardous areas on the site.
56. MLA05-59 for PIN 821343005, submitted by Olympic Property Group, seeks to
rezone an approximately 40-acre parcel near Shine on the north side of State Route
("SR") 104 from RR 1:10 to RR 1:5.
57. With respect to MLA05-59, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts the
findings and conclusions in favor thereof of the Planning Commission and the DCD
Staff Report and SEPA Addendum (August 3,2005) which discuss this CP
amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any.
Those findings and conclusions are incorporated herein as if stated in full here.
58. Although the parcel is some 40 acres in size, it is bordered on 75% of its perimeter
with 5-acre lots and zoning that date back to the time of Comprehensive Plan
adoption in 1998. The proposal is consistent with a reasonable reading of Land Use
Policy 3.3.
59. Because of surrounding parcel sizes and because land use designations of higher
density border a majority of the parcel perimeter, this proposal enjoys particular
circumstances that merit re-consideration of its 1998 land use designation.
Page 10 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
60. MLA05-60, submitted by Olympic Property Group for seven distinct parcels
grouped under PIN 821152001, seeks to rezone approximately 251 acres in the Tala
Point area east of the Port Ludlow MPR and north of Paradise Bay Road from RR
1:20 to RR 1:5.
61. With respect to MLA05-60, having considered and reviewed the DCD staff
recommendation to deny the applicant request, the Planning Commission
recommendation to approve it, and a collection of alternatives, the Board
unanimously adopts as its own findings and conclusions (as if stated in full herein)
those portions of Planning Commission recommendation that discuss this CP
amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any,
and adds the following findings, conclusions, and conditions.
62. What constitutes an established pattern of similarly sized parcels is unclear.
63. The subject properties are bordered by a significant number of parcels that are less
than five acres in size. Approval of this rezone request would create a logical
transition from smaller parcels of less than five acres to larger parcels of five acres.
This amendment request is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of CP Land
Use Policy 3.3.
64. Approval of this amendment satisfies GMI #6, Whether changes in circumstances
dictate a need for this amendment. The general location of this property is in close
proximity to Port Ludlow and the Hood Canal Bridge and is subject to considerable
development pressure. As such the current zoning of 1 :20 is not appropriate.
Growth trends in the county have for 50 years reflected a gradual shift in population
from urban to rural areas. The Port Ludlow/Shine area is projected to accommodate
a significant percentage of future growth in the county. This trend is born out by
recent market factors indicating high demand for five-acre parcels in the
Ludlow/Shine area.
65. The tax benefits to a financially and economically distressed county resulting from
increased density are in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole.
Page 11 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
66. Open space designation near the subject parcel and the presence of a large state-
owned parcel in the vicinity helps to enhance rural character.
67. Through enactment of this Ordinance, the subject acreage shall hereafter be
designated RR 1: 5, except that the west half of the west half of the southwest quarter
of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, lying northerly of Paradise Bay
Road, shall remain in the RR 1 :20 designation.
68. The approximately 33-acre area that remains designated RR 1 :20 shall act as a
transition buffer from the Port Ludlow MPR, in concert with a 19-acre open space
tract within the MPR and adjacent to and contiguous with the referenced 33-acre
area.
69. The Board finds that with respect to CP Land Use Policy 3.3.3.c, which assigns an
RR 1 :20 designation to "areas serving as a 'transition' to Urban Growth Areas or the
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort," the intent of the policy for areas directly
outside of the Port Ludlow MPR is to provide a transitional buffer that emphasizes
the external boundary of the MPR, rather than provide an urban reserve for future
development at urban-level densities.
70. In order to prevent the possibility of the fulfillment ofa "Domino Theory," whereby
vicinity parcels would be re-designated from RR 1 :20 to RR 1: 5 over time in the
near future, land division of the subject property shall also be conditioned on the
execution and recordation with the Jefferson County Auditor of a legal document
endorsed by Olympic Property Group that precludes Olympic Property Group and its
successor entities from submitting applications for additional rezones for an increase
in density for any of its holding in the area to the south and west bounded by
Paradise Bay Road, SR 104, SR 19, and Oak Bay Road, for a period of twenty (20)
years from the date of enactment of this Ordinance.
71. The rezoned parcels are subject to the condition that a Planned Rural Residential
Development ("PRRD"), in conjunction with a re-plat or long plat permit
application, shall be the only method by which land division will be permitted to
occur.
Page 12 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
72. Land division through a PRRD includes a mandatory provision for dedicated open
space. The required open space will contribute to the 'transition' from the Port
Ludlow MPR, will provide ecological and community benefits in general, and can be
situated so as to ameliorate concerns with respect to designated 'critical areas' on the
site, including geologically hazardous areas in the northwest corner abutting the
marine shoreline.
73 . Water resources are a concern. It is not appropriate for this area to drill individual
wells for each of the tax parcels that could be created through land division with a
higher density zoning. Aquifer degradation due to seawater intrusion is a possibility,
if not already a problem, in this area.
74. Land division through a PRRD application will best allow development on the
property that is properly buffered from the wellheads and/or on-site septic systems of
the parcels of five acres and less that are positioned along the Tala Point marine
shoreline.
75. The County has regulations in place at UDC 93.6.5.a(4) that affect development in
areas subject to an increased risk of seawater intrusion and, for example only,
considers parcels within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of any marine shoreline to be a
region that does suffer from that increased risk of seawater intrusion and
consequently more stringent regulations concerning development at that location.
76. The northernmost parcel that is proposed by Olympic Property Group within MLA
05-60 for increased Rural Residential density abuts a marine shoreline and thus that
parcel, or a portion of it, does suffer from an increased risk of seawater intrusion.
77. An overriding concern of the County is that the proposed project does not harm the
existing aquifer utilized by the existing parcels along Tala Shores and Ludlow Beach
Roads.
78. Therefore, in light of concerns over water resources and by using its legislative
discretion in consideration of this amendment proposal, the Board establishes the
following conditions for land division of the area referenced in this CP amendment.
Page 13 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
79. No Individual Wells. Any development on the subject property shall not use
individual wells, but shall be served off a new or existing well that shall be located
away from the shoreline. The well shall be located south of Paradise Bay Road, no
closer than 2,000 feet from the shoreline of Ludlow Bay or Hood Canal.
80. Water Rights. The applicant shall either utilize an existing well with sufficient water
rights (in a location as described immediately above) to serve subject proposal or
shall drill a new well and apply for new water rights. If a new well is to be installed,
then the applicant shall do the following:
a. Hire a professional civil engineer to prepare a Financial Feasibility Study to
determine the cost of constructing infrastructure to service the area described
above. The service area shall be broken into four (4) zones as follows:
1. Zone 1 - Parcels lying along Ludlow Beach Road.
11. Zone 2 - Parcels lying along Tala and Paradise Bay Roads.
111. Zone 3 - Undeveloped lands including the applicant's development.
IV. Zone 4 - All parcels lying in Section 10.
b. The Feasibility Study shall develop a cost sharing scheme that spreads costs as
follows:
1. System-wide costs (such as water storage) shall be shared equally among
all participants.
11. Unique costs to extend service to each zone shall be levied to each zone.
111. The Study will analyze the cost to extend service to the nearest property
line abutting the right of way for each parcel.
c. The applicant will contact, by certified mail, all owners in the four zones
described above and inquire as to their interest and willingness to participate in
the creation of a private or public water system based upon the Financial
Feasibility Study. Initial cost estimates will be included and will be based on full
participation in each zone.
d. After the above survey is completed, a new cost estimate will be prepared for
each zone based upon participation.a
Page 14 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
e. The applicant will share the information with nearby private water system
managers and Jefferson County Public Utility District ("PUD") No.1 to inquire
as to their interest in managing the new water system.
f. The applicant, at its sole cost, shall then make application for water rights in
sufficient supply to service the new parcels and all existing parcels whose owners
have expressed interest in participating in the cost of constructing the new
system.
g. Once the water rights have been secured and the applicant's project is approved,
the applicant and other interested owners shall work cooperatively to establish a
new public or private water system.
81. MLA05-66 is a suggested amendment developed by DCD on behalf of Jefferson
County and seeks to correct Comprehensive Plan land use map anomalies and errors
in the Plan text and tables. The elements are outlined, described, and depicted in the
DCD Staff Report and SEP A Addendum of August 3.
82. With respect to MLA05-66, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts the
findings and conclusions in favor thereof of the Planning Commission and the DCD
Staff Report and SEP A Addendum. Those findings and conclusions are
incorporated herein as if stated in full here.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows:
Section One: Under MLA05-06 [McDiehl LLC], the map of Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcel of real property with PIN
821117005, located at the northeast corner of the Osprey Ridge and Oak Bay Roads in Port
Ludlow, shall be given in its entirety an underlying land use designation ofMPR Village
Commercial Center.
Section Two: Under MLA05-39 [Nelson/Monroe], the map of Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcel of real property with PIN
Page 15 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
801213014, an approximately 16.47-acre parcel located in the Dabob Valley near Quilcene,
shall be given in its entirety an underlying land use designation of Rural Residential 1:5.
Section Three: Under MLA05-51 [Kirkpatrick/Skurdal], the map of Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcel of real property with
PIN 601031007, an approximately 20-acre parcel on the west side of the Coyle Peninsula,
shall be given in its entirety an underlying zoning designation of Rural Residential 1: 10 and
that land division through the permit process provided in the Title 18 of the Jefferson
County Code shall only be completed in conjunction with a Planned Rural Residential
Development.
Section Four: Under MLA05-59 [Olympic Property Group], the map of Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcel of real property
with PIN 821343005, an approximately 40-acre parcel near Shine on the north side of SR
104, shall be given in its entirety an underlying zoning designation of Rural Residential 1:5.
Section Five: Under MLA05-60 [Olympic Property Group], the map of Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the seven distinct parcels
grouped under PIN 821152001, an approximately 251-acre area in the Tala Point area east
of the Port Ludlow MPR and north of Paradise Bay Road, shall be given an underlying
zoning designation of Rural Residential 1: 5, except that the west half of the west half of the
southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, lying northerly of
Paradise Bay Road, shall remain in the RR 1 :20 designation. Additionally, future land
division shall occur only in conjunction with a PRRD application and, prior to land division
approval, water resource development shall occur in correspondence with the conditions as
described above in the numbered findings related to MLA05-60, specifically #60 through
#80 inclusive. Findings #60 through #80 listed above shall have regulatory effect for all
parcels included by Olympic Property Group within and as part of application MLA05-60
Page 16 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
and shall be binding upon any successor in interest to the Olympic Property Group, as that
interest may appear.
Section Six: Under MLA05-66 [Jefferson County], the map of Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect the correction of map anomalies and the
Comprehensive Plan text and table corrections as outlined and described in the paragraphs
that follow:
West End
In the Plat of Oil City in the West End of Jefferson County, parcels were zoned in 1998
based on ownership. Parcels that were privately owned were zoned Rural Residential and
those owned by the National Park Service were shown as Olympic National Park. There
are instances of private ownership within the Park and parcel ownership has changed over
time. Through this Ordinance, all parcels, whether currently in private or public ownership,
that are currently designated Rural Residential and are within the boundary ofthe Olympic
National Park, are hereby designated Olympic National Park on the map of CP Land Use
Designations.
Parcel 712161000, also in the West End, and which is zoned Commercial Forest ("CF"),
has a railroad right of way that was zoned RR 1 :20 going through the middle of it. Pursuant
to typical practice, the right of way is hereby designated as Commercial Forest.
Agriculture Lands of Local Importance
In the year 2004, Agricultural Lands of Local Importance ("AL") designation was requested
for parcels with PIN 501032024 (4.97 acres) and 501032025 (5.04 acres). The application
listed two parcel numbers but only one was included in the matrix created for analysis and
decision-making. Parcel 501032024 was erroneously excluded, and therefore was not
rezoned. It is hereby adopted that parcel 501032024 be zoned AL, as was intended in last
year's amendments.
Page 17 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
The application for parcel 901254007 (9.68 acres) was erroneously stapled together with
another application under the same name last year. However, only the parcel number from
the other application made it into the matrix. The application for this parcel indicates that
the Agricultural Lands Committee of the Planning Commission discussed the matter, and
recommended inclusion of the parcel within the Local Ag designation. This amendment
implements that intent and gives a Local Ag designation to Parcel #901254007.
The application for parcel 921324028 (5.12 acres) was stapled together with the application
for parcel 921324022, but never made it to the matrix last year. The subject parcel is
adjacent to parcel 921324022, which was rezoned to Local Ag. This amendment causes
parcel 921324028 to also be zoned Local Agriculture.
Parcel 802363023 (6.77 acres) was an incorrect parcel number included on the matrix for
approval. Parcel 802363022 (5.63 acres) was the parcel that was actually subject to the
requested rezone. Parcel 802363022 was mistakenly omitted from Local Ag designation,
while parcel 802363023 was mistakenly included; parcel 802363023 belongs to a
landowner who did not request Local Ag designation during last year's process. This
Ordinance serves to remove 802363023 from the designation of Local Ag and grants the
designation of Local Ag to 806263022.
A portion of parcel 901112040 remains designated Rural Residential 1 :5; the parcel is
hereby zoned Local Ag in its entirety adding 0.27 additional acres.
The UGA boundary intersects a large parcel, 901034003, "Sunfield Farm." The small
portion of that parcel that lies inside the UGA boundary was inadvertently rezoned Local
Ag. It was never the intention to rezone anything inside the UGA. Though the portion of
this rather large parcel that is in question is quite small (0.09 acres), it is necessary to
correct this error. That portion of parcel 901034003 located within the UGA boundary is
Page 18 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
hereby given the designation provided to it pursuant to Ordinance #10-0823-04 as that
Ordinance was modified by the June 6, 2005 decision of the County Commission to return
to rural development standards within the UGA.
Parcels lacking any land use designation
The parcel with PIN 603143001, approximately 38 acres in size and currently depicted as
two parcels split by a right of way is hereby zoned Rural Residential 1 :20.
Parcel #503360001 is a Department of Natural Resources ("DNR")-owned parcel split into
pieces of 190 and 110 acres, respectively. The parcel is hereby designated CF 1 :80.
There is a grouping of parcels comprising approximately 980 acres along the north bank of
the Quinault River that were not zoned when the CP was adopted in 1998. The following
parcels are within the boundary of the Olympic National Park and are hereby designated as
such on the map ofCP Land Use Designations: 408292002,408291001,408291010,
408291003,408291007,408291005,408291004,408282001,408281001,408280000,
408291006,408291009,408291008,408291002,408291012,408292001,408293001,
408282013,408282014,408282004,408282003,408282005,408282006,408282007,
408282008,408282009,408282010,408282011,408282015,408282002,408291011,
408293002,408292003,000000260.
An island off the tip of Indian Island consisting of portions of these parcels: 921000000
(Indian Island) and 021180000 (Fort Flagler) was never zoned. Zoning for each portion is
hereby made consistent with the rest of the respective parcels, namely Military Reservation
and Parks, Preserves and Recreation ("PPR"), respectively.
Page 19 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
"Small" zones
After analyzing 50 some-odd parcels that intersect 21 "small" zones in east Jefferson
County, areas that are smaller than one acre, the following anomalies were identified for
correction:
Zoning for parcels with PIN 021332007 (0.05 acres) and 021332002 (0.18 acres), both
designated PPR, should be amended to follow property lines. In the case of the former, the
area of the PPR designation is retracted to include only the parcel; in the case of the latter,
the area of the PPR designation is expanded slightly to include the full parcel.
Parcel 021283022 (0.15 acres) is hereby rezoned PPR to accurately reflect its inclusion in
East Beach Park.
A portion of parcel 502021001 is zoned RR 1 :20 although the parcel is inside Dosewallips
State Park. Because the vast majority of the parcel is designated PPR, the PPR designation
is hereby applied to the entirety of the parcel with PIN 502021001.
Comprehensive Plan Table and Text Amendments
The Population Projection Table, Table 3-1 on page 3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan,
contains an error. The 2000 population figure for Unincorporated Rural & Resource Areas,
as indicated in BoCC Resolution 55-03, was 13,972 rather than 18,972. The correct figure
of 13,972 is hereby formally entered into the Comprehensive Plan through adoption of this
Ordinance.
In the CP Land Use and Rural Element (p. 3-70, number 6), there is a reference to
designating two Industrial Land Banks (ILBs). That language is hereby corrected to "...a
bank with two master planned locations."
Page 20 of21
Ordinance No. 10-1212-05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Section Seven: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non-compliant or invalid
pursuant to the Growth Management Act, then the development regulations and/or
underlying zoning designations applicable to that parcel or parcels prior to adoption of the
non-compliant or invalid section shall be applicable to that parcel or parcels.
Section Eight: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non-compliant or invalid
pursuant to the Growth Management Act, such a finding of non-compliance or invalidity
shall not nullify or invalidate any other section of this Ordinance.
Section Nine: This Ordinance becomes effective on the date it is executed.
Approved and adopted this 12TH day of December. 2005.
fj i~'
, )
.)t~11}/1C( . .' J "(~~1~.{,
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board ' .
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
f.~:f)
///;,?... ..i~..
'- Phil J 0 . n, Chair
~ I /~/~
t:~~~V~J~
DaVI Sullivan, Member
~
Patrick M. Rodgers, Member
Page 21 of21