Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02- Supplemental Application! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!Parcel # 1 Parcel #701011001 Parcel #701021002 Parcel #701111001 Parcel #701121001 Parcel #801351001 Parcel #801361001 9390 ForestLands 8800 ForestLands 8800 ForestLands 8800 ForestLands 8800 ForestLands 8800Forest Lands 8800ForestLands Exhibit A - Vacinity Map & Land Use 0 700 1,400 2,100 2,800350Feet Legend Proposed Mineral Resource Lands (MRL) Overlay !!!!!Land Use within 500ft of Proposed MRL Overlay Parcels Zoning (CF-80) Around MRL Overlay Exhibit B The Applicant requests an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to include land for Mineral Resources Land (MRL) overlay. MRL is used to “overlay” or designate the property as a mineral resource extraction area as an interim use. The underlying land use designation of Commercial Forestry (CF80) would still exist, and forestry would remain the subsequent use after mineral resource extraction and reclamation are complete. The amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map would allow the Applicant to seek the project-specific approvals for mineral resource extraction. The MRL overlay designation in this proposal will add approximately 200 acres to MRL overlay designated property at the locations shown on the map exhibits. The geographic area proposed for addition to the MRL overlay is located in the vicinity of existing MRL overlay areas, where there is an existing mineral extraction facility. Properties surrounding the proposed MRL overlay area are in forestry use. Future uses of the proposed MRL overlay, on an interim basis, are expected to include sand and gravel extraction and processing, which will coincide with existing forestry uses on areas not being actively mined. The proposed MRL overlay area is owned by Rayonier. Mineral resource extraction and associated activities within this area will be conducted by Miles Sand & Gravel Company. ¬«19¬«104 Exhibit C 1 - Site Access 0 1,800 3,600 5,400900Feet Legend Site Access Streams Waterbodies & Wetlands Proposed Mineral Resource Lands (MRL) Overlay Proposed MRL 300ft Radius Existing MRL Parcels 5504504003505505004503503002502 0 0500450400350300 4003503004003505004002503004504003504004004004003 0 0 350 350250Exhibit C 2 - Vicinity Map 0 870 1,740 2,610435Feet Legend Site Access Streams Waterbodies & Wetlands Proposed Mineral Resource Lands (MRL) Overlay Proposed MRL 300ft Radius Existing MRL Parcels Exhibit E a) Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize? a. There has been larger than anticipated market for construction aggregates in the local markets due to generalized growth in the area. In order to meet the future demand it is necessary to increase areas of MRL overlay within Jefferson County. b) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased? a. The capacity has not changed. c) Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? a. Not applicable. d) Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? a. The assumptions in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are still valid. For example on page 2-7 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan it states that “At present, the Mineral Resource Lands overlay covers a relatively small area compared to the extent of the potential mineral resources available in the county.” Designating the proposed MRL overlay will begin to help close the gap between designated property and available mineral resources. e) Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? a. The need for Sand and Gravel is recognized by the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and also by the Growth Management Act that shapes it. Past amendments in Jefferson County for expansion of the MRL overlay have been met with both positive and negative responses. It is possible the expansion of the MRL overlay could be met with mixed support by the residents. The expansion areas are adjacent to or very near existing mining operations and are isolated from potentially sensitive uses. This presents an opportunity for the County’s mineral resource needs to be met with greater sensitivity the values of residents. f) Do changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement? a. No, MRL overlay designation and mineral resource use is supported in the Comprehensive Plan and Vision Statement. g) Do changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendment? a. Not applicable. h) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County? a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and County-wide Planning policy for Jefferson County. i) Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? a. Not applicable directly but the sites are near transportation arteries that currently serve mineral extraction uses. j) 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)? a. No. k) Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? a. Yes. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states that mineral resources should be protected for future use (pg 2-7). This proposed MRL overlay designation will reserve this area for future mineral resources extraction. l) 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? a. For this proposal there are no impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features. Any future potential Impacts will be evaluated specifically during project specific permit review and the SEPA process. m) Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? a. No. Evaluation of service capabilities will be evaluated during project specific permitting and SEPA for future uses. n) 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: a. Access: See Map Exhibit C1. Access is from SR-104. This is the access for existing mineral resource extraction facilities on Wahl Lake Rd. b. Provision of utilities: necessary utilities will be evaluated further at the project specific level. c. Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses? The existing zoning is CF-80; the proposed MRL overlay designation will be on CF-80 zoned land, and the use will remain forestry until mineral extraction activities occur. At reclamation the property will revert back to forestry which will remain the underlying use. All property abutting the proposed MRL overlay is forestry use. o) Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? No. 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? p) Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? a. No, an MRL overlay is a temporary use, the property will revert back to CF-80 once reclaimed. The property is commercial forestry and is not intended to be inhabited. q) 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? The proposal areas are not in the UGA. r) 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. The GMA governs the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Both plans supports designation of mineral resource land for future commercial use.