HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-82
{p 11\ A
~tv
Michelle McC&Y.W-~~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jim hagen Uchagen@donobLnet]
Friday, January 23,20099:05 AM
Michelle McConnell
Fw: SMP Update Comments
L4lP (
~
Jefferson County Planning Commission,
Please clarify the designation criteria for Shoreline Residential in Article 4.5.(ii) describing "high density Rural Residential
1 :5." Why is it described as such when the language in WAC 173-26-211 uses the term "rural areas of more intense
development?" I understand that high-density RR 1:5 refers to areas like Cape George, Kala Point, Oak Bay, Ludlow, etc.,
but will the average applicant understand that also? There is no formal definition that I can find of what high-density
RR 1:5 is. There is no such designation in the Comprehensive Plan or Development Regulations, so an applicant looking
for cross references would find no answers there. The closest I can find is LNP 3.3.1a. and b. Even the term "high
density" is subject to interpretation, and can be in the mind of the beholder. What is it exactly? The Growth Boards have
heard cases where what qualified for urban and suburban densities were in dispute. As best I can recall off the top of my
head urban densities, which one could reasonably assume would be "high," are 5: 1, while suburban densities are 4: 1.
Generally, suburban is considered less dense than urban. I live in Cape George, where some densities might be closer to
3:1. It can vary. Kala Point might be closer to 4:1. The point is, as written it is unclear and arbitrary. I would suggest using
the terminology out of the WAC - rural areas of more intense development - and then incorporating those designations
into the Comp Plan and Development Regulations during this amendment cycle. This is important in relation to Article
4.1.B and 4.1.E.(4).
Also, thank you to chairman Downey for disclosure of his interest in shellfish operations. While this wasn't necessary, and
I personally know him to be an honorable man who will assess this update purely based on its merits, others may not
have had the pleasure of his acquaintance, and might associate this connection to common stories in the news about
back-room maneuvering and improper influence. Mr. Downey's simple actions went a long way toward the appearance of
integrity in public process. Thanksl
Jim Hagen
1