HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 0323 09
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Jefferson County
Master Land Use Application
MLA09-00024: An Ordinance
Amending Jefferson County's
Comprehensive Plan and Uniform
Development Code for the
Proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock
Urban Growth Area
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Ordinance No. 03-0323-09
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was amended through Ordinance
Number 10-0823-04, adopted August 23, 2004, to include an "Urban Growth Area
Element" as Chapter 2 of the Plan;
WHEREAS, the County adopted urban designations and standards for the lrondale and
Hadlock Urban Growths Area ("UGA") through Ordinance No.1 0-0823-04 on August
23,2004, codifying urban standards in Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code ("JCC") as
Chapter 18.18 JCC;
WHEREAS, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ("Board")
issued a Final Decision Order (FDO) on May 31, 2005 in response to Petitions For
Review (PRF) in Case No. 04-2-0022, lrondale Community Action Neighbors and Nancy
Dorgan v. Jefferson County, and in Case No. 03-2-0010, lrondale Community Action
Neighbors v. Jefferson County,
WHEREAS, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ("Hearings
Board") has invalidated those urban designations and standards, through its May 31, 2005
Final Decision and Order for Case No. 04-02-0022, while capital facilities planning
continues;
WHEREAS, the Board in its May 31, 2005 FDO finds that the plan for the new UGA and
its implementing regulations do not comply with the GMA because the County's capital
facilities plan for this area does not provide sanitary sewer throughout the new UGA over
the 20-year planning period and that the plan fails to show a firm funding element for
sewer service within the first six years,
WHEREAS, in response to the finding of invalidity, the County has, through interim
ordinances 03-0206-06, 05-0410-06, 11-1120-06, 01-0312-07, 07-0910-07, 09-1217-07,
06-0616-08, and 12-1215-08, effectively reverted to the rural designations and standards
for that area that were in effect prior to August 23, 2004 adoption of urban designations
and standards;
Ordinance No. 03-0323-09
Re: MLA09-00024, UGA Final Compliance Action
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the high quality of the County's plans and regulations,
and that Jefferson County staff have done impressive work within the confines of their
funding capacities,
WHEREAS, the Board in it subsequent rulings issued May 30, 2006 and April 9, 2007
again found the Unified Development Code and Comprehensive Plan to be non-
compliant with GMA and established a timeline by which legislative measures, up to and
including adoption, need to be taken,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department of Jefferson County consisting of the Planning
Commission and the Department of Community Development's Long Range Planning
Division have made 'good faith' efforts to comply thereto,
WHEREAS, these efforts are documented in the establishment of a Planning
Commission Committee, which regularly held publicly noticed meetings with the
assistance of Jefferson County staff, to approve changes to the Unified Development
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, to obtain input from the general public in the drafting
of these proposed changes and to finalize these changes with a duly noticed public
hearing before the full Planning Commission,
WHEREAS, the WWGMH~ issued an Order Finding Continuing Noncompliance and
Granting Additional Time for Compliance on April 9, 2007, regarding those remaining
compliance issues identified in the May 31, 2005 Final Decision and Order and May 30,
2006 Compliance Order;
WHEREAS, the County remains committed to completing the lrondale and Hadlock
UGA and gaining GMA compliance for that UGA;
WHEREAS, Ordinance 04-0702-07 made amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
Jefferson County Code in 'good faith' effort to comply with the rulings issued May 30,
2006 and April 9, 2007, in Case Nos. 04-2-0022 and 03-2-0010, respectively;
WHEREAS, the WWGMHB found Jefferson County noncompliant with three "minor
issues" outlined in the Final Decision and Order dated February 8, 2008, of Case No. 07-
2-0012, Irondale Community Action Neighbors v. Jefferson County, giving the County
the deadline of July 10,2008 for compliance;
WHEREAS, the Planning Agency of Jefferson County consisting of the Planning
Commission and the Department of Community Development's Long Range Planning
Division have made 'good faith' efforts to comply thereto;
WHEREAS, the efforts are documented in the proceedings of the Planning
Commission's UGA Committee and the Planning Commission's regular meetings;
WHEREAS, Ordinance 07-0707-08 made amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to
address the three "minor issues" outlined in the Final Decision and Order dated February
Page 2 of9
Ordinance No. 03-0323-09
Re: MLA09-00024, UGA Final Compliance Action
8, 2008; which were determined to be compliant with the Growth Management Act in the
October 22, 2008 Order on Compliance;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's UGA Committee reconvened on July 23,2008
for work on the remaining issues outlined in the Order Finding Continuing
Noncompliance and Granting Additional Time for Compliance, dated April 16, 2008;
WHEREAS, the UGA Committee continued to meet in duly noticed public meetings on
these additional dates: August 27,2008; September 24,2008; January 15,2009; and
January 29, 2009;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the UGA on their advertised agenda in
the following meetings: November 19, 2008; January 21,2009; and February 4,2009;
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development held a widely advertised
public open house for the community regarding the Urban Growth Area on January 27,
2009;
WHEREAS, Jefferson County issued an Addendum document pursuant to the
Washington State Growth Management Act and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
on February 4, 2009, which is hereby incorporated by reference;
WHEREAS, the SEP A Responsible Official at the Department of Community
Development has determined that existing environmental documents, augmented by the
integrated SEP A Addendum, provide adequate environmental review to satisfy the
requirements ofW AC 197-11-600;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the
proposed Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments ofMLA09-00024 on February 18,
2009.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deliberated on the amendment proposal MLA09-
00024 and proposed to the BoCC, by formal recommendation letter dated March 6, 2009,
the adoption of the proposed amendments, with modifications; said letter from the
Planning Commission including its findings from review of the Growth Management
Indicators as specified in 18.45, JCC.
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development concurs with the
recommendations of the Planning Commission for each amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code, voted and passed on the 4th day of
March, 2009;
WHEREAS, the BoCC received the recommendations of the Planning Commission and,
due to the requirements for a public hearing pursuant to RCW 36.94.080, conducted their
own public hearing on March 16, 2009, and adopted their own findings.
Page 3 of9
Ordinance No. 03-0323-09
Re: MLA09-00024, UOA Final Compliance Action
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (or "BoCC") completes the
process by the adoption of this Ordinance and now makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Jefferson County-Wide Planning Policy Policies 1,2, and 3 and
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies LNG 9.0, 9.1, and LNP 9.5 call for an
Urban Growth Area for lrondale and Port Hadlock.
2. The Tri-ArealGlen Cove Special Study conducted on behalf of the Board in
1999 determined that it would be appropriate to designate a UGA for
Irondale/Port Hadlock.
3. The Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA meets the following requirements specified in
RCW 36. 70A.II 0 for a non-municipal UGA:
o Characterized by urban growth
o Adequate developable land has been designated for residential,
commercial, and industrial uses to accommodate the projected growth for
the 20-year planning period
o Sufficient area for the designation of open space and greenbelts
o Urban services such as sewer, roads, water, and storm drainage are
provided or are adequately planned for within the 20-year planning
horizon,
4. The Department of Public Works and Community Development have drafted a
feasible financing plan for a sanitary sewer system for the first six years, have
completed sound engineering for effluent discharge that will not harm the
environment, and have provided for the economic needs of the local population,
now and into the future.
5. The UGA boundaries comply with the WWGMHB decisions mandating that the
UGA include only areas provided with sanitary sewer service within the 20-year
planning horizon of the Comprehensive Plan, i.e" by the year 2024
6. The following environmental documents have been adopted pursuant to SEPA
administrative rules:
o Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and
addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in
1998. The DEIS and FEIS are dated February 24, 1997 and May 27,1998,
respectively, and examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts
of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan.
o Draft and Final Supplemental EIS (DSEIS/FSEIS) and addenda for the
Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments, also lrnown as Tasks III and IV of
the Tri-Area I Glen Cove Special Study. The DSEIS and FSEIS are dated
June 30, 1999 and August 18, 1999, respectively, and examined the
potential environmental impacts of adopting one of the identified planning
Page 4 of9
Ordinance No. 03-0323-09
Re: MLA09-00024, UGA Final Compliance Action
alternatives for the Tri-Area of Chimacum-Port Hadlock-Irondale and the
Glen Cove mixed use area.
. DCD Integrated Staff Report and DSEIS/FSEIS for the 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005 and 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dockets. Amidst other
information, the adopted documents provide background and analysis on the
designation of a UGA in the Irondale & Port Hadlock area,
. DCD Integrated GMAfSEPA Staff Report dated February 21, 2007.
. DCD Integrated GMAfSEPA Staff Report dated February 4, 2009.
7. Deems a change in the recommendations of the planning agency to be necessary
and thus held its own public hearing on March 16,2009.
S. Finds that changes are necessary to the proposed development regulations in
IS.IS JCC as follows:
. Make temporary warehouse storage and boat storage a "YES" use only
in Light Industrial land use district;
. Allow existing residences in the Commercial and Visitor Oriented
Commercial to have home business and cottage industry;
. Remove proposed IS, IS.11 0 Design Considerations from final
development regulations.
9. Remands the Design Considerations to the Planning Commission for further
study and review so that they may be presented to the BoCC as final Design
Standards in the future.
10. Pursuant to JCC Section IS,45,OSO(2)( c), for all adopted amendments the
BoCC shall develop findings and conclusions which consider the growth
management indicators set forth in a) JCC Section IS.45.050(4)(b)(i) through
(vii), and b) items (i) through (iii) in JCC Section IS,45.0S0(1)(b),
II. With respect to JCC Section IS,45.050(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 but may increase again
during the 20-year planning horizon (until 2024) that is covered by this CP
and that the Port Hadlock-Irondale UGA is properly sized for the population
that is estimated to be there by 2024.
12. With respect to JCC Section IS,45.050(4)(b)(ii), which asks whether the
capacity of the County to provide adequate services has diminished or
increased, the BoCC concludes that these CP amendments will positively
impact the ability of the County to provide services at urban levels of service.
13. With respect to JCC Section IS,45,050(4)(b)(iii), which asks if sufficient
urban land is or has been designated within the County, the Board concludes
Page 5 of9
Ordinance No. 03-0323-09
Re: MLA09-00024, UGA Final Compliance Action
that the Dwelling Unit and Population Holding Capacitv Analvsis, made part
of the Comprehensive Plan through this Ordinance, concludes that sufficient
urban land has been designated in the County to hold the expected population.
14. With respect to JCC Section 18.4s.0s0(4)(b)(iv), which asks if any of the
assumptions on which the initial CP was based have become invalid, the
BoCC concludes that the assumptions upon which the CP is based have
generally not changed.
15. With respect to JCC Section 18.4s.0s0(4)(b)(v), which asks if any ofthe
countywide attitudes upon which the CP was based have changed, the BoCC
concludes that the countywide attitudes have not generally changed since
these CP amendments were generally not controversial nor the subject of
much opposition.
16. With respect to JCC Section 18.4s.0s0(4)(b)(vi), which asks if there has been
a change in circumstance that may dictate the need for an amendment, the
BoCC concludes that these enactments are part of the process of achieving a
GMA-compliant urban growth area at Port Hadlock-lrondale and have been
mandated by earlier decisions of the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board as laid out above.
17. With respect to JCC Section 18.4s.050(4)(b)(vii), which asks if
inconsistencies have arisen between the CP, the GMA and the Countywide
Planning Policies, the BoCC concludes that these amendments do not reflect
any such inconsistency, since the County Wide Planning Policies support and
have always supported the creation of an urban growth area at Port Hadlock-
lrondale.
18. With respect to the growth management indicator found in the County Code at
JCC ~18.45.080(b)(i), which asks whether circumstances related to the
proposed amendments and/or the area it impacts have substantially changed
since the Comprehensive Plan was amended, the BoCC concludes that
circumstances have not changed except that the need for an urban growth area
in the county as an economic growth engine for the county has become more
immediate given the dire economic circumstances now present in this country.
19. With respect to the growth management indicator found in the County Code at
JCC ~18.45.080(b)(ii), which asks the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based on are valid and asks if there is new information
available that was not considered at the time when the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted, the BoCC points to the nationwide economic recession or
depression that became evident in late 2008 and the stagnating revenues the
County government must live within as new information leading to the
decision of the BoCC to move forward with achieving a GMA-compliant
urban growth area at Port Hadlock-lrondale.
Page 6 of9
Ordinance No. 03-0323-09
Re: MLA09-00024, UGA Final Compliance Action
20. With respect to the growth management indicator found in the County Code at
JCC !118.45.080(b)(iii), which asks whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County the BoCC
concludes that the existence of an urban growth area at Port Hadlock-Irondale
is ingrained in the text of a fundamental planning document of this County,
the County Wide Planning Policies, note that the topic of an urban growth
area in Port Hadlock-Irondale has been discussed for a quarter of a century by
County citizens and was initially made a legislative reality in 2004, some five
years ago. Since that time all County Commissioners, of both political
parties, have proactively moved towards achieving a GMA-compliant urban
growth area, suggesting a political consensus exists behind obtaining such a
GMA-compliant urban growth area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Jefferson County as follows:
Section One: Comprehensive Plan changes
The Jefferson County ComprehensJe Plan is hereby amended as described in "Exhibit
A" of this ordinance. "Exhibit A", 4ttached hereto and incorporated by reference,
includes the line-inlIine-out change~ to the following chapters:
Chapter I - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Urban Growth Area
Chapter II - Utilities
Chapter 12 - Capital Facilities
"Exhibit B" ofthis ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is the clean
copy of the revised pages of the Jefferson County Comprehensive plan, "Exhibit 8" is
hereby inserted into the Comprehensive Plan in place of any earlier version of the chapter
listed above.
Section Two: Change in Comprehensive Plan Map
Figure 2-1, a map found on page 2-29 of the Comprehensive Plan, titled "Irondale & Port
Hadlock UGA-Zoning" and dated July 7, is hereby deleted and replaced by the new
Figure 2-1, with the same title and dated February 4, 2009 and identified as "Exhibit C";
changes having been made to density ranges in the High and Medium Density Residential
Zones.
Section Three: Adoption of General Sewer Plan
Page 7 of9
Ordinance No. 03-0323-09
Re: MLA09-00024, UGA Fina] Compliance Action
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by removing Appendix I,
General Sewer Plan, and adopting the Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan, dated September
2008, as the General Sewer Plan, pursuant to RCW 36.94, as Appendix I, identified as
"Exhibit D"
Section Four: Adoption of Dwelling Unit and Population Holding Capacity Analysis
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by adopting as a new
"Appendix L", the January 21, 2009 Dwelling Unit & Population Holding Capacity
Analysis, conducted by CASCADIA Community Planning Services, identified as "Exhibit
E"
Section Five: Change to Jefferson County Code Development Regulations, New 18.18
The Jefferson County Code is hereby amended as described in "Exhibit F" of this
ordinance. "Exhibit C", attached hereto and incorporated by reference, includes the line-
in/line-out changes to Chapter 18.18 of the Uniform Development Code.
"Exhibit G" of this ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is the clean
copy of the new Chapter 18.18 of the Jefferson County Code. "Exhibit B" is hereby
inserted into the Jefferson County Code at Chapter 18.18, formerly marked
"RESERVED", and replaces any old reference to "Appendix D" of the UDC.
Section Six: Repeal of Earlier Interim Ordinance
Interim Ordinance 12-1215-08, instituting an interim control of 18.18, JCC, is hereby
repealed except for Section 4 of that Ordinance which shall remain in full force and
effect.
Section Seven: No Protest Agreement required
A No Protest Agreement must be signed by or on behalf of the applicant for any
development permits within the planning areas for the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA.
The No Protest Agreement is an administrative instrument that is created and managed by
the County Department of Community Development.
Section Eight: Findings of Fact
That the above-listed "Whereas" clauses are hereby deemed to be and are, for the
purposes of this Ordinance, additional findings of fact by the County Commission.
Page 8 of9
Ordinance No. 03-0323-09
Re: MLA09-00024, UGA Final Compliance Action
Section Nine: Severability
If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, or the application of the provision to other
persons or circumstances is not affected.
Section Ten: Effective date
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this23rd day of March ,2009
ATTEST:
oI~Hct -;/?
J,liill Hattlie3, CMC
nqr"t~ Clerk ofthe Boar?!
J.--oRIV/-f j.." fJ I::1./1NE 1
JEFFERSON COUNTY
:~~~SSlONERS
(4;
PhilJo ,
J~stin, Member
~PPROVED AS,fO FORM: . !
YJC~ O-~,.'tVlmy 3//1 01
David Alvarez, Deputy [)
Prosecuting Attorney
Page 90f9
Exhibit A
Line-inlLine-out Page 1-11, Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The following table offers a guide to the relationship between the County-wide Planning Policy and the
Comprehensive Plan Elements. Compliance with the County-wide Planning Policy has been integral to
the development of individual elements of this Plan. A detailed analysis of relevant CWPPs has been
included for each element in Appendix B.
Table 1-1
Relationship Between County-wide Planning Policies and Plan Elements
COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT
1. Policv to hnDlement RCW 36.70A.l 10 Urban Growth Area Element
Urban Growth Areas
+2. Contiguous and Orderly Development and Utilities Element
Provision of Urban Services Capital Facilities
Urban Grow1h Area Element
:&:1. Joint County and UGA representation Land U se/Rural Element
Plannino: within Urban Growth Areas Urban Growth Area Element
"1. The Siting of Essential Public Facilities of Essential Public Facilities Element
County or Statewide Sil!llificance
4~. County-wide Transportation Facilities and Transportation Element
Strateo:ies; Essential Public Facilities Element
~6. Affordable Housinv Housin" Element
41. County-wide Develooment and Emolovment Economic Develooment Element
'i'8. Rural Areas Land Use/Rural Element
&2. Fiscal Impacts Analysis Capital Facilities Element
Transportation Element
All elements
910. County-wide Planning Policy: Use and Plan Implementation and Monitoring
~
Amendment
Compliance with the County-wide Planning Policy ensures that Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan
is consistent with the plans of other jurisdictions and service providers within the County, and that future
plans proposed by service providers or jurisdictions will be consistent with the County's Plan.
Public Involvement
Public involvement is the cornerstone of long-range comprehensive planning for any community.
Complying with the requirements of the Growth Management Act in Jefferson County has engaged
community leaders, interested citizens, developers, property rights advocates, environmentalists, and
neighborhoods in a dynamic, active public process.
Public participation has occurred not only through citizen participation in task forces and goals-setting
workshops, but also under the auspices of the Planning Commission. Consistent with the Planning
Enabling Act, the Planning Commission has been actively involved in comprehensive planning in
Jefferson County.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
I-II
Ordinance #XX~0228-05 to correct
Ordinance #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
URBAN GROWTH AREA ELEMENT
Line-in/Line-out Chapter 2
Ordinance #
PURPOSE, The purpose of the Urban Growth Area Element is to identiJy specific uses, densities and
development regulations consistent with the UGA-designation requirements ofthe Growth Management Act at
RCW 36.70A.IIO.
INTRODUCTION
The Growth Management Act authorizes the designation of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) in RCW 36.70A.110
to include cities and other areas characterized by urban growth or adjacent to such areas. UGAs are intended to
accommodate a projected population growth for the next twenty years. The GMA specifies that future growth
should, first, be located in areas that already have public facilities and service capacity and, second, in areas
where such services, if not already available, are planned for. In Jefferson County, there are two UGAs:
.
City of Port Townsend Municipal UGA; and
Irondale & Port Hadlock Unincorporated UGA.
.
The City of Port Townsend is subject to its own Comprehensive Plan and development regulations affecting
urban growth and the provision of public facilities and services in the City. The Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA
is an unincorporated UGA, located approximately 5 miles south of the City of Port Townsend, adjacent to Port
Townsend Bay. This unincorporated UGA is subject to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) and
implementing regulations.
An urban growth area defines where urban developments will be directed and supported with typical urban
public facilities and services, such as storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, fire and police
protection services, and public transit services. Urban growth areas enable new development to locate close to
vital capital facilities and urban services or "infill" in existing urbanizing areas. UGAs enable fiscal resources
associated with capital facilities and urban services to be operated more cost-effectively.
The Urban Growth Area is an area where urban public facilities and services are available, or are planned.
Provision of urban public facilities and services may be available through a number of service providers, such as
Jefferson County, Public Utility District #1, or some other entity such as a sewer and water district. Discussion
;egarding specific planning for public facilities and services in the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA is contained both
in this chapter as well as other appropriate chapters ofthe Comprehensive Plan (CP), including the Capital Facilities
Element, as well as supporting appendices of the CP, llIi4-the rri Area/Glen Cove Special Study. and the JetTerson
County Pori Hadlock UGA Sewer Facilitv Plan of September. 2008.
Detailed planning for the designation of an Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA in compliance with the requirements of
the GMA has been on-going since the Jefferson County CP was originally adopted in 1998. Specific policy
language in the CP indicated the joint city/county intent to pursue future UGA planning for the "Tri-Area"
(including Irondale, Port Hadlock and Chimacum). As part of the on-going joint City/County urban growth area
planning, the Tri-Area Provisional UGA (PUGA) was designated by Jefferson County on October 5, 1999 as an
interim step in the UGA planning process. The PUGA established an interim UGA that included the lrondale
and Port Hadlock communities. In-depth analysis and environmental impact review of the land use, population,
capital facilities and public services, natural systems and critical area constraints, open space, housing and nOn-
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-1
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
residential land use needs for a Tri-Area UGA are incorporated m the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study
conducted from 1998-2002. The Special Study includes:
o Land Use Inventory Report dated January 26, 1999
o Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast dated January 26, 1999
o Draft Supplemenlal Environmental Impacl Statement dated June 1999
o Final Supplemental EnvironmenlalImpact Statement dated AuguslI999
o Glen CovelTri Area Special Study Final Decision Document daled June 11, 2001
o Tri-Area UGA Capital Faci/i/ies Special Study dated November 2001
o Tri Area & Glen Cove Special Study Implementalion Plan daled November 28, 2001
Urban growth areas include those areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public
facilities and service capacities to serve such development or areas for which such facilities are planned.
Designating UGAs recognizes the existing urbanized development pattern in the county. By designating UGAs, the
requirements of both the GMA and County-wide Planning Polices (CWPPs) must be met to ensure that expansion
of urban services is provided to encourage infill where logical and feasible.
Further planning analvsis of the size and capacitv of the UGA was conducted in the Proposed IrondalelPol1
LfadlockJJIiA,-IhJ,?}jjl1g,])nit & PoplJlatiol1.1foldim! Ca/iacitv Analvsis, Cascag,li! Communitv Plannjl1z_S-"r.Y.i,,~_~
January 2 1. 2009.
CWPPs provide a broad framework for UGA planning that were developed in a collaborative process between the
City of Port Townsend and the County. Countywide Planning Policy #1.3 provides specific guidance on criteria for
the sizing and delineation of UGA boundaries outside of cities:
o Adequate amount of developable land to accommodate forecasted growth for the next twenty
years.
o Sufficient developable land for residential, commercial and industrial uses to sustain a healthy
local and regional economy.
o Sufficient area for the designation of greenbelts and open space corridors.
o Topographical features or environmentally sensitive areas that may form natural boundaries
such as bays, watersheds, rivers, or ridge lines.
o Lands already characterized by urban development that is currently served or are planned to be
served by roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage, schools and other urban services
within the next twenty years; provided that such urban services that are not yet in place are
included in a capital facilities plan.
o The type and degree of existing urban services necessary to support urban development at the
adopted interim level of service.
The County-wide Planning Policies also provide selected guidance for the phasing of urban growth commensurate
with the provision of adequate urban services to UGAs:
o Land use plans, regulations and capital facility plans for each UGA will be designed to
accommodate the projected population. Growth should first be directed into two tiers: Tier 1-
existing commercial centers and urbanized areas where the six (6) year capital facilities plan is
prepared to provide urban infrastructure; Tier 2-areas included within the capital facilities
plan to receive the full range of urban services within twenty (20) years. Infrastructure
improvements necessary to support development in the second tier will be provided by the
developer concurrent with development, or by public entities as a result of implementing all or
a portion of the capital facilities plan. (CWPP 1.5)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-2
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-t213-04
Exhibit A
. Before adopting boundaries of UGAs, interim Level of Service Standards (LOS) for public
services and facilities located inside and outside ofUGAs must be adopted. (CWPP 1.7)
. The full range of governmental urban services at the adopted level of service standards will be
planned for and provided within UGAs, as defmed in the capital facilities plan, including
community water, sanitary sewer, piped fIre flow, and stonn water systems (CWPP 2.1)
. New development will meet the adopted level of service standards for the UGA as a condition
of project approval. Said standards will include interim provisions for those urban facilities
identifIed in the capital facilities plan but not yet developed. New development will contribute
its proportionate share towards provision of urban facilities identifIed in the capital facilities
plan. (CWPP 2.3)
. Local public involvement and citizen advice into the fonnation and development of UGA land
uses and supporting urban public facilities and services are also an important component of
planning and implementation for UGAs. (CWPP 2.2)
IRONDALE & PORT HADLOCK UGA PHASED IMPLEMENTATION
In 2002, Irondale & Port Hadlock lacked the full range of urban services needed for immediate UGA
implementation indicated in CWPP 2.1, above. Therefore, the CP had to plan for the provision of those services
as required by RCW 36.70A.1lO(3). The Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA was implemented in several phases.
The initial phase involved amendments to the Jefferson County CP in 2002 to adopt the final UGA boundary, land
use map and interim levels of service for urban facilities as well as goals and policies guiding the development of
the UGA. This included identifIcation of additional plans and capital facilities (including costs and funding sources)
needed to implement the full range of urban services and facilities within the UGA. The next phase involved
preparation and adoption of UGA development regulations-Appendix D in the UnifIed Development Code
(OOC), now codified in Chapter ] 8.18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC)--including new urban land use
districts, pennitted use tables, bulk and dimensional requirements and new development standards for the UGA.
This phase also included completion of the capital facility plans needed to implement the full range of urban
services required in CWPP 2.1, including the adoption of urban level of service standards for UGA transportation
improvements, stonn water management facilities, and a new sanitary sewer system. These capital facility plans
are adopted herein by reference and are included as appendices to the CP. The UGA functional capital facility plans
adopted herein include:
. lrondale & POIt Hadlock UG/. Geneml Se'Aor Plan, MB), 2001Port Hadlock UGA Sewer
Facility Plan, September 2008 (See Appendix)
· Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Stonnwater Management Plan, May, 2004 (See Appendix)
. Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Transportation Plan, May, 2004 (See Appendix)
Consistent with CWPP ].5, the adopted Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA General Sewer Plan identifies development
"tiers" within the UGA based on where the six (6) year capital facilities plan is prepared to provide urban sanitary
sewer service in the UGA core, followed bv expansion of sewer service availability throu,!:hout the UGA in the 20
vear planning pedoct. "concurrent" with development. These areas are i<lentifiea in the UG/, Genoml Sewcr Plan
as: I) sanitary sewer serviees areas; 2) optional sanitary sev.er seryiee areas; ana 2) unsewerea areas. More
complete discussion and analysis of these areas are found in the "Capital Facilities" section of this element and in
the adopted UGA General Sewer Plan.
Public involvement was a key component of all phases of UGA planning. The County appointed a UGA Citizen
AdvisOlY Committee during the initial Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA boundary and land use planning phase in
200 I. The CAC was compdsed of local UGA residents and business owners and participated in developing the
initial recommendations for the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA boundary and land use designations adopted in
2002. A UGA Citizens Task Force was appointed in 2004, again comprised oflocal business owners and residents,
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-3
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #t7-1213-04
Exhibit A
to help the Planning Commission UGA Subcommittee develop specific implementing regulations and capital
facility development standards for the UGA.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-4
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
URBAN GROWTH AREA DESIGNATION CRITERIA
The GMA specifies certain minimum requiremeuts for UGA formation, These include the following provisions of
RCW 36.70A.llO:
An urban growth area may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such
territory already is characterized by urban growth whether Dr not the urban growth area
includes a city, or is adjacenl to territory already characterized by urban growth. (ReW
3670A.Il0(1)
The vast majority ofthe Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA is "already characterized by urban growlh" as stated in
CWPP 1.4. In addition, the boundary for the UGA was delineated based on the criteria in CWPP 1.3 with
guidance from the Tri-Area Community Plan (1995) and public input from local residents, as required by
CWPP 1.3, 1.4 and 2.2. Only limited areas "adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth" are
included in the UGA to: I) interconnect areas characterized by existing urban growth; 2) incorporate sufficient
developable land to sustain the urban growth projected to occur during the 20-year planning period; or 3)
provide for a reasonable land market supply factor to discourage adverse land and housing price increases. The
Iroudale & Port Hadlock UGA is significantly smaller and more compact than the "Tri-Area UGA" originally
proposed in the Special Sludy.
Based upon the growth managemenl population projection made for the county by the office of
financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and
densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for
the succeeding twenty-year period. 36. 70A.II 0(2)
Adequate land area for the expected growth during the planning period has been designated based on both the
projected 20-year residential population growth for Irondale & Port Hadlock identified in the CP as well as the need
for commercial/industrial lands identified as a part of the Special Study. The CP population growth projections
indicate a 20-year projected growth of 2,353 residents for the UGA. The CP also indicates a large number of
existing platted residential lots in the area. AhI'lOuglJ mMany of these lots are not presently buildable due to their
small size" their lecation outsiae of the initial plafllled sewer service area, and .;oil censtfaints fur on :;ite ,;eptic
"ystems, makiAf; them leGS likely te be a\ ailable for acvelopmeRt 8' er the COlifS. otthe FlOORing FerieEl. _The UGA
buildout capacity analysis is presented later in this element. The boundary (Le., sizing) of the UGA included only
those areas "characterized by urban growth...or...adjacenl to territory already characterized by urban growth"
necessary to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur consistent with the Act. The Iron dale & Port
Hadlock UGA includes areas designated for multi-family high density development that are "adjacent to
territory already characterized by urban growlh" as one means to increase the feasibility for providing sanitary
sewer service within the core UGA.
Although the lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA contains a significant amount of existing single-family urban
residential development-from a future urban growth perspective-its major intent is to provide more
economic development opportunity to serve the unmet regional commercial needs of eastern Jefferson County
identified in the Special Study. Secondarily, UGA designation and the provision of urban facilities and services
will allow for development of higher density (and more affordable) multi-family housing when a sanitary
system becomes available. and mixed use peElestrian frionElly mixed use eommcrcial/resieeAtial dewleptflent
and reee, elopment especially iR the P0I1 Hadleek core -"bich i3 not preseHtly feasible gi-,'en density
restriction" and the lack of a sanitary sewer system.
Each urban growlh area shall permil urban densilies and shall include greenbelt and open
space areas. 36.70A.lIO(2)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-5
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Urban density residential development averages well in excess of 4 dwelling units per acre in the overall UGA as
documented in the lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA Buildout Analysis, dated March 4, 2004, adopted herein by
reference as an appendix to the CP. See also the ProDosed IrondalelPort Hadlock UGA: Dlvellin\! Unil &
PODulation Holdin\! CaDacitv Analvsis, Ca"adia Communitv Planning Services. Januarv 21. 2009. The Urban
Low Density Residential (ULDR) designation on the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Zoning Map requires a
minimum density of 4 dwellings units per acre, except where the following criteria are met: I) in areas where no
sanitary sewer service is provided for in the adopted Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan; and 2) in such areas within an
adopted Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). The provisions of the Jefferson County Health Department On-
Site Sewage Disposal Systems regulations (JCC 8.15) and Unified Development Code (UDe) Section 6.18 (Best
Management Practices for On-Site Sewage Disposal in CARAs) shall apply under these circumstances which
effectively limit maximum density to approximately 3.5 units per acre. The so-called "bright line" rule adopted by
the Growth Management Hearings Boards suggests that four units per acre is a minimum urban density. However,
the Boards have also recognized that jurisdictions may apply densities below that line in UGAs if there is a
compelling GMA reason for doing so. Protection of critical areas, including CARAs, has been recognized by the
Hearings Boards as such a reason. In the UGA, the CARA serves to protect the same groundwater aquifer that
supplies the public water supply for the UGA-the Public Utility District's Sparling Well located within the UGA
at the comer of Kennedy Road and Rhody Drive (SR 19). The Zoning Map indicates several additional areas
designated for moderate and high density residential development within mandatory sewer service areas that are in
close proximity to existing commercial centers and community facilities such as the Chimacum Creek Elementary
School and the County Library. Open space and greenbelt areas have also been identified for the UGA, especially
along the Chimacum Creek corridor, in associated wetland areas and along the Port Townsend Bay marine
shoreline at the mouth of Chimacum Creek where substantial shoreline restoration is planned along the site of a
fonner log dump.
An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and
shal/permit a range a/urban densities and uses. 36.70A.IIO(2)
Single-family and multi-family residential, urban commercial, light industrial, lands for public purposes, and open
space and greenbelt land needs are incorporated in the Irondale & Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. Sizing of the
UGA was intended to include only those areas "characterized by urban growth...or...adjacent to territory
already characterized by urban growth" consistent with the Act. A reasonable land market supply factor was
applied to discourage adverse increases to land and housing values in the UGA. Reduction factors to account
for lands needed for roads and utilities and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas were also applied
based on the specific findings recommended in the Special Study. Documentation of supporting population and
land area analysis are found in the Special SIt!dy, llfl4-in the lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA Buildout Analysis,
daled March 4, 2004, and the Proposed Irondale!Porl Hadlock UGA: Dl,ellill<! Unit & Populalion Holding
Ca/Jacitv Analvsis. Cascadia Community Planning Services. Januarv 21. 2009. adopted herein by reference as an
appendix to the CP.
Cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about
accommodating growth. 36.70A.IIO(2)
Planning for an unincorporated UGA in eastern Jefferson County has been on-going since the initial GMA
Comprehensive Plan for the County was adopted in 1998. The Special Study was a collaborative joint planning
process between the City and the County that entailed a broad analysis of population and employment growth
and land use needs as well as alternative UGA boundary configurations and their associated impacts. It
presented many choices about accommodating growth. One of the key findings of tbe Special Study was that
the County experienced a significant amount of "retail leakage" to urban areas in adjacent counties due to an
inadequate commercial land use base in the County. The City and the County also jointly chose through the
Joint Growth Management Steering Committee to accommodate new growth through fonnation of a Tri-Area
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-6
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Unincorporated UGA rather than accommodate the unmet demand for commercial growth in the existing Port
Townsend UGA.
The CP and the CWPPs both identify the Tri-Area (now Irondale & Port Hadlock Unincorporated UGA) as the
primary regional commercial growth center for the unincorporated County. However, the lack of a UGA
designation and the full range of urban services, including a sanitary sewer system, has been an impediment to
significant commercial development and job creation. The UGA planning process involved an extensive
amount of public involvement. The Implementation Plan for the Special Study identified and analyzed more
specific UGA land use alternatives for the area. As a result of the extensive public involvement process and
capital facilities impact analysis conducted throughout the life of the Special Sludy, the Tri-Area UGA
represents a significantly smaller, more compact and more fiscally viable UGA than originally proposed in the
DSEISIFSEIS prepared as a part of the Special Study.
Urban growth should be locatedfirsl in areas already characterized by urban growth that have
adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in
areas already characterized by urban growlh Ihat will be served adequately by a combination of
both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and
services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining
portions of the urban growlh areas. 36. 70A.] 10(3)
The Special Study included several alternative UGA boundaries and permitted land use alternatives for UGAs in
Jefferson County. One of these alternatives (Alternative 1) was not to adopt a new unincorporated UGA but
rather accommodate the unmet need for regional commercial growth identified in the Special Sludy through
intensification of the existing Port Townsend municipal UGA. Following issuance of the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Amendments, daled August] 999,
the Joint GroWth Management Steering Committee (comprised of three City Councilors and three County
Commissioners) decided on August 24, 1999 (by a vote of 5 to I) to move forward with UGA implementation
for Irondale & Port Hadlock and to reject implementation of Alternative l-effectively precluding allocation of
the unmet employment and commercial growth needs identified in the Special Study to the existing Port
Townsend UGA.
The Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA is presently served by a range of public services, including a potable water
system, piped fire flow, public transit, and public safety (fire, EMS and sheriff). Outside of the City of Port
Townsend, the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA and Glen Cove are the only areas of the county with that same
complement of existing public services. The Glen Cove light industrial area has been designated a "limited area
of more intensive rural development" under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) and is not subject to an urban growth area
designation under the CPo A community sanitary sewer system and adopted urban storm water and
transportation level of service standards were the only "urban" public facilities lacking in Irondale & Port
Hadlock that precluded UGA compliance prior to the adoption of this chapter. Adoption of appropriate
standards and plans for the provision of adequate public services and facilities to serve the UGA are discussed
in the Capital Facilities section of this chapter and, as appropriate, in other sections of the Utilities, Capital
Facilities, and Transportation Elements of the CPo
In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban
governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be
extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be
necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services
are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development.
36.70A.] 10(4)
The CP and the CWPPs (#2.4) specify that urban public facilities and services are to be provided only within
designated UGAs unless required to remedy a threat to public health or welfare or to protect an environmentally
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-7
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
sensitive area. The Act does not prohibit unincorporated UGAs--it only suggests a greater level of scrutiny to
ensure adequate capital facility planning and provision of urban governmental services. The feasibility of providing
the full range of urban services to Irondale & Port Hadlock rests largely upon the levels of service adopted for those
facilities and services. Since most urban services are already provided to local residents (i.e., water, public safety), it
is the establishment of a community sanitary sewer system that will likely have the greatest fiscal impact. The
implementation, phasing, and fiscal requirements of such a sewer system are identified in the Pori Hadlock UGA
Sewer Facililv FIlm. Seplember 200S. adopted as the UGA General Sewer Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Land Use
The UGA encompasses approximately 1,320 acres. Based on the year 2000 census, the resident population is
2,553 persons. The existing land use pattern is characterized by commercial development concentrated along
the major highway corridors (Rhody Drive, Ness' Comer Road, and Chimacum Road) and existing developed
single-family neighborhoods in Irondale and Port Hadlock in the northern part of the UGA. There are scattered
multi-family apartment complexes mostly located at the fringe of the Port Hadlock commercial core area.
The predominant land use type in the UGA is single-family residential development. It accounts for close to
one-half of the existing land uses. Most of the residential neighborhoods south of Irondale Road are largely
built-out, although there are a significant number of pre-existing platted lots (from early in the last century) that
remain undeveloped. In fact, vacant lands constitute about one-third of the UGA-most of which are
concentrated north of Irondale Road and south of Chimacum Creek. Many of these lots are "substandard"-
meaning that they cannot meet minimum lot size requirements for on-site septic systems-and therefore must
be combined through restrictive covenant or lot consolidation in order to build upon. Under current regulations,
the County may authorize single-family home development on pre-existing platted lots provided they meet
Jefferson County Environmental Health Department standards for on-site septic systems and drainfields-
usually requiring a minimum 12,500 square foot lot (if served by a public water system). Current developed
single-family residential lots in the UGA range from 2,500 to 20,000 square feet in size and average about
13,000 square feet.
The remaining existing land use distribution in the UGA includes public and quasi-public facilities such as
churches, the County Library and Chimacum Creek Elementary School, the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office
and Jail, Jefferson County Public Works Department Maintenance Yard, and the PUD's Sparling Well facility
along Rhody Drive. In addition there are several neighborhood parks and open space areas.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
The most distinguishing physical feature of the area is Chimacum Creek and its associated riparian wetland
system. Chimacum Creek includes habitat for summer chum salmon-a listed species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA)--and also contains steelhead, coho salmon and cutthroat trout. It runs from south to north
through the area and detennines the northern boundary of the UGA where it empties into Port Townsend Bay.
It is contained within a narrow valley and is designated a Class I stream-subject to a 150 foot development
setback along both sides of the creek-according to the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC).
The creek's riparian corridor and associated setback function as a greenbelt within the UGA consistent with the
requirements of RCW 36. 70A.l1 0(2). In addition to the wetlands along Chimacum Creek, there are also
estuarine and intertidal wetlands along the Port Townsend Bay marine shoreline well as some isolated upland
wetlands. Protection of these areas is regulated under UDC Sections 3.6.8 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas)
and 3.6.9 (Wetlands).
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-8
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Portions of the UGA are vulnerable to groundwater pollution and are designated as a Critical Aquifer Recharge
Area (CARA) due to their hydrogeologic soil characteristics and the presence of public water supply wellheads.
The Jefferson County Public Utility District owns the water system that serves the UGA. The water system
relies on groundwater wells. There is a designated wellhead protection area around the PUD's Sparling Well
and the Kivley Well. Figure H2-2 shows the critical aquifer recharge area within the UGA, including
wellhead protection areas and susceptible soils. The CARA is subject to enhanced wastewater treatment
standards which, among other requirements, limit land use activities; establish minimum lot sizes for uses
dependent upon on-site septic systems for wastewater treatment and disposal; and requires "best management
practices" for siting such development-according to Jefferson County UDC Sections 3.6.5 (Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas); 6.18 (On-Site Sewage Disposal Best Management Practices in CARAs); and Jefferson
County Code Chapter 8.15 (On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems).
Some geologically hazardous areas are also present in the UGA. These are areas particularly susceptibility to
erosion, sliding, earthquakes, or other geological events. Steep slopes and marine bluffs adjacent to Port
Townsend Bay and lower Chimacum Creek are prone to impacts related to erosion, seismic events and
landslides. Protection ofthese areas is regulated under UDC Section 3.6.7 (Geologically Hazardous Areas).
The UGA contains limited 100-year flood plain areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). The boundaries of the 100-year flood essentially encompass Port Townsend Bay, the marine
shorelines of the Irondale and Port Hadlock community, and the mouth of Chimacum Creek. Urban level
residential, commercial or industrial development is discouraged in the 100-year flood plain. Any structure
built within the flood plain's boundaries must provide for adequate protection against the 100-year flood (i.e.,
structures within the floodplain are constructed at a minimum of one foot above the flood plain elevation).
These areas are regulated according to UDC Section 3.6.6 (Frequently Flooded Areas).
Potable Water & Sewage Treatment and Disposal
The entire UGA is served by a public water system now owned and operated by Public Utility District #1
(PUD) of Jefferson County. The water source is groundwater acquired by two different wells. The primary
source is the Sparling Well/ocated at the intersection of Rhody Drive and Kennedy Road on the western border
of the UGA. A secondary well, the Kivley Well, is located just southeast of the Port Hadlock core area of the
UGA.
There is no sanitary sewer system presently in the UGA. All wastewater treatment is provided either by
individual on-site septic systems or small community-based on-site systems. The Jefferson County
Environmental Health Department records indicate no significant failure rates for existing on-site systems in the
UGA. Although the concentration of existing on-site septic systems, given the density and proximity of
development to the Sparling Well,.J1 is an issue of concern that is addressed as a part of the capital facility
planning for the new sanitary sewer system. The UG/\ Gonefal So',';or Plan ae5ignates an "optional sewer
seryiee area" fBr a portion of/he Urean Lov. Density Resiaential zone along tbo eastern perillber)' ofCbimaculH
Creck as a means to lHake ayailaele ami encourage (tlLoHgb a E1ensil)' bonus) the proyisioll of sanitaro' seVlcr to
existing amI/or flltllfe eeyelolllHent in a significant portion of Ihe Critical :\quifcr Reollarge f.rea for tbc
Sllarling Well.
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
Based on a 2004 population of 2,553 persons and the projected 20-year growth of an additional 2,353 persons,
the UGA must be able to accommodate a minimum of 4,906 persons by 2024. The new allocation was based on
updated Jefferson County overall population projections prepared by the Washington State Office of Financial
Management (OFM) in 2002 (after adoption of the initial UGA boundary and land use designations). The new
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-9
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
allocation was incorporated into the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update per RCW
36.70A.130(1)(a).
One of the key efforts of the Special Study was the assessment of future demand for commercial/industriallands
in the County (based on assumed employment growth and other variables). This analysis is contained in the
Regional Economic Analysis and Forecasl prepared by Trottier Research Group dated January 26, 1999 and
further addressed in the document titled Memorandum: Commenls on Estimates of Additional Land Needed for
Employment Growlh prepared by Trottier Research Group dated September 27, 1999. Hereafter collectively
called the "Troltier Report". The Troltier Report analysis indicated that the Jefferson County economy
experiences significant "retail leakage" to urban areas in adjacent counties. Retail leakage is an economic signal
that regional commercial levels of service are not being met for County residents, and suggests that the level of
commercial development is inadequate to meet the needs of the existing population as well as new growth. The
Troltier Report concluded that the County could experience a significant shortage of commercial and industrial
lands over the next twenty years if it maintained strong employment growth.
At the same time, the Special Study noted that the lack of a full range of urban public facilities and services and
available developable vacant land in the designated rural commercial centers placed significant constraints on
employment growth. In the case of lrondale & Port Hadlock, the lack of a community sewer system is a
significant impediment to economic activity since it limits overall employment density and certain economic
activities that may be water-use intensive or require special waste processing needs. Furthermore, rural land
development standards in effect under the 1998 CP precluded the most efficient utilization of many existing
commercial enterprises. During the Special Study many existing businesses in lrondale & Port Hadlock
expressed frustration with the inability to expand existing operations due to building size limitations and lot size
constraints. Some businesses have left the area to relocate to UGAs elsewhere where the land supply and urban
capital facilities and services are more readily available. Even with designation of additional vacanl lands for
commercial purposes, the majority of the commercial lands designated in the lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA
comprise lands already characterized by urban growth or are surrounded by such lands.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP & ZONING DESIGNATIONS
Zoning designations for the UGA are shown in Table;; 2-]. parts (a) and (b), and are illustrated in the Iron dale
& Port Hadlock UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-1). Land use districts correspond to the CP general urban land use
designations and zoning districts illustrate the site-specific designations,
The UGA Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map, adopted as a part of this element, is the graphic representation of
the densities and intensities of use and the goals, policies and strategies contained within this plan. The Land
Use and Zoning Maps were developed based on consistency with the Growth Management Act, community
involvement, consideration of the 1995 Tri-Area Community Development Plan, the results of the Special
Study, the Proposed IrondalelPo,.t Hadlock UGA: Dwellinf! Unit & Population HoldinfJ Capacilv Analvs!s,
Cascadia Community Planning Services, January 21, 2009, and the specific criteria contained within this element.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map should act as a guide for: subsequent Zoning Map designations; the
adoption of development regulations; and implementation of future land use decisions. The Growth
Management Act requires that implementing development regulations be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. This requirement will be met by Jefferson County with the adoption of this element and the lrondale &
Port Hadlock Implementing Regulalions of the UDC.
Amendments to the adopted Zoning Map are subject to the requirements ofUDC Section 18.45 JCC.
DWELLING UNIT AND POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-10
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
In determining whether the supply of residentially designated and zoned land within the proposed UGA is
proportionate to the proiected future population. a number of variables and assumptions can affect the analysis
and must be considered, including the following:
. Differentiating between developed. underdeveloped. and vacant residential lands:
. The proposed residential designations and densities (i,e.. both single-familv and multi-familv);
. The location and extent of critical areas that may restrict or preclude development in certain areas:
. The need to set aside land for public purooses. including roads. parks. wastewater and stOlmwater
facilities: and
. The need to account for land that will remain vacant over the course of the planning period due to
landowner preferences, title disputes. encumbrances and market conditions.
It should be emphasized that this analysis is not an entirelv academic exercise: it does not simplv identify the
total theoretical dwelling unit and population holding capacitv of the UGA based onlv upon grOSS acreages and
proposed zoning densities. Instead. the analvsis attempts to more realisticallv assess the dwelling unit and
population holding capacity by accurately differentiating developed, underdeveloped. and vacant residential
lands. factoring actual mapped critical areas and their buffers, and taking into account actual proiected needs for
public lands and rights-of-way (Table 2-1 (a)).
Clearly. the proposed lrondale/Port Hadlock UGA presents limited opoortunities for "blue skv" planning.
Much of the area was platted in the late 19'" and early 20th ccntury. and has seen substantial residential and
commercial development over the intervening decades. The area encompasses widespread areas of pre-existing
subdivision and development actiyitv that have occurred at non-rural densities.
Vacant land was defined as land with no. or insignificant improvements. Thus. all parcels designated within
the Assessor's land use code as 9100 or 9800 (i.e., "vacant"). or which have an assessed stnlctural
(improvement) value that is equal to or less than $10.000 fall within this category.
Underdeveloped land was defined as land occupied by current development that is of relativelv low density in
relation to parcel ownership size andlor of relatively low structural (improvement) value. This is land that is
seen as likelv to support further or more intense leyels of development. TIthe value of the structures
(improvements) was equal to or less than $100,000 and the parcel ownership was equal to or twice the
minimum Jot size of the applicable zone (e.g., 20,000 s.f. in the Low Density Residential designation), the
parcel was deemed likely to develop to its permissible higher densitv within the 20-vear planning period. A
typical example of underdeveloped land would include a parcel ownership in a neighborhood that cUITently
accommodates one dwelling unit. !:mt which contains sufficient land area. to accommj)date one Qr more
additioual dwelling lmits and still comply with the density limitations of the applicable zone.
Developed land was defined as land with no additional space for development and which has significant
structural (improvement) values. This is land that is not likelv to support flmher or more intense levels of
development. All land not identified as "yacant" or "underdeveloped" as defined above, falls within this
category .
Table 2-I(a) summarizes the results of this disaggregation:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-11
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
801.00 66.00 50.00
236.10 4.00 8.8
268.10 35.00 7.60
296.80 27.00 33.60
Source: GIS anaIvsis conducted by Jefferson Countv Central Services in Propused IrundalelPort Hadlock UGA: Dwelling
Unit & Population Holdinf?CaDacitvAna'vSl~L Cascadia Commlmitv Planniu? Services. January 21. 2009.
Table 2-1@
Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Additional Land Use & Zoning Districts
Urb"" Lm, Densit\ RejdentiaI
Urban Commercial
lR4
~
Ml
~
#%
M%
~
,
Urban Commercial
V isitor-Oriented Commercial
272
14
93
7
~
~
Pnblic
Public
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
~
80
+%
2-12
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
I TOT:\U I I ~ I :w I ;!.9%
Source: Jefferson County Central Services, Jefferson County Department of Commnnity Development
'Vacant Acreage figures are based on Assessor Land Use Codes~ March 4. 2004.that >Hldefe,timate the amo~Bt of\'acant
lalld iR tae UG}" partie~Illl'I)' f-er residential lands. The IOtals in plll'entheses ref-leet land that is unai'tllflled, autlll'e not
elaasifjea as "acant by tile .1saeasor.
Urban Residential. The Urban Residential land use designation accounts for the largest share of land use in
the UGA. This zone accounts for more than 800 acres; rough Iv one-third of those acres are vacant. one third
underdeveloped and one third developed. The Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) zone will allow
housing density from four (4) to six (6) dwelling units per acre, except, as previously noted, for parcels both
outside the planned sewer service area and within a designated Critical Aquifer Recharge Area where the
maximum density may not exceed 3.5 units per acrel. This zene a.eOHnts fer mef~ thafl gQG aeres a1theHgll enl)'
aboll! one third of those aeres are Iifla~velepea (inelHaing mostly ':aeaAt platted Iota). Moderate Density
Residential (MDR) zoning will allow housing at a density of 7-+4-J.Lunits per acre and accounts for 55 total
acres within the UGA. The High Density Residential zone will allow housing at a density of .J.411..;?,4- U\
dwelling units per acre.
ESTIMATED DWELLING UNIT & POPULATION HOLDfNG CAPACITY
The estimated dwelling unit holding capacity of the orooosed lrondalelPort Hadlock UGA is determined bY' multiolving the
net available land (i.e.. vacant and underdeveloped land area combined) in each zoning designation bv the minimum and
maximum density permitted within each zone. This establishes a dwelliTIl! unit caDacitv ranlle. 'rIle minimwn and
maximmn mUllber of dwelling units is tben mulriplied bv the estimated household size at the end of the planning period to
establish an estimated population holding capacitv range for vacant and underdeveloped lands within the proposed UGA.
Table 2 2 indicates the SHmmal)' total resiaential holaing eapaeily potential at lmildell! fer tl:e UG/\.. The
aflal)'sis iHdicates that tile UGA has the eallaeit) te accommodate approximately 18% more Aew hOHseholas
than projected dHring the Hext (>veAt)' )'ear:; (20Q1 2(21). The UCf. capaeit)' assumes eemplete IlflildoHt of all
vacant platted residential lots in th~ UG,'.. .'.etual UG,'. growtl1 eapaeity, hev,e\'er, may be somewhat less
during Ihe flaAning ferioa, given the Ilatt~rn aAd pre' aleAee of \'el) ,;mall platted lots (esfeeially iH nortll
Irondale OHtside of the initial planneEl .Jewer sen iee area) that arc lil,cl)' to 1ge HnaHilaa19le HAder the OA Site
Sewage Code provisions ofthe Jeffcrcon COllAr)' Health Depattment lIBle," eombined.
Overall average aensity in the UG.'\. is e,timated to be more tllaA 5.59 'IIlits per aefe, aeeeraiAg te the lrenda!c
& Po;'1 Had!Dek UGl Bui!dB"I.lnalY"i::, ;Ialed March 1, 2QQf.
I Jrdferson County On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems (JCC 8.15) allows minimum 12,500 sf lot for on-site septic systems
with waivers possible to approximately minimum 7,500 sf. with commensurately higher /reatment standard requiremenls.
However the Code does nol allow waivers less Ihan 12,500 sf for lols within Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Therefore
standard density inlhe ULDR zone (inside CARAs and ourside of planned Sewer Service Area) is approximately 3.5
du'slacre. Standard density of 4 du'slacre inlhe ULDR zone (outside CARAs and oulside of planned Sewer Service Area)
may be achieved only by compliance with the waiver provisions of JCC 8.15. Maximum density of6 du'slacre in the
ULDR only achievable by connection to sanitary sewer(allowed within the Optional Sewer Service Area Overlay)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-13
uPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
84.59
2.01
4.25
119.59
18.13
3.79
204.18
20.14
8.04
Source: Prorml,'ed Jrondale/Port Hadlock UGA: Dwelline Unit & PODulation Ilo/dinft Capacity Analvsis. Cascadia Communitv
Planning Services. January 21. 2009.
Tllllle 22
IraRdllle & Pat1llildlael. ue}.
Lllnd Use CllJllleity Summll!")'
+,;;19
Total Multi Family D'Mlling l!nit;
+,l-68
~
Single rami I) Population Catlaeity
(@ ave. 3.5 aa/aere)
'h44&
~Iulti Famil) Population Capaeit)'
~
Tetal PopulatiOl' Capaelt)'
B1l4
Total Population Caraeit) as Percent of20 Year ,^.lIeeatea GfEl\\1h
++&%
,'\"erage Net Densit) (Uait;l,'\ere)
Source: .':'~"J/::.Y..'.'~~ & .or;,'" H.1d-!,n:k UC1 Blii.'doitt Ans,~l'::is, d.:::t:.\:I ,\fa;'.::,"; /, lOD I
5.5')
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-14
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
935 - 1.523
2.057 - 3.351
1.160*
2.553
2,095 2,683
4.610 5,904
CONCLUSION
Based upon the methodolo!!y and assumptions documented ahoye, the proposed IrondalelPort Hadlock
UCA appears to include residential land areas and densities sufficient to accommodate the urban !!rowth
allocation of 2.353 pel'S<lns for the 2004 - 2024 plannin!! period. consistent with the requirements ofRCW
36. 70A.ll 0(2).
If ultimate build-out were to occur uniformly at either the low or the hi!!h end of the permissible density
ran!!es in each residential zone. the population holdin!! capacity would .....n!!e from a net deficit of -296 to
a net surplus of +998 in I'elation to the adopted population tar!!et of 4,906 for 2024. However, to assume
either a uniformly "low-density" or "hi!!h-density" build-out scenario is both unreasonable and nnlikely.
Instead. it is rational, appropriate. and within the .....nee of discretion afforded to localities plannin!!
under the GMA to assume a more plausible density yield rate scenario of 75%. Such an assumption
results in an estimated capacity for 2,512 additional people occupyine 1,142 dwellin!! units, and a total
population holdin!! capacity of 5.065, some 159 persons over the 4.906 tar!!et. This difference is
insienificant in the context of an area-wide plann;n!! analysis.
Urban Commercial. Almost one-quarter of the total UGA is designated for commercial land use. Several
different commercial zoning districts may implement this land use designation. The Urban Commercial (UC)
zone is the largest constituting approximately 272 acres. It covers both the existing and planned future
commercial development in the Port Hadlock core area and along Rhody Drive from Ness" Comer to the
"Dogbane" along SR 19. The Visitor-Oriented Commercial (VOC) zone is applied to the tourism-oriented
potential development area around the Old Alcohol Plant.
Urban Industrial. Approximately 25 acres of land are designated as an Urban Light Industrial (ULI) zone in
the UGA-all but 5 acres of which are already in light industrial use. These uses are located in the southwest
comer of the UGA well buffered from the bulk of the residential neighborhoods in the community.
Public Facilities. Public facilities (P) comprise 80 acres, including public park and open space areas, the
Library and Chimacum Creek Elementary School, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and Jail, Jefferson
County Public Works Department Maintenance Yard, and the PUD's Sparling Well facility along Rhody Drive
and the Kivley Well in Port Hadlock.
CAPITAL FACILITY PLANNING
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-15
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Capital facility planning for Urban Growth Areas should be coordinated among the City, County, and special
purpose districts or other service providers who may be affected by the advent of new urban growth and the need to
plan for the provision of new urban levels of service for public facilities such as sanitary sewer, potable water and
public safety. For affected non-County agencies--who may provide these services--to meet their own capital
facility plan goals, the County needs to ensure that it does not permit activity which would be inconsistent with their
future plans.
County-wide Planning Policy #3 identifies specific actions to be taken regarding joint planning between the City of
Port Townsend and Jefferson County that affects incorporated UGAs. The need for continued joint planning with
affected public service providers and local residents is a critical component to UGA implementation. Of special
importance will be the provision of urban sanitary sewer services and the fiscal impacts of such a system on local
residents. Potable water service is already provided by the PUD # 1.
Although it is an unincorporated UGA, it is sufficient in size and scope of urban densities and intensities of uses
to allow for potential incorporation-should local residents desire and choose to do so at some point in the
future. The County will continue to work with UGA residents on the provision of adequate and financially
feasible capital facilities.
The strategy of joint capital facility planning is to encourage jurisdictions and service providers to enter into
inter-local agreements to facilitate planning in areas of mutual concern. The use of an inter-local agreement
enables the affected local governments and special purpose districts involved to work together to review,
consider, and resolve issues of mutual concern. The County, PUD #1, local residents and other affected
agencies should continue to work together towards the provision of adequate public facilities and services.
This section of this element is intended to address the provision of capital facilities and utilities to the UGA.
Level of Service (LOS) standards are established in the Capital Facilities Element of the Plan as may be
amended for the UGA by adoption of this element and its appendices related to capital facility planning (i.e.,
sewer, storm water and transportation). The adopted level of service standards must be met by utility providers
within the UGA.
Many utilities and capital facilities are provided for in the UGA by non-county providers. Many of these
utilities are currently being provided at urban standards and do not require amendments to the Capital Facilities
or Utilities elements of the CP insofar as levels of service are concerned. These include public water supply
(being provided by the Jefferson County PUD # I); electricity provided by Puget Sound Energy; cable television
and telecommunications provided by a range of carriers regulated by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), including cellular
telephone service provided by AT&T Wireless Services and Verizon Wireless and conventional telephone
service provided by Qwest Communications.
These utility providers are controlled by laws and regulations, or franchise agreements. Their requirement to
meet levels of service is imbedded in these controls. For example, the State Department of Health (DOH)
requires water purveyors like the PUD to have 20 year plans (revised every 6 years) which address service area
demand, source of supply, LOS (including fire flow), and a capital program for improvements to meet projected
demand into the future. Other utilities have similar requirements to demonstrate to the County and others that
they capacity to meet LOS will be in place to meet future demand.
In addition, many other public services and capital facilities are provided countywide by Jefferson County at
adopted levels of service that apply countywide and do not distinguish between rural and urban areas. These
facilities and services include:
. Solid Waste;
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-16
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
. Parks and Recreation;
. County Maintenance Shop Facilities;
. County Government Administrative Offices;
. County Justice Facilities;
. County Sheriff Facilities;
. County Corrections Inmate Facilities;
. Community Centers; and
. Animal Control Shelter.
Levels of service and Six-Year and Twenty-Year Capital Facilities Plans for the public facilities and services
identified above are adopted in the Utilities and Capital Facilities elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Capital facilities needs associated with implementation of the UGA General Sewer Plan, Transportation Plan
and Stormwater Plan and the provision of public water by the PUD have been included as part of the following
section and are also adopted by reference in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended.
Sanitary Sewer Service
The UGA General Sewer Plan (GSP), adopted in this Comprehensive Plan, is required under state law prior to
development of a County sponsored sewer system. It is intended to be general in nature. However, the Port
Hadlock UGA Sewer Facilitv Plan, adopted as the GSP, has been approved by the State Department of Health
and State Department of Ecologv as an engineering plan. This goes much further than needed as a GSP and
carries the sewer facilities planning forward to the Preliminary Deshm phase.
See Appendix 1. Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facilitv Plan, September 2008, adopted herein as the General Sewer
Plan, for detailed information on Capital Facilities planning and a six-veal' financing plan. Modifieatisns te the
General Sewer Plan will seeur following further engineering studies.
The adopted GSP provides a preliminary analysis of several alternatives for the development of a public
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system for the entire UGA over the course of the "cere"
commercial and high density re:;idcntial areas ef the UG,^,. These areas are eKpected te pre' ide laRd for
eOll'lmorcial, light iflElustrial, and multi family uses ever tRe CORrse of the 20-year planning period. See
Appendix I for sewer service area infonnation and mapping.
Prier to designation of the W8~oseEl sanitary seve er serviee area within the UG.^., a revicw of the all site se~tic
S)Slem caracity of soils "as completed. This rerort (Jqffi."'''8/l ('gunt)', !rcmda!e <<lItl Po,"! f!ad!ock Urean
Gr,9H'th .11''''' On Site Sewer ('ai~Slcity R(~"'rt, Dc.'oeer 2()()3) inElicated that soil caraeit)' is sufficient te saplJort
the anticipated resiElefltialllSplilation gro"yth withil' the 29 year herizoll, the m~erit/ of which was asstimed to
be as.;ociillod '/,ith single family residences. The analysis was based ell the soils and area DOH requiroments
for on site se'Nage dis~esal. The"e req>:irements are E1e5igned to protect both public health and the enyirORmellt
(i.e., adjaeellt surface watem aRd grouedwater aquifers).
The Ganeml ~e'Ner Plan idcntified three basie areas within tRe UGA subject to cyaluatien and implemelltatioll
of a sanitar/ se'?,ar S} stem.
.~e"er Service ,'\reas are areas plallned fer higher dansity and intensity of uaes (e.g. eemmercial,
industrial alld high density rcsidential), where seils will not accommodate ,uCR uses and a publie
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-17
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
sanitarJ' se"er system '1.ill be re~"irecl to !!eeommotlate ne'", "rbanlevels of deyelopment allowea
"nder tile UG:'o implementing regulatiens in }.ppeAai" 0 of tile Unifiea Developlllent Coae (UDC).
.Olltiollal Sanitary Sewer Servise :'oreas are areas of existing levl density sillgle family residential or
miKed use aevelepment loeated adjaseflt to Imt o"tsicle of sewer serviee areas. In these areas
property myners may ','oIUlltary conneet te a sewer line and gain aclaitiona\ aellstty througll a
aonsity Bonus ineentiye impleiRented tllre"gh tile UG}, .Je'lelopment regulations in },ppenaix D of
the 'JDe. This seryiee area also helps te preteet pouna"ator quality Hnd surfaee water qHalit)' in
Cllimaeam Creel, by' allo" i!:g pro",erty O'I.ners lIsing en site septie systems inside portions of tlle
UG:'os aesignated Critieal !,~lIifer Reellarge ."rea to eonneet to a pUB lie sewer system.
.Unc;e'Aerod !.reas are areas of single family low aeHsity residential outsiae of aHY ",lanned saRitar)'
se" er se" iee ar-ea. Pro",ert)' owners wllo wish to de'/els", IIlHsl utilize Oil site ,eptie systems in
these areas. Both State DOH on site septie ana loeal CORllt)' eritieal area regulations pro'lide fm
aellsit)' limitatiens ba.;cd Oil soils ana tile preseRee of eritiea( areas (SHell ao Critieal ;\~Hif"r
Reeharge ,A.reas). Tllese limitations will remain in ",lace for tllose lIfeas wiiliout plaRnea se",er
se,,'ice until suell time a.; sewer ~;crviee eaB be fca.;iBly plaBnc,1 f,,, and expallcled.
Wastewater aisposal options analyzed in the GSP iHeJHaea various laRd treatment and aispesal teebni~lles, botb
"itbiA and outside tile UG.A, bounaaries, aAd inclHded tile o",tion of a mariAe dLeharge(J). The eAvironmel1lal
imraets fr,,,,, these tyres of treatment Bf1c110eatioll '....ere evaluatea iR 2002 a~; ",ait of the UG,^. plarming proees:;
ana at the tilt:e eOBGidered a "BHila out" ",o",ulation of 0\ er IO,O(J(J peo",le. The GSP is eXfleeted to pro",o,e a
treatmeAt s)'stem aeSi!;lled for a IlIueb smaller ~;eale.
Criteria for ,elcetioR of wastewater ser;ice alternatives inclHaea eBSt, diflieult) of ",ermilting, sealaBility, and
land re~uirelllents. /\s re~uired by' law, tne GSP was aeveloj'led wiili the assistanoe of a Review Committee, and
iAelRaea i,:formation on the estimntecl eOJ15 and posJible financing ofilie system. Capital needs associated with
im",lemeHtation of the GSP have beell included as palt of this UG,^. Elemellt and the anlenaed CP Capital
Facilities Element. The GSP ~rovides a narrowing of alternatiws and impacts from pro,ioRs allalysis.
COAtinuiHg y,ork \\ ill inel",]. a.tailed site flnal)sis, including ",reparation of a" ellgineering rep()rt. ,A.S future
information is obtainea, fuFll1er environmental revie,,' may be required.
Tile Six Year UG!. 8ev,er S)"tem Ca",it!!1 Faeilitie:; Plall, iHcluding ",ropo,;ed de\elopmeRt ~;ehedule Hnd
""peeted eosts are "ho\\ n in Table 2 3 an~ aaorted llemill as ameHdlflellts to the Capital Facilities Element of
the CP.
Table 2 3
Irendale & Pert Ha~leel< DC." Sewer System
Si" Year Capital f'aeilities Plan (29052010)
Pllase I (Uaaleek Core ana Riled)' Drh'e)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-18
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Treatment Plant Cenatruetion
$1,192,988
General FAnd
Leans!Gnmta!Geneml Fund
Leans!Grants!General F'lIld
LoanslGffJnts!General
Fund/User Fees
LeaRG!GraRts-'General 2008 291 g
Fund!''': ser Fees
COIweyanee ConstruetioH
+et&l $S,325,012
SOHfce: Jefforson CO",",l)'; eo,'\ General Sewer Plaa, Ma)' 2001
Potable Water-Public Utility District #1 of Jefferson County (PUD)
The Ironda!e & Port Hadlock (UGA) water system serves the entire UGA and is part of a network of
interconnected public water supply systems that serve the Quimper Peninsula operated by the PUD. The UGA
system currently has 1,850 connections and projects a total of 3,171 connections by 2025. The water system
was purchased by the PUD from the City of Port Townsend in 2002. The system contains two major wells: the
Sparling Well and the Kivley Well. The Sparling well and treatment plant currently serve as the primary water
supply source for the UGA, the Sparling well was originally drilled to augment the surface water supply to the
Irondale and Port Hadlock area from the City of Port Townsend water supply line. The Kivley well was
brought on line in 1972 to provide an additional supply.
The UGA water system has a single pressure zone. A one million gallon reinforced concrete reservoir and a
two million gallon steel reservoir are co-located on Somerville Road.
The system has five wells. There are two Sparling wells that are currently the primary source of water for the
UGA. The PUD is in the process of increasing the treatment capacity of these wells to process 1500 gpm. The
maximum flow rate allowed under the current water right for the Sparling wells is 2,250 gpm. Three wells are
located at the Kivley well site. The instantaneous water right for the Kiv!ey wells is 200 gpm. The PUD has
requested a new water right that would increase the Kivley well capacity to a minimum of 400 gpm.
Additionally, the PUD will be increasing the treatment capacity of the Sparling well by a planned 500 gpm by
2006.
The existing water supply source meets the current demands on the UGA water system, however the wells need
to be brought up to their full water right. PUD studies indicate that if the state DOH water system design
standard of 466 gpdlERU is used, the UGA water system may only have enough water until the year 2015. The
PUD indicates, however, that based on an average daily demand of 350 gpdlERU (actual PUD consumption
records), the PUD water system supply has adequate water rights sources for the 20 year planning period. The
PUD water system plans indicate that a water conservation plan, lower actual UGA water usage (based on local
consumption records) and planned system improvements will result in enough water supply to meet the 20 year
planning horizon. However, in the best interest of a regional approach to water resource management, the PUD
is also in discussion with the City of Port Townsend about purchasing and treating additional wholesale water
for the PUD water system. This may provide for a more equitable and better long-term solution to meeting
projected demands on the resource.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-19
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Three improvement projects are identified in the PUD's preliminary draft Capital Facilities Plan for the UGA
Water System based upon anticipated future demand as follows:
. Sparlin!! Well Improvements. In order to provide the water requirements for the next 20 years the PUD
is increasing the treatment capacity of the Sparling well by 500 gpm. Estimated Cost: $350,000.
Funding Sources: System Development Charges. Estimated Implementation Date: 2004-2005.
. New Well. The PUD will be drilling a new production well to maximize its existing water rights, to
meet potential future demands, expand system flexibility, and emergency response capacity. Estimated
Cost: $375,000. Funding Sources: System Development Charges. Estimated Implementation Date:
2005-2015.
. Surface Water Sources. The PUD is working with the City of Port Townsend to increase the amount of
wholesale water purchased by the PUD from the City as alternative to pursuing additional groundwater
rights.
The current PUD # I Quimper Water System Plan which, in part, serves the IrondalelPort Hadlock Urban
Growth Area is hereby incorporated by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent changes to water
system plans shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and be approved through legislative action of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process, outlined in 18.45 JCC, prior to incorporation.
Stormwater Management
The UGA Stonnwater Management Plan is a planning document that provides guidance to minimize adverse
effects of stonnwater runoff on ground and surface water, including aquatic resources and habitats, water
quantity. It identifies water quality and quantity problems associated with stonnwater runoff that may
adversely affect the environment and community and provides recommendations for improvements and
programs including a cost analysis and an implementation schedule. The primary goal of the UGA Stonnwater
Management Plan is to preserve and protect water quality and the hydraulic regime within the UGA drainage
basins and the receiving waters of Chima cum Creek and Port Townsend Bay.
The Plan identifies specific structural and non-structural solutions to conveyance and water quality problems
within the UGA. Structural solutions include constructing detention and infiltration ponds, pipes, and treatment
facilities. Non-structural solutions include stonnwater management facility inspection and maintenance, public
education and outreach, water quality monitoring, and encouraging low impact development.
The Plan was developed in confonnance with Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Rural
Element: Drainage, Flooding, Stonnwater Management Issues and Polluted Discharges. It meets the stonnwater
management recommendations of the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Plan and the technical standards of the
2001 Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Managemenl Manual for Western Washington (DOE
Manual).
UGA designation will require the provision of drainage and stonnwater management facilities at an urban level
of service standard in order to avoid significant stonnwater run-off and water quality impacts to Port Townsend
Bay and Chimacum Creek and to ensure that stonnwater run-off does not contaminate groundwater resources.
The majority of the UGA does not have conveyance systems and will infiltrate stonnwater runoff on-site or
within the sub-basin. Infiltration in the area is typically good, but varies due to the groundwater table and soils.
Most of the stonnwater runoff in the UGA infiltrates before reaching a conveyance system. There is a limited
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-20
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
existing storm drainage collection and conveyance system that consists of typical components such as catch
basins, pipes, open ditches, and, in the Port Hadlock Core, concrete curbs and gutters. There are two outfalls to
Port Townsend Bay in the UGA. They convey runoff collected by the Port Hadlock Core storm sewer system
and road drainage from Moore Street in Irondale.
Due to the relatively low level of development in the UGA, there is not a high volume of stormwater currently
being discharged into Port Townsend Bay. Thus, the overall impact on water quality in the Bay associated with
storm sewer outfalls appears to be limited. High fecal coliform counts have been reported in Port Townsend
Bay during the summer. However, the UGA Stormwater Management Plan indicates that based on the levels,
timing, and location, they do not appear to be associated with runoff from the Port Hadlock storm sewer system
or Moore Street.
Nonetheless, the pollutant concentrations are sufficiently high that runoff treatment should be provided,
according to the recommendations made in the UGA Stormwater Management Plan. In order to accomplish this
goal, the County should coordinate with the Washington Departments of Transportation and Fish and Wildlife
and with private landowners to plan, design, fund, and construct treatment facilities at both locations.
Hydrologic modeling was used in the UGA Stormwater Management Plan to develop planning level cost
estimates for replacing the outfalls and adding a treatment swale for both the Port Hadlock Core storm sewer
system and the Moore Street drainage system.
Future development within the UGA will be required to provide flow control (detention and infiltration) and
treatment per the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Technical Manual standards and to
help pay their fair share for those portions ofthe storm drainage system fronting their property. As additional
development occurs within the UGA limits, the amount of impervious surfaces will increase which will
ultimately increase peak surface-water runoff rates. To this end, the County intends to manage stormwater to
minimize contact with contaminants, mitigate the impacts of increased runoff due to development within the
UGA's drainage areas, provide management of runoff from large and small construction sites, and to preserve
fish and wildlife habitat.
The analysis conducted for the UGA Stormwater Management Plan demonstrates that urban development can
occur without significant impacts from stormwater runoff provided that there are adequate stormwater
management facilities and a UGA Stormwater Management Program.
The UGA Slormwater Management Plan includes policies intended to ensure that development of the UGA
does not cause significant adverse impacts related to stormwater runoff. These policies include SWM Policy 1.7
Develop stable and equitable revenue sources to fund a UGA Stormwater Management Program.
The UGA Slormwaler Management Plan discusses alternative methods for funding capital improvements and
Storm water Management Program activities. These alternatives include grants and loans, developer fees, local
improvement districts, and stormwater management fees.
The UGA Stormwater Management Plan proposes two capital projects: a stormwater treatment facility
and replacement of an existing outfall. The treatment facility will cost approximately $10,000; the cost
to replace the outfall would be approximately $144,000. (2004 Year Dollars)
The UGA Slormwaler Management Plan proposes that parcels in the UGA Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-
Family Residential designations would pay a stormwater management fee to fund inspection of stormwater
management facilities in those areas. The inspection program would cost approximately $10,000 per year.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-21
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
The UGA Stormwater Management Plan proposes a UGA Stormwater Management Program that would
conduct public education, water quality monitoring, and stream gauging, The annual SWM Program cost would
be approximately $15,000.
Table 2-4 summarizes the projected UGA Stormwater Management Plan Capital Improvements and Program
Plan Expenditures and Funding.
Table 2-4
UGA Storm water Management Plan
Canital Imnrovements and Fundinl!: 2005 - 2024
Year
Capital Improvement Projects 2004 Cost Planned Fundinl! Source / Notes
Port Hadlock Core Water Quality Treatment Facility $ 10,00( 2005 SWM Fee Port Hadlock Core
Dort Hadlock Core Conveyance Replacement $I44,00r 2011 SWM Fee Port Hadlock Core
Source: UGA Stonnwater Management Plan May 2004
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-22
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Transportation
The most heavily traveled roadways within the UGA include SRI9, SRI16 and lrondale Road with existing
traffic volumes peaking on SRI9 at about 14,000 vehicles per day (vpd). SRI9 is the heaviest traveled road in
the UGA and currently operates at LOS D, an acceptable level of service for the Urban Growth Area.
Creation of the lrondale-Port Hadlock UGA changes the land use designation from rural to urban. One of the
impacts of this change is a concurrent change in the level of service standard for roadways in the urban growth
area. The level of service standard in Jefferson County for rural roadways is LOS C. The established level of
service standard for Jefferson County roadways in an urban area is LOS D or better. This difference reflects the
understanding that higher volumes of traffic are expected in urban areas because of a concentration of economic
activities. These higher levels of congestion are considered acceptable during peak hours.
Under existing conditions and urban standards, there are no current deficiencies in the UGA road system.
However, Jefferson County's current adopted Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for 2004 to
2009 plans non-capacity related UGA improvements (channelization and pedestrian facilities) to the portion of
Chimacum Road from M.P. 0.41 to 0.98 (vicinity of the Jefferson County shop southerly to the East Fork
Chimacum Creek crossing). At this time, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has
proposed only one signalization project for the State-owned facilities ofSRI9 and SRI16 (Ness's Corner) from
2004 to 2009.
Jefferson County has worked to provide a network of non-motorized transportation facilities to enhance
alternative modes to travel by automobile and for recreational purposes. On-road bicycle routes and lanes, wide
shoulders, sidewalks and multipurpose trails that link destinations are common examples. The Jefferson County
Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan contains a full and detailed list of County owned
iacilities in the UGA. Additionally, the Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan found no
capacity related deficiencies for the planning period based on the current level of service (LOS) standards
adopted in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA is served by the Jefferson Transit Authority that provides regular scheduled
service to the UGA as well as Port Townsend, Port Ludlow and Poulsbo. Weekday service operates from 6:45
AM to 7: I 0 PM with Dial-a-Ride available for qualified individuals. Transportation Policy TRP 2.3 in the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan establishes a minimum level of service based on Annual Transit
Revenue Service Hours (A TRSH). The level of service standard of 8400 A TRSH as established countywide by
the County's Comprehensive Plan will continue to be met for the planning period as Jefferson Transit continues
to revise its service based on demand as appropriate. Additionally, Jefferson Transit has increased regularly
scheduled service to the UGA within the last two years, and will continue to revise service to the UGA as
appropriate. Jefferson Transit also provides regular updates to its Operating and Capital improvement Plan.
The concurrency requirement in the Growth Management Act (GMA) states that "... public facilities and
services ... shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy
and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." [GMA,
Section 2, Planning Goals (12)] This means that public facilities and services must be in place to serve the
proposed use at the level of service (LOS) set by the community. Some improvements may be completed in
whole or in part, by new development within the UGA.
Under current State law and Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policies, highways owned by the State
(State Routes) are not bound by the constraints of concurrency requirements. In these instances, the timing and
prioritization of improvements is ultimately that of the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Typically, WSDOT coordinates with the local jurisdiction and regional transportation planning organization to
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-23
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
maintain a balance between the free-flow movement of people and goods, and the needs of the local
community.
Total transportation facility improvements for the complete 20-year planning period (2005-2024) are
summarized in Table 2-5. These improvements are to some extent associated with development and growth in
the lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA. Jefferson County and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning
Organization are currently applying to WSDOT to classifY SRl9 as a principal arterial to qualifY the Highway
of Statewide Significance (HSS) for more state and federal funding. Transportation facility improvements for
the six-year planning period, 2005-20 I 0, are included in Table 2-5. This estimate includes the Chimacum Rd
improvements proposed in the Jefferson County Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Proposed improvements to this roadway include:
. Iritersection realignments and improvements
. 0.57 miles of reconstruction
Proposed funding sources for this project include $500,000 in Rural Arterial Program (RAP) funds and
$217,000 in local funding.
The SRI9/SRI16 intersection (Ness's Comer) is a state owned facility which will likely be funded by a
combination of State and local money. This intersection currently satisfies State warrants for signalization but is
well down on the priority list of proposed projects to receive funding. Project funding options, including the
application of local funding to this project, should be considered to insure this project is completed at an
appropriate time. Proposed improvements include reconstruction and signalization of this intersection to urban
standards.
Table 2-5 also shows transportation facility improvements associated with new development that should require
completion or participation by adjacent property owners through private road construction or by reconstructing
public roadways through the Road Improvement District Program (RID). Required improvements to
transportation facilities should be specified as planning policies and development standards to assure
completion.
A more through analysis ofUGA transportation issues, LOS impacts, planned road improvements and the
capital facilities plan is contained in the UGA Transportation Plan adopted by reference as a component of this
element and the Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-24
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Table 2-5
UGA Transportation Improvements (2005 - 2024)
(Costs estimated for 2004, and adiusted annually at 2.2% inflation)
Non-Canaciht Proiects 2005 2010
Route Route Description From To 2005-2010 Funding Funding
J.D. Name M.P. M,P. Cost Source(~) Status
Inside UGA
932507 IChimacumRd. I CountV Shop to W. F. Olirnacum Cd<. 0.41 0.98-1 $ 720,000 I RAP I Local I
SRI9/1l6 I SRI9ial SRIl6 I SignaJjzation - Reconstruct to Utban Stds. 10.71 10.711 $ 334,484 I WSDOTILocal I Pronos<d
Total Non-Canacitv Proiects 200S 2010 1 $ 1,1)54,484 I
Non-Canacitv Proiects 2011 2024
Runte Ruute Description From To 2011-2024 Funding Funding
J.D, Name MP. MP. Cost Soureel~) Status
Inside UGA
SRIl6 Port Hadlock Intersection SignaJjzation (2017-18) $ 434,297 WSDOTILocal Unfunded
SRI9 SRl9.iallrondale Rd. Si (2018-19) $ 346,500 WSDOTILocal Unfimdcd
SRIl6 SRI 16.ial. Cedar Ave. SignaJjzation 12018-19) $ 346,500 WSOOTILocal Unfunded
Outside UGA
SRI9 SRI9. Ave. Intersection lmorovements 12011-\3) $ 243,270 WSDOTILocal Unfunded
SR19 SR19ialAndcrsonLk Rd. Intersection lmorovements 12014-15) $ 254,091 WSOOTILocal Unfunded
SRI9 SRI 9ial Woodland Dr. Intersection Imorovements 12014- I 5) $ 254,091 WSDOTILocal Unfunded
SRI9 SRI9ialWestVallevRd SignaJjzation (2020-21) $ 361,914 WSDOTILocal Unfunded
SRI9 Chimacmn Intersection SignaJjzation (2020-21) $ 445,160 WSDOTILocal Unfunded
Total Non-Cauacitv Proiects 2011 2024 I $ 2,685,823 I
CanaMtv Pro'ects 2005 - 2024
Runte Runte Description From To 2005-2024 Funding Funding
J.D. Name M.P. MP, Cost Soureel;) Status
Inside UGA
SR19 SRI9 I Widen to Four Lanes (202()'22) I 10.50 I I 1.75 $ 5,978,800 I WSDOT I Unfunded
SRIl6 I SRIl6 I Widen to Three Lanes (lWLlL) 1202()'22) I 0.0 I 1.11 I $ 2,408,700 I WSOOT I Unfunded
Outside UGA
SRI9 I SRI9 I Widen to Four Lanes (202()'22) I 9.00 I 10.50 I $ 7,174,600 I WSDOT I Unfunded
SRI9 I SRI9 I Widen to Four Lanes (2020-22) I 11.75 I 14.16 I $ 11.527,100 I WSDOT I Unfimded
Total Canacitv Proiects 2005 - 2024 I $ 27 ""9.200 I
Private Develoner Proiects 2005 2024
Route Route Description From To 2005-2024 Funding Funding
J.D, Name MP, MP, Cost Soureel;) Status
Inside UGA
932507 Chimacum Rd Reconstruction to Utban Stds. 0.41 0.64 $ 138,600 Develoocr Unfunded
SRII6 SRI16 ReconstnIction to Utban Stds. 0.12 0.47 $ 210,000 Develooer Unfunded
SRII6 SRII6 ReconstnIction to Uman Stds. .47 1.11 $ 164,000 Develooer Unfimded
658909 D Street Reconstruction to Uman Stds. 0.00 0.10 $ 72,722 Develooer Unfunded
634509 Hunt Rd Reconstruction to Uman Srds 0.00 0.20 $ 115,000 Devel""'" Unfunded
933507 lrondaIe Rd Reconstruction to Utban Stds. 1.56 1.79 $ 284,545 Develooer Unfunded
Total Private Develooer Proiects 2005 - 2024 1$ 984,867
Total All Proiects 2005 - 2024 $ 31,814,374
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-25
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
GOALS AND POLICIES
As in all elements of this Plan, the goals are general statements while policies are more specific. Goals state the
general growth management intentions of the County while the policies are the specific guidelines. Strategies
address implementation of goals and policies through specific projects and programs.
The goals and policies of the Urban Growth Area element provide direction for the development of Jefferson
County's Irondale & Port Hadlock Unincorporated UGA. They outline specific criteria for urban development,
incorporating issues and opportunities identified by County residents in the public UGA planning process.
Urban Growth Area policies provide the basis for subsequent land use and capital facility planning and
implementation in the UGA. This section also provides guidance for the UGA-specific development regulations
contained in Appendix D of the Unified Development Code (Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Implementing
Regulations)~now codified in CI!!!Qt~r.lJUJU.c:.C
URBAN GROWTH AREA
GOAL:
UGA-G 1.0
UGA-G 1.1
POLICIES:
UGA-P 1.1
UGA-P 1.2
UGA-P 1.3
UGA-P 1.4
Encourage a balance of commercial and industrial uses for urban-scale and regional-scale
economic activities within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs).
Provide for the orderly development of urban land uses in urban growth areas consistent
with the provision of adequate and feasible urban levels of public facilities and services
Encourage and facilitate urban regional-scale economic activities in unincorporated UGAs
which provide for countywide goods, services, and employment opportunities.
New urban growth should be channeled into areas that are already characterized by existing
urban growth or adjacent to areas characterized by urban growth. Within the confines of the
GMA, urban levels of services for capital facilities should be scaled to the needs of urban
growth areas and the ability of businesses, homeowners, workers and the public to finance
them.
Future infrastructure improvements must be appropriate for the planned development densities
in the County. UGAs will be implemented where urban public facilities and services are
necessary to support higher density residential and/or commercial growth. The level of urban
infrastructure must serve the needs of the public, protect the environment and be affordable.
Encourage growth in the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA commensurate with the appropriate level
of urban public facility and service capacities consistent with adopted plans and interlocal
agreements.
(a) Manage development and redevelopment through revisions to the Unified Development
Code (UDC) and the application of UGA land use designations and zoning classifications
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-26
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
UGA-P 1.5
UGA-P 1.6
UGA-P 1.7
UGA-P 1.8
Exhibit A
that can be implemented consistent with the adopted levels of service for urban public
facilities and services.
(b) Provide urban governmental services at urban levels of services (see Capital Facilities
Element, Policy CFP 1.1, and UGA Element, Policy UGA-P 2.8, for list of urban public
facilities and their adopted levels of service) prior to or concurrent with development.
( c) The County shall coordinate with the respective purveyor, special district, agency or other
entities delivering, or who are anticipated to deliver, urban public facilities and services to
ensure that growth and development are timed, phased, and consistent with the provision of
adequate urban level facilities and services.
(d) Where the County is not the urban public facility or service provider for the unincorporated
UGA, the County may adopt an Interlocal Agreement with the appropriate service provider,
where necesswy, to ensure the provision of adequate levels of service for urban public
facilities and services. Such agreements, when utilized, shall include the level of urban public
facilities and services.
Encourage growth in UGAs that will be served by a combination of both existing urban public
facilities and services and any additional needed urban public facilities and services that are
provided by either public or private sources. Development within the unincorporated UGA shall be
consistent with the densities and intensities of use, bulk and dimension, and other development
standards found within this element and the adopted urban public facilities levels of service.
The Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA has a limited amount of undeveloped commercial parcels
suitable for attracting and accommodating regional commercial development. To enhance the
potential for commercial redevelopment opportunities in the UGA, parcels currently utilized for
and designated as Urban Residential on the UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-1) may be designated
Urban Commercial, provided that those parcels meet all of the following criteria:
I) The parcel rezone request is presented and approved through the annual comprehensive plan
amendment process specified in 18.45, JCC.
2) The parcel rezone request is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and
future needs, documented through a commercial land needs analysis.
Any change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial shall be reflected on both the
Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map and the Jefferson County Code Zoning Map, as they are the
same.
Amendments to the UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-1) and implementing UGA regulations in
Appendix D of the UGA shall be subject to the amendment requirements of Section 18.45, Jce.
The County should provide for on-going review and evaluation of the lrondale & Port Hadlock
Unincorporated UGA to monitor the rate of development, land supply and availability, market
conditions, infrastructure implementation and costs in order to identifY constraints to growth in the
UGA and recommend corrective actions, where appropriate.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-27
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
URBAN LEVEL CAPITAL FACILITIES
GOAL:
UGA-G 2.0
POLICIES:
UGA-P 2.1
UGA-P 2.2
UGA-P 2.3
UGA-P 2.4
UGA-P 2.5
UGA-P 2.6
Limit tbe establisbment or expansion of nrban-level development and infrastructure to
Urban Growtb Areas and Master Planned Resorts.
Ensure that expansion of urban infrastructure occurs in coordination with designated land uses
based on projected growth or land supply needs and will be concurrent with amendments to the
comprehensive plan.
Ensure that where the County assumes maintenance responsibilities for infrastructure, the
infrastructure is adequately designed to meet the area growth needs and to fulfill the functions
the infrastructure is intended to perform.
Development shall provide, plan or mitigate for, an appropriate level of service for capital
facilities including, but not limited to, potable water supply, fire flow, adequate sanitary
sewerage treatment and disposal, stormwater management, and roads, including sidewalks
where required by adopted urban road standards.
The planning and implementation of transportation and storm water management facilities in the
unincorporated UGA shall reflect consistency with the goals and policies in the UGA
Storm water Management Plan and the UGA Transportation Plan adopted as components of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Maintain consistency with the Capital Facilities Element, Policy CFP 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, as
amended. All adopted Level of Service Standards for Category A, Band C Public Facilities
identified in CFP Policy 1.1 shall apply to the !rondale & Port Hadlock UGA, except as may be
modified by or provided for separately in Policy UGA-P2.8 of the Urban Growth Area Element
or an adopted UGA-specific Capital Facility Plan, including the Pori Hadlock UGA Sewer
f,"'adlities Plan !ra:nh:!-(' & Par: Ifcd/;gJ[ C'C.l C~"lcJ'al &.:"~~::' .Pki:.n, Transportation Plan and
Slormwaler Managemenl Plan.
In addition to the LOS adopted for public facilities in UGA-P 2.7 and CFP 1.1 of this
Comprehensive Plan, above, adopt Urban LOS standards for the following capital facilities and
public services in the lrondale & Port Hadlock Unincorporated UGA:
(a) On-Site Septic Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Per Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.15 (On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems)
(b) Sanitary Sewer
2-28
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit A
Per the adopted Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA General Sewer Plan
(minimum 150 gallons per daylERU)
(c) Storrnwater Management
Per the 2001 Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manualfor
Western Washington (DOE Manual), as amended.
(d) Transportation
Maintain Level of Service standard "D" or better on all road facilities within Urban
Areas (UGAs) and Designated Tourist Corridors as established by the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), based upon Average Annual
Daily Trips.
(e) PUD UGA Public Water System Design Criteria
Demand
Average Daily Demand
Maximum Daily Demand
(466 GPDIERU)
(933 GPDIERU)
Fire Flow
The adopted Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) for Jefferson County establishes
the Fire Flow level of service requirements for the UGA Water System. The
requirements are identified in Table 4- I of the CWSP, as may be amended.
GOAL:
Stormwater Management
UGA-G 3.0
POLICIES:
UGA-P 3.1
UGA-P 3.2
UGA-P 3.3
UGA-P 3.4
Minimize the adverse effects on ground and surface water quality and quantity and protect
aquatic resources and habitats from stonnwater runoff generated within the Irondale and Port
Hadlock UGA.
Manage stonnwater runoff in the UGA in compliance with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code and consistent with the guidance of the
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
Use the technical standards from the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington to manage stonnwater within the lrondale and
Port Hadlock UGA.
Develop and implement an Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA Stonnwater Management Program.
Increase the public's knowledge ofstonnwater runoff issues and support public
involvement in stonnwater management by developing and implementing a Stonnwater
Management Public Education component of the Irondale and Port Hadlock Stonnwater
Management Program.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-29
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
UGA-P 3.5 Ensure the continued operation of stormwater management facilities by developing and
implementing a Stormwater Management Facility Operation and Maintenance component of
the lrondale and Port Hadlock Stormwater Management Program.
UGA-P 3.6 Ensure that stormwater management activities are effective by developing and
implementing a Water Quality Monitoring and Stream Gauging component of the Irondale and
Port Hadlock Storm water Management Program.
UGA-P 3.7 Develop a stable and equitable revenue source to fund an Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA
Stormwater Management Program.
UGA-P 3.8 Maintain an inventory of public and private stormwater management facilities within the UGA.
UGA-P 3.9 Join with State and local agencies and private landowners to plan, finance, and
construct regional stormwater management facilities and to remediate existing stormwater
management deficiencies.
UGA-P 3.10 Minimize adverse stormwater impacts and preserve aquifer recharge by encouraging Low
Impact Development design strategies.
TRANSPORTATION
GOAL:
UGA-G 4.0
Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional
priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans
POLICIES:
UGA-P 4.1
Encourage the use of roadway features that enhance urban qualities by applying urban
standards as deemed appropriate in the Urban Growth Area.
UGA-P 4,2
Require that subdivision and commercial project designs address the following issues:
a. Cost effective transit and delivery of emergency services;
b. Provisions for all transportation modes;
c. Dedication of rights of way for existing and future transportation needs;
d. Motorized and non motorized access;
e. Sidewalks and bicycle pathways;
f. Compatibility between motorized vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit users
g. Inclusion of transit friendly design elements
h. Adequate parking for non-peak period; and
i. Frontage improvements and roadway features to meet urban design
standards within the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-30
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
STRATEGIES
UGA LAND USE AND REGULATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for UGA land use regulation will be implemented through amendment of
the Unified Development Code, development regulations, and permitting ordinances and procedures in
public processes to achieve compliance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Action Items
1. Land use and development regulations which implement UGA goals and policies ofthis plan shall be
prepared, publicly reviewed, and implemented. Existing development regulations shall be reviewed for
applicability and revised where appropriate.
2. A set of zoning designations which provides a range of urban development densities, and identifies
allowed uses for each zone shall be established to reflect the Comprehensive Plan Iron dale & Port
Hadlock UGA PlItHre ZoningLaR8 Use Map (Figure 2-1 ).
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-31
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
IRONDALE & PORT HADLOCK
URBAN GROWTH AREA
MAP FOLIO
Figure 2-1: UGA Zoning Map
Figure 2-2: UGA Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Map
l'ig<tre.-:!- },--cJBASeweFSen i eo .'. rea-Map
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-32
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Line-inlLine-out, Pages 11-8 & 11-27, Chapter I J
UTILITIES
The existing South Bay Service Area includes the original plats of South Bay 1 through 3, plus Ludlow
Point tracts, Inner Harbor Bay View Village, and other approved development sites. Ludlow Point tracts
are at the northern end of South Bay Lane. Sanitary sewer service was provided to these lots as part of
the Inner Harbor project approved by DOE on September 6,1989.
Pnblic Utility District (PUD) No.1 Service Area: Presently, sanitary sewer service within the PUD's
service areas is provided via septic systems. Most of the septic systems throughout the eastern County
area are constructed by developers to support new development. Table II-IA identifies the septic systems
owned and managed by PUD No. I as of 1998:
Table 11-IA
Current P.U.D. No.1 Septic Systems
Septic System
Location
Current
Connections
Maximum
Connections
Levine Drainfield
Discovery Ridge
Ocean Grove
Schoenfeld Phase I
Gardiner
Quimper Peninsula
Quimper Peninsula
Coyle Peninsula
3
5
5
3
8
40
49
12
Table 11-18
Future Septic Systems
Septic System Location Current Maximum
Connections Connections
Discovery Yacht and Discovery Bay 0 53
Racquet Club
Old Alcohol Plant Port Hadlock 0 0
Schoenfeld Phase II Coyle Peninsula 0 12
Wally Pederson's Trail's N/A 0 12
End
Suquamish View N/A N/A N/A
Steve Wakefield N/A N/A N/A
Tri-Area Service Area: Existing Tri-Area residential and non-residential areas utilize septic systems for
sanitary waste and effluent control. The Tri-Area was established as an Urban Growth Area in 2002, and
a Sanitary Sewer system is cun'ently being planned. The service area will llrimarily serve include the
eommereial, ind>lstrial, ana multi famil) uses in the IroRaale/Haaloek afoaentire UGA planning area as
depicted in the UGA Zoning Map, Figure 2- L Chapter 2, Urban Growth Area Element and also depicted
in the Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan, September 2008, Appendix I.
Solid Waste Management: Introduction
In the State of Washington, local governments have lead responsibility for solid waste management and
moderate-risk waste management. However, local governments must manage and handle waste
according to State laws, which are comprehensive in scope, and include specific mandates for solid waste
management, handling, and disposal systems. Local governments do not manage hazardous wastes, but
are required to adopt a local hazardous waste plan for moderate-risk waste (household hazardous waste).
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-8
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Line-inILine-out, Pages 11-8 & 11-27, Chapler II
UTILITIES
person, which is the Department of Ecology (DOE) design criteria required for developing sanitary
sewage treatment facilities.
There are approximately 1,446 total sanitary sewer connections anticipated through 2000, which include
845 ERU for Actual 1995 (785 residential + 60 commercial ERU); 80 estimated additions during 1996;
and an additional 521 ERU during the 1997-2002 growth period (growth estimated at 80 residential per
year plus 47,500 sq. fi of commercial @ 200 GPD/I,OOO sq. fi).
The total average daily gallons per day (GPD) wastewater treatment requirement resulting from growth
demands (ERU) though 2002 will be 0.34 million gallons per day (MGD) at the current and
recommended LOS of 230 gallons per day/ERU.
The wastewater treatment plant (WTP) will be upgraded to treat 0.64 million gallons per day (MGD)
maximum monthly average flow (with the addition of the third aeration basin). This capacity upgrade is
anticipated to accommodate the projected 1997-2002 growth in ERU.
The capacity of the WTP, by conditions of various penn its, cannot be expanded beyond the maximum-
monthly-average flow capacity of 0.64 million gallons per day (MGD). Therefore, the WTP capacity
controls the number of sewered residential and commercial ERU in the Port Ludlow community.
Public Utility District (PUD) No.1 Service Area: The systems are being constructed to a specific,
limited size, and will not be increased beyond the original design capacity.
Tri ;'.Felllrondale and Port Hadlock Service Area: At the present time, septic systems provide the
only mechanism for wastewater disposal and treatment.
This element is paR af the 29()2 .'.mendmeflts te the 1998 Camprehenshe Plan. One P"fJlose ef the
/\mendment is te address the addition of the Tri .'.rea as a UreaR Grl'm~h .'.rea (L'G.',). The additiefl ef a
UG/\ 'Nas aontemplated in the 1998 Plan fallawing eempletian ef a "Speeial Study." This Speeial St"dy
was initiated in 1998 Imt nat eampleted "ntil2()()1. As part of the process, capital needs were addressed
and the impacts fully explored in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS 1999). The
IrondalelHadlock UGA external boundary was established in 2002. Development Regulations, internal
zoning, Capital Facilities Plan, and a General Sewer Plan were created in 2004 for the UGA. Because
earlier efforts at sewer facilities planning did not sewer the entire UGA within the 20-year planning
horizon, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board found the UGA non-compliant
with the Growth Management Act.
New planning reflected in the Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan of September 2008 demonstrates capital
facilities planing that can provide sewer to the entire UGA in the planning period from 2004-2024.
The current and recommended LOS for wastewater treatment and transmission is 230 gallons per
day/ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit @ 2.3 persons per household). This is based on 100 GPD per
person, which is the Department of Ecology (DOE) design criteria required for developing sanitary
sewage treatment facilities.
When Tri .',reathe Port Hadlock Wastewater Svstem sewage o)'stems are ~developed they-itwill need to
meet this LOS. Far the p"fJlases afthis Plan ,'\mendment, it is impertant ta "nderstand that na inereases
in densit)' will Be allawed dHTing the remainder af the initial plan d"ratian ("ntil 2993), and that the
creatian afthe lJG.'. will reEJuire "tility plaRning ta Be undertaken te meet the needs fBr the f"t"re.
Solid Waste: Future Capacity Needs and Requirements:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
! 1-27
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Line-in/Line-out, Pages 12-5, 12-8, 12-47 Chapter 12
CAP[TAL FACILITIES
Population Growth Assumptious
This Capital Facilities Element is based on the following population data:
Table 12-2
Population Growth Assumptions
Year Countywide
2005 28,308
2006 28,815
2007 29,327
2008 29,844
2009 30,366
2010 30,892
Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Cost Projections: 2005-2010
The 2005-20 I 0 capital improvements cost projections are summarized on Table 12-3.
Table 12-3
Connty-Owned/Operated Public Facilities Capital Cost Summary
This Table Includes Both Capacity And Non-capacity Projects
Type of Public Facility 2005-2010 Cost
(in 2004 Dollars)
Animal Shelter $30,000
Community Centers $90,000
County Corrections Inmate Facilities $105,000
County Sheriff Facilities $30,000
County Justice Facilities $30,000
County General Administrative Facilities $275,500
County Maintenance Shoo Facilities $525,000
Parks and Recreation Facilities $1,118,000
Solid Waste Facilities $1,489,000
Stonnwater Management $10,000
Flood Control Facilities $0
Transportation $8,273,000
Sewer System Facilities' SEE UPDATED APPENDIX I *$300,000
Water System Facilities $0
TOTAL REQUIRED $12,275,500
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 5
UPDATED BY ORD[NANCE #17-[213-04
Exhibit A
Line-in/Line-out, Pages 12-5, 12-8, 12-47 Chapter 12
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Level Of Service (LOS) Impacts
The 2005-2010 Capital Facilities Six-Year Plan (CFP) enables Jefferson County to accommodate 9.1%
population growth based on a projected 20 I 0 population of 30,892 people. Modifications to Level of
Service (LOS) standards for County-owned or managed facilities follow:
Table 12-6
Level Of Service (LOS) Standard: Status Quo
LOS Unit
Acres/l ,000 0 ulation
Acres/l ,000 0 ulation
Acres/l ,000 0 ulation
Miles/l ,000 0 ulation
Acres/l,OOO 0 ulation
Level A, B, C, D, E, F
Prior Standard
11.5
0.51
0.14
0.52
1.30
Rural: Level C
Urban: Level D
Master Plan Resort
(MPR): Level D
Table 12-7
Level Of Service (LOS) Standard: Increased
Facility LOS Unit Prior Standard ProDosed Standard
Solid Waste, All Waste Lbs./Person/Dav 3.99 Lbs. 5.00 Lbs.
Solid Waste, Recvcle Recvcle Rate 14% 16%
Solid Waste, Garbage Lbs./Person/Day 2.83 Lbs. 4.20 Lbs.
Solid Waste, Recycle Lbs./PersonlDav 0.56 Lbs. 0.80 Lbs.
Table 12-7 Addendum
Updated in the 2002 Amendment to this Element
Facility LOS Unit 1998 LOS Standard CFP LOS Standard
,":,Sewage Treatment Gallons/ERU/day 230 Gallons {}
*133Gallons/ERU/da
v
Stonnwater Management N/A N/A Stonnwater
Management Manual
for Western W A or
WSDOT Highway
Runoff Manual
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 8
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit A
Line-inlLine-out, Pages 12-5, 12-8, 12-47 Chapter 12
CAPITAL FACILITIES
SEW AGE COLLECTION I TREATMENT
Current Facilities: The County currently does not own or operate sewage collection or treatment
facilities. As a result of the recent addition of Irondale and Port Hadlock as a UGA, facility planning
will be undertaken to determine the specific capacity needs, potential ownership and operations
scenarios, and funding requirements. The current planning docwnent. Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility
-Plan. dated September 2008, has been accepted by the State Department of Health and State Department
of Ecology as an engineering plan-level document. Appendix I.
Level of Service (LOS): The proposed Level of Service (LOS) will fle!-be determined \Hltil--when a
specific facility type is selected and appropriate studies are conducted to evaluate capacity and usage.
The preferred alternative is a gravity-fed membrane bioreactor with a rapid-rate infiltration basin for
water reuse.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing: Since the type of facility has not yet been determined,
funding plans have not yet been developed.
Planning Levels of Service and Adequate Facilities: In compliance with the GMA and Capital
Facilities Policy 3.2, adequate sewage treatment capacity is proposed within this Capital Facilities
Element. The County is anticipating $300,000 (2004 dollars) in planning sewer facility planning costs to
be incurred by the end of 2005.
See Appendix I for detailed discussion of anticipated cost. funding and financing issues.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 47
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE # 17- 1213-04
Exhibit B
Clean Copy Page 1-11, Chapter I
Ordinance # _ ~~_
INTRODUCTION
The following table offers a guide to the relationship between the County-wide Planning Policy and the
Comprehensive Plan Elements. Compliance with the County-wide Planning Policy has been integral to
the development of individual elements of this Plan. A detailed analysis of relevant CWPPs has been
included for each element in Appendix B.
Table 1-1
Relationship Between County-wide Planning Policies and Plan Elements
COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT
1. Policy to Implement RCW 36.70A.110 Urban Growth Area Element
Urban Growth Areas
2. Contiguous and Orderly Development and Utilities Element
Provision of Urban Services Capital Facilities
Urban Growth Area Element
3. Joint County and UGA representation Land U seIRural Element
Planning within Urban Growth Areas Urban Growth Area Element
4. The Siting of Essential Public Facilities of Essential Public Facilities Element
County or Statewide Significance
5. County-wide Transportation Facilities and Transportation Element
Strategies; Essential Public Facilities Element
6. Affordable Housing Housing Element
7. County-wide Develovment and Emplovment Economic Develonment Element
8. Rural Areas Land UseIRural Element
9. Fiscal Impacts Analysis Capital Facilities Element
Transportation Element
All elements
10. County-wide Planning Policy: Use and Plan Implementation and Monitoring
Amendment
Compliance with the County-wide Planning Policy ensures that Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan
is consistent with the plans of other jurisdictions and service providers within the County, and that future
plans proposed by service providers or jurisdictions will be consistent with the County's Plan.
Public Involvement
Public involvement is the cornerstone of long-range comprehensive planning for any community.
Complying with the requirements of the Growth Management Act in Jefferson County has engaged
community leaders, interested citizens, developers, property rights advocates, environmentalists, and
neighborhoods in a dynamic, active public process.
Public participation has occurred not only through citizen participation in task forces and goals-setting
workshops, but also under the auspices of the Planning Commission. Consistent with the Planning
Enabling Act, the Planning Commission has been actively involved in comprehensive planning in
Jefferson County.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
I-II
Ordinance #XX-0228-05 to correct
Ordinance #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
URBAN GROWTH AREA ELEMENT
Clean Copy Chapter 2
Ordinance #
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Urban Growth Area Element is to identifY specific uses, densities and
development regulations consistent with the UGA-designation requirements ofthe Growth Management Act at
RCW 36.70A.llO.
INTRODUCTION
The Growth Management Act authorizes the designation of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) in RCW 36.70A.Il 0
to include cities and other areas characterized by urban growth or adjacent to such areas. UGAs are intended to
accommodate a projected population growth for the next twenty years. The GMA specifies that future growth
should, first, be located in areas that already have public facilities and service capacity and, second, in areas
where such services, if not already available, are planned for. In Jefferson County, there are two UGAs:
.
City of Port Townsend Municipal UGA; and
lrondale & Port Hadlock Unincorporated UGA.
.
The City of Port Townsend is subject to its own Comprehensive Plan and development regulations affecting
urban growth and the provision of public facilities and services in the City. The Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA
is an unincorporated UGA, located approximately 5 miles south of the City of Port Townsend, adjacent to Port
Townsend Bay. This unincorporated UGA is subject to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) and
implementing regulations.
An urban growth area defines where urban developments will be directed and supported with typical urban
public facilities and services, such as stonn and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, fire and police
protection services, and public transit services. Urban grov.'!h areas enable new development to locate close to
vital capital facilities and urban services or "infill" in existing urbanizing areas. UGAs enable fiscal resources
associated with capital facilities and urban services to be operated more cost-effectively.
The Urban Growth Area is an area where urban public facilities and services are available, or are planned.
Provision of urban public facilities and services may be available through a number of service providers, such as
Jefferson County, Public Utility District # I, or some other entity such as a sewer and water district. Discussion
regarding specific planning for public facilities and services in the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA is contained both
in this chapter as well as other appropriate chapters of the Comprehensive Plan (CP), including the Capital Facilities
Element, as well as supporting appendices of the CP, the rrl Area/Glen Cove Special Study, and the Jefferson
County Pori Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan of September, 2008.
Detailed planning for the designation of an Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA in compliance with the requirements of
the GMA has been on-going since the Jefferson County CP was originally adopted in 1998. Specific policy
language in the CP indicated the joint city/county intent to pursue future UGA planning for the "Tri-Area"
(including Jrondale, Port Hadlock and Chimacum). As part of the on-going joint City/County urban growth area
planning, the Tri-Area Provisional UGA (PUGA) was designated by Jefferson County on October 5, 1999 as an
interim step in the UGA planning process. The PUGA established an interim UGA that included the lrondale
and Port Hadlock communities. In-depth analysis and environmental impact review of the land use, population,
capital facilities and public services, natural systems and critical area constraints, open space, housing and non-
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-1
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
residential land use needs for a Tri-Area UGA are incorporated in the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study
conducted from 1998-2002. The Special Study includes:
. Land Use Inventory Reporl dated January 26, 1999
. Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast dated January 26, 1999
. Draft Supplemenlal Environmental Impact Statement dated June 1999
. Final Supplemenlal Environmental Impact Statement dated Augusl 1999
. Glen Cove/Tri Area Special Study Final Decision Document dated June 1 I, 2001
. Tri-Area UGA Capital Facilities Special Study dated November 2001
. Tri Area & Glen Cove Special Study Implementation Plan dated November 28, 2001
Urban growth areas include those areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public
facilities and service capacities to serve such development or areas for which such facilities are planned.
Designating UGAs recognizes the existing urbanized development pattern in the county. By designating UGAs, the
requirements of both the GMA and County-wide Planning Polices (CWPPs) must be met to ensure that expansion
of urban services is provided to encourage infill where logical and feasible.
Further planning analysis of the size and capacity of the UGA was conducted in the Proposed IrondalelPort
Hadlock UGA: Dwelling Unit & Population Holding Capacity Analysis, Cascadia Community Planning Services,
January 21, 2009.
CWPPs provide a broad framework for UGA planning that were developed in a collaborative process between the
City of Port Townsend and the County. Countywide Planning Policy # 1.3 provides specific guidance on criteria for
the sizing and delineation of UGA boundaries outside of cities:
. Adequate amount of developable land to accommodate forecasted growth for the next twenty
years.
. Sufficient developable land for residential, commercial and industrial uses to sustain a healthy
local and regional economy.
. Sufficient area for the designation of greenbelts and open space corridors.
. Topographical features or environmentally sensitive areas that may form natural boundaries
such as bays, watersheds, rivers, or ridge lines.
. Lands already characterized by urban development that is currently served or are planned to be
served by roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage, schools and other urban services
within the next twenty years; provided that such urban services that are not yet in place are
included in a capital facilities plan.
. The type and degree of existing urban services necessary to support urban development at the
adopted interim level of service.
The County-wide Planning Policies also provide selected guidance for the phasing of urban growth commensurate
with the provision of adequate urban services to UGAs:
. Land use plans, regulations and capital facility plans for each UGA will be designed to
accommodate the projected population. Growth should first be directed into two tiers: Tier 1-
existing commercial centers and urbanized areas where the six (6) year capital facilities plan is
prepared to provide urban infrastructure; Tier 2-areas included within the capital facilities
plan to receive the full range of urban services within twenty (20) years. Infrastructure
improvements necessary to support development in the second tier will be provided by the
developer concurrent with development, or by public entities as a result of implementing all or
a portion of the capital facilities plan. (CWPP 1.5)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-2
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
. Before adopting boundaries of UGAs, interim Level of Service Standards (LOS) for public
services and facilities located inside and outside ofUGAs must be adopted. (CWPP 1.7)
. The full range of governmental urban services at the adopted level of service standards will be
planned for and provided within UGAs, as defined in the capital facilities plan, including
community water, sanitary sewer, piped fire flow, and storm water systems (CWPP 2.1)
. New development will meet the adopted level of service standards for the UGA as a condition
of project approval. Said standards will include interim provisions for those urban facilities
identified in the capital facilities plan but not yet developed. New development will contribute
its proportionate share towards provision of urban facilities identified in the capital facilities
plan. (CWPP 2.3)
. Local public involvement and citizen advice into the formation and development of UGA land
uses and supporting urban public facilities and services are also an important component of
planning and implementation for UGAs. (CWPP 2.2)
IRONDALE & PORT HADLOCK UGA PHASED IMPLEMENTATION
In 2002, lrondale & Port Hadlock lacked the full range of urban services needed for immediate UGA
implementation indicated in CWPP 2.1, above. Therefore, the CP had to plan for the provision of those services
as required by RCW 36.70A.IIO(3). The Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA was implemented in several phases.
The initial phase involved amendments to the Jefferson County CP in 2002 to adopt the final UGA boundary, land
use map and interim levels of service for urban facilities as well as goals and policies guiding the development of
the UGA. This included identification of additional plans and capital facilities (including costs and funding sources)
needed to implement the full range of urban services and facilities within the UGA. The next phase involved
preparation and adoption of UGA development regulations-Appendix D in the Unified Development Code
(UDC), now codified in Chapter 18.18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC}-including new urban land use
districts, permitted use tables, bulk and dimensional requirements and new development standards for the UGA.
This phase also included completion of the capital facility plans needed to implement the full range of urban
services required in CWPP 2.1, including the adoption of urban level of service standards for UGA transportation
improvements, storm water management facilities, and a new sanitary sewer system. These capital facility plans
are adopted herein by reference and are included as appendices to the CPo The UGA functional capital facility plans
adopted herein include:
. Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan, September 2008 (See Appendix)
. !rondale & Port Hadlock UGA Stormwater Management Plan, May, 2004 (See Appendix)
. !rondale & Port Hadlock UGA Transportation Plan, May, 2004 (See Appendix)
Consistent with CWPP 1.5, the adopted lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA General Sewer Plan identifies development
"tiers" within the UGA based on where the six (6) year capital facilities plan is prepared to provide urban sanitary
sewer service in the UGA core, followed by expansion of sewer service availability throughout the UGA in the 20
year planning period.. More complete discussion and analysis of these areas are found in the "Capital Facilities"
section of this element and in the adopted UGA General Sewer Plan.
Public involvement was a key component of all phases of UGA planning. The County appointed a UGA Citizen
Advisory Committee during the initial Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA boundary and land use planning phase in
200 I. The CAC was comprised of local UGA residents and business owners and participated in developing the
initial recommendations for the !rondale & Port Hadlock UGA boundary and land use designations adopted in
2002. A UGA Citizens Task Force was appointed in 2004, again comprised of local business owners and residents,
to help the Planning Commission UGA Subcommittee develop specific implementing regulations and capital
facility development standards for the UGA.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-3
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
URBAN GROWTII AREA DESIGNATION CRITERIA
The GMA specifies certain minimum requirements for UGA fonnation. These include the following provisions of
RCW 36. 70A.II 0:
An urban growth area may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such
territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growlh area
includes a city, or is adjacent 10 territory already characterized by urban groWIh. (RCW
36.70A.llO(l)
The vast majority of the lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA is "already characterized by urban growth" as stated in
CWPP 104. In addition, the boundary for the UGA was delineated based on the criteria in CWPP 1.3 with
guidance from the Tri-Area Community Plan (1995) and public input from local residents, as required by
CWPP 1.3, 1.4 and 2.2. Only limited areas "adjacenllo territory already characlerized by urban growlh" are
included in the UGA to: 1) interconnect areas characterized by existing urban growth; 2) incorporate sufficient
developable land to sustain the urban growth projected to occur during the 20-year planning period; or 3)
provide for a reasonable land market supply factor to discourage adverse land and housing price increases. The
lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA is significantly smaller and more compact than the "Tri-Area UGA" originally
proposed in the Special Study.
Based upon Ihe growth management population projection made for the county by the office of
financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and
densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for
the succeeding twenty-year period. 36. 70A.ll 0(2)
Adequate land area for the expected growth during the planning period has been designated based on both the
projected 20-year residential population growth for Ironda]e & Port Hadlock identified in the CP as well as the need
for commercial/industrial lands identified as a part of the Special Study. The CP population growth projections
indicate a 20-year projected growth of 2,353 residents for the UGA. The CP also indicates a large number of
existing platted residential lots in the area. Many of these lots are not presently buildable due to their small size. The
UGA bui]dout capacity analysis is presented later in this element. The boundary (i.e., sizing) of the UGA included
only those areas "characterized by urban growth...or...adjacent to terrilory already characlerized by urban
growth" necessary to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur consistent with the Act. The lrondale
& Port Hadlock UGA includes areas designated for multi-family high density development that are "adjacent to
territory already characlerized by urban growlh" as one means to increase the feasibility for providing sanitary
sewer service within the core UGA.
Although the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA contains a significant amount of exisling single-family urban
residential development-from a future urban growth perspective-its major intent is to provide more
economic development opportunity to serve the unmet regional commercial needs of eastern Jefferson County
identified in the Special Study. Secondarily, UGA designation and the provision of urban facilities and services
will allow for development of higher density (and more affordable) multi-family housing when a sanitary
system becomes availab]e.
Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open
space areas. 36.70A./I0(2)
Urban density residential development averages well in excess of 4 dwelling units per acre in the overall UGA as
documented in the 1rondale & Port Hadlock UGA Buildout Analysis, dated March 4, 2004, adopted herein by
reference as an appendix to the CPo See also the Proposed 1rondalelPort Hadlock UGA: Dwelling Unit &
Population Holding Capacity Analysis, Cascadia Community Planning Services, January 2], 2009. The Urban
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-4
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
Low Density Residential (ULDR) designation on the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Zoning Map requires a
minimum density of 4 dwellings units per acre, except where the following criteria are met: I) in areas where no
sanitary sewer service is provided for in the adopted Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan; and 2) in such areas within an
adopted Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). The provisions of the Jefferson County Health Department On-
Site Sewage Disposal Systems regulations (lCC 8.15) and Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 6.18 (Best
Management Practices for On-Site Sewage Disposal in CARAs) shall apply under these circumstances which
effectively limit maximum density to approximately 3.5 units per acre. The so-called "bright line" rule adopted by
the Growth Management Hearings Boards suggests that four units per acre is a minimum urban density. However,
the Boards have also recognized that jurisdictions may apply densities below that line in UGAs if there is a
compelling GMA reason for doing so. Protection of critical areas, including CARAs, has been recognized by the
Hearings Boards as such a reason. In the UGA, the CARA serves to protect the same groundwater aquifer that
supplies the public water supply for the UGA-the Public Utility District's Sparling Well located within the UGA
at the comer of Kennedy Road and Rhody Drive (SR 19). The Zoning Map indicates several additional areas
designated for moderate and high density residential development within mandatory sewer service areas that are in
close proximity to existing commercial centers and community facilities such as the Chimacum Creek Elementary
School and the County Library. Open space and greenbelt areas have also been identified for the UGA, especially
along the Chimacum Creek corridor, in associated wetland areas and along the Port Townsend Bay marine
shoreline at the mouth of Chimacum Creek where substantial shoreline restoration is planned along the site of a
fonner log dump.
An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and
shall permit a range of urban densilies and uses. 36.70A.II0(2)
Single-family and multi-family residential, urban commercial, light industrial, lands for public purposes, and open
space and greenbelt land needs are incorporated in the Irondale & Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. Sizing of the
UGA was intended to include only those areas "characterized by urban growth...or...adjacent to lerritory
already characlerized by urban growlh" consistent with the Act. A reasonable land market supply factor was
applied to discourage adverse increases to land and housing values in the UGA. Reduction factors to account
for lands needed for roads and utilities and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas were also applied
based on the specific findings recommended in the Special Study. Documentation of supporting population and
land area analysis are found in the Special Study, in the lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA Buildoul Analysis, daled
March 4, 2004, and the Proposed lrondalelPort Hadlock UGA: Dwelling Unit & Population Holding Capacity
Analysis, Cascadia Community Planning Services, January 21, 2009. adopted herein by reference as an appendix
to the CPo
Cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about
accommodating growlh. 36. 70A. 110(2)
Planning for an unincorporated UGA in eastern Jefferson County has been on-going since the initial GMA
Comprehensive Plan for the County was adopted in 1998. The Special Study was a collaborative joint planning
process between the City and the County that entailed a broad analysis of population and employment growth
and land use needs as well as alternative UGA boundary configurations and their associated impacts. It
presented many choices about accommodating growth. One of the key findings of the Special Sludy was that
the County experienced a significant amount of "retail leakage" to urban areas in adjacent counties due to an
inadequate commercial land use base in the County. The City and the County also jointly chose through the
Joint Growth Management Steering Committee to accommodate new growth through fonnation of a Tri-Area
Unincorporated UGA rather than accommodate the unmet demand for commercial growth in the existing Port
Townsend UGA.
The CP and the CWPPs both identify the Tri-Area (now lrondale & Port Hadlock Unincorporated UGA) as the
primary regional commercial growth center for the unincorporated County. However, the lack of a UGA
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-5
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
designation and the full range of urban services, including a sanitary sewer system, has been an impediment to
significant commercial development and job creation. The UGA planning process involved an extensive
amount of public involvement. The Implementation Plan for the Special Study identified and analyzed more
specific UGA land use alternatives for the area. As a result of the extensive public involvement process and
capital facilities impact analysis conducted throughout the life of the Special Sludy, the Tri-Area UGA
represents a significantly smaller, more compact and more fiscally viable UGA than originally proposed in the
DSEISIFSEIS prepared as a part of the Special Study.
Urban growlh should be localedfirst in areas already characlerized by urban growth that have
adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in
areas already characterized by urban growth thai will be served adequately by a combination of
both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and
services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining
portions of the urban growth areas. 36.70A.IIO(3)
The Special Study included several alternative UGA boundaries and permitted land use alternatives for UGAs in
Jefferson County. One of these alternatives (Alternative 1) was not to adopt a new unincorporated UGA but
rather accommodate the unmet need for regional commercial growth identified in the Special Sludy through
intensification of the existing Port Townsend municipal UGA. Following issuance of the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impacl Statement for Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Amendments, dated August 1999,
the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (comprised of three City Councilors and three County
Commissioners) decided on August 24, 1999 (by a vote of 5 to I) to move forward with UGA implementation
for Irondale & Port Hadlock and to reject implementation of Alternative 1--effectively precluding allocation of
the unmet employment and commercial growth needs identified in the Special Sludy to the existing Port
Townsend UGA.
The Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA is presently served by a range of public services, including a potable water
system, piped fire flow, public transit, and public safety (fire, EMS and sherifl). Outside of the City of Port
Townsend, the lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA and Glen Cove are the only areas of the county with that same
complement of existing public services. The Glen Cove light industrial area has been designated a "limited area
of more intensive rural development" under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) and is not subject to an urban growth area
designation under the CPo A community sanitary sewer system and adopted urban storm water and
transportation level of service standards were the only "urban" public facilities lacking in lrondale & Port
Hadlock that precluded UGA compliance prior to the adoption of this chapter. Adoption of appropriate
standards and plans for the provision of adequate public services and facilities to serve the UGA are discussed
in the Capital Facilities section of this chapter and, as appropriate, in other sections of the Utilities, Capital
Facilities, and Transportation Elements of the CPo
In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban
governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be
extended to or expanded in rural areaS except in those limited circumstances shown to be
necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services
are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban dey'elopment.
36.70A.ll 0(4)
The CP and the CWPPs (#2.4) specifY that urban public facilities and services are to be provided only within
designated UGAs unless required to remedy a threat to public health or welfare or to protect an environmentally
sensitive area. The Act does not prohibit unincorporated UGAs--it only suggests a greater level of scrutiny to
ensure adequate capital facility planning and provision of urban governmental services. The feasibility of providing
the full range of urban services to Irondale & Port Hadlock rests largely upon the levels of service adopted for those
facilities and services. Since most urban services are already provided to local residents (i.e., water, public safety), it
is the establishment of a community sanitary sewer system that will likely have the greatest fiscal impact. The
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-6
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
implementation, phasing, and fiscal requirements of such a sewer system are identified in the Port Hadlock UGA
Sewer Facility Plan, September 2008, adopted as the UGA General Sewer Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Land Use
The UGA encompasses approximately 1,320 acres. Based on the year 2000 census, the resident population is
2,553 persons. The existing land use pattern is characterized by commercial development concentrated along
the major highway corridors (Rhody Drive, Ness' Comer Road, and Chimacum Road) and existing developed
single-family neighborhoods in lrondale and Port Hadlock in the northern part of the UGA. There are scattered
multi-family apartment complexes mostly located at the fringe of the Port Hadlock commercial core area.
The predominant land use type in the UGA is single-family residential development. It accounts for close to
one-half of the existing land uses. Most of the residential neighborhoods south of Irondale Road are largely
built-out, although there are a significant number of pre-existing platted lots (from early in the last century) that
remain undeveloped. In fact, vacant lands constitute about one-third of the UGA-most of which are
concentrated north of lrondale Road and south of Chimacum Creek. Many of these lots are "substandard"-
meaning that they cannot meet minimum lot size requirements for on-site septic systems--and therefore must
be combined through restrictive covenant or lot consolidation in order to build upon. Under current regulations,
the County may authorize single-family home development on pre-existing platted lots provided they meet
Jefferson County Environmental Health Department standards for on-site septic systems and drainfields--
usually requiring a minimum 12,500 square foot lot (if served by a public water system). Current developed
single-family residential lots in the UGA range from 2,500 to 20,000 square feet in size and average about
13,000 square feet.
The remaining existing land use distribution in the UGA includes public and quasi-public facilities such as
churches, the County Library and Chimacum Creek Elementary School, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office
and Jail, Jefferson County Public Works Department Maintenance Yard, and the PUD's Sparling Well facility
along Rhody Drive. In addition there are several neighborhood parks and open space areas.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
The most distinguishing physical feature of the area is Chimacum Creek and its associated riparian wetland
system. Chimacum Creek includes habitat for summer chum salmon-a listed species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA}-and also contains steelhead, coho salmon and cutthroat trout. It mns from south to north
through the area and determines the northern boundary of the UGA where it empties into Port Townsend Bay.
II is contained within a narrow valley and is designated a Class I stream-subject to a 150 foot development
setback along both sides of the creek-according to the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC).
The creek's riparian corridor and associated setback function as a greenbelt within the UGA consistent with the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.llO(2). In addition to the wetlands along Chimacum Creek, there are also
estuarine and intertidal wetlands along the Port Townsend Bay marine shoreline well as some isolated upland
wetlands. Protection of these areas is regulated under UDC Sections 3.6.8 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas)
and 3.6.9 (Wetlands).
Portions ofthe UGA are vulnerable to groundwater pollution and are designated as a Critical Aquifer Recharge
Area (CARA) due to their hydrogeologic soil characteristics and the presence of public water supply wellheads.
The Jefferson County Public Utility District owns the water system that serves the UGA. The water system
relies on groundwater wells. There is a designated wellhead protection area around the PUD's Sparling Well
and the Kivley Well. Figure 2-2 shows the critical aquifer recharge area within the UGA, including wellhead
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-7
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
protection areas and susceptible soils. The CARA is subject to enhanced wastewater trealment standards which,
among other requirements, limit land use activities; establish minimum lot sizes for uses dependent upon on-site
septic systems for wastewater treatment and disposal; and requires "best management practices" for siting such
development-according to Jefferson County UDC Sections 3.6.5 (Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas); 6.18 (On-
Site Sewage Disposal Best Management Practices in CARAs); and Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.15 (On-
Site Sewage Disposal Systems).
Some geologically hazardous areas are also present in the UGA. These are areas particularly susceptibility to
erosion, sliding, earthquakes, or other geological events. Steep slopes and marine bluffs adjacent to Port
Townsend Bay and lower Chimacum Creek are prone to impacts related to erosion, seismic events and
landslides. Protection of these areas is regulated under UDC Section 3.6.7 (Geologically Hazardous Areas).
The UGA contains limited 100-year flood plain areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). The boundaries of the 100-year flood essentially encompass Port Townsend Bay, the marine
shorelines of the Irondale and Port Hadlock community, and the mouth of Chimacum Creek. Urban level
residential, commercial or industrial development is discouraged in the 100-year flood plain. Any structure
built within the flood plain's boundaries must provide for adequate protection against the 100-year flood (i.e.,
structures within the floodplain are constructed at a minimum of one foot above the flood plain elevation).
These areas are regulated according to UDC Section 3.6.6 (Frequently Flooded Areas).
Potable Water & Sewage Treatment and Disposal
The entire UGA is served by a public water system now owned and operated by Public Utility District # I
(PUD) of Jefferson County. The water source is groundwater acquired by two different wells. The primary
source is the Sparling Well located at the intersection of Rhody Drive and Kennedy Road on the western border
of the UGA. A secondary well, the Kivley Well, is located just southeast of the Port Hadlock core area of the
UGA.
There is no sanitary sewer system presently in the UGA. All wastewater treatment is provided either by
individual on-site septic systems or small community-based on-site systems. The Jefferson County
Environmental Health Department records indicate no significant failure rates for existing on-site systems in the
UGA. Although the concentration of existing on-site septic systems, given the density and proximity of
development to the Sparling Well, it is an issue of concern that is addressed as a part of the capital facility
planning for the new sanitary sewer system.
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
Based on a 2004 population of 2,553 persons and the projected 20-year growth of an additional 2,353 persons,
the UGA must be able to accommodate a minimum of 4,906 persons by 2024. The new allocation was based on
updated Jefferson County overall population projections prepared by the Washington State Office of Financial
Management (OFM) in 2002 (after adoption of the initial UGA boundary and land use designations). The new
allocation was incorporated into the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update per RCW
36. 70A.130(l Xa).
One of the key efforts of the Special Sludy was the assessment of future demand for commercial/industriallands
in the County (based on assumed employment growth and other variables). This analysis is contained in the
Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast prepared by Trottier Research Group dated January 26, 1999 and
further addressed in the document titled Memorandum: Commenls on Estimates of Addilional Land Neededfor
Employment Growth prepared by Trottier Research Group dated September 27, 1999. Hereafter collectively
called the "Trottier Reporl". The Trottier Reporl analysis indicated that the Jefferson County economy
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-8
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
experiences significant "retail leakage" to urban areas in adjacent counties. Retail leakage is an economic signal
that regional commercial levels of service are not being met for County residents, and suggests that the level of
commercial development is inadeauate to meet the needs of the existing population as well as new growth. The
Trottier Report concluded that the County could experience a significant shortage of commercial and industrial
lands over the next twenty years if it maintained strong employment growth.
At the same time, the Special Study noted that the lack of a full range of urban public facilities and services and
available developable vacant land in the designated rural commercial centers placed significant constraints on
employment growth. In the case of lrondale & Port Hadlock, the lack of a community sewer system is a
significant impediment to economic activity since it limits overall employment density and certain economic
activities that may be water-use intensive or require special waste processing needs. Furthermore, rural land
development standards in effect under the 1998 CP precluded the most efficient utilization of many existing
commercial enterprises. During the Special Study many existing businesses in lrondale & Port Hadlock
expressed frustration with the inability to expand existing operations due to building size limitations and lot size
constraints. Some businesses have left the area to relocate to UGAs elsewhere where the land supply and urban
capital facilities and services are more readily available. Even with designation of additional vacant lands for
commercial purposes, the majority of the commercial lands designated in the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA
comprise lands already characterized by urban growth or are surrounded by such lands.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP & ZONING DESIGNATIONS
Zoning designations for the UGA are shown in Tables 2-1, parts (a) and (b), and are illustrated in the lrondale
& Port Hadlock UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-1). Land use districts correspond to the CP general urban land use
designations and zoning districts illustrate the site-specific designations.
The UGA Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map, adopted as a part of this element, is the graphic representation of
the densities and intensities of use and the goals, policies and strategies contained within this plan. The Land
Use and Zoning Maps were developed based on consistency with the Growth Management Act, community
involvement, consideration of the 1995 Tri-Area Community Development Plan, the results of the Special
Study, the Proposed 1rondalelPort Hadlock UGA: Dwelling Unit & Population Holding Capacity Analysis,
Cascadia Community Planning Services, January 21, 2009, and the specific criteria contained within this element.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map should act as a guide for: subsequent Zoning Map designations; the
adoption of development regulations; and implementation of future land use decisions. The Growth
Management Act requires that implementing development regulations be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. This requirement will be met by Jefferson County with the adoption of this element and the Irondale &
Pori Hadlock Implementing Regulations ofthe UDC.
Amendments to the adopted Zoning Map are subject to the requirements ofUDC Section 18.45 JCe.
DWELLING UNIT AND POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
In determining whether the supply of residentially designated and zoned land within the proposed UGA is
proportionate to the projected future population, a number of variables and assumptions can affect the analysis
and must be considered, including the following:
. Differentiating between developed, underdeveloped, and vacant residential lands;
· The proposed residential designations and densities (i.e., both single-family and multi-family);
. The location and extent of critical areas that may restrict or preclude development in certain areas;
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-9
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE # 17-1213-04
Exhibit B
. The need to set aside land for public purposes, including roads, parks, wastewater and stonnwater
facilities; and
. The need to account for land that will remain vacant over the course ofthe planning period due to
landowner preferences, title disputes, encumbrances and market conditions.
It should be emphasized that this analysis is not an entirely academic exercise: it does not simply identify the
total theoretical dwelling unit and population holding capacity ofthe UGA based only upon gross acreages and
proposed zoning densities. Instead, the analysis attempts to more realistically assess the dwelling unit and
population holding capacity by accurately differentiating developed, underdeveloped, and vacant residential
lands, factoring actual mapped critical areas and their buffers, and taking into account actual projected needs for
public lands and rights-of-way (Table 2-I(a)).
Clearly, the proposed lrondale/Port Hadlock UGA presents limited opportunities for "blue sky" planning.
Much of the area was platted in the late 19th and early 20'h century, and has seen substantial residential and
commercial development over the intervening decades. The area encompasses widespread areas of pre-existing
subdivision and development activity that have occurred at non-rural densities.
Vacant land was defined as land with no, or insignificant improvements. Thus, all parcels designated within
the Assessor's land use code as 9100 or 9800 (i.e., "vacant"), or which have an assessed structural
(improvement) value that is equal to or less than $10,000 fall within this category.
Underdeveloued land was defined as land occupied by current development that is of relatively low density in
relation to parcel ownership size and/or of relatively low structural (improvement) value. This is land that is
seen as likely to support further or more intense levels of development. If the value of the structures
(improvements) was equal to or less than $100,000 and the parcel ownership was equal to or twice the
minimum lot size ofthe applicable zone (e.g., 20,000 s.f. in the Low Density Residential designation), the
parcel was deemed likely to develop to its pennissible higher density within the 20-year planning period. A
typical example of underdeveloped land would include a parcel ownership in a neighborhood that currently
accommodates one dwelling unit, but which contains sufficient land area to accommodate one or more
additional dwelling units and still comply with the density limitations of the applicable zone.
Develoued land was defined as land with no additional space for development and which has significant
structural (improvement) values. This is land that is not likely to support further or more intense levels of
development. All land not identified as "vacant" or "underdeveloped" as defined above, falls within this
category.
Table 2-I(a) summarizes the results of this disaggregation:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-10
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #]7-1213-04
Exhibit B
801.00
66.00
50.00
236.10
4.00
8.8
268.10
35.00
7.60
296.80
27.00
33.60
Source: GIS analysis conducted by Jefferson County Central Services in Proposed [rondalelPort Hadlock UGA: Dwelling
Unit & Population Holding Capacity Analysis, Cascadia Community Planning Services, January 21, 2009.
Table 2-1(b)
Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Additional Land Use & Zoning Districts
Urban Commercill.1
Urban Commercial
Visitor-Oriented Commercial
93
7
80
Source, Jefferson County Central Services, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
.Vacant Acreage figures are based on Assessor Land Use Codes. March 4, 2004.
Urban Residential, The Urban Residential land use designation accounts for the largest share of land use in
the UGA. This zone accounts for more than 800 acres; roughly one-third of those acres are vacant, one third
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-11
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
underdeveloped and one third developed. The Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) zone will allow
housing density from four (4) to six (6) dwelling units per acre, except, as previously noted, for parcels both
outside the planned sewer service area and within a designated Critical Aquifer Recharge Area where the
maximum density may not exceed 3.5 units per acre'. Moderate Density Residential (MDR) zoning will allow
housing at a density of 7-12 units per acre and accounts for 55 total acres within the UGA. The High Density
Residential zone will allow housing at a density of 13-18 dwelling units per acre.
ESTIMATED DWELLING UNIT & POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY
The estimated dwelling unit holding capacity of the proposed IrondalelPort Hadlock UGA is determined by
multiplying the net available land (i.e., vacant and underdeveloped land area combined) in each zoning
designation by the minimum and maximum density permitted within each zone. This establishes a dwelling
unit capacity range. The minimum and maximum number of dwelling units is then multiplied by the estimated
household size at the end of the planning period to establish an estimated population holding capacity range for
vacant and underdeveloped lands within the proposed UGA.
84.59
2.01
4.25
119.59
18.13
3.79
204.18
20.14
8.04
Source: Proposed IrondalelPort Hadlock UGA: Dwelling Unit & Population Holding Capacity Analysis, Cascadia Community
Planning Services, January 21, 2009.
I Jefferson County On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems (JCC 8.15) allows minimum 12,500 sf 10tJor on-site septic systems
with waivers possible to approximately minimum 7,500 sf, with commensurately higher treatment standard requirements.
However the Code does not allow waivers less than 12,500 sf Jar lots wi/hin Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. ThereJore
standard density in the ULDR zone (inside CARAs and autside oJplanned Sewer Service Area) is approximately 3.5
du'slacre. Standard density oj 4 du'slacre in the ULDR zone (outside CARAs and outside oj planned Sewer Service Area)
may be achieved only by compliance with Ihe waiver provisions oj JCC 8.15. Maximum density oj 6 du'slacre in Ihe
ULDR only achievable by connection 10 sanilary sewer(allowed wi/hin the Optional Sewer Service Area Overlay)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-12
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
935 - 1,523
2,057 - 3,351
1,160*
2,553
2,095 - 2,683
4,6 IO - 5,904
* 1,024 in net additional capacity in "developed areas"; 136 estimated existing dwellings in
"underdeveloped" areas.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the methodology and assumptions documented above, the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA
appears to include residential land areas and densities sufficient to accommodate the urban growth allocation of
2,353 persons for the 2004 - 2024 planning period, consistent with the requirements of RCW 36. 70A.II 0(2).
If ultimate build-out were to occur uniformly at either the low or the high end of the permissible density ranges
in each residential zone, the population holding capacity would range from a net deficit of -296 to a net surplus
of +998 in relation to the adopted population target of 4,906 for 2024. However, to assume either a uniformly
"low-density" or "high-density" build-out scenario is both unreasonable and unlikely. Instead, it is rational,
appropriate, and within the range of discretion afforded to localities planning under the GMA to assume a more
plausible density yield rate scenario of 75%. Such an assumption results in an estimated capacity for 2,512
additional people occupying 1,142 dwelling units, and a total population holding capacity of 5,065, some 159
persons over the 4,906 target. This difference is insignificant in the context of an area-wide planning analysis.
Urban Commercial. Almost one-quarter of the total UGA is designated for commercial land use. Several
different commercial zoning districts may implement this land use designation. The Urban Commercial (UC)
zone is the largest constituting approximately 272 acres. It covers both the existing and planned future
commercial development in the Port Hadlock core area and along Rhody Drive from Ness" Comer to the
"Dogbone" along SR 19. The Visitor-Oriented Commercial (VOC) zone is applied to the tourism-oriented
potential development area around the Old Alcohol Plant.
Urban Industrial. Approximately 25 acres of land are designated as an Urban Light Industrial (ULl) zone in
the UGA-all but 5 acres of which are already in light industrial Use. These uses are located in the southwest
comer of the UGA well buffered from the bulk of the residential neighborhoods in the community.
Public Facilities. Public facilities (P) comprise 80 acres, including public park and open space areas, the
Library and Chimacum Creek Elementary School, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and Jail, Jefferson
County Public Works Department Maintenance Yard, and the PUD's Sparling Well facility along Rhody Drive
and the Kivley Well in Port Hadlock.
CAPITAL FACILITY PLANNING
Capital facility planning for Urban Growth Areas should be coordinated among the City, County, and special
purpose districts or other service providers who may be affected by the advent of new urban growth and the need to
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-13
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
plan for the provision of new urban levels of service for public facilities such as sanitaJy sewer, potable water and
public safety. For affected non-County agencies-who may provide these services-to meet their own capital
facility plan goals, the County needs to ensure that it does not pennit activity which would be inconsistent with their
future plans.
County-wide Planning Policy #3 identifies specific actions to be taken regarding joint planning between the City of
Port Townsend and Jefferson County that affects incorporated UGAs. The need for continued joint planning with
affected public service providers and local residents is a critical component to UGA implementation. Of special
importance will be the provision of urban sanitaJy sewer services and the fiscal impacts of such a system on local
residents. Potable water service is already provided by the PUD # 1.
Although it is an unincorporated UGA, it is sufficient in size and scope of urban densities and intensities of uses
to allow for potential incorporation-should local residents desire and choose to do so at some point in the
future. The County will continue to work with UGA residents on the provision of adequate and financially
feasible capital facilities.
The strategy of joint capital facility planning is to encourage jurisdictions and service providers to enter into
inter-local agreements to facilitate planning in areas of mutual concern. The use of an inter-local agreement
enables the affected local governments and special purpose districts involved to work together to review,
consider, and resolve issues of mutual concern. The County, PUD #1, local residents and other affected
agencies should continue to work together towards the provision of adequate public facilities and services.
This section of this element is intended to address the provision of capital facilities and utilities to the UGA.
Level of Service (LOS) standards are established in the Capital Facilities Element of the Plan as may be
amended for the UGA by adoption of this element and its appendices related to capital facility planning (i.e.,
sewer, stonnwater and transportation). The adopted level of service standards must be met by utility providers
within the UGA.
Many utilities and capital facilities are provided for in the UGA by non-county providers. Many of these
utilities are currently being provided at urban standards and do not require amendments to the Capital Facilities
or Utilities elements of the CP insofar as levels of service are concerned. These include public water supply
(being provided by the Jefferson County PUD # I); electricity provided by Puget Sound Energy; cable television
and telecommunications provided by a range of carriers regulated by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), including cellular
telephone service provided by AT&T Wireless Services and Verizon Wireless and conventional telephone
service provided by Qwest Communications.
These utility providers are controlled by laws and regulations, or franchise agreements. Their requirement to
meet levels of service is imbedded in these controls. For example, the State Department of Health (DOH)
requires water purveyors like the PUD to have 20 year plans (revised every 6 years) which address service area
demand, source of supply, LOS (including fire flow), and a capital program for improvements to meet projected
demand into the future. Other utilities have similar requirements to demonstrate to the County and others that
they capacity to meet LOS will be in place to meet future demand.
In addition, many other public services and capital facilities are provided countywide by Jefferson County at
adopted levels of service that apply countywide and do not distinguish between rural and urban areas. These
facilities and services include:
. Solid Waste;
. Parks and Recreation;
. County Maintenance Shop Facilities;
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-14
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE # 17-1213-04
Exhibit B
. County Government Administrative Offices;
. County Justice Facilities;
. County Sheriff Facilities;
. County Corrections Inmate Facilities;
. Community Centers; and
. Animal Control Shelter.
Levels of service and Six-Year and Twenty- Year Capital Facilities Plans for the public facilities and services
identified above are adopted in the Utilities and Capital Facilities elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Capital facilities needs associated with implementation of the UGA General Sewer Plan, Transportation Plan
and Stormwater Plan and the provision of public water by the PUD have been included as part of the following
section and are also adopted by reference in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended.
Sanitary Sewer Service
The UGA General Sewer Plan (GSP), adopted in this Comprehensive Plan, is required under state law prior to
development of a County sponsored sewer system. It is intended to be general in nature. However, the Port
Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan, adopted as the GSP, has been approved by the State Department of Health
and State Department of Ecology as an engineering plan. This goes much further than needed as a GSP and
carries the sewer facilities planning forward to the Preliminary Design phase.
See Appendix I, Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan, September 2008, adopted herein as the General Sewer
Plan, for detailed information on Capital Facilities planning and a six-year financing plan.
The adopted GSP provides a preliminary analysis of several alternatives for the development of a public
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system for the entire UGA over the course of the. 20-year
planning period. See Appendix I for sewer service area information and mapping.
Potable Water-Public Utility District #1 of Jefferson County (PUD)
The lrondale & Port Hadlock (UGA) water system serves the entire UGA and is part of a network of
interconnected public water supply systems that serve the Quimper Peninsula operated by the PUD. The UGA
system currently has 1,850 connections and projects a total of3,171 connections by 2025. The water system
was purchased by the PUD from the City of Port Townsend in 2002. The system contains two major wells: the
Sparling Well and the Kivley Well. The Sparling well and treatment plant currently serve as the primary water
supply source for the UGA, the Sparling well was originally drilled to augment the surface water supply to the
Irondale and Port Hadlock area from the City of Port Townsend water supply line. The Kivley well was
brought on line in 1972 to provide an additional supply.
The UGA water system has a single pressure zone. A one million gallon reinforced concrete reservoir and a
two million gallon steel reservoir are co-located on Somerville Road.
The system has five wells. There are two Sparling wells that are currently the primary source of water for the
UGA. The PUD is in the process of increasing the treatment capacity of these wells to process 1500 gpm. The
maximum flow rate allowed under the current water right for the Sparling wells is 2,250 gpm. Three wells are
located at the Kivley well site. The instantaneous water right for the Kivley wells is 200 gpm. The PUD has
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-15
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
requested a new water right that would increase the Kivley well capacity to a minimum of 400 gpm.
Additionally, the PUD will be increasing the treatment capacity of the Sparling well by a planned 500 gpm by
2006.
The existing water supply source meets the current demands on the UGA water system, however the wells need
to be brought up to their full water right. PUD studies indicate that if the state DOH water system design
standard of 466 gpd/ERU is used, the UGA water system may only have enough water until the year 2015, The
PUD indicates, however, that based on an average daily demand of 350 gpd/ERU (actual PUD consumption
records), the PUD water system supply has adequate water rights sources for the 20 year planning period. The
PUD water system plans indicate that a water conservation plan, lower actual UGA water usage (based on local
consumption records) and planned system improvements will result in enough water supply to meet the 20 year
planning horizon. However, in the best interest of a regional approach to water resource management, the PUD
is also in discussion with the City of Port Townsend about purchasing and treating additional wholesale water
for the PUD water system. This may provide for a more equitable and better long-term solution to meeting
projected demands on the resource.
Three improvement projects are identified in the PUD's preliminary draft Capital Facilities Plan for the UGA
Water System based upon anticipated future demand as follows:
. Sparling Well Improvements. In order to provide the water requirements for the next 20 years the PUD
is increasing the treatment capacity of the Sparling well by 500 gpm. Estimated Cost $350,000.
Funding Sources: System Development Charges. Estimated Implementation Date: 2004-2005.
. New Well. The PUD will be drilling a new production well to maximize its existing water rights, to
meet potential future demands, expand system flexibility, and emergency response capacity. Estimated
Cost: $375,000. Funding Sources: System Development Charges. Estimated Implementation Date:
2005-2015.
. Surface Water Sources. The PUD is working with the City of Port Townsend to increase the amount of
wholesale water purchased by the PUD from the City as alternative to pursuing additional groundwater
rights.
The current PUD #1 Quimper Water System Plan which, in part, serves the lrondalelPort Hadlock Urban
Growth Area is hereby incorporated by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent changes to water
system plans shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and be approved through legislative action of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process, outlined in 18.45 ICC, prior to incorporation.
Stormwater Management
The UGA Stormwater Management Plan is a planning document that provides guidance to minimize adverse
effects of stormwater runoff on ground and surface water, including aquatic resources and habitats, water
quantity. It identifies water quality and quantity problems associated with stormwater runoff that may
adversely affect the environment and community and provides recommendations for improvements and
programs including a cost analysis and an implementation schedule. The primary goal of the UGA Storm water
Management Plan is to preserve and protect water quality and the hydraulic regime within the UGA drainage
basins and the receiving waters of Chimacum Creek and Port Townsend Bay.
The Plan identifies specific structural and non-structural solutions to conveyance and water quality problems
within the UGA. Structural solutions include constructing detention and infiltration ponds, pipes, and treatment
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-16
UPDATED BV ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
facilities. Non-structural solutions include stormwater management facility inspection and maintenance, public
education and outreach, water quality monitoring, and encouraging low impact development.
The Plan was developed in conformance with Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Rural
Element: Drainage, Flooding, Stormwater Management Issues and Polluted Discharges. It meets the storm water
management recommendations of the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Plan and the technical standards of the
2001 Washington Department of Ecology S!ormwaler Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE
Manual).
UGA designation will require the provision of drainage and stormwater management facilities at an urban level
of service standard in order to avoid significant storm water run-off and water quality impacts to Port Townsend
Bay and Chimacum Creek and to ensure that stormwater run-off does not contaminate groundwater resources.
The majority of the UGA does not have conveyance systems and will infiltrate stormwater runoff on-site or
within the sub-basin. Infiltration in the area is typically good, but varies due to the groundwater table and soils.
Most of the stormwater runoff in the UGA infiltrates before reaching a conveyance system. There is a limited
existing storm drainage collection and conveyance system that consists of typical components such as catch
basins, pipes, open ditches, and, in the Port Hadlock Core, concrete curbs and gutters. There are two outfalls to
Port Townsend Bay in the UGA. They convey runoff collected by the Port Hadlock Core storm sewer system
and road drainage from Moore Street in Irondale.
Due to the relatively low level of development in the UGA, there is not a high volume of stormwater currently
being discharged into Port Townsend Bay. Thus, the overall impact on water quality in the Bay associated with
storm sewer outfalls appears to be limited. High fecal coliform counts have been reported in Port Townsend
Bay during the summer. However, the UGA Slormwater Management Plan indicates that based on the levels,
timing, and location, they do not appear to be associated with runoff from the Port Hadlock storm sewer system
or Moore Street.
Nonetheless, the pollutant concentrations are sufficiently high that runoff treatment should be provided,
according to the recommendations made in the UGA Slormwaler Management Plan. In order to accomplish this
goal, the County should coordinate with the Washington Departments of Transportation and Fish and Wildlife
and with private landowners to plan, design, fund, and construct treatment facilities at both locations.
Hydrologic modeling was used in the UGA Slormwater Management Plan to develop planning level cost
estimates for replacing the outfalls and adding a treatment swale for both the Port Hadlock Core storm sewer
system and the Moore Street drainage system.
Future development within the UGA will be required to provide flow control (detention and infiltration) and
treatment per the Washington State Department of Ecology's Slormwater Technical Manual standards and to
help pay their fair share for those portions of the storm drainage system fronting their property. As additional
development occurs within the UGA limits, the amount of impervious surfaces will increase which will
ultimately increase peak surface-water runoff rates. To this end, the County intends to manage stormwater to
minimize contact with contaminants, mitigate the impacts of increased runoff due to development within the
UGA's drainage areas, provide management of runoff from large and small construction sites, and to preserve
fish and wildlife habitat.
The analysis conducted for the UGA Stormwaler Management Plan demonstrates that urban development can
occur without significant impacts from stormwater runoff provided that there are adequate stormwater
management facilities and a UGA Stormwater Management Program.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-17
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
The UGA Stormwater Management Plan includes policies intended to ensure that development of the UGA
does not cause significant adverse impacts related to stonnwater runoff. These policies include SWM Policy 1.7
Develop stable and equitable revenue sources to fund a UGA Stonnwater Management Program.
The UGA Stormwater Management Plan discusses alternative methods for funding capital improvements and
Stonnwater Management Program activities. These alternatives include grants and loans, developer fees, local
improvement districts, and stonnwater management fees.
The UGA Stormwater Management Plan proposes two capital projects: a stormwater treatment facility
and replacement of an existing outfall. The treatment facility will cost approximately $10,000; the cost
to replace the outfall would be approximately $144,000, (2004 Year Dollars)
The UGA Stormwater Management Plan proposes that parcels in the UGA Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-
Family Residential designations would pay a stonnwater management fee to fund inspection of stonnwater
management facilities in those areas. The inspection program would cost approximately $10,000 per year.
The UGA Stormwater Management Plan proposes a UGA Stonnwater Management Program that would
conduct public education, water quality monitoring, and stream gauging. The annual SWM Program cost would
be approximately $15,000.
Table 2-4 summarizes the projected UGA Stormwater Management Plan Capital Improvements and Program
Plan Expenditures and Funding.
Table 2-4
UGA Stormwater Management Plan
Caoital Imorovements and Fundin!': 2005 - 2024
Capital Improvement Projects Year
2004 Cost Planned Fundjn~ Source I Notes
Oort Hadlock Core Water Quality Treatment Facility $ 10,000 2005 SWM Fee Port Hadlock Core
!Port Hadlock Core Conveyance Replacement $144,000 2011 SWM Fee Port Hadlock Core
Source: UGA Stormwater Management Plan May 2004
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-18
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-12]3-04
Exhibit B
Transportation
The most heavily traveled roadways within the UGA include SRI9, SRI16 and lrondale Road with existing
traffic volumes peaking on SRI9 at about 14,000 vehicles per day (vpd). SRI9 is the heaviest traveled road in
the UGA and currently operates at LOS D, an acceptable level of service for the Urban Growth Area.
Creation of the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA changes the land use designation from rural to urban. One of the
impacts of this change is a concurrent change in the level of service standard for roadways in the urban growth
area. The level of service standard in Jefferson County for rural roadways is LOS C. The established level of
service standard for Jefferson County roadways in an urban area is LOS D or better. This difference reflects the
understanding that higher volumes of traffic are expected in urban areas because of a concentration of economic
activities. These higher levels of congestion are considered acceptable during peak hours.
Under existing conditions and urban standards, there are no current deficiencies in the UGA road system.
However, Jefferson County's current adopted Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for 2004 to
2009 plans non-capacity related UGA improvements (channelization and pedestrian facilities) to the portion of
Chimacum Road from M.P. OAI to 0.98 (vicinity of the Jefferson County shop southerly to the East Fork
Chimacum Creek crossing). At this time, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has
proposed only one signalization project for the State-owned facilities of SRI9 and SRI16 (Ness's Corner) from
2004 to 2009.
Jefferson County has worked to provide a network of non-motorized transportation facilities to enhance
alternative modes to travel by automobile and for recreational purposes. On-road bicycle routes and lanes, wide
shoulders, sidewalks and multipurpose trails that 1 ink destinations are common examples. The Jefferson County
Non-motorized Transporlation and Recreational Trails Plan contains a full and detailed list of County owned
facilities in the UGA. Additionally, the Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan found no
capacity related deficiencies for the planning period based on the current level of service (LOS) standards
adopted in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The lrondale-Port Hadlock UGA is served by the Jefferson Transit Authority that provides regular scheduled
service to the UGA as well as Port Townsend, Port Ludlow and Poulsbo. Weekday service operates from 6:45
AM to 7: I 0 PM with Dial-a-Ride available for qualified individuals. Transportation Policy TRP 2.3 in the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan establishes a minimum level of service based on Annual Transit
Revenue Service Hours (A TRSH). The level of service standard of 8400 A TRSH as established countywide by
the County's Comprehensive Plan will continue to be met for the planning period as Jefferson Transit continues
to revise its service based on demand as appropriate. Additionally, Jefferson Transit has increased regularly
scheduled service to the UGA within the last two years, and will continue to revise service to the UGA as
appropriate. Jefferson Transit also provides regular updates to its Operating and Capital improvement Plan.
The concurrency requirement in the Growth Management Act (GMA) states that "...public facilities and
services... shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy
and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." [GMA,
Section 2, Planning Goals (12)] This means that public facilities and services must be in place to serve the
proposed use at the level of service (LOS) set by the community. Some improvements may be completed in
whole or in part, by new development within the UGA.
Under current State law and Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policies, highways owned by the State
(State Routes) are not bound by the constraints of concurrency requirements. In these instances, the timing and
prioritization of improvements is ultimately that of the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Typically, WSDOT coordinates with the local jurisdiction and regional transportation planning organization to
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-19
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE#17-J213-04
Exhibit B
maintain a balance between the free-flow movement of people and goods, and the needs of the local
community.
Total transportation facility improvements for the complete 20-year planning period (2005-2024) are
summarized in Table 2-5. These improvements are to some extent associated with development and growth in
the lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA. Jefferson County and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning
Organization are currently applying to WSDOT to classifY SRI9 as a principal arterial to qualifY the Highway
of Statewide Significance (HSS) for more state and federal funding. Transportation facility improvements for
the six-year planning period, 2005-2010, are included in Table 2-5. This estimate includes the Chimacum Rd
improvements proposed in the Jefferson County Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Proposed improvements to this roadway include:
. Intersection realignments and improvements
. 0.57 miles of reconstruction
Proposed funding sources for this project include $500,000 In Rural Arterial Program (RAP) funds and
$217,000 in local funding.
The SR 19/5RI16 intersection (Ness's Corner) is a state owned facility which will likely be funded by a
combination of State and local money. This intersection currently satisfies State warrants for signalization but is
well down on the priority list of proposed projects to receive funding. Project funding options, including the
application of local funding to this project, should be considered to insure this project is completed at an
appropriate time. Proposed improvements include reconstruction and signalization of this intersection to urban
standards.
Table 2-5 also shows transportation facility improvements associated with new development that should require
completion or participation by adjacent property owners through private road construction or by reconstructing
public roadways through the Road Improvement District Program (RID). Required improvements to
transportation facilities should be specified as planning policies and development standards to assure
completion.
A more through analysis ofUGA transportation issues, LOS impacts, planned road improvements and the
capital facilities plan is contained in the UGA Transporlation Plan adopted by reference as a component of this
element and the Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-20
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
Table 2-5
UGA Transportation Improvements (2005 - 2024)
(Costs estimated for 2004, and adiusted annually at 2.2% inflation)
Non-Caoacitv Proiects 2005 - 2010
Route Route Description From To 2005-2010 Funding Funding
I.D. Name M.P. M.P. Cost Sou rcel s) Status
Inside UGA
932507 I Chimacum Rd. I County Shoo to W. F. OUmacum Ctk. I 0.41 I 0.98 $ 720,000 I RAP I Local I Prooosed
SRI9/Il6 I SR19!a1SRI16 I SilmaliZ1llion - Reconstruct to Urban Slds. I 10.71 I 10.71 $ 334,484 I WSOOTiLocaI I Proposed
Total Non-Capacity Projects 2005 - 2010 $ 1,054,484 I
Non.Canacitv Proiects 2011-2024
Route Route Description From To 2011-2024 Funding Funding
ill. Name M.P, M.P, C",t Source(s) Slatos
Inside UGA
SRIl6 Port Hoolock Intersection SignaliZ1llion (2017-18) $ 434,297 WSDOT/LocaJ Unfunded
SR19 SRI9. Iii! Ironda1e Rd. SignaliZ1llion (2018-19) $ 346,500 WSDOTiLocaI Unfunded
SRIl6 SRIl6. @Cedar Ave. Signalization (2018-19) $ 346,500 WSDOT iLocaI Unfunded
Outside UGA
SRI9 SRI9. !aI Prospect Ave. Intersection bnprovements (20Il-l3) $ 243,270 WSOOTiLocaI Unfunded
SRI9 SRI9 !aI Anderson Lk. Rd. Intersection bnprovements (2014-15) $ 254,091 WSOOTiLocaI Unfunded
SR19 SR19 !aI Woodland Dr. Intersection bnprovements (2014-15) $ 254,091 WSOOT/LocaJ Unfunded
SRI9 SRI9!a1WestVaJleyRd. SignaJi2ation (202()'21) $ 361,914 WSOOTiLocaI Unfunded
SRI9 Chimacum Intersection SignaliZ1llion (202()'21) $ 445,160 WSOOTiLocaI Unfunded
Total Non-Capacity Projects 2011- 2024 $ 2,685,823 I
Canacrrv Pro;ects 2005 - 2024
Route Route Description From To 2005-2024 Funding Funding
ill, Name M.P. M.P. C",t Soureels) Statos
Inside UGA
SRI9 I SRI9 I Widen to Four Lanes (202()'22) I 10.50 11.75 $ 5,978,800 I WSDOT Unfunded
SRIl6 I SRI16 I Widen to Three Lmcs (IWL TL) (202()'22) I 0.0 1.11 $ 2,408,700 I WSDOT Unfunded
Outside UGA
SRI9 I SR19 I Widen to Four Lanes (202()'22) I 9.00 I 10.50 $ 7,174,600 I WSOOT Unfunded
SR19 I SR19 I Widen to Four Lanes (202()'22) I 11.75 I 14.16 $ 11,527,100 I WSOOT Unfunded
Total Capacity Proieets 2005 - 2024 I $ 27,089.200 I
Private Develoner Proiects 2005 - 2024
Route Route Description From To 2005-2024 Funding Funding
ill. Name M.P, M.P. Cost Soureels) Statos
Inside UGA
932507 Chimacurn Rd. Reconstruction to Urban Stds- 0.41 0.64 $ 138,600 Develouer Unfunded
SRl16 SRIl6 Reconstruction to Urban Stds. 0.12 0.47 $ 210,000 Develouer Unfunded
SRI16 SRII6 Reconstruction to Urban Slds. .47 1.11 $ 164,000 Develooer Unfunded
658909 DStreet Reconstruction to Urban Stds- 0.00 0.10 $ 72,722 Develooer Unfunded
634509 Hunt Rd Reconsbuction to Urnan Srds 0.00 0.20 $ 115,000 Developer Unfunded
933507 Irondale Rd Reconstruction to Urban St<k 1.56 1.79 $ 284,545 Develooer Unfunded
Total Private Developer Proiects 2005 - 2024 I $ 984,867
I Total All Projects 2005 - 2024 $ 31,814,374
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-21
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
GOALS AND POLICIES
As in all elements of this Plan, the goals are general statements while policies are more specific. Goals state the
general growth management intentions of the County while the policies are the specific guidelines. Strategies
address implementation of goals and policies through specific projects and programs.
The goals and policies of the Urban Growth Area element provide direction for the development of Jefferson
County's Irondale & Port Hadlock Unincorporated UGA. They outline specific criteria for urban development,
incorporating issues and opportunities identified by County residents in the public UGA planning process.
Urban Growth Area policies provide the basis for subsequent land use and capital facility planning and
implementation in the UGA. This section also provides guidance for the UGA-specific development regulations
contained in Appendix D of the Unified Development Code (Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Implementing
Regulations), now codified in Chapter 18.18 JCC.
URBAN GROWTH AREA
GOAL:
UGA-G 1.0
UGA-G 1.1
POLICIES:
UGA-P 1.1
UGA-P 1.2
UGA-P 1.3
UGA-P 1.4
Encourage a balance of commercial and industrial uses for urban-scale and regional-scale
economic activities within Urbau Growth Areas (UGAs).
Provide for the orderly development of urban land uses in urban growth areas consistent
with the provision of adequate and feasible urban levels of public facilities and services
Encourage and facilitate urban regional-scale economic activities in unincorporated UGAs
which provide for countywide goods, services, and employment opportunities.
New urban growth should be channeled into areas that are already characterized by existing
urban growth or adjacent to areas characterized by urban growth. Within the confines of the
GMA, urban levels of services for capital facilities should be scaled to the needs of urban
growth areas and the ability of businesses, homeowners, workers and the public to finance
them.
Future infrastructure improvements must be appropriate for the planned development densities
in the County. UGAs will be implemented where urban public facilities and services are
necessary to support higher density residential and/or commercial growth. The level of urban
infrastructure must serve the needs of the public, protect the environment and be affordable.
Encourage growth in the Iron dale & Port Hadlock UGA commensurate with the appropriate level
of urban public facility and service capacities consistent with adopted plans and interlocal
agreements.
(a) Manage development and redevelopment through revisions to the Unified Development
Code (UDC) and the application of UGA land use designations and zoning classifications
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-22
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
UGA-P 1.5
UGA-P 1.6
UGA-P 1.7
UGA-P 1.8
Exhibit B
that can be implemented consistent with the adopted levels of service for urban public
facilities and services.
(b) Provide urban governmental services at urban levels of services (see Capital Facilities
Element, Policy CFP 1.1, and UGA Element, Policy UGA-P 2.8, for list of urban public
facilities and their adopted levels of service) prior to or concurrent with development.
(c) The County shall coordinate with the respective purveyor, special district, agency or other
entities delivering, or who are anticipated to deliver, urban public facilities and services to
ensure that growth and development are timed, phased, and consistent with the provision of
adequate urban level facilities and services.
(d) Where the County is not the urban public facility or service provider for the unincorporated
UGA, the County may adopt an Interlocal Agreement with the appropriate service provider,
where necessary, to ensure the provision of adequate levels of service for urban public
facilities and services. Such agreements, when utilized, shall include the level of urban public
facilities and services.
Encourage growth in UGAs that will be served by a combination of both existing urban public
facilities and services and any additional needed urban public facilities and services that are
provided by either public or private sources. Development within the unincorporated UGA shall be
consistent with the densities and intensities of use, bulk and dimension, and other development
standards found within this element and the adopted urban public facilities levels of service.
The Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA has a limited amount of undeveloped commercial parcels
suitable for attracting and accommodating regional commercial development. To enhance the
potential for commercial redevelopment opportunities in the UGA, parcels currently utilized for
and designated as Urban Residential on the UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-1) may be designated
Urban Commercial, provided that those parcels meet all of the following criteria:
1) The parcel rezone request is presented and approved through the annual comprehensive plan
amendment process specified in 18.45, JCe.
2) The parcel rezone request is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and
future needs, documented through a commercial land needs analysis.
Any change from Urban Residential to Urban Commercial shall be reflected on both the
Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map and the Jefferson County Code Zoning Map, as they are the
same.
Amendments to the UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-1) and implementing UGA regulations III
Appendix D of the UGA shall be subject to the amendment requirements of Section 18.45, JCe.
The County should provide for on-going review and evaluation of the lrondale & Port Hadlock
Unincorporated UGA to monitor the rate of development, land supply and availability, market
conditions, infrastructure implementation and costs in order to identi/)' constraints to growth in the
UGA and recommend corrective actions, where appropriate.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-23
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-\213-04
Exhibit B
URBAN LEVEL CAPITAL FACILITIES
GOAL:
UGA-G 2.0
POLICIES:
UGA-P 2.1
UGA-P 2.2
UGA-P 2.3
UGA-P 2.4
UGA-P 2.5
UGA-P 2.6
Limit the establishment or expansion of nrban-Ievel development and infrastrncture to
Urban Growth Areas and Master Planned Resorts.
Ensure that expansion of urban infrastructure occurs in coordination with designated land uses
based on projected growth or land supply needs and will be concurrent with amendments to the
comprehensive plan.
Ensure that where the County assumes maintenance responsibilities for infrastructure, the
infrastructure is adequately designed to meet the area growth needs and to fulfill the functions
the infrastructure is intended to perfonn.
Development shall provide, plan or mitigate for, an appropriate level of service for capital
facilities including, but not limited to, potable water supply, fire flow, adequate sanitary
sewerage treatment and disposal, stonnwater management, and roads, including sidewalks
where required by adopted urban road standards.
The planning and implementation of transportation and stonnwater management facilities in the
unincorporated UGA shall reflect consistency with the goals and policies in the UGA
Stonnwater Management Plan and the UGA Transportation Plan adopted as components of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Maintain consistency with the Capital Facilities Element, Policy CFP 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, as
amended. All adopted Level of Service Standards for Category A, Band C Public Facilities
identified in CFP Policy 1.1 shall apply to the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA, except as may be
modified by or provided for separately in Policy UGA-P2.8 of the Urban Growth Area Element
or an adopted UGA-specific Capital Facility Plan, including the Pori Hadlock UGA Sewer
Facilities Plan, Transporlation Plan and Stormwater Management Plan.
In addition to the LOS adopted for public facilities in UGA-P 2.7 and CFP 1.\ of this
Comprehensive Plan, above, adopt Urban LOS standards for the following capital facilities and
public services in the lrondale & Port Hadlock Unincorporated UGA:
(a) On-Site Septic Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Per Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.15 (On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems)
(b) Sanitary Sewer
Per the adopted lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA General Sewer Plan
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-24
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
(minimum 150 gallons per day/ERU)
(c) Stormwater Management
Per the 2001 Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington (DOE Manual), as amended.
(d) Transportation
Maintain Level of Service standard "D" or better on all road facilities within Urban
Areas (UGAs) and Designated Tourist Corridors as established by the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), based upon Average Annual
Daily Trips.
(e) PUD UGA Public Water System Design Criteria
Demand
Average Daily Demand
Maximum Daily Demand
(466 GPD/ERU)
(933 GPD/ERU)
Fire Flow
The adopted Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) for Jefferson County establishes
the Fire Flow level of service requirements for the UGA Water System. The
requirements are identified in Table 4-1 of the CWSP, as may be amended.
GOAL:
Storm water Management
UGA-G 3.0
POLICIES:
UGA-P 3.1
UGA-P 3.2
UGA-P 3.3
UGA-P 3.4
Minimize the adverse effects on ground and surface water quality and quantity and protect
aquatic resources and habitats from stormwater runoff generated within the lrondale and Port
Hadlock UGA.
Manage stormwater runoff in the UGA in compliance with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code and consistent with the guidance of the
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
Use the technical standards from the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washinglon to manage stormwater within the lrondale and
Port Hadlock UGA.
Develop and implement an lrondale and Port Hadlock UGA Stormwater Management Program.
Increase the public's knowledge of stormwater runoff issues and support public
involvement in stormwater management by developing and implementing a Stormwater
Management Public Education component of the lrondale and Port Hadlock Stormwater
Management Program.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-25
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
UGA-P 3.5 Ensure the continued operation of stormwater management facilities by developing and
implementing a Stormwater Management Facility Operation and Maintenance component of
the Irondale and Port Hadlock Stormwater Management Program.
UGA-P 3.6 Ensure that stormwater management activities are effective by developing and
implementing a Water Quality Monitoring and Stream Gauging component of the Iron dale and
Port Hadlock Stormwater Management Program.
UGA-P 3.7 Develop a stable and equitable revenue source to fund an Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA
Storm water Management Program.
UGA-P 3.8 Maintain an inventory of public and private stormwater management facilities within the UGA.
UGA-P 3.9 Join with State and local agencies and private landowners to plan, finance, and
construct regional stormwater management facilities and to remediate existing storm water
management deficiencies.
UGA-P 3.10 Minimize adverse stormwater impacts and preserve aquifer recharge by encouraging Low
Impact Development design strategies.
TRANSPORTATION
GOAL:
UGA-G 4,0
Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional
priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans
POLICIES:
UGA-P 4.1
Encourage the use of roadway features that enhance urban qualities by applying urban
standards as deemed appropriate in the Urban Growth Area.
UGA-P 4.2
Require that subdivision and commercial project designs address the following issues:
a. Cost effective transit and delivery of emergency services;
b. Provisions for all transportation modes;
c. Dedication of rights of way for existing and future transportation needs;
d. Motorized and nonmotorized access;
e. Sidewalks and bicycle pathways;
f. Compatibility between motorized vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit users
g. Inclusion of transit friendly design elements
h. Adequate parking for non-peak period; and
1. Frontage improvements and roadway features to meet urban design
standards within the lrondale-Port Hadlock UGA.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-26
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
STRATEGIES
UGA LAND USE AND REGULATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for UGA land use regulation will be implemented through amendment of
the Unified Development Code, development regulations, and permitting ordinances and procedures in
public processes to achieve compliance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Action Items
1. Land use and development regulations which implement UGA goals and policies of this plan shall be
prepared, publicly reviewed, and implemented. Existing development regulations shall be reviewed for
applicability and revised where appropriate.
2. A set of zoning designations which provides a range of urban development densities, and identifies
allowed uses for each zone shall be established to reflect the Comprehensive Plan Irondale & Port
Hadlock UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-1).
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-27
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
IRONDALE & PORT HADLOCK
URBAN GROWTH AREA
MAP FOLIO
Figure 2-1: UGA Zoning Map
Figure 2-2: UGA Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Map
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-28
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE # 17-1213-04
Exhibit B
Clean Copy, Pages 11-8 & 11-27, Chapter 11
UTILITIES
The existing South Bay Service Area includes the original plats of South Bay I through 3, plus Ludlow
Point tracts, Inner Harbor Bay V iew Village, and other approved development sites. Ludlow Point tracts
are at the northern end of South Bay Lane. Sanitary sewer service was provided to these lots as part of
the Inner Harbor project approved by DOE on September 6, 1989.
Public Utility District (PUD) No.1 Service Area: Presently, sanitary sewer service within the PUD's
service areas is provided via septic systems. Most of the septic systems throughout the eastern County
area are constructed by developers to support new development. Table II-IA identifies the septic systems
owned and managed by PUD NO.1 as of 1998:
Table ll-IA
Curreut P.U.D. No. I Septic Systems
Septic System
Location
Current
Connections
Maximum
Connections
Levine Drainfield
Discovery Ridge
Ocean Grove
Schoenfeld Phase I
Gardiner
Quimper Peninsula
Quimper Peninsula
Coyle Peninsula
3
5
5
3
8
40
49
12
Table ll-lB
Future Septic Systems
Septic System Location Current Maximum
Connections Connections
Discovery Yacht and Discovery Bay 0 53
Racquet Club
Old Alcohol Plant Port Hadlock 0 0
Schoenfeld Phase Il Coyle Peninsula 0 12
Wally Pederson's Trail's N/A 0 12
End
Suquamish View N/A N/A N/A
Steve Wakefield N/A N/A N/A
Tri-Area Service Area: Existing Tri-Area residential and non-residential areas utilize septic systems for
sanitary waste and effluent control. The Tri-Area was established as an Urban Growth Area in 2002, and
a Sanitary Sewer system is currently being planned. The service area will include the entire UGA
planning area as depicted in the UGA Zoning Map, Figure 2-1, Chapter 2, Urban Growth Area Element
and also depicted in the Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan, September 2008, Appendix 1.
Solid Waste Management: Introduction
In the State of Washington, local governments have lead responsibility for solid waste management and
moderate-risk waste management. However, local governments must manage and handle waste
according to State laws, which are comprehensive in scope, and include specific mandates for solid waste
management, handling, and disposal systems. Local governments do not manage hazardous wastes, but
are required to adopt a local hazardous waste plan for moderate-risk waste (household hazardous waste).
The State Solid Waste Management--Reduction and Recycling Act designates the Department of Ecology
(DOE) as the State department responsible for overseeing solid waste regulations. The administrative
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-8
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
Clean Copy, Pages 11-8 & 11-27, Chapter 11
UTILITIES
person, which is the Department of Ecology (DOE) design criteria required for developing sanitary
sewage treatment facilities.
There are approximately 1,446 total sanitary sewer connections anticipated through 2000, which include
845 ERU for Actual 1995 (785 residential + 60 commercial ERU); 80 estimated additions during 1996;
and an additional 521 ERU during the 1997-2002 growth period (growth estimated at 80 residential per
year plus 47,500 sq. fi of commercial @ 200 GPD/l,OOO sq. fi).
The total average daily gallons per day (GPO) wastewater treatment requirement resulting from growth
demands (ERU) though 2002 will be 0.34 million gallons per day (MGD) at the current and
recommended LOS of 230 gallons per day/ERU.
The wastewater treatment plant (WTP) will be upgraded to treat 0.64 million gallons per day (MGD)
maximum monthly average flow (with the addition of the third aeration basin). This capacity upgrade is
anticipated to accommodate the projected 1997-2002 growth in ERU.
The capacity of the WTP, by conditions of various permits, cannot be expanded beyond the maximum-
monthly-average flow capacity of 0.64 million gallons per day (MGD). Therefore, the WTP capacity
controls the number of sewered residential and commercial ERU in the Port Ludlow community.
Public Utility District (PUD) No.1 Service Area: The systems are being constructed to a specific,
limited size, and will not be increased beyond the original design capacity.
Irondale and Port Hadlock Service Area: At the present time, septic systems provide the only
mechanism for wastewater disposal and treatment.
As part of the process, capital needs were addressed and the impacts fully explored in a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS 1999). The Irondale/Hadlock UGA external boundary was
established in 2002. Development Regulations, internal zoning, Capital Facilities Plan, and a General
Sewer Plan were created in 2004 for the UGA. Because earlier efforts at sewer facilities planning did not
sewer the entire UGA within the 20-year planning horizon, the Western Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board found the UGA non-compliant with the Growth Management Act.
New planning reflected in the Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan of September 2008 demonstrates capital
facilities planning that can provide sewer to the entire UGA in the planning period from 2004-2024.
The current and recommended LOS for wastewater treatment and transmission is 230 gallons per
day/ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit @ 2.3 persons per household). This is based on 100 GPO per
person, which is the Department of Ecology (DOE) design criteria required for developing sanitary
sewage treatment facilities.
When the Port Hadlock Wastewater System is developed it will meet this LOS.
Solid Waste: Future Capacity Needs and Requirements:
The waste streams generated in Jefferson County and processed at County facilities include: (1)
household and commercial solid waste (or garbage); (2) household and small business hazardous waste,
defined by regulation as moderate risk waste; (3) materials removed for recycling from these two waste
streams; and (4) yard and land-clearing organic materials.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-27
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
Clean Copy, Pages 12-5, 12-8, 12-47 Chapter 12
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Population Growth Assumptions
This Capital Facilities Element is based on the following population data:
Table 12-2
Populatiou Growth Assumptions
Year Countywide
2005 28,308
2006 28,815
2007 29,327
2008 29,844
2009 30,366
2010 30,892
Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Cost Projections: 2005-2010
The 2005-2010 capital improvements cost projections are summarized on Table 12-3.
Table 12-3
County-Owned/Operated Public Facilities Capital Cost Summary
This Table Includes Both Capacity And Non-capacity Projects
Type of Public Facility 2005-2010 Cost
On 2004 Dollars)
Animal Shelter $30,000
Community Centers $90,000
County Corrections Inmate Facilities $105,000
County Sheriff Facilities $30,000
County Justice Facilities $30,000
County General Administrative Facilities $275,500
County Maintenance Shop Facilities $525,000
Parks and Recreation Facilities $1,118,000
Solid Waste Facilities $1,489,000
Storm water Management $10,000
Flood Control Facilities $0
TransDortation $8,273,000
Sewer Svstem Facilities" SEE UPDATED APPENDIX I "$300,000
Water Svstem Facilities $0
TOTAL REQUIRED $12,275,500
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 5
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
Clean Copy, Pages 12-5, 12-8, 12-47 Chapter 12
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Level Of Service (LOS) Impacts
The 2005-2010 Capital Facilities Six-Year Plan (CFP) enables Jefferson County to accommodate 9.1%
population growth based on a projected 2010 population of 30,892 people. Modifications to Level of
Service (LOS) standards for County-owned or managed facilities follow:
Table 12-6
Level Of Service (LOS) Standard: Statns Qno
LOS Unit
Acres/1,OOO 0 ulation
Acres/I,OOO 0 ulation
Acres/I,OOO 0 ulation
Miles/1,OOO 0 ulation
Acres/1 ,000 0 ulation
Level A, B, C, D, E, F
Prior Standard
11.5
0.51
0.14
0.52
1.30
Rural: Level C
Urban: Level D
Master Plan Resort
(MPR): Level D
Table 12-7
Level Of Service (LOS) Standard: Increased
Facilitv LOS Unit Prior Standard Proposed Standard
Solid Waste, All Waste Lbs./Person/Day 3.99 Lbs. 5.00 Lbs,
Solid Waste, Recycle Recvcle Rate 14% 16%
Solid Waste, Garbage Lbs./Person/Day 2.83 Lbs. 4.20 Lbs.
Solid Waste, Recycle Lbs./Person/Day 0.56 Lbs. 0.80 Lbs.
Table 12-7 Addendum
Updated in the 2002 Amendment to this Element
Facility LOS Unit 1998 LOS Standard CFP LOS Standard
'Sewage Treatment Gallons/ERU/day 230 Gallons '133Gallons/ERU/da
y
Storm water Management N/A N/A Stormwater
Management Manual
for Western WA or
WSDOT Highway
Runoff Manual
, From Average Daily Flow Commercial ERU @
per day per person multiplied by 2.2 persons .per h6US
Facility Plan, September 20118,
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 8
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit B
Clean Copy, Pages 12-5, 12-8, 12-47 Chapter 12
CAPITAL FACILITIES
SEWAGE COLLECTION / TREATMENT
Current Facilities: The County currently does not own or operate sewage collection or treatment
facilities. As a result of the recent addition of Irondale and Port Hadlock as a UGA, facility planning
will be undertaken to determine the specific capacity needs, potential ownership and operations
scenarios, and funding requirements. The current planning document, Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility
Plan, dated September 2008, has been accepted by the State Department of Health and State Department
of Ecology as an engineering plan-level document. Appendix I.
Level of Service (LOS): The proposed Level of Service (LOS) will be determined when a specific
facility type is selected and appropriate studies are conducted to evaluate capacity and usage. The
preferred alternative is a gravity-fed membrane bioreactor with a rapid-rate infiltration basin for water
reuse.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing: Since the type of facility has not yet been determined,
funding plans have not yet been developed.
Planning Levels of Service and Adequate Facilities: In compliance with the GMA and Capital
Facilities Policy 3.2, adequate sewage treatment capacity is proposed within this Capital Facilities
Element. The County is anticipating $300,000 (2004 dollars) in planning sewer facility planning costs to
be incurred by the end of 2005.
See Appendix I for detailed discussion of anticipated cost, funding and financing issues.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 47
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
Exhibit C
Figure 2-1
Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA
Zoning
February 4, 2009
o
I
750 1,500
I
3,000 Feet
I
E:J UGA Boundary
UGA P UGA Public
.. UGA-C UGA Commercial
.. UGA VC UGA Visitor Oriented Commercial
.. UGA-lI UGA Light Industrial
UGA-LDR UGA Low Density Residential 4-6
UGA-MDR UGAMedium Density Residential 7-12
.. UGA-HDR UGAHigh Density Residential 13-18
..
Fox "'veAv
'"
~
" ,
,( ~
,~r
.
,*
\~
3
<
.
\
)
~_",~,-,_~'~;~~~~'~,,,~,~:_:'~:~cJ
Exhibit 0
Comprehensive Plan Appendix "I"
Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan
Jefferson County
September 2003
Volume 1 of 2: Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan
Volume 2 of 2: Environmental Report and SEPA Checklist
Electronic document location: www.porthadlocksewer.oro
Exhibit E
Comprehensive Plan Appendix L
Proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA:
DWELLING UNIT & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
January 21, 2009
CASCADIA Community Planning Services
INTRODUCTION
This document seeks to assess the dwelling unit and population holding capacity
of the Irondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA). Its purpose is to
determine whether the proposed UGA is appropriately sized in relation to existing
population and anticipated future dwelling unit and population growth.
The population projection and allocation that served as the foundation for the
2004 update to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan ("the Plan") addresses
the period 2004 to 2024. Under this projection, which adopts the "mid-range"
forecast of the Washington State Office of Financial Management, the County's
total population is anticipated to reach 40,139 by the year 2024, an increase of
13,840 over the 2000 population estimated by the United States Census.1
Consistent with RCW 36.70A.11 0(2) and RCW 43.62.035, this projection was
endorsed by the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) and
was adopted by both Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend in April of
2003.
Under the adopted population projection and allocation, Jefferson County's
UGAs, in aggregate, must be designed to accommodate approximately 70% of
the projected population growth anticipated to occur by 2024 (i.e., 9,691 of the
projected 13,840 persons). The adopted allocation directs that the Port
Townsend UGA accommodate 36% of the projected total countywide growth,
with 17% of the projected growth directed to the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock
UGA, and 17% also directed to the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR).
Table 1, on the following page, summarizes the adopted population projection
and urban area allocations.
1 The OFM projections for the year 2024 were as follows: ~low series" - 33,276: ~medium seriesb -40,139: and "high
series" - 48,960.
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
1
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
8,344
4,985
13,329
36%
1.97%
2,553
2,353
4,906
17%
2.76%
1,430
2,353
3,783
17%
4.14%
The table shows that the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA must be sized to
accommodate an additional 2,353 in population by the year 2024, over its
estimated "base" year population of 2,553 population in 2000. Thus, the
proposed UGA must be designed to accommodate a total population of 4,906.
The methodology and analysis that follows assesses the dwelling unit and
population holding capacity of the residential areas within the proposed UGA in
relation to this 4,906 population-planning target.
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
In determining whether the supply of residentially designated and zoned land
within the proposed UGA is proportionate to the projected future population, a
number of variables and assumptions can affect the analysis and must be
considered, including the following:
· Differentiating between developed, underdeveloped, and vacant
residential lands;
. The proposed residential designations and densities (i.e., both single-
family and multi-family);
2 Source: Estimated using tract and block data, 2000 US Census.
3 Source: 2002 Washington State OFM "Intennediate Range~ Forecast for Jefferson County for the year 2024.
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
2
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
. The location and extent of critical areas that may restrict or preclude
development in certain areas;
. The need to set aside land for public purposes, including roads, parks,
wastewater and stormwater facilities; and
. The need to account for land that will remain vacant over the course of the
planning period due to landowner preferences, title disputes,
encumbrances and market conditions.
It should be emphasized that this analysis is not an entirely academic exercise: it
does not simply identify the total theoretical dwelling unit and population holding
capacity of the UGA based only upon gross acreages and proposed zoning
densities. Instead, the analysis attempts to more realistically assess the dwelling
unit and population holding capacity by accurately differentiating developed,
underdeveloped, and vacant residential lands, factoring actual mapped critical
areas and their buffers, and taking into account actual projected needs for public
lands and rights-of-way.
Clearly, the proposed lrondale/Port Hadlock UGA presents limited opportunities
for "blue sky" planning. Much of the area was platted in the late 19th and early
20th century, and has seen substantial residential and commercial development
over the intervening decades. This is why the area is presently identified as a
limited area of more intensive rural development (LAMIRD) under RCW
36.70A.070(5), as it encompasses widespread areas of pre-existing subdivision
and development activity that have occurred at non-rural densities. The
description of the step-by-step dwelling unit and population holding capacity
analysis that follows, attempts to factor this pre-existing development.
IDENTIFYING LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
The following steps were followed in identifying the available residential land
supply within the proposed lrondale/Port Hadlock UGA:
Step A: Identify lands that are capable of accommodating future dwelling
unit and population growth (i.e., vacant and underdeveloped lands).
The identification of buildable land began with a Jefferson County GIS parcel
base layer. This base layer is linked to current ownership, tax status, value and
land use data from the Jefferson County Assessor's Office. This data is then
combined with land use/zoning layers for the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock
Urban Growth Area (UGA). The proposed land use and zoning designations and
allowable densities were used.
A series of semi-automated scripts and queries were run using the GIS to sort
and classify each parcel proposed for residential land use and zoning within the
proposed UGA (i.e., low density residential, medium density residential and high
density residential) into the following categories:
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
3
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
. Vacant land;
· Underdeveloped land; and
· Developed land.
Vacant land was defined as land with no, or insignificant improvements. Thus, all
parcels designated within the Assessor's land use code as 9100 or 9800 (i.e.,
, vacant"), or which have an assessed structural (improvement) value that is
equal to or less than $10,000 fall within this category.
Underdevelooed land was defined as land occupied by current development that
is of relatively low density in relation to parcel ownership size and/or of relatively
low structural (improvement) value. This is land that is seen as likely to support
further or more intense levels of development. If the value of the structures
(improvements) was equal to or less than $100,000 and the parcel ownership
was equal to or twice the minimum lot size of the applicable zone (e.g., 20,000
s.f. in the Low Density Residential designation), the parcel was deemed likely to
develop to its permissible higher density within the 20-year planning period. A
typical example of underdeveloped land would include a parcel ownership in a
neighborhood that currently accommodates one dwelling unit, but which contains
sufficient land area to accommodate one or more additional dwelling units and
still comply with the density limitations of the applicable zone.
Develooed land was defined as land with no additional space for development
and which has significant structural (improvement) values. This is land that is not
likely to support further or more intense levels of development. All land not
identified as "vacant" or "underdeveloped" as defined above, falls within this
category.
Table #2 on the following page summarizes the results of step "A" of the
analysis.
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
4
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
801.00
66.00
50.00
236.10
4.00
8.8
268.10
35.00
7.60
296.80
27.00
33.60
Source: GIS analysis conducted by Jefferson County Central Services.
Step "B": Subtract areas incapable of development due to environmental
constraints.
Jefferson County has identified critical areas and their buffers and has adopted
regulations to protect these areas as required by the GMA. In certain instances,
the presence of critical areas may serve only to regulate development (e.g.,
aquifer recharge areas, seismic hazard areas, etc.) rather than prohibit it (e.g.,
wetlands and streams). This analysis removes only those areas from the initial
land supply pool where adopted regulations would, as a practical matter, largely
preclude development.
Using the County's GIS layers, the following critical area features and their
associated buffers have been identified and removed from the available land
supply:
· Wetlands (National Wetlands Inventory) - with a 100' buffer width applied;
· Streams (Streams Types layer) - with a 150' buffer width applied to Type I
streams (i.e., Chimacum Creek);
· Class I Geologically Hazardous Areas (e.g., landslide and erosion
hazards); and
· Marine Shorelines - with a 150' buffer width applied.
These layers were combined as a composite critical layer and then overlaid on
the parcel base layer. The area of each parcel covered by critical areas is then
subtracted from the parcel's gross area to derive a net-buildable area.
Discussions with Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff
support the use of a 100' average buffer for wetlands, and a 150' buffer for
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
5
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
marine shorelines and Type I streams, for purposes of conducting a planning
level residential dwelling unit and population holding capacity analysis. Some
wetlands identified through reconnaissance surveys may be of relatively low
functional value and will ultimately be protected with buffers of less than 100' in
width. Nevertheless, the use of 100' as a reasonable generalized buffer width
assumption allows for a more accurate representation of the area likely to be
:"lpicted by wetlands and their buffers across the full range of wetland
categories.
The table below shows the amount of vacant and underdeveloped land impacted
by designated and mapped critical areas and their buffers.
236.10-103.40 acres
in mapped critical
areas = 132.70
4.00 - 0.50 acres in
mapped critical areas
= 3.50
8.80 - 1.40 acres in
mapped critical areas
= 7.40
268.10 - 80.50 in
mapped critical areas
= 187.60
35.00 - 3.40 acres in
mapped critical areas
= 31.60
7.60 -1.00 acres in
mapped critical areas
= 6.60
Step "C": Subtract all lands that are assumed to be unavailable for
development within the 20-year planning horizon.
It is reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of vacant and
underdeveloped land will always be held out from development. In this analysis,
a 25% unavailable land factor has been applied to account for properties likely to
remain vacant over the planning period due to title disputes, encumbrances and
property owner discretion. This reduction factor falls within the acceptable
parameters (25% or less without justification) for market reduction factors
established in prior decisions of the Western Washington and Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearings Boards (see, for example, Bremerton. et al
v. Kitsao County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0039, at 42 and 65).
Table on the following page shows the amount of land removed from the
calculation by applying the unavailable land factor.
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
6
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
132.70 - (132.70 x 3.50 - (3.50 x 0.25 = 7.40 - (7.40 x 0.25 =
0.25 = 33.18) = 99.52 0.88) = 2.62 1.85) = 5.55
187.60 - (187.60 x 31.60 - (31.60 x 0.25 6.60 - (6.6 x 0.25 =
0.25 = 46.90) = = 7.90) = 23.70 1.65) = 4.95
140.70
Step "D": Subtract lands that will be needed for road rights of way.
A 15% right-of-way infrastructure reduction factor has been applied to both
vacant and underdeveloped lands. While substantial portions of the proposed
UGA were platted in the late 19th century, significant unplatted areas remain.
Because the gross acreage figures used in this analysis incorporate adjoining
rights-of-way, it is reasonable to apply a 15% reduction factor, anticipating that
many ancient platted areas will be replatted employing modern lot and road
layout configurations.
The table below shows the amount of land removed from the calculation by
applying the right-of-way reduction factor.
99.52 - (99.52 x 0.15 2.62 - (2.62 x 0.15 = 5.55 - (5.55 x 0.15 =
= 14.93) = 84.59 0.39) = 2.23 083) = 4.72
140.70 - (140.70 x 23.70 - (23.70 x 0.15 4.95 - (4.95 x 0 15 =
0.15=21.11)= =3.56)=20.14 0.74)=4.21
119.59
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
7
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
Step "E": Subtract lands that will be needed for other necessary public
facilities (e.g., "active" recreational lands).
Typically, this reduction factor would include utility corridors, landfills, sewage
treatment plants, parks, schools and other public uses (936.70A.150 RCW).
However, in this analysis, a public lands reduction factor has not been applied
uniformly to all areas proposed for a residential land use designation and zoning.
Instead, an "active recreational" land reduction factor has been applied only to
areas proposed for multi-family residential use. This factor is intended to
address the need for usable "active" open space and recreational amenities
within new multi-family housing developments (i.e., as opposed to "passive" open
space areas that could be found within critical areas and their required buffers).
Such areas might include tennis courts, exercise courses, playgrounds and other
amenities that help to create attractive and livable neighborhood environments
for family life.
Other than this narrowly applied active recreational land reduction factor, no
other public land reduction factor has been applied. This is because substantial
portions of the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA have previously been
developed, and in many instances, land necessary for dedicated public uses (i.e.,
community and regional parks, wastewater treatment plants, stormwater
infrastructure etc.) has already been identified for inclusion within a public land
use designation and zoning district. This approach errs on the side of caution,
and may operate to somewhat overestimate the amount of Low Density
Residential land likely to be available to accommodate future dwelling unit and
population growth.
84.59'
2.23 - (2.23 x 0.10 = 4.72 - (4.72 x 0.10 =
0.223) = 2.01 0.472) = 4.25
119.59'
20.14 - (20.14 x 0.10 4.21 - (4.21 x 0.10 =
= 2.014) = 18.13 0.421) = 3.80
*No reduction factor for active recreation spaces has been applied within Low Density Residential areas.
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
8
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
RESULTS: NET AVAILABLE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The tables on the following pages summarize the step-by-step process described
above to identify the net acreage available for future dwelling unit and population
growth within the proposed UGA.
236.10
4.00
8.80
236.10- 4.00 - 0.50 = 8.80 - 1.40 =
103.40 = 3.50 7.40
132.70
132.70 - 3.50 - (3.50 x 7.40 - (7.40 x
(132.70 x 0.25 0.25 = 0.88) = 0.25 = 1.85) =
= 33.18) = 2.62 5.55
99.52
99.52 - (99.52 2.62 - (2.62 x 5.55 - (5.55 x
x 0.15 = 14.93) 0.15 = 0.39) = 0.15 = 0.83) =
= 84.59 2.23 4.72
84.59 2.23 - (2.23 x 4.72 - (4.72 x
0.10 = 0.223) = 0.10 = 0.472) =
2.01 4.25
2.01 4.25
(50.25% of (48.30% of
gross land gross land
area area
"~Vacanr land is that land area within the proposed UGA boundary designated for residential use that is identified by the
Jefferson County Assessor as 9100 or ~vacant~ or that has an assessed building valuation of less than $20,000.
*'* No public facilities reduction factor has been applied to areas proposed for Low Density Residential land use.
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
9
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
268.10 35.00
7.60
268.10 - 80.50 35.00 - 3.40 =
= 187.60 31.60
7.60-1.00=
6.60
187.60 - 31.60 - (31.60 6.60 - (6.60 x
(187.60 x 0.25 x 0.25 = 7.90) 0.25 = 1.65) =
- 46.90) = = 23.70 4.95
140.70
140.70 - 23.70 - (23.70 4.95 - (4.95 x
(140.70 x 0.15 x 0.15 = 3.56) 0.15 = 0.74) =
= 21.11) = = 20.14 4.21
119.59
119.59 20.14- (20.14 4.21 - (4.21 x
x 0.10 = 2.014) 0.10 = 0.421) =
= 18.13 3.79
119.59 18.13 3.79
(44.61% of (51.80% of (49.87% of
gross land gross land gross land
area area area
" Underdeveloped land is that land area within the proposed UGA boundary designated for residential use, that is at least
two times the minimum parcel size or the zoning designation, and that is identified by the Jefferson County Assessor as
having an assessed building valuation equal to or less than $100,000.
** No public facilities reduction factor has been applied to areas proposed for Low Density Residential land use.
Table #9 on the following page provides a summary of the final net vacant and
underdeveloped residential lands within the proposed UGA.
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
10
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
84.59
2.01
4.25
119.59
18.13
3.79
204.18
20.14
8.04
ESTIMATED DWELLING UNIT & POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY
The estimated dwelling unit holding capacity of the proposed lrondale/Port
Hadlock UGA is determined by multiplying the net available land (i.e., vacant and
underdeveloped land area combined) in each zoning designation by the
minimum and maximum density permitted within each zone. This establishes a
dwelling unit capacity range. The minimum and maximum number of dwelling
units is then multiplied by the estimated household size at the end of the planning
period to establish an estimated population holding capacity range for vacant and
underdeveloped lands within the proposed UGA.
After the holding capacity ranges are established, the estimated number of
existing dwelling units and population located upon land identified as
"underdeveloped" is subtracted from the totals to arrive at a net additional
number of dwelling units and population that may be accommodated within the
proposed UGA. Tables #10 and #11 on the following page depict the results of
this approach, zone by zone, and cumulatively for the proposed Irondale/Port
Hadlock UGA.
PROPOSEDIRONDAL8
PORT HADLOCK UGA
11
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
204.18
817 1224
1 ,797 2,693
20.14
141 - 242
310 - 532
8.04
113-193
249 -425
232.36 1,071 -1,659 2,356 - 3,650
.., Obtained by mUltiplying dwelling unit capacity by 2.2, the estimated number of persons per household at the end of the
planning period (Le., 2024).
1,071 - 1,659
136
2,356 - 3,650
299
935 -1,523
2,057 - 3,351
Source: Dwelling unit count obtained through GIS analysis conducted by Jefferson County Central Services; population
estimate obtained by multiplying the estimated dwelling units by 2.2 persons per household.
Once the "net additional" dwelling unit and population holding capacity has been
established, it must be added to the estimated existing (2003) dwelling unit and
population count in order to identify the total estimated holding capacity of the
proposed lrondale/Port Hadlock UGA at build-out. The result of this operation is
set forth in Table #12, below.
PROPOSEDIRONDAL8
PORT HADLOCK UGA
12
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
935 -1,523
2,057 - 3,351
1,160'
2,553
2,095 - 2,683
4,610-5,904
11'1,024 in "developed areas; 136 in "underdeveloped" areas.
The total estimated population holding capacity range must then be compared
with the total projected population of the proposed UGA at the end of the
planning period in 2024 under the adopted forecast and allocation (i.e., 4,906).
When this is done, a potential population holding capacity deficit of -296 to a
surplus of +998 is revealed.
This deficit/surplus range suggests that if future actual density yields occur at the
minimum required densities for all residential zones (i.e., 4,7 and 13 d.u. per
acre, respectively), that the proposed UGA might be viewed as somewhat
undersized in relation to the urban population allocation. Conversely, it also
shows that if future density yields occurred consistently at the highest permissible
densities in each residential zone (i.e., 6, 12 and 18 d.u. per acre, respectively),
that the proposed UGA might include slightly more capacity than is necessary to
accommodate the projected future population of 4,906. Both potential build-out
scenarios would appear unlikely. Instead, actual achieved densities yields are
likely to fall somewhere in between, as specific site conditions and landowner/
developer preferences manifest themselves over time.
By way of example, the State of Maryland employs an estimated 75% density
yield rate in situations where actual achieved development density data are
lacking.4 If we apply a 75% density yield rate to identify a somewhat more likely
dwelling unit development scenario for the proposed Iron dale/Port Hadlock UGA,
we would multiply the high end of the "net additional dwelling units" identified in
Table #12, above (i.e., 1,523) by 0.75. This operation (i.e., 1,523 x 0.75) results
in an estimated 1,142 new dwelling units over the planning period. At 2.2
persons per household (pph), this translates to an estimated 2,512 additional
residents over baseline conditions (i.e., 2,553). The sum of existing and potential
future population is 5,065, or a "surplus" capacity of 159 persons (72 dwelling
units at 2.2 pph). This is a negligible surplus in a planning level analysis,
4 Model & Guidelines Summary: Development Capacitv Analvses, State of Maryland Department
of Planning (MDP) (2004), available at:
http://www.mdp.stat.md.uslpdfldev _ ca plohthatrlchhalL cg. pdf.
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
13
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit E
particularly when one considers the comparatively conservative reduction factor
assumption employed for "public lands" in step "E" of the methodology described
above.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the methodology and assumptions documented above, the
proposed lrondale/Port Hadlock UGA appears to include residential land areas
and densities sufficient to accommodate the urban growth allocation of 2,353
persons for the 2004 - 2024 planning period, consistent with the requirements of
RCW 36.70A.110(2).
If ultimate build-out were to occur uniformly at either the low or the high end of
the permissible density ranges in each residential zone, the population holding
capacity would range from a net deficit of -296 to a net surplus of +998 in
relation to the adopted population target of 4,906 for 2024. However, to assume
either a uniformly "low-density" or "high-density" build-out scenario is both
unreasonable and unlikely. Instead, it is rational, appropriate, and within the
range of discretion afforded to localities planning under the GMA to assume a
more plausible density yield rate scenario of 75%. Such an assumption results in
an estimated capacity for 2,512 additional people occupying 1,142 dwelling units,
and a total population holding capacity of 5,065, some 159 persons over the
4,906 target. This difference is insignificant in the context of an area-wide
planning analysis. Accordingly, it is reasonable and valid to conclude that the
proposed lrondale/Port Hadlock UGA is not over-sized in relation to current and
projected future population.
PROPOSED IRONDALEI
PORT HADLOCK UGA
14
DWELLING & POPULATION
HOLDING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
Chapter 18.18
IRONDALE AND PORT HADLOCK UGA DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
IMPLEMENTATION
Sections:
18.18.010 Pnrpose.
18.18.020 Establishment of nrban growth area (UGA) land nse and zoning districts.
18.18.030 Purpose ofUGA land use and zoning districts.
18.18.040 Use tables.
18.18.050 Density, dimension and open space standards.
18.18.060 Development requirements and performance standards.
18.18.070 Landscaping.
18.18.080 Parking and pedestrian circulation.
18.18.090 Lighting.
18.18.100 Signs.
18.18.110 Design standards.
18.18.120 Site plan approval required in the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA.
18.18.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish land use controls and regulations for the
unincorpora1ed lrondale and Port Hadlock urban growth area consistent with the adopted
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. rOrd. 10-04 & 31.
Chapter 18.18 ICC development regulations shall be used for urban development that has
urban services available. Urban development will not be allowed before the availabilitv
of urban services.N namelv. tllese urban de'/elopment standards are tied to sewer
availabilitv. Those areas in the UGA that do not yet have sewer available must develop
at rural densities using rural standards found elsewhere in Title 18. ICe. These
development re~ulations cannot allow urban density rn areas tha'. are rel'r en sep1ic
systems. See 18.18.060. Development Requirements and Performance Standards. for
spccific information about sewcr availabilitv and whcn urban dcvclopmcnt standards will
~
Urban development '""iIlEet be allowed bcfore the availability of urban ser/ices. Those
areas in tile UCh'\ tl1Llt do net yet have sewer available must develop u~;inlo: rural standards
found in Ti1le I g, JCC.
Jerreme" Ceu"ty Com~rehe"5iYe PIa". [Onl. ]0 01 l3].
18.18.020 Establishment of urban ~rowth area (UGA) land use and zo
Urban Growth Area (UGA)
Land Use Districts Zonin!! Districts
Urban Residential Urban low density residential (ULDR)
Urban moderate density residential (UMDR)
Urban high density residential (UHDR)
Urban Commercial Urban commercial (UC)
Visitor-oriented commercial (VOC)
Urban Industrial Urban light industrial (ULl)
Public Public (P)
ning districts.
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 1
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
fOrd i 0-04 S 3].
18.18.030 Purpose of UGA land use and zoning districts.
The purposes of the land use and zoning districts are as follows:
(I) Urban Commercial (UC). The purpose of the urban commercial designation is to provide
for a wide range of commercial activities and eompatillle resideffiial uses compatible with
the _expressed needs of the community that will provide fBr eommHliit). and regional
goods and services for rcsidents of the UGA nearbv residents and surrounding areas of
eastem Jefferson Cmlllt)" as \Yell as serve the traveling public;
(2) Visitor-Oriented Commercial (VOC). The purpose of the VOCthis designation is to
recognize the unique area of the Old Alcohol Plant and allowprovide for IIHtltiuse
commercial arlll residelltial uses and for visitor-oriented lodging, goods and services that
supplement, and urb[lfl resiaelitial development opportunities eOllsistollt '",ith the
historical and tourism-related character of tlrerhi> area;
(3) Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR). The purpose of the ULDR district is to provide
for areas of single-famil)" urban residential development that are separate from
commercial and industrial uses and activities;
(4) Urban Moderate Density Residential (UMDR). The purpose of the UMDR district is to
provide for areas of mixed single-family and moderate density multifamily urban
residential development;
(5) Urban High Density Residential (UHDR). The purpose of the UHDR district is to provide
for areas of high density multifamily residential development;
(6) Urban Light Industrial (ULI). The purpose of the ULI designation is to allow for low
intensity and low nuisance potential industrial uses;
(7) Public (P). The purpose of the P designation is to provide for the siting of important
public facilities and services compatible. [Ord 10-04 S 3].
18.18.040 Use tables.
This section establishes whether a specific use is allowed, prohibited, conditional or
otherwise designated.
Table 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses
How To Use This Table
Table 3A-I displays the classifications of uses for UGA zoning districts.
The allowability and classification of uses as represented in the table are further modified by the following:
. The location may have a multiple designation. This would be true of the Shoreline Master Program, a
subarea plan, or an overlay district applied to the location. The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) should
be consulted if the location of interest is subject to the SMP jurisdiction. See also Notes I to 3 to this
table.
All regulations in this code apply to the uses in these tables. To determine whether a particular use or
activity can occur in a particular land use district and location, all relevant regulations must also be
consulted in addition to this table.
. A development proposal within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a regulated shoreline is within
the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program, and is subject to the applicable provisions of Chapter
18.15 JCe.
. Overlay districts provide policies and regulations in addition to those of the underlying land use districts
Prinled on 311812009
Page 2
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
for certain land areas and for uses that warrant specific recognition and management. For any land use or
development proposed to be located entirely or partly within an overlay district, or within the jurisdiction
of a subarea plan, the applicable provisions of the overlay district or subarea plan as provided in Articles
VI and VII of Chapter 18.15 ICC shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of the UDC.
Yes
Categories of Uses
Uses allowed subject to the provisions of this code, including meeting applicable performance standards
(Chapter 18.20 ICC) and development standards (Chapter 18.30 ICC); if a building or other development
permit is required, this use is also subject to project permit approval; see Chapter 18.40 ICC.
Discretionary uses are certain named and all unnamed uses which may be allowed subject to
administrative approval and consistency with the UDC, unless the administrator prohibits the use or
requires a conditional use permit based on project impacts; see ICC 18.15.045 and Chapter 18.40 ICe.
Conditional uses, subject to criteria, public notice, written public comment and public hearing procedure;
see ICC 18.40.080.
Conditional uses, subject to criteria, public notice, written public comment, and an administrative
approval procedure, but not a public hearing; see ICC 18.40.080.
Conditional uses, subject to criteria, public notice, written public comment and, at the discretion of the
administrator, a public hearing procedure, if warranted, based on the project's poten1ial impacts, size or
complexity, according to criteria in JCC 18.40.550 ofthe UDC; see JCC 18.40.080.
Prohibited use.
D
c
C(a)
C(d)
No
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 3
ro..u
.-::U
,t:>...,
.. .
-=00
~....
"'"00
....
..
..
....
l:l.
'"
-=
U
Q
....
....
=
Q
,
..
=
~
=
..
,
..
=
;3
"
"0
o
U
"
"
o
u
6
~
~
~
"
~
'"
tj-;
'1: '1:
.... ....
'" '"
~.g
=....
'S
Q
N
I:;;:
\.-'
Ie
'"
~
<
-=
....
~
Q
..
\.-'
=
'"
,t:>
..
~
..>Ii
'"
Q
:a
'"
==
1:
Q
~
"0
=
"'-
.. '"
"'; .~
"0 ..
= ..
Q e
~a -;
= == Oc::;j
U '" ~
,t:> e
;S 8
Q
U
.~ .:=
:C:C
= =
~~
-
'"
= .....1:
"'-=....
of.~ ~
~..."g
....
-
'"
= .c<= ~
'" -=.. = '""
..... CJ) l"-I Cl.)-'"""l
't:.. = "0 ==
~ == ~ '5 ~
~
- -
'" .. '"
<= .....c<= ~
= ;l ~.. = '""
Cl.),.Q Cl.) lif.1 Cl.) ~
"0.."0="0""
.- ~ = Cl.) ._ ~
~ .,..C1~~
~ "'" ~
'"
"0 ..
.... = '"
, '" ~
<""0
M:E~
~ = '=
..co.-
'" ~ :a
Eo- - Q
<~
~ ";j
Q .c'.
~.- =
= '" ..
= ~:'E
,€C1~
~ ~
";j
I "CI'-
.. .. '"
Q .... ..
.... = ..
.~.~ a
.. .. 8
;'OQ
U
~
....
...
~
~
CI
S
u
o
;,
u
~
~ lif.1 ~ ~
;::J ~ ._ U
"-0 '" ~
"0... = <1)
=_Q"O
'" "'.....iil
~~~~
CJ = ~ ......
I.:: Cl.)._ ~
.. ::! 8 1J
Y rI:i = ~
~~'7',""
rJJ .. <1)
]Ob
= :::
.- .-
rJJrJJ
o 0
z z
o 0
z z
o 0
z z
'" '"
<1) <1)
>- >-
'" '"
<1) <1)
>- >-
.~ ~
.s .S
~ ~
'fJ '- :J:l ~
'~""2 .~ '"2
~ ~~ ~
~ ~
>,
-a
o
blJ
.S
to
';;!
~
>,
-a
o
blJ
.S
~
'"
.~
><
~
o
Z
o
Z
'"
<1)
>-
blJ
.S ~
ti~
';< 0
~
'"
<1)
>-
o
Z
>,
-a
o
blJ
.S
~
'"
';;!
~
blJ
.5 0)
~ s
<1) 0
<1) ..c:
8
~
B :0
tl.f' 0
<1) '" s
:s:::~:o
~ ~ ~ ~
'-" bO t:: ';:I
U) r::: Q) +-'
<1).;;, s g
~,....., It) ~
~ i).~ :::t CI.I
0."0 g @ ~
8se~g
o
Z
~
'"
'"
>-
'"
~
~
.ft
.~~ iG
~ '" ......
--to 0 ~
~
'"
~
'S
"
~]
.. :::
'" <1)
=-0
Q'~
== iG
~~
.. -
S'~ ~
~ ~ .~
._ t+.::; r:::
'::'~ :;:j
='3+
~~c
o
Z
o
Z
'"
<1)
>-
'"
<1)
>-
'"
<1)
>-
Ij~
<1)
t;;
u
~
:g
OJ
'"
.~
1:: ~
"'.~
~::E
"'.~
<1) U
p:::~
'"
~
'"
'"
>-
o
Z
'"
~
o
Z
o
Z
on
'"
>-
-0
'"
~
'"
'iil
'"
-{g
::: '"
'" blJ
[; ~
'" "'-
{;~~~
;;..~ "-0 ;>
............."'0
0:;::> >,
u u ~ 1-0
bll~ Q 0
.5 ~ ~ i2
~.s ~ g
z:f<';;:
o 0 0
z zz
o 0 0
z zz
'" '" 0
~ ~z
""
ID
'"
ro
0..
'" '" 0
~ ~z
'" '" 0
~ ~z
:~I~ >1 ~I iGl
>< ~ ill >-
r.:..lo>fo;!
~
'~Is i31 i31
.~ 2; >- >-
>< "~~
p..J 0
~
'"
.@
H >-in
'" '"
'" .~
'" ...
'" to
'" "
.s -0
'" :::
" .~
..c <1)
'" ~
s ~
o ~
:r:8
0>
o
o
N
ro
~
"
c
o
"
ID
:E
a.
ro.u
~u
..c'"
.. 000 0 o 0 '" '" '"
,.Cl ~ 0 000 o 0 0 0 000 o 0 ~~ "
>'i~ Z zzz zzzzzzz zzzz ZZ ZZ >-
~oO
....
..
..
... o ~I 0
co.
OS
,.Cl 0 '" o '" o 0 o 0 0 0 ~ r.I.l tI.l 0 0 o 0 o '"
U Z " Z~ zz ZZZZ>- ~~ZZ zz Z~ zlz
0 >-
...
...
=
0
J. "'
=
.. ~
~ 0 000 o 0 0 0 '" 0 0 o 0 0 0 '" 0 o 0 o 0 0 0>
rn
Z zzz zzzz ~ZZ zzzz ~Z ZZ ZZ Z C-
..
J.
=
..
...
'" 0 0 . '" 0
0 000 o 0 0 0 000 0 o 0 o 0 0
Z zzz zzzz ~ZZ zzzz ~Z ZZ ZZ Z
"
"'"
0
U 000 '" '" 0
0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" Z zzz zzzz >-ZZ zzzz ~Z ZZ ZZ Z
"
0
U
"
0
~
~
~
" I
-. ';?
'" '" '" '" 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~ " " " " Z~ " " " 0 " " " 0 " " " 0 " " "
U >->->- >- >->- >-Z >->- >-Z >->- >-Z >->- >-
~
~
~
U
'" '" '"
" " "
>->->-
en 00 r.I.l Vl 00 CI.l tIl
Q) Q) Q) Ij,) Q) a.> (1)
>->->->->->->-
rn C/} r.n V'.I
Q) OJ <lJ Q)
>->->->-
'" '"
" "
>->-
'" '"
" "
>->-
'" '" '"
" " "
>- >- >-
Clf "'0 r.I.l -a t::
Q) ~ g ";j ~.~.~ 0
'" S .9 c; [J '-< 'u ..8 8 ]
~ " 11 ;:, {J 13 :::! .~ t Oil U a"E b
;;;J ~ :; ~ ~ .~ ~ I;: "0 g 11 ~ 0 ~!1:E
e'S Cl U 1-;;;;> ::I ~ @ 0 "'Cl .S d) ~ ..a ""' .....
;: 'E'; ~r.I.l ~~ "'0] o~b t;:oo ~j~
~~ l1)~ ~~ ~~~l-;c ~ ~~~Q)~~ ~~ ~r.I.l
~ Q) rn 1-1 '-'" r.I.l "" ro 00 ...-' _.... ~..... OJ al C':S'- ~
d ~ Q).......... \-0 0 on en t:l Q) 0.. 0 ro "'0 ;> VI Q) >. -+-> "';::: ~
;;l Q) ca ~ ~ ~ QJ 11.) U ~ "i:; s:::::: Cl ._ -::I..... 0 It) _ "";;:t ~ .. Q ~ ":i
t:l ....c::.- ;:J'-'- Cl := :;::: --0..... ~ ....._ '-c "'0 tI.l ta r.I.l iZI d ~ ..j:::S ~ .... ~ ...., ~ 8
~r.I.lO~~~O~~ ~-~ .....:;:::~~~Q)~5~.~.2B.5oo~ a
U.i~"g'-<gB....a~Os~'....!o~~~~",11'~~EI.E.E~"O~?~[J~~.E~~
" 0 0 ,,~ " .... .... .... -;; "0 "O.~ o..c: ;. tl ;;; ..:.: ~ "'
~ --~~"'Cl~::IO~d?=~=Cl'-"'ClCl=~e~~
~ 8 < < ~ ~ ~ ~ al al dl ~ iO -a ~ ~ ~ ~ .a 0 O.~ ~ 8 8 ~ 'o..i3 ~
en
o
o
to!
'"
?;
c
o
"0
~
E
&
...u
;t::U
.&>...
.~ Vl ~
..c . 000 0 o 0 ~ o 0 o 01 0 0 0 0 000 0 0
~~ ~ ZZZZ ZZ ZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZ Z
""00
-
...
..
....
i:l.
..
..c 0 000 0 o Vl ~ 0 o 0 0 'Zlj iZI tIl o iZI U? U') Vl
U Z ZZZZ Z~ Z ZZ Z ""'u~ '" Z '" '" '" '"
Q >->< :>< ><:><:>< ><
....
....
=
Q
,
..
= <D
.~ ~
~ 0 000 0 o 0 ~ o 0 o 01 0 0 0 0 o 000 0 '"
0 ~
Z ZZZZ ZZ Z ZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZ Z a.
.~
,
..
=
.~
'""
0 o 0 0 0 o 0 :t 0 o 0 o 01 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0
Z ZZZZ ZZ Z ZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZ Z
Vl
~
CI'J U'l iZI rJ:I
OJ Q) 0 11)
><:><><><
~~~~
~ ~:~
u c.n'-
~ .~ '8
...... .~ ('f")J ~
5 ~ ",'G'1!:;-o ~
8 .s b~2~~
.5 I-< I r;tJ'l g t::i 0.0 0 ;:. 0
m 0 ..a.... '" ~ '" ti:
., '" 0 .~ ~,
1-0 0 U CI'J bI) V 1=;';::::
E "E 0 <l:: .25: -0 .... a ~
Jj 5"0;'::'1.3 S....l~
Vl
"'Q
><
o 01 0 0 0 ~
zzzzz:><
~ Vl
U) .~
~ ;:j lifJ :E
.;:: ta ~ U'1 '..-1
t: 'u ;;J ZJ '@ ~
1il ~tl ~ ~ 10 ~
-0 ... I-' ..c ~
aO~~(l)BC;
tr.I U = ~ e CI:l +-'
Q)....... "'CI C\S ro.r:J rIl
...... v c.rJ I- (l) - CIl
t;a tIl ro IU t-I ....... C ...... OJ .......
::::=8':~ caU)~~..9
o .- 'cr; SOl I~""" -'" -0
"'o.., "'C_'"
I- ~ Q) iZl 0 0 ~ OJ
~1ile<:::J -<couco~
-;a
'"
o
'Uj
Vl
~
o
....
A
-0
8
o 0 U) 0
ZZ~Z
o
Z
-0
8
Vl c
Q) CI1 '" 0
I:rj "'0 0.0'1""4
-: ~~0 Cd~
.-l ,... '{ij ~ t '.0
~ >- Q) u'l....... !:::i'..-!
S Vl b #: ~ "'oC) ~ '8 .~
~ Q) 1;; I-< ~ ...,
.-.~ ;:j U'l 0 a -9 "'0 cd
g.t:1l.gti:"'Q~8a
It) (l) .- t:: b ~ 0.9: bJ)'p
~: ~ i.g 0 ~ ~ .9 g
d ....... ro ~,....... tIl 8 ~ .9 .J;j
'" " "'.~ '" '" C) i:<"" ><
:r:~:r:....loe<:",o""",
'"
o
o
N
ro
;;;
c
o
"
J!J
c
(t
~u
:::U
,1:>'"
:aaO'
~....
r.100
....
..
'"
...
~
=
..<:l
U
C>
...
...
=
C>
,
'"
==
~
.~
,
'"
==
~
'" 010
~zz
o
Z
[S ~I ~
>->->-
'"
0)
>-
o 01 0
zzz
o
Z
o 01 0
zzz
o
Z
.g
o
u
€
"
o
U
"
o
~
~
~
"
.....
o 01 0
zzz
o
Z
o 01 0
zzz
o
Z
~
u zlc1
o
Z
11,' ]
i: '"
B 0) gp :'A
Vi c;a :.g :::l
~ en ..... U d
~ '::: ~ IJJ g 'S
lU .....- 0 'E::s: lZl
~S~8r--rn~
u--tl~~'"dS:::
OJ) ~ en 0 :.a ~ .-
= ;:l ;:l',;:; 0 ;>,-a
.~ 0 0 ;:l C 0) O)~
..........c::,....c:"O~OJ)
~ <D Q).- B Ci$
u a a ./:l ;:l ;> =
Q):... ~ 1:/:)-"",_ s:::
~P-P-oa.::::..iJl~
o
Z
'" '"
0) 0)
>->-
'"
0)
>-
00 rJ'J <:I) r:/l
Q) Q) v Q)
>->->->-
CI
'" '"
0) 0)
>->-
'"
0)
>-
000 r:I.l
zzz~
o
Z
o 0 tfl 0
zz~z
""
---
u
zU
o
-
-
o
Z
'"
-
o 0 U') 0
zz~z
""
---
u
00
-
zU
u
u
.....,
0)
0)
r:/J
""
---
u
o
Z
o
Zu
o 0 en 0
zz~z
o
Z
'"
u 0)
>-
'"
0)
>-
r.n Gr.l 00 0
~~~z
o
Z
'" '"
0) 0)
>->-
'"
0)
>-
U') V) 0 r.I.l
~~z~
0)
Vola U
.~ 0 ~f ~
~~=~~ ~ 'E
~._ ._ IZI '-" '+-' (I)
$:E~0l'" ~19 S =
_ 'u ~.~ g U-.l ,s...2
~ <is ~.E'E IS 8 g. g
=U'2oQ)___O~ ~e::::
.- ;.:::. r- 11) r.I.l r./) ...... 00 Q) 0
-.D1....... 'o::::'l'Scn ~uou
.a12=0....G'''''0)~g ::;="=Of)
;:Il-l=' deLl ~ ~~lZIdCll
a c;a .~ ~ ~ ~r . ~ u j 2?n;'::='~
~ '-C - ~ ..... U Q) fa 00 .- ;::::: <6" ~;.:::
s::: ..c........ Q).- :> ........::.d:O.- lo-t U'-
llpuoSQ,';;,;:;a=i'J00)8
OJ- ~"",-,....lP_dl.."'~~~
~ .. .... .
'"
0)
><
'" '"
0) 0)
>->-
o
Z
o '"
z~
u
~~
-a-a
--- ---
uu
u
~~
-a-a
--- ---
uu
u
~~
-a-a
--- ---
uu
'"
0)
>-
'" '"
0) 0)
>->-
'"
0)
>-
'" '"
0) 0)
>->-
....
E
0) aJ
-a u...
= ;>, oj '"
oj ...:;: 0)
.- 0'-
~ ~~a
.S S:;: ~
&~8]o:
""":"'0 l:::; C'd Q)
o !: 0 aJ S
~ 0 .~ -+-' ~
-u g .;!l ~ 0)
(/)(f}>;;--b
. ..
'" 0 0
~zz
000
zzz
~ '" '"
;::: '" '"
u>->-
....
"
'"
'"
ll.
'01Zl"'O
---"'u
u>-
~~::o
u>-u
o::O~
Z u>-
oScn
Z---'"
u>-
oJ
Of)
-a
.s
'"
o
o
~
'"
'"
c
o
"0
"
c
Ii:
....
o
.g
-u
'"
'" ...
'C li:l
2'.J:: 8 Q)
'" ~ 0.10
S '" = ;>
Q)..d 0'-
uuzl:i
...u
....u
:c,..,
:a ~
>oI~
r.100
....
..
'"
....
~
..
-=
u
o
....
....
=
o
,
'"
=
~
=
..
,
'"
=
:.:l
Cl
Cl
-
"
-0
o
U
'"
"
o
U
'"
o
~
M
i:1j
"
~
Cl
-
Cl
Cl
Oil
=
o
:~
~
.S
"Cl
<.> en
~ .3
8~
;::J<iS
Cl
Cl
'"
'"
'"
~
=
o
..
....
..
t:
g
'"
=
..
..
""'
en
<.>
>-
~
U ~Cl
U
en
<.>
>-
Cl
'"
<.>
>-
~
U;SCl
U
'"
<.>
>-
Cl
~
"Cl
~
U
Cl
~
U ~Cl
U
en
<.>
>-
~
"Cl
~
U
o
M
~
o
"!
00
~
~
U ~Cl
U
en
<.>
>-
Cl
~
"Cl
~
U
U
U
....,
<.>
<.>
r/J
I~
UI;SCl
U
en
<.>
>-
Cl
en
<.>
>-
I~
UI"::: Cl
U
en
<.>
>-
Cl
en
<.>
>-
1__
UI~ Cl
U
en
<.>
>-
Cl
~ ~ ~ .g ~
.;;; ~ ~ .~ 's'~ 5'
~ .~ .9 '8 ~
e =9 ~~;:j ~"~"[i~
_ - t:"''' ==",0
-en Pot o~~ ~CI);::$~
:s If ~ ~ g ~ ~.f'""8
CI) ~ ~=u ..9.9~~
~ 0.. .p;:ca (\)~;::$Cl:l
- "Cl "Cl ~'13 [; [;"Cl ....
l~ ~ E ~ ~ :~I~ ~ ~ i
-'" ~ '" = E _I.f:: .~ = .t: '"
~ 'u ';3.~ ~ 0 '0 :.s ::; ~ bb ~
0.. <is ,:: a;::J U <is ;::J ;::J ;::J -< ;::J
'"
<.>
>-
o
Z
o 0
Z Z
bJ)
.S ~ 0
- -
.:!l = Z
'" 0
~
o 0
Z Z
o
Z
"Cl
@
en
<.>
'"
::l
Oil
B en
- .~
::l _
u ..
.t: .:::
bJ)'"
-< g
o
Z
o
Z
en
<.>
>-
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
00",
ZZ......
en
<.>
>-
o 0",
ZZ......
o
Z
o 0",
ZZ......
o
Z
o 0",
ZZ......
o
Z
o 0",
ZZ......
o
Z
o 0",
ZZ......
o
Z
en
o <.> Cl
Z>-
"Cl
.r 1 ~I i ~
(l.) "'0 0 '.-1 --
g c1ncti "3
I-< ~ "'d ti u
0.. d a :::=._ '~;a
Oil <o:i O! - '" ~
B ~.s S a3 1l ::l
g >'~ ~ ]'5 ~ 5'
'': ~ ::l U @ ~ s ~
~]~~...lZ;::Jc8
~
"
~
o
N
~
e
"
E
23
u
-0
"
C
"
.;:
o
M
.9
:~
>
-0
:;j
~
"
M
"
E
E
o
U
.5
-5
.~
~
"
~
t>
"
!=
~
'"
~
m
'"
0.
~
"
u
';;;)
"
M
g
~
'x
"
.5
u
"
'"
.2
0;
"
M
'"
~
"
.;:
;;;
"
u
.5
"
o
'"
to
o
'-'
-0
"
oj
~
"
~
~
"
'"
.~
.i5
"
E
o
::r;
'"
o
o
~
'"
-
'"'
~
o
'"
2
~
it
~u i
~u
.t:>'"
.-
..Cl .
..~
~,.o
...
..
"
....
Q.
OJ
..Cl
U
"
....
....
::I
"
,
"
::I a>
.- ~
~ a>
"
a.
.-
,
"
::I
.-
..:l
oj
"
s
"
.b
50
" ~
"0 .~
0
U ~
"
S .g
0 ]
U -
" "
"
0 :2
~
~ ~
~ ~
" 0
-. -
-
u
"
:g
~
"
.<J
15
"
""iil
.c
~
"0
1 .... t.i
" ~
~
" '0
:;; "
ell
" :E
0"'
~
0 -.:;
0 "
00 "0
.... -
0 0
" "
N ~
'0;
01) ~ '"
" s 0
:g 0
0 N
'3 2 M <il
~
.<J -.:; M
S - """ c
0
" ~ "" 0
.5 0 "0
, l'l
[;j E 0
0 ,=
::8 :r: -0 a:
""I r'll ....
r-h ,~ 2.,
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
18.18.050 Density, dimension and open space standards.
This section establishes specific density and dimensional standards for new urban
development within the UGA.
NOTES TO TABLE 3A-2:
]. Fences are exempt from setback requirements, except in the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) or when impairing safe sight lines at iAtcrseeti8fls, as
determined by the county engineer.
2. Setbacks do not apply to mailboxes; wells; pump houses; bus shelters; septic
systems and drainfields (except in the SMP); landscaping (including berms); utility
apparatus such as poles, wires, pedestals, manholes, and vaults. No other structures or
communication devices (such as antennas, satellite dishes) shall be located in the front
setback area unless approved by the administrator. The administrator may reduce the
minimum front road setbacks if the strict application of such setback would render a legal
lot of record unbuildable under the provisions of this code.
3. Chimneys, smokestacks, fire or parapet walls, ADA-required elevator shafts,
flagpoles, utility lines and poles, skylights, communication sending and receiving
devices, HV AC and similar equipment, and spires associated with places of worship are
exempt from height requirements.
4. Structures used for the storage of materials for agricultural activities are exempt
from the maximum building height requirements.
5. Approved subarea plans may establish different bulk and dimensional
requirements for those areas.
6. "NIA" = Not applicable.
7. Road Classifications. To clarify the setbacks for urban development activities
within the UGA consistent with the requirements of this section, the following road
designations shall apply:
. Principal arterials. None classified in the UGA.
. Minor arterials. SR 19 (Rhody Drive)
. Major collectors. SR 116 (Ness' Comer Road, Oak Bay Road to Flagler
Road and Flagler Road), Chimacum Road, lrondale Road.
. Minor collectors.
. Local access roads.
. Alleys.
. Private roads.
8. The special side and rear setbacks provided in Table 3A-2 shall also apply to
outbuildings for residential or agricultural uses such as detached garages, storage sheds or
tool sheds, except for existing lots of record less than five acres wherein the minimum
rear and side yard setbacks for outbuildings shall be five feet.
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 10
~u
~u
&>~
.. .
..cloo
><-
f.oiloO
-
..
..
....
c..
..
..cl
U
el
....
....
=
el
,
..
=
~
.S
.
..
=
~
....
_..cl_
.. I>J)"
.C ~:s
t;l "'
1< .g (; .g
"=i:=
e,-;;J....
..
..
..
-<
..cl
....
~
el
..
"
=
..
&>
..
~]
..:.:....
'" =
el ..
-'tl
'tl ..
.. "'
I:I::~
1::
el
~
'tl
=
..
..
-
..
'tl
=
el
..
-
"
"0
o
U
"
"
o
U
"
o
~
~
~
"-
"
~
'" '"
...,. .....
:c:c
= =
~~
OJ
= t><= c:z::
....cl.. = Q
,.Q.!:fJ ia ~ ==
~ 1:1:: ~'~;;J
c:z::
-
.. ..
.... t> <= c:z::
~e'.=Q
&>..;;~..,..
... "CI ~..... ~
;;JelQ"';;J
~ ~
OJ
= t><= c:z::
.. ~.<;; = Q
&>el=~...
..... .... ~
;;J Qill"'"'
c:z::
::.
.;!~
- "'......-::
= ~ = .=
'2 a.c l::
.. a 0 ..
a el , a
au" a
el el
oc:::u
U .."'
&> ..
..>
;;J
M "'Ct -; 1;1'}
, = = 'tl
-< .. el ..
f"') .... CIS
t>"''tl
~ or;; E =
&> = a ..
~~~Vi
0) 0- ~ <::
..- iZI I]) ~ 0 U
'...I roo. ._ Q) u:::
00 ().....'o t>..o... "<1-<
C,J 0 'E.....:l Q) Q) lI) ~ cd
i;~i(jO)~~oS.; C>-. 0;0
> r-- "'" _ ..... ..0 ." ~
;;> '" OJ._....,.... ..~
0) Fl ~ i;..o..o.::: _'0 'S'-
iZI3Q)~~~~ ]~ ~S
~ S Ol) Q)'- Q) C,) ~ "3 ..0 :.E
U)'8 ~ r.r ~..o ~ "" b.O ~ I])
'!"'-..d...... u >-. tIl 8 Q) ....;;0-
O. 8 () ~ '" '" '. ;:....
'"'-er/i'CnS~ Otn t.8~
.,.!::... 1-0 cd", ""d 1-0..... '4=4
S ~~..c ! :::i 0) \0 'S: .g ~ ~
-B cd._ ..0 :E ~ s::: .- v s:::
~.s g. ~ ~ 0 ~ .2: 8 ~
tn >( cd ....4-1 'c;j -0' s::::::2 Q) ..d
.... 0 -.;; 0;;0-'- "';:l .l:; .!:!'
~Ci..(): o"'~ oS'" 5-'"
A'.;j ~.- en Q) ~ ""':"1 g 1]).... "S'!
Q) cd..... 0 rn''''' ""d C':l -.- '"
v:l '""" s:::;... Q) >.. <.>
>-. 0 (,) Q) (!) \1) R ..d ',.....:' ~;:j
~ ~ s::::: ~ ""d ::: 3'~ u ~ g ""d
....-~!J""d(!)d ;.:::::...... ......(1)
'-..0 "" ;:l .... "'.!:i ..0::;: -::....
a'~'~ 0 cd ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~
~ ~ iZI""d]]~ Am '"O-B
...0.08...>"':. ~g "''0
"'0 en...... r/.I r/J ;.;>- lI).. ~...... 8: C
1J)[)l-<;;id:.i~""d: t),!g cnCd
.!:; ;;0- <8 .... 0) 0 0)8:'n '" '0
;0'- () .... () ~ 0) 0)
if ~ ~ <O::u ~ ~.Sl . 0) 8 u
1-0. "u.... .so::: ro2
s::::: -:S go 11) :::i'..-I e- d C "';3 en
.8'~ o:s!."j i': "'; 0) <:: () <::
t) r.n 0 19 l(") ~ 2 ~ '0:5 ...9 8
I]) d l(")...-l . I-l'rn -I ~ ~ ~~ r-.
a;::::;N''-'f1JU1tlcgU +:I'"
ot;l-gb~g~",<:: ....~E
(.) >. 8 ~ 2 en Q) M OJ ~ ~ _~ u 0
-"''''..0 "''0..0 ..0.....-.; <::
:B()"'~80)"'E'-~o .t=ON
~ .a Vl /*\ .- Vl f..+..lo Cd t.j....j..-I ~:-;:: U
0.. OCI ~ >( cd ...c:: OJ OCI ." U ::;.....
~ OJ Q.) .....J 0 ..c: OCI'S 00 '"'""> ~ S ~ tf
l-4 OCI........ ~.... ~ tl:f OJ OJ 4=l
OJQ.)OCI 0.. OOClOCl-d""C:$~Cro
d ...... ~ Q.) 0.. ._ Q.) ":;::l ...... 0 ro OCI
H .- Q.) ~ ro OCI 0 N ....... ....... "".::t ._
0.. r.n > +:l .- ...... .- l-4 l-4 W .t:: U
..9 ~.;3 c .;a~ r' 6 ~ ::.; a ~ tJ) ~
" 0 ~ .- ';;; .....8 0 0) o.'S ~ .g
[; l-< :;.. >. ~ ~ A"O .....J !:= 0.- OJ 0..
"deB 6.~~ 0 1U u~.Ba) ~ 0.. cd
o----;::-::;:u;;>cQ.)c>.-t3tdOJ
...... ..9 ca (1) -~ =9 -;3 C t+:: 0 cl) ~...c:: ... ~
>. ""C:$ :> tJ) :;.. 0 -_ U "d u ...... ~ \...
-~o""C:$ro"",,;>uutJ)"d...c:: ...cl)
Et . <:: ~.:3 g II ..s ~ 'E ~ r- 13 t)
Cli g- ~"'2 (1) ""C:$ ...... (1) OJ.g -.-I Q) ~ '0
~ 0 0 t'd.Sl 8 oS - Q <:: a 0 ;;0- <::
'a 0 ""C:$ 1n t:: Vl.s:.g 0 tl:f Cl) '7 8 0
'iil ~ " ., ";;i ;> ;;o-:z: ~ <"Lc::. 0.'0
CN""C:$~VJ Q)OJ ~
OJ 0 0 I- U .::::
"'0....... Ur.;::.c;.-'c::-
'"' 0) 0) " ...... t'd g
...... "'0 S .... l-< .,. u.-
c ..... ... - 0,) (1) ........,i::;......
.. 'E .g .5 ::,15 ~ ~ S' -a .3
a.. - <:: <::" .... 'iil 0 0 ~
~ "t:l .;S Cd._:> ,.....:... 0,) ..... U 001
Q c "'C:l...... U1 8 (1) ;;ifI'J.J:::: :;j >.'_
Ql .. 1: !'i .f< .. '" ~ ~~..o ~ 8
... .... -- '0'- 0) ~ 0 '" Cl ..., '"
.. rJ1 O'iil ~ 0 0 ::r:: <0:: ~ g b... .!:i l:l
Q ~~~2S~~8~::lg~~<l;
~
::S
:z:
-
...
;;J
::S
:z:
001 0)
~ ....
~~
~I'@
~
:t~
...:. 'g
~I
"
....
\O~
, '"
-q-...
.-
<::
;::l
~I
u
o
?:
u
;;J
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
<:
o
.... '"
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
8 ~ g _ on
.- .....0 '" '0
Cr:I).....uro
~ i5~.3 8 .
o~
;:
o~
"
'"
..
ll.
o~
o~
o~
o~
'"
]
o
....
'" "
>-.<:5
" ;;0-
:::::: -I::
<o::~
0>
o
o
~
'"
'"
c
o
"
"
~
Ii.
.
,..u
....u
:E~
:a 00
>'I....
r-loO
....
..
..
....
Q.
~
-=
U
o
....
....
::I
o
,
..
=
~
=
.~
,
..
=
.~
..<
000 l.II 0
N M ("f') M N
OOO-.nO
NMMM_
OOOlr)V)
N M M M
'"
'0
o
U
o
"
o
U
o
o
~
...
~
'"
~
~g~~l()
~g~~l/l
OlrlOV'Jtr)
N - M M
I-< l-< Cd
o 0 -'<:: fa
..... ~ el:$ Q) "'d
] ,,'<:: t:: ~ fa
o=a~~E~
u u -:: .8- ;;:sl
Cl ti 0 U .S (/)
.S 'a- .5 .5 .8 "'0
;;S;;S;;SP:;;;Sg
<l) "1"1
<l) 'if)
'" ""'
~ '" 8
'" ~ "
-"i 0 E
~ Z._
.D ~ ><
....... ;:) ro
Jl ~ ;;S
"
"
-
"00
= 8
.~
.... ....
<1;6
~
o ;;
r-- 0
o~
.... 0
tl ....
~ '"
OJ") 1:1 D
M :::l
E z:
o.~
<l:< ~I ~
<l) <l) "
Vl 001,
a3..=
t; ~ "
.9"=1 ~
I-< ~I~
<B'-@ _,
"0 <l)
~ :sll~
= Vl "
<l) ~
~ 81 ~
8 ~ "
~ =
....... :Ii
...c: '"d.~
00=....
.~ ro'~
..= '" =
00 <l) <l)
= 600
.- N "'0
3l <l)
._"'@ f/)
::1.<:: '"
..0 ~ ~
~ .g.9
.5 s B
>< ",.g
"'.~ 0
;;S e =
Q) a 13
o s 8
7' 0 "
c::." '"
Vl
=
o.l},g
<= Vl
.- <=
00 <l)
:;:: E
::l .~
I!lCl
~
.
,
,~
-
~
o
r--
o
r--
OJ")
E
'"
E
'x
'"
~1
00
<l)
tC
'0
<l)
Q.
'"
<l)
<=
o
Z
.E ;>.,
00 ...." 00
'v iU ~ ~ ___
~ ~s ~ ~
gp ~oo "';t
:9c8~ :::~
._ (I) ..... :;:: ---::- $3 (l)
::3 iU 0 ::i ';;?. 0 N
I!le....ll!l~f-<U'i
o
r--
o
r--
OJ")
M
o
r--
OJ")
M
o
'D
o
r--
OJ")
9
'"
E
.~
o E
Zl
"
~
"
"
"
'0
o
"
~
~
.E
'0
'"
""
'u ,
'" '"
0.'0
~ 0
'" "
~
.~ ~
-s .S
0"0
~~
~ '0
:3 g,
. ~
t) ~
~.....
or> i:
N '"
"'-S
..0 0
c; ~
..o~
~ 0
"'" 0
~ -~
..0 '"
t)~
~o
'"
-s '"
",..0
0'"
o "
N..o
... ~
0"",
~ ~
0,9
- '"
" ~
'';::::: 01)
5-:S
] ~
.. ol) 0
... N
is is
(:j ~
'u :l
...
s]
S E
o~
o '(i)
:: ~
o "
~E
B~
"0 0
'" ~
1$"0
0.'"
o ~
... 0
o.g.
.~ 5.
~ .;Q
o '"
~
o
I
"
...
'"
>
" '"
.- ...
" '"
~~
;;1:1 .
E
'"
S
'"
OIl
"
1ii
s
....
'"
"
~
E
o
~
~
"0
1ii
~
'"
~
',;
~
...
'"
~
'"
~
N
"
en
rn
a.
o
"
'-
'='
E
2
~
^
~
.~
fr
~
vi'
~
E
ail
o
'g-
"
~
"0
B
vi'
"'"
"
"
,9
"
~
aO
o
:2
t;J
0.
"0
'"
...
'g.
'"
...
...
<E:
"0
'"
"0
.;;:
o
...
0.
'"
..0
~
~
o .
s~
",..0
" ::l
" .-
0.-
~ 0.
0.
2 "
" ~
o "
c:r .
" ~
"'Cl_~
<( :::
or>1'B
J<Zi
en
o
o
N
<<;
'"
c
o
"
"
.~
0:
I"<U
.'t:U
..c...
~~
f;r;loO
.....
...
..
-
Cl.
=
-=
U
<:>
-
-
==
<:>
,
..
=
.~
~
.S
.
..
=
:i
'"
"
a>
~
a.
"
"'"
o
U
c
"
o
U
c
o
~
~
~
"
~
'"
0
0
~
'"
~ M
M "
0
"" ..,
"" S
0 "
, .C
0 a.
"'"
~
Q,
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
18.18.060 Development requirements and performance standards.
The following development requirements and performance standards apply to all property
proposed for development within the Irondale and Port Hadlock urban growth area
(UGA). No development approval shall be given, and no building permit shall be issued,
unless the proposed development is in compliance with the provisions of this section and
Chapter 18.30 JCC, Development Standards.
Development within the !rondale and Port Hadlock UGA shall be governed by the
following level of service standards.
(I) Street Standards. As a condition of any development approval within the !rondale and
Port Hadlock UGA, the property owner shall construct streets which the county
determines are consistent with the adopted urban street standards in JCC 18.30.080.
(2) Water Service. As a condition of any development approval within the Irondale and Port
Hadlock UGA, the property owner shall obtain a certificate of water availability for the
proposed use from Jefferson PUD # 1 and connect to the PUD # I water system. Fire flow
requirements shall be as specified by the Jefferson County fire marshal.
(3) Storm Drainage. As a condition of any development approval, the property owner shall
construct surface and storm water management improvements as determined by the
county to be consistent with the surface water management standards adopted in
Jefferson County stormwater management plan.
(4) Sanitary Sewer Service.
(a) Sewer Service Area. The Sewer Service Area is the same"as the 20-vear planning
houndary of the UGA. No development approval shall he ~iven. and no buildin~
permit issued. unless the proposed development complies with the provisions of
this Chapter. For development under this chanlerJJULAl\s a condition of any
new development approval or major modification to an existing commercial,
industrial, or multifamily residential use located within a sanitary sewer service
area, as identified in the adopted general sewer plan for the Irondale and Port
Hadlock urban growth area, the property owner must obtain confirmation of
sewer availability from the sewer agency provider, prior to development approval
and must connect to the existing sewer line. Sewers will be considered to be
available to the phased implementation area when sewer infrastructurc cnters a
seWeLphase area. according to the nhased areas outlined in the_pQ[(lladlock
Sewer Facilitv Flail. Sentember. 2008.
fl'8 _ Optional Se", er Service .^-rea. If the ~ror05ed use or major modification is
located within a planned "opticlAul" sewer ,;el'\ ice area as identified in the
adopted general sewer plan for the frondale ana Pert lladfock urBaa 1;ro\' tll area,
the property (lV. aer may eitller eeRst,."ct aa on site septie s)Stem consistent with
the reqairements of Cllapter 8.15 !CC or apon coatinuation of sev,er availability
fi'om the sewer agency rroyidcr, connect to the existing se..,er line.
(he) Unsewered Areas with sewer not vet ayailable-- Interim On-Site Septic Svstems.
If the proposed use or major modification is located outside of a plaanedphased
29 year sewer service area where sewers are available (includiag rlaanea
"optional" se.". er seryiee areas), then rural development standards in Title 18
applv" New development or redevelopment using all existing fas of date of
adOPtion of 18.181approved on-site or communitv/group system mav be allowed
provided that no expansion of the capacity of on-site svstem is needed to serve
the redeyelopment and provided that the public sewer svstem is not yet available
to the propelt\'. as defined in 18.18.060 (4)(d). IThe property owner must
construct an on-site septic system consistent with the requirements of Chapter
8.15 JCC, Development within Identified Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, as
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 14
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
identified in Article VI-E of Chapter 18.15 JCC, shall also meet the requirements
of JCC 18.30.180, On-Site Sewage Disposal Best Management Practices in
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
(fa) Conditions to Interim On-Site Septic Systems and connection to future sewer
service. If a septic system is proposed for placement in athe planned and adopted
20-year sewer service area, for interim use prior to sewer availability, the county
shall issue any approval for the septic system with a condition that it be
decommissioned and the property connected to the sewer system within one year
of sewer 8xt8RsisRavailabilitv. defined as when the sewer extension is within 200
feet of the- closest property line S8wer 8)[teRsisR. Such on-site septic systems
shall be professionally sited, designed, installed, monitored and maintained
according to the following criteria:
(i) Meeting the requirements of 1he Jefferson County health department,
Washington State Department of Health, or Washington State
Department of Ecology, as appropriate.
(ii) Consider advanced forms of pretreatment prior to discharge into the soil.
(iii) Consider proprietary pretreatment devices to refine high strength
commercial wastes prior to soil treatment and disposal.
(iv) Disinfection prior to disposal into more sensitive environments.
(v) System maintenance and monitoring by certified professionals under a
program managed by the Jefferson County health department.
(e!!) Interpretations. Within this section, "new development" and "major
modification" means any development that requires wastewater/sanitary sewer
provisions which cannot be met with an existing system. Nothing in this section
shall be construed as prohibiting the placement of an on-site septic system in the
UGA, unless the property is located within 200 feet of an existing sewer service
area which has capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
(fS') No Protest Agreement. In addition, as a condition of development approval and
for all property owned by the same owner in a local improvement district (LID),
the owner shall sign an agreement not to protest a future LID or other pro rata
sharing of costs to construct and extend public sewer to the property within the
next 20 years, if seemed necessary' as part of the urban level of service phasing
plan in the capital facilities plan for the UGA.
(5) Other Facilities and Services. Reserved.
(6) Credit for Prior Contributions and Infrastructure Improvements. All of the agreements not
to protest formation of local improvement districts or other pro rata cost sharing
arrangements described in the previous sections above shall include credit for any
contributions or facility construction already made or completed by the individual
property owners (or their predecessor) for the particular urban public facility or service
contemplated by the capital facilities plan. lOrd 10-04 ~ 3].
18.18.070 Landscaping.
Landscaping for urban commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and multifamily developments
in the UGA shall comply with the following standards and shall be exempt from the rural
provisions of ICC 18.30.130, Landscaping/Screening.
(I) Landscaping Definitions.
(a) "Visual screen" means evergreen and deciduous trees (no more than 50 percent
deciduous) planted 20 feet on center, two shrubs planted between each pair of
trees and groundcover.
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 15
Exhibit F
Line-in/Line-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
(b) "Visual buffer" means evergreen and deciduous trees (no more than 75 percent
deciduous) planted 30 feet on center, two shrubs planted between each pair of
trees, and groundcover.
(2) Plant Standards.
(a) Deciduous trees must be one and one-half inches diameter at chest height (four
and one-half feet from ground level) and must have a survivability rate of 100
percent after one year and 80 percent after two years of planting.
(b) Evergreen trees must be four feet in height and must have a survivability rate of
100 percent after one year and 80 percent after two years of planting.
(c) Ground cover is low evergreen or deciduous plantings at three foot spacing in all
directions.
(d) Shrubs must be a minimum of 30 inches in height or four gallons and must have
a survivability rate of 100 percent after one year and 80 percent after two years of
planting.
(e) The retention of existing natural vegetation in place of new plants is encouraged
and allowed. The use of existing native and/or drought-tolerant landscape
materials shall be utilized whenever possible, and may be used in-lieu or in
combination with existing plantings to demonstrate substantial consistency with
the requirements of this section.
(3) Screening Standards.
(a) New or expanding commercial or industrial land uses within commercial or
industrial zones shall provide a five foot visual buffer along all street frontages
between the street and on-site parking areas and a 10 foot visual screen along any
property line abutting a residential zoning district to minimize aesthetic impacts
to residential properties.
(b) New multifamily dwellings over four dwelling units in residential zones shall
provide a five-foot visual buffer along all street frontages.
(4) Alternative Designs. Alternative designs may be allowed if, upon review by the
administrator, they are determined to provide landscaping substantially equivalent to the
standards in this section. lOrd 10-04 9 3].
18.18.080 Parking and pedestrian circulation.
Parking for all new development shall comply with ICC 18.30.100, Parking, and JCC
18.30.110, Off-street loading space requirements. Pedestrian facilities shall be provided
in accordance with ICC 18.30.090, Pedestrian circulation. lOrd 10-04 9 3].
18.18.090 Lighting.
Lighting shall comply with the standards set forth in JCC 18.30.140, Lighting. lOrd 10-
04 9 3]. 18.18.90 Lighting. Lighting shall comolv with the standards set forth in
ICC 18.30.140. Lighting lOrd 10-04 & 31: shall not permit direct illumination of the skv
Clkyglow): and shall notJ2[ovide more illumination into an adioining J2ropertv than is
received Ii'om the adioining property measured at a vertical plane at the property
boundary (Light Trespass).
18.18.100 Signs.
No sign shall hereafter be erected or used for any purpose or in any manner in the urban
growth area except as permitted by the regulations of this section. All signs subject to this
section shall be subject to approval and issuance of a sign permit by the administrator
according to a Type I permit approval process as specified in Chapter 18.40 ICC. The
administrator may waive certain requirements of this section or require additional
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 16
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
conditions for any sign permit, if deemed necessary to maintain consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
(]) Prohibited Signs. The following signs are prohibited:
(a) Abandoned signs;
(b) Billboards;
(c) Flashing, revolving or moving signs, excepting clocks and electronic reader
boards allowed within urban commercial zones;
(d) Off-site signs which advertise a business;
(e) Signs or sign structures, which by coloring, shape, working, or location resemble
or conflict with traffic-control signs or devices;
(t) Signs which create a safety hazard for pedestrians or vehicular traffic; and
(g) Signs attached to utility poles or traffic signs.
(2) Exemptions. The following signs are exempt from the provisions of this section:
(a) Traffic and standardized public signs installed by a government entity;
(b) Window and merchandise displays, point of purchase advertising displays such
as product dispensers and barber poles;
(c) National flags, flags of a political subdivision, and symbolic flags of an
institution or business;
(d) Legal notices required by law;
(e) Historic site plaques and markers and gravestones;
(t) Personal signs displaying personal messages such as "yard sale" or "no
trespassing" not to exceed eight square feet;
(g) Political eampaiga sigas Ilestes for a Ilrimary or geneml election llr8vided they
are reme>:es by the eansisate or IlHlao\yner within] (l says follo'Ning the eleet:ofl
terminatiflg eansiaaey; Political signs safelv displayed on private property
(h) Structures intended for separate use, such as recycling containers and phone
booths;
(i) Real estate signs; and
(j) Lettering painted on or magnetically flush-mounted onto a motor vehicle
operating in the normal course of business.
(3) Design Standards. Signs regulated by this section include signs that are attached to the
building (e.g., facade, projection or wall signs) and signs that are set apart from the
building (e.g., freestanding or monument signs). All signs must meet the following
standards:
(a) The following standards apply to the illumination and illustration of signs:
(i) The illumination of signs shall be shaded, shielded, or directed so the
light intensity or brightness shall not adversely affect surrounding
properties or public and private rights-of-way or create a hazard or
nuisance to the traveling public, or to surrounding properties;
Illumination of signs shall complv with 18.18JJ90.
(ii) No sign or part thereof shall consist of rotating, revolving, or moving
parts; consist of banners, streamers, or spinners; or involve flashing,
blinking, or alternating lights. Two exceptions to this standard are (A)
temporary signs associated with local festivals, fairs, parades, or special
events pursuant to lCC ]8.30.150(4)(a); and (B) electronic reader board
signs or message boards which are only allowed within urban
commercial districts, subject to the requirements of this code.
(b) Sign size shall be regulated as follows:
(i) There is no maximum sign size for businesses in the commercial and
industrial districts in the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA except as
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 17
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
specified in this section. Multitenant developments in urban commercial
and industrial districts may have one freestanding sign, 64 square feet in
size plus 15 square feet for each occupant, for each access point,
commonly identiJying the businesses within multitenant developments
provided such signs total no more than 100 square feet in aggregate. The
maximum size for signs placed on a multitenant building identifying
individual occupants shall be no larger than 15 square feet per occupant;
(ii) The square footage of signs shall be calculated by the outside dimensions
necessary to frame the information displayed. No sign mounted on a
building shall extend above or beyond the eaves, rake, or parapet of the
wall on which it is mounted. Any sign projecting beyond six inches from
a perpendicular wall shall be at least six feet eight inches above grade;
(iii) Directional, identification or advertising signs for any use located in any
urban residential district shall not exceed 32 square feet, with the
exception of institutional use signs, which shall not exceed 64 square
feet;
(iv) Freestanding signs with reader boards for a single business shall be no
larger than 128 square feet.
(c) Uses located in any urban commercial or industrial land use districts shall have
no more than two on-premises signs, except as allowed in this section for
multitenant developments.
(d) Signs attached to or painted against the structure to which it relates shall not be
computed as a part of the overall total square footage, or number of signs
allowed.
(e) All signs shall be continuously maintained. Signs that present a public hazard as
determined by the Jefferson County building official or department of public
works shall be subject to abatement.
(f) The design of freestanding signs shall include measures to restrict vehicles from
passing beneath them, unless otherwise permitted by the Jefferson County
department of public works. All freestanding pole signs or projecting signs shall
provide pedestrian clearance to a minimum of eight feet, where applicable.
(g) Signs should be incorporated into the landscaping of the site when landscaping is
provided.
(h) No signs, other than those related to water dependent uses, such as a marina, are
permitted to face seaward, excepting signs relating to safety concerns, such as
cable-crossing, construction-dredging, fuel area, etc.
(i) No sign shall be placed in the public right-of-way or in the vision clearance
triangle of intersections and curb cuts, unless otherwise approved by the
Jefferson County department of public works.
(4) Specialty Signs. Specialty signs may be established when consistent with the standards
set forth below:
(a) Signs and banners promoting public festivals, community or special events, and
grand openings may be displayed up to 30 days prior to the event, and shall be
removed no later than seven days after the event. The sponsoring entity is
responsible for sign removal. Event signs may be located "off-site."
(b) Signs which identify a recognized community or unincorporated place are
permitted at each entrance to the community. Said signs are limited to one per
entrance, and may not exceed 64 square feet or eight feet in height. Signs relating
to clubs, societies, orders, fraternities and the like shall be permitted as part of the
community sign.
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 18
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
(c) Businesses may erect temporary on-site sandwich board signs subject to the
following criteria:
(i) No more than two sandwich board signs may be erected per business;
(ii) Sandwich board signs shall not exceed four feet in height or three feet in
width;
(iii) Sandwich board signs shall be displayed during business hours only;
(iv) Sandwich board signs shall not be placed on sidewalks; and
(v) Sandwich board signs shall not be placed in public road rights-of-way
unless approved by the Jefferson County department of public works.
(d) Off-site signs may only be allowed when they meet all of the following
standards:
(i) Are directional in nature;
(ii) Located on private property along a major or minor arterial;
(iii) Located no more than 600 feet from an intersection;
(iv) No larger than 12 square feet.
(5) Nonconforming Signs. Legally established signs in place prior to the adoption of these
standards and not in conformance with these standards shall be considered legal,
nonconforming signs, and may remain as provided below:
(a) Nonconforming off-premises signs shall be removed within five years of
adoption of this code. Until then, such signs must be continually maintained, not
relocated, and not structurally altered. Nonconforming off-premises signs may be
replaced by off-site directional signs as allowed in this section;
(b) Nonconforming on-premises signs may remain provided they are continually
maintained, not relocated, and not structurally altered;
(c) Billboards which are in place prior to the adoption of this code may remain
provided they are continually maintained, not relocated, and not structurally
altered. [Ord 10-04 9 3].
18.18.110
Desien Standards
Reserved. fOrd. 10-04 Ii 31.
Design Considel'fttions.
G6als
o Proyide for pede,;trian oriented deve10pmem and ereate a pedestrian friendl)'
environment.
o Upgrade the gencral appearance of the UO,'\. area.
o Create an at1metivc dC'ielopment set1ing.
. ASDure new developmem relates to the character and scale of the DO,'\. area.
o Assist in creating a 2'1 hour community that is safe, attfacti\'e, and pmspcro,lS.
o Pro';ide dear objectives for those embarking on the planning and design of projects.
. Increase awareness of urban design EOAsideratiofls among the citizens.
o Mixed land oseE; in close proximity;
. Building en1ries fronting the street;
. Pedestrian scale building, latldscape and thoroughfare design;
. Compact developments;
o Highly connected circulation netwerk; and
o Public spaces that con1ribute to "placemaking."
.Preser;e public views
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 19
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
Use of Standards
These DeGigR Standards v. ill be Hsed iR re'lie"..iRg prejeets far eanf"l'ffiit) with the overall
e"mmunity aesign objeeti':es and eonsisteRe)' with the JeffcrsoR COHnt) Code. ProjeOls submitted
for re'.iew mHst a<ldress eaeH ,,1' the follewiRg Design StaRdards. The Standards are to be Hsea in
eORjHnotieR with t-he la.....s, erdiRMees aRa aeyele]3!!lent stliRdaras of the various COHnl)'
departments aRd ageneies. The infermalion eenlained he..eiR does Rot negate the adopted laws
and ordinanees af the Jefferson Comity Code. Where the s(Mdards in this seetion sonfliet with
speeific stanaards of any ather Jefferson COHnt)' erdinanees er eades, the ether standards will
prevail. The aeJign Standaras if! thie; :;eetion are net reqHiremef!tG aAd a desigf! or plaA not in
conformance with an) part may flet Be dic;app..eyed solei) fer thatlaek ef eooforrnanoe.
f. site plan should pro'/id" for the interrelationship of all clements Ofl the site lIfld the
eoordination of these elements with eJdsting de';elopments or nataral featmes found on
adjaeent site~;. The design process shoHld include eonsideration of the impllet on the
COUflty, the sHrrounding neighborhood, neili'by streets, and adjaeent properties. ,\
thorough analysis of on site features and full reeognition of off site factors that will
influence the de'ielopment should be ref~eeted in eaeh set of plans presented for rC'iie',';.
In eomplex sitootions, representatives of the County may request presentation of the site
plan by the applicant.
Bailding Orientati6n and Siting
PlaeeE~ent of the lmilding in rdation to the saFr6anding eleHlent~; isjust as important as
thc dO'lign of the building. The proposed building oricntation should rcsped the
orientation of sllrrOlmding buildings, eKis:ing pedes:rian paths aAd sidewalks, and the
orientation of sllrroundiAg streets. Rmvs of buildings which ercate a t"Ronotonolls,
"cookie eutter" desigll is discoumge4
Buildings should be oriented to allow for the use of eOlmnon driveways, espeeially along
arterial streets, where a redaetion in the nambeF of earb openings '"ill cnhance the
streetGeape and promote tmftie :;nfcty.
Serviee areas (loading docks, refUGe collection areas and similili' facilitie:l) which could
be sO,lrces of odor, noise and smoke, or eould be yisually objectionable, should not be
located in highly traveled urea:;.
N6ise pr6dueing Basinesses, such as automotiye repair fneilities, should be designed so
that the entnu:ce to the sClTiee bays and othor areas where the noise is produeed, are
oriented away fi'om residential properties.
Pedestrian CiFeulation
The site plan should c1eurly express the separation between Jledestrian and vehiealllr
traffie. Clearly defined buffcrG enhal'lce the attraeti'ienc~;s of the streetseape and promote
pedestrian ~;atety. In developments where subs:untial traffic ';olames oeeur on certain
stretches of on site drivcs, a sidewalk may be Reeessary to separute pedestrian and
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 20
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
J e/fersoD County Code
voaietilar traffie. Pedeatrian eireulatioH lll-j'out on any development site saEluld take into
aeemmt all Elf[ site generators of pedestrian movement, sueh as open sflaees, sehElols,
retail centers, bus stops, eto
"
PedestriaH safety: Within parking lots, provide raised sidewalks, crosswalks, ar,d
pedestrian wall[',>,~ays where pElssible. 'Nhere not possible, provide at gradc walkways
proteeted by ourbs and,' or landseaped areas. Distinotively mark pedestrian routes through
parkiAg lots. Use vertieal design elements, special paying sllch aa brick, concrete, or
eobblestone. InclHde pedestrian amcnities suoh as benohes, trash containers, and planters
'""henever possible. Separate service yehiele aceess aRd loading zones from pedestrian
areas where possible.
Vehiele/pedestriaH eeerdinatien: Minimize eOAflicts bet'.veeA drivers and pedestrians
throllgh the sitiAi;: of struetlll'es, loeation of eirealatioA elements, landscape design, and
placement ef signs. WRere appropriate limit the nwnber of potential encoanters between
pedestrians and '{ehieles through site design. Where pedestrian and motorist paths must
cross at crosswalks and fledestrian walb\ays, provide adeqllate sight distanoe to ensure a
dear '{iew Elf pedestrians aREl 'fehicles.
Surfaee accent strips of brick Ell' textured pa'{ing to define pedestrian walkways shElllla be
lllilized. Pavement in1ended for pedestrian traffic shElald be stable, firm and skid resistant
and sllEluld nElt ha'ie an irre!;alar surface that is llflOomfortable Elr dangefElus tEl walk on.
Prm'isions for access for disabled persons shollld be inootporated into the overall
pedestrian oircalation systeni. The oyerall design shall be in oomplianoe with the most
ourrent disability access laws, in partioular the i\mericaRs with Disabilities ,"ct.
Sidewalks and plazas should be made comfortable for use by pedestrians through the
ase of laadscapilig, s'ierhllilgs aad eanopies in order to proyido shade ana raiH proteetion.
Publie ,'.meHities
Comfortable aIld attraotive street furHiture that is accessible to the physically disabled
should be pro'iided in public spaoes for pablio eHjOjTIieHt and oomfort. Street fwnitare
may include seating and tables, drilikin!; fountains, trash receptacles, iBformation kiosks,
and directories. TheDe type,; of pedestrian arneliities help to encourage the use sf pablie
space. Where the deyclopmeRt is located on an established bus route, bcts turnouts and
shelters should be ineorporated in the site design in cooperation with Jefferson Transit.
.',11 site ameAities shoald be accessible to tile physically disaBled. All facilities should be
usable by everyone.
Refuse Storage
,'.II trash reeeptacles should be of sufficient size and nHmber tEl aCOElm1ll8date the traah
generated. i\ll exterior trash reeeptaeles ia commeroial, nmili family, or indllstrial
zoning districts should be screeHed from public view on three sides; and, on the fourth
side, by a gate which also screens the reoeptacles from view. The gate sRall be
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 21
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
J etferson County Code
maiataiaed in good working order aad shmtld remain dosed eJeeept when ia use. The
sereening shotlld be deeorative ElRd arehiteerurally comfJatihle with the surrooodiBg
structmes. Landscaping should be tlsed to soften llfld sereen the efwlosure. The location
should be conyeniently accessible for trash colleetion and maintenanee but set back
~JUfficieRtly from propert)' lines to minimize distmhiag aeighhors. Trash endosures
should he IDeated behiEd the buildiEg setback liBe ',,'hen adjaeeEt to any siagle family lot.
If f-easihle, trash <:mcloslH"es should be loeated no doser than 50 feet to a residential
property line.
Lighting
Security lighting should be provided to help ensare a safe envirolli'aeat. Parking lots
shmtld he designed with lighting to proyide aa average of one foot candle of light at
ground leyel. Tl1e public areas aad sidevcalks should be desigaed to provide an average of
one foot eandle of light at ground Ie'cel.
El((erior lighting should be designed to eoordinate with the building architecture and
landscapin;;. Buildiag mounted fi:nmes should be €oRlpatiblc ..veith the btlilding fileades.
O','er-all lighting leveL; should be consistent with the eharacter and intel1sity of existing
lightil1g in the area surrounding the projeet site.
The tYfle of light source used should be cons:stent throughotlt a project. Lamv.; and light
fixtures under cnrports and/or other flartially oflen flarldng areas should be designed to
pre','ern glare. /\.1l1amps il1 these areas should have lenses to diffuse the light. Lighting
within flarldng garages should be desigaed to avoid external views of loag expanses of
exposed fluorescent light tubes.
&ale
Seale relationships shoald be carefu]])" considered, and appropriate transitiol1s provided
whem a change of ~;calc i:; propo,;ed or required. Stair:ltepping building height, brcabng
up the mas.) of thc btJilding and shifting building plaeemel1t ean help mitigate the impact
of differing building scales and intensities.
,^. propo:led commercial or iHdu~;trial building shaull! also re~;pect the scale of any
adjaeeac residentiul buildings, and, where de~lirable, provide an orderly transition to thc
different scale of de\'c!opmen:. For example, the actuul height aad bulk of a two story
office building is nsually grcuter than that of a two story residence. These buildings will
not nomlally be compatible in close pr())(imity unless they are separated by distanee,
artietllated elevation, or a land~lcape buffer/screen.
Bu:ldil1g3 that are significantly taller. more brightly colored, or which otherwise differ in
scale from their neighbors may be accefltable but they will require .justifieation by the
designcr.
Rh).thm
Building rhythm relates to the horizontal and yertictll patterns expre:;sed by architectural
features such as corniee:;, eolumns. v,indov;s, door:;, or variations in massing. Ne',\'
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 22
Exhibit F
Line-inILine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
develejlffiells sheuld reSfleet rhythms estaBlishes by adjacent lm-ililings. Designers should
employ seveml related rft:,'thms to ayoid repetitiell. of 0f1e, or ';ery [e>",. elements
throUgflout tae building. EJcamjlles of lmildill.g rhythm inchllle horizontal and ';ertieal
bllBdiHg with differeHt eelom or materials, groupings of '.viRGo',vS, regular or repetition of
storefront details, or eonsistent sign design lIBd plaeemeHt. In towMOl!Se and HUllti
family ]Jrejeet", repeti-tiye Hoor plans should be alternately rcyersed lIBa exterior
elevation", reof plane", and exterier appurtenaRees "l1ould be '{aried te ayoid mOBot0fl-Y.
Building Faeade
External details iE buildiEg facade", eEtries, stairways, retaiaillg walls and other features
prEl'{ide yisu-al interests, enriehment al1.d tGlctme to lmilaiags. New developmeBts should
incorporate the use of strong '/ertical and/or florizmltal re'/eals, off sets, and tnree
dimellsiollal detail bet\'{een surfaee planes to oreate shadow lines and brealc up flat
surface areas. If large blank surfaees are proposed, 1he)' SHould be for some compelling
design purpose, afld the dcsign should incorpoFate mitigating f-catares to enrich the
appearance of the project and provide a sellse of human scale at the ground lewl that is
inviting to the public.
1'.11 sides of a structme should exhibit desigll continuity. There should be no unimproved
side to a structme. For install.ee, a mansa.-d roof should be carried around all sides of the
building, not just alollg the front.
Colom and Materials :n the area ofthe project should be cOIIGidered WRen selectill!; the
materials aHd colors used in the proposed project. Materials aJld colers can unify an area
through the use of a dearly dcfiaed palette. Colors and materials should be selected for
compatibility '.vith tho site, as well as oompatibility with the aeighborin!; area.
Sereeninl;
/.11 rooftop air conditioning and heating eqaipment should be screened from view iE
multi fatT-li Iy and commercial de','elopul0nts. 80ft water taIlks, gas meters, and electrical
meters should also be screened ti-orn public view '.vherever possible. ,^JI screening should
be architect-urally compatible with the primary structure. The sCf-eeaing should be part of
the articulation of the building lIBd not appear to be aa afterthough1. Sound attemtatioR to
mechaaieal equipment is also enoouraged.
18.18.120 Site plan approval required in the lrondale and Port Hadlock UGA.
In the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA prior to the provision of public sewer or public
water to a site, any approval for a commercial, industrial, mixed-use, multifamily, high
density residential, or single-family residential subdivision in the ULDR zone (.....ithiA the
aptianal sewer S8n ice area) is required to include a site plan which:
(I) Complies with the applicable health regulations and other Jefferson County development
and building regulations (e.g., critical areas, stonnwater management, etc.);
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 23
Exhibit F
Line-inlLine-out to Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
-<2) Provisions for tHe se~tie neess of the eliffent ~roposal and shoy;s HO'/, the renlainder of
tile site will aeeomlflsdate alid liet preel"ae "r.ean ser'/iees and densities; aRd
(3) Provides for fumre-sanitary sewer connection and other utilities.
The site plan prepared under this section and reviewed and approved by the
administrator, shall address the following: buffers, landscaping, traffic access and parking
standards, current septic and future sanitary sewer provisions, height and scale in relation
to surrounding uses and future uses, vegetation removal, storm water, potable water, and
lot coverage.
Development of the site shall be consistent with the approved site plan. Minor
modification to the site plan may be allowed by the administrator; provided, that all other
regulations and conditions placed on the approval are met. lOrd 10-04 S 3].
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 24
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
Chapter 18.18
IRONDALE AND PORT HADLOCK UGA DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
IMPLEMENTATION
Sections:
18.18.010 Purpose.
18.18.020 Establisbment of urban growtb area (UGA) land nse and zoning districts.
18.18.030 Purpose ofUGA land use and zoning districts.
18.18.040 Use tables.
18.18.050 Density, dimension aud opeu space standards.
18.18.060 Development requirements aud performance standards.
18.18.070 Landscaping.
18.18.080 Parking and pedestrian circulation.
18.18.090 Ligbting.
18.18.100 Signs.
18.18.110 Design standards.
18.18.120 Site plan approval required in tbe Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA.
18.18.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish land use controls and regulations for the
unincorporated Irondale and Port Hadlock urban growth area consistent with the adopted
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. lOrd. 10-04 9 3].
Chapter 18.18 ICC development regulations shall be used for urban development that has
urban services available. Urban development will not be allowed before the availability
of urban services, namely, sewer availability. Those areas in the UGA that do not yet
have sewer available must develop at rural densities using rural standards found
elsewhere in Title 18, ICC. See 18.18.060, Development Requirements and Performance
Standards, for specific information about sewer availability and when urban development
standards will apply.
18.18.020
Urban Commercial
Establisbment of urban rowtb area
Urban Growth Area UGA
Land Use Districts Zonin Districts
Urban Residential Urban low density residential (ULDR)
Urban moderate density residential (UMDR)
Urban hi density residential (UHDR)
Urban commercial (UC)
Visitor-orien1ed commercial (Vae)
Urban light industrial (ULl)
Public(P
GA land use and zoning districts.
Urban Industrial
Public
lOrd 10-0493].
18.18.030 Purpose ofUGA land use and zoning districts.
The purposes ofthe land use and zoning districts are as follows:
Printed on 3/16/2009
Page 1
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
(1) Urban Commercial (UC). The purpose of the urban commercial designation is to provide
for a wide range of commercial activities and uses compatible with the expressed needs
of the community that will provide goods and services for the UGA, nearby residents and
serve the traveling public;
(2) Visitor-Oriented Commercial (VOC). The purpose of this designation is to recognize the
unique area of the Old Alcohol Plant and allow commercial uses and for visitor-oriented
lodging, goods and services that supplement the historical and tourism-related character
of this area;
(3) Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR). The purpose of the ULDR district is to provide
for areas of single-family urban residential development that are separate from
commercial and industrial uses and activities;
(4) Urban Moderate Density Residential (UMDR). The purpose of the UMDR district is to
provide for areas of mixed single-family and moderate density multifamily urban
residential development;
(5) Urban High Density Residential (UHDR). The purpose of the UlIDR district is to provide
for areas of high density multifamily residential development;
(6) Urban Light Industrial (ULI). The purpose of the ULI designation is to allow for low
intensity and low nuisance potential industrial uses;
(7) Public (P). The purpose of the P designation is to provide for the siting of important
public facilities and services compatible. [Ord 10-04 9 3].
18.18.040 Use tables.
This section establishes whether a specific use is allowed, prohibited, conditional or
otherwise designated.
Table 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses
How To Use This Table
Table 3A-l displays the classifications of uses for UGA zoning districts.
The allowability and classification of uses as represented in the table are further modified by the following:
The location may have a multiple designation. This would be true of the Shoreline Master Program, a
subarea plan, or an overlay district applied to the location. The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) should
be consulted if the location of interest is subject to the SMP jurisdiction. See also Notes 1 to 3 to this
table.
. All regulations in this code apply to the uses in these tables. To determine whether a particular use or
activity can occur in a particular land use district and location, all relevant regulations must also be
consulted in addition to this table.
. A development proposal with in 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a regulated shoreline is within
the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program, and is subject to the applicable provisions of Chapter
18.15 lCC.
Overlay districts provide policies and regulations in addition to those of the underlying land use districts
for certain land areas and for uses that warrant specific recognition and management. For any land use or
development proposed to be located entirely or partly within an overlay district, or within the jurisdiction
of a subarea plan, the applicable provisions of the overlay district or subarea plan as provided in Articles
VI and VII of Chapter 18.15 lCC shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of the UDC.
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 2
Yes
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
Categories of Uses
Uses allowed subject to the provisions of this code, including meeting applicable performance standards
(Chapter 18.20 ICe) and development standards (Chapter 18.30 ICe); if a building or other development
permit is required, this use is also subject to project permit approval; see Chapter 18.40 ICC.
Discretionary uses are certain named and all unnamed uses which may be allowed subject to
administrative approval and consistency with the UDC, unless the administrator prohibits the use or
requires a conditional use permit based on project impacts; see ICC 18.15.045 and Chapter 18.40 ICC.
Conditional uses, subject to criteria, public notice, written public comment and public hearing procedure;
see ICC 18.40.080.
Conditional uses, subject to criteria, public notice, written public comment, and an administrative
approval procedure, but not a public hearing; see ICC 18.40.080.
Conditional uses, subject to criteria, public notice, written public comment and, at the discretion of the
administrator, a public hearing procedure, if warranted, based on the project's potential impacts, size or
complexity, according to criteria in ICC 18.40.550 of the UDC; see ICC 18.40.080.
Prohibited use.
D
C
C(a)
C(d)
No
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 3
I.:IU
...U
:E"'"
:=00
>'I....
Iiiiloci
....
...
...
...
c.
..
..cI
U
,:;
c.
=
U
c
..
...
o
"
"
o
U
"
o
i'l
~
"
~
'"
... -
'" ..
'C 'C
... ...
'" '"
.. ::I
Q'O
~.s
..
c
=
N
'<
1.:1
e
..
...
...
<
..cI
...
~
=
...
1.:1
=
..
..cI
...
~
.:.:
'"
=
;;;
..
=
t:
=
=-
'0
::I
"'-
... '"
- ..
'" '"
'0 ...
C ...
= El
,.: 5 ]
= ::I '"
U '" ~
..cI El
:5 El
=
U
"
"0
o
U
'"
'0 ...
~=~
, "'...
<"''0
M:C~
~~:E
..cI ~ ..
.. =..cI
~ge
"'=-
'" '"
.""" ....
--
..cI..cI
::I ::I
=-=-
-;
~:='5
of.~ ~
~..:i'O
::I
-
-
..
:: ~;:: ~
",..cI.. ::I '"'
..... bll rI':I ~ """"
t:.. :: '0 =
~=~':;l ~
~
- -
.. ... '"
'.c = ~ ,e. '.c ~
:: '" ..... ::I Q
~ .c ~ rI':I Qj
:S~::!l:S~
~"'~Q~~
~ ~
~ -;
~ ~;::
..:i .. ::
::I '" ...
'" !l :s
-eQ~
~ ~
-
..
~] '0
= ... ...
... :: ...
.~.~ a
.. ... El
>0=
U
=-
o 0
zz
o
Z
o
Z
'"
"
><
OJ)
.S >
...-
.;a !::
>< 0
I:Ll
'"
"
><
o
Z
>.
'"2
o
gf
'+=1
'"
':;!
I:Ll
o
Z
o
Z
'"
~
'"
"
><
o
Z
OJ)
.S ~
... 0
.~'"2 Z
>< 0
I:Ll
>.
'"2
o
OJ)
.S
-
'"
':;!
I:Ll
'"
"
><
'"
"
><
OJ) '"
.5 ~ -
- E '8
.. I<! '" !l 0 ;:l
'" ~ :: " 8 ..<:: .. ':::l
~rI':I,_U OJ"'"
"0 ~ ; 5 .8 ~.s .~ ~
;-;~~uP i; ;~ u
~ ~ ~ ~ *'~ ~.g ~.~ '3
~Qj=~;:.1~~"'CI ...;...,]
!l:l'OEl-",-c:l-1: '::>.
'O'r;: .~- '-' OJ} ~:::I '; :-::: ~
Q,) Q,) = VJ = ~...... ~ ~,-.,._
I ;:; ~ "" <+-< ".- 8 U '" OJ '" 1:: '"
100 ~11)~~~~ ~~'211).15
":': "";j. _ [)._ :::I lI'l ....... ',p :::I "d ._
= IS 0.. -c:l 2 [ij"'" -= " + 'U; '5
ooiZi89~~8~~~~~
-
..:i
~
o 0
zz
o 0
zz
'" '"
" "
><><
~
Q
..:i
~
'" '"
" "
><><
U
o
>
.a ~
o 0
gj .s
'f.! ~
.~ .~
>< ><
I:LlI:Ll
~~
c c
o 0
g;<gf
',;:] '-:;j
<Il '"
.- .-
>< ><
I:LlI:Ll
U
~
o
Z
o
Z
.
<Il
"
><
'"
"
><
o
Z
'"
"
><
o
Z
000
zzz
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
...
"
C>
'"
(L
o
Z
000
zzz
o
Z
o
Z
-
~
~
U
~
~
u
-c:l
~ tI'l"
'" OJ
'en VI ~
~ "a ~ 5
~ 5 "'"'"
<l ~ ~
~ .5 t-oo -; ]
11) rI':I:::: ~ 'E(]J '0
ca {J) Qj 11) ~ _
>.~ '" ~ "gj ..
c.-:::~~-c:lc"Oe
8:::: >'U; C El
'""- U !:::;:l'- =
OLJ~ = O..cl "u
.S ~ ~ ~ " ~
~.s 1:l 8 80 p
;:J ;;:.. Cj u 0
z;.:::<<r:::r:u
<Il
"
><
'" <Il 0
~~z
'"
"
><
'" '" 0
~~z
<Il
"
><
'" '" 0
~~z
~
c
o
~ ~ ~
'C >< ><
'"
':;!
I:Ll
b
c
o
.. '" <Il
~ 11) (].)
'+=1 >< ><
'"
':;!
I:Ll
<Il
...
"
-
~ca
..<:: .-
<Il U
...
- "
J !
'"
o
o
N
ii5
;;;
c
o
"
"
c
it
'"'u
....u
:E~
:ace
..:....
r-loO
....
..
..
....
~
~
-=
u
~
Q
U
=
~
..
o
000
zzz
o 0 0 0 0 0 0
zzzzzzz
000 0
zzzz
o 0
ZZ
o 0
ZZ
00 V) rI'.l rn
~ ll) It) 1)
>-<>-<>-<>-<
o
Z
ell 0 ell
'" '" '"
>-<0<-<>-<
o 0 0 0 0 0 ~
ZZZZZZ>-<
r:I.l r/'l 0 0
~~ZZ
o 0
ZZ
o ell
Z~
o ~ 0 0
Z~ZZ
o
Z
000
zzz
o 0 0 0 lZl 0 0
ZZZZ~ZZ
o 0 0 0
ZZZZ
ell 0
~Z
o 0
ZZ
000 0
ZZZZ
o
Z
on
v
'"
rn
a.
000
ZZZ
o 0 0 0 l'J'l 0 0
ZZZZ~ZZ
o 0 0 0
zzzz
ell 0
~Z
o 0
ZZ
o 0 0 0
zzzz
o
Z
"
"'"
0
U 000 ell ell
a- o 0 0 0 '" 0 0 000 0 '" 0 0 0 000 0 0
zzz zzzz >-<ZZ ZZZZ >-<Z ZZ ZZZZ Z
"
0
U
"
0
~
~
<E
....
"
~
ell ell ell ell Vl ell Vl Vl 0 ell Vl Vl 0 Vl ell ell 0 Vl ell ell Vl Vl
'" '" '" '" 0 '" '" '" ~Z '" '" ~Z '" '" ~Z ll) ll) V ll) '"
>-<>-<>-< >-<Z >-<>-<>-< >-<>-< >-<>-< >-<>-<>-<>-< >-<
Vl ell Vl
'" '" '"
>-<>-<>-<
r:n rn r./) rn 00 (/'J VI
IJ.) ll) Q) ll) Q) Q) Q)
>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<
en rI'.l 00 V)
Q) V Q) OJ
>-<>-<>-<>-<
ell ell
'" '"
>-<>-<
ell Vl
'" '"
>-<>-<
U'l 1ZI IZl VI
V ll) (J) ll)
>-<>-<>-<>-<
Vl
'"
>-<
"'d ~ ] c:
., 8 Ol .,.- ~ 0
o ..... !:::: .- tI3 ;::: IV '"d
j~ -= B~ .~ ~m~~ a ~ .9
:., Vl .8~ 6 a~ e '''-is
~~ ~ ~~ ..... ] o~.~ ll)~ ]5~~
>ro ~rI'.l ~~ ~"'d w o~~ M rn8UU
.~.;: to ~ :.a 13 ~ @ >," ~ '" E {J :.:::..a ..::l ..::l
rn~ ~~ ll)~S ~ ~~~~.~~ rI'.l~ j.~~~ ll)
Vtl)Q) IJ.)Q) t)ll)""i:ongf:::: ~g..sro"O>~~;;"'-"V1:Cll)(J) c:
~~~::::o~= ~~~'~~~rI'.l~~rI'.log"OS=~OJ)u~88 +->
..p ....... ....... .........0 J::::: ""'"' E +-> ~ IV OJ) ll) ~ s:::l a':;:: ll) ..s s::: OJ) t) a a IZI
~ 0 O'~ 0 0 >- cd "'0 '"d ....... .s '5 ~ ~ ..... ..... .$ '-" t;j"S u '.;:j ;::: /l,) .- .- ~ >..
yaa!aahVl@to&!.DVlE.=Ew.~?o"'!~'-~~~o~
wooooov1 .-u_~-~~~~~O~>~cd~duv~o
e~~-~~~ '"d=~Ocdcd~.-~.~.S.-'"d::::=o'S~__~o
'-:: - .... rI'.l .... _cd (IJ ._ ..........c::: 0 0 0 ;::$ I:l3 ~ ...... r/') cOO >( I-< cd J::::: :::: ;:j l-o
<<<e<<=====~====-=uu'~.UU",Q~~~oO
'"
o
o
~
M
c
o
"0
V
,s
a:
r.:;u
....u
:E~
.~ .
,<:lOO
>01.....
r-l06
.....
..
...
....
c-
<'II
,<:l
U
,;,
c-
o
U
=
<'II
...
o
"
-g
u
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul 0 0
d)
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z >- Z Z
0 0 0 0 Ul 0 0 0 0 Ul Ul 0 Ul 0 Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul
d) d) d) U d) d) d) ~ d) d) d) d)
Z Z Z Z >- Z Z Z Z >- >- Z >- Z >- >- >- >- >- >-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
Ul Ul Ul i 0 Ul Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0
d) d) d) d) d) Q
>- >- >- z >- >- z z z z z z z z z z z z z
Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul ~
d) d) d) ~ 0 d) d) Q 0 0 0 0 0 d) 0 0 d) i 0 u 0 ~
>- >- >- z >- >- z z z z z >- z z >- z z u
Ul Ul -0 ~
-a d) ~
Ul Ul .~ '"
" "' :E ...
d) ell Ul " 0
U Ul 0 (J ] ... d) Ul .... 2
.S .~ 'M 'E ell Ul 'u -a 1:: . 0 Ul
Ul ;:l Ul ~ 00'- -a '"
~ .... Ul (J 1:1 <.S Ul ~ " ti Ul 00 Ul
.~ ~ d) ... J-I.~ " d)
Ul - d) - '" 1-0 1:1 'M '"
d) 'u 0 Ul <'II ~ Ul ... d) .... .... 'M -
~ -0 ~ Ul .... <::.~ d) ;> 0
'M <.S ... -0 .;: d) 5' d) >< 'M ;> 0 {
.... 0. .= ~ a Ul 5 ....
~~ ~ .... .= (J '" (J d) s ""8 " ~
1 . ~ -0 0 Ul (J ~ '" 0 o.d) Ul ... 8 0 d)
d) (J _ ~ Ul (J = '" .... 'M (J .g '" 0 -0 '" (J
.... ~ ~ "0 ..0 Ul .,'M ~ 0.....
g 0 '" d) ~ o-i:: .g Ul ~ " gj Ul Ul
.... -0 ..0 ..."
~ 00 0 0 -a OJ d) = 0 d) " Ul d) d) <:: ... d) .... 0 0 ., .,
... Ul ..... .... .... .... .- .S (J .- 0 0
" ,,<::: d) ~ d) Ul ~ OJ .... d) <E ..9 ~Ul 0 ... o ._ bJ)",p
.= .... " C/J ~ ~ .= .=
Ul g '50 Q) ..0 , o.~ - ... .E 0 ., ~ ca " g d)
.- ~ (J ~
s 'S '" .... ,.,. -0 ",3 ~ 0 d) .... 'S a
q:: .s -0 .... ~ i:: ~ a '" <:: :3 d) I] Ul (J ~ ~ (J
o 0 ., ~ Ul 0 0 d) d) " d) ~ ~ d) ~
(3 ....l -l S ....l d) d) ::J <t; i:Q U i:Q ~ ::r:: ~ ::r:: ....l 0 g 0 ~ ~
p... Ul d)
"
"
o
U
"
o
~
....
@
"
~
<D
"
'"
~
a.
'"
o
o
N
a;
M
c
o
"0
"
.5
a:
()U
~u
,Q....
:=00
......
...00
....
..
"
....
c.
..
.:l
U
,;;
C.
Q
U
1:1
..
"
u
"
"0
o
U
'"
"
o
U
'"
o
~
~
~
"
~
o
Z
'"
"
>-
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
'" '"
" "
>->-
tI:I ~ V'J r.I.I
Q) <l) <l) <l)
>->->->-
CI
'" '"
" "
>->-
o 0 0 r.I.I
ZZZ~
o
Z
~u
o 0 r.I"J 0
ZZ~Z
o
-
-
o
Z
'"
-
~u
o 0 r.I.I 0
ZZ~Z
00
-
u
u
.....
"
"
lfJ
o
Z
~u
o 0 r.I.I 0
ZZ~Z
o
Z
'"
u "
>-
r.I.I tIl r.I.I 0
~~~Z
o
Z
'" '"
" "
>->-
rn r.I.I 0 r.I.I
~~Z~
"
'"d ~ 0 u
!:= .~ 0 a) S
Q oo~a;="'5~ 0
gp ~ ~ ',c .~ VI '-' tn
;.g ~~:-3=~~ ~o
u OJ _ u ~.~ ~ u ~
2 g '.8 ~ ~ ~..E'c S Q
c;s :g .S ~ P g g:; 0 a3
~ ~...;Q "'0 ~,.c s.. .... >.~ ~ ;g
~_v<:""~=""u"""a
o :B ~ .- ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ S-..
'€ 0 >. ~ QP} Cd Cj ~( ~ .. E r
,.Ja~~~'~=C)~~Q)a
:9o~ca ~..c:::::~:'=:;>J-;
~ '5 ~ @ 1il ~ UO ,~ ~ ,Q =-=i
.- -< oj '"' ,;'1 ...... - v ......
-a-.-Vl,......l ~ .. ..
'"
"
>-
'"
"
>-
-
<:
"
a <:
0. .9
'3 ......
cr' u
" 2
r.I.I ~ e '0
~ G 0 U
o ~.:l OIl
:;.. r.I.I l:: r.I.I
.... 11) Q) :.:::.~
u ...... b1 u .......
en:.::: c:: cd >.;.:::
~..o'- 1-1 <.,).-
8 ::i oj 0 " u
~-d'... a 1;; ~ <is
.. .
'"
"
>-
'"
"
>-
~
---
u
~
---
u
~
oj
---
u
'"
"
>-
'" '"
" "
>->-
o
Z
o '"
z~
u
~~
-0-0
--- ---
uu
u
"'''2
UU
u
I '" "2
--- ---
uu
'"
"
>-
'" '"
" "
>->-
'"
"
>-
'" '"
" "
>->-
....
"
<=
" ~
-0 u_
~ ..~ oj '"
.@ ~.~
i g~]
.& ~ 8 -g <= ~
.........n'ij '"i::; cd 11) 'I:::
o ~ 0 l-I S O)...c:
~o:t::~i:'j~U
U g.~ ~ Q) E ~
lfJ"'>;;-./:l"...=
. .. u u
OIZl r.I.I
~ 1I.)!1)
u>->-
~~"'O
u>-u
~~~
u>-u
o'dr.l.l
Z---"
u>-
0"2'"
Z---"
u>-
'" 0 0
~zz
000
zzz
v
OIl
-0
.s
....
o
..0
::i
-
u
-
...
o
.... 2
ff~
o.~
z c:
CI
CI
CI
....
"
'"
.,
Q.
CI
CI
CI
CI
'"
"
'"
OJ ;:J
<: 1:1
.2 .S
.~ ~
_ 1::
13 g
.~ '"
-0 1:1
"a ~ ..
.~ ..
ro.t:: ~
@'E
;:J<iS
'"
o
o
N
<0
;;;
c
o
"
"
,s
0:
I.:lU
....U
:E~
:CoO
~....
f.olexi
....
...
..
....
l:l.
..
-=
U
s:
Q
U
=
..
..
o
"
"0
o
U
"
"
o
U
"
o
~
~
~
"
~
'"
~
'"
~
--.
-0
'->
U
--.
-0
'->
U
--.
-0
.~
U
'"
<l)
>-<
'"
~
'"
<l)
>-
Q
'"
<l)
>-<
Q
'"
<l)
>-
Q
'"
<l)
>-
Q
'"
<l)
>-
Q
'"
<l)
>-
Q
'"
<l)
>-
Q
'"
<l)
'"
::l
<:::
o
'~ ~ S
i~;;;l 8
~" I ~;_~ g
~ ~ = u
A a=ca
-0 -0 ~ 'u
-0 '" @ <l) ....
@~~~ ~ 11
] .~ '<<1 > ~ 8
~ ~ ~ '8 ;::l 8
...
.~
'"
@
....
->::
'"
...
..s
....
o
."
:g
0..
<l)
-0
.~
....
~
U~Q
U
o
Z
o
Z
'"
<l)
>-
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o 0,...,
zz....
....,
U~Q
U
'"
~
'"
<U
>-
o 0,...,
zz....
'.-,
U~Q
U
o
Z
o
Z
o 0,...,
zz....
o
M
~
ci
'"'!
00
~
~
U~Q
U
o
Z
o
Z
o 0,...,
zz....
U
U
....,
<l)
<l)
r/J
~
U~Q
U
on
0::
".o...Q 0
.~ 0:: Z
~ 0
>Il
o
Z
o 0,...,
zz....
~
U~Q
U
o
Z
o
Z
o 0,...,
Zz....
--.
u ~Q
u
~
o
Z
'"
o <U Q
z>-
,::
o
.~
."
.... ....
.g 0
'm ,5 >-. '"0
~ ~ ~: -0 .~ 1 * ~ :
$:i ~ U) r~ a en ro '- 0 ~
Q)Q)~- <U "l::JB'.p ..-
88>-0 iG u 0::"''' "
(S e.t:: a CfJ e ro "'CI t:i .g
00;;:::: ~ p.. .......~_ oj)
o"i)"S~ ~ c;1 a~~ ~~
",[;[;-oz ::l",S l5.,::8~-o::l
.2~~~~ ;"~~~~'~~'~~~
t::~.f::roC,) u~u C::$u.DQ)a.......
~:.:::::.= !:: 'C rn 't:;: ,;> 'C: ;::I U 8 ~ !:: Vl
u ".p ',p ~ OJ) ~ OJ).p b.b ro c:r 0 :i d ~
~;::l;::l;::l~;::l~g~]~sjZ;::l~
'"
"
"
o
N
-;;;
'g
E
E
o
U
"0
E
"
,~
~
o
~
o
.<;:
~
;;:
"0
"
'"
-;;
'u
~
"
E
E
o
u
"
:s
'i<
~
"
~
3
u
"
"
~
]
"
"
"0
.:;;
"
-
Oll
,g
~
';(
"
.S
"0
"
~
2
-;;
~
~
.~
"
~
"
"0
.S
g,
'"
'"
o
U
"0
:;
~
"
~
~
"
.S
~
is
"
E
.s
....
'"
"
'"
rn
a.
oj
"
E
"
.~
"
<:T
"
~
i:'
.:;;
"
"
"0
]
E
"
"0
.:;;
"
~
s
~
u
"
:0'
"
~
"
.0
o
"
ti
~
"
Ii!
"
<:T
~
'0
'0
QO
"-<
o
"
.!::i
~
OIl
"
:9
'S
.0
13
E
';(
'"
;;2
N
-;;
..0
~
"0
8
j'l
'"
"
Oll
:3
"
~
"0
o
"
"
Ii!
S
o
o
~
"
o
E
;0,
"
o
;r:
M
0>
o
o
N
ii5
'"
c
o
"C
~
.5
a:
"u
;::U
,/:/""
.- ~
.:lQO
~,...,
f;;;loO
,...,
...
"
....
J:l.
=
.:l
U
~
~
U
=
=
..
U
'"
v
C>
~
a.
0)
"'"
o
u
€
"
8
'"
g
~
~
0)
,..,
M ~
'-00 0
~ N
0 "'
, -
0 M
~ C
"'" 0
~ "0
Q. v
.s
0:
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
18.18.050 Density, dimension and open space standards.
This section establishes specific density and dimensional standards for new urban
development within the UGA.
NOTES TO TABLE 3A-2:
1. Fences are exempt from setback requirements, except in the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) or when impairing safe sight lines, as determined by
the county engineer.
2. Setbacks do not apply to mailboxes; wells; pump houses; bus shelters; septic
systems and drainfields (except in the SMP); landscaping (including berms); utility
apparatus such as poles, wires, pedestals, manholes, and vaults. No other structures or
communication devices (such as antennas, satellite dishes) shall be located in the front
setback area unless approved by the administrator. The administrator may reduce the
minimum front road setbacks if the strict application of such setback would render a legal
lot of record unbuildable under the provisions of this code.
3. Chimneys, smokestacks, fire or parapet walls, ADA-required elevator shafts,
flagpoles, utility lines and poles, skylights, communication sending and receiving
devices, HV AC and similar equipment, and spires associated with places of worship are
exempt from height requirements.
4. Structures used for the storage of materials for agricultural activities are exempt
from the maximum building height requirements.
5. Approved subarea plans may establish different bulk and dimensional
requirements for those areas.
6. "NI A" = Not applicable.
7. Road Classifications. To clarifY the setbacks for urban development activities
within the UGA consistent with the requirements of this section, the following road
designations shall apply:
. Principal arterials. None classified in the UGA.
Minor arterials. SR 19 (Rhody Drive)
Major collectors. SR 116 (Ness' Comer Road, Oak Bay Road to Flagler
Road and Flagler Road), Chimacum Road, lrondale Road.
Minor collectors.
. Local access roads.
. Alleys.
. Private roads.
8. The special side and rear setbacks provided in Table 3A-2 shall also apply to
outbuildings for residential or agricultural uses such as detached garages, storage sheds or
tool sheds, except for existing lots of record less than five acres wherein the minimum
rear and side yard setbacks for outbuildings shall be five feet.
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 10
I;;lU
....U
:E~
:CoO
00l'"
r-loe
...
...
..
....
l:l.
..
..cl
U
,.:;
l:l.
=
U
=
..
..
U
"
""
o
U
3
o
U
"
o
~
~
~
"
~
.. ..
... ..-
- -
....
= =
=-=-
-
..
oC ;;
~~..
'"' = ...
~]~
1:::....
'"
..
...
-<
of
~
=
...
I;;l
=
'"
..
...
~
~
..
=
-
'tl
..
:=
1::
=
=-
'tl
=
'"
..
-
..
'tl
=
~
....
";
':=b
.~ ~
..:l'tl
=
....
-
..
= ..0'= Q:i
"'..cl,~ = ""
I:)l)i:'-lQjl~
-f'~ = 'tl :=
~:=~';; ~
~
<l) 0-
"" '" ..
0<0 rJ) 8 CIJ rIi
u <0 .... N o,o..l s::: 1-<_
I-Ilr'loow ,v 0 c.8Q:S
~ ,..: ~ ~ ~ :>,0 .~ ~ g
1;l@~<l)",".n"," "55]
B8~'~Obo ""r 8~ 000000
';;'a~b~g~ ~~ BS N -N~M
8'S] ~ <=l].s -;S €.~'g.~>-:,
. :>, ~ ~.- > Ol ;:; <=l <l) <=l S
8~l-!~eC1)~ lI,)O~I-IC\to')
""~:;;u:EU ..clu~..I<",,<)
VttI_ ttlU~ u .....u(l)d
(]) t;i 8 ';::1 '"d""Vi cd CIJ ;.::: s::: a1 ~ -0 0
00 5;J :>'.- 0' 1;l. <l).' .n 0 8 ~ ;::l <)
'I""""I~",CIJ:<cdro~.L::J::S ::S~nll,)..t::J~OoOooo
M tI'l [) 8 ";j.g,-d >. --d A~ 0'; CIJ ~ N ...... N f<") ("it
- ~ ~ 15;.g 4-<..,.. "'S \0 ~ 't 7l " g 'Ei
~ ~ ro ..... 0 4-l 4-00 ~ l--:o > 0 U tfl
l-! 0 -+-' Q.) I]) I-< U
rOUd) ~>-. Q),.c"'OtIl~:.:::
a+-' s::::-E >............ v.....",o tn Cl:S..o
C1) C1)._ rJ) - ~.~ a s::: OJ 800;::1
l-< .~ :0 .:a 'ES 'Vi..=2 s::: .- t: 0 lI,) p.
g a 'oo'~ 0 d '8 (l) .s '"d'- ro :~ cd
_ClJrJ) '"d~>'"d ~~E~ lI,)OOOOOO
r-!. ......@CIJ.s & ~o d ~ ~ 8 o'~ ~ u '0 ~ M '1""""1 N {"i') tf')
"'0 rIl..... ~ tl'j'- ~s '0 ~ ~ B ~ ~
<l)~~~"'O;'" ~""'(l)I1)CU
N ~ <l) 0 <=l <l)._ 4-< 0 -" -" ..
'1""""1 .- ;;:. ~ Cd ~ fd ::s u ":+;;l +:J ..-4 .....
~'o; ~ -< t.i 1;l 2 ~ ~ E t tl g
~~.u'<l) .n~",,';;;:~.Q
~d...c::O"'lI,)~,,",c.i ....."'OQ)"'uV
~ ~O~lZl~U]"'O ~~~~P.2
""\O"'-~o'-">o - _" ~oooooo
~~~~ClJs~,~~:~ ~ClJa8]~N ......NMf<'I
>---; ......;::: ~ '-" ::s cd'- ;n: s::: Q) I-< ..... !:1
~ Cdll)Nv'Q,)1=: N..... 0 1--< 0 ....I-!
;::1 0 tn ...... s:::::: "'0 I-< dS ._ '.;:j CIJ ..... "C1 cd
u '--- C 0 '-r.I ~ IZl 00 u.~ ~ Il.l .-
~ oj N IV .... IV Il.l .......""0 ;:::::I
>B 00..d M t.) 2 0.......""0 oo.~ U
'S: .S! ~ ~ :>,'S:';;; "'" 0._ '0: > :E
.... 0. 00 0.- I-. I ~.2: ..@~ e Il.l
.......1l.l~...J2Q)~~-d.-"'d 0..;>
5f1i'-:::>roooo~~~.g~~C)
8 Il.l ~ S ~ ~ Il.l .~ ~ 00 Q) d ~
....... Il.l Q)..... :>..d r:Il S< ~~ 0 _ .0_ 00 0 0 0 0 '-r.I 0
o..'~>..d~........... ~ - N ~N-~
o I .~ ....... 0 Il.l 4-l E ~ ....... t--; .~ ~
- d m d ~ r:Il 0 IZl 0 ~ .. > .=
IV 0 ~.~ ~ "'0 IZl oU I-l'_ t!J.~ ":;:j
~ ~ ;>.. rtr l1) d';::! d'>;:::: "0 ] ..d
"" <B g'~.:!l .2'~ fjl Z 5 ~ :s ~ :~
.8 '0;;3 ~ ~ o..'~ 0
;>"-':""d~'-o""'"
-a~ Q"E ~ ~ a g
0.. . I-< ~:;:: "'0 ;",,'.p
ro 0"' IZl "'0 C;:$.~ Q) U
'" '" " ~ ;> V'J ';> Q)
(J) 0 0 ro 'S.~ d
'.;:j 0 "'0 IZl 0 ~ ~
..... lr) l1) 1Zl..... ;;> 0
5~] ~ ~] ~ ~ m
"'0 u ~..... ro......5" ~
"" 8 <l) B ~ '" -;S <l) <0;
~ ;:l;S <l) 1;l ~ .- :!5 ~
"" 8 .-" ~ ~ oj 0
a 'S ~ t--; Q) CIJ ';> ~
.s.- > ^ ~ u g.~ '"
r::IJ E l1) r:Il CIJ Q) ro..d S
;;~g-<~:sl~gs
....... .... ~ cG ~ IZl _ "-- .~
o 0 .... -< <l) S 8 ~.5
:S~~2-~.2,8g2
~ Q,) ";
'==-:;,O'''::Q:i
= '" ... .. = ""
Q,),.Q Q,) l"'-I Q,) """"
'tl...'tl='tl~
.... I---., Q Q,)."",
:rJ....""~:rJ~
~ "'" ~
";
.~
.. =
il '"
8-f
8~
=
U
-;;
=
=
,~
'"
=
'" .. '"
, 8 'tl
-< .~ ...
""~'"
J:_"O
,Q Ci ~
" ......
Eo< ..0 00
.;;
=
..
~
~ -;;
= ..0'=
..:l.~ =
= '" ..
_ = 'tl
.c ~....
l. """" fG
~ ~
'tl
:::.~
.. =
.- ..
.. '.
... ...
"0
8 '
S ~
Q~
U.;a
:>
";
.~ U
"'0..::
S~~
8UZ
=~
U
=-~
Z
......::
..:l~
~Z
"0 ,€
... '"
'" <=l
'tl <l)
=Q
"'-
,z; "
.., .~
= <l)
..""
e 'r;;
~~
7l""
... <l)
.. ~
~.Q
~
000000
N ~N ('1') ("1')
~
~
~
g>
Q.
"
~
00
~
o
~
<=l
o
~
"'"
@tl
s <)
.- oj
<=loB
.- <l)
200
'"
~ ~ ~
o ",000l
~ "d 1:) t) .~
.n C;:$ Q) Il.l ;...,
~ 0::::::::: l1)
u ;..., 0 0 ~
<) '" <l) U U ~
~ >c. ~ ~ ~ ....
....,~>ooo
" .;:: <=l'-'- "
is ~ 0....- ".;:<
"'" . .222
'"
o
o
~
~
M
c
o
-0
<I>
.E
a:
c;u
....u
:E~
:EarS
"....
",,00
....
...
.,
....
J:l.
..
-=
u
,;.
J:l.
.,
U
=
..
.,
u
<u
"0
o
U
"
o
o
U
"
o
~
~
4-<
<u
~
,,",0
MN
.8
.., ~
~..8
oed
r-,g
o
- '"
t) ~
~ 0
N
""'>>
M_
a'~
~.I:J
1;l-Th
~:E
b~
."- -
I-< .~
~~
"'0 'r:;;
'" '"
"0 ....
11 @
a ~ vi
S ~.~
o = -
u'-'Cii
~ "'0 ~
j:i@"O
CIJ~"'g
.[) l::::l VI
.J:i 0 '"
OJ.) N ~
l::::l"'@ U
~'c ,5
:s t;i ~
.n.g:@
~ ~ ~
a.;:l a
.- u 0
~ .... u
'" '" u
~~~
.g 8 8
6~~
,,",0
M ~
~""'
~""'
~""'
~""'
"0
~'T
~
'" '"
~ 2
r/) 0
"0 Z OJ)
ed @ ~;@
'!:: &l~:;::
iU Q) Q) ;::i
1::0::: "'~ '"
<:: '" "
ed a ';;;' ~ .S
~ '" -"i '"
.:;- a ;j a "
u ..... ~ .~ a'"
.8.5 - '"
P:: ::s ,a5::s is
o
r-
o 0
r-z
00
r- r-
,,",0
M r-
,,",0
M '0
o
r-
'"
OJ)
~"
t);.a
~~
~'"
~~
'" OJ)
::c: e
gf ~
._ 0
~u
...........-
;:j 0 ~
~....l~
""'
a
S
.~
8
o
Z
>>
-a
o
""'
~
a
.~
a
"0
'"
,-
-
.-
u
~
'"
'"
"
o
Z
---:-
q:;
g-
~
'"
N
ii3
gf
.-
~
'S
~
ed
-
o
f-;
oj
"0
o
u
~
;s
.5
"0
"
""
'u .
" <u
0."0
~ 0
<u u
.:::2 U'J
Hi
lLs
'0"0
~~
~'iJ
3 15-
" ~
t) ~
~ .-
on ~
N <u
",s
"" 0
~
d ;a
""-
~ "
"'" 0
u "
J5ti
t)c2
~o
<u -
,s "
,,""
,,=
2]
~ ~
0"",
~ ~
o-e
_ <u
os ~
'g 0-)
<u,s
~ ~
<u 0
~ N
15 6
-;;; <u
'u <I)
~ 0
~~
8~
os r!
~
os
"
""
os "
81a
"'2.9
~"O
8.~
e 0
o.g.
~ ~
.- 0.
;.n ~.;2
"'" " <u
u _ ~
.2 C':I ::I
ti .~ t"j
(IJ ~ 'u
~.5 ~
r/J - s
"O-Eho
8"'" u
a ~ ~
" <u "
~;. ;.
e e
os <u <u
i~~
r/J. .
""
Ii;
.,
"
E
$<
~
"0
8
~
<u
:D
..!l
'OJ
;.
os
~
"
"
"
~
o
"
~
S
.'l
~
;>,
~
.~
P.
<u
~
'"
~
's
on
"
'g.
u
il
.E
~"
"'"
u
os
-e
"
~
on
.5
~
os
0.
"0
<u
.:'
o
cr
~
~
<8
"0
"
"0
'S:
o
~
0.
"
.n
-
~ ~
E:D
os
~~
os 0.
0.0.
~ os
~ ~
g u)"
cr<u
Q) '';::
"'0;.::::
<:: 'u
".,'"
E
<u
5
<u
~
8
s
N
~
ID
0>
~
a.
~
,...,
""
""
o
,
o
"0
~
S2.
'"
o
o
N
03
;;;
c
o
"
11
c
it
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
18.18.060 Development reqnirements and performance standards.
The following development requirements and performance standards apply to all property
proposed for development within the Irondale and Port Hadlock urban growth area
(UGA). No development approval shall be given, and no building permit shall be issued,
unless the proposed development is in compliance with the provisions of this section and
Chapter 18.30 JCC, Development Standards.
Deve]opment within the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA shall be governed by the
following level of service standards.
(I) Street Standards. As a condition of any development approval within the Irondale and
Port Hadlock UGA, the property owner shall construct streets which the county
determines are consistent with the adopted urban street standards in JCC 18.30.080.
(2) Water Service. As a condition of any development approval within the Irondale and Port
Hadlock UGA, the property owner shall obtain a certificate of water availability for the
proposed use from Jefferson PUD #1 and connect to the PUD #1 water system. Fire flow
requirements shall be as specified by the Jefferson County fire marshal.
(3) Storm Drainage. As a condition of any development approval, the property owner shall
construct surface and stormwater management improvements as determined by the
county to be consistent with the surface water management standards adop1ed in
Jefferson County stormwater management plan.
(4) Sanitary Sewer Service.
(a) Sewer Service Area. The Sewer Service Area is the same as the 20-year planning
boundary of the UGA. No development approval shall be given, and no building
permit issued, unless the proposed development complies with the provisions of
this Chapter. For development under this chapter 18. I 8, as a condition of any
new development approval or major modification to an existing commercial,
industrial, or multifamily residential use located within a sanitary sewer service
area, as identified in the adopted general sewer plan for the Irondale and Port
Hadlock urban growth area, the property owner must obtain confirmation of
sewer availability from the sewer agency provider, prior to development approval
and must connect to the existing sewer line. Sewers will be considered to be
available to the phased implementation area when sewer infrastructure enters a
sewer phase area, according to the phased areas outlined in the Pori Hadlock
Sewer Facility Plan, September, 2008. .
(b) Areas with sewer not yet available-- Interim On-Site Septic Systems. If the
proposed use or major modification is located outside of a phased sewer service
area where sewers are available, then rural development standards in Title 18
apply. New development or redevelopment using an existing [as of date of
adoption of 18. I 8]approved on-site or community/group system may be allowed
provided that no expansion of 1he capacity of on-site system is needed to serve
the redevelopment and provided that the public sewer system is not yet available
to the property, as defined in 18.18.060 (4)(d). The property owner must
construct an on-site septic system consistent with the requirements of Chapter
8. I 5 JCC, Development within Identified Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, as
identified in Article VI-E of Chapter ]8.15 JCC, shall also meet the requirements
of JCC 18.30. I 80, On-Site Sewage Disposal Best Management Practices in
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
(c) Conditions to Interim On-Site Septic Systems and connection to future sewer
service. If a septic system is proposed for placement in the planned and adopted
20-year sewer service area, for interim use prior to sewer availability, the county
shall issue any approval for the septic system with a condition that it be
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 13
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
decommissioned and the property connected to the sewer system within one year
of sewer availability, defined as when the sewer extension is within 200 feet of
the closest property line . Such on-site septic systems shall be professionally
sited, designed, installed, monitored and maintained according to the following
criteria:
(i) Meeting the requirements of the Jefferson County health department,
Washington State Department of Health, or Washington State
Department of Ecology, as appropriate.
(ii) Consider advanced foons of pretreatment prior to discharge into the soil.
(iii) Consider proprietary pretreatment devices to refine high strength
commercial wastes prior to soil treatment and disposal.
(iv) Disinfection prior to disposal into more sensitive environments.
(v) System maintenance and monitoring by certified professionals under a
program managed by the Jefferson County health department.
(d) Interpretations. Within this section, "new development" and "major
modification" means any development that requires wastewater/sanitary sewer
provisions which cannot be met with an existing system. Nothing in this section
shall be construed as prohibiting the placement of an on-site septic system in the
UGA, unless the property is located within 200 feet of an existing sewer service
area which has capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
(e) No Protest Agreement. In addition, as a condition of development approval and
for all property owned by the same owner in a local improvement district (LID),
the owner shall sign an agreement not to protest a future LID or other pro rata
sharing of costs to construct and extend public sewer to the property within the
next 20 years, as part of the urban level of service phasing plan in the capital
facilities plan for the UGA.
(5) Other Facilities and Services. Reserved.
(6) Credit for Prior Contributions and Infrastructure Improvements. All ofthe agreements not
to protest foonation of local improvement districts or other pro rata cost sharing
arrangements described in the previous sections above shall include credit for any
contributions or facility construction already made or completed by the individual
property owners (or their predecessor) for the particular urban public facility or service
contemplated by the capital facilities plan. fOrd 10-04 S 3].
18.18.070 Landscaping.
Landscaping for urban commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and multifamily developments
in the UGA shall comply with the following standards and shall be exempt from the rural
provisions of JCC 18.30.130, Landscaping/Screening.
(1) Landscaping Definitions.
(a) "Visual screen" means evergreen and deciduous trees (no more than 50 percent
deciduous) planted 20 feet on center, two shrubs planted between each pair of
trees and groundcover.
(b) "Visual buffer" means evergreen and deciduous trees (no more than 75 percent
deciduous) planted 30 feet on center, two shrubs planted between each pair of
trees, and groundcover.
(2) Plant Standards.
(a) Deciduous trees must be One and one-half inches diameter at chest height (four
and one-half feet from ground level) and must have a survivability rate of 100
percent after one year and 80 percent after two years of planting.
(b) Evergreen trees must be four feet in height and must have a survivability rate of
100 percent after one year and 80 percent after two years of planting.
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 14
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
(c) Ground cover is low evergreen or deciduous plantings at three foot spacing in all
directions.
(d) Shrubs must be a minimum of 30 inches in height or four gallons and must have
a survivability rate of 100 percent after one year and 80 percent after two years of
planting.
( e) The retention of existing natural vegetation in place of new plants is encouraged
and allowed. The use of existing native and/or drought-tolerant landscape
materials shall be utilized whenever possible, and may be used in-lieu or in
combination with existing plantings to demonstrate substantial consistency wi1h
the requirements ofthis section.
(3) Screening Standards.
(a) New or expanding commercial or industrial land uses within commercial or
industrial zones shall provide a five foot visual buffer along all street frontages
between the street and on-site parking areas and a 10 foot visual screen along any
property line abutting a residential zoning district to minimize aesthetic impacts
to residential properties.
(b) New multifamily dwellings over four dwelling units in residential zones shall
provide a five-foot visual buffer along all street frontages.
(4) Alternative Designs. Al1ernative designs may be allowed if, upon review by the
administrator, they are determined to provide landscaping substantially equivalent to the
standards in this section. lOrd I 0-04 ~ 3].
18.18.080 Parking and pedestrian circulation.
Parking for all new development shall comply with JCC 18.30. I 00, Parking, and JCC
18.30. I 10, Off-street loading space requirements. Pedestrian facilities shall be provided
in accordance with JCC 18.30.090, Pedestrian circulation. lOrd 10-04 ~ 3].
18.18.090 Lighting.
Lighting shall comply wi1h the standards set forth in JCC 18.30. I 40, Lighting. lOrd 10-
04 ~ 3]. 18.18.90 Lighting. Lighting shall comply with the standards set forth in
JCC 18.30.140, Lighting lOrd 10-04 & 3]; shall not permit direct illumination of the sky
(Skyglow); and shall not provide more illumination into an adjoining property than is
received from the adjoining property measured at a vertical plane at the property
boundary (Light Trespass).
18.18.100 Signs.
No sign shall hereafter be erected or used for any purpose or in any manner in the urban
growth area except as permitted by the regulations of this section. All signs subject to this
section shall be subject to approval and issuance of a sign permit by the administrator
according to a Type I permit approval process as specified in Chapter 18.40 ICC. The
administrator may waive certain requirements of this section or require additional
conditions for any sign permit, if deemed necessary to maintain consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
(I) Prohibited Signs. The following signs are prohibited:
(a) Abandoned signs;
(b) Billboards;
(c) Flashing, revolving or moving signs, excepting clocks and electronic reader
boards allowed within urban commercial zones;
(d) Off-site signs which advertise a business;
(e) Signs or sign structures, which by coloring, shape, working, or location resemble
or conflict with traffic-control signs or devices;
Printed on 3/1812009
Page 15
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
(f) Signs which create a safety hazard for pedestrians or vehicular traffic; and
(g) Signs attached to utility poles or traffic signs.
(2) Exemptions. The following signs are exempt from the provisions of this section:
(a) Traffic and standardized public signs installed by a government entity;
(b) Window and merchandise displays, point of purchase advertising displays such
as product dispensers and barber poles;
(c) National flags, flags of a political subdivision, and symbolic flags of an
institution or business;
(d) Legal notices required by law;
(e) Historic site plaques and markers and gravestones;
(I) Personal signs displaying personal messages such as "yard sale" or "no
trespassing" not to exceed eight square feet;
(g) Political signs safely displayed on private property
(h) Structures intended for separate use, such as recycling containers and phone
booths;
(i) Real estate signs; and
(j) Lettering painted on or magnetically flush-mounted onto a motor vehicle
operating in the normal course of business.
(3) Design Standards. Signs regulated by this section include signs that are attached to the
building (e.g., facade, projection or wall signs) and signs that are set apart from the
building (e.g., freestanding or monument signs). All signs must meet the following
standards:
(a) . The following standards apply to the illumination and illustration of signs:
(i) The illumination of signs shall be shaded, shielded, or directed so the
light intensity or brightness shall not adversely affect surrounding
properties or public and private rights-of-way or create a hazard or
nuisance to the traveling public, or to surrounding properties;
Illumination of signs shall comply with 18.18.090.
(ii) No sign or part thereof shall consist of rotating, revolving, or moving
parts; consist of banners, streamers, or spinners; or involve flashing,
blinking, or alternating lights. Two exceptions to this standard are (A)
temporary signs associated with local festivals, fairs, parades, or special
events pursuant to JCC 18.30.150(4)(a); and (B) electronic reader board
signs or message boards which are only allowed within urban
commercial districts, subject to the requirements ofthis code.
(b) Sign size shall be regulated as follows:
(i) There is no maximum sign size for businesses in the commercial and
industrial districts in the lrondale and Port Hadlock UGA except as
specified in this section. Multitenant developments in urban commercial
and industrial districts may have One freestanding sign, 64 square feet in
size plus 15 square feet for each occupant, for each access point,
commonly identirying the businesses within multitenant developments
provided such signs total no more than 100 square feet in aggregate. The
maximum size for signs placed on a multitenant building identirying
individual occupants shall be no larger than IS square feet per occupant;
(ii) The square footage of signs shall be calculated by the outside dimensions
necessary to frame the information displayed. No sign mounted on a
building shall extend above or beyond the eaves, rake, or parapet of the
wall on which it is mounted. Any sign projecting beyond six inches from
a perpendicular wall shall be at least six feet eight inches above grade;
Printed on 311812009
Page 16
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
(iii) Directional, identification or advertising signs for any use located in any
urban residential district shall not exceed 32 square feet, with the
exception of institutional use signs, which shall not exceed 64 square
feet;
(iv) Freestanding signs with reader boards for a single business shall be no
larger than 128 square feet.
(c) Uses located in any urban commercial or industrial land use districts shall have
no more than two on-premises signs, except as allowed in this section for
multitenant developments.
(d) Signs attached to or painted against the structure to which it relates shall not be
computed as a part of the overall total square fo01age, or number of signs
allowed.
(e) All signs shall be continuously maintained. Signs that present a public hazard as
determined by the Jefferson County building official or department of public
works shall be subject to abatement.
(I) The design of freestanding signs shall include measures to restrict vehicles from
passing beneath them, unless otherwise permitted by the Jefferson County
department of public works. All freestanding pole signs or projecting signs shall
provide pedestrian clearance to a minimum of eight feet, where applicable.
(g) Signs should be incorporated into the landscaping ofthe site when landscaping is
provided.
(h) No signs, other than those related to water dependent uses, such as a marina, are
permitted to face seaward, excepting signs rela1ing to safety concerns, such as
cable-crossing, construction-dredging, fuel area, etc.
(i) No sign shall be placed in the public right-of-way or in the vision clearance
triangle of intersections and curb cuts, unless otherwise approved by the
Jefferson County department of public works.
(4) Specialty Signs. Specialty signs may be established when consistent with the standards
set forth below:
(a) Signs and banners promoting public festivals, community or special events, and
grand openings may be displayed up to 30 days prior to the event, and shall be
removed no later than seven days after the event. The sponsoring entity is
responsible for sign removal. Event signs may be located "off-site."
(b) Signs which identifY a recognized community or unincorporated place are
permitted at each entrance to the community. Said signs are limited to one per
entrance, and may not exceed 64 square feet or eight feet in height. Signs relating
to clubs, societies, orders, fraternities and the like shall be permitted as part of the
community sign.
(c) Businesses may erect temporary on-site sandwich board signs subject to the
following criteria:
(i) No more than two sandwich board signs may be erected per business;
(ii) Sandwich board signs shall not exceed four feet in height or three feet in
width;
(iii) Sandwich board signs shall be displayed during business hours only;
(iv) Sandwich board signs shall not be placed on sidewalks; and
(v) Sandwich board signs shall not be placed in public road rights-of-way
unless approved by the Jefferson County department of public works.
(d) Off-site signs may only be allowed when they meet all of the following
standards:
(i) Are directional in nature;
Printed on 3/16/2009
Page 17
Exhibit G
Clean Copy, Chapter 18.18, JCC
Jefferson County Code
(ii) Located on private property along a major or minor arterial;
(iii) Located no more than 600 feet from an intersection;
(iv) No larger than 12 square feet.
(5) Nonconfonning Signs. Legally established signs in place prior to the adoption of these
standards and not in conformance with these standards shall be considered legal,
nonconfonning signs, and may remain as provided below:
(a) Nonconfonning off-premises signs shall be removed within five years of
adoption of this code. Until then, such signs must be continually maintained, not
relocated, and not structurally altered. Nonconforming off-premises signs may be
replaced by off-site directional signs as allowed in this section;
(b) Nonconfonning on-premises signs may remain provided they are continually
maintained, not relocated, and not structurally altered;
(c) Billboards which are in place prior to the adoption of this code may remain
provided they are continually maintained, not relocated, and not structurally
altered. lOrd 10-04 S 3].
18.18.110
Design Standards
Reserved. lOrd. 10-04 ~ 3].
18.18.120 Site plan approval required in the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA.
In the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA prior to the provision of public sewer or public
water to a site, any approval for a commercial, industrial, mixed-use, multifamily, high
density residential, or single-family residential subdivision in the ULDR zone is required
to include a site plan which:
(I) Complies with the applicable health regulations and other Jefferson County development
and building regulations (e.g., critical areas, stonnwater management, etc.);
(2) Provides for sanitary sewer connection and other utilities.
The site plan prepared under this section and reviewed and approved by the
administrator, shall address the following: buffers, landscaping, traffic access and parking
standards, current septic and future sanitary sewer provisions, height and scale in relation
to surrounding uses and future uses, vegetation removal, stonnwater, potable water, and
Jot coverage.
Development of the site shall be consistent with the approved site plan. Minor
modification to the site plan may be allowed by the administrator; provided, that all other
regulations ahd conditions placed on the approval are met. lOrd 10-04 S 3].
Printed on 3/18/2009
Page 18
Regular Agenda
10:15 -10:30
March 23, 2009
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO:
Board of County Commissioners,
Philip Morley, County Administrator VQ....
Al Scalf, Director, Dept. of Community Development"f U
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, DCD 2l-"1r
Joel Peterson, Associate Planner, UGA~
March 18, 2009
March 23, 2009 Regular Agenda: Continue Deliberation and Possible Adoption
of Ordinance to enact Comprehensive Plan and UDC Amendments to Comply
with Orders from the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings
Board.
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On March] 6, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners deliberated, and approved by unanimous vote,
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code to meet compliance requirements of
Orders from the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.
This agenda time is requested so that the Board of Commissioners may review and possibly enhance the
findings of the Ordinance before adopting it.
ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS/PROS and CONS:
In order to meet the Hearings Board time schedule, the ordinance will need to be signed on March 23,d.
FISCAL IMPACT/COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and adopt the ordinance pursuant to Board's final direction.
REVIEWED BY:
/;?z
3/;3'ID'7
Philip Morley, County
rator
Date
1