BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROCEEDINGS
May 1, 2000
The continued meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m. by Chairperson John Bolender. Cmmr. Mary Jo Cady was in attendance. Cmmr. Cynthia D. Olsen was absent.
C O R R E S P O N D E N C E
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Correspondence on the Comprehensive Plan & Development Regulations was received from the following:
Mr. & Mrs. Harry Peters; Hood Canal Environmental Council; Helen Emerick;Peter A. Merrill; Ben Settle; City of Shelton; James M Hunter;Mason County Community Development Council; John E. Diehl; Holly Manke White (maps).
B U S I N E S S
The Board recessed to allow time for Cmmr. Olsen to return.
The meeting reconvened at 4:20 p.m. with Cmmr. Olsen in attendance.
Bob Fink, Planning, presented a compilation, dated April 28, 2000, of previous drafts. He pointed out there are two new paragraphs. The first one is 1.03.031, Binding Site Plan Required in the Belfair Urban Growth Area. The intention of that is as a regulation to implement the policy that is already under consideration. It would require development in Belfair to provide a binding site plan that shows how they are going to design the site that would allow future urban development when sewer is extended to the area.
The other change is in 1.03.032, Development Densities and Dimensional Requirements. This is a section that addresses the Commissioner's and the public's concern where property has more than one house on it already, it addresses up to four houses. These lands May not meet minimum lot size requirements or minimum density requirements for land divisions but they could be divided without increasing any impacts. In other words, one house per lot. There are certain limitations.
Michael Davolio, David Evans & Assoc., talked about section 1.03.032. He stated he chose four houses as the limit because that is consistent with the short plat regulations. He suggested additional language under 3.b., "the provisions of this section should not apply to mobile home parks." He pointed out that 3b(1) states that any new lot shall be considered a conforming lot so there aren't problems for the homeowner in the future.
Mr. Fink then presented a proposed work program. These are a number of issues that were raised during the public process which were not able to be addressed at this time, in sufficient detail, but could be addressed in a future work program for action over the next year. These include additional Belfair UGA Planning; Rural Density/mapping; Shelton UGA zoning; Development Regulation Matrix; Taylor Towne RAC; Hoodsport RAC.
Mr. Fink then reviewed additional language changes to Title 16, Plats and Subdivisions, pertaining to clustering and cottage industries. He pointed out the sign size allowed for the cottage industry is 32 square feet or smaller.
Mr. Davolio interjected the sign size was actually proposed to be six square feet.
Cmmr. Bolender noted this is talking about isolated types of businesses that are rural and sit off the road. A six square foot sign would not be of much use.
Mr. Fink stated there are seven criteria that are fairly restrictive and if a home-based business can't meet one of these criteria, they can apply for a special use permit.
Mr. Davolio suggested to delete references to home-based occupations and replace those references with the term "cottage industries".
Ten separate packets (numbered 1 - 10) were distributed that were then reviewed and the following changes made:
Packet 1, CWPP 6.3, delete "in urban areas" so it reads "Encourage affordable housing through innovative land use techniques...".
Mary Lynn Evans agreed with the change. She explained the idea she had in mind when she put that policy together were things like zero lot lines, where in urban areas you can put houses right next to each other without setbacks. That is not likely to happen in a rural area but innovative techniques for the rural area could include things like the mother-in-laws and the placement of three houses on a lot.
Mr. Davolio suggested to add the sentence "It is recognized that techniques for encouraging affordable housing will differ in urban and rural areas." Insert this as the second sentence of CWPP 6.3.
Cmmr. Cady commented that she hasn't had adequate time to review the packets since they received them just today.
Packet 2 - Page III 1.11 BUGA 5b, revise language - "All lots developed for any uses in the Phase I sewer service area prior to the availability of public sewer "May require side sewers if the approved wastewater treatment plan and design determines that it is appropriate... ." Delete the language "shall install side sewer pipelines".
Packet 3, RU-105 - add a period after "centers" and delete the remaining language in that sentence.
Cmmr. Bolender asked for the reason for deleting RU 129 - Mobile home parks in RACs.
Mr. Davolio responded that was related to discussions at the public hearings with regard to the densities permitted in RAC's. The complaint was the permitted densities would not make the development of a mobile home park practical.
RU-124 - change the word "cottages" to "accessory dwelling units."
RU-142 - remove "small scale". This would make it consistent with the 1997 GMA amendments.
RU-146 - delete "to rural intensities and" change "consider" to "considering."
Cmmr. Bolender asked why, in RU-210, Isolated Rural Commercial/Industrial uses, it states three associated uses.
Mary Lynn Evans explained she was attempting to create a hierarchy. By saying three would be for the Isolated Rural Commercial/Industrial areas, anything above that could then be considered for a hamlet designation.
Cmmr. Bolender then referred to the part that stated "at least one mile from an already existing similar designated use" in RU-210. He stated they are limiting the type of uses that can be allowed in a rural area. He pointed out location is key and the business owner should be able to make that decision. He questioned the environmental impact that would be created.
Ms. Evans used the white board to explain her reasoning. It would protect the scenic value of the county. She developed the criteria from driving around the county and observing how things are now in the county and considering what was in existence in 7-1-90 aerial photos.
Mr. Davolio noted this also relates to an element in the Act, avoiding sprawl.
Cmmr. Bolender responded there is also a requirement for urban level of services. If there is a policy that addresses sprawl and one that addresses not extending urban services into rural areas, the objective has been accomplished of not allowing strip development along a road that requires an urban level of services.
Ms. Evans pointed out there could be a number of small things that do not require urban services, but would become a visual impact.
RU-210 - delete "no more than three".
Cmmr. Bolender asked if there is some basis for the threshold in RU-213 - "Establish a process for reviewing requests for LAMIRD boundary... c) Additional acreage requested is less than a 10% increase over July 1, 1990 boundary acreage."
Ms. Evans responded it is not in the Act, it was based on the Hearings Board decisions and the allowances they gave for additional acreage.
After discussion, it was left as proposed because RU-214 allows for a special use permit.
RU-211a - add "Tourism & Recreation" to uses.
RU-215 d)- change to "limited area/limited ownerships" - strike other language.
Cmmr. Bolender asked if RU-215 g) "located on a single property..." is necessary.
After discussion, delete RU-215 g); add to RU-215 b). "...sprawl, and May not include an entire parcel if a portion of the parcel is undeveloped."
Page III 3.14, Rural Residential 20 acre, located in coastal areas with similarly sized parcels - change to "shoreline areas".
Page III 3.17 - 3rd paragraph on page - change language for size of sign to 32 square feet.
Cmmr. Bolender suggested adding language to RU-530 - insert "...allowed to locate and expand... ." His reasoning is that he is trying to capture the maximum latitude possible from the '97 amendments. He stated the amendments do recognize that new commercial industrial uses can be permitted.
Cmmr. Cady pointed out the policy addresses existing uses.
Ms. Evans noted that RU-531 talks about resource-based industrial and commercial uses.
Mr. Fink asked Cmmr. Bolender if RU-532 addresses what he is looking for.
Cmmr. Bolender responded that he has drafted replacement language for RU-531 - "Rural commercial industrial uses outside established existing areas of development, which we are calling LAMIRD's, or RAC's, hamlets, etc., should be allowed to locate and expand in the rural areas pursuant to 36.70A.070 5(d)4, (because 5(d)4 is what describes the types of uses that are allowed under the amendments) provided that the use does not require urban level of governmental services, the use does not conflict with natural resource- based uses, the use is visually compatible with the surrounding rural area, critical areas are protected pursuant to 36.70A.060 (which is the critical areas of the Act) and the use does not create a new pattern of low density sprawl."
Ms. Evans stated 070 5(d) talks about limited areas of more intense development only and this policy (RU-531) talks about all the rural areas outside of any designated LAMIRD. These non-residential policies talk about only the rural areas.
Cmmr. Bolender responded that a LAMIRD is a rural area.
Mr. Fink stated that LAMIRD's are rural lands. The rural areas are those designated separate areas that do not include RAC's or hamlets. He stated he is not sure whether the commercial and industrial areas and the tourist and business areas are overlays or are those separately designated.
Ms. Evans responded they are part of the LAMIRD. She then drew a diagram on the white board. She believes the confusion is between rural lands, which include LAMIRD's, and rural areas.
Cmmr. Bolender asked if she could direct him to the policy that governs only businesses within the LAMIRD's. He was under the impression these policies apply to all rural lands.
Ms. Evans referred to the first page of Packet 3 (Page III-3.1), at the top it states Limited Areas of More Rural Development and this goes to Page III-3.11 which has the second category of Rural Areas. All of these together are called rural lands.
Page III 3.17 - 5th line "...are met" - next line is a formatting error, should be included with the previous line, change "home-based businesses" to "cottage industries".
Packet 5, Page IV 8.4 D)- 2nd line change "there" to "these", strike 1-3; change "build" to "built" in the 6th line; 3rd line change "...except for those of the owners of caretakers" to "or caretakers."
Cmmr. Cady requested the changes in the matrix be discussed - Section 8. She noted two matrixes were submitted to the Board, one from the consultant, one from the Planning Commission.
After discussion, it was concluded that LAMIRD's aren't included in the matrix because they are pre-existing.
Mr. Davolio stated they tried to reconcile the needs and desires of the community with the Hearings Board. The Hearings Board stated very clearly that the range of uses that were permitted in the rural areas, was too great.
Cmmr. Bolender commented he believes it can be further refined as they work through the zoning proposition in the next twelve months.
Mr. Davolio stressed they recognize the vast majority of those uses, as they exist, in the rural areas, would be permitted as cottage industries. With regard to leaving light industry in the matrix, as suggested by the Planning Commission, he believes it would be waving a red flag in front of the Hearings Board. He strongly recommends to delete light industry as a permitted use in the RAC's.
Cmmr. Cady asked if that means the existing industries would be non-conforming.
Cmmr. Bolender stated a Rural Activity Center is an area of more intensive rural development. Commercial and industrial uses under the '97 amendments are permitted in a Local Area of More Intensive Development. According to 36.70A.070 5(d)4, they are allowed to locate and expand in rural areas provided they do not require urban services, do not conflict with natural resource based uses, are visually compatible, provide the critical protections required under 36.70A.060 and do not create a new pattern of sprawl. He asked how they are precluded from RAC's.
Mr. Davolio responded they are trying to bring this plan into compliance with the directive from the Hearings Board.
Cmmr. Bolender asked Mr. Davolio if the description he just read is in conflict with the GMA.
Mr. Davolio answered he believes it is in conflict with the directive received from the Hearings Board. He then answered it is not in conflict with the GMA.
Ms. Evans asked the Board to consider that 070 5(d) talks about existing industrial, not new. The only new thing is tourism and recreation.
Cmmr. Bolender read aloud from the Act. He concluded the LAMIRD boundary must be existing but the business type is not required to be in existence, because it allows infill.
Mr. Fink then read CTED's interpretation from Keeping the Rural Vision. Protecting Rural Character and Planning for Rural Development which indicates light industry can occur in a RAC.
Cmmr. Bolender stated they have substantial justification and the Act is not as restrictive as the County's proposal and he believes they need to capture the latitude that is described.
Mr. Fink then read about small scale recreation or tourist uses from the CTED guidance document.
Matrix, Page 15, indicate that in a RAC, motels are a tourist related business.
The Board recessed for 10 minutes.
Cmmr. Cady asked if it is necessary to have a binding site plan for the Shelton UGA regarding sewer hook up requirements.
Mr. Fink stated there is language in the Act that applies to UGA's that says new commercial or industrial has to connect to public sewer system when the connection is available. Residential are not required to connect. Mason County has existing regulations that require the sub-division of land, which is primarily residential, to take into consideration the future service of sewers.
Mr. Fink stated it May be reasonable to apply binding site plan requirements such as what is required in Belfair. It would be advantageous for future sewer development.
Cmmr. Bolender stated that would require discussion with the city of Shelton.
Sidewalk requirements were discussed.
Allyn sewer hook ups are covered in the North Bay Sewer Ordinance.
The discussion then moved onto maps. Mr. Fink stated there are still a couple of maps that are being identified for some of the small industrial sites.
Cmmr. Cady referred to essential public facilities. If a facility were needed in an area and within that service area there wasn't a LAMIRD, hamlet or RAC where that facility could go, lanuage is needed stating it is not necessary if there is nothing in that area other than the rural service area.
Mr. Fink replied he didn't insert any language that would address that.
Mary Lynn Evans reviewed the EIS addendum. It is required that the environmental impacts be considered before action is taken on the proposed alternative. Because this alternative is much less impacting than other alternatives that have been considered since 1994, the decision was made to do an addendum. There are three parts to the addendum; the SEPA Summary, the Alternatives, and Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
A boundary revision was done on the Lilliwaup map. It was noted that particular portion of the boundary is mostly river-associated wetlands and steep slopes with a few residences on it.
It was decided to use the Matlock map submitted by Sarah Smyth McIntosh on behalf of Randy Barcum, dated 4-25-00.
Cmmr. Cady noted she supports Matlock being a RAC although it is not designated as such.
The Spencer Lake map was revised to include the Spencer Lake Resort.
For Tahuya, the existing commercial, excluding the residential, will be identified on the map.
Ms. Evans pointed out the environmental impacts have been reduced considerably.
She noted in Belfair and Allyn, with the imposition of urban densities, it will likely impact water quality. The mitigating measures for that are to take a good look at the storm water ordinances and storm water collection systems and assuring that sewer is available for both of those areas. During the transition from septics to sewers, the County would probably want to do monitoring of the water quality.
Ms. Evans also noted the Belfair Water District will also have to look at its water sources. It doesn't have sufficient water resources to serve the UGA at its build out. Test wells have been drilled in other areas of Belfair that show there is sufficient water in those wells, should water rights be available.
In the review of changes, Ms. Evans suggested changing "limited area/single ownership" to "limited area/limited ownership" in Packet 3, Page III-3.6, RU-210.
In Packet 8, 1.03.021, Strike the 2nd sentence in A. and the first sentence in B.
Also in Packet 8, Page 12, Non-Profit Club or Lodge, was intended to be included in the Rural Area by both the Planning Commission and the consultant.
Mr. Fink stated that currently, public utility offices are allowed as a special use permit in the rural area, rural activity center and hamlet. He asked the Board for clarification if they want additional specific language when the special use permit would be issued or do they want it to be a permitted use if certain conditions are met. He proposed language that it wouldn't require a special use permit in a RAC or hamlet if there was no UGA in their service area. In the rural area, if there is no site available within their service area, a special use permit would not be required. The Board agreed with the proposed language.
Packet 9, Page 23, 3.b (3) add (a) provisions of this section should not apply to mobile home parks. Change the word "created" to "permitted".
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to adopt the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations as amended today.
Cmmr. Cady read aloud a statement stating she cannot approve the amendments. She believes they have not had adequate time to review the final draft that was presented to them this morning. She stated this process is in direct response to the unelected tribunal, not to the concerns of all the citizens. She expressed appreciation to staff for their work and long hours
Cmmr. Bolender stated he respectfully disagreed with part of Cmmr. Cady statement. He believes they have made an inordinate effort to incorporate as much of the testimony from the citizens and business owners as possible as time has afforded. This is an on-going process that can be amended as we move forward and it certainly it expected to be. He doesn't believe that in any way did they disregard the testimony of the majority of the residents and he believes they made every effort to accommodate the requirement of the GMA and incorporate the input of the residents. Based on that, he supports the motion.
Motion carried. B-aye; O-aye; C-nay.
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to authorize the Chair to sign the findings of fact when they are prepared. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; O-aye; C-aye.
Cmmr. Olsen expressed her appreciation to staff, consultants and the public for all the hard work.
Cmmr. Cady stated she would like to see an adopted work plan, with dates, that shows there is something on the record that shows the other issues will be looked at.
Cmmr. Bolender pointed out Mr. Fink did present an outline of the issues that are yet to be resolved. They will be prioritized as the County moves through the next 12 to 18 month planning cycle.
Cmmr. Cady would prefer it be put into a resolution form.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to approve the changes in the development regulations that are consistent with the new Comp Plan. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; O-aye; C-aye. Ordinance No. 36-00 (Exhibit A)
The regular meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Rebecca S. Rogers
Clerk of the Board
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
John A. Bolender, Chairperson
Mary Jo Cady, Commissioner
Cynthia D. Olsen, Commissioner