Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19-05 - Ord. Amending Mason County Development Regulations ORDINANCE UME 19 - 05
AMENDMENTS TO THE MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
AN ORDINANCE amending the Mason County Development Regulations, Ordinance No . 82 -
96 , Chapter 1 . 04 . 600 Rural Tourist zones : Chapter 1 . 04 . 603 . 0 — adding provision to establish
10—foot setback for signs in Rural Tourist zones ; and Chapter 1 . 04 . 613 . 0 — adding provision to
establish 10—foot setback for signs in Rural Tourist Campground zones , under the authority of
Chapters 36 . 70 and 36 . 70A RCW . ; Article 11 , Section 11 of the State Constitution, the County' s
police power; and any other applicable authority.
WHEREAS , the Mason County Development Regulations (adopted as Ordinance No . 82-96)
was last amended by Ordinance No . 128 -04 on December 14, 2004 ;
WHEREAS , the Department of Community Development has prepared revisions to this
implementing ordinance by which the Department of Community Development can evaluate and
approve a proposed development and land divisions that are conforming with clear development
standards and are not in conflict with existing land uses and property rights ;
WHEREAS , at the December 14 , 2004 and February 17 , 2005 Mason County Planning Advisory
Commission meetings, the proposed ordinance revisions in the Development Regulations were
presented, and the Planning Advisory Commission members evaluated and passed motions to
recommend approval of these proposed revisions ;
WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners held public hearings about the proposed
revisions on March 15 , 2005 , to consider the recommendations of the Planning Advisory
Commission, and the testimony and letters of the Mason County Department of Community
Development and citizens on the proposed revisions to the Mason County Development
Regulations ; and
WHEREAS , based upon the staff report, text of the proposed revisions, and public testimony, the
Mason County Board of Commissioners has approved findings of fact to support its decision as
ATTACHMENT A .
Ordinance No . 19 - 05 (continued)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED , that the Mason County Board of
Commissioners hereby approves and ADOPTS the revisions amending the Mason County
Development Regulations , Ordinance No . 82 - 96 , Chapter 1 . 04 . 600 Rural Tourist zones :
Chapter 1 . 04 . 603 . 0 — adding provision to establish 10—foot setback for signs in Rural Tourist
zones ; and
Chapter 1 . 04 . 613 . 0 — adding provision to establish 10—foot setback for signs in Rural Tourist
Campground zones .
This text is described by ATTACHMENT B .
DATED this 15h day of March 2005 .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST :
/ j Jayni . K min, hai ` pe son
Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM : L��/✓G�t
L;L a Ring Ericks Commissioner
Pam- ry�r'
Prosecuting Attorney Absent 3 / 15 / 0 5
Tim Sheldon, Commissioner
ATTACHMENT A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
March 15 , 2005
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . Under consideration is the ordinance amending the Mason County Development
Regulations, Ordinance No . 82 - 96 , Chapter 1 . 04 . 600 Rural Tourist zones :
Chapter 1 . 04 . 603 . 0 — adding provision to establish 10—foot setback for signs in Rural
Tourist zones ; and Chapter 1 . 04 . 613 . 0 — adding provision to establish 10—foot setback for
signs in Rural Tourist Campground zones .
2 . The Mason County Development Regulations set forth land use designations and
development standards for proposed projects in Mason County; these standards include zoning
districts , permitted uses, and dimensional requirements for land divisions .
3 . The Mason County Department of Community Development staff has presented a
proposed set of revisions to this ordinance, which establish or clarify evaluation standards for
proposed development and land division.
4 . At the December 14, 2004 and February 17 , 2005 Mason County Planning Advisory
Commission meetings , the proposed ordinance revisions in the Development Regulations were
presented, and evaluated through discussions with staff and the public and, then the Planning
Advisory Commission members passed motions to recommend approval of these changes .
5 . At the March 15 , 2005 public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners considered
the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Commission, and the letters and testimony of the
Mason County Department of Community Development and citizens regarding the proposed
revisions to the Mason County Development Regulations standards .
FROM THE PRECEDING FINDINGS , and based upon the staff report, text of the proposed
revisions , and public testimony, the Mason County Board of Commissioners adopts a motion to
approve these revisions amending the Mason County Development Regulations , Ordinance No .
82 -96 , Chapter 1 . 04 . 603 . 0 — adding provision to establish 10—foot setback for signs in Rural
Tourist zones ; and Chapter 1 . 04 . 613 . 0 — adding provision to establish 10—foot setback for signs
in Rural Tourist Campground zones .
Chair, Mason County Board cvf Commissioners Date
ATT4CMMENT B
MASON COUNTY EVE N REGULATIONS
1 ® 0 . 60 RURAL TOURIST ( )
1 .04. 603 Lot Requirements .
A . Density and lot size . Dependent on subject property location .
Be Lot width and depth. All lots shall have a minimum average width of not less than
one-third of the median length and a minimum width at any point of 50 feet;
designate limited and safe access(es) to roads .
C . Front yard setback. 30 feet for buildings ; 10 feet for signs .
D . Side and rear yard setbacks . 15 feet for lots contiguous to lots zoned commercial
or industrial use; otherwise, 25 feet. Buffer plantings required in the first 10 feet
of this setback.
606006696688
® 01 RURAL TOURIST CAMPGROUND (RTC )
1 .04.613 Lot Requirements .
A. Density and lot size . Dependent on subject property location .
Be Lot width and depth . All lots shall have a minimum average width of not less than
one-third of the median length and a minimum width at any point of 50 feet;
designate limited and safe access(es) to roads .
C . Front yard setback. 30 feet for buildings ; 10 feet for signs .
E . Side and rear yard setbacks . 15 feet for lots contiguous to lots zoned commercial
or industrial use ; otherwise, 25 feet. Buffer plantings required in the first 10 feet
of this setback.
1
ATTAC MENT A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
April 5 , 2005
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . Under consideration is the ordinance amending the Mason County Development
Regulations , Ordinance No . 82 - 96 , Chapter 1 . 03 . 032 Development Densities and Dimensional
Requirements , adding a provision to review the redesign of undeveloped plats or contiguous lots
in the Rural Area.
2 . The Mason County Development Regulations set forth land use designations and
development standards for proposed projects in Mason County; these standards include zoning
districts, permitted uses , and dimensional requirements for land divisions .
3 . The Mason County Department of Community Development staff has presented a
proposed set of revisions to this ordinance, which establish or clarify evaluation standards for
proposed development and land division.
4 . At the December 14 , 2004 and February 17 , 2005 Mason County Planning Advisory
Commission meetings , the proposed ordinance revisions in the Development Regulations were
presented, and the Planning Advisory Commission members evaluated through discussions with
staff and the public and, then passed motions to recommend approval of this proposed ordinance
change .
5 . At the March 15 , 2005 public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners considered
the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Commission, and the letters and testimony of the
Mason County Department of Community Development and citizens regarding the proposed
revisions to the Mason County Development Regulations standards .
6 . Rural lots sizes will continue to be limited by setbacks from property lines , setbacks from
wells , setbacks from critical areas , and setbacks from septic fields . In many cases, it is
necessary to combine numerous lots and adjust property lines in order to make a viable lot. For
example , in Mason County Planner Allan Borden ' s experience, it might be necessary to combine
4 or 5 lots from the Plat of Detroit to make a viable lot for development .
7 . Lot combinations and boundary line adjustments can be done by existing regulations . In
the Mason County subdivision planner ' s opinion, the existing regulations may provide about the
same degree of flexibility as the proposed amendments . The Planning Department ' s opinion is
that this amendment allows applicants to treat small-parcel , pre- existing rural subdivisions as a
whole, rather than as a series of individual boundary line adjustments and/or lot combinations .
The proposal might simply ease a procedural hurdle .
8 . The Hofert Family Trust has testified numerous times and has met numerous times with
staff with regards to the zoning of their property and with regard to this proposal . Although it is
felt by the County that the existing regulations may provide virtually as much flexibility, the
County does not feel that feel that the proposed amendments are in conflict with the requirement
to protect rural character and so are otherwise harmless amendments . If anything, with the
incentive of encouraging lot combinations and transferable densities , the proposal should
encourage rural lot aggregations and development in urban areas (via the transferable densities) .
In deference to the Hofert Family Trust ' s many, many hours of work on the proposal, and in the
view of the County that the amendments are harmless and if anything helpful to rural character,
it is the County' s opinion that the amendments are not inconsistent with the Growth Management
Act and if anything should help implement it .
9 . The County Commissioners have carefully considered the whole record including the
supplemental report of staff presented on April 5 , 2005 . The Board would concur with staff s
presentation . The County considers mandatory lot combinations as impinging on a most
fundamental aspect of property ownership and thereby to possibly be a takings and a violation of
a Goal 6 of the GMA.
FROM THE PRECEDING FINDINGS , and based upon the staff report, text of the proposed
revisions, and public testimony, the Mason County Board of Commissioners adopts a motion to
approve these revisions amending the Mason County Development Regulations , Ordinance No .
82 - 96 , Chapter 1 . 03 . 032 Development Densities and Dimensional Requirements, adding
provision (5 ) to review the redesign of undeveloped plats or contiguous lots in the Rural Area.
r
Chair, Mason County Board ' Commissioners Date
ATTACHMENT B
MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
In Section 1 . 03 . 032 , Development Densities and Dimensional Requirements ,
add a new Subsection 5 of " . " as follows :
5 . Redesigning an undeveloped plat or groups of contiguous lots :
(a) Defining the number of lots involved :
In existing (as of June 17 , 1998) contiguous lots in Rural Areas that are
principally undeveloped, owner( s ) may plat or re-plat the contiguous lots and may
preserve some of the allowed density of the nonconforming existing lots as follows :
( 1 ) For the non-conforming lots , one lot for every four existing lots , or one lot per
2 . 5 acres , whichever is the greater number of lots ; provided that existing lots
greater than 2 . 5 acres shall not count for more than one lot in the proposed plat or
re_plat .
(2) For conforming lots that are included in the plat or groups of contiguous lots ,
the acreage of those lots is as determined by the density allowed in the designate
zone . Areas proposed to be dedicated for public roads are to be included in the
2 . 5 acres per lot standard for determination of the number of lots allowed in the
re-plat of lot lam
(b) Criteria for proposed lot design for lots less than 2 acres in size .
The layout of lots that are less than 2 acres in size set forth in (a) above should use
the following standards .
( 1 ) Designation of Primary Conservation Areas (when present) . Primary
Conservation Areas as defined in M . C . C . Title 16 Plats and Subdivisions shall
be clearly identified, and shall be set aside as permanent open space . Primary
Conservation areas shall be included in the calculation of both standard and
maximum density allowed, but they shall not be used in calculating the percentage
of permanent open space required .
(2) Designation of Secondary Conservation Areas (when present) . Secondary
Conservation Areas as defined in M . C . C . Title 16 Plats and Subdivisions shall
be identified and shall, to the greatest extent possible , be avoided as development
areas . At least ten ( 10 %)percent of the buildable area of the property be set aside
as permanent open space . Buildable area excludes Primary Conservation Areas ,
but includes Secondary Conservation areas .
1
(3 ) When applicable, the design of an open space area should address the
following :
i . Interconnection with designated open space on abutting properties ;
ii . The preservation of important site features , such as rare or unusual stands
of trees , unique geological features , or important wildlife habitat ;
iii . Direct access from as many lots as possible within the development ; and
iv . Minimizing the fragmentation of the open space areas . To the greatest
extent possible, the desi agn ted open space should be located in large,
undivided areas .
v . A curvilinear roadway design which minimizes the visual impact of
houses as may be seen from the exterior of the site .
(4) When applicable, the design of the proposal should avoid the following_
i . The interruption of scenic views and vistas ;
ii . Construction on hill tops or ridge lines ;
iii . Direct lot access or frontage on existing public wad
iv . A "linear" configuration of open space (except when following a linear
site feature , such as a river, creek or stream) ; and
(5 ) Lots intended for residential use of less than 20 , 000 square feet area are not
allowed.
(6) Residential lots shall be grouped into clusters of two to eight lots with an open
space separation of at least 100 feet between clusters .
(c) Transfer of density derived from this review .
T Upon analysis of all of the opportunities and constraints identified on a specific
group of parcels of land, if it is determined that the use of the provisions set forth in
this Chapter will not result in the use of the maximum density allowed, then the
applicant shall have the right to transfer any unused development densityto any
parcel of land located in an Urban Growth Area. By use of this transfer right,
maximum density allowed in the Urban Growth Area may be exceeded by to fiftX
(50%)percent.
* 666666666