Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2008-00131 Rezone Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 9/15/2009 Mason County Board of Commissioners Department of Community Development Issue Paper Sept. 2, 2009 BRIEFING ISSUE: Briefing on review of Nathan&Debra Stout/Patrick Paradise rezone. ACTION REQUESTED FROM BOARD: Prepare for public hearing on this request for Sept. 15, 2009 9:30 AM. BACKGROUND: This rezone request of four small parcels from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Commission on November 3,2008. On January 13, 2009,the Board reviewed this request, received public testimony,and adopted a motion by 2 to 1 vote to deny that request. A Land Use Petition was filed with the Mason County Superior Court on February 3, 2009 and Judge Findlay issue a March 9, 2009 order to remand the review back to the Mason County Board of Commissioners. On August 20, 2009, Robert Johnson and Kristen French submitted their application materials for consideration in this rezone request review. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS: The newly submitted materials has revised this application from a request from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone,to a request for a strictly conditioned rezone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. The applicants have proposed limiting possible land uses on the four parcels(total of 7.44 acres),proposed using a larger property line setbacks, and using buffer plantings and structures to separate the proposed land uses from the road and adjacent properties. This briefing is to bring forward this application materials for discussion prior to the public hearing on this remanded rezone request. BUDGET IMPACTS: No direct budget impacts are anticipated;this task is within the scope of long range planning workload. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: a)Request cover letter,b)request application materials, and c)responses formatted as a staff report submitted by Robert Johnson and Kristen French. COMMISSION COMMENTS: HAWORMCOMPLANWC issue paper Stout Paradise rezone Sept 09.doc 1 I Mason County Board of Commissioners Department of Community Development Issue Paper Sept. 2,2009 BRIEFING ISSUE: Briefing on review of Nathan& Debra Stout/Patrick Paradise rezone. ACTION REQUESTED FROM BOARD: Prepare for public hearing on this request for Sept. 15, 2009 9:30 AM. BACKGROUND: This rezone request of four small parcels from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Commission on November�, 2008. On January 13, 2009,the Board reviewed this request,received public testimony,and adopted a motion by 2 to 1 vote to deny that request. A Land Use Petition was filed with the Mason County Superior Court on February 3,2009 and Judge Findlay issue a March 9, 2009 order to remand the review back to the Mason County Board of Commissioners. On August 20, 2009,Robert Johnson and Kristen French submitted their application materials for consideration in this rezone request review. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS: The newly submitted materials has revised this application from a request from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone,to a request for a strictly conditioned rezone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. The applicants have proposed limiting possible land uses on the four parcels(total of 7.44 acres),proposed using a larger property line setbacks, and using buffer plantings and structures to separate the proposed land uses from the road and adjacent properties. This briefing is to bring forward this application materials for discussion prior to the public hearing on this remanded rezone request. BUDGET IMPACTS: No direct budget impacts are anticipated;this task is within the scope of long range planning workload. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: a)Request cover letter,b)request application materials, and c)responses formatted as a staff report submitted by Robert Johnson and Kristen French. COMMISSION COMMENTS: HAWORMCOMPLANWC issue paper Stout Paradise rezone Sept 09.doc ] MASON COUNTY TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Reviewed: FROM: Allan Borden Ext. 365 DEPARTMENT: DEPT. OF COMM. DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing DATE: September 15, 2009 No. ITEM: Public hearing to review the request by Nathan & Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels (7.44 ac. area total) within the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone with proposed strict conditions of review. Previous Review: A public hearing by Planning Advisory Commission was held on November 3, 2008; their recommendation for approval was adopted by 4 yes; 1 no vote. A public hearing by the Mason County Board of Commissioners was held on January 13, 2009; a motion to deny the request was adopted by a 2 yea to 1 nay vote. Background: Under a March 9, 2009 order of Mason County Superior Court, this request for a change in Rural Residential zoning was remanded back to Mason County Board of Commissioners for additional public hearing review. Recommended Action: I make a motion to (approve or deny) the request by Nathan & Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels (7.44 ac. area total) within the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone with proposed strict conditions of review, and have the Chair sign Findings of Fact for this decision. Attachments: Staff Report (prepared Sept. 2009), Application submittal (Aug. 2009), and public notice legal ad for paper I:\Zoren\public hearing 9-15-09 stout rezone request-ahb.doc MASON COUNTY TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Reviewed: FROM: Allan Borden Ext. 365 DEPARTMENT: DEPT. OF COMM. DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing DATE: Tuesday January 13, 2009 No. ITEM: Public hearing to review the request by Nathan & Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels (7.44 ac. area total) within the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. Planning Advisory Commission: public hearing by Planning Advisory Commission was held on November 3, 2008; their recommendation for approval was adopted by 4 yes; 1 no vote. Background: This request for a change from Rural Residential zoning has been evaluated by the Planning Advisory Commission and is now forwarded for consideration and review in the proposed public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. Recommended Action: I make a motion to (approve or deny) the request by Nathan & Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels (7.44 ac. area total) within the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone, and have the Chair sign Findings of Fact for this decision. Attachments: Staff rezone summary, Planning Advisory Commission summary, Staff report, and public notice legal ad for paper. I:\Zoren\public hearing 01-13-09 stout rezone 08-05 request-ahb.doc Y STAFF REPORT: SITE-SPECIFIC REZONE APPLICATION REZONE REQUEST NO. 08-05 APPLICANT: Nathan& Debra Stout; and Patrick Paradise. STAFF CONTACT: Allan Borden, (360)427-9670 ext. 365 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting that four parcels be rezoned in the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. In addition,the applicants are requesting review using a strictly conditioned limit of potential land uses under the Rural Commercial 2 zone if the request is approved. STAFF FINDINGS: The request to rezone to Rural Commercial 2 zone with a strictly conditioned limit of potential land uses under the Rural Commercial 2 zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for protecting public health safety and welfare and presents circumstances of the site location(small parcels along a county road and surrounded by large- sized parcels)that would limit further changes to land use designations of nearby parcels. This request to rezone to Rural Commercial 2 zone with a strictly conditioned limit of potential land uses under the Rural Commercial 2 zone is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals appropriate zoning designation(not compatible with the Rural Residential 20 zone), and if the rezone is approved,the future commercial development of the four lots would be a sprawling non-residential land use incompatible to surrounding residential and commercial timber land uses. Staff finds the request(s)to rezone Parcel Nos. 32133-40-90021 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90022 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90023 [1.82 ac.], and 32133-40-90024 [2.00 ac.] from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone does not meet the rezone criteria as outlined in Mason County Development Code Section 17.05.080. PARCEL INFORMATION: Parcel Nos. 32133-40-90021 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90022 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90023 [1.82 ac.], and 32133-40-90024 [2.00 ac.]. [7.44 ac. total] CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: Rural Residential 20 (1 dwelling unit per 20 acres) The Rural Residential 20 designation is intended to provide for residential development on any parcel. Lots with the RR20 designation may have the following allowed uses: single family residential,hobby farms(small-scale commercial agriculture, including aquaculture and wood lots), churches, local community and recreation centers, cell towers, fire stations, fish hatcheries, and public utilities. With special permits,the following uses are also permitted within this designation: essential public facilities, cemeteries, and home occupations and cottage industries that do not meet the standards in Mason County Development Regulations Section 17.03.021. PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Rural Commercial 2 Rural Commercial 2 zone provides for a moderate variety of potential development on lots of varying size. Those land uses include many commercial, service,and tourist uses, except for auto and manufactured home sales. With special permits,the following uses are also permitted JAGMSHARE\DE V-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout StafPReport 2009 remand.doc 1 within this designation: gas or service stations and self storage facilities. In addition the applicant has presented in their 2009 submittal materials that certain limitations be included in their rezone review: permitted land uses allowed outright are limited to post office /fire station, church, and local community and recreational centers; uses reviewed by Special Use Permit are limited to self storage. I. WHY IS THE APPLICANT PROPOSING THIS REZONE REQUEST AT THIS TIME? The applicants want these four properties to be rezoned to Rural Commercial 2 zone so that they may develop the land from potential residential land use to commercial self storage facility services and address the indoor and outdoor storage needs for the growing number of nearby residents and visitors of Rainbow Lake, Lake Limerick, and surrounding areas. In their request,they are willing to offer a conditional limitation to the potential land uses allowed under the requested Rural Commercial 2 zone and would agree to impose greater buffer(vegetation and fencing) and property line setbacks for the development proposed. II. HISTORY OF SITE AND REZONE REQUEST These four parcels were created by short plat in 1992 from a larger parcel adjacent to McEwan Rd., at a time when zoning in the county did not exist. The parcels are now vacant, but the on-site vegetation cover is maintained by periodic mowing. No other improvements are present. The rezone request for these four properties was subject to review by the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission on November 3, 2008,where a motion to recommend approval was adopted by 4 yes to 1 no vote. A January 13, 2009 Mason County Board of Commissioners public hearing resulted in adoption of a motion to deny the request passing by a 2 yes to 1 no vote. The applicants filed a Land Use Petition with the Mason County Superior Court on February 3, 2009, and Mason County Judge Findlay issue a March 9, 2009 order to remand the review back to the Mason County Board of Commissioners. On August 20, 2009, Robert Johnson and Kristen French, representing the applicants, submitted these application materials for consideration in this rezone request review. III. LAND USE& EXISTING CONDITIONS A) LOCATION These parcels in the Rural Area are located near the intersection of two county roads(McEwan Prairie Road and Mason Lake Road). General land uses are commercial timberlands on all sides but to the east; residential subdivision lots lie to the east. B) SITE CONDITIONS The properties have slight slopes away from the county road and have two access points (east and west areas)along the 1,600 feet length of road frontage. No wetland or streams are close to any site for potential development. Much of the area of the existing parcels is cleared of trees and shrubs. J:\GMSHARE\DEV-BEGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 2 C) CURRENT SURROUNDING ZONING(SEE ATTACHED VICINITY MAP) NORTH: Rural Area/Rural Residential 20 zone. EAST: Rural Area/Rural Residential 5 zone. SOUTH: Rural Area/Rural Residential 20 zone. WEST: Rural Area/Rural Residential 20 zone. D) ACCESS/TRANSPORTATION The four parcels have access points to McEwan Prairie County Road and can be accessed from one parcel to the other. E) PUBLIC UTILITIES(SEWER/SEPTIC,WATER) The parcels have no services available by privately maintained systems. F) ENVIRONMENTAL/SEPA For the 2008 review a formal SEPA determination of non-significance was made on October 24, 2008. The proposed rezone would result in some impacts (additional buildings,more sewage demand, more traffic)by anticipated new development in the Rural Commercial 2 zone. Consideration of stormwater management and current buffer and setback regulations will be made at the time of development.on the four properties. For the 2009 remand review,no further environmental review was done, as the new request with a small conditioned list of land uses has less potential impact than the 2008 request. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS Under Section 1.05.080.A.,Rezone Criteria, of the Mason County Development Regulations,the County shall review a rezone proposal and enter written findings for the following criteria. (The County's responses are shown in Italics). Prior to evaluating a request with each rezone criterion,per Section 17.05.080.B., Rezone Characteristics, a rezone request to a more intensive land use in the Rural Area must involve a small scale business(defined in MCC 17.06),be an isolated location as required by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), and may not occur within V2 mile by road of any Urban Growth Area, Rural Activity Center; Hamlet; or isolated Rural Commercial, Rural Tourist, or Rural Industrial Area, or any other Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). The nearest isolated LAMIRD to the site of this Rural Commercial 2 zone request is the convenience store at Lake Limerick at 2100 E. Mason Lake Rd., located at 0.70 mile to the north and exceeding the %2 mile distance standard noted above. l. Development allowed by the proposed rezone designation shall not damage public health, safety and welfare. If the presented request is approved, the rezone would be granted for the shorter list of land uses allowed in the strictly conditioned RC2 zone per the applicant's request; the applicant's stated use, self storage, is an allowed land use that is reviewed by Special Use permit. The applicant states that these four parcels are better used for potential commercial land use nearby to residential properties in the vicinity. Through the 7:\GMSHARE\DE V-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 3 Special Use Permit review,proposed development on the parcels would be evaluated using review standards for commercial development(greater setbacks, enhanced vegetation and structural buffers, stormwater and parking plans, and traffic studies), as well as the provision of services for the proposed land uses. 2. The zone designation shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act; and that designation shall match the characteristics of the area to be rezoned better than any other zone designation. APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies in the Rural Area: RU-500 In RAs,features of the rural landscape should be dominant. Uses other than farms,pastures,farm buildings,forestry, wood lots, and other resource- related industries, should be buffered or screened from public rights-of-ways and adjacent properties. RU-505 Other uses that should be allowed in RAs include tourism, horticulture, low profile recreation, home-based businesses and cottage industries accessory to a primary residential use, and other small scale businesses. R U-512 Adjacent residential uses and non-residential uses in the Rural Area should be buffered or screened from each other. Existing uses will not be required to provide buffers or screens, except in the case of the expansion or intensification of use. RU 521: Use the following criteria to establish rural densities and for assignment throughout the County for mapping decisions: Land Use Designation Criteria Principal Land use Rural Residential Single family plats with Single family 1 du/20 acres established pattern of similarly sized lots surrounding the area on 75%of its boundaries Located in shoreline areas with Non-resource forestry or similarly sized parcels agriculture Lands affected by at least 2 critical areas Other uses allowed as in the Table of Uses Lands adjacent to forest resource lands at the request of property owner for forestry/agriculture/open space taxation and/or uses JAGMSHARE\DEV-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 4 Rural Commercial in the Rural Area. RU-531 Resource-based industrial and commercial uses should be allowed to locate or expand in Rural Areas,provided that: they do not require urban levels of government service, they do not conflict with natural resource based uses, they are compatible with surrounding rural uses, any public services or facilities provided for the development shall be limited to that necessary for the development and shall not be provided in a manner which permits low-density sprawl, and critical areas are protected. The request is to change the zone of these four parcels in the Rural Area so that commercial uses in support of the existing residential land uses can be provided. Proposed future land uses must be compatible with nearby natural resources land uses and existing residential land uses. The lands to the north and south are in designated timberland uses and range from 50 acres to 300 acres in size, but are separated by either county road or low-lying topography. Residential land uses lie to the east and southeast. Service demands of proposed self storage land uses will be limited to small-scale commercial land uses, and anticipated demands for fire, law enforcement, and power services will be greater than residential development on these parcels but not to urban levels. Critical areas are situated to the north and southwest; winter runoff typically flows over and off of the subject parcels. These parcels were created after Mason County undertook Comprehensive Plan review in 1991from smaller portions of large parcels that still extend to the south. These parcels are of a size closer to the Rural Residential 5 zone found throughout the county. Lots I to 3 are 300 to 350 feet wide and 200 to 250 feet deep; lot 4 is triangular with 700 feet width and 200 feet depth. Proposed front yard setbacks of 30 feet, and side yard setbacks of 50 feet will help to separate the land use and protect area rural character when development is proposed; but a floor-area ratios of I:5 (20 percent lot cover) under Rural Commercial 2 zone will much be more extensive than the Rural Residential 20 standard floor-area ratio of 1:20 (5 percent lot cover). Aside from the convenience store 0.70 miles to the north on Mason Lake Road, no non- residential land use occurs for two miles from the subject parcels. For these reasons, the request is not consistent with the above Comprehensive Plan policies as the proposed commercial land uses allowed by the rezone are less compatible with the surrounding area, and these land uses are introduced into a residential and open rural area two miles away from the Shelton Urban Growth Area. 3. No rezone shall be approved if,either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially increase sprawling, low-density rural development,or to significantly increase uses incompatible with resource-based uses in the vicinity. 7:\GMSHARE\DEV-REGS\comp plan amendmenta\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 5 Proposed future land uses must be compatible with natural resources land uses in the • vicinity. The lands to the north and south are in designated timberland uses but are separated by either county road or low-lying areas. The location of the rezone request is a 1,600 foot long series of parcels along a busy county road connector and nearby to the fairly-dense (3 to 4 dwellings per acre) residential subdivisions that have existed for over 30 years. The subject parcels are confined within the boundaries of 50- to 300-acre neighboring parcels where additional small lot sizes could not be created in the future; only one residence per parcel could be located on each lot due to the small size of property involved. If the request is approved,future commercial development of the four lots would be a sprawling non-residential land use surrounded by residential and commercial timber land uses. 4. No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if, either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially increase demand for urban services in rural areas, including but not limited to streets,parking,utilities,fire protection,police,and schools. The four subject parcels area total of 7.44 acre in size. In the requested RC2 zone, there are no minimum lot sizes, and the land could be further divided based upon meeting dimensional standards and review for adequate water and sanitation. The moderate amount of land involved in this rezone request is not likely to cause a marked increase in demand for urban services, especially for the primary self storage building land use. Some increase in service demand within this area could result if additional parcels are created or an intensive development is proposed on these four or more parcels along the county road, but not to urban levels of services. 5. No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if,either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially interfere with the Growth Management Act goal to encourage development in urban areas where adequate public services and facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. If the request is approved, small-scale commercial development which is intended to support the needs of the nearby rural residents would be allowed to occur on these subject parcels. The moderate amount of land involved in this rezone request is not likely to cause a marked increase in demand for urban services, as stated by the applicant, or affect further development in the Shelton Urban Growth Area two miles to the southwest. 6. No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if,either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially interfere with the Growth Management Act goal to encourage retention of open space,to conserve fish and wildlife habitat,and generally to protect the environment, including air and water quality. The vicinity of the proposed rezone is an area largely undeveloped. In the last 2 to 3 years, new homes were located on similar small-sized lots along McEwan Prairie Rd. and a gravel operations started west of the crossing of the road with the railroad tracks. All forms ofproposed development of the parcels will need to comply with proper standards of the Development Regulations and the Resource Ordinance buffers and setbacks from critical area if present on the property. In this case, no critical J:\GMSHARE\DEV-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 6 areas were observed close enough to be affected by Development Regulations • setbacks and buffers. Proposed commercial projects will need to adequately screen these land use activities from any adjacent residential land uses to the north, east, and south; the applicant has proposed to increase those setbacks to address these concerns about proposed commercial development. 7. No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if, either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to create pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to increase population growth in rural areas as projected in the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. If the request to rezone these four small properties is approved, other requests for the rezone of parcels for isolated small-scale businesses could be submitted for review. Such future rezone requests for additional parcels for commercial development will need to meet the criteria that are part of this request review and will need to present circumstances of the site location that merits the support of each criterion. The four subject parcels are confined within the boundaries of large-sized neighboring timberland parcels where additional small lot sizes could not be created in the future, and thus not creating a pattern of sprawling development beyond the subject parcels. 8. These criteria shall not be construed to prevent corrective rezoning of land necessitated by clerical error or similar error of typography or topography committed in the original zoning of such land. Not Applicable, and the present rezone request does not claim any errors were made. V. POSSIBLE OPTION TO MODIFY REQUEST In their submittal the applicant requested to change from Rural Residential 20 zone to the Rural Commercial 2 zone for all four parcels. If the proposed request were modified to include just one,two, or three of the four subject parcels,the responses to the evaluation criteria on such proposal would note a lesser degree of potential impacts to surrounding land uses, service demands, and resulting traffic patterns; two and three parcels would have a moderate level of impacts, and one parcel would have the least impact, assuming similar future land uses are proposed. Responses to these options would state more consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act goals and result in a recommendation of approval of the new zone designation. If this option to reduce the number of parcels involved in the rezone is considered, the parcels dropped out of consideration would not be subject to future rezone review to a more intensive land use, due to the '/2 mile proximity characteristic noted at the beginning of the section on the evaluation of rezone criteria. VI. FINDINGS Based upon the application materials and the evaluation of the rezone criteria, staff findings for this request are: Criterion 1 (no damage to public health, safety and welfare) is met; based upon staff evaluation. 1:\GMSHARE\DEV-BEGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 7 Criterion 2(consistent Comprehensive Plan designation) is not met;based upon staff evaluation that the Rural Residential 20 zone in the Rural Area is the most consistent designation. Criterion 3 (no increase of sprawling low-density rural development or uses incompatible to resource-based land uses) is not met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 4 (no increase of demand for urban services in rural areas)is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 5 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage development in urban areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 6 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage open space retention, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect air and water quality) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 7 (no pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to cause greater than projected population increases in rural areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 8 (corrective rezone of lands) is not applicable to this request. VII. OPTIONS FOR ACTION The Board of County Commissioners has the following decision options to consider: 1. Approval of the proposal as the applicant has requested. 2. Modify the proposal as noted in V. Option to Modify Request and make their recommendation. 3. Denial of the proposal. VIII. ATTACHMENTS 1. Materials submitted on August 20, 2009 as the present rezone request. 1:\GMSHARE\DEV-REGSkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\OS-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 8 REZONE NO. 08-05 APPLICANT: Nathan and Debra Stout, and Patrick Paradise. PARCEL NOS.: 32133-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024 (total of 7.44 ac.) LOCATION: 2300 to 2400 E McEwan Prairie Rd. [Rural Area] CURRENT ZONE: Rural Residential 20 (RR20) zone PROPOSED ZONE: Rural Commercial 2 (RC2) zone EXISTING LAND USE: vacant RELEVANT FACTS: Located to the north, west, and south of existing Rural Residential 20 zone parcels and east of Rural Residential 5 zone parcels; along McEwan Prairie Rd. (county road); two miles northeast of Shelton Urban Growth Area. Extensive timberland properties to the north, west, and south; existing commercial property at 0.7 miles to north in Lake Limerick. If new zone is approved, applicant could develop property for commercial land uses allowed under this zone. REZONE CRITERIA DISCUSSION POINTS TO CONSIDER: Following the preparation of the staff report, evaluation of the Planning Advisory Commission discussion, and discussion with Board of County Commissioners, staff has draw together the following points to consider in the review of this rezone request: 1. Damage to public health, safety, and welfare. a. Concern for available water and proper septic systems for potential development. b. Anticipated increase in traffic, noise, and light due to commercial land uses. 2. Consistent designation determination. a. Land is part of RR20 land block, larger-sized parcels from 20 to 300 ac. in size. b. Land adjacent to RR5 parcels (less than 0.5 ac. in size) to the east. c. Land adjacent to timberlands to north and south under timber taxation, not Resource Lands. d. Land is adjacent to county road; proposal relys on new accesses on this road. e. Appropriate zone is existing RR20 zone designation. 3. Impacts to resource land uses. a. Adjacent lands in timber taxation program on extensive lands to north, west, and south, not Forest Resource Lands commitment. b. Anticipated commercial land uses would be incompatible with timberland uses. 4. Increase in demand for urban services. a. If rezone is approved, future commercial development will increase service demands (emergency/ fire protection / police coverage) b. If rezone is approved, amount of traffic will increase in area of low-density residential zone. 08-05 Stout rezone BCC jan 09 summary.doc 5. Interferes with urban area growth. a. Future development under new zone will not affect services provided in UGA some 2 miles to the west. 6. Interferes in retention of open space, critical areas, air/water quality. a. Current RR20 zone permits no further land divisions. b. Rezone allows potential creation of new lots out of existing parcels. c. Under new zone, only setbacks and landscaping will be present as part of proposed development. 7. Pressure to change the designation of other properties. a. The applicants did not provide compelling reasons or unique characteristics of the properties to state why these parcels should be considered for rezone from residential land use to future commercial land uses. b. Current RR20 zone based upon existing parcel sizes and timberland uses. c. These and adjacent lands are not in Long-Term Resource Lands designation and could be subject to future changes in residential densities. d. If this request is approved, similarly situated parcels could be proposed for rezone to commercial land uses elsewhere in the county. 8. Corrective rezone of lands is not applicable to this request. FINDINGS OF THIS DISCUSSION: Criterion 1 (no damage to public health, safety and welfare) is not met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 2 (consistent Comprehensive Plan designation) is not met; based upon staff evaluation that the Rural Residential 20 zone is the most consistent designation for the subject parcels. Criterion 3 (no increase of sprawling low-density rural development or uses incompatible to resource-based land uses) is not met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 4 (no increase of demand for urban services in rural areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 5 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage development in urban areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 6 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage open space retention, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect air and water quality) is not met; based upon above staff evaluation. Criterion 7 (no pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to cause greater than projected population increases in rural areas) is not met; based upon above staff evaluation. Criterion 8 (corrective rezone of lands) is not applicable to this request. 08-05 Stout rezone BCC jan 09 summary.doc t r REZONE NO. 08-05 APPLICANT: Nathan and Debra Stout, and Patrick Paradise. PARCEL NOS.: 32133-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024 (total of 7.44 ac.) LOCATION: 2300 to 2400 E McEwan Prairie Rd. [Rural Area] EXISTING LAND USE: vacant CURRENT ZONE: Rural Residential 20 (RR20) zone PROPOSED ZONE: Rural Commercial 2 (RC2) zone. Included in their 2009 submittal materials (as part of the remand review) that certain limitations be part of their rezone review: a) permitted land uses allowed outright are limited to post office / fire station, church, and local community and recreational centers; b) uses reviewed by Special Use Permit are limited to self storage; and c) would agree to impose greater buffer (vegetation and fencing) and property line setbacks for the development proposed. RELEVANT FACTS: Located to the north, west, and south of existing Rural Residential 20 zone parcels and east of Rural Residential 5 zone parcels; along McEwan Prairie Rd. (county road); two miles northeast of Shelton Urban Growth Area. Extensive timberland properties to the north, west, and south; existing commercial property at 0.7 miles to north in Lake Limerick. If new zone is approved, applicant could develop property for commercial land uses allowed under the approved zone. REZONE CRITERIA DISCUSSION POINTS TO CONSIDER: Following the preparation of the staff report and evaluation of the submitted application materials, and discussion with Board of County Commissioners, staff has draw together the following points to consider in the review of this rezone request: 1. Damage to public health, safety, and welfare. a. Concern for available water and proper septic systems for potential residential and non-residential development. b. Anticipated increase in traffic, noise, runoff, and light in respect to commercial land uses. 2. Consistent designation determination. a. Land is part of RR20 land block, larger-sized parcels from 50 to 300 ac. in size. b. Land adjacent to RR5 parcels (less than 0.5 ac. in size) to the east. c. Land adjacent to timberlands to north and south under timber taxation, not Resource Lands. d. Land is adjacent to county road; proposal relies on new accesses on this road. e. Appropriate zone is existing RR20 zone designation. 08-05 Stout rezone BCC sept 09 remand summary.doc , 1 3. Impacts to resource land uses. a. Adjacent lands in timber taxation program on extensive lands to north, west, and south, not Forest Resource Lands commitment. b. Anticipated extensive commercial land uses would be introduced to an area of nearby residential land use and be incompatible with timberland uses. 4. Increase in demand for urban services. a. If rezone is approved, future commercial development will increase some service demands (emergency/ fire protection / police coverage), but not to urban levels. b. If rezone is approved, amount of traffic will increase in area of low-density residential zone and timberland use. 5. Interferes with urban area growth. a. Future development under new zone will not affect services provided in UGA some 2 miles to the west. 6. Interferes in retention of open space, critical areas, air/water quality. a. Current RR20 zone permits no further land divisions. b. Rezone allows potential creation of new lots out of existing parcels. c. Under new zone, only setbacks and landscaping will be present as part of proposed development. 7. Pressure to change the designation of other properties. a. Current RR20 zone based upon existing parcel sizes and timberland uses. b. These and adjacent lands are not in Long-Term Resource Lands designation and could be subject to future changes in residential densities. c. If this request is approved, similarly situated parcels elsewhere in the county could be proposed for rezone but must present circumstances of the site and the location to meet the review criteria for the requested zone. 8. Corrective rezone of lands is not applicable to this request. FINDINGS OF THIS DISCUSSION: Criterion 1 (no damage to public health, safety and welfare) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 2 (consistent Comprehensive Plan designation) is not met; based upon staff evaluation that the Rural Residential 20 zone is the most consistent designation for the subject parcels. Criterion 3 (no increase of sprawling low-density rural development or uses incompatible to resource-based land uses) is not met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 4 (no increase of demand for urban services in rural areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 5 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage development in urban areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. 08-05 Stout rezone BCC sept 09 remand summary.doc Y Criterion 6 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage open space retention, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect air and water quality) is met; based upon above staff evaluation. Criterion 7 (no pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to cause greater than projected population increases in rural areas) is met; based upon above staff evaluation. Criterion 8 (corrective rezone of lands) is not applicable to this request. 08-05 Stout rezone BCC sept 09 remand summary.doc 1 � -41 - 17.04.330 Rural Commercial 2 (RC 2) 17.04.331 Purpose. (See Section 17.02.043) 17.04.332 Uses Permitted. A. USES: Convenience/general store,Retail,Restaurant,vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance(automotive,truck, farm implement, and small engines), Small office,Laundry, Professional services,Public meeting space,Nursery,Post office/Fire Station,Church,Local community and recreation centers,Commercial/government operated day care, Single-family residential. B. USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT: Gas, Self storage. 17.04.333 Lot Requirements. A. Density. 1 residence per lot. Lot size.Dependent on subject property location. B. 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. 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. 17.04.334 Building Regulations. A. Floor Area Ratio. 1:5,except for fire stations. B. Size.Maximum of 4,500 sq. feet for single tenant and 7,500 sq. feet for multiple tenant;no maximum for dwellings. C. Height. Two floors not to exceed 35 feet maximum except for agricultural buildings,antennas,or water tanks,or necessary structural elements for an otherwise compliant permitted land use. 17.04.335 Signs. Signs are limited to: 1)a sign attached to the building with an area not to exceed 10 percent of the area of the building face, and 2)a detached sign with an area size not to exceed 10 percent of the building face, that is free-standing, and with a height maximum of 25 feet or height of building,whichever is less. Temporary signs permitted by section 17.05.025 are allowed. Signs prohibited by section 17.03.203 are not allowed. 17.04.336 Off-street parking. Off street parking(stall number and arrangement)shall be provided according with the provisions of the Mason County Parking Standards. 17.04.337 Special Provisions. RESERVED MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DRAFT MEETING AGENDA Commission Chambers— 9:00 a.m. 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton WA 98584 TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Correspondence and Organizational Business 4.1 Correspondence 4.2 News release—Grant for Latimers Landing Park. Staff: John Keates 4.3 News release— Mason County Public Health Water Laboratory Closure Notice. Staff: Debbie Riley 5. Open Forum for Citizen Input (5 minutes per person, 15 minutes time limit) If you wish to address the Commission, raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. When you have been recognized, please step up to the microphone and give your name and address before your comments.The Mason County Commission is committed to maintaining a meeting atmosphere of mutual respect and speakers are encouraged to honor this principle. (An individual may request to address the Board at a later time on the agenda by contacting the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.) 6. Adoption of Agenda Items appearing on the agenda after"Item 9. Public Hearings", may be acted upon before 9:30 a.m. 7. Approval of Minutes — special meeting minutes for January 8, 2009. 8. Approval of Consent Agenda: All items listed under the"Consent Agenda"are considered to be routine by the Commission and will be enacted by one motion unless a Commissioner or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 8.1 Approval to designate Shannon Goudy as the Mason County Clerk of the Board per Mason County Code Chapter 2.92.010 effective January 13, 2009. 8.2 Approval to set a public hearing on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. to consider a Supplemental Appropriation to the 2009 Current Expense Fund in the amount of$49,935. 8.3 Approval of the 2009 Funding Plan for Affordable Housing (2060) and Homelessness Prevention (2163) as recommended by the Mason County Housing Coalition. 8.4 Approval of the agreement between Mason County and the Mason County Shelter for Homelessness Prevention Funds (2163) in the amount of$15,000 to hire a Rental Case Manager. 8.5 Approval of the agreement between Mason County and the St. David's Episcopal Church for Homelessness Prevention (2163) Funds in the amount of$15,000. These funds will be used for homeless advocacy activities. 8.6 Approval of the agreement between Mason County and the Mason County Shelter for Homelessness Prevention Funds (2163) in the amount of$16,700. These funds will be used for Coordinator activities and the Homelessness count and are approved in the 2009 Mason County Homeless Plan, Phase Four. 8.7 Approval of the Veterans Assistance Fund applications for: David J. Stucke - Food $300.00; Rodney L. Gorm - Housing $600.00; John E. Peters, Jr. - Housing $600.00; Utilities $86.16; Roy K. Oster (Rose) - Utilities $600.00; Ken Roethle - Utilities $320.01; Terry D. McFarlane (Kathleen) - Housing $501.00 & Food $99.00; George W. Roberts - Housing $300.00; Charles evaq lur 2r z=�y Ate" Guava ok /L(c 04yon b-�kozql W1�1G2 9.�v�.�✓ /�+--�?ti;�%`f� (d "" GrrcG( a)q 066 O v-`y%dx G�f lie r27.�rt��iLr.�-e2ur G+'2(i� iGe� -Ja �tzvz ear/ ` G�e (lu Awl Evan-�r�ekJ�,- �a�eGG,ti(�/�C /I�u. ¢zG4zcGC�n1 62Qe�c t�ec���a a �G�G�I��L�✓V W��J-C�Gt � �� G" NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Mason County Commissioners will hold a public hearing at the Mason County Courthouse Building I, Commission Chambers,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton,WA 98584 on Tuesday,January 13,2009 at 9:30 a.m. SAID HEARING will be to review Rezone Request No. 08-05, submitted by Nathan&Debra Stout; and Patrick Paradise, for four parcels totaling 7.44 acres [parcel nos. 32133-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40- 90024] in the Rural Area,to change the zone designation from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone;the location of the request is on McEwan Prairie Rd.just west of Mason Lake Rd.. If you have questions on the contents of the proposed change in zoning, contact Allan Borden (360) 427-9670, Ext. 365. If special accommodations are needed, contact the Commissioners'office,427-9670,Ext. 419. DATED this 2nd day of December,2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Rebecca S. Rogers, Clerk of the Board cc: Journal -Publ 2t: 12/11/08 & 12/18/08 Planning (Bill: Planning—PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584) �✓r�C� U����,a �� Gz.� l� -� �v �rlu 107 ot(&h.10( WIM 0 (4 k.e Goo a b4A &UA,�O� 1110 Ike 09 1111"�A Ar-t�- 1-4 k&kwwl, ymo r 1 4. After presentation of the report to the Planning Advisory Commission, the Commission schedules a public hearing and may schedule workshops. (In the case of amendments of special interest to one part of the county,a workshop or hearing should be scheduled in that area.) The public hearing should.be not less than 60 days after the official transmittal is-provided to the state. 5. The DCD, acting for the Commission,releases public notice of workshops and hearings. 6. Planning Advisory Commission holds public hearing and optional workshops, and formulate and transmit its findings and recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. 7. The Board schedules and releases notice of public hearings and workshops as desired. 8. Workshops and public hearings held by the Board of Commissioners. 9. The Board meets to consider and take appropriate action on the amendments. 10. Any resulting amendments are transmitted to the State Office of Community Development and other state agencies, and public notice of adoption is published. B. Exceptions to the annual amendment process. In some cases amendments can be made to the Comprehensive Plan outside of the annual amendment process described herein: 1. When an emergency exists,the annual amendment process will not be followed. The process for the planning review is established in RCW 36.70A.390. The review process for SEPA(WAC 197-11-880)has already been adopted by the county in Ordinance 99-84, section 9.1. 2. When the amendments are intended to resolve an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board,then the amendment is not limited to one time a year and will need to be abbreviated because the time allowed in Hearings Board cases is very limited. The process will be adjusted as necessary within the constraints of the Growth Management Act and SEPA. 3. . The initial adoption of a sub-area plan is not required to be part of the annual amendment process and is not limited to once per year. The process will be the - same as required for the annual plan amendment, except that the first step will be as follows: 1. Establish a sub-area committee or a series of sub-area workshops. Public notice will be published of the workshops or meetings of the committee in order to encourage public participation and comment. 4. The adoption of a shoreline master program amendment shall not follow the annual amendment process,but shall be done under the procedures of Chapter 90.58 RCW. 5. The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county budget. .6. Amendments can be made more than once a year if they are restricted to changes in the development regulations consistent with the existing comprehensive plan. The process for amendment is the same as specified for the annual amendment process. 15.09.070 BEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS The Hearing Examiner shall make his or her decision following an open record public hearing and shall include one of the following actions: MASON COUNTY CODE TITLE 15-DEVELOPMENT CODE — June 30 2004 version 23 y�ym..Cwl�c mnuw hun �haGt m+..� nfow�r �vw�✓ '. I�lNun*�¢Fea✓tir15 o�u�ixa'``✓'fo Fka�c on�¢a Ma�J6CGC A �q �G(a�,�u,d �Y"�Gt�C�.w..L G�fk�K �wteNw � 5• �l-1�w1 ¢r�tevt�tr92/-� N�iFF bA� &VL 44d5 5 Awf u! PeR a1+ euweeacld� ra q4b-ralirl BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING MEETING AGENDA 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton WA 98584 Week of January 12, 2009 MONDAY, January 12, 2009 CI Shenanigans — 3017 Ruston Way, Tacoma 9:00 A.M. Tacoma City Light/Skokomish Tribe Signing Ceremony Commissioners' Conference Room 2:00 P.M. Central Operations — Betty Wing/Diane Zoren 2:15 P.M. Probation Services — Harris Haertel Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) 2:30 P.M. WSU Extension Office — Bob Simmons 2:45 P.M. Department of Community Development — Barbara Adkins/Mark Core 3:15 P.M. Public Works - Charlie Butros/Bob Thuring 3:45 P.M. Utilities & Waste Management - Emmett Dobey TUESDAY, January 13, 2009 Commissioners' Conference Room 11:00 A.M. Parks &Trails Department — John Keates 4:00 P.M Mason Transportation Authority meeting 790 E Johns Prairie Road, Shelton Briefing Agendas are subject to change,please contact the Commissioners'office for the most recent version. Last printed 01/12/09 at 1:33 PM wpsuC la.coe �e ��t�j erg fig atiu�e a,F Aan�,G.� eu ,Q6 kjq S MASON COUNTY COMMISSION AGENDA ACTION SHEET September 15, 2009 ACTION 8.1 Approval to set a public hearing on Tuesday, October 13 at 9:30 a.m. to consider amendment of the Mason County Parks and Trails Department Fee Approved Schedule to include commercial and recreational boat launch fees. 8.2 Approval of a resolution establishing a special fund to deposit donations and park user fees for the Mason County Parks and Trails Department Maintenance Approved and Operations. 8.3 Approval of Amendment B to contract E09-080 with the Washington State Military Department for E911 Wireline and Wireless services. This increases the Approved contract reimbursement b 6 773.70 to $60,895.70 8.4 Approval of the resolution for a loan from the Equipment Rental Revolving & Revolving Fund to Mason County Utilities — Solid Waste Operations in the Approved amount of $300,000 to be repaid in equal installments over three years. This is due to a reduction in revenue. 8.5 Approval of the agreement with Dick and Joyce Arnold for the Walker County Approved Park Attendant. 8.6 Approval to set a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. to consider a proposal to change the hours that certain Mason County Offices are Approved open to the public to accommodate staff reductions. 8.7 Approval to award the contract for MCRA Office Building renovation to Simroe Construction, Inc. in the amount of$182,112. Funding for the project will be Approved provided by REET II capital funds. 8.8 Approval of the resolutions to affirm Mason County's election to receive National Forest Related Safety—Net Payments under PL 110-343 and to designate 20% Approved of the Safety Net Full Payment amount to be allocated to Title II or Title III local projects. 8.9 Approval of the interlocal agreement and memorandum of understanding with the Washington Health Care Authority and Public Employees Benefit Board (PEBB) for non-union employees' health benefits, including elected officials. This Approved will provide a full benefit package of medical, dental, vision, life and long-term disability for the non-union employee group effective January 1, 2010. There is no additional cost to the County. 8.10 Approval to sign the letter of no objections to the Special Occasion Liquor Control Permit for a September 19, 2009 fundraising event for the Squaxin Approved Island Museum Library & Research Center. 8.11 Approval of Amendment #17 to the Consolidated Contract C14956 increasing the maximum consideration by $129,211 to a total of $1,938,221 for the Public Approved Health Emergency Preparedness and Response program. 8.12 Approval of the Veterans Assistance Fund applications for: Eldon Hosick - Food $100.00 and Greg VanSapp - $109.88 for a total of $209.88 as recommended by Approved the Veterans Assistance Fund Screening Committee. 8.13 Approval to appoint Dave Johnston to serve as Commissioner, Position #1, for Approved Mason County Fire Protection District No. 6. 9.1 Public hearing to review the request by Nathan & Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels (7.44 ac. area total) within the Rural Area from Denied Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone with proposed strict conditions of review. September 15.1 BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DRAFT MEETING AGENDA Commission Chambers— 9:00 a.m. 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton WA 98584 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Correspondence and Organizational Business 4.1 Correspondence 4.2 Proclamation—American Legion Month. Presenter: Peter Laserinko 4.3 News Release- Solid Waste Schedule Changes. Staff: David Baker 4.4 Announcement that a purchase order for$9,440.00, not including tax, is being issued to GWAVA Technologies, Inc. of Orem, UT for e-mail archive software for the County e-mail system. Staff: Dave Loser 5. Open Forum for Citizen Input (5 minutes per person, 15 minutes time limit) If you wish to address the Commission, raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. When you have been recognized, please step up to the microphone and give your name and address before your comments.The Mason County Commission is committed to maintaining a meeting atmosphere of mutual respect and speakers are encouraged to honor this principle. (An individual may request to address the Board at a later time on the agenda by contacting the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.) 6. Adoption of Agenda Items appearing on the agenda after"Item 9. Public Hearings", may be acted upon before 9:30 a.m. 7. Approval of Minutes — August 10 and 24, 2009 briefing meeting minutes and September 1, 2009 regular meeting minutes. 8. Approval of Consent Agenda: All items listed under the"Consent Agenda"are considered to be routine by the Commission and will be enacted by one motion unless a Commissioner or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 8.1 Approval to set a public hearing on Tuesday, October 13 at 9:30 a.m. to consider amendment of the Mason County Parks and Trails Department Fee Schedule to include commercial and recreational boat launch fees. 8.2 Approval of a resolution establishing a special fund to deposit donations and park user fees for the Mason County Parks and Trails Department Maintenance and Operations. 8.3 Approval of Amendment B to contract E09-080 with the Washington State Military Department for E911 Wireline and Wireless services. This increases the contract reimbursement by$6,773.70 to $60,895.70 8.4 Approval of the resolution for a loan from the Equipment Rental Revolving &Revolving Fund to Mason County Utilities—Solid Waste Operations in the amount of$300,000 to be repaid in equal installments over three years. This is due to a reduction in revenue. Last printed on 09/14/09 3:52 PM If special accommodations are needed,contact the Commissioners'office at ext.419,Shelton#360-427-9670;Belfair #275-4467,Elma#482-5269. MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 15, 2009—PAGE 2 8.5 Approval of the agreement with Dick and Joyce Arnold for the Walker County Park Attendant. 8.6 Approval to set a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. to consider a proposal to change the hours that certain Mason County Offices are open to the public to accommodate staff reductions. 8.7 Approval to award the contract for MCRA Office Building renovation to Simroe Construction, Inc. in the amount of$182,112. Funding for the project will be provided by REET II capital funds. 8.8 Approval of the resolutions to affirm Mason County's election to receive National Forest Related Safety—Net Payments under PL 110-343 and to designate 20% of the Safety Net Full Payment amount to be allocated to Title II or Title III local projects. 8.9 Approval of the interlocal agreement and memorandum of understanding with the Washington Health Care Authority and Public Employees Benefit Board (PEBB)for non- union employees'health benefits, including elected officials. This will provide a full benefit package of medical, dental, vision, life and long-term disability for the non- union employee group effective January 1, 2010. There is no additional cost to the county. 8.10 Approval to sign the letter of no objections to the Special Occasion Liquor Control Permit for a September 19, 2009 fundraising event for the Squaxin Island Museum Library &Research Center. 8.11 Approval of Amendment#17 to the Consolidated Contract C14956 increasing the maximum consideration by$129,211 to a total of$1,938,221 for the Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response program. 8.12 Approval of the Veterans Assistance Fund applications for: Eldon Hosick- Food $100.00 and Greg VanSapp- $109.88 for a total of$209.88 as recommended by the Veterans Assistance Fund Screening Committee. 8.13 Approval to appoint Dave Johnston to serve as Commissioner, Position #1, for Mason County Fire Protection District No. 6. 9. 9:30 a.m. Public Hearings and Items Set for a Certain Time 9.1 Public hearing to review the request by Nathan & Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels (7.44 ac. area total) within the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone with proposed strict conditions of review. Staff: Allan Borden 10. Other Business (Department Heads and Elected Officials) 11. Board's Reports and Calendar 12. Adjournment NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MASON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REQUEST FOR REZONE (CASE 08-05) Notice is hereby given that the applicants,Nathan & Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise,have filed an application for a request to rezone four parcels, 7.20 acres in size and noted below,in the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. The applicant does have plans for future development of the properties at this time. Site address and Proiect Location: Along the north side of McEwan Prairie Rd. adjacent to the west of the intersection with Mason Lake Rd. Shelton,WA. Parcel No: 32133-40-90021,32133-40-90022,32133-40-90023, and 3213340-90024. A complete legal description available at the County office listed below. Date of Application: June 2008. The proposed amendment to the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and Request for Rezone is subject to the public review process under the Mason County.Development Code, Section 15.09.060. This application is evaluated under the standards of the Mason County Development Regulations Section 1.05.080,Rezone Criteria. On Monday November 3, 2008, a public hearing by the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission was held on this request and a motion to recommend approval of the request was adopted on a 4 to 1 vote by the Planning Advisory Commission. Therefore, a PUBLIC HEARING on this request will be held by the Mason County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday January 13, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. 1, 411 N. 5" Street, Shelton, WA. The decision to approve or deny this request will be made at this public hearing. If special accommodations are needed,please contact the Planning Department at (360)427-9670 ext. 365. Comments or questions on this request or the public review process may be sent to Allan Borden, Department of Community Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584, or (360)427-9670 ext. 365. Publish: December 11 and 18, 2008 (2t) Shelton Mason County Journal Notice of Application 2008.doc ■ • . . M I M- -Wi I U. I �f�ii���� I I � I .. • I / i L vars WNSM®RM !�l��.� � . � � _ .. .r.l�� - ��. _ _ .Ili. _ . ✓ _ � �_ l/,'11L1 1 �I RI `aiiii I ✓ �� ' .go" AM, MOM I MASON COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION NOVEMBER 3, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW OF SITE-SPECIFIC REZONE APPLICATION REZONE REQUEST NO. 08-05 APPLICANT: Nathan &Debra Stout; and Patrick Paradise. STAFF CONTACT: Allan Borden, (360)427-9670 ext. 365 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting that four parcels be rezoned in the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20(1 dwelling unit per 20 acres)to Rural Commercial 2 zone. PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Following discussion of the staff report, several questions by the Commission, and testimony by nearby and adjacent property owners,the Planning Advisory Commission adopted a motion by 4 to 1 vote to recommend approval of the request by Nathan & Debra Stout; and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels Parcel Nos. 32133-40-90021 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90022 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90023 [1.82 ac.], and 32133-40-90024 [2.00.ac.] from the Rural Residential 20 zone to the Rural Commercial 2 zone. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR TESTIMONY FROM PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING At the November 3, 2008 public hearing, PAC members discussed the proposed rezone request of these four parcels along the north side of McEwan Prairie Rd. zoust west of Mason Lake Rd.) and 2 miles from the Shelton Urban Growth Area. Staff stated that the property is in the vicinity of other parcels zoned Rural Residential 5 to the east, and Rural Residential 20 to the south, west and north. Staff stated that the request is reviewed considering land uses in the area and using the specific criteria of the Mason County Development Regulations that focus on policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Under the Rural Commercial 2 zone, many commercial, service, and tourist uses land uses are allowed, except for auto and manufactured home sales; with special permits, gas or service stations and self storage facilities may be permitted. Two residential subdivisions are within one mile of the site. Staff found the request as presented met the seven rezone criteria. Staff also suggested the option of recommending approval to one, two, or three of the subject parcels,rather than all four. PAC members discussed the past timberland uses and current residential uses in the area. They asked about the ability of other small property owners to make rezone requests for their properties; staff stated that such requests could not be reviewed if within 0.5 mile of the subject properties if this rezone request is approved. They asked whether the applicant can develop any of the land uses permitted in the requested zone(aside from the stated self-storage land use). 08-05 Stout rezone PAC findings.doc The public comments on this rezone request were by neighbors to the east and focused on the concerns for screening, noise, nuisances,traffic, and stormwater runoff from future development on the subject properties. The PAC members stated that these concerns would come up in a special use permit for the self-storage or service station requests;but can be addressed in part with the Rural Commercial 2 zone development standards. One citizen with 5 acres of property near Harstine Island Bridge stated that if this request is approved, a precedent is set and a similar request by him should be reviewed. PAC members discussed these concerns as they reviewed the conclusion of the staff report stating that the request meets all rezone criteria: being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for appropriate zoning designation,protecting public health safety and welfare, conserving wetland and slope critical areas, and encouraging the provision of adequate public services while protecting rural character. PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION PUBLIC REVIEW FINDINGS: Based upon the evaluation of the review criteria, the PAC findings that recommend approval of the request to rezone four parcels Parcel Nos. 32133-40-90021 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90022 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90023 [1.82 ac.], and 32133-40-90024 [2.00 ac.]. from the Rural Residential 20 zone to the Rural Commercial 2 zone are: Criterion 1 (no damage to public health, safety and.welfare) is met;based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 2 (consistent Comprehensive Plan designation) is met;based upon staff evaluation that the Rural Commercial 2 zone is the most consistent designation for the subject parcel. Criterion 3 (no increase of sprawling low-density rural development or uses incompatible to resource-based land uses) is met;based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 4 (no increase of demand for urban services in rural areas) is met;based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 5 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage development in urban areas)is met;based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 6 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage open space retention, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect air and water quality) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 7 (no pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to cause greater than projected population increases in rural areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 8 (corrective rezone of lands)is not applicable to this request. 08-05 Stout rezone PAC findings.doc DRAFT Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1955)Tim Wing stated he takes issue with some of the elements of the staff report, notably about increasing sprawl. He says he fails to see 5-acre lots as sprawl. He also takes issue with the fact that this will greatly increase development density. He also doesn't think this is a precedent that necessarily applies anywhere else, like many of our other requests. With that said, I don't think there is enough compelling reason to approve this, so I'll vote to not approve it. (#2000) Diane Edgin stated she feels this is not the time nor place to increase the density. The river is a big issue. The ag resource lands to the south is even a bigger issue. If we approve to increase the density, you're just putting more pressure on this area. As far as setting a precedent, once you start doing something then it might be an issue, but it could be years down the road. (#2050)There was a second to the motion, a vote and the motion passed to follow the recommendations of the staff report and deny the rezone request. (#2075)Allan Borden opened the public hearing on the Nathan & Debra Stout / Patrick Paradise rezone request for four parcels to be rezoned in the rural area from RR20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. Under the RR20 zone, residential uses are predominate, but small scale ag, churches, recreation centers, cell towers, fire stations, fish hatcheries and public utilities are permitted. Special Permits allow for home occupations and cottage industries. Under Rural Commercial 2 zone, commercial, service and tourist uses are allowed, as well as restaurants, retail, and various small offices. Special permits allow for gas or service stations and self storage facilities. The applicant wants to develop.to property to commercial self storage to address storage needs for people in the rural area, especially nearby these subdivisions that already exist. The site is located near the intersection of McEwan Prairie Road and Mason Lake Road and have two road accesses that could facilitate commercial land uses. The north, south, and west sides of the property are the RR20 zone, and on the east side is RR5 zone. Under Criterion 1, regarding damage to public health, safety and welfare, is met. The intended use is a self storage that would have to be reviewed if the rezone were approved. Criterion 2, regarding consistency with the Comp Plan to provide available services.and foster economic activity, is met. Criterion 3, regarding no increase of sprawling low-density rural development, is met. Criterion 4, regarding no increase in demand for urban services in the rural area, is met. Criterion 5, regarding interfering with GMA goal, is met. Criterion 6, regarding interfering with GMA goal for open space, is met. Criterion 7, regarding no pressure to change other land use designations, is met. Criterion 8, regarding corrective rezone of lands, is not applicable to this request. At the end of the staff report, you do have an option to modify the request to rezone one to three parcels, instead of approving all four parcels. In summary, staff would find this requests meets all 7 criterion for rezone approval. (#2800) Dennis Pickard inquired if any of the surrounding smaller lots would be able to apply for a rezone. (#2850) Allan Borden responded not if they are within the %z mile isolated location. (#2860) Bill Dewey inquired if they could develop the property to any of the other allowed uses. (#2875) Allan Borden responded they could. (#2900) Bill Dewey inquired if the self storage units would also require a special use permit. (#2920) Allan Borden responded it would require a special use permit. (#2030) Bill Dewey opened the public comment portion of the public hearing. (#2950) Patrick Paradise, applicant, stated these four parcels were purchased many years ago for 5 DRAFT, Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 the purpose of what is being proposed now. We have the money to develop it now, as well as seeing the need for the surrounding area. We have been approached by several people requesting that we do this development. We believe this is a perfect low impact location for this type of activity. (#2985) Fred Jones testified next. He stated he can't see why it would not set a precedent. If you rezone this piece of RR20 into RC2, I can guarantee you I'll be here next year with a 5 acre tract I have down by the Harstine Island Bridge to do the same thing. It's classified as RR5 and I would like to put boat storage on it. So it will set a precedent. (#3040) Allan Borden responded it will depend on where your property is and whether it meets the characteristics criterion. If Pickering Marine is 300 feet down the road from your property then you wouldn't be far enough away to even consider the rezone. You would have to be at least Y2 mile away. It really depends on the situation. (#3100) Paul Wildman of Mason Lake Road testified next. He is concerned about the area in question. Being a resident out there for the past 4 years, I moved there for a particular reason, and that is because it is a nice quiet area. There is much more traffic there now since I've been there, and there is a concern this type of development would also increase that traffic. I'm also concerned about the nuisance noise problems with regard to property that is going to have active storage. People would be there working on their RV's and boats in that location. He inquired if there was going to be any protection provided for the people who live in the surrounding residences. He also noted concerns about drainage problems with impervious surfaces. It's not that far away from Rainbow Lake pond, and that is a pond we already have problems with in that there is ingress but no egress out of the pond. Traffic.is a big problem there. We have the trucks coming from 101 going the back way that come out and go around to 3. 1 live right on the blind curve and the traffic is never within the proper speed limit. There is also potential nuisance lighting issues. He is also concerned about the aestetics and if there would be any way of closing it off from general view. He noted another concern about the scheduling of getting access to the storage units. (#3400) Peggy Schouviller of Mason Lake Road testified next. We live to the southeast of this property. I have the same concerns of the previous gentleman. We are concerned about speed, noise, congestion, more traffic, and possibly an eyesore. She inquired if other residents at Rainbow Lake could note their opinions on this. (#3500) Bill Dewey explained there will be another opportunity at the BOCC hearing to voice their concerns and opinions. (#3550) Peggy Schouviller inquired about the two road accesses. (#3600) Patrick Paradise explained there are two driveways. (#3625) Bill Dewey closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. Bill Dewey noted it seems to be an appropriate use in that area, between Lake Limerick and Rainbow Lake. There's a lot of residences out there that would be served well by this type of facility. He did state he is concerned about all the other issues that have been brought up. There are other uses on the allowed uses list that may not be appropriate out there. That has me somewhat reluctant. (#3700) Diane Edgin stated that most of the issues that have been brought up will probably not come into play. People who invest in that kind of business are not going to put in something less than appropriate out there. I don't see a reason to deny it on aestetics. 6 ®RAFT Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#0135) Dennis Pickard stated the point is well taken as he also has concerns about buffering issues. Either they need to be addressed in the DR's that apply to the actual development with the special use permit and the approval process involved. The issues that are raised by the neighboring properties are legitimate ones. Our regulations that govern the actual development better be in shape to address those issues. If there are problems with that, that's beyond the scope of what's before us today. From the criteria that we're required to review the rezone request under, although I have some concerns about it, I do feel the criteria has adequately been satisfied. I still have concerns on whether we should approve it as a whole or in part. (#0240)Tim Wing stated that even if we approve this rezone, a special use permit would have to be applied for and surrounding properties would be notified and still have a chance to voice their concerns at that time. (#0250)Allan Borden stated that is correct. It is a public review process with notification of surrounding property owners, and it is also advertised in the paper. The case is heard by the Hearings Examiner, and he makes a determination based upon the staff report and what takes place in the testimony. The application would have to have a site plan, and present how they're going to plant and screen on the perimeter of the property, hours of operation, and follow the floor area ratio standards and setback standards. (#0300)Tim Wing stated he is in favor of approving this rezone request because there is potential for many of the problems that were raised to happen under the current designation as well. Also, there is a process required to put the storage facility there, which would include more public input and mitigation for some of the problems that might exist. In terms of traffic, if you don't put the storage unit there, there's going to be traffic taking the things you want to store somewhere else. That will mean more traffic further down the road_ (#0330)There was a motion and a second to approve the rezone request as presented by staff. (#0350) Bill Dewey inquired of Dennis Pickard about his comments on perhaps approving only 2 or 3 of the lots for the rezone. (#0375) Dennis Pickard explained hearing about the special use permit process caused me to reconsider that. In looking at the size of the lot, failing to include the lot closest to the residences in the project would actually reduce the number of adjoining property owners who would get notice because it would largely eliminate those from the project. (#0410) Bill Dewey inquired what the rationale would be if we weren't going to approve the rezone. It sounds like you're comfortable going with an approval at this time. (#0420) Dennis Pickard stated I have reservations that I'm hoping will be adequately addressed in future processes. I hope the rest of the county's regulations are up to the task of adequately addressing the legitimate concerns of the neighboring property owners. That is my primary concern. (#0435) Bill Dewey asked for the question and the motion passed with 4 in favor and 1 against. (#0450)Tim Wing inquired of Allan Borden that a gentleman brought up the question regarding his property near Harstine Island marina and perhaps wanting to rezone it, but you talked about the half mile rule. (#0465)Allan Borden responded the half mile separation is a characteristic that if you don't meet it, the request is not further reviewed as it isn't isolated enough under the Comp Plan to be 7 • J STAFF REPORT: SITE-SPECIFIC REZONE APPLICATION REzoNE REQUEST No. 08-05 APPLICANT: Nathan &Debra Stout; and Patrick Paradise. STAFF CONTACT: Allan Borden, (360)427-9670 ext. 365 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting that four parcels be rezoned in the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. STAFF FINDINGS: This proposed rezone to Rural Commercial 2 zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for appropriate zoning designation,protecting public health safety and welfare, and encouraging the provision of adequate public services. The request presents circumstances of the site location(small parcels along a county road and surrounded by large- sized parcels)that would limit further changes to land use designations of nearby parcels. The Planning Advisory Commission may consider the evaluation of one,two,three or all four of the subject parcels as options of rezone review. Staff finds the request(s)to rezone Parcel Nos. 32133-40-90021 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90022 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90023 [1.82 ac.], and 32133- 40-90024 [2.00 ac.] from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone meets the rezone criteria as outlined in Mason'CountyDevelopment Code Section 17.05.080. PARCEL INFORMATION: Parcel Nos. 32133-40-00021 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90022 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40-90023 [1..82 ac.], and 32133-40-90024 [2.00 ac.]. [7.44 ac. total] CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: Rural Residential 20(1 dwelling unit per 20 acresY. The Rural Residential 20 designation is intended:to provide for residential development bri any.. parcel. Lots with the RR20 designation may have the following allowed uses: single family residential,hobby farms(small.-scale commercial 4griculture, including aquaculture and wood lots), churches, local community and recreation centers, cell towers, fire stations, fish hatcheries, and public utilities. With special permits,the following uses are also permitted within this designation: essential public facilities,cemeteries, and home occupations and cottage industries that do not meet the standards in Mason County Development Regulations Section 17.03.021. PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Rural Commercial 2 Rural Commercial 2 zone provides for a moderate variety of potential development on lots of varying size. Those land uses include many commercial, service,and tourist uses, except-for auto and manufactured home sales. With special permits, the following uses are also permitted within this designation: gas or service stations and self storage facilities. I. WHY IS THE APPLICANT PROPOSING THIS AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME? The applicants want these four properties to be rezoned to Rural Commercial 2 zone so that they may develop the land from potential residential land use to commercial self storage facility services and address the indoor and outdoor storage needs for the growing number of nearby residents and visitors of Rainbow Lake, Lake Limerick, and surrounding areas. JAGMSHARMDEV-REGSkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.dm 1 r - H. HISTORY OF SITE These four parcels were created by short plat in 1992 from a larger parcel adjacent to McEwan Rd., at a time when zoning in the county did not exist. The parcels are now vacant,but the on-site vegetation cover is maintained by periodic mowing. No other improvements are present. III. LAND USE& EXISTING CONDITIONS A) LOCATION These parcels in the Rural Area are located near the intersection of McEwan Prairie Road and Mason Lake Road and have two road access (one in the west and one in the east) that could facilitate commercial land uses. B) SITE CONDITIONS The properties have slight slopes away from the county road and two access points. No wetland or streams are close to any site for potential development. Much of the area of the existing parcels is cleared of trees and shrubs. C) CURRENT SURROUNDING ZONING(SEE ATTACHED VICINITY MAP) NORTH: Rural Area/Rural Residential 20 zone. EAST: Rural Area/Rural Residential 5 zone. SOUTH: Rural Area/Rural Residential 20 zone. WEST: Rural Area/Rural Residential 20 zone. D) ACCESS/TRANSPORTATION The four parcels have access points to McEwan Prairie County Road and can be accessed from one parcel to the other. E) PUBLIC UTILITIES(SEWER/SEPTIC, WATER) The parcels have no services available by privately maintained systems. F) ENVIRONMENTAL/ SEPA A formal SEPA determination of non-significance will be made on October 24, 2008. The proposed rezone would result in some impacts (additional buildings, more sewage demand, more traffic)by anticipated new development in the Rural Commercial 2 zone. Consideration of stormwater management and current buffer and setback regulations will be made at the time of development.on the four properties. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS Under Section 1.05.080.A., Rezone Criteria, of the Mason County Development Regulations, the County shall review a rezone proposal and enter written findings for the following criteria. (The County's responses are shown in Italics). Prior to evaluating a request with each rezone criterion,per Section 17.05.080.B., Rezone Characteristics, a rezone request to a more intensive land use in the Rural Area must involve a l:\GMSHARE\DEV-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 2 small scale business(defined in MCC 17.06),be an isolated location as required by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), and may not occur within %2 mile by road of any Urban Growth Area, Rural Activity Center; Hamlet; or isolated Rural Commercial,Rural Tourist, or Rural Industrial Area,or any other Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). The nearest isolated LAMIRD to the site of this Rural Commercial 2 zone request is the convenience store at Lake Limerick at 2100 E. Mason Lake Rd., located at 0.70 mile to the north and exceeding the 1/2 mile distance standard noted above. 1. Development allowed by the proposed rezone designation shall not damage public health, safety and welfare. If the request is approved, the rezone would be granted for the land uses allowed in the RC2 zone per the Mason County Development Regulations; the applicant's stated use, self storage, is an allowed land use that is reviewed by Special Use permit. The applicant states that these four parcels are better used for potential commercial land use nearby to residential properties in the vicinity. Proposed development on the parcels would be evaluated using review standards for commercial development (setbacks, buffers, stormwater,parking, and traffic if needed), as well as the provision of services for the proposed land uses. 2. The zone designation shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act; and that designation shall match the characteristics of the area to be rezoned better than any other zone designation. APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Rural Commercial in the Rural Area. RU-532 Recreational and tourist uses and isolated small-scale businesses should be allowed to be developed in the Rural Areas,provided that: they do not require urban levels of government service, they do not conflict with natural resource based uses, they are compatible with surrounding rural uses, any public services or facilities provided for the development shall be limited to that necessary for the development and shall not be provided in a manner which permits low-density sprawl, and critical areas are protected. The request is to change the zone of these four parcels in the Rural Area so that commercial uses in support of the existing residential land uses can be provided. Proposed future land uses must be compatible with nearby natural resources land uses. The lands to the north and south are in designated timberland uses but are separated by either county road or low-lying topography. Service demands will be limited to small-scale commercial land uses and not to urban levels. Critical areas are situated well away to the north and southwest from the subject parcels. These parcels were created after Mason County undertook Comprehensive Plan review in 1991 and are of a size closer to the Rural Residential 5 zone (just like the ones to the east at the road intersection) rather than the Rural Residential 20 zone designation. Lots 1 to 3 are 300 to 350 feet wide and 200 to 250 feet deep; lot 4 is triangular with 700 feet width and 200 feet depth. Front yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 25 feet, and floor-area ratios of 1:5 (20 percent lot cover) will help to maintain JAGMSHARE\DEV-REGSbornp plan anmdtnents\2008 rezone rcview\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 3 area rural character when development is proposed. For these reasons, the request is consistent with the above Comprehensive Plan policies to provide available services and foster economic activity in the community, both for residents and for visitors to the Lake Limerick to Mason Lake area. Present development standards (setbacks and buffer plantings) will aid in accommodating the proposed commercial development near the existing residential land uses of the vicinity. 3. No rezone shall be approved if,either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially increase sprawling,low-density rural development,or to significantly increase uses incompatible with resource-based uses in the vicinity. Proposed future land uses must be compatible with natural resources land uses in the vicinity. The lands to the north and south are in designated timberland uses but are separated by either county road or low-lying areas. The location of the rezone request is along a busy county road connector and nearby to the fairly-dense (3 to 4 dwellings per acre) residential subdivisions that have existed for over 30 years. The subject parcels are confined within the boundaries of 50-to 300-acre neighboring parcels where additional small lot sizes could not be created in the future. 4. No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if,either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially increase demand for urban services in rural areas, including but not limited to streets,parking,utilities,fire protection,police, and schools. The four subject parcels are a total of 7.44 acre in size. In the requested RC2 zone, there are no minimum lot sizes, and the land could be further divided based upon meeting dimensional standards and review for adequate water and sanitation. The moderate amount of land involved in this rezone request is not likely to cause a marked increase in demand for urban services, especially for primarily self storage building land use. Some increase in service demand within this area could result if additional parcels are created or an intensive development is proposed on the two parcels along the county road, but not to urban levels of services. 5. No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if,either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially interfere with the Growth Management Act goal to encourage development in urban areas where adequate public services and facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. If the request is approved,small-scale commercial development which supports the needs of the nearby rural residents would be allowed to occur on these subject parcels. The moderate amount of land involved in this rezone request is not likely to cause a marked increase in demand for urban services, as stated by the applicant, or affect development in the Shelton Urban Growth Area two miles to the southwest. 6. No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if,either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially interfere with the Growth Management Act goal to encourage retention of open space,to conserve fish and wildlife habitat,and generally to protect the environment,including air and water quality. JAGMSI ARE\DEV-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Repomcloc - 4 l Proposed development of the parcels will need to comply with proper standards of the Development Regulations and the Resource Ordinance buffers and setbacks from critical area ifpresent on the property. In this case, no critical areas were observed close enough to be affected by development setbacks. Development Regulations setbacks and buffers for proposed commercial developments will need to be adequate to screen these land use activities from any adjacent residential land uses to the north, east, and south. 7. No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if,either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to create pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to increase population growth in rural areas as projected in the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. If the request to rezone these four small properties is approved, other requests for the rezone ofparcels for isolated small-scale businesses could be submitted for review. Such future rezone requests for additional parcels for commercial development will need to meet the criteria that are part of this request review and will need to present circumstances of the site location that merits the support of each criterion. The subject parcels are confined within the boundaries of large-sized neighboring parcels where additional small lot sizes could not be created in the future, and thus not creating a pattern of sprawling development. 8. These criteria shall not be construed to prevent corrective rezoning of land necessitated by clerical error or similar error of typography or topography committed in the original zoning of such land. Not Applicable, and the present rezone request does not claim any errors were made. V. POSSIBLE OPTION TO MODIFY REQUEST In their submittal the applicant requested to change from Rural Residential 20 zone to the Rural . Commercial 2 zone for all four parcels. If the proposed request were modified to include just one, two, or three of the four subject parcels, the responses to the evaluation criteria on such proposal would note a lesser degree of potential impacts to surrounding land uses, service demands, and resulting traffic patterns; two and three parcels would have a moderate level of impacts, and one parcel would have the least impact, assuming similar future land uses are proposed. Responses to these options would state more consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act goals and result in a recommendation of approval of the new zone designation. If this option to reduce the number of parcels involved in the rezone is considered, the parcels dropped out of consideration would not be subject to future rezone review to a more intensive land use, due to the %mile proximity characteristic noted at the beginning of the section on the evaluation of rezone criteria. VI. FINDINGS Based upon the application materials and the evaluation of the rezone criteria, staff findings for this request are: JAGMSHARE\DEV-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 5 I Criterion 1 (no damage to public health, safety and welfare) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 2 (consistent Comprehensive Plan designation) is met;based upon staff evaluation that the Rural Commercial 2 zone in the Rural Area is the most consistent designation. Criterion 3 (no increase of sprawling low-density rural development or uses incompatible to resource-based land uses) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 4 (no increase of demand for urban services in rural areas) is met;based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 5 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage development in urban areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 6 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage open space retention, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect air and water quality) is met;based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 7 (no pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to cause greater than projected population increases in rural areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 8 (corrective rezone of lands) is not applicable to this request. VII. OPTIONS FOR ACTION The Planning Advisory Commission has the following decision options to consider: 1. Recommend Approval of the proposal as the applicant has requested. 2. Modify the proposal as noted in V. Option to Modify Request and make their recommendation. 3. Recommend Denial of the proposal. VIII. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Parcel and Zoning Maps 2. List of 300' radius property owners, notified by US mail JAGMSHARE\DEV-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone revimM-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 6 1 �. S rfrr=— T21 NR3W Y AMIC 117 sifes ZD � t ✓ vo T20NR3W N 5�ouf parad isP re;?� �2gVeS't� �Gl 1 inch = 833 feet W� E 1 inch = 0.16 miles 1r,_ 1 \,q S J BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS JANUARY 13,2009 1. Call to Order—The Chairperson called the regular meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance—The flag salute was led by Fire Chief Burbidge. 3. Roll Call-Present: Cmmr.Dist. 1 —Lynda Ring Erickson;Cmmr.Dist.2—Tim Sheldon; Cmmr. Dist. 3— Ross Gallagher. 4. 4.1 Correspondence 4.1.1 The Washington State Liquor Control Board sent notice of a new liquor license application for Hood Canal Grocery and notice that Lake Nahwatzel Resort discontinued sales and service of liquor on January 31,2008. 4.1.2 Wave Broadband will be adjusting their retail prices in February 2009. 4.1.3 The Community Economic Revitalization Board submitted their 2008 legislative report. 4.1.4 William B.Willard Jr.expressed concerns regarding a notice he received from Community Development. 4.1.5 The Port of Allyn Commissioners stated their conditions for keeping recycling bins on Port property until June 30,2009. 4.1.6 Michael Siptroth is seeking appointment to the Parks and Trails Advisory Committee. 4.1.7 Robert A.Pastore is seeking reimbursement of his Hearings Examiner fees. 4.1.8 K&L Gates sent transcripts of all proceedings in connection with Mason County Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds Series 2008A&2008B. 4.2 John Keates,Parks Director,presented the news release regarding the Latimers Landing Park grant. 4.3 Debbie Riley,Environmental Health Manager,presented the news release regarding the closure of the Public Health Water Laboratory. 5. Open Forum for Citizen Input 5.1 Ken Bragg stated he is a former member of the Timberland Library Board. He is concerned about the library asking for a 50%increase in property taxing authority on February 3rd. He believes the timing is ill advised. The cost of the entire election will be approximately$700,000. If the election was scheduled during a primary or general election it would cost approximately$150,000, so they are wasting their own money. He is concerned about the judgment of the current Library Board. 5.2 Tom Casey stated he is the recently reelected president of the Shelton Drag Race Association. The Association would like to continue with a full schedule of drag racing at a new facility. They would also like to conduct a few summer events at the Port property where they have previously held events. He is seeking collaboration from the Board on development decisions that need to be made. He wants to make sure the Association's goals are consistent with the County's regulations and he is seeking direction on who he should work with at the County. Cmmr. Sheldon directed Mr.Casey to Barbara Adkins,Director of Community Development.He believes past events were well done and he looks forward to working with the Association in the future. 6. Adoption of Agenda—Cmmr.Gallagher/Ring Erickson moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. RE-aye;S-aye;G-aye. 7. Approval of Minutes—Special meeting minutes for January 8,2009. Cmmr.Ring Erickson stated there is an error on the minutes. She was absent from the January 8,2009 meeting,however her name is listed on a motion. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS JANUARY 13,2009-PAGE 3 8.17 Approval to award Puget Sound Truck Sales of Pacific,WA the bid to furnish Mason County with one used 1999,Sterling LT9513 truck with a new Advantage Roll-off unit. Total cost is$79,500 plus tax and is budgeted. Cmmr Ring Erickson/Gallagher moved and seconded to approve Consent items 8.1 through 8.17 with the exception of item 8.4,which has been removed. Motion carried unanimously. RE-aye; S-aye;G-aye. 9. 9:30 a.m.Public Hearings and Items Set for a Certain Time 9.1 Public hearing to consider a speed limit change on all of Reservation Road,county road number 43130. Charlie Butros,Public Works Director,asked to continue the hearing to February 17,2009,as he has not received the formal request for a speed limit change from the Skokomish Tribe. Cmmr.Ring Erickson/Gallagher moved and seconded to continue the hearing to consider a speed limit change on Reservation Road to February 17,2009. Motion carried unanimously. RE-aye;S- aye;G-aye. 9.2 Public hearing to review the request by Nathan&Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels(7.44 ac.area total)within the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. Allan Borden,Planner,presented the staff report on the rezone. Under the current zone residential development is the primary land use. Under the proposed zone there could be a wide variety of commercial uses for the land. The intent of the rezone is to establish a self-storage facility,which would require a special use permit. There aren't any critical areas in the immediate vicinity. The surrounding properties are rural residential zone 20. There are properties to the east zoned rural residential 5. The Planning Advisory Commission has recommend approval of the request. There was a petition received from about 20 people against the rezone,which is included in the staff report. There is no anticipated impact to the Shelton Urban Growth Area. There are seven criteria to consider for review of a rezone. There are two critical criteria to look at in regards to this request. First,have the applicants provided compelling reasons for the property to change from rural residential to commercial. Second,could this rezone cause pressure on other properties to change their zoning. Questions for Staff Cmmr.Gallagher asked if there was a formal determination of non-significance made on October 24 h as mentioned in the staff report,and what was the result. Mr.Borden stated it did happen and he didn't receive any comments from the organizations. Cmmr.Sheldon asked what additional sewage impacts there would be with this type of business. Mr.Borden stated there would not be much of an additional impact with the proposed land use,but he looks at all potential land uses with commercial zoning compared to residential zoning. It was asked if there is proof that taxes will not be affected by this rezone. Mr.Borden stated that would be a question for the Assessor's office. The adequacy of the 300-foot public notice policy was questioned. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS JANUARY 13,2009-PAGE 4 Mr.Borden stated he posted two additional signs in the Rainbow Lake development prior to the meeting, which would give notice farther than 300 feet. Cmmr. Sheldon questioned whether homes in Rainbow Lake are typically owned or rented. Most of the properties are owned. It was asked if this business would prevent other businesses from coming into the area. Mr.Borden stated yes,within'/2 mile. It was questioned whether there has been consideration to the type of business being allowed,as opposed to a more community oriented type of business. Cmmr. Sheldon stated the proposal is just to change the zoning,not to choose the type of business. It was asked if you could build a public facility such as a post office with the way the property is zoned right now. Mr.Borden stated the property wouldn't need to be rezoned for an essential public facility. It would just need a special use permit. It was questioned how this property was determined not to be a wetland. Mr.Borden stated that the County mostly relies on a wetland inventory map supplied by Fish and Wildlife and this property did not come up on the wetland map. Wetlands are determined by the type of soil and vegetation,among other things,however he did not do a site evaluation to determine if the property was a wetland. Public Testimony Mary Joy Murphy stated only a fence separates her property from the property being discussed. The potential building site is only 30 feet from her property line. She is concerned about people storing stolen goods or creating meth labs in the storage units. She does not want that type of business in her backyard. Meghan Lucas doesn't feel enough people were informed of the potential rezone. She is concerned about crime,excessive lighting and traffic. She likes living in a rural community and thinks this would lead to other developments. She is also concerned about the property not being determined a wetland. There is flooding on the property and people's stored items could be washed out. Larry Harper stated the property floods and there was standing water there this year and last year. He is concerned about adding septic in a flooded area. This is not a sanitary situation. He doesn't feel the community needs this type of business. Paul Wildman moved to Mason County about 4 years ago. He is concerned that the Commission meets a 9:00 a.m.on a weekday. People who have jobs cannot attend the meetings. He would like the decision to be postponed to another hearing in the evening. The City of Edmonds holds hearings in evening hours and are televised so people can be informed. He did voice his concerns at the Planning Commission meeting. He believes the criteria for rezones are not meaningful to people in the community and 300 foot public notice is not sufficient in rural area.He is also concerned about nuisance noise because of music being played at all hours of the night to entertain people while working on their vehicles in BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS JANUARY 13,2009-PAGE 5 storage. He doesn't think Mason County has a nuisance noise ordinance in affect. He is concerned about drainage and run off issues that come with paving of a large area. Debbie Backus stated she was only informed of this meeting because a child took the notice sign off of the mailboxes. She is concerned that the area of rezone is where children are let off the school buses and the storage units could block the view of the road. She also thinks there are animals in the area that will be affected. She has seen bobcat,deer and bear on the property. Jerry Schouviller stated he believes in the evolution of rural residential development,but it is too early for commercial development. The applicant,Nathan Stout,stated that no plans have been presented to County as to what will be built on the site. Sewage impact would be no more than a single family residence it would be a system regulated and approved by the County. There would not be a lot of traffic coming and going. There would be no vehicle repairs in the facility,only storage,and the rules would be made clear in contracts. There has not been any suggestion of a paved facility,there may be crushed rock. The water on the property is brought on by a County culvert and it is a natural path to a creek. Perhaps the size of the culvert could be increased to help the problem. Pat Paradise,applicant,wanted to address the community's concerns. The building would be an expensive investment.They would not build,invest and maintain an eyesore.He surveyed similar business and found concerns regarding traffic,noise,and lighting were unfounded. There would be strictly enforced access hours,an onsite caretaker and a surveillance system. The facility would be for storage and would not be tolerated for use as a repair facility. Cmmr.Ring Erickson stated these meetings are televised several times during the week. She holds evening meetings in Lake Limerick at the fire station,however they aren't as well attended as her other community meetings. There is a county noise ordinance. She believes these are good business people with a good plan. Historically she does not support these types of rezones. She believes if you allow this type of rezone in an area that is mainly residential over a period of time there is a cumulative affect. Commercial development should go into the Urban Growth Area where it is needed and keep designated residential areas as they are. She has a storage facility near her home and has not seen the things happen that people are concerned about. Overall she doesn't believe this rezone is consistent with a long-term residential area. Cmmr.Gallagher stated he concurs with Commissioner Ring Erickson. There are areas within the commercial zones that have storage facilities and they are high traffic areas. Cmmr.Sheldon stated there is a need for commercial storage in the county. This property is outside of the Urban Growth Area,but there are only three Urban Growth Areas in the county. This property could be developed for home sites as it is zoned. There could be up to eight houses on the property that would raise issues with septic and noise that this facility would not. Cmmr.Ring Erickson/Gallagher moved and seconded to deny the request by Nathan&Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels(7.44 ac.area total)within the Rural Area from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. Motion carried. RE-aye; S-nay; G-aye; A recess was called at 10:28 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:36 a.m. Mason County Comprehensive Plan-Auzust,1998(undated 2005)Planning Policies RU-346 Approval of a Master Planned Resort shall only be made after a finding by the county that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas. RURAL AREAS General Policies RU-500 In RAs,features of the rural landscape should be dominant. Uses other than farms,pastures, farm buildings, forestry,wood lots, and other resource-related industries, should be buffered or screened from public rights-of-ways and adjacent properties. RU 500a Ensure that rural residential development preserves rural character,protects rural community identity, is compatible with surrounding land uses, and minimizes infrastructure needs. RU-501 New development in RAs should be guided by performance standards and design guidelines to enhance rural character,protect critical areas,and tailor development to the characteristics of individual sites. RU-502 Residential uses in RAs should be at densities that can be sustained by rural levels of service for water,wastewater,drainage,police, fire,and schools. RU-503 Utilities and services in RAs should be provided at levels suitable to rural densities including on-site septic systems,private wells or community water systems, and roads with gravel shoulders and open roadside drainage. RU-505 Other uses that should be allowed in RAs include tourism,horticulture,low profile recreation, home-based businesses and cottage industries accessory to a primary residential use, and other small scale businesses. RU-506 Land use and proposed development along the shoreline,streams,or adjacent uplands should provide protection from any increases in stormwater runoff and nonpoint pollution which degrade water quality. RU-507 Existing forestry, agriculture, aquaculture, and mineral extraction in Rural Areas should have a preferential right to continue and not be subject to nuisance claims if new development changes the character of the areas surrounding those uses. RU-508 Existing commercial and industrial uses in Rural Areas should have a right to continue and not be subject to nuisance claims if operating in compliance with County regulations. Page III-3.11 Mason County Comprehensive Plan-August,1998(undated 2005)Plannine Policies RU-509 Proposed roads in Rural Areas,subject to review by the Fire Marshall,should be evaluated for impacts to areas traffic patterns; location in relation to topography, soils, and critical areas; and adequacy if roads rights-of-way and easement. RU-510 The improvement of shoulders along roads and old highway spurs for pedestrian,bicycle, and recreational use should be encouraged. RU-511 On-site sewage systems in Rural Areas should be maintained in a condition that will ensure longevity,protect public health,and prevent contamination of surface and ground waters. RU-512 Adjacent residential uses and non-residential uses in the Rural Area should be buffered or screened from each other.Existing uses will not be required to provide buffers or screens,except in the case of the expansion or intensification of use. Residential Policies RU-520 Provide for a range of rural residential densities and housing types for all lands within the Rural Area as follows: limited areas of 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres, one dwelling unit per 5 acres, 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres, one dwelling unit per 20 acres. Clustering is allowed under these densities. Map these densities on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. RU 521: Use the following criteria to establish rural densities and for assignment throughout the County for mapping decisions: Land Use Designation Criteria Principal Land use Rural Residential LAMIRD ;Single family; Located in limited and well-defined areas g y 2.5 acre where land is already platted and Recreational (1 du/2.5) developed at this or higher density. Individual undeveloped properties of Other uses as twenty acres or less in size may be allowed in the Table included if at least 75%of their boundary of Uses includes land platted and developed at higher densities. Rural Residential Single family plats with an established Single family 5 acre pattern of lots five acres or smaller, (1 du/5) generally built out. Page III-3.12 I Mason County Comprehensive Plan-August,1998(updated 2005)Planning Policies Lots of five acres or smaller adjacent to Other uses as RAC's and Hamlets. allowed in the Table of Uses Overlay designation for areas of pre- existing platted sub-divisions with lots less than five acres,but not built out Areas with a predominant pattern of five acre platting but may include 10 and 20 acre parcels; where existing infrastructure will support development. Infrastructure includes public roads, electrical service, water service,. Are not critical or resource lands Rural Residential Single family plats with an established Single Family 10 acre pattern of similarly sized lots 1 du/10 acres Similar sized lots adjacent to UGA's,or Other uses allowed the fully contained community,serving as in the Table of Uses a transition, and Transition between 1/5 and 1/20 Located in shoreline areas with similarly sized parcels, or Located in areas adjacent to county arterial roads capable of handling additional traffic impacts with other service available such as electricity or school buses, or Lands affected by critical areas Rural Residential Single family plats with established Single family 20 acre pattern of similarly sized lots surrounding Idu/20 acres the area on 75% of its boundaries Located in shoreline areas with similarly Non resource sized parcels forestry or agriculture Lands affected by at least 2 critical areas Other uses allowed as in Table of Uses Lands adjacent to forest resource lands Page III-3.13 Mason County Comprehensive Plan-August,1998(undated 2005)Planning Policies At request of property owner for Forestry /agriculture/open space taxation and/or uses. RU-521 a Consider redesignation of rural lands from 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres if the criteria in RU-521 (ldu/10 ac)can be met. RU-522 Residential subdivisions in RAs should be designed to achieve the following objectives: I A. Locate development on the most suitable soils for on-site sewage disposal (in unsewered areas); B. Locate development on the least fertile soils and in manner which maximizes the potential for the remaining usable or other resource based uses; C. Locate development to reduce impacts to resource uses, and to allow new development to be visually absorbed by natural landscape features; D. Locate development in such a manner that the common boundary between new lots and preserved open space is minimized in length; E. Locate development beneath ridge lines, and where it is least likely to block or interrupt scenic vistas; F. Locate the resource use or open space parcel or conservation easements contiguous with any abutting designated resource use parcel,open space, greenbelt, agricultural land, forest lands, public preserves, parks or schools, terrestrial management area, wildlife corridor, or aquatic management vegetative area; and Locate residences clustered in groups of no more than 8 to 10 units,which are buffered from each other. Cottage Industries. RU 523 Foster low impact cottage industries in the rural area in order to accommodate economic and employment opportunities outside of RAC's,Hamlets and UGA's. RU 524A Permit Cottage Industries conducted as an accessory use within a single family dwelling or building accessory to a dwelling and which are wholly incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property throughout the unincorporated portions of the County subject to the following criteria: Cottage industry is defined as limited small scale commercial or industrial activities including fabrication or production of goods or provision of services which are conducted without adverse impacts on the surrounding environment. The scale of the operation is considerably less than would require an outright rezone to industrial or commercial districts. Page III-3.14 Mason County Comprehensive Plan-August,1998(updated 2005)Planning Policies A cottage industry may include but is not limited to occupations such as tailoring, upholstering, weaving, baking, ceramic making, painting, sculpting, accounting, cosmetology,and the repair of personal items,computer software development,carpentry, metal working, and black smithing. Cottage industries are permitted in order to provide opportunities to supplement a family income,start up a business,or establish a work place at home. A cottage industry shall not grow beyond the scale permitted for such activities unless it is moved to a location designated for commercial or industrial uses. Cottage industries should be considered independent of, and unconnected to,the rights that run with the property. Cottage industry activities shall consist of a limited-scale service or fabrication. A cottage industry shall involve the owner or lessee of the property who shall reside within the dwelling unit,and shall not employ on the premises more than five(5)non-residents. A temporary increase in the number of employees is permitted to accommodate a business that is seasonal in nature. However,not more than five additional persons shall be employed on a temporary basis(up to six weeks)without a Special Use Permit. More than one cottage industry may be allowed,in or on the same premises provided that:all ofthe criteria above are met,no more than 5 nonresident employees shall be allowed to work on-site regardless of the number of home based businesses,and each home-based business shall be owned and operated by a permanent resident. There shall be no alterations to the outside appearance of the buildings or premises that are not consistent with the residential use of the property, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such cottage industry, other than one sign of thirty-two square feet in size or smaller. A cottage industry shall not be disruptive to the use of adjacent properties. No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupations which creates excessive noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the property. The cottage industry shall not create excessive traffic to the local road network, nor require parking facilities above and beyond that already contained on the site or needed to conduct the business. Page I11-3.15 Mason County Comprehensive Plan-August.1998(undated 2005)Planning Policies The following activities shall be limited in rural residential areas and shall be incidental to the primary nature of the cottage industry: parking; storage of heavy equipment; storage of materials for use on other properties. Non-Residential Policies RU-530 Existing industrial and commercial uses should be allowed to expand in Rural Areas,provided that:they do not require urban levels of government service,they do not conflict with natural resource based uses,they are compatible with surrounding rural uses, any public services or facilities provided for the development shall be limited to that necessary for the development and shall not be provided in a manner which permits low-density sprawl,critical areas are protected, and they are contained on the existing lot. RU-531 Resource-based industrial and commercial uses should be allowed to locate or expand in Rural Areas,provided that: they do not require urban levels of government service,they do not conflict with natural resource based uses,they are compatible with surrounding rural uses, any public services or facilities provided for the development shall be limited to that necessary for the development and shall not be provided in a manner which permits low-density sprawl, and critical areas are protected. RU-532 Recreational and tourist uses and isolated small-scale businesses should be allowed to be developed in the Rural Areas,provided that:they do not require urban levels of government service,they do not conflict with natural resource based uses,they are compatible with surrounding rural uses, any public services or facilities provided for the development shall be limited to that necessary for the development and shall not be provided in a manner which permits low-density sprawl, and critical areas are protected. RU-532a Provide limited expansion opportunities for existing isolated non- residential nonconforming uses in the rural area that provide job opportunities for rural residents and that are not consistent with isolated commercial/industrial rural use designations.Non-conforming means that it was not in existence as of July 1, 1990, and can not be classified as one of the new uses allowed in the rural area.To expand the business must: obtain a special use permit,expand on a one-time basis with the total square footage determined on the area in use as of August 1998,expand no more than a maximum of 50%of the existing building footprint or 50%of the existing outdoor working area provided that the total expansion will not exceed 2,000 square feet. The expansion must meet the following standards: • be visually compatible with surrounding neighborhood and rural area • will not cause detrimental impacts to adjacent properties or to existing easements Page III-3.16 Mason Count),Comprehensive Plan-August.1998(updated 2005)Plannine Policies • will not result in a small operation now dominating an area • will not constitute new urban growth in a rural area • will not require urban public services and facilities • will not detrimentally impact the productive use of the surrounding resource lands • will not detrimentally impact surrounding critical areas • will not change the visual character of the property or structure in a way that significantly effects the visual character of the surrounding rural area. A use may take advantage of one-time expansion opportunity provided to the existing rural business if it meets the above criteria.A change to a new use does not create any new expansion opportunities or rights. The maximum lot coverage of the gross impervious surface area shall not exceed 25%of the acreage. RU-532b Provide for a change of use of an existing, isolated rural business if it meets the following criteria: • does not result in an average increase of more than 10%in vehicle trips per day • contains parking on site so that it does not overflow into adjoining roads or properties • does not need urban levels or service • does not require increased transportation infrastructure • does not cause impacts from noise, light, and/or glare on adjoining properties. Harstine Island Sub Area Plan B-1 Residential Land Use, including Water Systems and Shoreline Development. B-1-a: Establish subdivision design standards which minimize site disturbance,preserve the natural beauty of the Island, minimize the visual impact of the development,ensure privacy of residents and maintenance of rural character. B-1-a- 1: Innovative techniques in site planning, such as open space,common areas, clustering and development rights purchase or transfer should be encouraged to protect the rural atmosphere on the Island. Suggested Implementation: Subdivision development should be designed to encourage open space with conservation easements to ensure its continuance. A program providing density bonuses should be developed by the County to encourage the following: retention of large percentages of a site in native ground cover and over story; no disturbance buffer zones; additional screening of houses through increased buffers; trails and wildlife corridors; separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the use of Page 11I-3.17 DDRdbbF - C)o � -3 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 No. Fifth Street// P.O. Box 279,Shelton WA. 98584 APPLICATION FOR REQUESTED REZONE. [NOTE: One application per parcel or contiguous group of parcels. This application does not guarantee approval. To legally approve a rezone request, the submitted request must meet the rezone criteria listed in the Mason County Development Regulations. You should discuss your proposal with the County Long Range Planner prior to submitting application.] Applicants: Nathan E. and Debra K. Stout, et al and Patrick Paradise Agents for Applicants: Robert W. Johnson and Kristin L. French, attorneys for applicants Mailing Address: Robert W. Johnson, P.L.L.C., P.O. Box 1400 City: Shelton State: WA Zip: 98584 Telephone: Robert W. Johnson (360) 426-9728 / Applicants (360) 426-0693 / (360) 490-3198 Parcel Number(s): 32133-40-90021, 22, 23 and 24 Parcel Size and Legal Description: Please see application materials, "Attachment A" What land use designation or zone is requested? Strictly conditioned Rural Commercial 2 (RC2) Rationale for the Request: (include information on the property features, land use, and maps that will be used in considering your application): Please see detailed application materials, attached. !� / Signature and Date FEE: fee previously submitted, review per remand MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 No. Fifth Street// P.O. Box 279. Shelton WA. 98584 APPLICATION FOR REQUESTED REZONE. [NOTE: One application per parcel or contiguous group of parcels. This application does not guarantee approval. To legally approve a rezone request, the submitted request must meet the rezone criteria listed in the Mason County Development Regulations. You should discuss your proposal with the County Long Range Planner prior to submittiaig application.] Applicant:1/)64GN Mailing Address: ✓ O L�k `�� City: -*317 `yi✓ - State: W4��. zip: ��'��7 Telephone No.:(36 6-4)6 Parcel Number(s): 32133 5/6 9ao��� 3.2/33 'Y0 90O.Z2� 3,2133 y0 7,1623" 3-2/33 410 9ca,�Y Parcel Size and Legal Description: What land use designation or zone is requested ? Rationale for the Request: (include information on the property features, land use, and maps that will be used in considering your application) (see the attached information sheet) PlW ./� ot FEE: $1,785.00 for processing and evaluation. Signature and date (Feb.1,2008) HAWORD\COMPLAN\comp plan amend app revised feb 2008.doc (ahb) ------------- �> S,// -she I'au6I c s / �( , al w� . CJ lei J �( /�''� �1,tTn �G e-I S /CxwVz, Al ` ,p l"UL ,_ �a4-v G 5ae- QrZ /40-r Ae4Vtaa f: 4>7 X% le,/o�+e / /vzr�tf' G% Ale- 7) `moo'' ''° APPLICATION: Rezone application (08-05) APPLICANTS: Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise PARCEL NUMBERS: 32133-40-90024 (2 acres); 32133-40-90023 (1.82 acres); 321 33-40- 90022 (1.81 acres); 32133-40-9002 l (1.81 acres) — see short plat #2141, approved l/28/92, AF # 538671 (ATTACHMENT A) LOCATION: The four subject parcels are located adjacent to McEwan Prairie Road, on the north side of the road, slightly to the west of the intersection of McEwan Prairie Road and Mason Lake Road, in Mason County, Washington. (ATTACHMENT B) CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: The four subject parcels are currently zoned Rural Residential 20 (RR20). (ATTACHMENT C) PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Applicants seek to rezone the four subject parcels to a strictly conditioned Rural Commercial 2 (RC 2). The goals and policies associated with the current RR20 zone cannot be achieved on the four subject parcels, given their significant non- conformity with the RR20 zone in terms of size and potential residential build out. As correctly noted during the January 13, 2009 Board of Commissioners' hearing, and in the Planning Advisory Commission's November 3, 2008 meeting. there is a potential for equal, if not greater impacts in categories of concern under the current RR20 zoning designation, as opposed to the proposed rezone to a strictly conditioned RC 2 zone. A specific comparison between impacts under both respective zones is set forth in this document, as is a detailed analysis regarding the fact that the strictly conditioned RC 2 zoning is the most appropriate zoning designation for the subject parcels. Applicants propose a strictly conditioned rezone that would limit permitted development under the proposed RC2 zone to single family residential, churches, local community and recreation centers, fire stations, cel towers, and public utilities (all presently authorized under current RR 20 zone), and accessory uses and special use permit required uses presently authorized under current RR 20 zone. The conditioned rezone would further enable applicants to apply for a special use permit to construct a self storage.facility under the proposed RC 2 zone. All other uses authorized under the RC 2 zone would be stricken by agreement between the county and the applicants. (See proposed agreement and RC2 zone strikethroughs - ATTACHMENT D) The ability of the county to enter into conditional agreements of this sort was thoroughly considered and evaluated in conjunction with the Johnson Rezone(08-06), as approved. Attached letter from that record, authored by Dennis D. Reynolds Law Office(11/17/08) (ATTACHMENT E) Page 1 of 16 Commissioner meeting minutes (11/25/08), item 10.1 —County prosecutor advises that County may enter into an agreement restricting the range of uses authorized by rezone, rezone 08-06, as conditioned, subsequently approved by Commissioners (ATTACHMENT F) The applicants have perceived a significant need for self storage facilities in this particular vicinity. - See sample signature list of landowners in the vicinity who support the proposed rezone (ATTACHMENT G), with additional letters of support being forwarded directly to Mason County Planning Department for consideration by Planning Staff and Board, and additional signatures to be presented at hearing - See large map with pin-cites of existing self storage facilities to be presented at hearing, visually depicting the need for a self storage facility in the vicinity of the subject property (ATTACHMENT H) The proposed self storage facility will satisfy the definition of a "small scale business"as defined in MCC 17.06 (as required per 17.05.080): It will be a business entity owned and operated independently from all other businesses, with the sole purpose of making a profit, and employing twenty or fewer employees. The parcels' unique location, character, and incompatibility with the current RR20 zone distinguish them from other parcels in the area: (a) front McEwan Prairie Road, easily accessible from Highway 3 and from Shelton via McEwan Prairie Road; (b) adjacent uses— entire front yard adjacent to McEwan Prairie Road, entire rear yard adjacent to approximately 300-acre parcel zoned RR20/designated forest land, and only one short length of sideyard adjacent to residential development; (c) in a close proximity to dense rural development sites (including Lake Limerick, Oak Park, Alderbrook, Ann Arbor/Snowy Owl/Lexington/etc., Jensen Road development, Emerald Lake, Mason Lake, Catfish Lake area, Rainbow Lake, and other dense rural development; (d) very centrally located (ATTACHMENT 1). Members of the Planning Commission noted that the use seems to be appropriate in the particular vicinity of the subject parcels, in light of the fact that many residences in the vicinity would be served well by a self storage facility. See Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008. HISTORY OF SITE /CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS The four subject parcels were created by short plat in 1992, and range in size from 1.81 to 2 acres. Applicants purchased lots 1, 2, and 3 in December 1992, and purchased lot 4 in January Page 2 of 16 1993. Applicants purchased the property many years ago with the intention of developing a self storage facility at the time that a need for such a facility became apparent. The parcels were logged by Simpson Timber Company approximately three years prior to purchase by applicants. The parcels are presently vacant and unimproved, with minimal vegetation. The parcels front McEwan Prairie Road and are currently served by two existing driveways. The record from January 13, 2009 proceedings indicates that no critical areas exist in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcels. Applicants are prepared to address stormwater-related issues with a comprehensive stormwater plan prepared for the subject parcels. HISTORY OF CURRENT RE-ZONE APPLICATION At the November 3, 2008 public hearing, Planning Staff advised that the request as presented satisfied all rezone criteria. Planning Advisory Commission recommended approval of the rezone request (vote 4-1, November 3, 2008). The record from January 13, 2009 proceedings indicates that a formal determination of non-significance was issued, and that no related comments were received. Planning Staff subsequently reversed recommendations regarding certain rezone criteria at the January 13. 2009 hearing before the Board of Commissioners,and the rezone application was denied. Applicants sought review by the Mason County Superior Court, the matter was remanded and is presently back before the Board of Commissioners for review. Compliance with all rezone criteria is detailed in this application document (see Rezone Criteria section). REZONE CRITERIA Code section l 7.05.080 sets forth the following eight rezone criteria: 1) CRITERION l - Development allowed by the proposed rezone designation shall not damage public health, safety and welfare. The initial Planning Department Staff Report determined that this criterion was satisfied, and emphasized the fact that the proposed development, a self storage unit, would be subject to detailed review through the required special use permit. A similar determination was made by the Planning Advisory Commission. Special use permit review would involve a hearing before the Hearings Examiner,based on a site plan and details including,but not limited to road access, impacts to adjacent properties,parking, stormwater and erosion plans,hours of operation, noise, glare, odors, grading, sanitation and support services and traffic impacts. Page 3 of 16 Public input received indicates general interest/concern regarding the following health, safety and welfare issues (see more detailed list included as ATTACHMENT L, identifying each individual by name and specific concern): Issue Current RR20 zone Proposed RC 2 zone(as Summary conditioned) Crime: stolen goods and Single family residential Self storage development No evidence has been meth labs development presents presents related issues introduced to support the related issues contention that the proposed self storage facility will generate related concerns greater than those associated with single family residential development. Lighting Single family residential A well managed self No evidence indicates that development presents storage facility will likely the proposed self storage related issues. have lighting impacts that facility will have greater are equal to or less than lighting/glare impacts than lighting impacts generated single family development by single family presently authorized under development. the existing zone. Unlike the single family Unlike development residential development authorized under the context.the self storage current RR20 zone, development proposal will development under the be subject to special use proposed RC2 zone will be ' permit review under subject to special use Development Regulations review,including but not section 17.05.040,with limited to road access, review criteria per Title 15 impacts to adjacent Development Code section properties,parking, 15.09 Review approval stormwater and erosion process. plans_hours of operation. noise,glare,odors, grading,sanitation and support services and traffic impacts Traffic/Congestion/ See attached Traffic See attached Traffic See attached Traffic Visibility Analysis Analysis Analysis (ATTACHMENT J) (ATTACHMENT J) (ATTACHMENT J) Single family residential Self storage generates An approximately 20,000 development generates approximately 2.5 trips per + sq. ft.self storage Page 4 of 16 approximately 9.57 trips 1,000 square feet per 24- facility is likely to per unit per 24-hour week hour week day(approx. 1 generate less traffic on day(approx. 5 entering entering and 1 exiting). both weekdays and and 5 exiting). Saturdays than full Self storage generates residential buildout Single family residential approximately 2.33 trips allowed under the current development generates per 1.000 square feet per zoning designation approximately 10.08 trips Saturday(approx. 1 per unit per Saturday entering and 1 exiting) (approx. 5 entering and 5 exiting) Noise Single family residential A well managed self No evidence indicates that development has the storage facility will likely the proposed self storage t potential for significant have noise impacts that are facility will have greater noise impacts. equal to or less than noise noise impacts than single impacts generated by family development single family presently authorized under development. the existing zone. Unlike the single family Unlike development residential development authorized under the context, the self storage current RR20 zone, development proposal will development under the be subject to special use proposed RC2 zone will be permit review under subject to special use Development Regulations review.including but not section 17.05.040.with limited to road access, review criteria per Title 15 impacts to adjacent i Development Code section properties.parking, 15.09 Review approval stormwater and erosion I process. plans.hours of operation, i noise.glare,odors, i grading,sanitation and support services and traffic impacts Aesthetics/Eyesore Single family residential A well managed self As demonstrated by development has the storage facility can have photos(ATTACHMENT potential for significant negative aesthetic impacts K),a well-planned self aesthetic impacts. that are equal to or less storage unit can have than single family negative aesthetic impacts development. that are equal to or less than single family development presently authorized under the existing zone. Page 5 of 16 Buffering No buffering required. Significant buffering to be Significantly more implemented (see Code buffering protection section 17.03-Category afforded to adjacent "E")25'buffer,8' fence properties under proposed or 5' earthen berm,and zone that under existing plantings of 4 canopy zone. trees,6 understory trees, 24 shrubs and 12 evergreens per 100 lineal feet Stormwater/Drainage/ Residential buildout Development of the Applicants acknowledge Septic presently allowed under proposed self storage that a comprehensive the RR20 zone would facility will generate stormwater management generate stormwater and stormwater and drainage plan will need to be drainage issues. issues-however.these developed:discussions issues will be addressed in with Mason County a comprehensive indicate that a type 11 catch stormwater management basin and 18"culverts will plan. be required. Stormwater management would be an issue if the parcels were developed as SFR.without the benefit of a comprehensive stormwater management plan. Critical Areas I Staff determined no Staff determined no Staff determined no critical areas exist on site. critical areas exist on site. critical areas exist on site. Animal habitat Residential buildout Development of the As demonstrated by presently allowed under proposed self storage photos(ATTACHMENT the RR20 zone would facility will have an K),the proposed impact any existing animal impact approximately development will have an habitat. equivalent to residential impact approximately buildout presently allowed equivalent to single family under the RR20 zone. residential development presently allowed on the subject parcels. In mid-May 2009, counsel for applicants mailed correspondence to individuals who had expressed concerns regarding the rezone proposal. The correspondence requested that input be provided regarding how the application could be modified, conditioned, limited or reconfigured to address specific concerns. To date, only one response has been received, with the respondents Page 6 of 16 advising that "there is no reason to give suggestions, specific input, or any other information that may help you modify an application that we are adamantly against." (ATTACHMENT L) On the record, Commissioner Ring Erickson made the observation that a self storage facility exists in the vicinity of her personal property, and the issues set forth above have not been problematic issues with that particular facility. 2) CRITERION 2 - The zone designation shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act; and that designation shall match the characteristics of the area to be rezoned better than any other zone designation. The initial Planning Department Staff Report detennined that this criterion was satisfied, emphasizing compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. A similar detennination was made by the Planning Advisory Commission. PROPOSED DESIGNATION MOST COMPATIBLE -As demonstrated in the following table, the proposed RC2 zone matches the characteristics of the area to be rezoned better than any other zone designation. Any alternative "rural residential"zone designation presents the same conflicts presently presented by the current RR20 designation, so rezoning to either RR 5 or RR 10 is not a viable option. As is the case with alternative "rural residential" zone designations, no other"rural commercial" or other zones are as well-suited to the subject property as the proposed RC 2 zone. For example, the RC l zoning designation only authorizes convenience/general store, gas,restaurant, bed and breakfast, and laundry. Not only does this use range not include applicants' desired use, self storage, but the range of uses in the RC 1 zoning designation are generally more intense uses in terns of traffic impact than applicants' proposed self storage use— the proposed RC 2 zone authorizes self storage only subject to special rase permit approval. The RC 3, 4, and 5 zoning designations authorize ranges of potential uses that are more broad than the proposed RC 2 zone and are not being considered by the applicants (note that RC 3 zoning is not authorized outside of RACs and Hamlets). Applicants are not considering rural industrial, rural natural resource, rural tourist, rural tourist campground, or master planned resort zones, as said zones are not well- suited to the subject properties. SEE TABLE CONTRASTING RR20, RC2, AND STRICTLY CONDITIONED RC2 ZONES: Page 7 of 16 Issues: Current Zone Standard RC2 Proposed Zone— Summary —RR20 Zone RC 2 **As conditioned Parcel size to residential wide variety of parcel RR20 zone is not which zone is subdivision on sizes,dependent upon appropriate for applicable parcels of 10 acres location the subject or more parcels(which range in size from 1.81 acres to 2 acres), instead,a strictly conditioned RC2 zone is most appropriate Permitted Uses Single family Convenience/general Gonveniene&ge^er-al As conditioned, residential store store the proposed rezone would not Hobby farm(small Retail Retail result in outright scale commercial authorization of agriculture, Restaurant Restaur-am any use other including than those uses Vehicle and equipment ��� ��� � i * aquaculture and Vehicle�� ��••�--•�� resent] wood lots)" repair and maintenance i presently (automotive.truck. farm (automotive 'Fuck, f.,Fm authorized under Church implement,small the RR20 zone engines) local community and recreation Small office SFAal center Laundry Laund fire station.fish Rmfes ional seFyiee hatchery Professional services cel towers ` Public meeting space Publie meeting space- public utilities Nursery set=y Post office/fire station Post office/Fire Station Church Church Local community and Local community and recreation centers recreation centers Commercial/government operated day care opeFated day en Single-family residential Single family residential Page 8 of 16 Accessory Uses cottage industry cottage industry(home The agreement (home occupation) occupation) proposed by the applicants single family single family residence incorporates the residence RR20 accessory use provisions.so they would remain the same in the event the rezone to RC2 is approved Uses Permitted essential public Gas Gas As conditioned_ with Special Use facility the proposed Permit Self storage Self storage rezone would cemetery simply enable the Uses permitted withsimplv home occupations property owners P special use permit under and cottage RR20 zonin to apply for a g industries that do designation special use not meet the permit to standards in construct a self 17.03.021 storage facility Setbacks from Front yard= 25 Front yard setback= 30 Front yard setback= at Even without property lines feet feet least 30 feet conditions,the front yard setback Side and rear yard Side and rear yard Side and rear yard distance under = 20 feet for setbacks= 15 feet for setbacks= at least 50 the proposed RC2 j residential lots contiguous to lots feel(most restrictive zone is greater dwellings and zoned commercial or distance under RR20 than the existing accessory industrial use;otherwise. zone)AND will setback distance buildings; 50 feet 25 feet.Buffer plantings incorporate buffers and under the RR20 for accessory required in the first 10 associated planting zone;applicants structures used for feet of this setback agree to condition agriculture requiring at least purposes or home 50 foot side and occupations rear yard setbacks AND agree to incorporate buffers and associated plantings Floor Area Ratio Floor Area ratio Floor Area ratio 1:5 Estimate cumulative Estimated square 1:20,except for except for fire stations total acreage of subject footage of NOTE: "floor parcels at 7.44 acres proposed self Page 9 of 16 area ratio'is fire stations (approx. 324,086.4 storage facility is determined by square feet) 20,000—30,000 summing the square feet gross horizontal Estimated square areas of all footage of proposed self floors of a storage facility is building 20,000—30,000 square measured from feet the exterior walls,or the centerline of walls separating two buildings, and dividing that sum by the gross area of the i parcel for use or development. Space devoted to off-street parking or loading is not included in this calculation. i Size Size: 3.000 sq. ft Size: maximum of 4,500 Size:estimate No size maximum for non- square feet for single cumulative total using maximum with I agricultural and tenant and 7,500 square all four subject parcels: respect to accessory buildings feet for multiple tenant, 20,000—30,000 square residential except for no maximum size for feet dwellings and dwellings and dwellings agricultural ` Iagricultural buildings under buildings the current RR20 zone,plus 3.000 square foot I structure allowed per lot for other non-agricultural and accessory buildings. Under proposed RC2 zone,7,500 square foot maximum per parcel caps square footage at approximately Page 10 of 16 i 30,000 square feet Height Height= 35 feet Height= two floors not Height: 35' Height except for to exceed 35 feet limitations are agricultural maximum,except for identical under buildings,cel agricultural buildings, current RR20 and towers,or water antennas,or water tanks. proposed RC2 tanks,or necessary or necessary structural zone structural elements elements for an for an otherwise otherwise compliant compliant permitted land use permitted land use Parking Two spaces per Off street parking(stall Parking review pursuant Increased residence,see number and to special use permit scrutiny and Parking Ordinance arrangement)shall be and in accordance with review process for other land uses; provided according with Mason County Parking applicable with parking setback for the provisions of the Standards respect to non-residential Mason County Parking proposed RC2 land uses shall be Standards zone and related 25 feet special use permit process Density The standard One residence per lot in Efficient design and Under current residential density the event residential layout to be developed RR20 zone,up to dictates one development were with respect to non- two residential principal residence pursued- efficient residential development dwelling units per existing lot and design and layout to be (self storage)proposed. could be one accessory i developed with respect to developed per I dwelling unit per innn-residential { parcel lot. development. (potentially eight units),with said Where existing lots units not limited do not have in size and with adequate area to the potential for comply with significant applicable standard accessory residential structures. requirements,one dwelling unit per Through special lot is allowed. use permit review 17.03.032(B)(2). associated with proposed re-zone and development, efficient design Page 11 of 16 and layout will be achieved. The zone is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive plan, Development Regulations, other county ordinances and the Growth Management Act: The record created at the January 13, 2009 hearing indicates there is no anticipated impact to the Shelton Urban Growth Area. The proposed rezone satisfies the general "Rural Areas"policies set forth in the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, applicants are proposing a strictly limited range of development options that will ensure that site development preserves rural character, protects rural community identity, is compatible with surrounding land uses, and minimizes infrastructure needs (RU-500a). As a special use permit and related review process will be required for the proposed self storage development, the proposed development will be guided by perfonnance standards and design guidelines that will enhance rural character(RU- 501). The proposed self storage development will require lower levels of service for water, wastewater,police, fire and schools than residential build out at levels currently authorized under the RR20 zoning (RU-502). The proposed rezone also satisfies Mason County Comprehensive Plan (RU-532)provisions authorizing development of isolated small-scale businesses in the Rural Areas. Prior to Growth Management mandates, areas in close proximity to the subject property were developed as dense residential communities. The proposed rezone would afford an opportunity to serve this pre-existing residential development with a much needed service(self storage). The proposed development can be designed and conditioned so as to have impacts equal to or less than those associated with residential build out at levels currently authorized under the RR20 zoning. The proposed rezone would actually function to limit population growth in this rural area (as opposed to present RR 20 zoning), and would provide small-scale business employment opportunities. 3) CRITERION 3 - No rezone shall be approved if, either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development, whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially increase sprawling, low-density rural development, or to significantly increase uses incompatible with resource-based uses in the vicinity. The initial Planning Department Staff Report determined that this criterion was satisfied. A similar determination was made by the Planning Advisory Commission. Page 12 of 16 As discussed above, the current zoning designation (RR20) enables the subject parcels to be developed with up to eight single family residences, as a result of the four parcels' nonconforming sizes (range from 1.81 to 2 acres). Rezoning the subject properties to enable potential development of self storage units will not increase sprawling, low-density rural development to the extent that single family residential development would (in terns of traffic generation, demand for services, increase in rural population, and other categories analyzed above). Rather, development of self storage units will limit low-density rural residential development, will satisfy Mason County Comprehensive Plan (RU-532) provisions authorizing development of isolated small-scale businesses in the Rural Areas to serve the existing rural population, and will facilitate development of a "small scale business" as defined in MCC 17.06 (as required per 17.05.080) - a business entity owned and operated independently from all other businesses, with the sole purpose of making a profit, and employing twenty or fewer employees. Additionally, development of self storage units is likely to reduce incompatibility with adjacent resource-based uses when contrasted with potential rural residential development of the subject parcels. 4) CRITERION 4 - No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if, either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development, whether actual or potential, the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially increase demand for urban services in rural areas, including but not limited to streets, parking, utilities, fire protection, police and schools. The initial Planning Department Staff Report determined that this criterion was satisfied. A similar determination was made by the Planning Advisory Commission, and the Staff Report detennination remained constant. The development proposal will be conditioned so as to require urban service provisions (including: streets, parking, utilities, fire protection, police and schools) that are equal to or less than the development that could occur on the parcels under their existing RR20 zoning designation. - Streets: Fronts McEwan Prairie Road/Traffic Impact and Trip Generation analysis dictates that the proposal will generate fewer trips than build out under present zoning designation (ATTACHMENT J) - Parking: Will be provided on-site by applicants pursuant to the Parking Ordinance and conditions imposed in conjunction with the special use permit process. Page 13 of 16 Utilities: Will be provided on-site by applicants—water, septic and garbage demand will be equal to or less than demand if built out under present zoning designation. The record from January 13, 2009 proceedings indicates that Planning Staff determined that the proposed land use (self storage) would not present significant impact in terms of sewage/ septic requirements. Fire protection: Applicants will design project to ensure that resulting demand on fire protection services will be equal to or less than demand if built out under present zoning designation. - Police: Applicants will design project to ensure that resulting demand on police protection services will be equal to or less than demand if built out under present zoning designation. - Schools: The proposal will generate no increased demand on schools, as contrasted with build out under present zoning designation Stormwater management: A comprehensive stormwater management plan will be developed by applicants in conjunction with special use permit application. 5) CRITERION 5 - No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if, either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential, the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially interfere with the Growth Management Act goal to encourage development in urban areas where adequate public services and facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. The initial Planning Department Staff Report determined that this criterion was satisfied. A similar determination was made by the Planning Advisory Commission, and the Staff Report remained constant. Applicants' proposal, to conditionally rezone to RC2 with a limited range of uses including a self storage facility, is not contrary to the goals and intent of the Growth Management Act. As detailed above, the subject parcels constitute a uniquely situated enclave,well-positioned to serve the well-documented need for a self storage facility to serve existing residential development (see letters in support). The January 13, 2009 record indicates that Commissioner Shelton has perceived a need for commercial storage facilities in Mason County, and there are only three designated Urban Growth Areas in Mason County. The size, zoning and configuration of surrounding parcels in the vicinity dictate that it is unlikely that any other parcels in the vicinity are well-suited for re-zone requests. Applicants' proposal, to Page 14 of 16 restrict the range of uses to simply enable the property owners to apply for a special use permit to construct a self storage facility complies with the Growth Management Act, as the development sought will not encourage development in rural areas. Rather, the development sought will serve existing residential development in the vicinity and will do so in a manner that burdens public services and facilities equal to or less than build out under the present zoning category. 6) CRITERION 6- No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if, either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development, whether actual or potential, the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to materially interfere with the Growth Management Act goal to encourage retention of open space, to conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and generally to protect the environment, including air and water quality. The initial Planning Department Staff Report determined that this criterion was satisfied. A similar determination was made by the Planning Advisory Commission, and the Staff Report remained constant. As depicted in photographs of single family residential development in the vicinity (see ATTACHMENT K), single family residential development on small parcels impacts open space and habitat, and it is unlikely that the proposed development would have greater impacts than full build out presently authorized under the existing zoning designation. 7) CRITERION 7 - No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if, either by itself or together with other rezoning and/or development,whether actual or potential, the cumulative impacts of such zoning would be to create pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to increase population growth in rural areas as projected in the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. The initial Planning Department Staff Report determined that this criterion was satisfied. A similar determination was made by the Planning Advisory Commission. The subject parcels constitute a unique enclave— with location, size and configuration that is unique from other undeveloped parcels in the vicinity (ATTACHMENT Q. With the exception of one block of parcels(32134-23-00020, 32134-32-00000, 32134-24-00020, and 32134-3 1-00000—owned by Keith and Peggy Schouviller), all other similarly situated parcels in the vicinity are either large parcels that conform with existing RR20 or RR5 zoning designations, or are smaller parcels already developed with single family residences. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, would not create pressure to change land use Page 15 of 16 designations of other lands, because the characteristics of the subject parcels are distinguishable from other parcels in the vicinity, and because other parcels in the vicinity are not candidates for similar rezone applications - given that their size conforms with existing zoning and/or they are already developed with single family residences. The proposed development (self storage) would not create pressure to increase population growth in the rural area. In contrast, the proposed development would serve a need associated with existing rural development. The proposed development would actually prevent increased population growth in this rural area, as opposed to build out under the current RR20 zone, which would result in population increase. Planning staff advised on the record, January 13, 2009, that in the event this rezone were approved, other business activities would be prevented from locating within '/z mile of the subject parcels. 8) CRITERION 8 -These criteria shall not be construed to prevent corrective rezoning of land necessitated by clerical error of typography or topography committed in the original zoning of such land. Planning staff determined that this criterion is not applicable. On its face, however, the RR20 zoning designation applied to the subject parcels is not a reasonable zoning designation, and applicants wish to emphasize this point for consideration. SUMMARY In sum, the proposed rezone from RR20 to RC2, as conditioned, satisfies the applicable criteria set forth under Code section 17.05.080, and the conditional rezone should be granted. Page 16 of 16 ATTACHMENT A L WARNING: MASON COUNTY HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO BUILD, IMPROVE, SCALE: 1"=200' MAINTAIN OR OTHERWSIE SERVICE THE PRIVATE ROADS, IF ANY, CONTAINED � WITHIN OR PROVIDING SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS 0 100 200 400 FND. 1" I.P. SNORT SUBDIVISION. W/CAP S. T.CO. NORTH LINE, (JAMES A. BRIX) SE 1/4, SEC. 33 SHOWN ON' MON. AS SHO ON PLAT OF RAINBOW LAKE, G S 88'04'28' E 1981.97 STCO 1981.87 BK. 12, PG. 104, RECORDS Lf rw 700.00 _ w OF MASON COUNTY, WA. 350.00 300.00 n ' =••'},F.N���� SOT 4 O M LOT 3 322.38 (THAUAS L.8 ) • ti� * I �F 2.00'AC. ( w AN 1 TA T. DRAKE 0 1 .82 AC, o LOT 2 LOT 1 — — 4�:� tiBb 3 P �I ■ o h m 1 .81 AC. O `^° p (BARBARA JEAN BOLM) i x; 0 146.462 ■ o N 1.81 AC. 0 �= 15'0220' _Q1 35279 �' o (GA ILEN P. & PATSY R. R=1115.92 Alf 1 "��0;+ o 87 95. ■ m 155 73 z SMITH ET. AL.) c'A, q� � L=292.91 Cc rvA A, 79'47 14 t� .• I\\\� I RD. LINE, o= 8 49'30"NOTE: SEE SURVEY BY S I MPSON o= 1032 SE 114, SEC. 33 TIMBER R=1115.s2 / _ TIMBER CO. , BK. 12, PG. 104, R=1115.92 L=171.88 C) L=205.29 w RECORDS OF MASON COUNTY, WA. "ALTERNATIVE DRAINFIELDS WILL BE REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE LOT SIZE LEGEND: MINIMUM IN CLASS ONE SOIL. THESE SYSTEMS MUST CONSIST OF AT LEAST • =#5 IRON BAR & PLASTIC SHORT o PL A T Pb) METHODDCSAND1;INED TRENCHES. WAC 298-96-090 z YELLOW CAP SET 0 O =FOUND DRIFT PIN UNLESS SIMPSON PROPERTIES, INC. OTHERWISE NOTED EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES EQUIPMENT: LIETZ 6 SECOND THEODOLITE WITH EDM NW` 114, 1 N =POSSIBLE WELL CJ ■ =SOIL LOG SE 114, 200' CAL 19RATED CHA I N AND in NE 114, SE 114, PROCEDURE: FIELD TRAVERSE 91-212SP SHORT PLAT # /y/ SEC. 33, TWN. 2 IN. , R. 3W. , W.M. APPROVED - -9,t MAIN OFFICE, SHELTON, WA. 98584 HOLM�IN ASSOCIATES (206)426-3381 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PTN. OF PARCEL 1321334000000 421 NORTH 3RD, SHEL TON, WA, GENERA ICES DIRECTOR (206)426-2990 98564 ATTACHMENT B I � h �`-z � �t a ..�+2,���C�ey'�AySJ�,�'*� �.-�• �"m°�r i r' � .'t3=_i'" � t .% '� „rye � A a < nW J � �,.. Lea'Y3r' ssQp salt � � .4�`it�•a�n� � ; .'�!r� ,` .- '&T r1 „'' r _ `•, "S .� .k± y � 4� '4g. .a,y�.,� ,fir.,. ;s�t 1�,� ,!. ^�i�Jri � .t �}t Fy.�„t+p,y''$. J e 3 ,7s+ tr .�'� 4',fe• '+ _. -+c�f„' �`,t� s'�-t,.. `'t5v ..�, ✓-,`?� ar'k ; '�i � - 4 •�:. "hY_ � ao•d';�Y ..,r'��x ,y at C ''4,n ���"��s� yyt. ,.e,.- r� � '� .; • �� :[ :Tz�.� +E Tc > .�,�," 'te-�ic���S� R�� i .�, �`�"".4c�.ir �y .�«��R`�•��� � bk rs��§w�sy, � s � r •,•rye �'�k''.�'��w'�a � F r �1�� -';`+ ia�svri+f,�. -�i�tl s ,� �o1,y, rw .sue �>_..' "�.n:> ��};; ,� �' 3r '�' �. •"��• ..�' �Y. �t+y�'s� � •" a ?:s.... �^� _ , p 1i';hy.? `wax yam: �!?•.'4{ �yX; qt . ;' • a"�k.'+��' ` �•*�..� ,-,��{ts �'���s �:„S Y _:� . ��L , � 4�`tg� Y `f 1t ALA • � 1 � M �. y�•r4� ++ '""". 51 t, ^*��iz�.s►� r � �. S a' .�� a.'�'a� 'z"+`�st� �1y�e.`y ..'� _ � '" 3•h H �c . .+s" s',-�� � wry, � i>k,_ '•i. � �,. tre �'a_►_- ja,•e'�' s �� ��' •xR''y'S� �'4f�$.. '� >�.?'�A ." �*Y, r.3'�a �'., � ,. �rs'�`.. •��� r'� � ,+,..�. � ' �._ 3 r� ".. ��� ...�lys-�5�. �i.s��.�� � J- ; h�a�• •�"�a h a iY ya�b r -' �. f t y. P ri y;. Y 'T _ f - r, � 4 '..,+��' `�� 2"� .�l�> �+� - r a « � \�iTyi, ,�pu��t!�'"t,�'�1`!° �-', :Y• '�s M1 r V ,A . °}- 'ty y} �� , Nr.���R,p:• � n � r.•>i:: � y.�•� 'L�'. ,. i �. ,!6..� � :r ��yw1,s.$�-' L ,� ' l£ fir '�•, � + r � ti.`1`4* �. �+�1,3i �4"z� _. - �t S. �*,*'. �,�^` ,4 �' �TF.;: r� r`'�C a�.-1� `� '4 Jr Y — 3�-�� ^4 '��{ ,� .x-!` t►e .�.Wf.:, f '6. �,.�(.. .J.�..4����i y� �� - ��, R!'y���Y =.!� it S'T.� ♦ , .'k � �y ... , .a � S �'I�y-Sri r. 1�' �_ ��S `� '� �" :�:'���i`�(t�.�a a }- � +7�rr �• t� �'c$ 'L;-7'1c !^* � ,t„�i` .s,�4`+d. ; _ � 1y.a���� •. �k. �c�'� - - � s�. ak !}��7►3�• L$.i\ Qt4 ♦ L� \�`+v�sr'�I.t�' �-^� �� * �a �,4jL F•c '1,� '1�.. :� k � = � v 'S _ }i��C - \ti1i' Ro ;: �' • ',��'. L� n`4a �" '!`sib Y � - : _ r -� i .,+� rD�� • .,f' ���� a "':Mom' _ � �' !• 4r ATTACHMENT C � f E tI' I t T21NR3W ZL � R � ERAS F T20NR3W N Spoof >� Parac{i sP �� re-vest- Dli� oy W E 1 inch = 833 feet 1 inch =0.16 miles Lv�l l v A S .I ;,TM oe -. .._.__ .—.._..'--..--__ —.___—.'_.--...._t._^ ---�...—.�-----•_mot_ ,Lkq:�'�L-s �"` 3t�0 AC . J_A& v-P v 0 SF - T21 NR3W 17�s, LA �'T'1 l•-�it ! '''� (•:� � '�y �' � ,� ' + T20NR3W z µ Era f. 9�LaF r N S�DU� pct��c(�SP ��' L- W j- \ 1 inch = 833 feet E 1 inch = 0.16 miles S ,Lvr l l Y 1C-� _J ATTACHMENT D w Mason County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on Rezone Request No. 08-05 Nathan & Debra Stout/Patrick Paradise DATE: September 15,2009 9:30 A.M. Mason County Bldg. I Commissioners Chambers SITE: Parcel Numbers: 32133-40-90021 [1.81 ac.];3213340-90022 [1.81 ac.]; 32133-40-90023 [1.82 ac.]; 3213340-90024 [2.00 ac.]. [7.44 ac.total] BACKGROUND: This rezone request of four small parcels from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Commission on November 3, 2008. On January 13, 2009,the Board reviewed this request,received public testimony, and adopted a motion by 2 to 1 vote to deny that request. A Land Use Petition was filed with the Mason County Superior Court on February 3, 2009 and Judge Findlay issue a March 9, 2009 order to remand the review back to the Mason County Board of Commissioners. On August 20, 2009, Robert Johnson and Kristen French (attorney-representatives) submitted new application materials for consideration in this + rezone request review. SYNOPSIS: The newly submitted materials has revised this application from a request from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone,to a request for a strictly conditioned rezone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. The applicants have proposed limiting possible land uses on the four parcels (total of 7.44 acres), proposed using a larger property line setbacks, and using buffer plantings and structures to separate the proposed land uses from the road and adjacent properties. This public hearing is in front of the County Commissioners and upon completion of written and spoken testimony the Commissioners will make their decision on this remanded rezone request. STAFF PLANNER: Allan Borden (360)427-9670 ext. 365 Dept. Of Community Development P.O. Box 279 Shelton WA 98584 i HAWORMCOMPLAMBCC issue paper Stout Paradise rezone Sept 09.doc 2 4 NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Mason County Commissioners will hold a public hearing at the Mason County Courthouse Building 1,Commission Chambers,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton, WA 98584 on Tuesday,September 15, 2-09 at 9:30 a.m. SAID HEARING will be to review Rezone Request No. 08-05, submitted by Nathan&Debra Stout; and Patrick Paradise, for four parcels totaling 7.44 acres [parcel nos. 32133-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40- 90024] in the Rural Area,to change the zone designation from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone; the-location of the request is on McEwan Prairie Rd.just west of Mason Lake Rd. Under a March 9, 2009 order of Mason County Superior Court,this request for a change in Rural Residential zoning was remanded back to Mason County Board of Commissioners for additional public hearing review. If you have questions on the contents of the proposed change in zoning, contact Allan Borden (360) 427-9670, Ext. 365. If special accommodations are needed, contact the Commissioners'office,427-9670,Ext. 419. DATED this l 8th day of August,2009. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON annon Goudy, i of the Board cc: Journal -Publ 2t: 8/20/09 & 8/27/09 Planning (Bill: Planning—PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584) ROBERT W. JOHNSON r.i.L.c. ATTORNEI AT LAW ANGLE BUILDING P.O.BOX IaUO SHELTON. WASHINGTON W84 Rnhen W.Johnsen TELEPHONE 1360142&9723 Kiwin L French FAN ;60)1?6 1QO7 August 19, 2009 Mason County Board of Commissioners c/o Mason County Department of Community Development Planning Division P.O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: Stout/Paradise rezone application (080-05) Mason County Commissioners: Rezone applicants Stout and Paradise ("applicants") set forth the following with respect to the proposed rezone. First, applicants suggest that limitations be imposed as conditions on the proposed Rural Commercial 2 (RC2) zone. Second, applicants suggest that the buffer and landscape requirements set fonh in Mason County Code section 17.03.036 be applied to the subject property to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses. Under the existing Rural Residential 20 (RR20) zone. no such buffer/landscaper requirements apply. The application of 17.03.036 would therefore be an additional protection afforded to adjacent landowners. Third, in addition to buffer requirements, applicants agree to the most protective setback requirements applicable in either zone: front yard setback of at least 30 feet, side and rear yard setbacks of at least 50 feet. Applicants agree that said restrictions/limitations, setbacks and buffer requirements may be filed with the County Assessor as binding upon all parcels subject to the rezone application (tax parcel numbers 32133-40-90024, 23, 22, and 21). USES The following list sets fonh those uses typically allowed in the RC2 zone (Mason County Code section 17.04.330) that would be stricken and not allowed with respect to the rezone at issue: Permitted Uses: • F on v enience/ . er-al store • Retail • Re an• Vehicle and equipment FepaiF and maintenance (awomotive, truGk, faFm implement, and small Qnn�r>nc • c T!C]TIGJ SmlwrncL • Pref ssio a! • Puabl e m eiiff c r a, • Nurse ;s • Post office/Fire Station • Church • Local community and recreation centers ConiffieFeialigovemment-operated day ear--e • Single family residential Uses Permitted with Special Use Permit: • Ga-s • Self storage Should the present owners of the subject parcels or their successors desire authorization of uses not allowed pursuant to the list set forth above, a formal request would need to be submitted to the planning commission for recommendation to the board of commissioners, with the board of commissioners vested with the final determination on any such modification request. The modification process would mirror the standard re-zone process. BUFFER Assuming categorization of self storage as a Category V land use, and assuming adjacent land uses categorized as Category I land uses (Mason County Code section 17.03.034), "E" Category buffer requirements could be implemented (Mason County Code section 17.03.036) - required buffer width of 25', 8' fencing or 5' earthen berm, and plantings of four canopy trees, six under story trees, 24 shrubs and 12 evergreens per 100 lineal feet. Applicants agree to abide by "E" Category buffer requirements in addition to the highest setback requirements applicable in either the RR20 or RC2 zone (30 feet (front yard) and 50 feet (side and rear yard). In sum, this ponion of the agreement will afford buffer-related protection to adjacent landowners that is not afforded under the present RR20 zoning designation. SUMMARY In the event that the rezone application is approved subject to the limitations, conditions and requirements set forth above, a formal agreement will be drafted and presented for signature by the respective parties and recording with the Mason County Auditor. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, KRISTIN L. FRENCH ROBERT W. JOHNSON Attorneys for Applicants GREEN DIAMOND RESOURCE CO JAMES BRIX JR., ET AL PO BOX 9001 2717 MARINE DR SHELTON, WA 98584 BREMERTON, WA 98312-2041 ALWAYS PAINTING& CONSTRUCTION DANIEL R WERST 301 E WALLACE KNEELAND BLVD 1560 E MASON LAKE RD. SHELTON, WA 98584 SHELTON, WA 98584 ISLAND WEST ASSOCIATES KEITH& PEGGY SCHOUVILLER PO BOX 714 1310 E MASON LAKE RD SHELTON, WA 98584-0714 SHELTON, WA 98584-7509 LEO &MARY MURPHY BARBARA JEAN BOLM 1461 E MASON LAKE RD PO BOX 1995 SHELTON, WA 98584-7510 SHELTON, WA 98584-5032 GAILEN & PATSY SMITH MARYANN&BILLY DAVIS 2481 E McEWAN PRAIRIE RD PO BOX 640 SHELTON, WA 98584-9678 SEABECK, WA 98380-0640 MICHAEL&MEGHAN LUCAS STEVEN&ABIGAIL HAGEMAN 2460 E McEWAN PRAIRIE RD 2480 E McEWAN PRAIRIE RD SHELTON, WA 98584-9678 SHELTON, WA 98584-9678 HARVEY& MARJORIE RICHARDS ALAN& ROSEMARY WAYNES 2520 E McEWAN PRAIRIE RD 90 E EVERGREEN DR SHELTON, WA 98584-9678 SHELTON, WA 98584-8532 LARRY& PEGGY HARPER SIDNEY& BILLIE WORKMAN 80 E EVERGREEN DR 2029 STEVENS ST. SHELTON, WA 98584-8532 SHELTON, WA 98584 QUANAH L GREENWOOD PAUL WILDMAN 60 E EVERGREEN DR 1261 E MASON LAKE RD. SHELTON, WA 98584-8532 SHELTON WA 98584-7508 NATHAN & DEBRA STOUT JOHN DIEHL P.O. BOX 2371 678 E PORTAGE RD. SHELTON WA 98584 SHELTON WA 98584 - - 17.04.330 Rural Commercial 2 (RC 2) al 17.04.331 Purpose. (.See Section 17.02.043) 17.04.332 Uses Permitted. A. USES: Creiivetafescefgejiert!siarc. R•ctaii• Rtsisujtfri. vehicle aiid I _ e I sj. S►jjaII free. L-atrndrt-. Ptibli V ll=ry, Post office/Fire Station. Church. Local conurtunit , and recreation centers. Single-family residential. - B. USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT:—Ge . Self storage. 17.04.333 Lot Requirements. A. Density. 1 residence per lot. Lot size. Dependent on subject property location. B. 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 sate access(es) to roads. C. Front yard setback. 30 feet. D. Side and rear yard setbacks. 15 feet for lots contiguous to lots zoned commercial or industrial use: other\%Ise. 25 feet. Buffer plantings required in the first 10 feet of this setback. 17.04.334 Building Regulations. A. Floor Area Ratio. 1:5, except for fire stations. B. Size. Maximum of 4.500 sq. feet for single tenant and 7.500 sq. feet for multiple tenant: no maximum for dwellings. C. Height. Two floors not to exceed 35 feet maximum except for agricultural buildings, antennas. or water tanks. or necessary structural elements for an otherwise compliant permitted land use. 17.04.335 Signs. Signs are limited to: 1)a sign attached to.the building with an area not to exceed 10 percent of the area of the building face. and 2)a detached sign with an area size not to exceed 10 percent of the building face. that is free-standing, and with a height maximum of 25 feet or height of building. whichever is less. Temporary- signs permitted by section 17.05.025 are allowed. Signs prohibited by section 17.03.203 are not allowed. 17.04.336 Off-street parking. Off street parking (stail number and arrangement)shall be provided according with the provisions of the Mason County Parking Standards. 17.04.337 Special Provisions. RESERVED MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 l - 25 - 17.03.036 Buffer and Landscape Requirements As a method for allowing the placement of differing land uses adjacent to one another. buffer yards shall be required. These requirements do not apply to a)urban growth areas,where the public should consult the specific adopted urban growth area plan for density and dimensional requirements for the applicable zone designation and b Rural Lands, where the standards included in Chapter 17.04 shall be applied. Subsection(F),the additional requirement for land adjacent to Agricultural Resource lands,continues to apply to Rural Lands. The location.size and type of buffer yard shall be determined by comparing the category of the proposed land use with the categories of all abutting land uses.in accordance with FIGURE 17.03.036. Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the number of plant units required per one hundred (100)linear feet of buffer yard. Any land set aside as a buffer yard may be used in calculating the development density of a parcel of land. A. It is the intent of this section that the establishment of any buffer vard pursuant to the criteria set forth herein will result in full compliance with the standards for maximum environmental noise levels as set forth in WAC 173-60. Buffer yards exceeding the minimum requirements of this Section may be required in the event that maximum environmental noise level requirements are not met. It shall be the sole responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the buffer vard is established to assure compliance with these state-established noise levels. B. Determination of Buffer Yard Requirements. To determine the type of buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels.or between a parcel and a street,the following procedure shall be followed: 1. Identify the land use category of the proposed use by referring to FIGURE 17.03.034. ` 2. Identify the uses of all adjacent properties by on-site survey. 3. Identify the land use categories of all adjacent parcels by referring to FIGURE 17.03.034. ` 4. Determine the buffer vard required on each boundary(or boundary segment) by referring to FIGURE 17.03.036. C. Responsibility for buffer yard. 1. When a use is the first use to develop on one of two adjacent.vacant parcels, the first use shall provide the buffer which FIGURE 17.03.034 requires next to vacant land. The second use to develop shall.at the time of its development, provide all additional plant material and/or land necessary to provide the total buffer yard required between those two uses. 2. When an existing use changes to a higher intensity use as determined by FIGURE 17.03.034.all of the buffer yard requirements of this Chapter shall be met. 3. When an existing use expands.the Administrator shall determine whether the extent and location of the expansion shall require conformity with this Chapter. In making such determination.the Administrator may consider the MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 L� - 26 - size. location and purpose of the expansion. the relationship of any existing structures to the expansion.and the nature of surrounding land uses. D. Exemption from Buffer Yard Requirements. When a land use requires direct and unobstructed access to an adjacent transportation facility such as a railroad or airport, the requirements of this Chapter shall be waived to the extent necessary to allow for such access. E. Use of Existing Materials. 1. Existing, healthy plant materials on a parcel may be used to meet the requirements of this Chapter. 2. Any open space created pursuant to Chapter 16.22 may be used to meet the requirements of this Chapter. 3. Any wetland or associated buffer set aside pursuant to any federal. state or County environmental regulation may be used to meet the requirements of this Chapter. F. Additional requirements for Agricultural Lands For lands adjacent to Agricultural Resource Lands, in addition to the buffervard requirements otherwise required, all strictures or uses shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred (100) feet from designated agricultural tracts for land designated as Urban Growth Areas. Rural Activity Centers or Rural Community Centers,or fifty(50)feet for lands designated as Rural Areas.except for any structure or uses which have been identified as permitted uses in Agricultural Resource Lands. Residential clusters created on lands adjacent to Agricultural Resource Lands through a performance subdivision as provided in Chapter 16-22, MCC. shall be separated from the Agricultural Resource land by the designated open space areas to a minimum width of one hundred (100) feet on lands designated as Urban Grog+th Areas. Rural Activity Centers or Rural Community Centers_orfifty(50)feet for lands designated as Rural Areas. ` G. Required Plant Material Specifications. FtriPRF. 17.03.039 identifies the minimum sizes of the various types of plant materials required under this Chapter. H. Substitution of Plant Materials. 1. In buffer yards D. E,and F.evergreen canopy or evergreen under story trees may be substituted for deciduous canopy or under story without limitation. 2. In buffer yards A.B,and C.up to fifty(50%)percent of deciduous canopy or under story may be substituted with evergreen canopy or under story. 3. In all buffer yards. evergreen or conifer shrubs may be substituted for deciduous shrubs without limitation. 1. Maintenance of Plant Materials. 1. All planting materials required by this Section shall be maintained by the property owner in a manner to assure the health of the planting, and to MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 - 27 - assure that the buffer yard continues to serve its intended function. 2. If any required planting materials shall cease to serve their intended function due to size. age or health. the property owner shall replace such planting material with the same or similar plant types, as provided herein. J. Variations of buffer vard requirements. 1. In all buffer yards. planting requirements may be reduced by twenty-five (25%)percent by increasing the width of the buffer by fift% (50%) percent. '_. In all buffer yards, the required width of the buffer yard may be reduced by fitly (50%) percent by increasing the amount of plantings by one hundred (100%)percent. 3. In buffer yards A and B.the buffer yard width OR the amount ofplanting may be reduced by fifty (50%) percent if any fence or berm shop.\-n in FIGURE 17.03.037 is used. 4. In buffer yard C. the buffer yard width OR the amount of planting may be reduced by fifty(50%)percent if a structure F3 or above is used. 5. In buffer yard D. the buffer yard width OR the amount of planting may be reduced by fifty(50%)percent if a structure F4 or B2 or above is used. 6. In buffer_Yards E and F,the buffer yard width OR the amount of planting may be reduced by fifty(50%)percent if a structure F6 or BW 1 is used. K. Uses allowed in a buffer yard. I- Where a wetland or open space set aside for any other purpose is used as a buffer yard.any use normally alloyed in such wetland or open space may be allowed also within the buffer _Yard, except that mining. logging, or other forestry activities shall not be permitted in a buffer vard. 2. Required stormwater facilities may be located within buffer yards. provided that the landscaping of such facility complies with the requirements of this Section. L. In the determination of applicable buffer yards, either through this subsection or in Chapter 17.04. the front yard setback shall not be less than 10 feet. except by the granting of a variance(Section 17.05.030). I MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 'i - 28 - 17.03.037 Density Transfer and Agricultural Resource Lands The following provisions apply only to Agricultural Resource Lands or to land in the Urban Growth Area which has received a transfer of density as herein described: A. The standard residential density allowed for development on Agricultural Resource Lands is one dwelling unit per 10 acres. except as otherwise provided-ill this section. l. Resource subdivisions or short plats in Agricultural Resource Lands are subject to the cluster subdivision provisions of Chapter 16.23 of the Mason County Code. The maximum allowed density of such cluster subdivisions is one dwelling unit per five acres. The maximum number of residential lots that may be created. not including any lots restricted to agricultural/open space use, is equal to the number of dwelling units allowed. However. where there was a single family dwelling on the property as of December 30, 1997. then an additional residence lot may be created. subject to the following: a. Only one Such additional lot may be created for all land which was contiguous and in and in the same ownership as of December 31. 1997. b. Each residence existing or vested at the time of application for the land division shall be each placed on their own residential lot. 2. Each residential lot created as provided in subsection 17. above, is allowed one dwelling unit B. Agricultural Resource Lands are hereby -ranted an additional densitv of one dwelling unit per five acres. except that those Agricultural Resource lands which lie within an Urban Growth Area are granted an additional density of four dwelling units per acre, provided that. in both cases, this additional density shall only be used if transferred to land which is not Agricultural Resource Land but which is within the Urban Growth Area. C. Par, or all of the Agricultural Resource Lands maximum allowed residential density nta� be transferred for use on land which is not Agricultural Resource Land but which is within the Urban Growth Area rather than used on the originating property. D. In the Urban Grov`nh Areas. density transfer under the provisions of this Section may be used on the receiving property in order to allow residential development up to the"Maximum Residential Density.-shoxvn in figure 17.03.032. without a performance based subdivision and without compliance with the performance standards or criteria for such subdivisions as established in Chapter 16.22 of the Mason County Code. MASON COI)NTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 - 29 - Figure 17.03.036 Buffer Yard Requirements Adjacent Existing Land Use Classification Proposed Land Use I 11 111 IV V VI Intensity Class 1 A B C D E F Il B A B D D F Ill C B A C D E IV D D C B D E V F D D D C D Vl 1 F E E D D MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 - 30 - Illustrations of Berms & Fences Figure 17.03.037 FENCES BERMS Symbol Height Material Symbol licight Material F1 44" B 1 4 Garth jJ11011110", Wood Picket I I 6' r Fi 48" Wood Rail F3 6' Bcrni Height Fj 8 ME BERM WALLS Wood Stockade Bwl 4' Berm w/6' Masonry Wall RWZ 5' Berm w/7' Masonry Will BW.1 6' Berm w/8' Masonry Wall ICI— , Less Intensive I More Intensive F6 81 Masonry Wall (Poured Concrete,Cement Block,Brick,etc) MASON COUNTY DFVFLOPMFNT REGULATIONS tune 2.2009 - 31 - FIG. 17.03.038 BUFFER YARD STANDARDS Bufferyard A Bufferyard R Bufferyard Bufferyard D Bufferyard E Bufferyard F C Buffer Width 5' 10' 15' 20' 25' 50' STRIT' IIRF. no 110 No F3 or B I* F4 car 132* F5 or B3* REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' CANOPY TRF:I:S 0.6 1 2 3 4 8 UNDER STORY TRFF(S 1 2 4 6 6 12 SHRUBS 0 3 6 9 24 48 FVGR(',RCFiNS 0 0 0 0 12 24 * see FIC,111RE 17.03.037 for structure details. Figure 17.03.039 Plant Material Types Plant Material Type Planting in Buffer Yards All Other Plantings abutting Vacant Lands Canopy Tree(Deciduous) Single Stem 1 '12 inch caliper 2 inch caliper Multi-Stem Clump 6 feet height 8 feet height Under story Tree (Deciduous) 4 feet height 6 feet height Evergreen 4 feet height 6 feet height Shrub Deciduous I gal (15 inchcs height) 2 gal (24 inches height) Evergreen I gal (12 inches height) 2 gal (18 inches height) NOTE: These requirements refer to the minimum size of plant materials at the time of planting. MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS .tune 2.2009 - 24 - FIGURE 17.03.034 Classification of Land Uses Category 1 • RV parks • Animal clinics • Bed and Breakfast, 12 or fewer • Automobile service station Open Space guest rooms • Vehicle sales • Passive recreation areas • Vacant land • Vehicle repairs • Walking or hiking trails a Auction house • Cemeteries • Contractor yards • Home and garden centers Residential,Type 1 Category I]] • Health clubs • Detached,single-familv . Wholesale dwelling; Idu/20 ac.or greater Residential,Type 111 a Boat vards/marinas • Accessory apartment • Attached or detached single- • Mobile home sales • Home occupation family dwellings,more than 1 • Child day care,family du/ac Indust ria 1,Type 1 • Multi-family dwellings • Warehouse,distribution Agriculture,Type 1 • Mobile home parks • Light Industry • Crops • Wholesale • Orchards Group Care Facilities,Type 11 • Vineyards • Adult retirement communities • Pasture • Assisted living facilities • Farm stands Category VI • Greenhouses,no sales to the Category 1V public g Industrial,Type 11 • Heavy industry Lodging,Type 11 • Mining,extraction Category 11 • Bed and Breakfast . Airport • Motel Residential,Type II Boarding House Agriculture,Type 111 • Detached,single-familN Hotel • Forestry dwelling; Idu/ac. to Idu/20 ac. • Logging • Two to four-family dwelling: I du/ac.or greater Commercial,Type 1 Rifle range (hours of operation limited to Wrecking/junk yard 7:00a.m. to 8:00p.m.) Public Institutional Professional offices • Schools • Retail,less than 10,000 s.f. • Churches • Medical clinics • Libraries Banks • Post Offices Agriculture,Type 11 Recreation • Greenhouses • Parks • Nursery yards • Active recreation areas • Livestock • Bicycle/equestrian trails • Kennels • Parking Areas,Lots Group Care Facilities,Type 1 • Cottage Industries • Adult-dav care facility • Child day care,commercial • Group homes Category V it Lodging,Type I Commercial,Type 1) • Campgrounds • Retail,general • Hospitals MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 ATTACHMENT E Dennis D. Reynolds Law Office 200 Winslow Way W.Suite 380 Bainbridge Island,WA 98110 LAM Use•Fisheries law•Environmental Law-Business Law•Indian Law•Real Estate 206.780.6777 206.780.6w fax ww.ddrlaw.corn November 17, 2008 By Email (rwtana,rwta com) and U.S. Mail R.W. Thorpe&Associates, Inc. 705 Second Avenue, #710 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Johnson Rezone Dear Robert: You have asked that I provide legal support for Jack and Steve Johnson, LLC's rezone pending with Mason County. The parcel subject to the rezone is located within Belfair Urban Growth Area. The proposal is to change the zoning to General Commercial- Business Industrial. Specifically, you suggest that a set of conditions offered to support the rezone to set out in a concomitant agreement. I have reviewed this approach, and concur it is sound and consistent with Washington land use law. Washington courts have long recognized the validity and enforceability of concomitant agreements between property owners and local jurisdictions in connection with zoning approvals or amendments. See, e.g., State ex rel. Myhre v. City of Spokane, 70 Wn.2d 207, 215, 422 P.2d 790 (1967) (validity of concomitant zoning agreement between City and property owner upheld); City of Redmond v Kezner, 10 Wn. App. 332, 337-38, 517 P.2d 625(1973)(court granted City's request for specific performance of concomitant agreement against property owner). According to one of the state's earliest decisions on these types of public-private agreements, "concomitant agreements should be declared invalid only if it can be shown that there was no valid reason for a change [from the otherwise applicable zoning) and that they are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, and have no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, or the city is using the concomitant agreement for bargaining and sale to the highest bidder or solely for the benefit of private speculators." State ex rel. Myhre v. City of Spokane, 70 Wn.2d at 216. (Emphasis supplied.) Later Supreme Court opinions have confirmed that in Washington: [cloncomitant agreements may be valid appendages to the exercise of zoning power. The indicia of validity in such agreements include: (1)The performance called for is directly related to public needs which may be expected to result from the proposed usage of the property to be rezoned. (2) Fulfillment of those needs is an appropriate function of the contracting governmental body. (3)Performance will mitigate the public burden in meeting those resulting needs by placing it more directly on the party whose property use will give rise to them (4)The agreement involves no purported relinquishment by the governing body of its discretionary zoning power. Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wn.2d 858, 889, 890-91,480 P.2d 489(1971). [69629-7) R.W. Thorpe &Associates, Inc. November 17, 2008 Page 2 Here, there is no question but that the offered Johnson Concomitant Agreement can be lawfully and validly adopted by Mason County. The concomitant agreement you suggest would further the public health, safety and welfare by imposing substantial conditions to mitigate any adverse impacts identified which might result from the use and development of the property as approved in the Ordinance granting the required rezone. Specifically, the suggested concomitant agreement is one "to neutralize any expected negative impact of the proposed property usage, and not one`which seeks to extract some collateral benefit from the property owners." Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wn.2d at 889. Therefore,the proposed concomitant agreement would be valid and legally enforceable under Washington law, to my opinion. In this regard, this is not a close question. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please get back to me if you have additional questions. Very truly yours, DENNIS D. REYNOLDS LAW OFFICE %_1 "A X1-44� Dennis D. Reynolds cc: Jack and Steve Johnson, LLC (via email and U.S. Mail) DDR/cr 169629-71 nt-vv iu: oeveiopment agreements —Authorized. Page 1 of 1 RCW 36.70B.170 Development agreements—Authorized. (1)A local government may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction.A city may enter into a development agreement for real property outside its boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement.A development agreement must set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement.A development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW. (2) RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.190 and section 501, chapter 347, Laws of 1995 do not affect the validity of a contract rezone, concomitant agreement,annexation agreement,or other agreement in existence on July 23, 1995,or adopted under separate authority, that includes some or all of the development standards provided in subsection (3)of this section. (3) For the purposes of this section,"development standards"includes, but is not limited to: (a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential densities,and nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes; (b)The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of state law,any reimbursement provisions,other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees,or dedications; (c) Mitigation measures, development conditions,,and other requirements under chapter 43.21 C RCW; (d)Design standards such as maximum heights,setbacks,drainage and water quality requirements, landscaping, and other development features; (e)Affordable housing; (f)Parks and open space preservation; (g)Phasing; (h)Review procedures and standards for implementing decisions; (i)A build-out or vesting period for applicable standards; and 0)Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure. (4)The execution of a development agreement is a proper exercise of county and city police power and contract authority.A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure,or other facilities.A development agreement shall reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. [1995 c 347§502.] Notes: Findings--Intent-1995 c 347§§ 502-506: 'The legislature finds that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of public and private resources,escalate housing costs for consumers and discourage the commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient use of resources at the least economic cost to the public.Assurance to a development project applicant that upon government approval the project may proceed in accordance with existing policies and regulations,and subject to conditions of approval, all as set forth in a development agreement,will strengthen the public planning process,encourage private participation and comprehensive planning,and reduce the economic costs of development. Further,the lack of public facilities and services is a serious impediment to development of new housing and commercial uses. Project applicants and local governments may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities. It is the intent of the legislature by RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 to allow local governments and owners and developers of real property to enter into development agreements."[1995 c 347§501.) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70B.170 11/18/2008 n�w )o.i un.i 6u: uevelopment agreements—Effect. Page 1 of 1 RCW 36.70B.180 Development agreements—Effect. Unless amended or terminated,a development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement.A development agreement and the development standards in the agreement govern during the term of the agreement,or for all or that part of the build-out period specified in the agreement, and may not be subject to an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.A permit or approval issued by the county or city after the execution of the development agreement must be consistent with the development agreement. [1995 c 347§503.] Notes: Findings —Intent—1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW 36.70B.170. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70B.180 11/18/2008 Lcveiupiiient agreements —xecoraing— Parties and successors bou... Page 1 of 1 RCW 36.7013.190 Development agreements—Recording—Parties and successors bound. A development agreement shall be recorded with the real property records of the county in which the property is located. During the term of the development agreement,the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors, including a city that assumes jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area covering the property covered by the development agreement. [1995 c 347§504.] Notes: Findings --Intent-- _g t 1995 c 347§§ 502 506: See note following RCW 36.70B.170. I http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70B.190 11/18/2008 — /�L•���. LF-vc1UP111c,ir aPfccmems — rumic nearing. Page 1 of 1 RCW 36.7013.200 Development agreements—Public hearing. A county or city shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing.The county or city legislative body or a planning commission, hearing examiner,or other body designated by the legislative body to conduct the public hearing may conduct the hearing. If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development agreement. [1995 c 347§505.1 Notes: Findings --Intent-- 1995 c 347§§ 502-506: See note following RCW 36.70B.170. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70B.200 11/18/2008 agreement must be consistent with the i ence on July 23, 1995, or the development ag 1995 c 347 § ] k development agreement. [ fpted other agreement in exis that includeS some or all of Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW under separate authority, of this Findings— development standards p rovided in subsection(3) 36 70B 170. ction. "development Stan- 36.70B.190 Development agreements—Recording— (3)For tement he purposes of this section, t limited to: Parties and successors bound. erty Tecords of the county irds"includes,but is not Tun ennitted uses, residential the term of the Bevel (a) Project elements such asp shall be recorded a ith s located.Dun, parties in which the prop nY reement is binding on the p ensities, and nonresidential densities and intensities or agreement,the ag that assumes jurisdic- gact fees imposed or opment ag including a city iuildin sizes; of imp and their successors, (b)The amount and payment rovisions of Incorporation or annexation of the area covering applicable p tion through• the development agreement. [1995 c agreed to in accordance with any PP the property covered by any reimbursement provisions,other financial con- state law, owner,inspection fees, or dedica- 347 § 504•1 tnbutions by the property s—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW Finding i lions; development conditions, and 36.70B.►70. (c) Mitigation measures, i ! P agreements hear- other requirements under chapter 43.21 C RCW heights, set- 36.70B.200 Develo ment ag .. or city shall only approve a development (d) Design standards such as maximum. me ,landscaping, ing A county public hearing• backs,drainage and water quality requireordinance or resolution after a p agreement by legislative body or a planning commis- and other development features; The county or city leg designated by the leg- (e)Affordable housing; Sion,hearing examiner,or other body conduct the (f)parks and open space preservation; to conduct the public hearing may �. (g)phasing; implementing islative body ment agreement relates to a project ,1 hearing. if the develop (h) Review procedures and standards for imp lication,the provisions of chapter 3 RCWdevelopment Stan period for applicable standards; permit app appeal of the decision on the decisions; shall apply to the aPP 505.] (i)A build-out or ve g P agreement. [1995 c 347 § 2-506: See note following RCW 50 and development reqent or other appropriate de uirem p Findings—Intent— V) Any 1995 c 347§§ procedure. agreement is a 36.70B.170. power and contract 36,70B.210 Development agreements—Authority to (4) The execution of a city development p aer in RCW 36.70B.170 proper exercise of county and city p obligate a party to A develo went agreement may g impose fees not extended. Nothing P gh 36.70B.200 and section 501,chapter 347,Laws of authority. infrastructure,or other facilities.A through overnments to impose fund or provide services, 1995 is intended to authorize local g uire any development agreement shall reserve authority by aseri- inspection fees,or dedications or to req regulations to the extent required 5a ] impact fees,insp new or different regu 1995 c 347 § other applicable provisions of state public health and safety. [ finds that other financial con by or mitigation measures except as ous threat to pub expressly authorized Findings—latent-1995 c 347§§502-506: "The legislature fin 1995 c 347 § 506.] can result in a P 502-506: See note following RCW the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects rival.resources,escalate housing costs for consumers law. [ waste of public and P comprehensive planning which would Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§ 36.70B.170. at the least economic cost o the 1 Each county and discourage the commitment to make maximum efficient use of resources r Project applicant that upon government ins and plan proceed in accordance with existing Po 36.70B.220 Permit assistance staff. or Fiore that p public.Assurance to a de P 1 royal,all as set forth in a Bevel- p ulatioriS Of ten thousand approval the project may p onditions of aPP rocess,encourage and city having p P gririlt assistance regulations,and Sabi then the public planning p under RCW 36.70A•040 shall designate P t assistance s• An comprehensive planning+and reduce the economic permit app opment agreement,will comp emit assistance private participation and comer ublic facilities and services is a staff whose function i be ae,gn�ted as the p and commercial uses. may costs of development.Further,ment of new housing visions and agree- existing employee serious impediment to devlocal governments may include pro public der this section Project applicants and local meats whereby PP RCW 36•70B•l70 through (2)permit assistance staff designate under applicants are reimbursed over time for financing p staff. . islature by rs of real shall: licants all current local facilities.It o the intent of the leg 1995 c 347§501.1 (a)Make available to permit app to the 36.70B.210 to allow local governments and owners and developers policies that apply property to enter into development agreements" [ overnment regulations and adopted ernment shall provide rnent agreements—Effect. gsubject application. The local government provide copies 36.70B.180 Develop agreement is upon request, publish agreement. A counter copies thereof and, P The staff shall also Unless amended or terminated,b a development t the agr according to chapter 42.56 RCW• lists and enforceable during its term Y P ,or for all and keep current one or iegulationsiand adopted development agreement and the development standards in al explanations of all local government overn during the term of the agreementeem agreement g specified in the agreement, policies; to the public the means of or that part of the build-out pen°d sP dment to a zoning (b)Establish and make known and and may not be subject to an am new zoningobtaining the handouts and related infoeaappli anon of the Hance or development standard or regulation a ation adopted (c) provide assistance regarding. ordinance or development standard . A permit or local government's regulations in particular cases. after the effective tide a of the ho city agreement after the execution of approval issued by 75 2008 ATTACH- MENT F P60N Coa, MASON COUNTY � rp Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N_5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 September 28,2009 Nathan& Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise P.O. Box 2371 Shelton WA 98584 RE: Decision of Board of County Commissioners on Proposed Rezone No. 08-05 by Nathan&Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise. Dear Mr.Nathan& Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise: On September 15, 2009 the Mason County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the Rezone No. 08-05 request from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone in the Rural Area for parcel numbers 32133-40-90021, 32133- 40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024. This review resulted from the Mason County Superior Court Order to remand the January 2009 evaluation of the rezone request back to the Mason County Commissioners. The applicants submitted new application materials that included a strictly conditioned limit of potential land uses under the Rural Commercial 2 zone and additional setbacks and buffer standards. At the September 15,2009 public hearing,the Mason County Board of Commissioners considered the submitted application materials,prepared staff report, and public testimony,and adopted a motion to deny the proposed Rezone No. 08-05 of parcel numbers 32133-40-90021, 32133-40-90022,32133-40-90023,and 32133-40-90024 (7.44 ac.total)from Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone in the Rural Area. The findings of that decision are enclosed. These findings and adoption of motion constitute the decision on this action. The appeal of a legislative action,such as this rezone action,is filed through the Mason County Superior Court. If you have further questions Qn this rezone decision, you may contact me in the Department of Community Development at(360)427-9670 ext. 365. Sincerely, Allan Borden Long Range Planner REQUEST 08-05 - NATHAN & DEBRA STOUT AND PATRICK PARADISE REZONE FOUR PARCELS IN THE RURAL AREA PARCEL NOS. 32133-40-90021,32133-40-90022,32133-40-90023,AND 32133-40-90024(7.44 AC.) FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL 20 ZONE TO RURAL COMMERCIAL 2 ZONE. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS September 15,2009 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Under consideration is the request to rezone four parcels (7.44 ac.) from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone in the Rural Area. 2. The Mason County Development Regulations Sec. 17.05.080 provides criteria and characteristics for consideration in rezoning parcels from an existing land use zone to another zone. A rezone request is reviewed through a public process in front of the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 3. This request was submitted in June 2008, evaluated by the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission in November 2008, and reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners in January 2009 and decided in a motion for denial by 2 yes vote to 1 no vote. That decision to deny was appealed to Mason County Superior Court in February 2009, and the Superior Court judge issued a March 9,2009 Order to remand the request back to the Board of County Commissioners for further review. 4. The applicant has presented in their 2009 submittal materials that certain limitations be included in their rezone review: permitted land uses allowed outright are limited to post office/fire station,church, and local community and recreational centers; uses reviewed by Special Use Permit are limited to self storage. The applicant would also agree to impose greater buffer(vegetation and fencing)and property line setbacks for the development proposed if the rezone was approved. 5. At the September 15,2009 Mason County Board of Commissioners public hearing,the Department of Community Development presented the staff report on the requested rezone and the supplemental application materials provided by their attorney representatives. The applicants' attorney representatives presented the limitations of proposed land uses, increased screening, and greater setbacks from all property lines; and they had a traffic specialist reiterate the findings of his traffic study noting the same or lesser traffic from the proposed Rural Commercial 2 land uses compared to the potential traffic from the existing Rural Residential zone. 6. The Board of County Commissioners asked questions that provided more information regarding the staff report and the applicants' testimony. The Board heard several public comments about the proposed commercial land uses conflicting with existing residential developments; about stormwater, runoff, and traffic; and about the hearing notification regarding the request for the Rural Commercial 2 zone. In their Rezone findings 2008.doc discussion,the Board stated that the request, as modified, is now better presented and more restrained than the request which was presented in January 2009. The Board concluded that the subject parcels are bounded by an extensive area of commercial timberland uses located on large-sized parcels to the north, west, and south; and that an approval of a zone change to commercial uses would cause incompatible land uses adjacent to the existing Rural Residential 5 zoned lands in this portion of the county. 5. As provided in Mason County Development Regulations Section 17.05.079,the Mason County Board of Commissioners does not find that the proposal is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: the subject parcel does not meet the criteria for the requested Rural Commercial 2 zone designation,that the parcel is adjacent to large parcels that are in timberland management, and that a commercial rezone results in conflicts with adjacent land uses and changes to rural character of the area. 6. The proposed rezone would not meet Comprehensive Plan policies RU 500, 512, and 521 which state that rural residential development maintain rural character,that adequate levels of service match rural densities, and that rural densities meet the proper characteristics of the area in which the properties are located. Under the present Rural Residential 20 zone,the existing subdivision procedures would result in a limited residential density area and would not cause a marked increase of demand for services. Using these Comprehensive Plan policies,the proposed rezone of the four stated parcels to a Rural Commercial 2 zone(limited as proposed) does not match the characteristics of the vicinity of the subject properties. Based upon the evaluation of the Mason County Development Regulations Sec. 17.05.080 Rezone Criteria,the Mason County Board of Commissioners findings for the request of Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels {PN: 32133-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024 (total of 7.44 ac.)from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone in the Rural Area are: Criterion 1 (no damage to public health, safety and welfare)is met; based upon staff evaluation that a proposed commercial land uses would need to meet the county's development standards. Criterion 2 (consistent Comprehensive Plan designation)is not met; based upon conclusions that the Rural Residential 20 zone is the most consistent designation (adjacent parcels are blocks of timberlands and large in size). Criterion 3 (no increase of sprawling low-density rural development or uses incompatible to resource-based land uses) is not met;based upon the evaluation that commercial uses would cause such land uses incompatible to timberlands. Criterion 4 (no increase of demand for urban services in rural areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 5 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage development in urban areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 6 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage open space retention, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect air and water quality) is met; based upon staff evaluation that county standards are met. I Rezone findings 2008.doc Criterion 7 (no pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to cause greater than projected population increases in rural areas) is met; based upon evaluation set forth in the staff report. Criterion 8 (corrective rezone of lands) is not applicable to this request. I'I Based upon the preceding findings that the request fails to meet two of the rezone criteria noted above, the Mason County Board of Commissioners denies the request of Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels {PN: 32133-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024 (total of 7.44 ac.) from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone limited as proposed) in the Rural Area. ( p p ) Chair, Mason County Board of Commissioners Date I I I I i I i Rezone findings 2008.doc REQUEST 08-05 - NATHAN & DEBRA STOUT AND PATRICK PARADISE REZONE FOUR PARCELS IN THE RURAL AREA PARCEL NOS. 32133-40-90021,32133-40-90022,32133-40-90023,AND 32133-40-90024(7.44 AC.) FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL 20 ZONE TO RURAL COMMERCIAL 2 ZONE. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS September 15,2009 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Under consideration is the request to rezone four parcels(7.44 ac.) from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone in the Rural Area. 2. The Mason County Development Regulations Sec. 17.05.080 provides criteria and characteristics for consideration in rezoning parcels from an existing land use zone to another zone. A rezone request is reviewed through a public process in front of the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 3. This request was submitted in June 2008, evaluated by the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission in November 2008, and reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners in January 2009 and decided in a motion for denial by 2 yes vote to 1 no vote. That decision to deny was appealed to Mason County Superior Court in February 2009, and the Superior Court judge issued a March 9,2009 Order to remand the request back to the Board of County Commissioners for further review. 4. The applicant has presented in their 2009 submittal materials that certain limitations be included in their rezone review: permitted land uses allowed outright are limited to post office/fire station, church, and local community and recreational centers; uses reviewed by Special Use Permit are limited to self storage. The applicant would also agree to impose greater buffer(vegetation and fencing) and property line setbacks for the development proposed if the rezone was approved. 5. At the September 15, 2009 Mason County Board of Commissioners public hearing,the Department of Community Development presented the staff report on the requested rezone and the supplemental application materials provided by their attorney representatives. The applicants' attorney representatives presented the limitations of proposed land uses, increased screening, and greater setbacks from all property lines; and they had a traffic specialist reiterate the findings of his traffic study noting the same or lesser traffic from the proposed Rural Commercial 2 land uses compared to the potential traffic from the existing Rural Residential zone. 6. The Board of County Commissioners asked questions that provided more information regarding the staff report and the applicants' testimony. The Board heard several public comments about the proposed commercial land uses conflicting with existing residential developments; about stormwater, runoff, and traffic; and about the hearing notification regarding the request for the Rural Commercial 2 zone. In their Rezone findings 2008.doc discussion,the Board stated that the request, as modified, is now better presented and more restrained than the request which was presented in January 2009. The Board concluded that the subject parcels are bounded by an extensive area of commercial timberland uses located on large-sized parcels to the north, west, and south; and that an approval of a zone change to commercial uses would cause incompatible land uses adjacent to the existing Rural Residential 5 zoned lands in this portion of the county. 5. As provided in Mason County Development Regulations Section 17.05.079,the Mason County Board of Commissioners does not find that the proposal is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: the subject parcel does not meet the criteria for the requested Rural Commercial 2 zone designation,that the parcel is adjacent to large parcels that are in timberland management, and that a commercial rezone results in conflicts with adjacent land uses and changes to rural character of the area. 6. The proposed rezone would not meet Comprehensive Plan policies RU 500, 512, and 521 which state that rural residential development maintain rural character,that adequate levels of service match rural densities,and that rural densities meet the proper characteristics of the area in which the properties are located. Under the present Rural Residential 20 zone,the existing subdivision procedures would result in a limited residential density area and would not cause a marked increase of demand for services. Using these Comprehensive Plan policies,the proposed rezone of the four stated parcels to a Rural Commercial 2 zone(limited as proposed)does not match the characteristics of the vicinity of the subject properties. Based upon the evaluation of the Mason CountyDevelopment Regulations Sec. 17.05.080 Rezone Criteria the Mason CountyBoard of Commissioners findings for the request of g q Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels {PN: 32133-40-90021, II 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024 (total of 7.44 ac.) from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone in the Rural Area are: �I Criterion 1 (no damage to public health, safety and welfare) is met; based upon staff evaluation that a proposed commercial land uses would need to meet the county's development standards. Criterion 2 (consistent Comprehensive Plan designation)is not met; based upon conclusions that the Rural Residential 20 zone is the most consistent designation (adjacent parcels are blocks of timberlands and large in size). Criterion 3 (no increase of sprawling low-density rural development or uses incompatible to resource-based land uses) is not met; based upon the evaluation that commercial uses would cause such land uses incompatible to timberlands. Criterion 4 (no increase of demand for urban services in rural areas) is met; based u �I p staff evaluation. Criterion 5 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage development in urban areas) is met; based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 6 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage open space retention, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect air and water quality)is met; based upon staff evaluation that county standards are met. Rezone findings 2008.doc i Criterion 7 (no pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to cause greater than projected population increases in rural areas)is met;based upon evaluation set forth in the staff report. Criterion 8 (corrective rezone of lands)is not applicable to this request. Based upon the preceding findings that the request fails to meet two of the rezone criteria noted above,the Mason County Board of Commissioners denies the request of Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise to rezone four parcels {PN: 32133-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024 (total of 7.44 ac.) from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone (limited as proposed) in the Rural Area. Chair, Mason County Board of Commissioners Date Rezone findings 2008.doc Mason County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on Rezone Request No. 08-05 Nathan & Debra Stout/Patrick Paradise DATE: September 15, 2009 9:30 A.M. Mason County Bldg. I Commissioners Chambers SITE: Parcel Numbers: 32133-40-90021 [1.81 ac.];32133-40-90022 [1.81 ac.]; 32133-40-90023 [1.82 ac.]; 32133-40-90024 [2.00 ac.]. [7.44 ac. total] BACKGROUND: This rezone request of four small parcels from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Commission on November 3,2008. On January 13, 2009,the Board reviewed this request,received public testimony,and adopted a motion by 2 to 1 vote to deny that request. A Land Use Petition was filed with the Mason County Superior Court on February 3, 2009 and Judge Findlay issue a March 9, 2009 order to remand the review back to the Mason County Board of Commissioners. On August 20, 2009,Robert Johnson and Kristen French (attorney-representatives) submitted new application materials for consideration in this rezone request review. SYNOPSIS: The newly submitted materials has revised this application from a request from Rural Residential 20 zone to Rural Commercial 2 zone,to a request for a strictly conditioned rezone to Rural Commercial 2 zone. The applicants have proposed limiting possible land uses on the four parcels(total of 7.44 acres),proposed using a larger property line setbacks, and using buffer plantings and structures to separate the proposed land uses from the road and adjacent properties. This public hearing is in front of the County Commissioners and upon completion of written and spoken testimony the Commissioners will make their decision on this remanded rezone request. STAFF PLANNER: Allan Borden (360)427-9670 ext. 365 Dept. Of Community Development P.O. Box 279 Shelton WA 98584 HAWOMCOMPLAMBCC issue paper Stout Paradise rezone Sept 09.doc 2 RE .L QUEST 08-06 - STEVE AND JACK JOHNSON L .C. REZONE A PORTION OF ONE PARCEL (PN 12321-34-00030) IN THE . BELFAIR URBAN GROWTH AREA FROM RESIDENTIAL 5 ZONE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL ZONE. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS November 25, 2008 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Under consideration is the request to rezone a 9.60-acre portion of one parcel in the Belfair Urban Growth Area from Residential 5 zone to General Commercial /Business Industrial zone. 2. The Mason County Development Regulations Sec. 1.05.080 provides criteria and characteristics for consideration in rezoning parcels from an existing land use zone to another zone. A rezone request is reviewed through a public process in front of the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 3. At the September 29, 2008 Mason County Planning Advisory Commission meeting;. the Department of Community Development presented a staff report recommending denial of the requested rezone, based upon not meeting four of the rezone criteria. In their review;,the Planning Advisory Commission members asked questions of staff on the nature of the request to zone to a commercial and industrial land use, the critical areas on the property, the existing developed nature of this parcel, and the potential development of this parcel for commercial and industrial land uses. Several public comments were made on the request, including.a.' conditional zone as suggested by the consultant for the applicant. Commission members spoke of the land use as a fit with existing area commercial and industrial land uses. 4. Based upon the evaluation of the rezone criteria,the Planning Advisory Commission adopted a motion by 5 to 0 vote to recommend the approval of the rezone request of this 9.60- acre parcel from Residential.5 zone to General Commercial/Business Industrial zone in the Belfair Urban Growth Area. 5. At the November 18, 2008 Mason County Board of Commissioners public hearing, the Department of Community Development presented the staff report recommending the denial of the requested rezone and presented the recommendation for approval by the Planning Advisory Commission. The Board of County Commissioners asked questions of staff and heard several public comments on the request from Residential 5 zone to General Commercial /Business Industrial zone. The Board of County Commissioners commented on the existing business building on the subject property and those to the east along Peninsula Pl., that the proposed zone is more suitable for the vicinity, and that a possible limit of the land uses allowed under the General Commercial/Business Industrial zone could be committed by agreement between the County and applicants. Rezone findings 2008.doc 6. As provided in Mason County Development Regulations Section 1.05.079, at their November 25, 2008 public meeting the Mason County Board of Commissioners finds that the proposal is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: the subject parcel does meet the General Commercial /Business Industrial zone designation criteria, is adjacent to similar- sized parcels with existing commercial and industrial land uses, and the applicant has the ability to redevelop the property with new commercial or industrial buildings meeting the current development standards. Based upon the evaluation of the Mason County Development Regulations Sec. 1.05.080 Rezone Criteria, the Board of County Commissioners findings for this request to rezone one 2.00 acre parcel (PN: 12321-34-00030) in the Belfair Urban Growth Area from Residential 5 zone to General Commercial/Business Industrial zone are: Criterion 1 (no damage to public health, safety and welfare) is met; concurs with staff evaluation on potential project review. Criterion 2 (consistent Comprehensive Plan designation) is met when the request of General Commercial/Business Industrial zone in the Belfair Urban Growth Area is considered; concurs with staff findings as the most consistent designation for the proposed land use activities. Criterion 3 (no increase of sprawling low-density rural development or uses incompatible to resource-based land uses) is met; concurs with staff evaluation. Criterion 4(no increase of demand for urban services in rural areas)pis.met; concurs with staff evaluation. Criterion 5 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage development in urban areas)is met; concurs with staff evaluation. Criterion 6 (does not interfere with GMA goal to encourage open space retention, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect air and water quality.) is met when the . Rural.Commercial 3 zone is requested; concurs with staff evaluation. Criterion 7 (no pressure to change land use designations of other lands or to cause greater than projected population increases in rural areas) is met; concurs with staff evaluation. Criterion 8 (corrective rezone of lands) is not applicable to this request. From the preceding findings, the Mason County Board of Commissioners adopted a motion to approve the request by Steve and Jack Johnson L.L.C. to rezone this 9.60-acre portion of one parcel (Parcel Number: 12321-34-00030) in the Belfair Urban Growth Area from Residential 5 zone to General Commercial /Business Industrial zone, and to prepare a condition with the applicant to limit allowed land uses in this General Commercial /Business Industrial zone, and then have the condition recorded b the applicant on the y pp property title. i Chair, Mason County Board of Commissioners Date I Rezone findings 2008.doc ATTACHMENT G 8-1 -09 To: Mason County commissioners/ Mason County Planning Dept. 41 1 N. 5th. St. Shelton,Wash. 98584 Attention :Allen Borden To Whom it may concern , we the undersigned property owners living near the McEwan Prairie property currently owned by Stout/Paradise are in favor of the pending rezone application being considered. Printed Name physical address signature ------------------------------------------------------- _ c CILZLZ3c o -E-� S k Acev 3s (J i � s L -- 8-1-09 To: Mason County commissioners/-Mason County Planning Dept. 41 1 N. Sth. St. Shelton,Wash. 98584 Attention :Allen Borden To Whom it may concern , we the undersigned property owners living near the McEwan Prairie property currently owned by Stout/Paradise are in favor of the pending rezone application being considered. Printed Name physical address signature L� r ATTACHMENT H At the hearing, applicants will introduce on oversized map depicting locations of existing self storage facilities and demonstrating a need for a self storage facility in the vicinity of the subject property. A copy of the mop is not included in this document set due to the nature and size of the map. I I i it II� II� At(ter Mock Page 1 of 1 ` �� o T�Np F✓ F� �SF O FIR DR cc O Q- 5 �- v00 s ek, G E JOHNS ! PRAIRIE RD 4.1 E SAYVIEVV DI: ;. YDANIELS RD uj E PEACOCK HILL LN 0 {{�5�4�q9r� s .. - V..7'13ft I I it I I I I i I I i I i it it I I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I ' I _ LJ E i f 4-- tt E � oily d�r��+i T21NR3W E Mclet 1 ! ERAS R T20NR3W 't N S�-ouf Parad t w re2,,*� L-e9ues-t- 095 •oy 1 inch =833 feet W E ' 1 inch =0.16 miles 7n�� • S • Lvv l t V 1G� _J ATTACHMENT J Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. . Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE President 1731 81b Ave SW - Seattle. WA 98106 - 11007 Tel. 206.762.1978 - Cell 206.799.5692 March 20, 2009; Resume Letter Inc;. has been in business since mid July, 2003. During this time I have prepared and submitted more than 500 traffic reports, a number of traffic engineering letters and have represented Client projects at Public Hearings. My traffic engineering experience prior to starting my own company is extensive and includes 4.5 years working for the Public (WSDOT and the City of Renton) and 1.4 years for a private traffic engineering consulting firm. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Washington and am a certified Professional Traffic; Operations Engineer by the Transportation Professional Certification Board. Inc. Over the years I have worked more than 1,000 traffic engineering projects. I have expertise in the preparation and review of traffic studies and associated traffic mitigation requirements. This expertise extends to intersection operational/safety analysis, site feasibility review, identifying appropriate traffic mitigation, site access analysis, the preparation of technical variance/deviation requests, representing Clients at Public Hearings/Meetings, and traffic channelization and signing plans. I have also prepared a number of traffic signal, illumination, traffic control and traffic calming plans, and have worked on intelligent transportation systems design. The f� . ,, team includes me, two college students and my son. One of the students is majoring in Civil Engineering and has worked for me for more than eight years. The other student is also looking to go into the Civil Engineering profession. My 17 year old son also facilitates office tasks such as putting reports together and conducting errands. Contact me if you have any questions. Sincere 1 ff `1t76rk J Jaco E POE, President • STOUT - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS McEwan Prairie Road: Average Daily Traffic Report (see attached) - 4,219 average daily traffic— total traffic count each direction (May 2005, per Mason County records, attached) Trip Generation— Self Storage/ Mini-Warehouse (ITE "Land Use#151) Reference: Dave S. Smith Project Engineer 11 City of Olympia 9247 thAvenue, SE Suite A P.O. Box 1967 Olympia, WA 98507-1967 I I (360) 753-8496 I Quote by Dave S. Smith: "Self storage is such a low generator compared to other types of uses." SSA Globe article, February 2009, page 22. Smith states that the City of Olympia typically uses the rates in ITE's report, focusing on the evening peak hour. In the same article, another traffic engineer advises that most agencies in the region default to the ITE trip rate, and that it is uncommon to do a local study. Id. Authoritative Data: Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation" 81h Edition ISBN-13: 978-1-933452-43-2 ISBN-10: 1-933452-43-9 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14th St. NW, Suite 300 West Washington, DC 20005-3438 (202) 289-7722 www.ite.org "Trip"or"Trip End"is defined as a single or one-direction vehicle movement with either the origin or the destination (existing or entering) inside a study site. For trip generation purposes, the total trip ends for a land use over a given period of time are the total of all trips entering plus all trips existing a site during a designated time period. "Mini-warehouses" are defined as buildings in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the storage of goods. They are typically referred to as"self storage" facilities. Each unit is physically separated from other units, and access is usually provided through an overhead door or other common access point. Time Period Mini Warehouse/Self Single Family Comparison between Storage Residential -detached proposed self storage facility and SFR: 24 hour weekday 2.5 trips generated per 9.57 trips generated per Assume 30,000 sq. ft 1000 sq. ft.(approx I unit (approx 5 entering storage facility= 75 entering 1 exiting) 5 existing) total trips(37+ entering, 37+ exiting) Assume 20,000 sq. ft storage facility= 50 total trips(25 entering, I 25 exiting) I I Assume 6 single family residences= 57.42 total trips(28 + entering, 28 + exiting) Saturday(hour 2.33 trips generated per 10.08 trips generated Assume 30,000 sq. ft undefined—entire 1000 sq. ft. (approx 1 per unit (approx 5 storage facility= 70 day) entering 1 exiting) entering 5 existing) total trips(34+ entering, 34+exiting) Assume 20,000 sq. ft storage facility= 47 total trips(23 + entering, 23 +exiting) Assume 6 single family I residences=60 total I trips(30 entering, 30 exiting) Mobility Print Screen 7/30/2009 9:05:04 AM V1f 1Y1 �f „...'. . x File Cdt View PMS h1M5 Reports Tools Admin Help KA 50 ♦ 4,� is ._ _._.. .. - - ._. . _..._.._.........._.._.........__ Name Number A.c De.c Filter On Filler Off ITtaffic Study Station OAOO PAriSOfl L41..E RE, -Reference lntolmation-•--_.....__..__._._ —._ -- MCKNIGHT RD•87000 — 0.000 Segment to 2.449 IdCLANE OR-25380 NORM E-{ ;; Road Number: Road Name: I W401 PRAIRIE RD MCLANE PL•25381 51800 MCMICKIN RD-36360 0.9110 RAILROAD CRCt55il li MCRA RD•51750 0 848 OAICES RD Milepost: 0.050 Location 264 It.West of MASON LAKE RD MCREAVY RD•97670 0.868 PAVEHE1.1T BREAI', MCREAVY RD•97671 0.5E"GRAVEL PIT __._. . M IOMOU RD-56420 Description I GIs MERRIMOUFIT DR•58720 E. 2.101 JOHNS CRI: MERRIMOUNT RD-58830 2.420 Traffic Study METZLER MILL RD-40090 2.449 BROCKDALE RD Count Station ID: MIDWAY LN-20670 IdIKKELSEN RD-52310 r MILL CREEK RD•12280 J Intersecting Road: MINERVA TERRACE RD•43661 MISSION CREEK RD-83790 Intersection Leg: We.t —� Side of Road �] MOORE AVE-50280 MOORES ALLEY-50460 MORGAN RD•19010 MOUNTAIN OR•635U0 7(edo MOUNTAIN LAKE DR•89890 Dale ADT YearADT Volume I Lanes Studied Comment IOUNTAIN PL•b•3530 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR-67470 0/2005: 20059219ta/s�tp AII,tMough lanesMOUNTAIN VIEW DR•79130 /l997 1997 3551 All through lanes X /1993 1993 2626 All lhlough lane. """t /1992 1992 2229 y Roadlog All llvoughlanes ; — Reference Point- I tedib Add new record -- Sign: .. .r -- -----... ❑ Guardrad: ❑ Culverts ❑ Sniping . ,� Traffic Study ❑ Crashes lr 4 CLAS ❑ Sheet Lighting ` ❑ Storm Systems Approaches 17 Bridge-. -- -------------_____._.._...—____—_----- (1 Right of Way Widths FI Right of Way Documents n Project. [T Planned Project. ❑ Surface Condition 1-1 Surface History n Structural Condition —� � Clone � Print r Clone Delete Save N an muusu•iai area,wt;ununiUes ware slurage facilities io aesthetically blend in,says Schick."It becomes a matter of trying to educate local officials and citizens" A word of caution: Facilities offering a mix of services beyond simply storage might indeed generate more trips than a typical mini-warehouse.If,say,truck rental or mail boxes or shipping supplies constitute a big part of the business,thus drawing more customers to the site more frequently than the storage element would,then the traffic profile for the site will differ significantly from the stats in the ITE report. Some Jurisdictions Do Understand Fortunately,not all communities are burdened with incor,' rect or preconceived notions. "Self storage is.such a low generator compared to other types of uses,"Dave Smith, project engineer for the City of Olympia,Washington, readily acknowledges.Smith said his city typically uses the rates in ITE's report,.focusing on the evening peak hour. "Self storage is usually more frequented on the weekends," he notes. "Around.:,our region, most of the agencies would pretty. much default to the ITE(trip rate),"observes John Rowland, PE, a traffic engineer with Peters Engineering Group in Clovis, California. "It's uncommon to do a local study" Rowland notes that when a local study is pursued,either at the behest of an agency or because a project developer believes the data is necessary, it's important to under- stand a traffic engineer's role—although he says he doesn't speak for all engineers on this point. "We stick to being an analysis team, not an advocacy outfit. We have to be an objective third party." Bottom Line With patience and a willingness to educate officials who might be unfamiliar with the"mini-warehouse"section of ITE's Trip Generation volumes,storage pros can chip away at the myth that their business generates a lot of traffic.At the same time,however,they should be sensitive to issues that perpetuate that myth, taking care to recognize that site design,operations and non-storage business activities at a facility legitimately affect community perceptions as well as the actual number of trips generated. PACE 22 �.qA (;i nRF r Fnr.iIAry ?nr,,) Trip Generation, 8th Edition An Informational Report of the Institute of Transportation Engineers User's Guide, Volume 1 of 3 The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is an international educational and scientific association of transportation professionals who are responsible for meeting mobility and safety needs. ITE facilitates the application of technology and scientific principles to research, planning, functional design, implementation, operation, policy development and management for any mode of transportation. Through its products and services, ITE promotes professional development of its members, supports and encourages education, stimulates research, develops public awareness programs and serves as a conduit for the exchange of professional information. Founded in 1930, ITE serves as a gateway to knowledge and advancement through meetings, seminars and publications and through its network of nearly 17,000 members working in more than 92 countries. t13 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14th St. NW, Suite 300 West Washington, DC 20005-3438 USA Telephone: +1 202-289-0222 Fax: +1 202-289-7722 ITE on the Web: www.ite.org ©2008 Institute of Transportation Engineers.All rights reserved. Publication No. IR-016F 1,000/AGS/1008 ISBN-13: 978-1-933452-43-2 ISBN-10: 1-933452-43-9 Printed in the United States of America A glass line where at least 50 percent of the outer facility, not just those present at the time the building wall is glass.3 GRA includes the area study is conducted. Caution should be used within outside building walls, excluding stairs, with this variable because it has not been ® elevator shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical defined in previous editions of this publication. ducts, balconies and air conditioning rooms. 0 A trip or trip end is a single or one-direction The net rentable area (NRA) is computed vehicle movement with either the origin or the in square feet by measuring the inside finish destination (exiting or entering) inside a study of permanent outer building walls or from the site. For trip generation purposes, the total trip glass line where at least 50 percent of the outer ends for a land use over a given period of time building wall is glass.' NRA includes the area are the total of all trips entering plus all trips within outside building walls, excluding stairs, exiting a site during a designated time period. elevator shafts,flues,pipe shafts,vertical ducts, A balconies, air conditioning rooms, janitorial A vehicle fueling position is defined by closets, electrical closets, washrooms, public the number of vehicles that can be fueled corridors and other such rooms not actually simultaneously at a service station. For available to tenants for their furnishings or example, if a service station has two fuel A to personnel and their enclosing walls. No dispensing pumps with three hoses and ® deductions should be made for columns and grades of gasoline on each side of the pump, projections necessary to the building.Typically, where only one vehicle can be fueled at a time the NRA for office buildings is approximately on each side, the number of vehicle fueling equal to 85 to 90 percent of the GFA. positions would be four. An independent variable is a physical, measurable and predictable unit describing the study site or generator that can be used 1. Income/Expert Analysis, Office Buildings, Downtown ® to predict the value of the dependent variable and Suburban. Institute of Real Estate Management of the National Association of Realtors, 1985, p. (in this case, trip ends). Some examples of 236. independent variables used in this book are 2. Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. Urban Land GFA, employees, seats and dwelling units. Institute, 1984. 3. Income/Expert Analysis, Office Buildings, Downtown and Suburban. Institute of Real Estate Management A servicing position is defined by the of the National Association of Realtors, 1985, p. number of vehicles that can be serviced 236. simultaneously at a quick lubrication vehicle a. lbid. shop or other vehicle repair shop. That is, if a quick lubrication vehicle shop has one service bay that can service two vehicles at the same time, the number of serving positions would be two. A student is defined as a person who is 1 enrolled in an institution such as a school, college, or university on either a full-time or part-time basis. The number of students refers to the total number of persons enrolled at a Institute of Transportation Engineers 9 J Trip Generation, 8th Edition, User's Guide Land Use: 151 Mini-Warehouse Description Mini-warehouses are buildings in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the storage of goods. They are typically referred to as "self-storage"facilities. Each unit is physically } separated from other units, and access is usually provided through an overhead door or other F, common access point. Additional Data n Truck trips accounted for 2 to 15 percent of the weekday traffic at the sites surveyed. Vehicle occupancy ranged from 1.2 to 1.9 persons per automobile on an average weekday. ; Peak hours of the generator— pThe weekday p.m. peak hour was between 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.The Saturday peak ii hour was between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The Sunday peak hour was between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. For the purpose of this land use, the independent variable `occupied storage units" is defined as the number of units that have been rented. The sites were surveyed between 1979 and 2005 in California, Colorado and New Jersey. I Source Numbers 113, 212, 403, 551, 568, 642 I I I I i Trip Generation, 8th Edition 217 Institute of Transportation Engineers ,r E Mini-Warehouse F (151 ) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 14 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 56 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.50 1.21 - 4.36 1.78 Data Plot and Equation 400 x: 300 - - - - - - -'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... _. . - - - - - - - - - . :. . . . . c H U L > 200 X. - . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - •X i 'X 1x , > �, X - ; x. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .100 .- . . . X X X: X X : 1 0 '- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area { -----X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)= 1.01 Ln(X)+0.82 R2=0.73 Trip Generation,8th Edition 227 Institute of Transportation Engineers it I Mini-Warehouse (151 ) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 13 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 58. Directional Distribution: 51% entering, 49% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average-Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.26 0.13 0.48 0.52 Data Plot and Equation 40 -- x: 1 30 ;. . X_ . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . c W a c V L 20 - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . 'X X . x < x n X': x 10 - - - - - : . . . . . . . . . . ... . . - - - - - - - - - - - X: x x :x 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points _ Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=1.02 Ln(X)-1.49 R2=0.67 Trip Generation,8th Edition 229 Institute of Transportation Engineers Mini-Warehouse (151 ) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Saturday Number of Studies: 11 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 49 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.33 1.21 - 3.55 1.69 Data Plot and Equation 230 220 210 X 200 - - - - - - . . . . . . . . 190 180 .. .. . . . . . . . . Cn 170 - - - - - - - - -.- - - - . _ - - - - c . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . u.l 0 0- t U_ 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L i 120 . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Q100 . . . . . . . . . . . X . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . I— 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `�. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . X. : { 80 - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 70 f . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . # 60 - - - - - - - •. . .. . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - :- - - - . . . - X 50 i.. - X . . . . ... . . . . . . •. . . . . - - 40 . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... - - - - - --- . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . ; 30 X : X 10 20 30 40 5o 60 70 80 90 1 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve "---- Average Rate i Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)= 1.08 Ln(X)+0.47 R2=0.73 Trip Generation,8th Edition 232 Institute of Transportation Engineers I I I Mini-Warehouse 151 `' Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area i On a: Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator F , r , Number of Studies: 6 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 62 Directional Distribution: Not available Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.40 0.24 0.60 0.64 Data Plot and Equation 40 x x x 30 - - - - .. . . . . . .. . . . - . . . . .. . ... . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 0 ; lU a : r 20 . - - - - - - - - - • . .. .... . . . . . . . . . > o) x > : x I— 10 . . . . . . . ; . .I. .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=1.11 Ln(X)-1.43 R2=0.76 I Trip Generation,8th Edition 233 Institute of Transportation Engineers bingre-Family Detached Housing (210) i, Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 351 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 197 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.57 4.31 21.85 3.69 4 4 Data Plot and Equation 30,000 _ E A � M 20.000 w - - - x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U C X 3 a) r > 3 N x N : x > Q 0 10,000 .X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x ,x X x/ : x x t o 0 t000 t 2000 3000 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve _____ - Average Rate a Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.92 Ln(X)+2.71 4 R2=0.96 i Trip Generation,8th Edition 290 Institute of Transportation Engineers r. I Single-Family Detached Housing (210) f s Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. t Number of Studies: 314 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 208 Directional Distribution: 63% entering, 37% exiting F Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.01 0.42 2.98 1.05 9 Data Plot and Equation 3,000 X : k • f x + 70 W ; x U • t > S 0 U x > Q x S 11 1,000 . . . . x a • i x x x x i K I j 0 i ! 0 1000 2000 j 3000 t X=Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Pants Fitted Curve - Average Rate t Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.90 Ln(X)+0.51 R2=0.91 , i t � Trip Generation,8th Edition 292 Institute of Transportation Engineers � G. Single-Family Detached Housing (210)- - - - - Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Saturday 's Number of Studies: 74 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 213 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit _ _ 9 Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 10.08 5.32 - 15.25 3.68 Data Plot and Equation 11,000 - - - — — r 10,000 . .... . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 9,000 . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . ... - . - . . . ... . . 8,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J rn W Q a) x . . . . . . � 0 6.000 - - - F I 5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II X X X 3,000 X X /X X. 2,000 - XX X- - - - - - X,- . . . . . .. . . .:. . . . . . . :. . -- - - - - - - - - X X 1.000 ?cX- x :- - . . . . ... . . . . . _ . . - - • - - ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . :. . . . . 4 0 i 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 X = Number of Dwelling Units Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.95 Ln(X)+2.59 R2=0.92 Trip Generation,81h Edition 295 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached dousing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 53 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 217 Directional Distribution: 53% entering, 47% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.93 0.50 - 1.75 0.99 Data Plot and Equation 700 -— x x 1 500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x W { a 400 � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x a) X x > X n300 . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . Q X X II ; I— X . X X, 200 X: YX - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . .X X x X x ; X X X: X X : a 100 - - - - - - - - - '-x X a' X X i 0 i 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 A X= Number of Dwelling Units _ X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate i R .. Fitted Curve Equation: T=089(X)+956 2=0.91 III - TripGeneration,8th Edition 296 Institute of Transportation Engineers - ATTACHMENT K �oil, "� Ts Y r KIN a`+ itkt 30 4 Y r � r � y tQ�tllx3:+ { p _. _ j � s7 i� Y. 'tY-' �ftl,i •��s,� �: �� sl,...a �.}r� T.-; t ;.'Y, ���� 2' 'y �. -c'� �Y�'}1 ��.`..�Q�tr�� ► �+'.F`l���w�+s v� '��`s � �- i+ �F�' � *t+ i++�, �\ tSl }��yT�v'(\ t {jt�J � fi;�`{ f � t}. �~£fir � +'�1�t,4:; �t�� { f � +'� t,.�,'+t" ;3)� '� r'�.• °�p�� if, t1 �}`1 s ', S{ u',t��.��r.�.a;.:, ,._. t_ �4l11.4. 1� 'f� �f' � ,� �}•���"` �rydily t p1/ ''1 ri`�. + �+ �Rg; 3�. `� 1 X,dam"y '�. ��s�6 r` �t,�jy+tYy� i}34'11i,'t�•. . 'I, j'il'�s ("�r �h��.q•C�YYa• ,S t �t ��^�l �f�, i R l4/� ��� � y�,�j' - E +. � .l�•, " "t -++t�[. {s�` {' !j�al'l `� ff j�Cr ' "'ii y `s�' �>�3`;_yr�i �. ;r � ��;�t�C� :3 �� ✓ � ,�t 1 t\ +F;,,{'�jt y � i :S �� ql���`s,} 4�11+ "isi S t Rfd':, �� , }� ��. "�' .� r 10 PAN i 1Ci.1flt /t tl +;<8rtt� -.n.• :'4t �`�3Sl L+ ��� �-ert J � �F },. ;�. ,.4• i� '�,�� �: {.�. ,' .T r tiaW ii i `� '�9 l�f `X J `k �y#de tl �' ,'a,+'s�• � ��� '•�:L � 4 `� {{���.`.�t f ... i� �jp 4y��._pg� f>: .iwfi�"ia �, q a R'`.�, ;�.ti '`a^ F{ ♦ } 1 .y'T f., S4( z \" �fylb S..r'�- Rm.)- ,t {f�i`.,/ �+ y F 4 . ,�t t,r.��,� . r+ •�tll ry.si�^`I 1'i;� it t7,i"... '�.r�' 3s�' Mr * , t ,Ii ,: A ..4�4 � � ` .xjam' 1.i• .�,ti Y y ♦ `�4¢�'�'•,,. .� w. ♦. .a� �94 � J.�. `' � \ •� 4 .k �,54' sf y t 'K3�* `qC �e �E lob ►���•� Y LL l y. J'y• 11 # b Mi pt IL An C'e fb ,)• e �t f �l bv,l q �e�� ce�� � P - ` .i .-e lnc'c n 1 � T s jg aS. 4 r. , , ^ fg. ip \ �P l�r Y '� {' i ?, •*r ."w»`e a .Yuri•• _ ,• vF" � - �'t-,�•'�: fi iy, .. ,m :: x�,_ � ,"',.'`' •`.•fw�vi Y}4�'"'� i ..q .a 7 a `y.y fl j�c.;y` +> � "v"'a..�":'r�z�.°�.a4.,"'V.*v,_ ..al/`a L.�::•y,'`•'t+�" �� "�`,` a+ +�,� r <- - 2,2-°"" 4 w, ✓ - �fi'yh.� ��'b+ tom, d4-.rY 4 �T' k '4• 7 4% �^ :,, ^f. .^ �a t.h`*K}, 3ea �.'�,•`tx,i, k�s'�vt�. '�{,. �C•��� sx. �n'�p'S•yf a. a,"`.^ ^` 's`_-'T., .s'L! T1h � i �.V �:�' C '�1��r.'h}7, it '� •yf�'LY/5 �`�, � is� w T 1 ay+ �`K ,� ti .. ,� k\ +>�'•' � P"' • a� .ai.Y., .. yam( ... T � � qt.- -, r,. `L ♦ P +,.• 4,w, 3 mot` t .ti \� ".' *w �'�`a,`�•L. 4'q `s., -+_yr ��.. :a e '2y 1. ��'t � *`. ��v`w` "� �"r� �++« �"y #�Q+,�M�Gy�"11¢'` •� ;+�f�Z.,`��.:P ''Y ..�, i�'+u.fit A'+ y "�Q}'�t,` � yam_,.. poll 14 4,4 ZZ Li k. 1 s� -�+a-1�.,�`.� ''1�+ice r !�4?s.•a�'x.`� �.....�.�.�'��y.,,Y "'°�,+'� ��.f - a f ra#S .s � ,fa, .s ��•s4,'-ern- _. .�i; .,�'�.." x.4: y.,.n. �` �c�-e• a a j,.3, 1.= t pw 4�`*-r~-: .E N"x� rt�• ,�. t�:i�,�.� 'y^,f�l,,� .ate` t� �.T [+ �� � Lt '�_K ,t2'.,...�1 • � V :� ,. ,..!� ;. .4`:5.%EAi�::.�.�t.:..u�� .. �1,5. .'...`�✓_:��.?'?�=�:-.r..t�r7.tA���� �VY`S�i..+,}rrt�'?t� aa��_,.•i:S�l�'K,s,tt"rMd _ '.'- _ i i »� ,. flw. �r. .> 7aa��� �� �� ,_ �.� , �� � s�,, �. � -mot' F` per ','± �+ 'C> :I �•' .���. t. 'L�R 3•�i�c' fro r •i `dY� J:li' i �F.. .w,l "`.. y'. ��• \ � <M i ►�� �� .��°r 1F��r. r " Y lyl ti.',\i� F i � — '�- h.'�, � j(('��t f y,4�1�4„..•d'Tµy,'�' .:b..., .�� f {SI low'IT R +,d s.y sacs.�.:a •' ' ,K. 7 .. , t i I I II �` III a✓i Ev V4. ~ Sam r t r t 2 } T' tt Y• k 44 I P 'lam Ua L � rnr ............ ✓V- 1 vtrQ Pti� i ,� ••.� � . � 1�- :4�,ter: �� '... _ � �... �►i,� _ , .,k ;,h 4 �. � ' r *, +. �� � ' 5 ,, 'm�.: � _ `� �'�. �-�, ��"�� �� � r�w .ram �t� �� � .. � +��`' dr. � it .�• t': 'd2' 4 y - " q "�„' qa..� '�'�'na.' ,,,tiw,,_a, �"*t .� • �#� .ti ���.�`c`;�•�g�.- ��� r ``�r 't J �� b � _ � , r{� F a` i f $L � ti �4i} k 5r ��. l 1 `'.� r `�..�� . _ f / �� {"fit �>• a,~ .{ayx .ice � � t ti t t c7,,;�i.�.� y,y � � YY -'.emu■■`"", � �{ � _ ��f��tA��`ir�Wlld{! i4dr■ 1��� iii , .. i�di�{r[••f t�l •'•f.:���� ■i ftml � r roa1MINIM imminin on ell M .tfJl M�� yf 't.' _ �.''.�'•:-^g4ks.fiW - y. i ,.,y s� J 1 ;� ' �. � [ •/� ! :.4 r - s, a .,+w r; Mw, .. 'at. •a. s •t 4 '.K.' � , r w 3a. t � '� ,> ,ht� .�+1. �i*fit `� � lfi�• ,k2 p i ' bi y'� b ., y• -� ; .,y-; ., �z, �-. .�: �+ �1 !�� "� �� �"a`�.`;�„ ��^ 'aye;z aµ �• ._P�; i .-}. �j,i",_t .'r#t• n 1`���� M F'b*.�,.�i,�E�a�1. = x���� ' I '����'��'�'['' fr ��-.: !! n '� �k :� �� P . PL 1 �.� I�, h�.� !- .q �( j`i`�1�a1..11- e" �{IL�. tY, � 'r d.a�`v. .. { � �{1 :.` 1a�R"�t�o�£.��� ��`' t � ztsP;i��; .f f era.;. �_ d F. `mow � �. _ t� "� n �•.t, Ms Y��'�/ '� •1' ►w.+ �t atv Yr �P,C'�,Y �r�H r� atc .r '7�,� '� t �;1,, �,6-.r s� � �� � .•�� ��s. s • ' �•1. F'•fc'�tf '•: i ,fit z" '+ � �' ` ;' N11111111M ININ IR dos. -_ h■h �^4<S!!! � .. .�4 L ;� ^� _ } own •_� r ^t �. •r!t r i�. ,fin ��3 ��� L f i� ` .•� r "'JIM lot �•:f.., "� � it �' -. J��• P f�� r V r .� r;1y r� ,,.r;, AUS �'�' ...,,� � �� it 1 ra �'�. .� � �• lb '' `���`� :X a � � �,' .ti`ra"k ,.��'C'��.'t�• � its, ���� - ur N' s. : k.a.. r 3 i, Lsx'e � �►, F� M x . �• t}� �p( �, t � it x Mfi:� h FFFppp �p � ' i x�� ,A •S � � � P : Y w 1 � � !` o a�4'Yfie Wit'•eta,:�. � ;�`.' Y;s '•C 1'"�ty'��,���.��: P -�x. fill �'.Wig �� �� y � ��:✓+tom, �� rt� `.' � ,�,j �5[. � ��� ;, � 1 a�. •�'�. j ••t ,.y. � �` i�.. d Y �� r; and ��#�,r -d .� a g,e �:-; 4 �N • c. , as.�? a ' �; �}� ���� �i 4;• I ' ti-a!i � S�r f aYr.•.� �t�� s � };:�1�' �v, Y:�.i ��_�`. }�t 7ZP I. e �1 �r��,,e k•7'�",-r.7 _ i�+� 4 �-,'[T' - �.•' ,`` -4. �fwl. x :: l- �S bp " r.. ' M��'�') At V } 1p r!,: a } hi. Ya ��•rs•� '1+ �' � na7�.°1 T i'� ',1��� � RRR �s"} f �. •r• '' �',.' '"',tip'"'�y ,t' LL�'`'F�-�w'i�'" ° ° ill .... .. C a, S i L it IATTACHMENT L June 3, 2009 Robert W Johnson/ Kristin L French Attorney at Law Angle Building P O Box 1400 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: Request for input I am writing in response to your request for input on the rezoning petition proposed by Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise. All of the comments and arguments against the rezoning that were made at the Board of Commissioners' hearing as well as those on the signed petition are still valid. There is no reason to give suggestions,specific input,or any other information that may help you modify an application that we are adamantly against. Sincerely, ^ < F Keith and Peggy Schouviller Cc: Mason County Superior Court Mason County Board of Commissioners I ISSUES OF CONCERN: NAME ADDRESS/ PHONE ISSUE date of hearing/page cite) SUBJECT MATTER Barbara Bolm 1451 E. Mason On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Lake Rd. P.O. Box Review. Rural Residential to Rural 199S, Shelton, Commercial 2 zone WA. 98584 (360)-426-4905 Mary Joy Murphy 1461 E. Mason On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Lake Rd., Shelton Review & Board of Mason County Rural Residential to Rural WA. 98584 Commissioners' Proceedings January Commercial 2 zone. 13, 2009 pg. 4 of draft copy Concerned that the (360) 427-1130 potential building site is only 30 feet from her property line & people storing stolen goods or creating meth labs in the storage units. Teresa Lucas 2460 McEwan On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Prairie Rd., Review. Rural Residential to Rural Shelton, WA. I Commercial 2 zone 98584 (360)427-0579 Matthew Davis 1401 E. Mason Lk. On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Rd., Shelton, WA. Review. Rural Residential to Rural 98584 Commercial 2 zone (360) 868-2603 Megan Davis 1401 E. Mason Lk. On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Rd., Shelton, WA. Review. Rural Residential to Rural 98584 Commercial 2 zone (360) 868-2603 Ken Allred 2501 E. McEwan On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Prairie Rd., Review. Rural Residential to Rural Shelton, WA. Commercial 2 zone I 98584 I l Mike Lucas 2460 McEwan On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Prairie Rd., Review. Rural Residential to Rural Shelton, WA. Commercial 2 zone 98584 (360)427-0579 Megan Lucas 2460 McEwan On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Prairie Rd., Review & Board of Mason County Rural Residential to Rural Shelton, WA. Commissioners' Proceedings January Commercial 2 zone. 98584 13, 2009 pg.4 of draft copy Concerned about crime, (360) 427-0579 excessive lighting and traffic.Also that the property won't be determined as a wetland. Steven Hageman 2480 E. McEwan On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Prairie Rd., Review. Rural Residential to Rural Shelton,WA Commercial 2 zone 98584 Phone# Unavailable Peggy Schouviller 1310 E. Mason On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Lake Rd. Shelton, Review, and Mason County Planning Rural Residential to Rural WA. 98584 Advisory Commission-Public Hearing Commercial 2 zone. (360)426-4730 11/03/2008, pg. No. 6 Concerned also about noise, congestion, more traffic, and possibly an eyesore. Keith Schouviller 1310 E. Mason On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Lake Rd. Shelton, Review. Rural Residential to Rural WA. 98584 Commercial 2 zone (360)426-4730 Marjorie Richards 2520 E. McEwan On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Prairie Rd. Review. Rural Residential to Rural Shelton, WA. Commercial 2 zone 98584 (360)432-8507 Harvey Richards 2520 E. McEwan On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Prairie Rd. Review. Rural Residential to Rural Shelton,WA. Commercial 2 zone 98584 (360)432-8507 Leo Pat Murphy 1461 E. Mason On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Lake Rd. Shelton, Review. Rural Residential to Rural WA. 98584 Commercial 2 zone (360) 427-1130 Dan Werst 1560 E. Mason On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Lake Rd., Shelton, Review. Rural Residential to Rural WA. 98584 Commercial 2 zone (360) 427-0317 Michelle West 1560 E. Mason On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Lake Rd. , Shelton, Review. Rural Residential to Rural WA. 98584 Commercial 2 zone (360) Bill Barger 1560 E. Mason On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Lake Rd., Shelton, Review. Rural Residential to Rural WA. 98584 Commercial 2 zone (360) Marge Chamberlin 2390 E. McEwan On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Prairie Rd., Review. Rural Residential to Rural Shelton, WA. Commercial 2 zone 98584 (360) 427-0942 Chris Giraldes 2380 E. McEwan On pg. 12 of Land Use Petition For Oppose to Re-Zone from Prairies Rd. Review. Rural Residential to Rural Shelton, WA. Commercial 2 zone 98584 (360) _ Diane Edgin 140 E. Harstine Mason County Planning Advisory River a big issue. The ag Island Rd. Shelton, Commission-Public Hearing resource lands to south is WA. 98584 11/03/2008, pg. No. 5 even bigger issue. Concern (360) 427-0422 with putting pressure on this area. Bill Dewey 704 E. Hiawatha Mason County Planning Advisory Some what reluctant due Blvd. Shelton, WA. Commission-Public Hearing to other issues. 98584 11/03/2008, pg. No. 6 (360) 427-6341 Fred Jones Mason County Planning Advisory If rezoned will set Commission-Public Hearing precedent. 11/03/2008, pg. No. 6 Paul Wildman 1261 E. Mason Mason County Planning Advisory Concerned about noise, Lake Dr. Shelton, Commission-Public Hearing traffic, protection for the WA. 98584 11/03/2008, pg. No. 6 & Board of people in area, drainage (360)426-3789 Mason County Commissioners' problems, nuisance Proceedings January 13, 2009 pg.4 of lighting issues, aesthetics draft copy and closing it off form general view&getting access to the storage units. He believes the criteria for rezones are not meaningful to people in the community and 300 foot l I public notice is not sufficient in rural area. Music being played. Dennis Pickard 1570 Cloquallum Mason County Planning Advisory Concerned about buffering Rd. Shelton, WA. Commission-Public Hearing issues. DR's that apply to 11/03/2008, pg. No. 7 the actual development with the special use permit and the approval process involved. Larry Harper 80 Evergreen Dr. Board of Mason County Concerned with adding Shelton, WA. Commissioners' Proceedings January ! septic in a flooding area. 98584 13, 2009 pg. 4 of draft copy Not be sanitary. (360) 426-180S Debbie Backus 211 Evergreen Dr. Board of Mason County Concerned that the storage Shelton, WA. Commissioners' Proceedings January units will block the view of 98584 13, 2009 pg. 5 of draft copy the road where the (360) children are let off the school bus.Animals may j also be affected. Jerry Schouviller 1310 E. Mason Board of Mason County Believes in the evolution of Lake Rd. Shelton, Commissioners' Proceedings January rural residential i WA. 98584 13, 2009 pg. 5 of draft copy development, but it istoo (360)426-4730 i early for commercial development. The January 13, 2009 record reflects that Commissioner Ring Erickson has a storage facility near her home and has not seen the things happen that people are concerned about. In mid-May 2009, applicants' counsel mailed correspondence to each individual of record who had expressed concerns regarding the applicants' proposal.The correspondence sought input regarding the rezone proposal, and specifically requested input regarding modifications,conditions, limitations or configurations that would address the opponent's specific concerns. To date, counsel has received only one response, from Keith and Peggy Schouviller, advising that "there is no reason to give suggestions, specific input, or any other information that may help you modify an application that we are adamantly against." 08/16/2009 Allan Borden Mason County Planning Department AUG 411 N 5"St. Shelton,WA 98584 l - PLANNING From: Darrell Winans 360 E Road of Tralee Shelton,WA 98584 Re: Stout/Paradise Rezone McEwan Prairie Rd. Mr. Borden, It has come to my attention that property owned by Nathan Stout and Pat Paradise on McEwan Prairie Road is up for a rezone. I would like to express support for such a rezone that would allow light industrial/commercial use. Especially low impact such as mini-storage, or even a higher traffic impact fuel station. We could use both in our area and would support either. Recently I rented a mini-storage unit that was not really convenient to my location but the need required me to take what I could get. We also live in a neighborhood that has a lot of snowbirds with RV's and very minimal areas to store and tight restrictions on their storage. It would be beneficial to our area to be able to have a convenient location that would be secure and not an eyesore within our community but governed to require barriers to block views of such items. A fueling station would also be a very welcome addition to the area not having to get onto Hwy 3 just to get fuel. Please contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 360.791.6075 or the above address. Respectfully Submitted Darrell Winans To: Mason County Board of Commissioners Re: Remanded Second Rezone Request of Nathan & Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise From: Paul J. Wildman, residing at 1261 E. Mason Lake Road in the Rainbow Lake Community Date: September 14, 2009 1 wish to briefly reiterate my expression of opposition to any rezoning of this property, from the previous hearings, and to add a few more that have come to mind since. I am very much concerned about the following relevant issues: > Increased Traffic Granted, the traffic speed on East McEwan Road is now set at 50 mph as it passes this property in question, BUT it is at the point of intersection with East Mason Lake Road where it will abruptly impact a set speed of 35 mph. At present, the traffic coming through that intersection (especially the large trucks and tandem truck-trailer combinations) seldom stay within the 35 mph speed limit. My home is located on the latter portion of the blind curve as traffic passes on its way toward connection with Highway SR3, and trucks normally are at the point of engaging 5th. or 6th, gear by the time they pass in front of my driveway, way above the posted 35 mph speed limit. This is a very dangerous situation for any children and especially any senior citizens attempting to cross the road at this location. Already, we have an agreement in place among neighbors that only one of our seniors group will risk crossing East Mason Lake Road to get to the mail boxes each day. Traffic has already increased significantly in this area since I first moved here from Edmonds four years ago. This is particularly true of the truck traffic that comes and goes from the "other" commer- cial entity operating on East McEwan Prairie Road, the gravel pit business. 2 > Nuisance Noise It is expected that people will be working on their RV's, boats, vintage clunkers, etc. that they have in storage at that location and will, quite normally, have their radios or other electronic "music" making devices such as boom boxes blaring while they are working on their vehicles. To knit-pick a little, this vehicle repair and maintenance activity on stored vehicles also brings up the issue of noxious emissions emanating from these vehicles while they are idling or when being revved-up. What protections would be provided to prevent these impacts upon the surrounding residential neighborhood? Several nearby residents suffer from respiratory ailments developed from histories of smoking tobacco resulting in emphasema, chronic bronchitis, COPD, etc.. > Land Drainage Issues A very sizeable portion of the acreage planned for being rezoned will be covered by self-storage buildings and/or impervious paved surfaces (usually asphalt) leading to and surrounding the storage buildings and the storage areas set aside for storing vehicles and boats. What will be done to provide appropriate drainage control from such a large area of impervious surfaces, estimated to be nearly six or seven acres of surface area? I have a particular concern that this drainage situation, especially in the very rainy circumstances of Mason County, could negatively impact the very nearby 2+ acre pond that is designated as Rainbow Lake. This body of water already has some problems in that it has only in- gress of water feeding into it and no egress other than evapora- tion and some natural percolation into the soil beneath it. ( NOTE: Research is presently being carved out to more fully understand the actual history of how Rainbow Lake was originally constructed ........ as documentation to those facts is very difficult to find and the persons privy to that information first-hand are all now deceased. The community organization is also seeking out the assistance of a professional limnologist (a lake scientist) in order to more fully understand the condition and future needs of Rainbow Lake. ) 3 > Protection Of The Neighborhood Self-storage facilities generally have a problem of generating attraction among the criminal elements in the general area. Some other similar businesses in this county have found this to be such a significant problem that they have had to install razor-wire atop their chain-link fencing in order to dissuade such criminal interest. Unfortunately, however, such use of razor-wire makes the facility being protected appear to be like some sort of penal institution, not very aesthetically appealing in a commercially zoned area, and certainly not at all appropriate in a rural residentially zoned area. Other significant criminal and/or nefarious activities being asso- ciated with self-storage facilities are those of the militia-minded mentalities who need to build up stores of arms, ammunition, weaponry and explosives ........ and those of a criminal element, not all that foreign to Mason County, who may find it convenient to set up meth labs in their self-storage units. What protection will the neighborhood have against such criminal activities as these? > Nuisance Lighting A part of the normal protection/security schemes provided at self-storage facilities is usually the rather considerable areawide lighting used. This may illuminate an area like the lighting provided at a baseball field or covering the outside parking lot at a store like Walmart. This can produce significant nuisance lighting that interferes with the nighttime peace of nearby neighbors (especially those who now enjoy enough darkness to allow them to see the stars in the nighttime sky). How will this problem be prevented on the self-storage business property? > General Neighborhood Aesthetics There are two very important issues that self-storage facilities present to a surrounding rural residential zone: - the normal flat-roofed box-like general architecture of the storage buildings. 4 the signage problems associated with these businesses that is blatantly apparent, when compared with the usually very modest signage used by rural residents who carry on small cottage industries in their homes. These aesthetic considerations are extremely important when viewed in the midst of surrounding rural residential zoning. Most all of the other such self-storage facilities in existence in Mason County are located on commercially zoned land AND ARE SURROUNDED by commercially zoned properties or by unimproved forest land. These kinds of businesses in Mason County are all easily viewed from the public thorofares that pass by them and their signage is very viewable, too. Let it be stated here without equivocation that these facilities for self-storage ( and especially, for vehicle storage ) are aesthetically offensive. THEY ARE BIG-TIME U G L Y !!!!!!! There is not one beautification project among them. I will amply illustrate this fact in my public presentation before the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday morning. I wish to encourage you to vote against any rezoning of this property. Please work to keep all of the property in our neighborhood zoned Rural Residential. Thank you very much. Paul J. Wildman 1261 E. Mason Lake Road Shelton, WA 98584-7508 (360) 426-3789 McKewan Property "Exhibit B" 1 Green Diamond Resource Company 10 Davis, Maryann & Billy 321334100000 321345000003 PO Box 9001 PO Box 640 Shelton, Wa 98584 Seabeck, Wa 98380-0640 2 Brix, James A Jr Et Al 11 Lucas, Michael T & Meghan A 321330001000 321345000006 2717 Marine Drive 2460 E McKewan Prarie Road Bremerton, Wa 98312-2041 Shelton, Wa 98584-9678 3 Always Painting & Construction 12 Hageman, Steven J & Abigail E 321330090024 321345000008 301 E Wallace Kneeland By 2480 E McKewan Prarie Road Shelton, Wa 98584-2987 Shelton, Wa 98584-9678 4 Daniel R Werst 13 Hageman, Steven J & Abigail E 321331090011 321345000009 1560 E Mason Lake Road 2480 E McKewan Prarie Road Shelton, Wa 98584-8192 Shelton, Wa 98584-9678 5 Island West Associates 14 Richards, Harvey J & Marjorie P 321342002000 321345000010 PO Box 714 2520 E McKewan Prarie Road Shelton, Wa 98584-0714 Shelton, Wa 98584-9678 6 Schouviller, Keith J & Peggy L 15 Waynes, Alan D & Rosemary C 321342300020 321345000017 1310 E Mason Lake Road 90 E Evergreen Drive Shelton, Wea 98584-7509 Shelton, Wa 98584-8532 7 Murphy, Leo Pat & Mary Joy 16 Harper, Larry E & Peggy M 321345000001 321345000016 1461 E Mason Lake Road 80 E Evergreen Drive Shelton, Wa 98584-7510 Shelton, Wa 98584-8532 8 Bolm, Barbara Jean 17 Workman, Sidney V & Billie G 3213450000002 321345000015 PO Box 1995 2029 Stevens Street Shelton, Wa 98584-5032 Shelton, Wa 98585-2449 9 Smith, Gailen P & Patsy 18 Quanah L Greenwood 3213345000004 321345000014 2481 E McKewan Prairie Road 60 E Evergreen Drive Shelton, Wa 98584-9678 Shelton, Wa 98584-8532