Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2016-00067 Rezone 4 Parcels Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 9/15/2009 (2) 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. Rezone findings 2008.doe • 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 P p g g q 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. 2Y40 Chair, Mason County Board of Commissioners Date Rezone findings 2008.doc 2 771 FED -3 P 3- 2 Li 3 S 71 4 5 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON 9 10 NATHAN STOUT and DEBRA STOUT, husband and wife, and PATRICK PARADISE, /�pp 11 Cause No. 09 � 0 0 1 „1, 0 � 7 12 Petitioners, _ 13 V. Mason Co. No.: Proposed Rezone No. 08-05 LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW 14 MASON COUNTY, a Washington county, 15 Respondents. 16 17 I. PETITIONER 18 The petitioners are Nathan Stout, Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise whose current 19 mailing address is P.O. Box 2371, Shelton WA. 98584. 20 II. PETITIONERS' ATTORNEY 21 The petitioners are represented by the undersigned attorneys, Robert W. Johnson 22 P.L.L.C., P.O. Box 1400, Shelton, WA 98584 by Robert W. Johnson, Attorney at law. 23 III. LOCAL JURISDICTION 24 The land use decision at issue in this case was rendered by Mason County, 411 N. 5'h 25 Street, Shelton, Washington 98584 ROBERT W. JOHNSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400 LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 1 SHELTON,WAS14INGTON 98584 (360)426-9728•FAX(360)426.1902 I IV. DECISION-MAKING BODY OR OFFICER 2 Mason County Board of Commissioners' decision issued January 13, 2008, denying a 3 rezone request No. 08-05, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated 4 by this reference. 5 V. IDENTITY OF PARTIES 6 Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.040(2), the statutory parties identified in the decision are 7 Nathan Stout, Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise P.O. Box 2371, Shelton WA. 98584. 8 STANDING 9 Petitioners have standing pursuant to RCW 36.70C.060 in that they own the property 10 and are the applicant. 1 I VI. STATEMENT OF ERRORS 12 Petitioners allege the following errors: 13 1. The Board engaged in an unlawful procedure and failed to follow the proscribed 14 process for reviewing a rezone application. 15 2. The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law. 16 3. The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when 17 viewed in light of the whole record; 18 4. The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the proper law to the 19 facts. 20 VIII. FACTS SUSTAINING STATEMENT OF ERRORS 21 1. The four lots which constitute the subject property were created in 1992 by 22 short plat prior to Mason County zoning regulations. The tracts are each 1.8 23 acres. Each of these 1.8 acre tracts was zoned as Rural Residential 20 when 24 Mason County enacted zoning. The minimum lot size for each of these lots is 25 ROBERT W. JOHNSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 14M LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 2 SHELTON.WASHINGTON 98584 (360)426.9729•FAX(360)426-1902 1 20 acres. The lots are narrow and located along McEwan Prairie Road. 2 McEwan Prairie Road is heavily used by truck traffic and has a posted speed limit of 50 mph by county Resolution No. 127-01. The proposed rezone is 4 consistent with the character of the property which is unsuitable for residential 5 development. Planning staff originally provided petitioners a report which 6 7 found that the proposed rezone met all the criteria of 1.05.080. The proposal 8 received approval from the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission. 9 When the proposal was presented to the Mason County Board of 10 Commissioners, the planning staff changed its recommendation based upon 11 opposition voiced by neighboring property owners. That decision was not 12 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole 13 record before the commission. Mason County did not advise petitioners that 14 15 they had reversed their position and changed their recommendation to the Board 16 and petitioners where deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond to such 17 reversal. The county staff's actions in reversing its findings with regard to the is rezone and failing to notify the petitioners of such reversal denied petitioners a 19 hearing consistent with due process and denied them the opportunity to make a 20 record on the factual issues raised in the new staff report. 21 VII. REQUESTED RELIEF 22 Applicants request the court to reverse the decision of the Board of Commissioners and 23 issue an order approving the rezone request. In the alternative, applicants request the court to 24 reverse the denial and remand the case back to the board for review consistent with due 25 process rights of the Washington Constitution and Chapter 36.70C RCW. ROBERT W. JOHNSON L L C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 14M LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 3 SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 (360)426.9728•FAX(360)426.1902 1 2 DATED thisl day of February, 2009. 3 ROBERT ZTJOHNSON N P.L.L.C. 4 5 b ROBE WSBA No. 15486 6 Attorney for Petitioners 7 8 9 ]0 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ROBERT W. JOHNSON P L L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400 LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 4 SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98594 (360)426-9729•FAX(360)426-1902 :.SJ -f Y IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON NATHAN STOUT and DEBRA STOUT, husband and wife, and PATRICK PARADISE, Petitioners, Cause No. 09-2-00110-7 V. Mason Co.No.: Proposed Rezone No. 08-05 MASON COUNTY, a Washington county, AGREED ORDER ON REMAND Respondents. THIS MATTER having come before the above entitled court for initial hearing pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW, the petitioners are Nathan Stout,Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise appearing.represented by their attorney Robert W. Johnson, attorney at law, the respondent, Mason County, appearing by and through Gary P. Burleson, prosecuting attorney,by Monty Cobb, Chief Deputy Prosecutor,the parties having reach an agreement that the decision at issue should be reversed and remand for further proceedings to allow petitioners full due process in presenting their rezone requests; it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The decision of the Mason County Board of Commissioners' issued January 13, 2008, denying a rezone request No. 08-05, is reversed. AGREED ORDER ON LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 1 2. The decision is remand the case back to the board for review and hearing consistent with Chapter 36.70C RCW. 3. No costs or charges are requested by or awarded to either party. DATED this day of March, 2009. A.A.Rup 9.FMA-A""` a JUDGE/COURT COMMISSIONER Presented i ROBERT W.JOHNrs WSBA No. 15486 Attorney for Petition Approved for entry,notice of presentati n waived: onty Qj b ro A 35 (Chief Deep t utor AGREED ORDER ON LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 2 r ' 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 I\Community DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doe 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 '/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 '/z mile distance standard noted above. 1. 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 I\Community DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendmems\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stom 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. 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. RU521: 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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendments 2008 rezone review\0"5 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 1:5 (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. P\Community Developmem\PLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendments\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 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 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 of 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 if present on the property. In this case, no critical I1Community DevdopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\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. IXommunity Dew1opmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 rernwW.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. IACotnmunity DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Borden\oomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\0"5 Stout Staff Repon 2009 remand.dec 8 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 fmdings.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 STAFF REPORT: SITE-SPECIFIC REZONE APPLICATION REzoNE REQUEST No. 08-05 APPLICANT: Nathan & Debra Stout; Patrick Paradise. STAFF CONTACT: Allan Borden, (360)427-9670 ext. 365 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting that four parcel be rezoned in the Rural Area from Rural Residential 5 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 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.] 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 within this designation: gas or service stations and self storage facilities. I. WHY IS THE APPLICANT PROPOSING THIS AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME? The applicant wants this property to be rezoned to Rural Commercial 2 zone so that the owner 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. IACommunity Developmem\PLANNINMAll n Borden\comp plan amendmems\2008 rezone review\08A5 Stout Staff Report.doc 1 II. 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 flCommunity Developmem\PLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendmems\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout StafTReport.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 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 '/z 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 (:\Community DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Bordenkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\0845 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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Borden\comp plan amendmems\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 4 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 if present 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 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 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: IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 5 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. V11. 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. V111. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Parcel and Zoning Maps 2. List of 300'radius property owners, notified by US mail L\Community DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Repott.doc 6 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. to Damage public health, safety, and welfare. P 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 r 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 summwydoc V 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. 3213340-90021 [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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone re6ew\08-05 Stout Staff Report 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. H. 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. 1ACommunity Developmem\PLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendmems\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 %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 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 1ACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Bordenkomp plan amendmems\2008 rezone revim\09-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 3 r 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. RU521: 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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendmems\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 1991 from 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 1:5 (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 occyrs for two miles from the subject parcels. Forlhese reasons, the re ue o consistent with the above Comprehensive Plan policies as the proposed commercia an 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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNIWAllan Borden\comp plan amendmems\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 of 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 if present on the property. In this case, no critical IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\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 I/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 l (no damage to public health, safety and welfare) is met; based upon staff evaluation. I:\Community DevelopmentTLANNINGW Ian Borden\comp plan amendmems\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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendmens\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 renmd.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] 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. 3. Impacts to resource land uses. 08-05 Stout rezone BCC sept 09 remand summary.doc 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. 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. 08-05 Stout rezone BCC sept 09 remand summary.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 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 MASON COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION Minutes November 3, 2008 (Note audio tape (#3) dated October 3, 2008 counter (#) for exact details of discussion) (This document is not intended to be a verbatim transcript) ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Chair Bill Dewey. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Bill Dewey, Tim Wing, Dennis Pickard, Jim Reece, Diane Edgin and Debbie Jacobs. Don LeMaster was excused. Staff Present: Barbara Adkins, Allan Borden, Bob Fink. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 4. NEW BUSINESS (#0050)Bill Dewey noted the number of people in the audience present for the Peninsula Topsoil rezone request and moved it up to the first item on the agenda. (#0085)Allan Borden, Department of Community Development, opened up the public hearing on the Peninsula Topsoil rezone request. Allan handed out comments from Ken VanBuskirk and Jacqueline Mastow. This rezone request contains two properties that total 50 acres is size located west of Old Belfair Highway about a mile north of the intersection of Clifton Road and Old Belfair Highway. The current zone is RR20 and the proposed zone is RR5. The existing land use is a sand and gravel operation and designated timberlands. This property is completely surrounded by RR20 properties. The existing access is down Timberline Dr.,which is a private road. The properties are situated northwest and west of the Belfair LIGA. There are wetland, stream,floodplain, and slope critical areas on the site and to the west,east, and southeast. Agricultural Resource Lands and Long-Term Commercial Forest Lands are located in the vicinity. In current zone, or if new zone is approved, applicant still could divide property using conventional or 1 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 performance subdivision process. Criterion 1, regarding damage to public health, safety and welfare,there is a concern about available water for development on these 50 acres. It would have to be secured through water rights, or connections through some sort of community system. The suitable areas for development need to be determined in regards to all the critical areas. Criterion 2, regarding consistency with the Comp Plan,the parcels in the general area, range from 7 to 44 acres in size. Most of the land in the vicinity is under timber taxation, and staff concludes RR20 zone is the most consistent designation. Criterion 3, regarding sprawling low-density rural development,there is an existing sand and gravel use that is resource based but an existing nonconforming use. Staff concludes this criteria is not met. Criterion 4, regarding demand for urban services in rural areas is met based on staff evaluation. The services will not be at urban level services. Criterion 5, regarding interfere with urban area growth, is met based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 6, regarding retention of open space, fish and wildlife habitat, protection of air and water, is met as staff concludes that county standards are met. Criterion 7, regarding pressure to change other land use designations, Peninsula Topsoil did not provide compelling reasons or unique characteristics of the property why these parcels should be considered for rezones. If this request is approved, a precedent is set, and as a result, similarly situated parcels elsewhere in the county could be subject to the added pressure to rezone to denser development densities. Criterion 8 is not applicable to this request. In conclusion, staff feels the current zone matches the characteristics of the area dealing with critical areas, resource lands, and parcel sizes. The current zone still allows some flexibility to divide the property and the request to go to denser residential densities would serve as a precedent to future requests. (#0650)Tim Wing stated there's 7,44-acre pieces. This map shows some smaller pieces adjacent to these parcels. (#0675)Allan Borden explained there is RR10 off to the west of the property. (#0685)Tim Wing stated it's east of the property where it says RR20. They don't appear to be even 5 acres in size. (#0695)Allan Borden stated some of them are not as they existed at the time the zoning was established. I stated the surrounding lands were RR20, and 20 to 40 RR10 parcels. (#0700)Tim Wing inquired why the smaller lots were not discussed in the size of the lots in the general area. (#0710)Allan Borden noted it was an oversight. (#0720)Tim Wing noted so there are some parcels that are zoned RR20 that are not 20 acre parcels. (#0725)Allan Borden responded that is correct. (#0735)Tim Wing stated you raised the question of water availability, and inquired if there was some reason to think homes that might be built there wouldn't be able to get water from Belfair Water. (#0740)Allan Borden responded they would have to prove availability of water from the Belfair Water District as part of the subdivision process. (#0745)Tim Wing inquired if these parcels on the west side of the Union River,to get to them you have to cross the Union River. Do they have an appropriate access to get across the Union River? Is that part of the criteria we should consider in terms of the zoning request? (#0755)Allan Borden stated that is one of the criteria for the zone. Currently they don't have an access. (#0765)Tim Wing inquired if they can make a rezone request if they don't have proper access. (#0775)Allan Borden stated they could make the request, and it can be reviewed whether it meets the criteria in the Comp Plan. The only access right now is a narrow road called Timberline Dr,which is a private road and has a one lane bridge over Union River to these parcels. Right now they don't have a county road access to the property. Even under RR20 they would have to have some access to all the properties they create. The nearest county road is Old Belfair Highway. 2 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#0800)Miscellaneous discussion. (#0900)Tim Wing raised the question if the PAC can even approve this rezone without an access. (#0925)Miscellaneous discussion. (#1100)Tim Wing inquired about Ken VanBuskirk's comment about Huson Creek being in the wrong location. (#1130)Allan Borden explained that it's in the wrong location on the GIS map. The contour layers are different information than the hydro layers, and sometimes the hydro layers wind up in the wrong location. They do tip a person off to look for a stream feature in the vicinity. (#1155) Bill Dewey opened up the public comment portion of the public hearing. (#1175) Robert Wright lives on Timberline Dr. He stated he doesn't have the same concerns that everyone else has about the neighborhood growing. I'm not strictly opposed to it, but I am very concerned about the traffic on Timberline Dr. It's already pretty busy and people don't seem to really care that the speed limit is 15 mph. It's a big wide private road, and people speed through there all the time. It's scary when you think about children and dogs running around in there. We're so afraid of that road we put a fence around our entire yard. I would just hope that any expansion in the neighborhood behind us would include some kind of mechanism for slowing that traffic down. (#1240) Patrick White also lives on Timberline Dr. He stated it is a great community, but if they're going to be building homes back, it will help with the traffic. It will decrease the number of large trucks. I don't see a problem with the road itself. I would like to see some way to keep people from speeding up and down there, as well as garbage. Cars have been dumped back there. I don't want to see more businesses there, or churches or schools. We would like to see more homes there. (#1340)Mark Huson also lives on Timberline Dr. I want to echo what Robert Wright said. There should be something installed to slow traffic down. I'm not opposed to development, but needs to be some way to control traffic there. (#1350) Ken VanBuskirk of Davis Farm Road testified next. He stated his wife and he own the parcel that's the southwestern border of the gravel pit. I'm also the co-manager of the Davis Family Farm, which borders the rest of the southern boundary. I talked to Mr. Borden last week, and FEMA gave Mason County on the temporary moratorium on the flood plain development for the Union River just last week. Those flood plain maps are old and needs to be updated.After the storms last year,we had a foot of silt on our fields there, which is the ag resource land.Those lands in the RR20 that make up the Davis Farm, it's more than that simple designation. That was a gift that Tom and Irene Davis gave to their children and the community. It will be a working farm,which our family has retained the right to farm. The forest land will continue to produce timber and other small forest products. The Union River has a permanent wildlife buffer along it, in perpetuity. This proposed rezone doesn't fit; the impact of more intense zoning will impact our properties as well as the Union River. It is very difficult to manage our farm when we have higher densities and incompatible uses adjacent or nearby. We have stray dogs harassing and maiming our livestock, brush theft, and trespass are daily occurrences. If rezones are to higher densities, it will only increase these uses. We concur with staffs findings that this proposed rezone is not consistent with the Comp Plan. Therefore, we don't think this rezone should be approved. (#1525)Celia Parrott of Belfair testified next. She inquired about the idea of a precedent when she read the zoning and it said one of the concerns was that if you change it from an RR20 to an RR5 you're setting a precedent. She inquired if each rezone request was dealt with absolutely individually, or once a precedence is set, is there a domino effect. That is a real consideration. (#1575) Bill Dewey explained one of the things we try to concern ourselves with is to be consistent in our decisions. If we rule a certain way on this request, if something else comes in similar,we would be hard pressed to not do the same thing again. 3 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1600) Lisa Wright of Belfair inquired if this is approved how many houses are they anticipating to be developed. If that's the case,would the road still be considered private just because it's an easement, or would it turn into a county road? (#1640)Tim Wing explained that if we approve this rezone, there a certain number of houses that would be allowed to be built, but it's no guarantee that the developer would build those. There's also no guarantee the road would become a county road. (#1650) Miscellaneous discussion. (#1800) Laura Wood, one of the managers of the Davis Family Farm,testified next. She inquired if nothing is changed at all, if it's left the way it is,this site could hold two homes, is that true. (#1835)Allan Borden explained with a performance subdivision they could double the number of lots. They could get 4 or 5 lots. (#1850) Laura Wood stated when the land use zoning was put together, somebody decided this area should be RR20, and I realize there are a lot of little houses along the river that don't fall into the category of RR20, but the reason it was zoned that way was to protect the environment and protect the river. So to go back and say that because 50 years ago people built houses too close to the river and emptied their sewage into it, doesn't seem like a good idea today. It looks to me like there could be houses there. The way it is right now with no changes. So changing it to make sure somewhere along the line they could build 8 houses, seems like it's not necessary. (#1900) Bill Dewey closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. (#1925)Dennis Pickard stated that the applicant hasn't really given us any reason to approve a rezone of the property. No compelling reason to change the zoning. I am opposed to granting the rezone. That is my motion. (#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 the 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 4 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 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'/2 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 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'/z 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 aesthetics 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. 5 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#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 aesthetics. (#0135) Dennis Pickard stated the point is well taken as he also has concerns about buffering issues. They will 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. 6 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#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 considered. Allan explained it is an RCW and a state law. (#0500) Barbara Adkins opened up the continuation of the public hearing on the Transportation Element. They've addressed the three items on the amendment to the Mason County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element dated October 8, 2008. I'm bringing to you the edits and it is Charlie Butros's position that that is where they stand. (#0525)Bill Dewey noted the PAC has come to terms with where Public Works was at with it, but didn't feel comfortable taking action since Tim Wing and Dennis Pickard were not at the last meeting. Both of you have been so passionate on this issue,we wanted you to be here for the final discussion. That's why it's back before us tonight. We talked about this at the last meeting, and Charlie indicated that the Belfair study will meet the need of#1. Item#2 is his compromise on that, and on#3 it was not legal. (#0575)Tim Wing stated that Charlie's comment that it would be illegal to consider#3 is a clear sign that he missed the point. There's nothing illegal about the county deciding to do something about traffic in one of the two UGA's if it's overwhelming, regardless of whether it's on a state road or not. I assume he meant that he thinks it's illegal for the county to participate financially in the improvement of a state road. (#0585) Bill Dewey clarified that was what Charlie indicated. (#0595)Tim Wing stated he's heard that before, and I've also heard from other people that's it's not illegal. The point is that if the state road is jammed to the point where it's not safe and traffic is unbearable,then the county has the responsibility to do something about that regardless if it's a state road or not. What they do about can be a variety of things that don't have to include putting a dime into the state road. It could include other road structures that would remove some of the traffic from the state road,which would improve some of the traffic on the state road. I don't think he got that part of it. He's put some things in here that says'The infrastructure needs of the unincorporated UGA's would be identified and included in the prioritization matrix in this category'. That's fine, but I'm done fighting about this at this level with this group. I think the PAC is getting about as much out of this issue as we're going to get. I think the next round of efforts to get the county to do more inside the UGA's has to do with trying to get funding from the state to help with that. It also has to do with working with the county's six year plan and try to insist that no new roads go on that six year plan that are out in the boonies with no traffic on them. Instead the money that could be allocated for that should be considered for new roads. This puts into the element some tools that people can use in the future to ask the big question. I'm not totally happy with the whole thing, but I think that having this in here the way it is is okay, and I'm prepared to move ahead on it. (#0660) Dennis Pickard also noted progress from his last meeting where we talked about this. He stated he has noticed it says the only urbanized area in the county is Shelton, and we know that's not true. It's not going to be true. It talks about the whole goal of the transportation system is to preserve the rural nature. Well, it's not all rural in the county. It says the county will consider developing a plan. No, develop the plan. Make it mandatory, because it's not getting done otherwise. However, overall, perhaps passing along these suggested revisions to the BOCC, I'd be comfortable moving forward with this and hopes the end result will start moving in the direction we all agree it needs to move in. I suggest we move these suggestions to the BOCC to consider along with the recommendation to pass this forward. I will make that my motion. (#0755)Tim Wing inquired if the motion is to accept what staff is proposing. (#0775) Dennis Pickard added also sending along the edits we discussed. (#0785)Tim Wing stated perhaps we should send these edits to Public Works and ask them to come back and talk to us about it. 7 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#0795) Dennis Pickard stated we're getting down to the timeline, and we still have the hearing before the BOCC on this. (#0810) Barbara Adkins explained she has already scheduled Transportation and Capital Facilities to the BOCC on December gtn (#0825)Bill Dewey stated we have a motion to send this to the BOCC along with the additional recommendations. If that's the case I'd like to go through these edits. (#0850) Dennis Pickard explained his first edit would replace'The only urbanized area in the county is Shelton,where approximately 20 percent of the county's population and approximately 50 percent of commercial activities are located';that is located under Introduction and Purpose. It fails to recognize the existence of the UGA's and other more densely developed areas, and the transportation needs of those that are at odds with a fully rural emphasis. The proposed sentence would read: 'The primary urbanized area in the county is Shelton,where approximately 20 percent of the county's population and approximately 50 percent of commercial activities are located. In addition, other areas of the county, especially the UGA's of Belfair and Allyn, as well as various RAC's have been established under the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and designated as areas intended for future high density development'. The second edit is under Goals and Priorities. It emphases rural character and my edit recognizes there is more to Mason County than just rural character. The proposed paragraph would instead read: 'Mason County's goal is to provide adequate mobility for all people, goods, and services in an efficient and economical manner. Planning and developing future transportation facilities to accommodate the projected growth and population and commerce in the urban areas of the county will be a primary goal. In the rural areas, existing transportation facilities will be maintained and improved while minimizing changes to the physical and social environment so as to preserve the'rural character'of those areas. The transportation system shall support the transportation needs of Mason County within the context of the county's Comp Plan'. (#1000) Bill Dewey noted Charlie Butros was not committed to do an overall countywide plan. He's committed to the Belfair plan as he has the grant and the resources to do it. (#1040)Dennis Pickard stated that's why he is requesting the planning projects be put into the six year plan. We need to move forward in those areas where we don't have a plan now. The date for the Allyn transportation plan I would be comfortable in removing that. (#1080) Miscellaneous discussion. (#1150)Tim Wing agreed that it asks them to make more of a commitment to planning. It asks them to look at the rural UGA"s as urban areas. It asks them to pay attention to using future growth projections for transportation planning goals. Those are things he has already said he would do. (#1165) Debbie Jacobs inquired if we make a recommendation to approve this with our edits, will it actually go to the BOCC. (#1175) Barbara Adkins stated it will all go to the BOCC as part of your recommendation. (#1195) Bill Dewey stated by saying the county will develop a plan doesn't mean it has to be done next year. (#1250)Tim Wing stated he's in favor of accepting what Charlie did, and ask him that these additional changes be incorporated, sending it on to Charlie, and then onto the BOCC. That's our recommendation. If the BOCC chooses to soften that,that's up to them. (#1280) Bill Dewey noted out of respect for the conversation we had with Charlie, we know where he stands on this. 8 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1335) Dennis Pickard stated that if the PAC feels comfortable with the fact that Charlie is starting to move in the direction of seeing where we're coming from and trying to work with those goals, and if the particular language I suggested would be counterproductive then I would propose removing that language. (#1365) Bill Dewey stated this has been a productive discussion and maybe we should state'as funding permits,the county will consider...'. (#1395) Dennis Pickard deleted his part of the motion regarding the date of 2010. (#1425)Miscellaneous discussion. (#1475) Dennis Pickard will email a cleaned up copy of proposed amendments to the Transportation Element to staff. (#1540)Bill Dewey noted the amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed. (#1635) Bob Fink opened up the public hearing on the Danger Tree Ordinance. This is a public hearing to receive public comment on this proposal. There is one set of language for the Fish and Wildlife Critical Habitat Areas, and another draft for the Wetland Critical Areas, The BOCC has requested that we review this issue. It is a fairly narrow issue,which is what restrictions should there be on the removal of hazardous trees that are within the buffer critical area, or the critical area itself. A danger tree is a tree that is within a tree length of an inhabited structure or an accessory to a residence. The proposal would change the existing code to require prior approval by the county before felling the tree. It would require a professional to review the necessity to fell the tree, and make recommendations for dealing with the issues. It would require enhanced mitigation through the form of leaving the tree truck on the ground or in the critical area so it serves as habitat and helps protect the functions and values. This draft was developed with the assistance of DOE and the WDF&W. (#1735) Debbie Jacobs inquired if felling a danger tree requires county approval at this time. (#1740) Bob Fink explained the county is already involved with this process, however pre-approval is not required. People call and ask, and we try to go out to visit the site to give them some assurance that what they do is okay. The other way we are involved is we sometimes get complaints that people are cutting down trees and we go out to investigate. There have been a few times when people have cut down trees in violation of the code. (#1765) Debbie Jacobs noted she has been on the board at Lakeland Village for many years and they have CCR's that are very specific by different areas in regards to what they can or cannot do with trees. She inquired what takes precedent as far as the danger tree. (#1785) Bob Fink explained the county regulations apply and restrict what trees you can fell. That may be allowed or not allowed by the CCR's in your particular area. However, if it's prohibited by the Association and we allow it,then the Association could stop it. They are responsible for enforcing their own rules and they can go to court to do that. (#1820) Debbie Jacobs stated we've had to take a different stance on these danger tree issues at Lakeland Village. If you restrict someone from taking down a danger tree, and then it falls on their property, there becomes a whole liability issue that comes into play. (#1830) Bob Fink explained these regulations are not intended to stop the felling of legitimate danger trees. They're intended to make sure that the mitigation,when they're felled, is appropriate. (#1850)Tim Wing noted the agencies seem to be happy with this draft. (#1860) Bob Fink responded the agencies are happy with it, but we have yet to hear from the public. I did not receive any written comments from anyone prior to this meeting. We did send out notice to the builders, consultants, etc., and others who have expressed interest in this issue in the past. 9 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1885)Tim Wing stated he is in favor of sending this ordinance forward, but would like some assurance this is the proper language, and wondered about other county's ordinances and how they worked. (#1920) Bob Fink explained there is a science surrounding hazardous trees. There are a few studies that have been done, and when trees should be removed. I didn't do a survey regarding other counties, but we have been living with these codes for some time. I gave you the online permitting process they use in King County for removing trees and vegetation for fire hazard. You just have to notify them prior to removal and then they respond by telling you all the rules you have to follow. They don't necessarily do a site visit. The reason for requiring pre-notification is to avoid something being done that doesn't meet the code. It's hard to correct these things after they have been done. It gives assurance to the property owner that if they want to remove the trees, it's safe to do so. (#2000) Bill Dewey shared his concern with always having to have a consultant notified for these issues. It's also costly. If I understand this ordinance, if it's two trees or less, then you need an arborist or professional forester to say it's a danger tree, and then notify the county and then cut them and then do the mitigation. If it's more than two then you have to have a habitat management plan submitted for approval. (#2020) Bob Fink stated that is correct. (#2050) Debbie Jacobs stated there are homeowners in Lakeland Village who are coming to the board to say their insurance company won't insure them because of the trees being so close to the homes. There's been a huge change in just the last couple of years. (#2085) Bill Dewey opened up the public comment portion of the hearing. (#2095)Steve Whitehouse, attorney in Shelton,testified. Bob has kept me informed of these proposed changes, but I do wonder why we are doing this. I tend to not like a lot of formal regulation, but if it's a situation where you ought to work with a county on things,then have it work that way instead of having to hire all kinds of expensive consultants. There are liability issues. If you know there's a danger tree, you don't cut it down, and it falls down and injures someone, you are liable.What if the tree isn't within a tree length of the house or structure? Superior Court tells me I have to cut it down or I'm going to be liable if someone gets hurt. (#2140)Bob Fink explained you can apply for permits to remove trees that don't meet this definition. This is a nonpermitted process. We tried to reduce the costs by not requiring a permit to do this;the other is an option. (#2175)Steve Whitehouse stated if you look at a tree and it's dying, it's a danger tree. If it's leaning badly, it's a danger tree. I don't have any problem with having to notify the county if I want to take down a danger tree, but it seems I ought to be able to notify the county of the danger tree, and the county has 20 or 30 days to take a look at it. The county claims to have some expertise and they ought to be able to do this. I have some property on Hammersley Inlet with a huge tree on it. It's half dead, as half the branches don't have leaves. I called an arborist to see what to do to save the tree. He said it's not worth my coming out. If half the branches don't have leaves on them,you'll never save the tree. It's still alive, but at some point in time I've got to cut that tree down. The cost of me getting an arborist out there is a useless cost. If Bob comes out there with me, he's going to be able to tell me that the tree is dying. I don't have any problem with leaving it if I cut it down. If you take a dead tree down, you're doing exactly what nature would do over a period of time. Nature doesn't require a habitat management plan, it doesn't require you to plant six trees. If somebody says BAS tells you that you have to do more than nature does, I'm sorry that's wrong and common sense will tell you that. I'm actually an advocate of GMA but not an advocate of how it gets implemented sometimes. One of the things I see in my business is the more complicated you make things, the more people are going to find ways not to comply. You need to make these things simple and concise and give people an opportunity to comply and want to do the right thing. That's what has happened with GMA. It has become so confusing it's impossible for the average person to understand it. It's my opinion that we really have to pay attention to these things that cost money that are an economic waste. (#2445) Bill Dewey inquired of Steve Whitehouse what he would change or if he had any proposed changes to the amendments. 10 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#2450) Steve Whitehouse replied he would rewrite the whole thing. I would say that if you're going to take down a danger tree in a habitat area, you need to notify the county and give them an opportunity to come out and inspect it. I'd rather pay the county$50 than pay an arborist$500. Beyond that, I don't know why this needs to say anything. (#2500)Jerry Schouviller of Mason Lake testified. He stated he has danger trees and agrees with Mr. Whitehouse. He stated it's really getting sad when the county controls everything you do on your own property. It's just too much. I put in for a permit to do some selective logging over three years ago, and I'm just now getting it approved. After thousands of dollars with all these specialists coming out and walking the property, and now requiring me to notify and pay for and cut a tree down and lay there when I burn wood for heat. That doesn't make sense either. (#2560)Bill Dewey closed the public comment portion of the hearing. (#2575)Tim Wing stated he agrees with some of the public testimony and that most people will abide by rules that are well stated and are reasonable. They need to seem fair on their face. I just don't like to see us intrude that much on what people do. People need to know and learn about buffer areas, and the importance of them, as well as the fact that leaving some trees does have a purpose. If it's just a danger tree that might fall on your house, and it's not in a buffer area, you shouldn't have to leave a trunk there. (#2645) Bob Fink explained this ordinance would not even cover trees not in the buffer. Trees that are not in the buffer area are not covered at all;you can cut them down. The provision added was that the trunk be left on site to provide large,woody debris to enhance mitigation. The other important element is the prior notification. If it wasn't clear to the county if it was a danger tree,the county could request a forester or arborist do an evaluation. That was language put in there for enforcement purposes. I do agree with Mr. Whitehouse in that I would like to have the rule as simple as possible so people will comply. The provisions involving professionals is to make sure the activity is done with a scientific basis. I understand that makes it more expensive and more difficult and may make people less reluctant to go through the proper steps to get it done correctly. (#2775) Bill Dewey stated he has concerns about the added costs, or make it so complex that people just break the law,which could cause liability issues. (#2800) Dennis Pickard noted F&W commented that Lewis, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties have provisions for danger tree removal that allow the review authority to require a consultation with a professional, but don't require it as a matter of course, particularly for one or two trees in a ten year period. That seems like an excessive requirement. I'm opposed to the requirement of an arborist or forester for any removal of danger trees in the buffer. (#2900) Bob Fink stated the agencies recommended that a professional make that evaluation for a larger scale project. That kind of investment may be worthwhile for a larger scale project. With a smaller project we were trying to avoid it. Although they did recommend that an arborist make that call. (#2975)The PAC agreed they were more in favor of the county leaving it optional. (#2985)Tim Wing noted if someone fills out an application, if the county has someone review this, and they've checked that this is the sixth time they've asked for this in the last six months or ten years,the county could choose to go out and inspect the situation. Most people, if given good instructions,will do it all on their own. This county doesn't have the staff to go out and deal with this issue. This is the same, to me, as the business of wanting county staff to check everybody's septic system every year. There's got to be a way to do it without burdening the county and burdening the people. I'd like to send it back to Bob with the comments we've been making and bring it back to us. He inquired if that was possible. (#3100) Bob Fink responded there isn't a firm deadline, but the BOCC wanted it processed as soon as possible. 11 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#3125)Miscellaneous discussion on possible upcoming meeting dates. (#3200) Bill Dewey inquired how enforcement is done on this issue. (#3250)Bob Fink explained it depends on the situation. Sometimes it's simply a tree; sometimes a forest that's cut down. Usually we ask for mitigation in the form of planting and if they are cooperative,that's as far as it goes. They are just asked to do what they should have done in the first place. There are people that don't honestly know the full extent of the rules, and there are some people that don't even know enough to ask to find out where there is an issue with that pond in their back yard. (#3300) Miscellaneous discussion regarding if a homeowner even knows he might have a critical area on his property. (#3400)Tim Wing stated the following points: That we require a homeowner to notify the county that they want to cut a tree down,that they have to wait thirty days to do that,that the county can review it or they don't have to, and that no arborist would be required unless the county does review it and says don't cut it, then an arborist can be hired to mitigate it. (#3500)Bob Fink stated he would add to that to leave the stumps as woody debris. (#3550)Tim Wing noted he would add the county would communicate the mitigation requirements to the person who put in the application. (#3600) Bob Fink explained the problem with that language is that the county needs fairly specific language as a basis for requiring mitigation. I do agree with the concept of keeping it simple, but we are also trying to follow the recommendations we received from the state agencies as well. (#3700) Miscellaneous discussion regarding leaving in Hon page 1,with the exception of expense of hiring a professional for the removal of one or two trees. Discussion that it's an unnecessary expense. (#0080) Bill Dewey inquired of Bob Fink if there has been enough discussion for him to redraft the regulations. (#0085)Bob Fink stated he could do that. (#0090) Discussion of next hearing date to continue it to. Danger tree hearing continued to December 15, 2008. Meeting adjourned. 12 r 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;Gaye. 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 2 Cmmr.Gallagher/Sheldon moved and seconded to approve the special meeting minutes of January 8, 2009 with noted corrections. Motion carried unanimously. RE-aye; S-aye;Gaye. 8. Approval of Consent 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$49,935.Resolution No.04-09 (Exhibit A) 8.3 Approval of the 2009 Funding Plan for Affordable Housing.(2060)and Homelessness Prevention (2163)as recommended by the Mason County Housing Coalition. 8.4 AppFeval of the,agr-eement between Mason Gotmty and the Mason GeurAy Shelier-for-Homelessness Prevention Funds(21 63)in the.mount of$ c 000 t h4e a Rental Case Manager.Removed 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,Masono 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.;Dale Carrell-Utilities$86.16;Roy K.Oster (Rose)-Utilities$600.00;Ken Roethle-Utilities$320.01;Terry D.McFarlane(Kathleen) Rousing$501.00&Food$99.00;George W.Roberts-:Housing$300.00;Charles G.Robson,Jr.- Housing$600.00 for a total of$4,006.17 as recommended by the Veterans Assistance Fund Screening Committee. 8.8 Approval of amendment#4 to the professional services contract between Mason County Public Health. and Eunice Santiago for Maternity Support Services in 2009. 8:9 Approval of amendment#13 to the Consolidated Contract C14956 with Washington State Department, of Health that.increases the maximum consideration of the contract by$298,737 to a total of $1;603,723. The services covered in,this contract include'the,Drinking Water program,Child Profile Immunization program,Tobacco.program,Healthy Child Care of Washington program,and Oral Health program.. 8.10 Approval of the reimbursable agreement between Mason County Public Works Road Department and. Squaxin Island Tribe to provide maintenance services,emergency assistance and fabrication of signs and materials. 8.11 Approval of the reimbursable agreement between Mason County Public Works Road Department and the Mary M.Knight School to provide maintenance services and emergency assistance. 8.12 Approval for the Equipment Rental&Revolving Fund(ER&R)Manager to purchase one new 2009 utility 4x4 vehicle from the Washington State contract to replace Vehicle#185 that was damaged in the December snow storm. The funds are available in the ER&R fund. 8.13 Approval to extend the call for bids to furnish Mason County with one new Truck Mounted Excavator for Public Works. The new date and time of opening to be February 4,2009 at 9:00 am. The original approval for the call for bids was done on December 23,2008. 8.14 Approval for the Public Works Director/Equipment Rental&Revolving Fund Manager to advertise, set bid opening date and time,award the contract,and authorize the Chair to sign all pertinent documents for the construction of the new Public Works Fuel Facility. The contract award will be announced during a regular meeting of the Board of Mason County Commissioners. 8.15 Approval to concur with the reappointment of Edna Fund to the Timberland Regional Library Board of Trustees as Lewis County's representative. The term will end December 31,2015. 8.16 Approval to appoint Ken Wilson,Dan Michener,Drew Noble,Glen Hudson and John Komen to the Transportation Improvement Program Citizens Advisory Program(TIP-CAP). 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(7A4 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 arc teledised 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. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 1. Call to Order—The Chairperson called the regular meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance— Pat Swartos led the flag salute. 3. Roll Call — Present: Commissioner District 1 - Lynda Ring Erickson; Commissioner District 2 —Tim Sheldon; Commissioner District 3 — Ross Gallagher. 4. Correspondence and Organizational Business 4.1 Correspondence 4.1.1 Michael Neher, Everett Hughes, Tim Whitman and Mike Sheetz are seeking appointment to the vacated Fire District No. 6 Commissioner position. 4.1.2 The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is preparing land use plans for each of their parks and would like public input throughout the process. 4.1.3 Comcast provided notice of price changes effective October 6, 2009. 4.1.4 The Washington State Liquor Control Board sent notice of establishments in Mason County with liquor licenses due to expire on December 31, 2009. 4.1.5 Paul Wildman submitted comments regarding Nathan & Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise's rezone request. 4.2 Proclamation—American Legion Month. Peter Laserinko presented the proclamation declaring September 2009 as American Legion Month in Mason County. 4.3 News Release - Solid Waste Schedule Changes. Emmett Dobey presented the new release announcing reduced hours for all Mason County solid waste facilities beginning October 1, 2009. Cmmr. Sheldon commented that this is a big change and hopefully the public will be ready. The hours at the Shelton transfer station have never changed, but as a utility, the solid waste management department must live within their budget and operate on the funds they generate. Mr. Dobey noted that on one hand it is a good thing because they are collecting less garbage, which is something they want to do. However, a reduction in garbage means a reduction in revenue so they have to change the hours they are open. Cmmr. Ring Erickson stated that it is her understanding that some of this decrease is not so much an impact of recycling, but the reduction of construction waste that comes with building. In the future when there is more building these percentages might come back up. Mr. Dobey responded that there are three factors: the economic conditions, less materials being generated from building and the fact that the summer has been very dry, which creates less weight because the garbage is dry. Because of those three factors revenue is down approximately 12%. 4.4 Dave Loser announced 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. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 - PAGE 2 5. Open Forum for Citizen Input— 5.1 Brenda Hirschi stated she doesn't understand why there will be a public hearing because the Auditor,Assessor and Treasurer would like to close their offices for lunch, but there is no public hearing for the transfer station closure. She would like someone to explain the procedure for this. Cmmr. Sheldon explained that the item to set a public hearing for hours of operation is on the consent agenda. The Commissioners control the facilities and have chosen to have a public hearing for that. He asked Mr. Dobey to explain why he did not have a public hearing for the hours of operation of the landfill. Mr. Dobey responded that his department generally only holds public hearings when they are changing rates because they are required to by ordinance. A change in operation is at the discretion of the Director, who decides the best way to run the department. Because they are at a point where they were losing revenue they had to make these changes. 5.2 Denise Berglund wanted to talk about saving the church. The Commissioners need to synthesize information. The biggest information is that this group was able to raise $150,000 in these times. People will only give more money when the Board says its okay and they know the building will be there. The contract is a piece of paper that can change. She was in on this initially when the growth plan was being discussed and it was decided that the church would be a parking lot for all of the new County buildings. There is no more growth plan so things can change. There is not a minority involved in this. $150,000 is a lot during these times. Cmmr. Sheldon responded that the contract with the church is for $350,000. This group wants to give the County $150,000 for a $350,000 obligation. To offer$150,000 for a property being sold for$350,000 is very unusual. It would be a poor use of taxpayers' money to accept an offer like that. Cmmr. Gallagher added that there was a contract in place two years ago. The building was for sale four years before that and no one was interested in it, so the Board approved the purchase by a 3-0 vote. Over the past year people decided they were interested in this. He has heard from people that the Archdiocese doesn't care who purchases the property. The Board made a motion to hold a briefing with the Archdiocese to get some strait answers on August 25"'and the Archdiocese was never heard from. He decided to call the Archdiocese instead of waiting and he asked for a strait answer. He asked what's the deal. The Archdiocese said the deal was signed two years ago. He thinks it is sad that people have done a lot of work for a glimmer of hope that was never there. The Board must move forward and proceed with the agreement. 5.3 Drew Noble stated he is here on behalf of TIPCAP. A motion was passed at their last meeting to recommend that in the event a levy shift process is utilized, it not exceed $1,000,000. They would prefer that no levy shift be done. At present, approximately $965,000 is diverted from the road fund to the Sheriff's office to pay for the enforcement of transportation related laws. There are very good roads in Mason County. It is one of the best road systems in the State. This shift would put off the construction and rebuilding of some of these roads. The minor and unidentified construction item would be reduced to about$4,000 with a levy shift. That is the fund that pays for flood damage to roads and snow removal. A lot of grants that the County gets for road improvements are reimbursements and a levy shift would also cut out the cash flow for those grants. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 - PAGE 3 Cmmr. Sheldon responded that this is just the beginning of the discussion. No decisions have been made. There has been one presentation made on the issue and the Public Works department is planning on a workshop as well. 6. Adoption of Agenda - Cmmr. Gallagher/Ring Erickson moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as revised. Motion carried unanimously. RE-aye; S-aye; G-aye. 7. Approval of Minutes—August 10 and 24, 2009 briefing meeting minutes and September 1, 2009 regular meeting minutes. Cmmr. Gallagher/Ring Erickson moved and seconded to approve the August 10 and 24, 2009 briefing meeting minutes and September 1, 2009 regular meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. RE-aye; S-aye; G-aye. 8. Approval of Consent 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. Resolution 79-09 (Exhibit A) 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. Resolution 80-09 (Exhibit B) 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. Resolutions 81-09 &82-09 (Exhibits C& D) 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. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS September IS, 2009 - PAGE 4 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. Brenda Hirschi asked that item 8.4 be removed for further discussion. Cmmr. Sheldon commented on item 8.13. He thanked the individuals that stepped forward to help their community. It was a tough choice and there were a lot of qualified individuals. The Board had to move forward rapidly and Dave Johnston is a very qualified person. An audience member asked about items 8.5 and 8.8. She thought Walker Park was closed in regards to item 8.5. Cmmr. Sheldon stated that item 8.5 is just changing the park host. The park was never closed. The audience member asked what Title II and Title III projects are in regards to item 8.8. Cmmr. Sheldon responded that these are Federal designations of funds that are available to counties that are largely timber dependant. Cmmr. Ring Erickson clarified that the money is often used for the Sheriff's office to respond to timber theft and vandalism on Federal lands. It is part of the payment in lieu of taxes. Some of the 4-H forestry programs come through Title II. Cmmr. Gallagher noted that some other counties in the state with large holdings of Federal lands rely on this funding to help supplement property taxes. Cmmr. Gallagher/Ring Erickson moved and seconded to approve Consent items 8.1 through 8.13, with the exception of item 8.4. Motion carried unanimously. RE-aye; S-aye; G-aye. Cmmr. Sheldon noted that item 8.4 is a carry over from last week that involves a loan from the Equipment Rental and Revolving Fund to Utilities and Waste Management. Emmett Dobey explained that the department started 2009 by paying two bills that were from 2008 for long haul contracts. That started the year in the hole about$300,000. If the bills are not paid the department will be starting the second year in a row at a deficit, which is contrary to State law. The proposal is to borrow the $300,000, repay it in 3 years and reduce the operations to the amount that is necessary to repay the loan. Cmmr. Sheldon stated that this item was on the agenda last week and was reviewed by the Finance Committee. Ms. Hirschi asked when Mr. Dobey became aware that there were two bills that were not paid in 2008 as they should have been. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 - PAGE 5 Mr. Dobey responded that he became aware of the bills in January or February of 2009. He believed that the bills could be made up during the year, but they ended up having a 12% reduction in refuse coming in. The budget today shows that revenues exceed expenditures, but not to the extent that it will cover$300,000. Ms. Hirschi asked why Mr. Dobey was unaware of the bills in 2008 and why this discussion didn't take place last fall. Mr. Dobey responded this hasn't been ignored and they are trying to address it. Extreme efficiency measures have been taken at the landfill in order to have it operate better and now they are reducing the hours of operations and staff. Ms. Hirschi commented that the citizens need assurance on how this will be prevented from happening in the future. Mr. Dobey answered that even if a loan were taken out in 2008, staff would still have been reduced this year. They are putting practices in place to pay the loan and get caught up by reducing staff. If waste continues to decrease, additional staff will need to be laid off or there will need to be other changes at the landfill. Ms. Hirschi asked if it is really true that it has just been a dry year and the waste weighs less. Cmmr. Sheldon responded that is only part of it. There was a tremendous amount of waste in previous years from residential and commercial construction. This county has gone from the second fastest growing county in the state back to a rural, timber dependant county with a rural level of service. The revenue that was derived from construction waste is no longer available. Mr. Dobey clarified that the waste coming into the landfill is 1/3 residential, 1/3 commercial and 1/3 construction. People are recycling to reduce residential waste, they aren't buying things so that reduces commercial waste and construction is down. Rather than ignoring the problem they are acting now. Ms. Hirschi asked why something wasn't done sooner about this. Mr. Dobey answered that they have been monitoring the waste flow since the beginning of the year to see if they could make up the amount due. Cmmr. Ring Erickson commented that the Board was briefed on this at the being of the year. This is an enterprises fund and it looked like this could be made up, but there was a reduction in the waste stream. Cmmr. Gallagher/Ring Erickson moved and seconded to approve Consent item 8.4. Motion carried unanimously. 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 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. Cmmr. Sheldon noted this was voted on several months ago and was brought back to the Board by the Superior Court. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 - PAGE 6 Allan Borden, Planner, presented the staff report. This is a request for rezone is from Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise. Four parcels are involved with a total acreage of 7.44 acres. The site is located just to the west of the intersection of McEwan Prairie and Mason Lake Road. The community of Rainbow Lake is just to the south and east. In this part of the county there are large properties between 50 and 300 acres in size. For that reason this area has been zoned Rural Residential 20. To the east is an area of Rural Residential 5, composed mainly of smaller properties less than an acre in size. The location is about 2 miles northeast of Shelton Urban Growth Area. The subject properties are between 1.8 and 2.0 acres in size and were created in 1992 by a short plat. These properties were initially review in November of last year by the Planning Advisory Commission. The Planning Advisory Commission recommended approval of the rezone by a 4 yes to 1 no vote. That recommendation was forwarded to the Board and the County Commissioners held a public hearing, which resulted in a denial of the request by a 2-1 vote. After the Commissioners'decision was issued the applicants filed a land use petition with Mason County Superior Court. On March 9, 2009 Judge Finlay issued an order to remand the review of the request back to the Board of Commissioners. On August 20, 2009 attorneys Robert Johnson and Kristen French, who represent the applicants, submitted additional materials to be considered for the rezone request. His staff report includes some of the information submitted by the attorneys. Typically with rezone requests the Planning department reviews the eight rezone criterion that are in the development regulations. The staff report is composed of analysis using those criteria. When the applicants submitted additional material in August they modified their request by including a provision to have a limited amount of potential land uses in the Rural Commercial 2 zone. The Rural Commercial 2 zone typically has a moderate amount of commercial uses that range from convenience stores to daycare centers. The applicants were willing to allow the uses to be a post office, fire station, church, local community center and self-storage facilitiy. They were also willing to impose a greater vegetation and fencing buffer and property line set backs. When staff reconsidered this request the main issues still remain as they were in January. Typically there is going to be a certain amount of health, safety and welfare issues on any development. The difficult measure that a lot of requests face when going from a residential zone to non-residential zone is whether the current zone or the proposed zone is more consistent with the designation. Since the subject property is in a block of large parcels and the site is adjacent to timberland, staff still finds that the Rural Residential 20 zone is the most consistent zone for the property. The fact that the parcels are small in size is subject to McEwan Prairie cutting off a small sliver of land of a much larger property and the subsequent short plat that was done in 1992 before the Rural Residential 5 zone came into existence. The other criteria that this request doesn't meet is the impact to the surrounding resource lands. The properties are nearly surrounded by timberland. If this rezone were permitted an extensive amount of commercial land use would be introduced into an area of residential land use and incompatible timberlands. The commercial land use would be spread along 1600 feet of McEwan Prairie Road. The other rezone criteria are not significantly impacted by the request. These properties are confined so it is not likely that there would be pressure to change other land use zone designations. In conclusion, staff finds this request doesn't meet criteria 2 and criteria 3. For that reason staff recommends the request be denied. Mr. Borden noted that he did receive a letter in support of the rezone from a resident of Lake Limerick. Questions for Staff Cmmr. Gallagher asked if it is Mr. Borden's opinion that buffers wouldn't matter in this rezone. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 - PAGE 7 Mr. Borden stated he wouldn't go that far. Buffers would provide visual protection from the road and soften the impact, but these would be larger buildings than would be found under a rural residential land use. Cmmr. Gallagher noted that under the requested zone there are no minimum lot sizes. He asked if more lots would be allowed within the property. Mr. Borden answered that a person could divide down a commercial lot. A one acre lot could be split into two half acre lots and those two lots could be used for separate land uses by separate people. Cmmr. Gallagher asked if this type of rezone request has been allowed before. Mr. Borden answered that it has been allowed before. A request received conditional approval in the Belfair Urban Growth Area. Cmmr. Gallagher asked what the difference is between this request and the Johnson rezone. Mr. Borden responded that the Johnson rezone was the first rezone request reviewed by the Board that was approved by conditional approval. That request was in a commercial industrial area and the applicant was willing to reduce the number of land use possibilities. This request would like to follow the same concept to limit the potential land uses to make it a more agreeable and predictable development. Cmmr. Gallagher asked about Attachment D. He would like to know if it would apply county-wide. Mr. Borden clarified that request to increase buffers would only apply to this proposal. Cmmr. Gallagher commented that there is a picture of a unique barn style storage facility in the presentation. He asked if the style of building is being discussed or just the rezone. Mr. Borden explained that kind of detail is reviewed at the special use permit level. An audience member asked who was included on the mailing list. Mr. Borden answered that the mailing list is primarily for property owners within 300 feet. There was also public notice in the newspaper. Public Testimony Kristen French and Robert Johnson spoke on behalf of the applicants Patrick Paradise and Nathan Stout. Ms. French explained that the County report indicates that a number of the criteria that are associated with rezone proposals are satisfied. There is no anticipated damage to public health, safety or welfare. They viewed public comments and a lot of them had to do with noise, lighting and aesthetics, which are issues that would be more appropriately addressed in a special permit requirement process. However, she did want to address the traffic related concerns of the community. She asked Mark Jacobs to address the traffic impacts. Mr. Jacobs stated he has been doing traffic engineering work for 25 years. He was asked to look at the subject site and to look at the traffic impacts of the development of a self storage facility as compared to what could be developed under existing zoning. His understanding is there are four existing lots that could have the potential development for 6 single family homes. Single family homes typically generate 10 daily trips per unit, so that would total 60 daily trips. If the site were developed with a 30,000 square BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 - PAGE 8 foot mini storage there would be about 75 daily trips. Basically there would be less than one additional trip per hour per day. From a traffic generation standpoint there isn't any significant difference from what the existing zoning would present. The trip generation is based on nationally derived data. The actual traffic impact is nominal. The traffic on the adjacent road, based on County data, is about 4,200 average trips per day. The additional 75 trips would be less than 2% of the total daily traffic. Mini storage is considered to be a very minor use in traffic. Ms. French continued going over the other rezone criteria. The County's determination that the request will not result in a marked increase for any urban services fits with their analysis. The County's determination that this proposal does not interfere with GMA goals also fits with their analysis. She noted that these parcels are situated in a unique enclave and are very well positioned to serve the documented need for self storage in the area. She provided a map that depicts existing self storage facilities in the County and she provided letters of support from community members indicating a need for self storage. She also noted that Commissioner Sheldon has also stated on the record that he sees a need for this type of development in the County. The location of dense existing areas of rural development around this area would benefit from this proposed use. The County's determination that this proposal will not materially interfere with open space and habitat is accurate, given the fact that the existing zoning designation would allow for fairly dense rural development. The last criterion that the County found was satisfied is the fact that this development will not create pressure to review additional rezones in the area. This is also accurate because of the unique position of the parcels. Only a sliver of all of these parcels is directly adjacent to single family residential development. She wanted to emphasis a few points before addressing the two key issues. The applicants have agreed to strictly condition the range of uses in the proposed RC2 zone. They have stricken every use that might be objectionable to the community and they have determined self storage is an appropriate and palatable proposal for the site. They understand that a special use permit would be required and strict conditions could dictate concerns regarding noise, lighting and aesthetics. Aesthetics are not an issue at this point, but the concern of whether this use is compatible with adjacent uses means that is an overarching concern. The applicants have found a development of a self storage facility that they think will fit well with the rural character. There is barn style construction and buildings perpendicular to the road to minimize the visual impact. That, in conjunction with creative buffering techniques, has the potential to make this a viable option for the site. The applicants have voluntarily submitted a proposal to increase buffer widths. There would be at least a 30 foot front yard set back, 50 foot rear and side yard set backs and buffer plantings that aren't required under the current Rural Residential 20 zone. There would be 8 foot fencing, canopy trees, shrubs and evergreens that are not required under the current zoning. The two keys questions are whether the propose rezone to RC2 is a better fit than the existing Rural Residential 20 zone and will the self storage developed under the RC2 zone be compatible with adjacent uses. It is apparent that the Rural Residential 20 zoning isn't appropriate for the subject parcels because the sizes range from 1.81 to 2 acres and they front a major County road with a posted speed of 50 mile per hour. The parcels constitute a uniquely situated enclave and are framed by large 300-plus acre parcels that are undeveloped timber use. Across McEwan Prairie Road is another 50 acre parcel that is undeveloped timberland. The only directly adjacent single family residential is limited to a very small strip. The fact that each of these four lots could be developed fully for residential purposes defeats the purpose of the Rural Residential 20 zoning. As presently zoned, these parcels could be fairly densely developed. They are not the typical conforming 20 acre parcel. The goals that are associated with Rural Residential 20 zoning cannot be met by way of the non-conforming parcels. It makes sense to move to a zoning designation that would do something other than just enable further residential development. A low impact service that could serve surrounding areas would be a smart choice. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 - PAGE 9 The ultimate and final question is whether this will be compatible with adjacent land uses. It is important to understand that this property will not stay as it is indefinitely. It can be fairly intensely developed for single family residential purposes. There is no showing that intense development for single family residential purposes would be any more compatible with surrounding timberland uses. She presented photographs of other single family development in the area and noted that single family development isn't necessarily aesthetically pleasing. If the County were to go along with the proposed rezone they would have a lot more authority in ensuring adequate buffering and separation. In conclusion, criteria 2 and 3 appear to be satisfied by their analysis. Darrell Winans stated he knows the applicants personally. They asked if he would be in support of the rezone. He would totally support the rezone and he thinks this is a good idea. It is a small ground in a bunch of timberland that nobody knows what to do with. He was president of the Lake Limerick Community Association and he received numerous calls from people wanting to store things. It is an odd area set away from the UGA and other facilities. He applauds the applicants for restricting potential uses. Personally, he would like to see a fuel station there. This is a needed facility and with the buffering added it will be nicer than some residential areas. Douglas Whitney would like to know where these pictures came from. They are not from Mason County. He has a friend who spent a lot of time taking pictures of self storage units in Mason County. Not one of them had any shrubbery. To beautify the outside would just be to hide razor wire. The applicants have spent a lot of money and time to put this through, but how many more storage facilities are needed in the county? People only need to drive a couple of miles to get storage as it is. There needs to be some class in this county and some beautification. Not one of the storage areas in the county has any beatification. If this is approved there needs to be a plot plan showing shrubbery. There will also be water runoff and a big ditch. He doesn't want a storage unit next door to him and he doesn't want any more asphalt runoff draining into the lake. Bob Herr would like to reemphasis some very basic points. This is why there are growth management regulations, to protect established residential areas from intrusion of incompatible development and to protect critical areas. This was approved by the citizens advisory committee, but that's not binding. He finds Allan Borden to be a dedicated public servant so he accepts his opinion over that of the advisory committee. When it comes to rezones there has to be a compelling reason, especially when it comes to changing from residential to commercial. When you change an established residential area it is a whole different ball game. He doesn't live in the neighborhood, but his primary interest is the quality of life in Mason County and how well development regulations are adhered to. Accommodating the financial aspirations of a few individuals isn't a compelling reason to rezone a property, nor is gaining a small amount of tax revenue. What the citizens deserve is regulatory certainty. The applicants have hired lawyers and consultants to represent their case. The people in the neighborhood can't afford to hire consultants but they would present the exact opposite case. The Board represents the citizens and the citizens in the neighborhood don't want this. There was supposed to be a 50 foot vegetative buffer around the John's Prairie mine but that didn't work. One factor that wasn't presented is that the best use of this property would be a natural extension of the Rainbow Lake housing area. Paul Wildman wanted to make a visual presentation with the slides he took of each of the self storage facilities presently in Mason County so the Board could have a fresh idea of what these things look like. This area is a residential neighborhood. The facilities he looked at are protected by fencing and razor wire and there is no buffering or landscaping on any of them. Razor wire indicates a problem with criminality. He is concerned that the residential neighborhood will be impacted by such a facility. The rest of the facilities in the county are not buffered and are lined with vehicles. There is not one that is nice looking in the county. He would like the Board to take a look at what is actually being done and ask themselves if they would like this put in their neighborhood. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 - PAGE 10 Leo Pat Murphy stated this property is to the southwest of his property. There is a prevailing southwest wind that would blow from the property. If Lake Limerick wants storage they should build their own. Storage units are always being raided for stolen goods and meth labs on the news and they don't need that in their neighborhood. The main thing he is concerned about is the criminality and the visits going in and out of the storage units. Last year when this was brought up there was a petition but he hasn't had time to put one together this year. He is sure everyone who signed the last petition would sign it again. Joy Murphy stated she was the one who went around to get the petitions last time. She hates the fact that this would be 40 to 50 feet from her backyard. Even the people fighting to have this wouldn't want a storage unit 50 feet from their door. They bought their property in a residential area and they want it to stay residential. They would have never bought their property if there was a storage unit there and now no one will ever buy their property if this is approved. If this happens their property value will be cut in half. Cmmr. Sheldon noted that he disclosed at the last public hearing that he rents a unit from Nathan and Debra Stout in Shelton. He doesn't feel that effects his decision at all. Cmmr. Gallagher commented that this has been a thick presentation with many references to the Johnson rezone and that doesn't seem to have any bearing on this. This is rural residential and it isn't in the UGA. He holds his position from the previous vote. Cmmr. Sheldon stated he also favors his previous position on this as the one Commissioner who voted for it. In most areas they list what is not allowed in certain zoning. Mason County lists the things that are allowed. For Rural Residential 20 allowed uses without a special permit include community and recreation centers, fire stations, fish hatcheries and public utilities. Those uses would be a much greater impact than a self storage unit. The applicants have come back with a proposal that is much more palatable. It shows their concern for the community and they are willing to accept very restraining conditions. This is a use that is necessary that would allow people to store goods close to their residence. The special conditions would provide adequate buffering and this would be a wise use of this property. It shouldn't be as feared as some of the residents have expressed. Cmmr. Ring Erickson noted that this is in her district. She drives by the property once or twice per day. This is a better proposal than the one a few months ago, however it is still outside the UGA. The residential communities in the area predate the Growth Management Act so there is some density. Most of the people who live there bought property knowing they were buying in a rural area. With that comes the expectation that some services will be farther away. Some of the comparisons being made aren't relevant in the decision today. She supports the comments from the community and she hasn't forgotten what she said last time. Cmmr. Sheldon reiterated that it is his feeling that many of the allowed uses for rural residential would be more invasive than the proposed self storage use. 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 with proposed strict conditions of review. Motion carried. G-aye; RE-aye; S-nay 10. Other Business (Department Heads and Elected Officials)— BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'PROCEEDINGS September 15, 2009 - PAGE 11 10.1 Vicki Kirkpatrick gave an update regarding Swine Flu. The good news is that in the southern hemisphere there hasn't been any difference in the affects of the flu. The vaccine may come sooner than expected and people will only need one vaccination. The Health department is working with providers and schools regarding vaccination. She encourages people to get the seasonal flu vaccine now. 10.2 Bob Simmons presented a series of upcoming grant funded workshops focused on water quality. The programs are designed to educate people on better managing stormwater run off and onsite sewage systems. 11. Board's Reports and Calendar -The Commissioners reported on meetings attended the past week and announced their upcoming weekly meetings. 12. Adjournment—The meeting adjourned at 11:19 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Tim Sheldon, Chair ATTEST: Lynda Ring Erickson, Commissioner Shannon Goudy, Clerk of the Board Ross Gallagher, Commissioner e � t 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: 32133-40-90021,3213340-90022,32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024. 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 13L2009 at 9:30 a.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. 1, 411 N. 51hSStreet, 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-M. SwoZ-�,A I m RM-1,14 WMAIA ILI /M//, . , . ,�1 , .� 1SAM ..W.A. . ,.� I i Ill�l�Icy � � I - •, . . - - I . . � . �. WIM-1 WO i wmllwi W4 . Flo , ! ` MI II - I 47, l II ■ e 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 ADI VIS�RY C vM(MISSION PUBLIC RE,VIEW 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 lo..w-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 Plar 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 %2 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 II 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. 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 i 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"County.Development Code Section 17.05.080. PARCEL INFORMATION: Parcel Nos.32133-40-90021 [1.81 ac.],32133-40=90022 [1.81 ac.], 32133-40790023 [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 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. JAGMSHAREMEV-REGSkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout StatTReport.doc 1 II. 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 JAGMSHARMEV-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 2 - 1 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 %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 l:\GMSHARE\DEV-REGS\eomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff RWort.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 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 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. l:\GMSHARE\DEV-REGSkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 4 J 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 if present 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 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 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 %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: JAGMSHARE\DEV-REGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 5 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\cotnp plan amendments\2008 rezone revicw\08-05 Stout StaffRepon.doc 6 0 E F S i T21 N RM e C F. rya Rq-y° t p{� T20NR3W N S-�o of Farad i s p �� �e�ues�t- D� •oy 1 inch = 833 feet W E 1 inch = 0.16 miles "7^11% 2 ,A . LvrLIv S . tx = aeyrE* r��ll :,s. rr .s r ���N�'w + ^`�`.'J� ar+ �,: .•mil+' w,'. ",.'` r. ' �• .. Y `l 'it��� fl �d �a 1 Y'�'.h 'A YI �AFw a �-., �� irk' �� .,ps �•'� -+�.���'` „yl`'°r,.+',et;,"„"�'Y '�.� '.� P`'�� ,L. ".. '�s "M r•{''"� � "�,'n "'� � �'� 'r fire Y„ �" � L.�i"•� �'�tt�v s i }R °"t'� ' r r� ",� s� k',# v I^ti� ... ` �yL w +� �ik' a$ s*� a.,�,p�, m. Y � :.-� g. :°�"'. y.9aa„,k .. �• u 17. R_•+" t t , `r, :f }"f .r, .�, �. f n 'moo -k �3 s 0 ro''►^ Jai { ► •�oti ► ,� »tt J9 t- S, i T21N M fA r w y x w , r , b y � s b pp w n V• r y _ � •� v,. f ...t `� t k4 �. »sC �.. �� i4 '� YuN> §�•YN ,� .. -. , *�.,,Y. a _. • .� Y �i . t. N 1 inch = 500 feet W E 1 inch = 0 miles , S . � 001I f . MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 No. Fifth Street 11 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 submittdo application,] Applicant:,441,MGN F f'DOeJra /<' 5-tdu7' 4f ',�Z Mailing Address: ✓ O zGe City: S14 ell*d State: fi�vSfi• Zip: Telephone No.:L36d) 'Wl-06 93 Ce//4(36,0) y90 -3/q8 Parcel Number(s): 52133 Yd 900,2/., 3.2/33 Yo 900X211 3,2/33 `/0 7,14 23 , V/33 yo 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) /,�W � ¢L ell FEE: $1,785.00 for processing and evaluation. Signature and date (Feb.1,2008) 11AWORDWOMPLAMcomp plan amend app revised feb 2008.doc (ahb) !� s w�,�/Z lr '407e �o 3) ,¢ 3 /AG f✓� V` .� 3 � o 9, /4 s �aG,G �voz �o/rye c...� v lu�i.� snav� s'wuf 11� 57) 14"d� �,Ar, � worms qo.E • � a� /may Aeg � ` ar s on / �dv�e vzrv� ede- G6 /zoa`�.� ✓�% �ivu� u�T�c w�'�/� c> t�.,�owX�i�����a"��s G�. 7) mason ARCIMS90768496675.png(PNG Image,992x449 pixels) i / http://mapmason.co.mason.wa.us/output/mason- ARCIMS90768496675.png f Iq s �s a 321.33 yp q00,21 32133109a023 3;Z1331io?oa.Z 3�V33 'Ya `l60.2/ FllicrcS g 9 to E h#CEWAN pRAfRrLrRD 1 /z 13 1y ..1. 17 18 1s 0 452ft 1 of 1 06/30/2008 12:51 PM 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 r' 12 Hageman, Steven J &Abigail E 321330090024 321345000008 301 E Wallace Kneeland By 2480 E McKewan Prarie Road Shelton, Wa 98584-2987 Sneitun, % a 98584-9678 Daniel R Werst 13 Hageman, Steven J &Abigail E 321331090011 321345000009 130 E Snowcrest Lane 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 G'Fo c-n' r`'e- I9fu5 G� �1�-S1oru�e WARNING: MASON COUNTY HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO BUILD, IMPROVE, SCALE. 1'=200' MAINTAIN OR OTHERWSIE SERVICE THE PRIVATE ROADS, IF ANY, CONTAINED C` WITHIN OR PROVIDING SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS 0 100 200 400 FND. I" I.P. SHORT SUBDIVISION. W/CAP S.T.CO. NORTH LINE, (DAMES A. BRIX) SE 1/4, SEC. 33 CONC. MON. AS SHOWN ON S 88 04'28" E 1981.97 STCO 1981.87 PLAT OF RAINBOW LAKE, BK. 12, PG. 104, RECORDS S 2g4 700.00 w OF MASON COUNTY, WA. 350.00 �B 4 ,/ 32238 F�01�1 O {SOT 4 p � M W 300.00 (THOMAS L.& L� r �F 2.00`AC. o LOT 3 O I O T /� ^ W AN I TA T. DRAKE) og•g. L 19 LOT1 ' � * - - - 1 q.R� N 82 AC. 10 p (BARBARA JEAN BOLM) % :� a 19s.4s2 o 1.81 AC. 1.81 AC. 35279 2 a o (GAILEN P. & PATSY R. =292.92 p,C _ ��D 13 9587 z 155.73 z SMITH ET. AL.) \ 9f - 'MO Ew� •, �8 ^� 79'4714 \� 11 ���Lka 4•'� (CRP'polI� D. — -- 8 9'30" — EAST LINE, �= . SE 1/4, SEC. 33 NOTE: SEE SURVEY BY S 1 MPSON � 103226' R=1115.92 _ TIMBER CO. , BK. 12, PG. 104, R=1115.92 L=171.88 Qk L=205.29 RECORDS OF MASON COUNTY, WA. j '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 PLAT (b)SMETHODDISAND1jINED TRENCHES. WAC 248-96-090 Z YELLOW CAP SET FOR o Q =FOUND DRIFT PIN UNLESS SIMPSON PROPERTIES, INC. OTHERWISE NOTED EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES IN o =POSSIBLE WELL EQUIPMENT: LIETZ 6 SECOND THEODOLITE WITH EDM w CID ■ =SOIL LOG NW 114, SE 114, 200' CALIBRATED CHA I N m AND NE 114, SE 1/4, PROCEDURE: FIELD TRAVERSE 91-212SP SHORT PLAT # /S�/ SEC. 33, TWN. 21N. , R. 3W. , W.M. APPROVED----L -9,t MAIN OFFICE, SHELTON,. WA. 98584 HOLMAN & ASSOCIATES (206)426-3381 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PTN. OF PARCEL J321334000000 421 NORTH 3RD, SHELTON, WA. I GENERA ICES DIRECTOR (206)426-2990 98584 t I " Page 1 of 2 17.05.080 - Rezone criteria. (a) Rezone Criteria. The county shall review a rezone proposal and enter written findings for the following criteria: (1) Development allowed by the proposed rezone designation shall not damage public health, safety and welfare; (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; (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; (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; (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; (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; (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; (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. (b) Rezone Characteristics. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show through responses to these criteria and information provided that the proposed rezone to more intensive land use is warranted. In rural activity centers and hamlets, any rural land use rezone may be appropriate provided that the criteria above are satisfied. Outside of rural activity centers and hamlets, approval of rezone requests to a more intensive land use in rural areas shall not exceed five per calendar year and the total amount of acreage subject to rezoning shall not exceed fifty acres, lb Page 2 of 2 except for errors in original zoning, as specified in subsection (a)(8) of this section. For purposes of this section, the numeric limit shall apply to both direct rezones for rural residential to rural commercial, rural tourist, or rural industrial, and also intervening rezones from rural residential to rural tourist, rural tourist campground, or rural natural resources with subsequent rezone requests to rural commercial or rural industrial. For purposes of this section, the total acreage limit shall not include the acres of parcels rezoned to rural tourist campground or rural natural resources. Such rezones must involve small-scale businesses as defined in Mason County Code Chapter 17.06, be isolated as required by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), and may not occur within one-half 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 LAMIRD under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Rural Commercial 3 zoning shall not be allowed outside of rural activity centers and hamlets. Rural natural resource, rural residential, rural tourist campground, and master planned resorts may occur anywhere in rural areas provided that the criteria above are satisfied. In the siting of new rural natural resource districts, consideration must be given that current and potential future development on site will not, in combination with development on adjacent properties, create a pattern of low-density sprawling development. (c) Initial Zoning after Redesignation of Resource Land. Subsections (a)and (b) do not apply to a decision to initially zone land when it is redesignated from long-term commercial forest pursuant to policy RE-105 of the comprehensive plan. The board of commissioners shall determine the initial zoning for such redesignated land by applying the planning policies in Chapter III of the Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). (Ord. No. 36-12, Att.A, 4-17-2012) Page 1 of 18 8.52.120 - Critical aquifer recharge areas. In order to protect the public health and safety, prevent the degradation of groundwater aquifers used for potable water, and to provide for regulations that prevent and control risks to the degradation of groundwater aquifers, the following standards for Mason County are described in this section. Critical aquifer recharge areas are those areas which are determined to have an important recharging effect on aquifers used as a source for potable water and vulnerable to contamination from recharge. Critical aquifer recharge areas are areas of special concern and are subject to the Mason County Health Codes. Contents: (1) Classification of Aquifer Recharge Areas (2) Designation (3) Pre-existing Uses (4) Prohibited Uses and Activities (5) Uses Requiring an Environmental Permit (6) Subdivision Standards (7) On-site Septic System Standards (8) Well Head Protection Area - Notice (9) Standards for an Environmental Permit for the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (10) BMP Monitoring and Inspection (11) Map Amendments (12) Reclassification of Specific Land Use Activity (13) Reports (14) Public Education/Notice (15) Protection of Private Wells (16) Secondary Containment and Recycling of Hazardous Materials (1) Classification of Aquifer Recharge Areas. (A) Classes. Critical aquifer recharge areas are classified as either Class I (Extremely Susceptible), Class II (Highly Susceptible), Class III (Moderately Susceptible), or Class IV (Low Susceptibility), as described below. (B) Page 2 of 18 Methodology. The aquifer classification system and maps were developed by a qualified geologist in consultation with the Washington Department of Natural Resources and considering data from the following sources; (i) Mineral Resources of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington; Mackey Smith and R.J. Carson; Department of Geology and Earth Resources - Geologic Map G M-21; 1976. (i i) Geology and Related Water Occurrence, Southeastern Mason County, Washington; Dee Molenaar and John B. Noble; Water Supply Bulletin No. 29, Department of Water Resources, State of Washington; 1970. (iii) Geologic Map of the South Half of the Shelton and South Half of the Copalis Beach Quadrangles Washington; Robert L. Logan; Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources; Open file Report 87-9; 1987. (iv) Geologic Map of North Central Mason County; R.J. Carson; Department of Geology and Earth Resources; Open File Report 76-2; 1976. (v) Soil Conservation Maps for Mason County Washington; various. (vi) Topographic maps for Mason County; various. (vii) Water Well Records. Interpretation of these data sources was performed by Geologist Gordon Adams. An explanation of that interpretation is included in a letter from Gordon Adams dated March 29, 1999. (C) Standards of Classification. (i) Class I (Extremely Susceptible). Areas designated as Class I demonstrate hydrogeologic characteristics that allow for an extremely high susceptibility of an underground source of drinking water. These areas are identified as recessional outwash of thickness' greater than twenty-five feet. Recessional outwashes are a geological formation predominantly composed of underground source of drinking water unconsolidated sands and gravels. These formations exhibit horizontal permeabilities greater than thirty feet per day(horizontal permeabilities are generally ten times less than vertical permeabilities). Potential contaminants entering an underground source of drinking water can be expected to travel one mile in six months or less. (i i) Class II (Highly Susceptible). Areas designated as Class II demonstrate hydrogeologic characteristics that allow for a high susceptibility of an underground source of drinking water. These areas are identified as recessional outwash and alluvium twenty-five feet or less in thickness. These geologic Page 3 of 18 formations are composed of unconsolidated sands and gravels interlain with discontinuous layers of hardpan and silty clays. Depth to water is generally twenty-five to one hundred twenty-five feet below land surface. These formations exhibit horizontal permeabilities in the range of thirty to fifteen feet per day. Potential contaminants entering an underground source of drinking water can be expected to travel one mile in a time frame greater than six months and up to one year. (iii) Class III (Moderately Susceptible). Areas designated as Class III demonstrate hydrogeologic characteristics that allow for a moderate susceptibility of an underground source of drinking water. These areas are identified as advance outwash. The geologic formations consist of discontinuous layers of clayey gravel and sand and layers of silt and clay, which are more continuous and have been compacted into hardpan. Depth to water is greater than one hundred twenty-five feet below land surface. These formations exhibit horizontal permeabilities in the range of fifteen to three feet per day. Potential contaminants entering an underground source of drinking water can be expect to travel one mile in a time frame greater than one year and up to five years. Class III areas include those well head protection areas, not otherwise designated as a Class I, II, or III critical recharge area, and recorded with the Mason County department of community development. (iv) Class IV(Low Susceptibility). Areas designated as Class IV demonstrate hydrogeologic characteristics that allow for a low susceptibility of an underground source of drinking water. These areas are identified as advance outwash found in the southwest part of Mason County along the Satsop drainage. (2) Designation. The lands and fresh waters of Mason County meeting the critical aquifer recharge areas classification, plus three hundred feet beyond the mapped boundary of all Class I, II or III areas, are designated under RCW Chapter 36.70A as Critical Area Protection Zones requiring protection for public health. (3) Pre-existing Uses. Uses legally existing as of the date of adoption of this ordinance and which are listed under subsections (4) (Prohibited Uses and Activities) or (5) (Uses Requiring an Environmental Permit) are defined to be pre-existing uses. Pre-existing uses may continue operation pursuant to the following provisions and procedures. The purpose of these provisions is to assure that pre-existing uses that represent a threat to Page 4 of 18 the aquifer are brought into compliance with the provisions of this chapter over time and to the highest degree possible. These provisions shall not be construed to mean that a pre-existing business must cease operations even if the type of business operates as a prohibited use per subsection (3)(D) below. The following procedures and requirements are established; Upon identification of a legal pre-existing use, the county shall contact the operator and/or owner in order to develop a compliance plan and time line for bringing the pre- existing use into compliance to the highest degree practicable and which provides an acceptable low level of risk to the aquifer. (A) The county will negotiate with the owner/operator to identify a reasonable time frame and necessary steps to bring the use into compliance with this chapter. (B) Technical assistance will be offered the owner/operator by state and/or local personnel to enable the owner/operator to bring the operation into compliance. (C) The county will require that a written compliance plan be developed and agreed to by the owner/operator setting forth the compliance steps that will be taken and the agreed time frame under which these steps will be completed. (D) The compliance plan shall be agreed to in a reasonable time as defined by the director on a case-by-case basis. (E) Such compliance plan will take the form of a contract between the county and the owner/operator. (F) No expansion of any nonconforming aspect of the use or business activity will be permitted. (G) Failure to meet the terms of the contract, including time frames agreed to, shall constitute a breach of contract subject to all applicable law. If legal action on the part of the county becomes necessary to enforce the contract, the owner/operator shall be liable for all legal expenses. (4) Prohibited Uses. The following uses or activities are considered high impact uses due to the probability and/or potential magnitude of their adverse effects on groundwater and shall be prohibited in Class I, Class II and Class III Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. (A) Landfill. (B) Wood preserving, not fully contained operations. (C) Electroplating. (D) Dry cleaners excluding drop-off only operations where there is no on-site cleaning Page S of 18 using hazardous materials. (E) Class V injection wells, but limited to subclasses 5F01, 5D03, 5D04, 5W09, 5W10, 5W11, 5W31, 5X13, 5X14, 5X15, 5W20, 5X28, and 5N24. (F) Surface mining operations within designated urban growth areas, or within Class I, II, or III areas contiguous with the urban growth areas. (G) Radioactive disposal sites. (H) Outdoor auto wrecking operations. (1) Hazardous waste transfer and treatment. (J) Land spreading disposal sites where disposal is above agronomic rates (as in WAC 173-304). (K) Feedlots. (L) Dumping of chemicals into an on-site septic system of a type or quantity that exceeds the systems designed capacity to treat. (M) Hazardous waste storage facilities unless accessory to an otherwise permitted use and approved under state hazardous waste permit. (5) Uses Requiring an Environmental Permit. The following activities are allowed in Class I, Class II and Class III Aquifer Recharge Areas after issuance of a Permit per subsection (9) below. This requirement is not intended to apply to schools, colleges, hospitals and other public institutions where the activities are incidental or accessory to the principal activity. This requirement is not intended to apply to a home occupation or cottage industry, where the amounts of hazardous materials use are below the thresholds established and regulated in the Uniform Fire Code. Permit review shall be by the administrative review process specified in this section. (A) Chemical manufacturing; (B) Chemical mixing and remanufacture; (C) Above and below ground storage tanks ad pipes used to contain regulated substances (see Section 8.52.030); (D) Facilities that conduct biological research; (E) Boat repair shops; (F) Chemical research facilities; (G) Gasoline service stations; (H) Pipelines (petroleum and chemical transfer); (1) Printing and publishing operations that use printing liquids; �. Page 6 of 18 (J) Below ground transformers and capacitors; (K) Sawmills producing over ten thousand board feet per day; (L) Solid waste handling and processing facilities; (M) Vehicle repair, recycling, and auto wrecking activities; (N) Mortuary; (0) Furniture stripping; (P) Motor vehicle service garages; (Q) Chemical processing of photographic film; (R) Creosote and asphalt manufacturing and treatment facilities; (S) Golf courses or ranges; (T) Medium quantity generators (of dangerous, acutely hazardous, and toxic extremely hazardous waste); (U) Large quantity generators (of dangerous, acutely hazardous, and toxic extremely hazardous waste); (V) Activities reclassified as eligible for a permit after county approval of a request to reclassify per subsection (12); (W) Fully contained wood preserving operations; (X) Surface mining operations permitted under general permit by the Washington State Department of Ecology and not otherwise prohibited per subsection (4). (6) Subdivision Standards and Evaluation Requirements. (A) Subdivision, short subdivisions and other divisions of land in areas of special concern shall be evaluated for their impact on groundwater quality as follows: (i) In urban growth areas, land divisions may be allowed which create lots less than one acre in size which rely on individual on-site septic systems. Such approvals shall be conditioned so that the total development allowed within the area to be divided shall not exceed an average density of one dwelling unit per acre, or an equivalent wastewater volume, until such development is served by public sewer. (ii) In urban growth areas, land divisions may be allowed which create lots less than one acre in size which rely on a community on-site septic systems. Such approvals shall be conditioned so that the total development allowed within the area to be divided shall not exceed an average density of one dwelling unit per acre, or an equivalent wastewater volume, until such development is served by Page 7 of 18 public sewer. In addition, said system shall be evaluated to assure that it does not have localized effects that might have a significant adverse impact on wells or surface water bodies. Information for the evaluation shall be provided by the applicant in the form of a site evaluation report as specified in subsection (13)(B). (iii) Outside of urban growth areas, subdivisions which provide for clusters of residential development where the density of the cluster of residential lots exceed one lot per acre, or where development will rely on a community on-site septic system, shall be evaluated to assure that they do not have localized effects that might have a significant adverse impact on wells or surface water bodies. Information for the evaluation shall be provided by the applicant in the form of a site evaluation report as specified in subsection (13)(B). (B) Approval of a permit for subsection (6)(A)(ii) or (iii) above shall be based on a review of the report and a determination that there are no probable significant adverse impacts to wells, springs, surface water bodies, or off-site groundwater quality. (7) On-site Septic System Standards. (A) The proper operation and maintenance of community or on-site septic systems is required in the critical aquifer recharge areas. The standards and procedures to be met to assure this are as set forth in the "Mason County On-Site Sewage Operation and Maintenance Program" and any subsequent implementing regulations. Participation in this program is mandatory for existing and new septic systems in the critical aquifer recharge areas. (B) New Construction. (i) New construction which relies on on-site septic systems shall not be allowed to exceed a density of one dwelling unit per acre, or an equivalent wastewater volume, except for the development of one dwelling on lots existing or vested by December 5, 1996, where the on-site septic system can comply with all environmental health department standards. For the purposes of this section, the sewage flow of one single-family dwelling equals one unit volume of sewage equals four hundred fifty gallons per day. An exception to this may be made where a sewage treatment system or plant is used that processes the effluent so that the total of contaminants is equivalent to or less than that which would be produced by one dwelling unit per acre in suitable soils using individual on-site septic systems. The intensity of nonresidential development that is allowed in compliance with this standard shall be calculated from Table 1. Alternative Page 8 of 18 calculations for activities not included in Table 1 may be proposed, but the calculation method and conclusions must be approved by the county environmental health department. (ii) Where such development relies on a new on-site sewage treatment plant or other new on-site community septic system, said plant or system shall not have localized affects that might have a significant adverse impact on wells or surface water bodies. Information for the evaluation shall be provided by the applicant in the form of a site evaluation report as specified in subsection (13)(B). Approval of a permit shall be based on a review of the report and a determination that there are no probable significant adverse impacts to wells, springs, surface water bodies, or off-site groundwater quality. (C) All new development within the designated urban growth areas, except for single- family residences built prior to the opportunity to connect to a public sewer system, shall be required to connect to existing public sewer systems, or to proposed public sewer systems as soon as connection is available. (8) Well Head Protection Area — Notice. Within well head protection areas, in addition to any other notice requirements, notice shall be provided to the manager of said area for any applications for an environmental permit for the critical aquifer recharge area or for any long subdivisions. (9) Standards for an Environmental Permit for the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. To receive an environmental permit to operate in the critical aquifer recharge area an applicant must: (A) Implement best management practices (BMP), implement the Washington State Department of Ecology's Storm Water, Water Quality, Hazardous Waste, Wetland, and Solid Waste Program BMP and BMP from the Departments of Health, Agriculture, Transportation, and State Conservation District Office; or (B) Demonstrate through a best management practices report pursuant to subsection (13)(A) below, how they will integrate other necessary and appropriate mitigating measures in the design, installation, and management of the proposed facility or use; and (C) Provide a written agreement to the county providing that all employees at the site will be notified that the operation lies above an aquifer recharge area and providing annual training regarding all measures set forth by the BMP established in subsection (9)(A) or(B) above. Page 9 of 18 (10) BMP Monitoring and Inspection. To assure that best management practices are implemented and maintained over time, the following procedures and requirements are hereby established: (A) The county will maintain a database identifying all pre-existing prohibited uses or uses requiring a permit under the provisions of this section. Information for this purpose will be gathered from applicants for development permits and by consultation with appropriate state agencies. During pre-application meetings or on application, the county will require applicants to identify if they are required to have a hazardous waste identification number by the Washington State Department of Ecology and whether they generate any hazardous waste as defined under WAC 173- 303. (B) Inspection and Monitoring Procedures. As a condition of approval, regular inspections for compliance will be required as appropriate to the activity, but not less than once in two years. The first inspection shall be made within three months of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project. (11) Map Amendments. Applicants may seek to have the aquifer recharge map amended as it pertains to the parcel or parcels for which they are applying. The application will be for a conditional environmental permit. This may be granted after the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county that site conditions meet the standards of classification per subsection (3) for the aquifer area class sought. Such demonstration shall be accomplished by providing a map amendment report per subsection (13)(B) to the county. The county shall evaluate the report and make a written determination as to whether the map will be amended. Approval of the map amendment requires that, based on the best available science, the site does not qualify as a critical aquifer recharge area, or qualifies as a different class designation from its current designation, as applied by the county pursuant to the Growth Management Act. The report shall be reviewed by the county in conjunction with the underlying permit process, if any exists. The review process shall be a public review as specified in subsection (5)(B)(ii). The county may consult with the Mason County health department, state of Washington Department of Health, independent reviewer, or any other parties it sees fit. The county will review the report with consideration of the level of science that currently exists and was employed to make the map designation being challenged. The applicant will not be required to provide information and/or analysis in excess of that required to convince the county that a map change is warranted. �. Page 10 of 18 In addition, the county will re-assess all map amendment reports and all other pertinent information received on a periodic basis and consider other appropriate map amendments on the basis of this increased information. (12) Reclassification of Specific Land Use Activity. Applicants may seek to have the use for which they are applying able to receive an aquifer areas protection permit per subsection (5). This may be granted after the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county, that the use proposed applies new technologies and/or procedures, not traditional to the industry, that reduce the threat to the aquifer beyond that posed by the traditional technologies and/or procedures to a degree that the county determines will justify the reclassification. Such demonstration shall be accomplished by providing an activity reclassification report per subsection (13)(C)to the county. The county shall evaluate the report and make a written determination as to whether the individual proposed land use will be recategorized. Review of the application shall be a public review as provided in Section 8.52.190(2)(B). Reclassification of a land use shall apply only to the particular use for which the reclassification is sought and shall not be applied to all or any similar uses. In addition, the county will re-assess all reports received pursuant to this chapter and all other pertinent information received on a periodic basis and consider the other changes in the categorization of land uses in this chapter on the basis of this increased information. (13) Reports. (A) Best Management Practices (BMP) Report—Criteria. The following criteria shall apply when preparing a best management practices (BMP) report: (i) The report shall be prepared by, or done under the direction of and designed by, a qualified person with demonstrated expertise in the industry or field as demonstrated by a statement of qualifications and at least three references from parties familiar with common business practices in the subject field or known expertise in the field. (ii) The report will identify appropriate best management practices by specifying all known and available reasonable technologies and how they will be employed to prevent degradation of groundwater. All necessary technical data, drawings, calculations, and other information to describe application of the BMP must be supplied. Page 11 of 18 (iii) The report will identify how the applicant will satisfy the requirements of the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC in the event that hazardous material is released into the ground or groundwater. (iv) The report will be reviewed by the department of community development or a consultant hired by the county, at the applicant's expense, for this review. The county may consult with the Mason County environmental health department; state of Washington Departments of Health or Ecology, independent reviewer, or any other parties it sees fit. (B) Map Amendment Report/Site Evaluation Report— Criteria. The following criteria shall apply when preparing a map amendment report/site evaluation report: (i) A qualified groundwater professional will make a determination whether the proposed map amendment or project application will have adverse impacts on groundwater based on the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Wellhead Protection Program, pursuant to Public Water Supplies, Chapter 246- 290 WAC; Water Quality Standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington, Chapter 173-200 WAC; and Dangerous Waste regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. Those chapters of Washington Administrative Code are adopted, as written or hereafter amended, as part of this chapter by reference. They are available at county offices. (ii) Map amendment report/site evaluation reports shall include the following: A. Identification of features of the proposed development plan (e.g., on-site septic systems and other on-site activities) that may adversely impact groundwater quality underlying or down gradient of the project or project area. B. Drawing in an appropriate scale showing location of abandoned and active wells, springs, and surface water bodies within one thousand feet of the project limits. C. A description of the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the subject property sufficient to justify the map amendment sought. This information may include any or all of the following: 1. Lithologic characteristics and stratigraphic relationships; 2. Aquifer characteristics including recharge and discharge areas, depth to groundwater, static water flow patterns, and estimated groundwater flow velocity; Page 12 of 18 3. Contaminant rate and transport including probable migration pathways and travel time of a potential contaminant release from a site through the unsaturated zone to the aquifer(s) and through the aquifers(s), and how contaminant(s) may be attenuated within the unsaturated zone and the aquifer(s); 4. Appropriate hydro geologic cross sections which depict lithology, stratigraphy, aquifer, units, potential or probable contaminant pathways from a chemical release, and rate of groundwater flow; and 5. Existing groundwater quality, proposal for a groundwater monitoring plan to detect changes and indicate the corrective actions that will be taken if monitoring results indicate contaminants from the site have entered the underlying aquifer(s); 6. Existing soils types and characteristics; 7. A discussion of the probable geologic history of the site and its impact on aquifer formation, soils conditions, and aquifer susceptibility. (C) Activity Reclassification Report—Preparation and Review Criteria. The following criteria shall apply when preparing an activity reclassification report: (i) The report shall be prepared by, or done under the direction of and signed by, a qualified person with demonstrated expertise in the industry or field as demonstrated by a statement of qualifications and at least three references from parties familiar with common business practices in the subject field or known expertise in the field. (ii) The report shall contain a complete description of the activity for which reclassification is being sought. This description shall include all necessary technical data for the county to assess potential threat to the aquifer from an unmitigated operation, including chemicals and substances used, byproducts produced, etc. (iii) The report shall present best management practices and/or mitigation techniques adequate to insure, to the satisfaction of the county, that the activity or land use for which reclassification is sought will present no greater threat to groundwater quality than other uses listed in this chapter in the category being sought. The burden is on the applicant to make this showing sufficient in the eyes of the county to reclassify the use. The report will include all technical data Page 13 of 18 necessary, design drawings, specifications for equipment used, performance data on equipment or structures, and any evidence or testimony of successful operation of same or similar facilities and practices in other locations. (iv) The report will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the county that reclassification of a land use will have no adverse impacts on groundwater based on the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Wellhead Protection Program, pursuant to Public Water Supplies, Chapter 246-290 WAC; Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173- 200 WAC: and Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. Those chapters of Washington Administrative Code are adopted, as written or hereafter amended, as part of this chapter by reference. They are available at department of community development offices. (v) The report will be reviewed by the department of community development. The county may consult with the Mason County health department; state of Washington Departments of Health or Ecology, independent reviewer, or any other parties it sees fit. (14) Public Education/Notice. (A) The household or commercial use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers not in conformance with the manufacturers' instructions/label directions is a violation of state and/or federal regulation. Improper disposal of oil based paints, paint thinners and other hazardous materials is a violation of the Mason County solid waste regulation and of state and/or federal regulation. The county encourages proper use of such materials and shall provide educational information to the public through its sponsorship of the Washington State Cooperative Extension Service, the Mason Conservation District, or through the provision of informational materials in its offices. (B) Notification: (i) Title Notification. The owner of any site within a designated critical aquifer recharge area as identified in the Mason County critical aquifer recharge areas map, on which a development proposal is submitted, shall record a notice with the Mason County auditor. The notice shall indicate in the public record the presence of a critical aquifer recharge area, the application of this chapter to the Page 14 of 18 site, and that limitations on regulated activities may exist. Only one such notice is required to be made on any individual property or lot. The notice shall be as set forth below. Notice: This site lies within a critical aquifer recharge area as defined by Chapter 8, Mason County Code. The site was the subject of a development proposal for application number filed on (date). Restrictions on use or alteration of the site may exist due to natural conditions of the site and resulting regulation. Review of such application provides information on the location of a critical aquifer recharge area and the restrictions on the site. A copy of the plan showing the aquifer recharge area is attached hereto. (ii) Plat Notification. For all proposed short subdivision and subdivision proposals within critical aquifer recharge areas, the applicant shall include a note on the face of the plat. The note shall be as set forth below: Notice: This site lies within a critical aquifer recharge area as defined by Chapter 8, Mason County Code. The site was the subject of a development proposal for application number Filed on (date). Restrictions on use or alteration of the site may exist due to natural conditions of the site and resulting regulation. The note shall be recorded as part of final plat approval of any short subdivision or subdivision. (iii) Evidence of recording of these notices must be provided to the county. (15) Protection of Private Wells. Generators of hazardous materials are defined as a known or suspected source of contamination per state law. No small, medium, or large quantity generators of hazardous materials shall be permitted to locate within one hundred feet of any water well per the provisions of WAC 173-160-171 or its successors. This requirement applies to all portions of the county. (16) Secondary Containment of Recycling of Hazardous Materials. The following practices and procedures shall be observed throughout the county: (A) Moderate risk waste and petroleum products, including but not limited to oil and grease, shall be disposed of by recycling or use of a hazardous waste management facility operating under interim status or with a permit issued by EPA or an authorized state. No person shall intentionally or negligently dump or deposit or permit the dumping or depositing of any such waste in any other manner, including onto the surface of the ground, into surface water, or into groundwater. Page 15 of 18 (B) Moderate risk waste, petroleum products, and hazardous materials shall be kept in containers and shall be stored in such a manner and location that if a container is ruptured, the contents will not discharge, flow, be washed or fall into surface water or groundwater. This is not intended to supersede any regulations as stated in the Fire Code. TABLE 1 Type of Facility Design Units Flow (GPD) Airports per employee; add per passenger 10; 4.0 Banquet rooms per seat 5 Barber and beauty shops per chair 100 Bowling alleys (bar and food) per lane 125 Bowling alleys (bar only) per lane 75 Campgrounds with no laundry, no per camp site 50 wet sewer hookups or dump station Campgrounds/RV park, with toilets per camp site 75 Campgrounds/RV park, showers, per camp site 100 toilets, laundry, sewer hookup Church - food service, 4-hour per person 5 Church - no food, 4-hour per person 3 Community College per student and faculty, 12-hours 15 Page 16 of 18 Country club - includes food, per member; add per non-member 50; showers, lounge 25 Day Care Centers, 12-hour per person 20 Dentist office per dentist; add per wet chair 250; 200 Doctor office per doctor 250 Doctor office, in medical center per 1,000 sq. ft., 12-hours 500 Food Service and Bars a. Ordinary restaurant per seat 50 b. 24-hour restaurant per seat 75 c. Bar and cocktail lounge per seat 30 d. Drive-in restaurant per car space 75 e. Bar only, no food per seat 10 f. Coffee shop, 6-hour operation per seat 6 Hospital per bed 300 Hospital - mental per bed and per employee 172 and 11 Hotels and motels, rooms only per room 130 Page 17 of 18 Industrial building, excl. cafeteria per employee/8-hour shift 17 and process waste Industrial, add for Cafeteria per employee 13 Laundries, self serve, 16-hour per machine 400 Meeting rooms per seat 3 Mobile home parks per space 300 Nursing home/rest home per bed 200 Office building per worker 20 Parks - toilets per person 10 Parks - toilets and showers per person 20 Prison per resident; add per employee 159; 16 Resort camps, cottages per room 100 Rooming house per resident 50 Schools, no food or showers per student 10 Schools, add for cafeterias per student 5 Schools, add for showers per student 5 Schools, boarding per student 75 Page 18 of 18 Service station - pumps per island; add per employee 500; 25 Service stations - repair for first bay; add each additional bay 1000; 500 Shopping centers, 12-hour per 1,000 sq. ft. floor space 300 Stadiums, race tracks, ball parks per seat 3 Stores, without food service a. Private toilets, for employees per employee 20 only b. Public toilets per toilet room 400 Theaters a. Indoor, auditoriums, 12-hour per seat 5 b. Outdoor, drive-ins, 4-hour per space 5 Sources: WA DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design; State of Florida, Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Technical Information Memorandum 6.2.1; WA DOE, Large On-Site Sewage Guidelines; US EPA, Design Manual, Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. (Ord. 138-06 (part), 2006: Ord. 62-99 (part), 1999: Ord. 111-97 (part), 1997: Ord. 77-93 (part), 1993). Page 1 of 2 Article II. - Rural Commercial 2 (RC 2) 17.04.331 - Purpose. (See Section 17.02.043). (Ord. 100-07 Attach. B (part), 2007: Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). 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. (Ord. 100-07 Attach. B (part), 2007: Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). 17.04.333 - Lot requirements. (a) Density. One 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 fifty feet; designate limited and safe access (es)to roads. (c) Front Yard Setback. Thirty feet. (d) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. Fifteen feet for lots contiguous to lots zoned commercial or industrial use; otherwise,twenty-five feet. Buffer plantings required in the first ten feet of this setback. (Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). 17.04.334- Building regulations. (a) Floor Area Ratio. One is to five, except for fire stations. (b) Size. Maximum of four thousand five hundred square feet for single tenant and seven thousand five hundred square feet for multiple tenants; no maximum for dwellings. (c) Height. Two floors not to exceed thirty-five feet maximum except for agricultural buildings, cell towers, antennas, water tanks, or necessary structural elements for an otherwise complaint permitted land use. (Ord. 100-07 Attach. B (part), 2007: Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). 17.04.335 - Signs. Signs are limited to: 1)a sign attached to the building with an area not to exceed ten percent of the area of the building face, and 2) a detached sign with an area size not to exceed ten percent of the building face, that is free-standing, and with a height maximum of twenty-five 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. (Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). ,- N. Page 2 of 2 (Ord. No. 134-08, 12-16-2008) 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. (Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). 17.04.337 - Special provisions. Reserved. (Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). F Page 1 of 1 17.04.241 - Purpose. This district provides for new residential development on parcels of twenty acres or more. (Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). 17.04.242 - Uses permitted. (a) Uses. Single-family residential, hobby farm (small scale commercial agriculture, including aquaculture and wood lots), church, local community and recreation centers, fire station,fish hatchery, cell towers, public utilities. (b) Accessory Uses. Cottage industry(home occupation), single-family residence. (c) Special Permit Required Uses. Essential public facility, cemetery, and home occupations and cottage industries that do not meet the standards in Section 17.03.021. (d) Signs are permitted not to exceed twelve square feet in size and six feet in height except for temporary signs permitted by section 17.05.025. Signs prohibited by section 17.03.203 are not allowed. (Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). (Ord. No. 134-08, 12-16-2008) Article II. - Rural Commercial 2 (RC 2) 17.04.331 - Purpose. (See Section 17.02.043). (Ord. 100-07 Attach. B (part), 2007: Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). 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. (Ord. 100-07 Attach. B (part), 2007: Ord. 108-05 Attach. B (part), 2005). Page 5 of 13 Reviewed OV14 Spot zoning is basically disfavored in our state.The basic definition of spot zoning in Washington was outlined in Narrowsview Preservation Association v. City of Tacoma (http://courts.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/084wn2d/084wn2d04l6.htm), 84 Wn.2d 416(1974), in which the court said: We have recently stated that illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan ----------- _ ----—----------___...__------------ The reasons for invalidating a rezone as an illegal spot zone usually include one or more of the following:(1)the rezone primarily serves a private interest,(2)the rezone is inconsistent with a comprehensive plan or the surrounding territory,or(3)the rezone constitutes arbitrary and capricious action. Each situation must be determined on its own facts and it is not always easy to determine conclusively whether a rezone would constitute an illegal spot zone. According to Richard Settle in Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice,the issue with spot zoning is not the differential regulation of adjacent land but the lack of public interest justification for such discrimination.Where differential zoning merely accommodates some private interest and bears no rational relationship to promoting legitimate public interest,it is"arbitrary and capricious"and hence"spot zoning."The term"spot zoning"is not really a distinct legal doctrine. It is really a"misleading term for the application of the constitutional requirements of equal protection and substantive due process."See Settle at section 2.11(c). q q P Courts will overturn a rezone if it grants a"discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners to the detriment of their neighbors or the community at large without adequate public advantage or justification...." Bassani v. County Commissioners(http://courts.mrsc.org/mc/courts/appellate/070wnapp/070wnapp0389.htm),70 Wn.App.389(1993). The following are some links to information on spot zoning and contract rezones/concomitant agreements: • "Spot Zoning,"excerpt from"A Short Course on Local Planning (http://www.commerce.wagov/Documents/GMS-Short-Course-Guidebook-5-l.pdf),"ver.5.1, Planning Association of Washington and Washington State Department of Commerce,July 2009(see Chapter 5(A) (2)(b)(7)) • "Removing Soot Zoning From the Fabric of Zoning Practice (http://pzcenter.msu.edu/documents/spotzoning0l.04.12df)"(Includes description of spot zoning law in other states in addition to a summary of Washington law), Public Policy Brief,Gary D.Taylor,J.D., Department of Agricultural Economics,Michigan State University Extension,January 2004 • Spot zoning definition from Appendix A:Glossary of Terms and Phrases http://www.law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/LULC/LandUsePrimerpdf)(At end of publication),from Beginner's Guide to Land Use Law, Pace University School of Law, Land Use Center. Some jurisdictions that have rezone criteria that discourage spot zoning: Page 6 of 13 Mercer Island Unified Land Development Code,§ (http://www codepublishing com/wa/mercerisland/html/Mercerlslandl9/Merceristandl9l5.htmt#19.15.020) 19.15.020 (http://www codel2ublishiniZcom/wa/mercerisland/html/Mercerlslandl9/Merceristandl9l5.html#19.15.020) (G)(2) 2.Reclassification of Property(Rezones). a. a.The proposed reclassification is consistent with the policies and provisions of the Mercer Island comprehensive plan; a. b.The proposed reclassification is consistent with the purpose of the Mercer Island development code as set forth in MICC 19.01.010; a. c.The proposed reclassification is an extension of an existing zone,or a logical transition between zones; 1 a. d.The proposed reclassification does not constitute a"spot"zone; a. e.The proposed reclassification is compatible with surrounding zones and land uses;and I i a. f.The proposed reclassification does not adversely affect public health,safety and welfare. i Port Angeles Municipal Code,§17 96100 (http://65 243 149 132/weblink/0/doc/85542/Pagel.aspx): 17.96.100 Amendments. A. A. In determining if an amendment to these regulations is needed,the City Council shall give due consideration to the proper relationship of such amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the entire Zoning Regulations;it being the intent to retain the integrity and validity of the zones herein described 3 and to avoid any isolated spot zoning changes in the Zoning Map. i A. B.Any amendments adopted by the City Council may be modified from the form in which they were advertised within the limits necessary to relate properly such amendment or amendments to the Zoning Regulations. Final action on such modifications shall be subject to review and report of the Planning Commission prior to final passage by the City Council. 1 A. C. No application for a change of zoning of any lot,parcel or portion thereof shall be considered by the City Council within one year of the final action of the Council upon a prior application covering any of the same described land.This provision,however,shall not impair the right of the Council to propose 3 by its own action any amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the zones in these regulations. (Ord.3272, 2/17/2007;Ord.2861 Sec.1 (part),3/17/1995;Ord.2668 Sec.12(part),1/17/1992;Ord. 1709 Sec.1 (part),12/22/1970) E (Link to this question)(/Home/Research-Tools/Ask-MRSC-Archives/Planning.aspx#What-is-spot- zoning-(particularly-in-the-case-of-a) Does a rezone affect an existing water right? 1 9 • J J 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 END. !' I.P. SHORT SUBDIVISION. 0 100 200 400 W/CAP S•T.Co. NORTH LINE, (JAMES A. BRIX) SE 114, SEC. 33 CONC. MON. AS SHOViN ON cl S 88V4 2B•E 1981.97 STCO 7981.87 PLAT OF RAINBOW LAKE, U \S ?g4 700 OD BK. 12, PG. 104, RECORDS t1 }i -'6 . 71 W ' 350.00 300.00 3 OF MASON COUNTY, WA. F.$O i , LOT 4 0 �., 223E (THQ1lAS o, t � 2.00 AC. � L O T 3 �' ANITA T. DRAKE) q ti taa a o � .t o LOT 2 — .� �, \ \ ■ S 1.82 AC. m m o ^a LOT 1 h BARBARA — '� o _ 1.81 AC. o - ( JEAN BOLA!) o Z. � 146.462 ■ O N yr> a I.8/ AC, H 10— J( - R-1175.92 ` - � 0- 9 _. 7 0 (GAILEN P. 6 PATSY R. L-28297 'Y7CLC� A, '�E �g �aB7 ■ ■ 15573 2 �1TN ET. AL.) - /►',Q,Y f �lL yjltp i • PR R� p� 79' j4 " "AST LINE, NOTE: SEE SLRVEY BY SIMPSON L- 1032'26' \R 1115.92 30 SE 114, SEC, 33 TIMBER CO. , By. 12, PG. 104, R-111&92 L�171.88 uj RECORDS OF MASON COUNTY, WA• L<205.29 z "ALTERNATIVE DRAINFIELDS WILL BE REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE LOT SIZE U> LEGEND: MINIMUM IN CLASS ONE SOIL. THESE SYSTEMS MUST CONSIST OF AT LEAST PRESSURIZED SAND LINED TRENCHES. WAC 248-96-090 • = 'S IRON BAR a PLASTIC SHORT PLAT � YELLOW CAP SET FOR (b) METHOD II (ii) . O ---FOUND DRIFT PIN UNLESS SIMPSON PROPERTIES INC. n OTHERWISE NOTED BQUIPAfENT AND PROCEDURES . o FOSS I BL E WELL NW ! r Sc ! 4, ■ =S0!L LOG �4 � � EOU i PMEN7: L 1 ETZ 6 SECOND THc"OOOL/TE WITH EUV AND 200' CALIBRATED CHAIN NE 114, SE 114, PROCEDURE: FIELD TRAVERSE SHORT PLAT If 2 Y SEC. 33, TWN. 21 N. , R. 3W. , W.M. s I-212SP APPROVED - -9L MAIN OFFICE, SHEL TON, WA• 98584 (205)426-3381 HOLMAN & ASSOCIAT,ES I PTN. OF PARCEL f321334000000 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS GENERA I CES D 1 RECTOR 421 NORTH 3RD, SHEL TON, WA. - (206)426-2990 .98584 C7 8-1-09 To: Mason County commissioners/.Mason County Planning Dept. 411 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 ----------------------------------------------------------- 17.04. 0 Rural Commercial 2 (RC 2) 17:04.3 Purpose. (See Section 17.02.043) 17:04.332 Permitted. A. USES: Conven n s aurant,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. No flashing signs, or animated or moving signs are 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 April 4, 2008 page 40 17.04.300 RURAL COMMERCIAL 17.04.320 Rural Commercial 1 (RC 1) 17.04.321 Purpose. (See Section 17.02.043) 17.04.322 Uses Permitted. A. USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT: Convenience/general store,Gas, Restaurant,Bed and breakfast,Laundry B. ACCESSORY USES: Owner occupied residential. 17.04.323 Lot Requirements. A Density. 1 owner/manager occupied 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. 25 feet. Buffer plantings required in at least the first 10 feet of this setback. 17.04.324 Building Regulations. A. Floor Area Ratio. 1:5, except for fire stations. B. Size. 4,500 sq. feet maximum except for dwellings. C. Height. Two floors not to exceed 35 feet maximum except for agricultural buildings, antennas, or water tanks. 17.04.325 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. No flashing signs,or animated or moving signs are allowed. 17.04.326 Off-street parking. Off street parking(stall number and arrangement)shall be provided according with the provisions of the Mason County Parking Standards. MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS April 4, 2008 page 39 Page 1 of 7 105 Wn. App. 103, AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER [No. 19204-1-III. Division Three. March 1, 2001.] AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C., Appellant, v. MICHAEL REX TABLER, ET AL., Respondents. [1] Attorney and Client - Malpractice - Elements - In General. A claim for legal malpractice requires proof of (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty of care, (2) breach of the duty, (3) promixate causation, and (4)damages. 104 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER Mar. 2001 105 Wn. App. 103 [2] Attorney and Client - Malpractice - Elements - Standard of Care - In General. An attorney owes to a client a duty to exercise that degree of skill, diligence, and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by reasonable, careful, and prudent attorneys in this jurisdiction. [3] Attorney and Client - Malpractice - Filing Action - Knowledge of Procedural Rules. A reasonably prudent attorney is expected to know all applicable procedural rules for filing an action in court. [4] Attorney and Client- Malpractice- Filing Action - Statutory Violation. An attorney's violation of a statutory requirement for filing an action in court constitutes a breach of the attorney's professional duty of care. [5] Counties - Venue - County Defendant - Statutory Provisions - Violation - Legal Malpractice. An attorney's failure to timely file an action against a county in a judicial district specified by RCW 36.01,050 constitutes a breach of the attorney's professional duty of care. [6]Attorney and Client- Malpractice- Elements- Proximate Cause- Cause in Fact-What Constitutes. Cause-infact in a legal malpractice action involves a determination of whether the plaintiffs damages would have occurred had it not been for the defendant's negligent act or omission. Speculation will not support a cause-in-fact determination. [7]Attorney and Client- Malpractice- Failure To Appeal- Causation in Fact- Determination. In a legal malpractice action based on an attorney's failure to timely file an appeal, the plaintiff must show that the appellate tribunal would have rendered a judgment more favorable to the plaintiff had the appeal been timely filed. The issue is one of law for the court to decide after reviewing the record of the underlying action and the arguments of the parties, and applying the same rules of review as would have been applied by the appellate court. [8] Building Regulations - Land Use Regulations - Judicial Review- Land Use Petition Act- Findings of Fact Substantial Evidence - What Constitutes. For purposes of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) of the Land Use Petition Act, under which a court may grant relief from a local land use decision if the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, "substantial evidence"is evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true. [9] Building Regulations- Land Use Regulations-Judicial Review- Land Use Petition Act- Findings of Fact-Scope Mar. 2001 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER 105 105 Wn. App. 103 of Review-Judicial Deference.The substantial evidence standard of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) of the Land Use Petition Act for reviewing findings of fact entered by a local decision maker in a land use case is deferential; the reviewing court views the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the highest forum that exercised factfinding authority [10] Zoning - Rezoning - Judicial Review - Test. A local governmental decision denying a rezone request is reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard. The decision is not arbitrary and capricious unless it is willful and unreasoning and made without consideration of or in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision is not arbitrary and capricious if there is room for two opinions. [11]Zoning -Rezoning -Validity-Standards. A rezone request is analyzed under the following general rules: (1)the act of rezoning is not presumed to be valid; (2) the proponent of the rezone has the burden of proving that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning; and (3) the rezone must bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. [12]Zoning- Rezoning-Changed Circumstances- Factors. In deciding if changed circumstances are sufficient to justify a rezoning, a court considers a variety of factors, including changes in public opinion, changes in land use patterns in the area of the proposed rezone,and changes in the property itself. [13]Zoning-Rezoning- Public Opinion. Public opinion is an appropriate factor to consider in ruling on a rezone request. [14]Zoning-Rezoning-Comprehensive Plan- Effect.An important consideration in ruling on a rezone request is whether the proposed rezone would be consistent with the local comprehensive plan. [15] Zoning - Rezoning - Growth Management- Effect. The goals and purposes of the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) are appropriate factors to consider in ruling on a rezone request in an area that is subject to growth management planning under the act. [16] Zoning - Rezoning - Growth Management - Urban Growth Area - Interim Designation - Effect. The coverage of an interim urban growth area established pursuant to the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCM is an appropriate factor to consider in ruling on a rezone request. Page 2 of 7 Nature of Action: Action for damages for legal malpractice. The plaintiff had sought an attorney's assistance in filing a land use appeal. The attorney filed the appeal in the 106 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER Mar. 2001 105 Wn. App. 103 wrong county and the action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff alleged malpractice on the basis that the attorney had failed to file the appeal with a proper court within the time allowed by statute. Superior Court: The Superior Court for Grant County, No. 99-2-01 1 1 9-4, Carolyn A. Brown, J., entered a summary judgment dismissing the action on February 18, 2000. Court of Appeals: Holding that the attorney's failure to timely file the plaintiffs action in the proper forum did not constitute malpractice where the trial court would not likely have granted relief to the plaintiff had the mistake not been made, the court affirms the judgment. Robert B. Gould (of Law Offices of Robert B. Gould), for appellant. David A. Thorner and Bryan G. Evenson (of Thorner, Kennedy & Gano, P.S.), for respondents. [As amended by order of the Court of Appeals April 3, 2001.1 SCHULTHEIS, J.«1„ - Ahmann-Yamane, LLC's (Ahmann's) attorney, Michael Tabler, filed an untimely petition for review of a county board of commissioners (Board) land use ruling, and filed it in the wrong county's superior court. The petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ahmann's suit against Mr. Tabler for legal malpractice was dismissed on summary judgment. On appeal to this court, Ahmann argues that if not for Mr. Tabler's negligence, the superior court would have reversed the Board ruling that denied its application for a rezoning of its property. Because we find that the superior court would not have granted Ahmann's «i»Judge Schultheis is no relation to the party Richard E. Schultheis of Schultheis&Tabler. Mar. 2001 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER 107 105 Wn. App. 103 land use petition, we affirm dismissal of the legal malpractice claim. Ahmann owns about 165 acres of property northwest of Moses Lake. The land, zoned agricultural, was used by tenant farmers to grow alfalfa hay. In January 1998, Ahmann filed an application with the Grant County Planning Commission for a zone change from agricultural to "Suburban-1." Property zoned Suburban-1 could be divided into residential lots of one to three acres. Ahmann's property was outside the interim urban growth area (IUGA) established by the Board pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Board's standard for housing density outside the IUGA is 2.5-acre lots. Ahmann's application requested a zone change to Suburban-1, but with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The planning commission held a public meeting on the rezone application in March 1998. Ahmann, represented by Michael Ahmann, attended the meeting with Ahmann's attorney, Mr. Tabler. After hearing expert testimony and comments from the public, the commission recommended denial of the zone change. In May 1998, the Board held a closed record public meeting on the rezone application, adopted the commission's recommendation, and denied the application. Notice of the Board's Page 3 of 7 decision was mailed to Ahmann on May 27. The next day, Mr. Tabler sent Ahmann a letter confirming that it had 21 days from the issuance of the notice to file a land use petition in superior court challenging the Board's decision. Ahmann did not respond. On June 17, 1998, the twenty-first day after the Board's decision was issued, Mr. Tabler happened to see Mr. Ahmann on a golf course. Mr. Ahmann asked him to file a land use petition. Recognizing he had three additional days to file because the Board's notice had been mailed, Mr. Tabler agreed to file the petition and proceeded. Due to a scheduling backlog in Grant County, Mr. Tabler decided to file in another county. He filed the land use petition in Adams County on June 19. The superior court subsequently granted Grant County's motion to dismiss the petition for 108 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER Mar. 2001 105 Wn. App. 103 lack of jurisdiction (violation of the filing requirements of RCW 36.01.050). Ahmann sued Mr. Tabler for legal malpractice, claiming that the attorney's negligent filing of the petition more probably than not prevented an ultimate granting of the rezone application. Mr. Tabler's motion for summary judgment dismissal of the malpractice suit was granted and Ahmann now appeals. [1, 2] As this is a review of a summary judgment, we undertake the same inquiry as the trial court, considering all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. CR 56(c); Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Tydings, 125 Wn.2d 337, 341, 883 P.2d 1383 (1994). Legal malpractice is a negligence action that seeks to show that (1) there was an attorney- client relationship that gave rise to a duty of care, (2) the attorney breached that duty by an act or omission, (3) the breach damaged the client, and (4) the breach was the proximate cause of the client's damages. Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wn.2d 251, 260-61, 830 P.2d 646 (1992). The attorney's standard of care is that degree of skill, diligence, and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by reasonable, careful, and prudent attorneys in the jurisdiction. Id. at 261. Mr. Tabler is undisputedly the attorney for Ahmann. Consequently, the first question presented is whether Mr. Tabler breached the standard of care when he allegedly failed to file the petition in a timely manner or in the proper forum. Mr. Tabler explained in his declaration that he notified Mr. Ahmann that Ahmann had until June 17 to file a land use petition challenging the Board's ruling. Mr. Ahmann did not respond until the afternoon of June 17, and only after Mr. Tabler happened to run into him socially. Although Mr. Ahmann contends in his declaration that he discussed the petition on more than one occasion with Mr. Tabler, he admits that the cost of the land use appealestimated by Mr. Tabler at over $14,000-prevented him from making a unilateral decision to go ahead. As he stated, Mar. 2001 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER 109 105 Wn. App. 103 "I told [Mr. Tabler] that he was the attorney, and 'you're the guy I'm paying to advise me, and I have to exhaust all the possibilities. I've got two other guys I have to answer to. We've got a lot of money in this thing now.' " Clerk's Papers (CP) at 45. Mr. Ahmann does not dispute Mr. Tabler's assertion that the decision to file the land use petition was not made until June 17, on the golf course. [3-5] By statute, the land use petition must be filed in superior court within 21 days of the issuance of the land use decision. RCW 36.70C.040(2), (3). Three days are added to the time period if the written decision is mailed to the parties. RCW 36.70C.040(4)(a). Because the Board's decision denying the rezone application was mailed, Mr. Tabler actually had u itil June 20 to file the petition. He filed it on June 19, but in the wrong county. According to his declaration, he decided to file in a Page 4 of 7 neighboring county because Grant County routinely filed affidavits of prejudice against one of its two superior court judges in civil cases involving the county. Expecting a delay, he chose to file in Adams County under the authority of former RCW 36.01.050 (1963) (actions against any county may be commenced in the superior court of the adjoining county). Unfortunately, he did not know that RCW 36.01.050 had been amended in 1997 to provide that actions against a county can only be commenced in that county or in the nearest two judicial districts. According to the record, the nearest two judicial districts in this case would have been Chelan and Kittitas Counties. A reasonably prudent attorney would be expected to know all applicable procedural rules. Consequently, Mr. Tabler's violation of statute in attempting to file the land use petition constituted a breach of duty to Ahmann. [6, 7] Whether this breach caused harm to Ahmann is the pivotal question in this appeal. We are concerned only with cause in fact, the "but for" consequences of Mr. Tabler's negligent act. Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wn.2d 254, 257-59, 704 P.2d 600 (1985). Under the "but for" test the plaintiff must establish that the attorney's act or omission caused the plaintiffs damages. Id. at 260. This showing must be 110 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER Mar. 2001 105 Wn. App. 103 based on more than speculation. Id. Ahmann contends Mr. Tabler's untimely filing in the improper county caused dismissal of what would have been a successful reversal of the Board's denial of its rezone application. To prove legal malpractice in an action involving an attorney's failure to file an appeal in a timely manner, the client must show that the appellate tribunal would have rendered a judgment more favorable to the client. Id. at 258. This is a question of law, requiring review of the record of the underlying action and the arguments of the parties, and subject to the rules of review that would have been applied by the appellate court. Id. at 259 (citing R. MALLEN & V. LEVIT, LEGAL MALPRACTICE § 583, at 738 (2d ed. 1981)). In short, we must decide the likely result of the land use petition. Under RCW 36.70C. 130(1), the superior court, acting without a jury, reviews the record of a land use decision and grants relief only if one of the following six standards has been met: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; (c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court; (d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts; (e) The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the body or officer making the decision; or (f) The land use decision violates the constitutional rights of the party seeking relief. The land use petition erroneously filed by Ahmann challenged several of the Board's findings and conclusions, including findings that the 165 acres were suitable for farming, that there was no demonstrated substantial Mar. 2001 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER 111 105 Wn. App. 103 Page 5 of 7 change supporting a rezone, and that there was no proof of a need for additional residential tracts in the area; and conclusions that the rezone was not consistent with the comprehensive plan, that it was incompatible with irrigated agricultural use, and that it was outside the IUGA. Although Ahmann does not cite which standards of review under RCW 86.70C.130 it seeks to apply, the challenge to the findings and conclusions suggests it attacks the land use decision on the basis of insufficient evidence (RCW 36.70C.1 30(1/(c)) and clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts (RCW 36.70C.130(I)(d)). [8-10] Under the substantial evidence standard used in RCW 36.70C. 130(l)(c), we look for sufficient evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true. Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). This review of the factual issues is deferential, however. The evidence and reasonable inferences arising from the evidence are viewed in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the highest fact- finding authority. Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 845, 899 P.2d 1290 (1995) (citing Freeburg v. City of Seattle, 71 Wn. App. 367, 371-72, 859 P.2d 610 (1993)). Further, an appellate court will overturn a governmental body's decision on a rezone only if the decision is; arbitrary and capricious. Murden Cove Pres. Ass'n v. Kitsap County, 41 Wn. App. 515, 519, 704 P.2d 1242 (1985). An action is arbitrary and capricious if it is willful and unreasoning, without consideration of or in disregard of facts and circumstances; it is not arbitrary and capricious if there is room for two opinions. Id. (citing Barrie v. Kitsap County, 93 Wn.2d 843, 850, 613 P.2d 1148 (1980)). [11] In examining rezone applications, the governmental body applies the following general rules: "(1) there is no presumption of validity favoring the action of rezoning; (2) the proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning; [and] (3) the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare." 112 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER Mar. 2001 105 Wn. App. 103 Bjarnson, 78 Wn. App. at 845 (quoting Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978)). [12, 13] Ahmann first challenges the Board's finding that the record does not demonstrate a substantial change of conditions in the area since the original zoning. Courts look at a variety of factors when applying the changed circumstances test, including changed public opinion, changes in local land use patterns, and changes on the property itself. Bjarnson, 78 Wn. App. at 846-47. At the public hearing before the planning commission here, several neighbors and interested citizens dissented to the rezone. Ahmann contends public opposition is not a proper basis to deny a rezone application, and adds that some local people favored the project. Because changes in public opinion have a bearing on changed circumstances, the Board properly considered the testimony of all of the citizens. The court's authority to weigh the testimony of these citizens and to accept the opinion of the dissenters must be accepted. Id. at 845. Ahmann also points to the fact that property to the north and south is zoned suburban-agricultural and suburban. Directly to the east and west, however, lie agricultural lands, including orchards. Although it was undisputed that the area had become more residential over the last 25 years, nothing conclusively indicated that the additional homes reflected a substantial change in the pattern of land use. [14] An important consideration in determining land use patterns is the effect of the county's comprehensive plan. Any zoning designations must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. City of Bellevue v. E. Bellevue Cmty. Council, 138 Wn.2d 937, 940, 983 P.2d 602 (1999). In fact, if a Page 6 of 7 proposed rezone implements the policies of a comprehensive plan, a showing of changed circumstances is not required. Save Our Rural Env't v. Snohomish County, 99 Wn.2d 363, 370-71, 662 P.2d 816 (1983); Bjarnson, 78 Wn. App. at 846. Grant County's comprehensive plan states as Mar. 2001 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER 113 105 Wn. App. 103 one of its objectives the preservation of the county's agricultural land: "Because of economic and environmental considerations, this is the most important consideration[] of this Comprehensive Plan." CP at 105. Clearly Ahmann's proposed rezone would not implement the policy of preservation of agricultural land. And just as clear is the fact that the comprehensive plan is instrumental in determining what land use patterns will be acceptable within the county. As for evidence that Ahmann's property had changed, there was testimony before the planning commission that the property was poorly suited for agricultural use. The chief reasons cited were that the irrigation system needed improvement and that it was expensive to remove the numerous rocks. The rocks had always existed on the property, and the condition of the irrigation system was not an indication that the land itself had changed. Altogether, the record bef jre the Board, especially when viewed by the deferential standard, substantially supports the Board's finding that there was no substantial change in circumstances warranting a rezone. [15, 16] Our final concern is whether the proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. Bjarnson, 78 Wn. App. at 845. The Board found that the record does not establish that "the proposed rezone from Agriculture to Suburban-1 bears a substantial relationship to the public welfare, in that the proposed rezone and the proposed development is not compatible wi ;h irrigated/agricultural." CP at 124. At the time Ahmann applied for the rezone, Grant County had adopted a comprehensive plan and interim zoning requirements pursuant to the GMA. The Legislature in adopting the GMA found "that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state." RCW 36.70A.010. 114 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER Mar. 2001 105 Wn. App. 103 Counties of a certain size were required to adopt comprehensive plans under the GMA and to create development regulations designating IUGAs. RCW 36.70A.040, .070, .110; Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wn.2d at 173-74. Grant County's comprehensive plan includes a section entitled "Irrigated Farming," which sets forth four objectives consistent with the purposes of the GMA. Besides the preservation of agricultural land and avoidance of leapfrog development (residential development scattered through agricultural areas), the comprehensive plan also seeks to preserve open spaces for recreational purposes and to maintain low population density except in specific areas. Ahmann failed to present sufficient evidence that the planned rezone from agricultural to suburban was in the best interests of the public. Especially when balanced against the goals of the GMA and the objectives for irrigated farm land contained in the comprehensive plan, Ahmann's proposed rezone offers little more than the opportunity for "rural living" in an area that would rapidly become urban in character. Public dissenters worried that the rezone would lead to increased traffic on inadequate roads and cause an impact on wildlife, water quality, and agriculture in the area. Viewed in the light most favorable to Grant County, the evidence is sufficient to support the Board's finding that Ahmann failed to show that the proposed rezone had a substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or welfare. The evidence substantially supports the Board's decision to deny the rezone. RCW 36.70C.130(I)(c). • Page 7of7 Ahmann's argument that the Board's decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts (RCW 36.70C.130(I)(d)) is based on Mr. Tabler's argument at the summary judgment hearing that Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, 95 Wn. App. 383, 974 P.2d 863 (1999), affd in part, rev'd inpart, 141 Wn.2d 185, 4 P.3d 115 (2000), defeats any appeal of the rezone denial. Rural Residents, 95 Wn. App. at 396, held that an approved planned unit development violated the GMA because it Mar. 2001 AHMANN-YAMANE, L.L.C. v. TABLER 115 105 Wn. App. 103 allowed development "urban in nature" to occur outside the county's IUGA. Mr. Tabler argued that Ahmann's property was outside the IUGA, the planned development was clearly urban in nature, and therefore the rezone could not be approved without violating the GMA. Ahmann notes that Rural Residents was reversed by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed because the development application vested to the zoning laws in effect when the appl cation was filed, and because the IUGA was not in effect at that time, the former land use ordinance should have been applied. 141 Wn.2d at 192. The Supreme Court did not, however, hold that the GMA and the IUGA are improper standards for land use approval or denial. On the contrary, it repeated that "a land use application, under the proper conditions, will be considered only under the land use statutes and ordinances in effect at the time of the application's submission."' Id. at 193 (quoting Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269, 275, 943 P.2d 1378 (1997)). The Board properly applied the objectives of the GMA (the proposed rezone would contribute to "urban sprawl"), the coverage of the IUGA (the proposed rezone is outside the IUGA), ar d the elements of the comprehensive plan ("[t]he proposal is inconsistent with Grant County's Comprehensive Plan") in denying Ahmann's rezone application. CP at 125-26 Because Ahmann cannot show that the Board's decisic n was arbitrary and capricious-on the contrary, the record shows a careful, deliberate process was followed in rea ching the decision-we cannot find that the land use petition would have been granted by the superior court, overturning the denial of the rezone. Murden Cove Pres. Ass'n v. Kitsap County, 41 Wn. App. 515, 519, 704 P.2d 1242 (1985). Accordingly, Ahmann fails to prove that dismissal of the petition caused damages. Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wn.2d 251, 260-61, 830 P.2d 646 (1992). The trial court properly grant ad summary judgment to Mr. Tabler. Affirmed. BROWN, A.C.J., AND KATO, J., concur. 116 BISHOP v. HANSEN Mar. 2001 105 Wn. App. 116 MASON COUNTY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORM o: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: Barbara Adkins Action Agenda ❑ Public Hearing El Other ❑ Department: Community Services Ext: 286 Date: November 22, 2016 Agenda Item # (Commissioner Staff To Complete) Briefing Date: October 10, 2016 Briefing Presented By: Barbara Adkins [ ] Item Was Not Previously Briefed With The Board Please Provide Explanation Of Urgency ITEM: Public hearing to consider a rezone request of three parcels on McEwan Prairie from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. BACKGROUND: Applicants, Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise are asking the Board of County Commissioners to consider a for rezoning of three vacant/undeveloped parcels (32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024)from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mason County Board of Commissioners to hereby approve the rezone of parcels 32133- 40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 321.33-40-90024 from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. ATTACHMENT(S): Ordinance Staff Report 11/14/2016 MASON COUNTY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORM o: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: Barbara Adkins Action Agenda Q Public Hearing ❑ Other ❑ Department: Community Services Ext: 286 Date: October 18, 2oi6 Agenda Item # (Commissioner Staff To Complete) Briefing Date: October 10, 2o16 Briefing Presented By: Barbara Adkins [ ] Item Was Not Previously Briefed With The Board Please Provide Explanation Of Urgency ITEM: Set a public hearing on November 22, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.to consider a rezone request of three parcels on McEwan Prairie from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. BACKGROUND: Applicants, Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise are asking the Board of County Commissioners to consider a for rezoning of three vacant/undeveloped parcels (32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024)from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Board of County Commissioners shall set a public hearing for November 22, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.to consider a rezone request of three parcels on McEwan Prairie from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. ATTACHMENT(S): Notice of Hearing 10/11/2016 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, November 22, 2oi6 at 6:30 P.M. SAID HEARING will be to consider the rezoning of three vacant-undeveloped parcels (32133-40-90022,323-33-40-90023,and 32133-40-90024)from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. If you have questions, please contact Barbara Adkins(360)427-9670, Ext. 286. If special accommodations are needed, please contact the Commissioners'office, 427- 967o, Ext.419. DATED this 18th day of October, 2o16 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON Cler of the Board c Journal-Publish 2x: October 27&November 3,2o16 (Bill: Community Development—615 W.Alder,Shelton,WA 98584) MASON COUNTY BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Barbara Adkins DEPARTMENT: Community Services EXT: 286 BRIEFING DATE: October%, 2ol6 16 PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: (If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information) ITEM: Place on October 11, 2o16 Action Agenda a Notice of Hearing for November , 2o16 td consider a rezone request of three parcels on McEwan Prairie from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and potential solutions) Applicants, Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise are asking the Board of County Commissioners to consider a for rezoning of three vacant/undeveloped parcels(32133-40-90022, 32133- 40-90023,and 32133-40-90024)from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Approval to place on on October 11, 2oi6 Action Agenda a Notice of Hearing for November 1, 2oi6 to consider a rezone request of three parcels on McEwan Prairie from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. Briefing Summary 9/28/2w.6 MASON COUNTY AGENDA ACTION — NOVEMBER 22 2016 ACTION 8.1 Approval of the resolution establishing the Mason County Audit Committee Approved to fulfill the County's responsibility regarding internal controls and financial reporting. 8.2 Approval of the Mason County Capital Asset Policy establishing a uniform Approved policy and accounting for the Coun 's real and personal property. 8.3 Approval of the resolution establishing a policy for Accounts Payable Split Approved Year Invoices. 8.4 Approval of resolution to close Old Belfair Highway at approximately Approved milepost 0.000 to milepost 0.100 on Sunday, December 4, 2016 from 3:30 m to 5:00 m for the Belfair Christmas Parade. 8.5 Approval to authorize Public Works to solicit a 2017 Letters of Interest list Approved for Construction Project Inspectors, Contract and Fee Appraisers, Construction Material Testing and Timber Management Services and allow the County Engineer to sign and enter into agreement(s) for these services, as needed, for projects scheduled for the upcoming construction season. 8.6 Approval to execute a two-year contract with Correct Equipment for Approved service of Grinder Pumps at North Bay and Belfair sewer collection systems. The estimated annual value of the contract is $100 000. 8.7 Approval to execute the Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County to Approved provide residential household hazardous waste collection and disposal to Mason County residents not to exceed $50,000 per year(1,000 customers). 8.8 Approval of the resolution authorizing Public Works/Utilities to purchase Approved refurbished replacement parts for the Grizzly Grapple Crane, used at the Solid Waste Transfer Station, from Grizzly Crane Equipment Manufacturing Corporation, as a sole source purchase, in the approximate amount of 140 000. 8.9 Approval of the Veterans Assistance Fund applications for: Necessity Approved Items $1,000.00, Utilities $1,316.28 and Housing $400.00 for a total of 2 716.28 as recommended by the Veterans Service Office. 8.10 Approval to authorize the Chair sign the Contract to Buy and Sell Real Approved Estate as well as all other documents associated with the purchase and transfer of title for the Coulter Creek Property. This property, consisting of 58.25 acres, will be used as a public park and the purchase price is $583,000 with 90% covered through a Recreation and Conservation Office grants. The remaining costs are funded from Real Estate Excise Tax REET 2). 8.11 Approval of Warrants Approved Claims Clearing Fund Warrant #s 8043946-8044337 $ 1,205,794.03 Direct Deposit Fund Warrant #s 35941-36335 $ 720,548.19 Salary Clearing Fund Warrant #s 7002310-7002360 $ 1,018,645.42 Total $ 2,944,987.64 Claims Clearing YTD Total $ 28,372,023.15 Direct Deposit YTD Total $ 12,150,068.30 Salary Clearing YTD Total $ 13,014,599.64 8.12 Approval to set a public hearing on Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 9:30 Approved a.m. to consider the following 2016 Budget transfer requests: $543,694 transfer from Current Expense Ending Fund Balance to: Sheriff's Department(001.205): $125,000 Salaries and Benefits, $200,000 to pay all 2016 Outsourcing invoices, $193,694 Woodworkers new contract rates, $25,000 replacement of fingerprinting machine and Polycom system for the jail. $20,939 transfer from Current Expense Ending Fund Balance to: Juvenile Probation (001.170): $20,939 new contract rates. $22,368 transfer from Current Expense Ending Fund Balance to: Juvenile Care & Custody (001-172): $22,368 new contract rates. $11,000 transfer from Combined Utilities Ending Fund Balance (406) to $3,000 Office Supplies and $8,000 Communications. $10,000 transfer from Rustlewood Sewer and Water Ending Fund Balance (411) to Repairs and Maintenance. $750,000 transfer from Belfair Waster Water Bio-solid Waste Permit (413) to Bond Principle Payments. 10.1 Public hearing to consider speed limit change on Plantation Way. Approved Staff: Melissa McFadden 10.2 Public hearing to certify to the County Assessor the amount of taxes Approved Current Expense & levied for county purposes and the amount of taxes levied for each Road Levy Resolutions— taxing district for 2017. An increase to the Current Expense and Road Certification of other taxing property tax levies for 2017 may be considered. Staff: Frank Pinter districts continued to Dec 6, 2016 10.3 Public hearing to consider a rezone request of three parcels on McEwan Approved Prairie from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. Staff: Barbara Adkins f 1 t ORDINANCE NUMBER ' AMENDMENT TO MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AREAS MAP STOUT/PARADISE REZONE ORDINANCE Mason County Development Areas Map (rezone) under the authority of RCW 36.7oA.80. WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.7oA.13o) requires each county, including Mason County, to take legislative action to review and revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations to ensure that the plan and regulations continue to comply with the requirements of the Act; and r WHEREAS, the County needs to address certain requests for comprehensive plan and zoning changes to meet the goals and requirements of Chapter 36.7oA RCW (Growth Management Act); and WHEREAS, Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise, hereinafter referred to as "Applicants", owners of real property in Mason County known as parcels 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-4090024, have requested a zoning change of their property from Rural Residential 20to Rural Commercial 2; and WHEREAS, on July 25 and September 19, 2o16, the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission held a public hearings to consider the amendments and passed a motion to recommend approval of said rezone;and WHEREAS,the Commissioners considered the requested rezone at a duly advertised public hearing on 1 1. -L7_ 4 , and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners took public testimony from interested parties, considered all the written and oral arguments and testimony, and considered all the comments presented; and WIIEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners also considered the Staff Report and recommendations of the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds that the proposed amendments to the Development Areas Map complies with all applicable requirements of the Growth Management Act, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Mason County Code, and that it is in the best public interest;and BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED,the Mason County Board of Commissioners hereby approves and ADOPTS revisions to the Mason County Development Areas Map rezoning parcels d[4 4 D w r 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32-133-40-90024 from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2 as submitted by Applicants. r� DATED this/0 day of t 2016. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON ATTEST: / INA Terri Jeffreys, ai Julie (manzor,Clerk f he Boar APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tim Sheldon,Commissioner Tim Whitehead,Chief DPA Randy Neatherlin, Commissioner ea z a � lu e0v coU MASON COUNTY Date Stamp s° Department of Community Development 426 W. Cedar Street Shelton, WA 98584 Phone: (360)427-9670 ext. 352 rasa Fax. (360)427-7798 1" Received by: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM Name Phone Address _ Fax City, State,Zip E ail Ste-z - .t/ g ; �� ✓J —, (P Leo. Parcel No. - - Parcel Address Owner Previous Owner Type of Records: ❑ Building Department Records ❑ Planning Department Records Record(s) requested: Please describe a specific identifiable record. Include document name, number or date if known. ❑ I would like to inspect the record(s) at no charge I would like a copy of the record(s): ❑ Mailed ❑ Faxed ❑ Emailed (if available in electronic format*icked up Please allow 5 business days for a response to your request. RCW 42.56.520 1 agree to pay all copy ch pursuant to Mason County's fee schedule. RCW 42.56.120 I certify the information taine thr,ugh this reques will of be used for commercial purposes. RC/W 42.56.0 0(9) Requestor Signature - Date /� ( � �LI, OFFICIAL USE ONLY ❑ 5-Day response <Date ti` � \tir"aF' 'a '.'44'7t4•'a ` `t^C *',,i' ` '; ``, ''r4 �`�?. - VO4 vi: Search Crlterla USe4 4 ❑ Scanned Records w � ,; ❑ Parcel Files ❑Permit Center" N ZI "�``* �` ` ` ❑ Email Search `� ❑ Plannin De Tidemark Files � y �a, � ,4` � `'� ,� 9 t.P LI Meeting Notes4 k, ti; t ❑ Plan Vault ❑ County Archives Request Closed B )ate: k Records were ❑ Mailed' ❑ Faxed ❑ Emailed Picked up Fees Due $ k w Notes h t, Make checks payable to the Mason County Treasurer cc:CMMRS Neatherlin,Sheldon&hffreys Clerk �y To: Terri Jeffreys 9/27/2016 Mason County Commissioner, District 3 Shelton, WA 98584 RECEIVED From: Michael Gilbreath OCT O J 2016 2380 E McEwan Prairie Road Shelton, WA 98584 509-552-9235 Mason Counts dragonnecougz@yahoo.com Commissioners Please read this petition and thank you for your. time. We strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the three lots under DDR2016- 00067 and SEP2016-00050 located at the end of E McEwan Prairie Road. I write to you today as a last ditch effort to prevent the approval of this rezoning request. My family, along with 35 other area homeowners and representatives thereof, attended the July and September meetings and voiced strenuously our objections to building a commercial area in the middle of our residential neighborhood. According to your office paperwork, the entirety of the homeowner testimony against this rezoning request has been summarized as "opinion without corroborating facts". This was public testimony against the rezoning, not a gathering of Subject Matter Experts. Our concerns are valid. We expected the county to do its due diligence and research the issues brought up without prejudice. Find alternative sites already zoned for this request. Contact the Sheriff's office to get crime figures for storage facilities and commercial businesses in residential areas, contact a real estate professional (not on the committee) to get a read on how this proposal will affect residential home values, and finally, really think about the fact that approving this rezoned facility will park hundreds of gallons of fuel, oil, anti-freeze and other contaminants on top of glacial soils that lead directly to the aquifer. There are better locations for this kind of facility around Lake Limerick, along Highway 101, along E John's Prairie Rd, and at the airport. None of those locations would require rezoning. Common sense aside, the rezoning committee has sided with the single landowner who wants the storage buildings and has done so without a single dissenting vote. Three committee members did not verbally vote at all, one was not present at the July Meeting to hear homeowner testimony, one abstained voting against because it was his "last day on the committee", and there was an obvious bias from your office staff person toward approving this rezoning measure from the first day both in the documentation and attitude. Testimony that the proposal did not meet the criteria in the county's eight point comprehensive guide was ignored since it was "just a guideline the state requiresyou to have". This same rezoning petition was denied twice previously with good reasons. Suddenly this petitioner meets all the eight comprehensive planning guidelines, and nothing has changed about the location or the nature of that location that justifies approval. This approval MUST be based on money. As homeowners, we feel that we should have a reasonable expectation that since we did our due diligence prior to buying our homes here, the county should place higher value on preserving the residential zoning in our neighborhood not advancing more commercial sprawl. This petitioner haf had 24 years to develop this property and has been denied rezoning twice previously. This request should be denied again and remain denied. In a democratic society when 35+ tax-paying homeowners all vote NO, one landowner should not be able to overrule everyone else simply because he has money and local connections. ti Only 8.5% of US households have an RV, only 18.5% have a boat. There are 15+ public storage facilities in Mason County, all on already commercially zoned lots. Three existing businesses are for sale for lack of use. All of these sites have increased incidents of criminal activity in their area (ask the sheriff) , and they all show serious signs of neglect after just a short time in business. Maybe we need more county storage areas but we don't necessarily need it on this property in question! As I have come to understand it, Mason County's Growth Plan has eight major guidelines for rezoning requests. I'd like to point out some of the reasons why this proposed rezoning request should fail to meet county requirements. 1. Rule #1 - Rezoning will not damage public health, safety, or welfare. This requirement fails because even in a perfect world where the petitioner builds a perfect rental storage property, has a full-time guard, and cameras, and lights, and fencing, and the best water runoff system imaginable, this proposal will cause damage to public safety, health, and welfare. Storage units over time often draw criminal attention just as soon as they begin to fall into disrepair. They often hold or store dangerous or toxic substances. Any vehicle storage is prone to leaks of oil, gasoline, anti-freeze, and more that runoff into groundwater. There is NO OVERSIGHT or long-term enforcement once the SEPA permit is issued and that endangers local homeowner welfare and aquifer/well water safety. Please think long-term and you know this to be true. What older storage area anywhere in the area truthfully looks maintained, environmentally safe, and secure after the first few years? 2. Rule #2 - Rezoning shall match the characteristics of the area to be rezoned. There is no reasonable person who could drive out McEwan Prairie Road today and then honestly feel that this proposed rezoning would preserve the characteristics of the area in any way, shape, or form. McEwan Prairie is almost 100% pristine wooded residential area with neatly kept private homes set back off the road. The proposed buildings to be built on the rezoned properties are METAL. They are in the open and will not match the area at all. Furthermore, they will require obnoxious fencing, lighting that will drown out the nighttime darkness, and likely add serious levels of noise at all hours. Any commercial venture in this area will decrease local property values. No potential home buyer wants to live next to commercial storage units. Nothing about this rezoning idea "matches' the secluded country character of the area. 3. Rule #4 - Rezoning will not increase demand for streets, parking, utilities, fire protection, police protection, or schools. Guaranteed - This proposed rezoning will increase demand for changes to McEwan Prairie Road. It will quickly become necessary to have a left- turn lane for the commercial properties located on this two-lane 50mph road. Furthermore, the storage unit area will be a parking lot of unattended vehicles. Historically, these facilities tend to degrade quickly and trouble is drawn to them like a magnet. Police response in the area will not be sufficient currently to monitor for potential criminal elements drawn here by the unattended vehicles or storage units in general. Ask the sheriff! Look at existing storage facilities around town and you will know instinctively this is true. 4. Rule #6 - Rezoning must retain open space and wildlife habitat. Did you know we have a real live bear living in the immediate area? Deer and larger animals will not remain long around this noisy storage facility and parking lot. We'd like to keep the quiet, wild feel of the area as it is now. Commercial property is rarely maintained at the same level long-term as local residential homes would be, so rezoning here will de-value every residential property located nearby and change the area's wild look and feel. Ask yourself, would you buy a home next door to rental storage units or a commercial business? 5. Rule #7 - Rezoning will not create pressure to change land use designations. I would point out that rezoning these lots on McEwan Prairie Road to allow anything commercial does by definition create pressure to change land use in the surrounding area. Potential home buyers will likely choose to avoid buying/building close to the rezoned area. This is NOT a small footprint business area. It is over six acres along an open road. Local homeowners may also opt to leave, taking whatever profit they can for their devalued properties and getting out before anything worse goes into the area to further devalue homes. With land values depressed, you open the door to new land owners who will demand new land uses for the quasi-commercial area. This happens in Olympia all the time. See areas like the south end of Rich Road or the far end of Yelm Highway where they are losing their residential identities as commercial areas intrude on once pristine residential areas. Please don't do this to ust 6. Rezoning creates public jobs or opportunities of employment. This rezoning will not create any significant number of public sector jobs or opportunities for employment outside of the owner's family. At best it was estimated two positions might exist. The only benefactor of note will be the business landowner. In summary, I and my family, and all the homeowners in the area, urge the county commissioners to override the rezoning committee recommendation and seriously look at the issue from the perspective of the homeowners who actually live on McEwan Prairie, on Rainbow Lake, and on E Mason Lake Road every day. We don't need or want this rezoning here. We did our due- diligence when we bought our residential properties in this beautiful residential area. We've built solid homes and modest high-quality lifestyles here, and we value our peace, privacy, security, and pristine local environment. We trusted the county and the commissioners have denied this rezoning request twice previously. We want only one thing: Please keep our residential area strictly residential. Our neighborhood is a poster child for the ideal lifestyle choice that Mason County is supposed to represent. STOP, THINK - there is NO NEED whatsoever to have this particular land rezoned on McEwan Prairie Road. It makes no sense whatsoever! From all 35+ homeowners in the area, thank you for your serious consideration in this matter. Michael Gilbreath and Dorthea Gilbreath and Heather West QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE REZONE FROM RR20 TO RURAL COMMERCIAL 2, PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE AND RV/BOAT STORAGE ON MCEWAN PRAIRIE ROAD September 19. 2016, 2016 1. How can a DMS Determination of Non significance be issued for SEPA SEP2016- 00050, when there are 47 N/A responses. The answered responses are the Background Questions; 1. Name of Proposed Project, etc. Then the there are the important issues 2. Environmental Elements 1. Earth:two answered. Water 1 answered. 2. Ground: None. 3. Plants:two.Animals: 1 4. Energy and Natural resources: None The Environmental Health Questions are particularly Important. 3. "Are there there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,spill, or hazard waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe."Answer: NONE. 4. How can this incomplete and or totally untrue response be accepted by the authorized Local Government Official, as acceptable, without any questions or qualified reference to back up this claim. Another VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION UNDER THIS SECTION. "DESCRIBE ANY TOXIC OR HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS THAT MIGHT BE STORED, USED OR PRODUCED DURING THE PROJECT'S DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION, OR ANY TIME DURING THE OPERATING LIFE OF THE PROJECT?" ANSWER: NONE. How would the owner know what would be stored in these units? Would there be inspections to make sure only safe materials are being stored? If there was a fire, how many units would be involved, including boat and RV storage? If there were chemicals that could explode, or easily help spread not only on the premises but to adjoining properties, would this not involve additional fire and police protection? Although the person requesting signed it on 6-10-16, stating the answers are"true and complete", it does make it OK for the County Representative not to use common sense and background experience to question the validity of the answers given and reasons why others were not answered. Because of the incomplete answers of the SEPA, how can the statement be made that an EIS is not required? This DNS is totally unacceptable. The Request for Rezone...Summary of Proposal states: "These parcels are located within the rural areas of Mason County and would not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map". Please see Copy of APPLCIATION FOR AMENDEMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP. GENERAL INFORMATION: FEE:($1,910.00), "This application for amendment of the Development Area Future Land Use Map is used to request a change in the zone designation of a parcel or group.of parcels, such as from RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RURAL COMMERCIAL ,.....Doesn't this say and an Amendment is needed? Also other pertinent information show at bottom of this information sheet. Where is the GPS Information showing the distance between the Gravel Dispersal Business near the railroad tracks, and the nearest rezone request parcel boundary? (Using a ruler to measure on a map is hardly accurate.) How can it be said that this rezone to more intensive use would not require increase the need for additional police and fire protection? The possibility of a fire, could produce a big problem, as the the types of materials being stored would be unknown. Also boat storage, brings the usual problem of oil and gas. I believe Lake Limerick has the closest smaller fire station.A large fire could prove to be a very big problem. In regard to the Traffic Study States;"Fewer trips would be made during the critical PM peak hour and on a daily basis as compared to the existing residential ongoing use.." These would be in addition to the regular traffic that already occurs on a daily basis. Questions: l. How many parcels may be use for this facility? 2. Are all of them further than a '/2 mile distance?Need GPS Information. 3. What is the total area needed to operate this facility? Such as: 1. Size of each facility, 2. Set back from road and property Line, 3. What fencing needed and sq. ft. for and around it? 4. Road path to storage areas; size and type? 5. Security lights; what kind,hours they would be on? 6. Screening of total areas for present residential homes to eliminate glare, noise, and visual unpleasantness. 7. What hours would the facility be open? 8. Is there a caretaker? 9. How can it be possible that after three failed attempts to obtain a permit, the reasons for rejecting the permit have suddenly disappeared? All that information should have been made available at the time of this most recent request. 10. This property is on Class II CARA. What happens if there is a oil, gasoline leak or spill, since there will be boat and RV storage, and it would not be know what possible flammable material might be stored there? OBSERVATIONS: All the comments and responses made to the rules and questions, give no informational to why the criteria has been made to allow this rezone. Just repeating what the requirements are and saying they have been met, with no reference or information does not constitute a reason to permit it. It is constantly stated this is a small scale business, but what is the definition of that term and the requirements? I cannot find any information relating to this term. 1. From the Public Comment made on July 25, 2016, No one in that area wants it approved, and gave very graphic,details of how these facilities morph into very serious problem areas. 2. In Barbara Atkins response to Erica Marbet, that , "The Best Management Practices are required with an Environmental Permit. However storage facilities are are not required to have that permit." I have never heard of what an actual "Best Management Practice" would be,but without oversight and enforcement, they are not worth the paper they are are written on. 3. How exactly is a "Special Use Permit",suppose to do anything to protect, the rights, of the local residents, who bought their homes in good faith that the area would remain as a truly RURAI Area? Patricia Vandehey 426 3568 111 SE Lupine PL.,Shelton RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2016 615 W• Alder Street FEE: $1,910.00 bbK 00 v(-01 MASON COUNTY RECEIVED COMMUNITY SERVICES MAY 2 0 2016 615 W. Alder Street, Shelton, WA 98584 6 vV killer Street APPLICATION FOR REQUESTED REZONE [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 application.] Applicant: ,"-d -Uk4 J-tea Mailing Address: , &x 2 3 City: �skj%21— State: Zip: �� Telephone No.: ParcelNumber(s): 3,Z/33—40—906,,-A y Parcel Size and Legal Description: Sp,14 49 7W What kind of change in map information 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) Signature and date 1 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES IN PLAT DIVISION. ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor. Al-een 1-2j, sf oml co.* an� h�ajre r s�`''r�+ .f ✓y�.�/ �. 3 a(7dAp 3�i3ySDoaaO9 She/,fir, 44J..4. !r'PS?y /3ri X , J?,weS /9 Jr, 9i`i4/ /�Arc/s, /,/4rve 3.2 I33 veoA0o0 3;/3ysOaelo /G 7j"] A14r�rc� /,�✓"✓e a Sa?O gr ,. /Y1c/�Q1./rin l�i�i�. I�• /3r,�i�er�,,,✓�s�. `18"3/.t Ted y/ �j�j0 1�4 d�S�'� _Z540W k/ast i9ssoGiaTes 4kyrPs ,iQ/aq ,0. ��osein�.� �• 3;t 13y�too 3;I./3ys-ewd/ Po, 3�, r//y 9v £. �5d0ar•te4 ,e2i 5Ae/fa+/►a/a-S/,. 96�581/ 5"/�Q/ uosa . 5e aN✓i//er, ke r-.f ✓. Y Jy L ' c,�or,� an , .514/hfy ✓y 3a/3 y12 30101001C) 3.213 yS6000IS" /3/0 C, Ms6c'A 14. AW. 20,19 5;`e✓eh.5 Y,*"e-t l,Ibs/,. y'gsT� % ���. -Wy 1-02t f/y/9ry .toy S��'�� , Gai/C� 19 f Q/`s y 3� /3/ySDO0001 / 3�13HSpO0oU 5/ S�rBf jb�1 ti/as�i. '�951Y 5�e/J�i, G.jasA . f3d�r� 1-TarAA/4 A-e. 3 2-/3�/S©aDDOp,2 30/ . 4,44'1Ace pe, &x /l/yS s fe �,z y 5.4,ellco, r>eS8' S/he ► 3;J3300 yoo,�y iavis , 1e,ya�� %3r�y lvyrs, �f,,k Apy/o, 3�/3ySOO0003 3V/3310 rvo// / �0 I l30A 6 y0 S6U £as1 /�4se� LQ,Ee 54ewAea2 t JAs4. �'Y3&9-o6 yo 5/0/)49,, J4-<.4. ZAW-5, /v-dfel T f/1Pg,16w *-A►.rp4d�z ! l�tnie 3�2-13ySdd000,6 3;L/3 y So UDo/,o h��/ale.6rr�►��, elme 3�l3yS000cb 3-2i3,1d 00e REVISED: 2016 GENERAL INFORMATION This application for amendment of the Development Area or Future Land Use Map is used to request a change in the zone designation of a parcel or group of parcels, such as from Rural Residential to Rural Commercial,Rural Tourist, or Rural Industrial; or to request a change in a Resource Land designation,such as from Rural Residential to Agricultural Resource Land. Applications requesting the modification of outer boundaries of Urban Growth Areas, Rural Activity Centers, and Hamlets require the additional application of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and supplemental studies that augment the request. The application must be accompanied by the information listed below and the applicable application fee, and then submitted to the Department of Community Development, Permit Assistance Center by June 30th each year. This application may be used to request a change in a policy of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan or to initiate review of a development standard in Mason County's planning regulations implementing the Comprehensive Plan. The application should be accompanied by supplement information to present an issue or constraint and show that either type of change, if approved,would be applied generally throughout the county. The Department of Community Development will accept these requests in a docket,file and examine the merit of the request for review by the Planning Advisory Commission and Board of County Commissioners as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process. APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR COMPLETE CONSIDERATION OF YO UR REQUEST 1 - Completed application for amendment of Development Area or Future Land Use Map. 2 - Responses to Rezone Criteria 1 to 8 (Mason County Development Regulations Sec. 1.05.080A). 3 - Vicinity Map and Assessor's Office parcel map of subject property or properties. 4 - List of names and mailing addresses of adjacent property owners of lots within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject property or properties. 5 - Environmental Checklist evaluating the application to change from the existing zone designation to the requested zone designation, addressing potential land uses and new standards of development. L\Commimity DevelopmentTAMEZONE12011 REZONE-COMP AMEND.doc (abb) -59- 17.05.080 Rezone Criteria I A. Rezone Criteria. The County shall review a rezone proposal and enter written findings for the following criteria. 1. Development allowed by the proposed rezone designation shall not damage public health, safety and welfare. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. B. Rezone Characteristics. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show through responses to these criteria and information provided that the proposed rezone to more intensive land use is warranted. In rural activity centers and hamlets, any rural land use rezone may be appropriate provided that the criteria above are satisfied. Outside of rural activity centers and hamlets,approval of rezone MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 - 60 - requests to a more intensive land use in rural areas shall not exceed five(5)per calendar year and the total amount of acreage subject to rezoning shall not exceed fifty(50)acres, except for errors in original zoning,as specified in criteria 8 above. For purposes of this section,the numeric limit shall apply to both direct rezones for Rural Residential to Rural Commercial,Rural Tourist, or Rural Industrial, and also intervening rezones from Rural Residential to Rural Tourist,Rural Tourist Campground, or Rural Natural Resources with subsequent rezone requests to Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial. For purposes of this section,the total acreage limit shall not include the acres of parcels rezoned to Rural Tourist Campground or Rural Natural Resources. Such rezones must involve small scale businesses as defined in MCC 17.06,be isolated as required by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d),and may not occur within 1/2 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 LAM]RD under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Rural Commercial 3 zoning shall not be allowed outside of Rural Activity Centers and Hamlets. Rural Natural Resource,Rural Residential, Rural Tourist Campground,and Master Planned Resorts may occur anywhere in rural areas provided that the criteria above are satisfied. In the siting of new Rural Natural Resource districts, consideration must be given that current and potential future development on site will not, in combination with development on adjacent properties, create a pattern of low-density sprawling development. MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009 document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following criteria are met: l.' That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant,and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not,for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; 4... That the variance authorized does riot constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area,and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; 6. - Nov'ariance-shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent-with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations,Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances,and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. 15.09.060-:TYPE IV DECISION REVIEW A. The process for amending the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and implementing developmen#regulations (hereinafter annual amendment process) shall follow the steps below. Generally,the county will consider both the plan and-regulation amendments together,and it will consider them only one time each year. L Publish notice of the deadline for proposed plan or development regulation amendment which will be placed on the docket for consideration. Amendments must be considered at least annually. Comprehensive plan amendments can not -be adopted more.than once a year. a) Requests for rezone will be accepted on proper forms and include fees; such requests will be listed on a docket for further processing of the requests. b) Requested changes to the Comprehensive Plan or development regulations will be accepted in written form by Department of Community Development(DCD).. The request will be evaluated for merit by DCD staff and the Board of County Commissioners. Those requests found of merit will be included in the docket of Comprehensive Plan or development regulations changes. 2. The DCD prepares a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Report for presentation to .the Planning Advisory Commission. The report will include all proposals received,the initial analysis and cumulative impact review, and the initial SEPA determination. I The County transmits the proposals to the State Office of Community Development and other state agencies. MASON COUNTY CODE TTII.E 15—DEVELOPMENT CODE — June 30 2004 version 22 t 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'bythe . 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 HEARING 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: MA ROW rO TNTY('ODR TM.R 15_T)PVP.T.(-)PVP.NT'rnT?i~ mason ARCIMS90768496675.png(PNG Image,992x449 pixels) i / http://mapmason.co.mason.wa.us/output/mason ARCIMS907684966`/5.png y 32133 yo qoo�y 321331040023 3;Z133,/o�0a.�� 3.2133 '/a 960.2/ `] ► lz 13 �y 17 !S 0 452ft • ��V�l K/�� G 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. !" I.P. SHORT SUBDIVISION. LA W/CAP S.T.CO. (JAMES A. BRIX) NORTH LINE, SE 1/4, SEC. 33 CONC. MON. AS SHOWN ON —� S 88'04'28'E 1981.97 STCO 1981.87 PLAT OF RA 1 NBOW LAKE, C BK. 12, PG. 104., RECORDS L S ? 700:00 OF MASON COUNTY, WA.350.00 300.00 LOT 4 p to 322.38 (THOMAS L.d •,�1� k �E' 2.00 AC. io N LOT 3 W w_AN I TA T. DRAKE) 1.82 AC. o LOT 20 ^ LOT 1O ^(BARBARA JEAN SOLM) q 46.462 ^p co 1.8! AC. N i N i x: 11 15 02'20' 79 2 N o (GA I LEN P. & PATSY R. . o R=1115.92 --�$0� 95 8 0 Z m 155.73 2 SMITH ET. AL.) \v sr�STsc�° = �'EIN,�QN �9'7; 0 7 �s•a714 101 1p) RAAm 8 '30' EAST LINE, NOTE: SEE SURVEY BY S 1 MASON A- 1032'26' R=1115.992 SE 114, SEC. 33_ T I MBER CO. , BK. 12, PG. 104, R-1115.92 L=171.88 RECORDS OF MASON COUNTY, WA. La 205.29 "ALTERNATIVE DRAINFIELDS WILL BE REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE LOT SIZE MINIMUM IN CLASS ONE SOIL. THESE SYSTEMS MUST CONSIST OF AT LEAST LEGEND: Q SHORT PLAT PRESSURIZED SAND LINED TRENCHES. WAC 248-96-090 • =#5 IRON BAR & PLASTIC FOR (b) METHOD II (ii) . 2 YELLOW CAP SET o 0 =FOUND DRIFT PIN UNLESS SIMPSON PROPERTIES, INC. OTHERW i SE NOTED IN EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES c 41 o =POSSIBLE WELL NW 1/4, SE /4 EQUIPMENT: L I ETZ 6 SECOND THEODOLITE WITH EDM � 1. , CID ■ =SOIL LOG ' 200' CALIBRATED CHA I N m AND , in NE 1/4, SE 1/4, PROCEDURE: FIELD TRAVERSE 91-212SP SHORT PLAT # /S�/ SEC. 33, TWN. 21 N. , R. 3W. , W.M. APPROVED -9Z MAIN OFFICE, SHELTON, . WA. 98584 HOLMAN & ASSOCIATES (206)4E6-3381 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PTN. OF PARCEL 1321334000000 421 NORTH 3RD, SHELTON, WA. GENERA ICES DIRECTOR (206)426-2990 98584 ? 321342200000 321330001000 _� _ _ S) .r' 321349999999 321330060000 —— -; 321342200000 321331090014 - -- 240 __ 321330001000: LI , .' ,- 321331090013. i _ =- 321330060010 ; 3 I ! • - ,��321331090012 - - ._ 000 '2A ryp� 321342002 0 11 321331 900 fl 321330090022 321330090023 �pRq/� \ t22 1 R3 1.R 32133009O024 R� V \` t 321 3003 60010 11 1 321348888888�2i342300020 ' 321334090024 321345000002" 321334090023 \"' 321334090022 321334090021 321343200000 1 13 `_. • N �_,�_ ,.�-.321345000004� ' 3213450�16�321345000012 �-- 210 321345000016 321333100000 ' _ 321345000017 321345000037 22Q t _ �.. K ] 321 5000018 321345060035�$ y. 321334100000 321345000021----. f ' 321349999999 321345000023 y e' s,i b 321345000024321345000059 -41 3213450000251, 321334000010 1 32134500003 32 345000028'•� 321343260000 3213450000503 321345000029.321345000051 •-s ro 321333400000 321334000000 4 - 321343000000 N 1 inch = 500 feet W E 1 inch = 0 miles S ySop .�6 {, p ;yry ~� ��'\ �sa"'+•i}f�. `,�tf � y. A�� .Y�,f,ry. ,P�. I e •x..7: / '�',>w�1b.'�,,.s�.S`S f F�3 9 ��,'�� _ �����y ���,,3'�. : .�'Y - / %`�� _� .=.. 'tea •` `.'�b �p.��*�'� 'aL 3'`'�'pr � �-z,r �`+• is ^� �7�•1e�. i , 9 t - 1 ^ _ r ¢. rm- Ix t y,�y %�+e�•`'t4 i' � T Ali kj" •ti..i� „q��[� t .4 � r yi'F� `v �'«. �P 1,' v. z_s^ �_���. Nt YFi .x; 4 a� .t -�� `- �Mt •r `R F�"":.� ���IV��d�, ��M'+�'�►�� .A �"v "'S'�+'�Z''g `'� �`'T."..'''�`*•-�P' P y�5g`sr'•"5���;' ,'� �U � b $ 1 t�J .: • v A r g' 1V 1 inch = 500 feet W E 1 inch = 0 miles S 1 O - (] rr i i - gas r f T21 NR3W Yi E MCE r i a R9"z© 771 g t 2 j - RR5N�. - T20N R3W N W g 1 inch = 833 feet 1 inch =0.16 miles ZoV1 l S PLANNING FEES MAY 2 0 2016 F% VV PLANNER: GRACE CKELL MICHAEL REBECCA FEE TYPE: FEE AMOUNT: DoR ICJ 3zi33 - �o- 9o�zz �► _ � - 9002 7- 3Zl 33 - -41 9Ov;Z `t PLANNING FEE TOTAL: /(J s "����o ,�07 1lcdu�/i�J�, i Gc' l S� oaO ale 4 a4e� 1,wr Aor cv e 1; is s 497 X14e sde ab FEE: $1,910.00 GENERAL INFORMATION This application for amendment of the Development Area or Future Land Use Map is used to request a change in the zone designation of a parcel or group of parcels, such as from Rural Residential to Rural Commercial, Rural Tourist, or Rural Industrial; or to request a change in a Resource Land designation, such as from Rural Residential to Agricultural Resource Land. Applications requesting the modification of outer boundaries of Urban Growth Areas, Rural Activity Centers, and Hamlets require the additional application of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and supplemental studies that augment the request. The application must be accompanied by the information listed below and the applicable application fee, and then submitted to the Department of Community Development, Permit Assistance Center by June 30th each year. This application may be used to request a change in a policy of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan or to initiate review of a development standard in Mason County's planning regulations implementing the Comprehensive Plan. The application should be accompanied by supplement information to present an issue or constraint and show that either type of change, if approved, would be applied generally throughout the county. The Department of Community Development will accept these requests in a docket file and examine the merit of the request for review by the Planning Advisory Commission and Board of County Commissioners as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process. APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR COMPLETE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR REQUEST 1 - Completed application for amendment of Development Area or Future Land Use Map. 2 - Responses to Rezone Criteria 1 to 8 (Mason County Development Regulations Sec. 17.5.080A). 3 - Vicinity Map and Assessor's Office parcel map of subject property or properties. 4- List of names and mailing addresses of adjacent property owners of lots within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject property or properties. 5 - Environmental Checklist evaluating the application to change from the existing zone designation to the requested zone designation, addressing potential land uses and new standards of development. I:\Community Development\PLANNING\PAC 2016-Permit Assistance Center\Variance Z918/Z915®Aa9ny cane algltedwoo ww ZOG x ww tE tewaof ap allanbl13 Z918/Z919®Aiany q]IM algl}edwoo„V x„E/L G azls lagel Green Diamond Resource Company Michael & Meghan Lucas P.O. Box 9001 2460 E McEwan Prairie Rd. Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584 James Brix Jr. Et Al Steven & Abigail Hageman 2717 Marine Dr. 2480 E McEwan Prairie Rd, Bremerton, WA 98312-2041 Shelton, WA 98584 Island West Associates Harvey & Marjorie Richards P.O. Box 714 2520 E McEwan Prairie Rd. Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584 Keith & Peggy Schouriller Alan & Rosemary Waynes 1310 E. Mason Lake Rd. 90 E. Evergreen Dr. Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584 Leo & Mary Murphy Sidney & Billie Workman 1461 E. Mason Lake Rd. 2029 Stevens Street Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584 Barbara Bolm Gailen & Patsy Smith P.O. Box 1995 2481 E. McEwan Prairie Rd. Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584 Maryann & Billy Davis Railroad Ave. LLC P.O Box 640 301 E Wallace Kneeland Blvd. Seabeck, WA 98380-0640 Ste. 224 Shelton, WA 98584 " label size 1 1/3"x 4"compatible with Avery 05162/8162 Etiquette de format 34 mm x 102 mm compatible avec Avery 05162/8162 RICHARDS, HARVEY J •• •• 11 - Residential - Single Family .. - 5909 PANORAMA DR SE APT 7-102 2520 E MCEWAN PRAIRIE RD SHELTON •• • AUBURN WA 98092-8749 32134-50-00002 • BOLM, BARBARA JEAN •• • •• 11 - Residential - Single Family •. 1451 E MASON LAKE RD 1451 E MASON LAKE RD SHELTON WA • 98584-7510 RAINBOW LAKE LOT: 2 Z918/Z919®Aaany oane agtedwoo ww Z0 G x ww to tewaot op at}anb 13 Z918/Z915®Aaany gj!m algltedwoo„ti x„E/G G azls laqel Mark A. Meyers 1560 E. Mason Lake Rd. Shelton, WA 98584 Jennie Hernandez 80 E. Evergreen Dr. Shelton, WA 98584 Gene Hildebrandt 60 E. Evergreen Dr. Shelton, WA 98584 I� ® label size 1 1/3"x 4"compatible with Avery 05162/8162 Etiquette de format 34 mm x 102 mm compatible avec Avery/95162/8162 �N-STATE MASON COUNTY �P5 C °� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT oM AS ° to Division o T �? 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 J Y ~ (360)427-9670 186A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-340) SEP2016-00050 Description of Proposal: Rezone of parcels 32133-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023 and 32133-40-90024 from RR20 to Rural Commercial 2. These parcels are located within the rural areas of Mason County and would not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. The applicant is considering a self-storage and RV/Boat storage. These uses would require an additional Special Use Permit if the rezone is granted. Proponent: NATHAN STOUT Location of Proposal: Parcel Number: 321334090021 Legal Description: TR 1-A OF NE SE LOT: 1 OF SP #2141 Directions to Site: E. Mason Lake Dr to E. McEwan Prairie Rd. Lead Agency: Mason Count g Y The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. Please contact Barbara Adkins at ext. 286 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, 615 W Alder St, Shelton WA 98584 by 6/24/2016. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter ppeals. orized cal Government Official k Da e Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-ii-96o): A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proposed Project: REZONE OF PARCELS 33.233-40-90021,32133-40-90022,32133-40-90023,AND 32133- 40-90024 FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL 20 TO RURAL COMMERCIAL 2. THESE PARCELS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE RURAL AREAS OF MASON COUNTY AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. 2. Name of Applicant NATHAN AND DEBRA STOUT,AND PATRICK PARADISE 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person NATHAN STOUT POST OFFICE BOX 2371 SHELTON,WA 98S84 (360)426-o693 4. Date Checklist Prepared: )UNE 9, 2016 S. Agency Requesting Checklist MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing,if applicable): THIS PROJECT WILL BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION IN DULY OF 2016 AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN AUGUST OF 2016. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal?If yes, explain. YES, IF GRANTED THESE PARCELS MAY BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALLOWED USES IN RURAL COMMERCIAL 2 ZONING. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. MASON COUNTY MAY REQUIRE ENGINEERED STORM WATER PLAN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. g. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal?If yes,explain. No io. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,if known. APPROVAL OF THE MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC REZONE OF FOUR PARCELS IN THE RURAL AREA OF MASON COUNTY. THE REZONE WOULD BE FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL 20 TO RURAL COMMERCIAL 2. APPLICANT IS CONSIDERING CONSTRUCTING A SELF-STORAGE AND RV/BOAT STORAGE. THESE USES WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT IF THE REZONE IS GRANTED. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address,if any,and section, township, and range,if known.If a proposal would occur over a range of area,provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description,site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map,if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency,you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. LOTS 1, 2,3,AND 4 OF SHORT PLAT#2141,THE NE IA,SEA AND NE IA,SE 1/4 OF SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 3 WEST Tax Parcel Numbers: 31233-40-90021,32133-40-90022,32133-40-90023,AND 32133-40-90024. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth: a. General Description of the Site(circle one): FLA rolling, hilly,steep slopes, mountainous, other... b. What is the steepest sloe on the site(approximate percent slope)? .5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example,clay,sand,gravel, peat, muck)?If you know the classification of agricultural soils,specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. GROVE, GRAVELLY,SANDY LOAM. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity?If so,describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling,excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use?If so,generally describe. N/A g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if any: N/A 2. Air: a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction,operation, and maintenance when the project is completed?If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A b. Are there any offsite sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?If so,generally describe. N/A Page 2 of 8 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if any: N/A 3. Water: a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams,saltwater, lakes,ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names.If appropriate,state what stream or river it flows into. SEASONAL Ns STREAM 2) Will the project require any work over,in, or adjacent to(within zoo feet)the described waters?If yes,please describe and attach available plans. N/A 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?Give general description,purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A 5) Does the proposal lie within a ioo-year flood plain?If so,note location on the site plan. N/A 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters?If so,describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so,give a general description of the well,proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well?Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description,purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,if any(for example:Domestic sewage;industrial, containing the following chemicals...;agricultural;etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served(if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. N/A c. Water runoff(including storm water): n method o collection s Describe the source o runoff(including storm water and et I ( I f � 9 f and disposal,if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters?If so,describe. N/A Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters?If so,generally describe. N/A 2) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site?If so, describe. N/A Page 3 of 8 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts,if any: N/A 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: _Deciduous tree:Alder,maple, aspen, other _Evergreen tree:Fir, cedar,pine, other X SHRUBS X GRASS _Pasture _Crop or grain —Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. _ Wet soil plants:Cattail, buttercup,bullrush,skunk cabbage,other _ Water plants: Water lily, eelgrass,milfoil, other _Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N/A c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,if any: N/A e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. RYE GRASS S. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Unknown Mammals: DEER BEAR elk, beaver, other: Unknown Fish: Bass,salmon,trout, herring, shellfish, other: Unknown b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A c. Is the site part of a migration route?If so,explain. N/A d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any: N/A e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. N/A 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy(electric,natural gas, oil, wood stove,solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs?Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?If so,generally describe. Page 4 of 8 N/A c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards,including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?If so, describe. NONE 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NONE. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example:traffic,construction, operation,other)?Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any: N/A 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties?If so, describe. VACANT LAND, NO b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands?If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal,if any?If resource lands have not been designated,how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? NO 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations,such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting?If so,how: C. Describe any structures on the site. IF APPROVED, STRUCTURES MAY BE PLACED ON THE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALLOWED USES IN RURAL COMMERCIAL 2 ZONING. d. Will any structures be demolished?If so, what? No. Page 5 of 8 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RURAL RESIDENTIAL 20 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? RURAL g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city or county?If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? UNKNOWN ATTHIS TIME. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NONE. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans,if any: REVIEWED UNDER THE REZONE CRITERIA, SECTION 17.05.080 m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance,if any: N/A 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided,if any?Indicate whether high, middle,or low-income housing. N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?Indicate whether high, middle,or low-income housing. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,if any: N/A so. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),not including antennas;what is the principal exterior building materials)proposed? UNKNOWN b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A xi. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A b. Could light orglare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A c. What existing offsite sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Page 6 of 8 I N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant,if any: N/A 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings,structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 4Syears old listed in or eligible for listing in national,state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site?If so,specifically describe. No b. Are there any landmarks,features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation. This may include human burials or old cemeteries.Is there any material evidence,artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site?Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. NO c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. N/A d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss,changes to,and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans,if any. MCEWAN PRAIRIE ROAD b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit?If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? UNKNOWN c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have?How many would the project or proposal eliminate? N/A d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads,streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities,not including driveways?If so, generally describe(indicate whether public or private). No Page 7 of 8 e. Will the project or proposal use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,rail, or air transportation?If so,generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal?If known,indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks(such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? UNKNOWN g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area?If so,generally describe. No h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any: N/A 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services(for example:Fire protection,police protection,public transit health care,schools,other)?If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if any. No 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ELECTRICI natural gas, ATE refuse service, ELEPHONE sanitary sewer,septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. NO ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NEEDED. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature Date Page 8 of 8 2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody? YES— NO ✓If yes, describe. Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in shade. 3. Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants (fertilizers, other waste discharges, or runoff)to the waterbody? If yes, describe. YES NO ✓ 4. Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the project or during operation of the project? YES NO ✓r In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity. 5. Will your project require long-term maintenance, i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays for vegetation management, clearing of parking lots? YES_ NO 1--' If yes, please describe. VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation, thereby, adversely impacting salmon. 1. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks: YES NO If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed. 2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant? YES _ NOs, what types of plants will you use? The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Applicant Signature: 111al Date: 1-3 Mason County SEPA Checklist 13 RECEIVED APR 2 9 2013 SEPA CHECKLIST 426 W_ CEDAR ql'- (Mason County Permit Center Use) ;Non- �Ie amily 0 to 9.99 Acres) SEP ��13 - GY_rj35 $755 -10 to 20 Acres , i $945 -Over 20 Acres Date Rcvd: -�{3 $2,525+ 70/hr- EIS (DS) PN: � � "BE4u' )89n Lcfb- 3- Pur ose of Checklist: p 3 2 133- (? ..el 6024 The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really -do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". 3omplete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. There is a fee required, for the processing of the checklist, see above for the appropriate fee. Please make your check payable to"Mason County Treasurer". A. BACKGROUND /! / 1. Name of proposed project: �� ,van rwi/ /� 2. Name of applicant: Itlagl/y Aan l/ e_ Property owner. /VM'fif/ � / hl-a 4/1-1 Gh Al-'l-a li-e 3. Applicant mailing address: PO •/�oa' 7/ z2 Gt�G�� • % 5��� Applicant phone numbers: 1' (60) '1 00 3 4 /_-- ���L�2 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: m 1466 0 0DO Mason County SEPA Checklist 1 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable). 5Ao/"a /.marl-41 r f a��3 7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. A/Or evl- /nC. 8. List any environmental i}�form tion ou.know about that as been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. l✓�I`� ��/�/q��d� 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. /lohe 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. ,/Ld"— 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) -'ge y 4 ,�,pi-v AA 6 1,t-t-4" /0 7,z1 A//V tx 3? 4-%w 46 AW 12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. /T y� 3 ,�e1n S�/e1y�i� iw� ,�i P,t� u� 9 1-e� .J IVG"i 16 ///Le �,Gt . O�Gr2i/a��/� ri A 14 07 /Y� Mason County SEPA Checklist 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH: a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other(explain). b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? , 0� c. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. /JOh2_ e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicatesource of fill. Miff� fD Q /la,!�/- y/i?d -//YY� ` ��`>` /i'yiile- O Uwe `L�d J �✓Bf�Ocfi G4 Grt%�� �/�� l[ jylr"/Zc' �d7� o �� Gl-� ��z%���/ !.r/� /��cnn,�� 4o (%/%00 eu f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)? A1� h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR: a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and ive f approximate quantities, if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Mason County SEPA Checklist 3 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3 WATER: a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, descr be type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the d scribed waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. QG� < _ Q � 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. � �2�r.��� Y,��� � �9G�4 u��c- ya.�s ��iif �/iJ.r/r� ✓�.E i�J`,,Ddr��' 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. /J/ce? 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. OU©// 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Itlorre. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Mason County SEPA Checklist 4 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example; domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals..., agricultural, etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. c. Water runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters? 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: if so, generally describe. /v0 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs 560 � grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 11�i-IL Mason County SEPA Checklist 5 c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Aw- d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: lye 1z'7SS 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, ear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other /I/dwe b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. A d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES: a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, nufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe. /V c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Mason County SEPA Checklist 6 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. A/d1 we 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. /m 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health/hazard , i any: b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area that may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? /� —Vd�/ 6` 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. 71-011 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 76 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Y 56e-74, zo b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. x e d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? /10 Mason County SEPA Checklist 7 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? �'"C'�iGt P�?Ti4� f� a el-e f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? —motes . h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"area? If so, specify. / C7 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? /7Dfl_G GC j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: f� — �veYll I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans: 9. HOUSING: a. Approximately how many units would/be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. /��� —�QYl_ L271 -e b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. �fjf� —Q�r / e� c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: A'4e,V9--��'��/ 10. AESTHETICS: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materials) proposed? llvUyf a/l��' 6��' b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? �/ c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Mason County SEPA Checklist 8 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal: d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12. RECREATION: a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION: a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Al/e b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. "// - r c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Mason County SEPA Checklist 9 14. TRANSPORTATION: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed acces to the existing street 1 system. Show on site plans, if any. C �/��J b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. /ems c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). WdA!�- e. Will the project use (or occur in the vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. h�1178-7 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. PUBLIC SERVICES: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service(for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: le b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: 16. UTILITIES: a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: e�cit natural gas water, efuse service,<QiED sanitary sewer, septic system, other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity that might be needed. A'I/z'le The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Applicant Signature: Date: Mason County SEPA Checklist 10 ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and government agencies, identify when a project needs irther analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon, trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes, "ESA Listed Salmonids" is defined as fish species listed as endangered, threatened or being considered for listing. If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the watershed where your project will be located, your project has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help determine if the ESA listings will impact your project. The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regional office can provide information for the following two questions. 1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located? YES NO ✓Please describe. 2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed? YES_ NO Uncertain— Please describe. If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the remainder of this checklist. PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity. 1. Name of watershed: 2. Name of nearest waterbody: 3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: Often a buffer between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish. 4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland, etc.)? 5. Is the project above a: * natural permanent barrier (waterfall) YES— NO_ * natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES_ NO— * man-made barrier(culvert, dam) YES_ NO • other(explain): 6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage? YES_ NO_ Don't know 7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement& roof area)? Mason County SEPA Checklist I l 1 FISH MIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration. 1. Does the project require the withdrawal of: a. Surface water? YES— NO_✓ Amount Name of surface water body b. Ground water? YES_ NO ✓ Amount From where Depth of well 2. Will any water be rerouted: YES— NO ✓ If yes, will this require a channel change? 3. Will there be retention or detention ponds? YES_ NO ✓ If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface water body? If to a surface waterbody, please give the name of the waterbody. YES_ NO 4. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES— NO Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat. 5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES_ NO 6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? YES— NO If yes, describe the changes. 7. Will the project involve any reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows? YES_ NO If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project? WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could adversely impact water quality. Such impacts can cause problems for listed species. Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces, altering water temperature, discharging contaminants, etc. 1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed? YES_ NO ✓If yes, describe. Mason County SEPA Checklist 12 NOTICE OF APPLICATION REQUEST FOR REZONE DDR2016-00067 & SEP2016-00050 Notice is hereby given that the applicant, Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise, have filed an Application for Requested Rezone of parcels Rezone of parcels 31233-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024 from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. These parcels are located within the rural areas of Mason County and would not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. The applicant does have plans for future development of the property. Site address and Project Location: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Short Plat#2141,the NE 1/4, SE 1/4 and NE 1/4, SE 1/4 of Section 33,Township 21 North, Range 3 West. No other property address on file. Parcel Nos: 31233-40-90021 32133-40-90022 32133-40-90023 32133-40-90024 Date of Application: May 20, 2o16 SEPA Determination: A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on June 1o, 2o16 with a comment period ending on June 24, 2o3.6. The Request for Rezone is subject to the public review process under the Mason County Development Code, Section 15.o9.o6o. This application is evaluated under the standards of the Mason County Development Regulations Section 17.05.o8o, Rezone Criteria. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission on the request on July 25, zo3.6 at 6:oo P.M. in the County Commissioners Chambers, BIdg. 1, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton,WA. A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners will be tentatively held in August 2o16,when a final decision will be made. If special accommodations are needed, please contact the Department of Community Services at(360)427-967o ext. 352• Comments or questions on this request or the public review process may be sent to Barbara Adkins, Department of Community Services, 61S W.Alder, Shelton WA 98S84 or at BarbarARco.mason.wa.us, or by calling (360)427-967o ext. 286. irRaffiroads i�,, ' Mile Mile Legend .�� Adjaoara County Road, United States Forest Se—Road Green Diarrond!R—roas Road P11.1.Road —CMr*ISIhefto Road —State HigInaay Me Development Areas Zoning Descriptions IM016V Lards Rura 1�► Rural ��! ■ �i ■■■ IRural Tourind-Campgrowd Rural Conn—cal I Rural Co enoal 2 i Page 1 of 1 Mason County Map m 321331090013 Z 321331090012 m M O 321342002000 321330001000 321331090011 321345000001. 321342300020 . 321334090024 321334090023 32134500000\ 321343200000 321334090022 321934090021 321345000003 321342400020 321345000004 321330060010 EMCEW �,. ANPRAIRfERD - - - __321345000008' 321345000009 111345000006 321745000012 _ 321345000015 321345000039 321345000014 321345000040 321345000016 321345000013 321345000086 ,r 321345000067 321345000017 32134-00114'321345000065 321345000042 321345000064 321J45000037 321345000036 3 321345000018 21345000063 3 321349999999 21]45000019 321345000035 321345000062 321345000020 321345000045 321345000034 321345000061 321334100000 3213450000211 321345000074 321345000022 321345000060 321345000033 321345000023 321345000046 321345000024 321345000059 321345000025 721745000048 321345000058 321345000032 321345000057 321345000026 321345000054 321345000075 32,345000027 321345000031 321345000056 321345000015 ® 321345000030 321345000053 321343260000 321345000029 321345000051 321345000028 321345000050 321345000052 321334000000 17 532ft DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are timely,accurate and reliable.However,Mason County LEGEND makes no guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling,dimensions,or placement or location of any map features contained herein.The boundaries depicted by these data are roads F600ral Lands approximate,and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards,and are intended for informational purposes only.Mason County does not assume any legal liability _Ay of Shelton or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner not intended by Mason County. Rivers 8 Streams �r-� County Boundary{ONR y In no event shall Mason County be liable for direct,indirect,incidental,consequential, u special,or tort damages of any kind,including,but not limited to,loss of anticipated profits parcels inCommissioner Districts or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the information contained herein Sections * lakes ®2009-Mason County GIS 100 W.Public Works Dr (D Townships go Puget Sound 8 Mayor lakes Shelton,WA 98584 Page 1 of 1 Mason County Map Cran berry Lake .r ItOUNOON v m 011 : , LU j q E DARTMOOR DR �� w J I ` El �. MCFWq '\ E Mok aFRO W Ra in w La ko� It WRJOR!LN FC oe Rax ks �# _ti 2128ft DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are timely,accurate and reliable.However,Mason County LEGEND makes no guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling,dimensions,or placement or location of any map features contained herein.The boundaries depicted by these data are P0845 (D Federal Lands approximate,and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards,and are intended for informational purposes only.Mason County does not assume any legal liability /�/HigMvays City of Shelton or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner not intended by Mason County. .Rivers 8 Streams County Boundary SQNR In no event shall Mason County be liable for direct,indirect,incidental,consequential, special,or tort damages of arty kind,including,but not limited to,loss of anticipated profits Parcels Commissioner Districts or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the information contained herein Sections Lakes ®2009-Mason County GIS 100 W.Public Works Dr [� Townships larger Sound 8 Malot Lakes Shelton,WA 99584 Page 1 of 1 Mason County Map m 321331090013 a N z Z 321331090012 m 70 t7 321342002000 321330001000 7213"1090011 0.21345000004 34NO0001� 321342300020 721774090024 321334090023 21745000002 \ 321747200000 321342400020 321334090022 321345000003 321343100000 321330660016 E MCEWgiy pRAfRfERD 321345000006 321345000009 321345000006 321345000012 321343290030 321345000015 321345000039 321345000014 321345000040 321345000066 321345000016 321345000013 321345000067 721345000041 321345000065 321345000068 321315000017 32134SM042 321345000037 321345000064 321345000069 321345000036 321345000018 321345000063 321743000019 321349999999 12:3450011010 32t345000035 321345000062 32145000071 32134MM020 321345000045 321345000034 321345000061 321345000072 321334100000 321345000021 321345000074 321345000022 R ainbox 321345000073 321345000033 721345000060 321345000023 321345000046 321345000024 321345000059 311345000025 321345000049 321345000058 321345000032 321345000057 321345000026 321345000054 321345000075 321345000027 321345000031 32134SOOW56 321345000055 321345000028 321345000053 321343200010 321345000030 321345000052 3213432MOO 321345000050 wry" 321345000029 321345000051 321334000000 0 53211 DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are timely,accurate and reliable.However,Mason County LEGEND makes no guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling,dimensions,or placement or location of any map features contained herein.The boundaries depicted by these data are Roads Federal Lands approximate,and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards,and are intended for informational purposes only.Mason County does not assume any legal liability /*/Higt"ays City of Shelton or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner not intended by Mason County. ��R1vers 8 Slroams (� County Boundary(ONJR) In no event shall Mason County be liable for direct,indirect,incidental,consequential, special,or tort damages of any kind,including,but not limited to,loss of anticipated profits Paroels Commissioner Dslncts or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the information contained herein it Sections Lakes ®2009•Mason County GIS 100 W.Public Works Dr [� Townships So Puget Sound d Major Lakes Shelton,WA 98584 Page 1 of 1 Mason County Map q9 ]21142200010 PS 321330068009 �� 321342100000 321342200000 321342100020 32133%90014 721342100010 321330001000 321331090013 321331090012 321342002000 321331090011 32137009002] FMCFwgHp 721342400010 3213300110024 Rq R�RO 321JI5000001 321330HOOto 321342300020 321334OM24 321343200000 321343100000 321334090023 321334090421 721142400020 3213340960222321345000004 321343100020 721345000009 _.ram _ 221343290030 3213 45000006 321uses " 32/345000016 321346099600 321343290040 321343100030 321345000017 3213491100067 321343290050 321333100000 32134.7000069 321345000097 '-�'321315000070 321347100100 321345000035 321343190060 721334100000 321345000062 721345000034 321345000074 3213431. 321345000060 321343190041 321315000023 J21]4999999800040 321341100060 321345000024 321345000059 321343190M t 321 721J471345000025 321345000057 321345000031 321345000075 321743100010 321345000030 321343200010 321343100070 321334000010 321345000050 321343260000 321343100050 321343100080 321345000029 321343400020 321343490031 F` 321343490032 ]21373 321343000000 1 �\.321343490037 (/m■jam1 320032000030 \ `�' 321343490034 0 1064ft DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are timely,accurate and reliable.However,Mason County LEGEND makes no guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling,dimensions,or placement or location of any map features contained herein.The boundaries depicted by these data are Roads Federal Lands approximate,and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards,and are intended for informational purposes only.Mason County does not assume any legal liability H1ytlways City of Shelton or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner not intended by Mason County. Rivers b Streams County Boundary(ONR) In no event shall Mason County be liable for direct,indirect,incidental,consequential, special,or tort damages of any kind,including,but not limited to,loss of anticipated profits parcels Commissioner Districts or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the information contained herein It Secllons f Lakes ®2009-Mason County GIS 100 W.Public Works Dr (� Townships S target Sound 8 Major Lakes Shelton,WA 985M Page 1 of 1 Mason County Map m 321331090013 a m 0 z 321331090012 m A v 321342002000 321330001000 321331090011 321345000001 321342300020 321334090024 321334090023 321345000002 32IU3200000 321342400020 321334090022 321334W0021 321345000003 321345000004 3213300MIO BAN PRA1R C RG ...... , F-MG 321345000008 32345000009 321345000001 321345000012 321343290030 321345000015 321345000039 ! 321345000014 321345000040 321345000066 32134 500 0016 321345000013 321345000067 321345000041 321345000065 321345000098 321345000017 321345000042 321345000069 321345000037 321345000064 321345000036 32 U45000063 321345000018 321345000070 321345000019- 321349999992 321345000035 321345000062 321345000071 32134500002a 321345000045 321345000034 321345000061 321345000072 321334100000 321345000021 321345000074 I• 321345000077 321345000022 321345000060 32134S000033 321345000023 3211410000411 321345000024 321345000059 321345000025� 321745000048/\321345000058 321345000032 321345000057 321345000026 321345000054 321345000075 321345000027 321345000031 321345000056 321345000055 321343200010 321345000030 321345000053 321343260000 321345000029 321345000051 321345000028 321345000050321345000052 321334000000 Q 532ft DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are timely,accurate and reliable.However,Mason County LEGEND makes no guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling,dimensions,or placement or location of any map features contained herein.The boundaries depicted by these data are Roads Federal Lands approximate,and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards,and are intended for informational purposes only.Mason County does not assume any legal liability Higmays -1ty of Shelton or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner not intended by Mason County. M1 givers$Streams County 8oundery 1CyNP 1 In no event shall Mason County be liable for direct,indirect,incidental,consequential, special,or tort damages of any kind,including,but not limited to,loss of anticipated profits parcels COmmissioner Dstricts or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the information contained herein .w Sections ; Lakes ` ®2009-Mason County GIS Townsblp5 Puget Sound 6 Major Likes 100 W.Public Works Dr Shelton,WA 98584 I JTE . Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. . Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE ® {� + President jow �— °.4141.10 2614 39th Ave. SW-Seattle, WA 98116- 2503 o�®® � Tel. 206.162.1978 - Cell 206.199.5692 E-mail jaketraffic@comcast.net July 19, 2016 STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout PO Box 2371 Shelton,WA 98584 Re: Stout Rezone - Mason County Delta Trip Generation Letter Dear Mr.Stout, I am pleased to provide this Delta Trip Generation Letter for the proposed rezone project located on the north side of E. McEwan Prairie Rd.west of E. Mason Lake Road. Below is an aerial view of the site obtained from Mason County GIS: f,z Is m 3 a 0 i �r Proiect Site � f � /1:r\4NPR i ''IF \vttwv.\- WRw\ .0M-Smuana Pearce%mm-Pehtk Mmr,namen5 -Mann CounplSroafYxasUelbttiietlmme COLOR COPY ONLY r JTE, Inc. STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout July 19, 2016 Page-2- This Traffic Letter documents the delta traffic generation of the proposed rezone. Existing Site Zoning I understand that the existing lots are zoned for single family residential use. Each SFDU could also facilitate a mother in law unit per my understanding. Proposed Zoning The proposed rezone is to allow the installation of a mini storage facility. The proposed mini- storage envisions providing 100 units of storage(50-200 sf units+ 50 - 100 sf units). In addition I understand that 30-12'x 36' covered RV/Boat spaces are to be provided. Site Traffic Generation Definitions A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the proposed development. Traffic generated by development projects consists of the following types: Pass-By Trips: Trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Diverted Link Trips: Trips attracted from the traffic volume on a roadway within the vicinity of the generator but which require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway in order to gain access to the site. Captured Trips: Site trips shared by more than one land use in a multi-use development. Primary(New)Trips: Trips made for the specific purpose of using the services of the project. Trip Generation The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 9th Edition provides trip generation data for a variety of Land Use Codes(LUC's). Review of the ITE data indicates the existing zoning is classified as Single-Family Detached Housing(ITE LUC 210)and the proposed zoning as Mini-Warehouse(ITE LUC 151). All site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter,visitor,and service and delivery vehicle trips are included in the ITE trip generation values. \W_I V\4mj. F1lm\1009.0Z-Stlwt WPMS F W-Ne PMMs Mft,SW-Mm Cu 4VWW9mone0tlbi01abar. COLOR COPY ONLY n JTE, Inc. STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout July 19, 2016 Page-3- The existing zoning would allow 4 - SFDU's with MIL units. A typical rental residential unit generates about 60%of the traffic of a single family residence during the critical PM peak hour;and about 70%on a daily basis(comparison of ITE LUC 210 -Single Family-Detached and LUC 220 - Apartment). For analysis, I treated the 4 MIL units like 2-SFDU's that is conservative. With a rezone the site would be used for mini-storage use. The ITE data for this use includes data based on building sf(indoor building space)and number of units. Mini-storage traffic would include some pass-by trips associated with people swinging by their storage unit on their way to or from another destination. A nominal 5% pass-by rate is projected for this site. Delta Trip Generation Using the aforementioned LUC's, Table 1 below depicts the delta site traffic generation. For the mini-storage ITE data for both building sf and number of units is depicted. TABLE 1-TRIP GENERATION STOUT REZONE-MASON COUNTY DELTA TRIP GENERATION LETTER Enter Exit Pass-by pass-by Time Period Size TG Rate Enter% Trips Exit,,, Trips Total %* Trips Net Total Proposed Zoning: Mini-Storage(ITE LUC 151:15.000 sf) Weekday 15,000 2.5 509E _ 18.8 505_ __18.8 37.5 5.0 1.9 _ 35.6 AMpeakhour _ 15,0_00 __0.14__ _55% _ 1.2 _45_ 0.9 __2.1 _5.0%_ _ 0.1_ _ 2.0 PM_peak hour 15,000 0.2E 509 2.0 50i 2.0 3.9 5.0% 0.2 3.7 Propozed Zoning: Mini-Storage(ITE LUC 151:100-units inside+30 outdoor covered) Weekday _ __ 130 0.25 509:. 16.3 501,'S 16.3 32.5 _5.0111. 1.6 30.9 AM_peak hour- _ 130 0.02 6,77 __ 1.3 50`ti ___1.3 __2.6 5.0�G 0.1 2.5 PM peak hour 130 0.02 48% 1.2 52% 1.4 2.6 5.0% 0.1 2.5 Weekday 6 9.52 50% 28.E 50% 28.6 57.1 _0.0%_ ___0.0 __57.1 AM peak 6 0.75 25% 1.1 75% 3.4 4.5 0.0% 7 _ 4.5 PM peak hour 1 61 1 1 6345 1 3.8 37" 1 2.2 6.01 Off, 0.0 6.0 "-pass-by trips are associated with people swinging by their storage unit on their way to or from another destination The proposed rezone is projected to generate fewer trips during the critical PM peak hour and on a daily basis as compared to the existing residential zoning use.. Summary This letter has documented the projected delta trip generation for the proposed rezone from residential to a commercial mini-storage use. The proposed rezone is projected is projected to generate less traffic than the existing zoning use. \\loe_Inck\�nl�Flles\](1109.0]5 Smut eM Pmedse Rexore-Pabkk PamJse:NaxMn SroU-Masm CwnxY45xoNPeidNDtlmT0letlarGtt COLOR COPY ONLY JTE, Inc. STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout July 19, 2016 Page-4- Please contact me at 206.762.1978 or email me at iaketraffic@comcast.net if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark J.Jacobs, PE, PTOE, President JAKE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC MJJ: mjj \ eic�\imz[Fliea\2009.OJ5 SroueM Yetemfe Remne-ftf .—..—SW-Mann Caunq�GbWGexu60elbTGlebn.ax COLOR COPY ONLY PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JUIy 25, 2o16 Mason County Building i, Shelton Commissioners Chambers 6:oo PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Regular Business a. Adoption of Agenda b. Public Comment 4. Public Hearing- Rezone of parcels 31233-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024 Rezone of vacant/undeveloped parcels from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. The parcels are located within the rural areas of Mason County and would not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. Presenter. Barbara Adkins, Department of Community Services S. New Business a. Discussion regarding the July llth Comprehensive Plan hearing 6. Adjournment y APPLICANTS: Nathan and Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise PARCEL NUMBERS: 32133-40-90024 (2 acres); 32133-40-90023 (1.82 acres); 32133-40- 90022 (1.81 acres); 32133-40-90021 (1.81 acres)—see short plat#2141, approved 1/28/92, 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 g Y Lake Road, in Mason County,Washington. (ATTACHMENT B) CURRENT ZONE: The four subject parcels are currently zoned Rural Residential 20(RR20) (ATTACHMENT C) PROPOSED ZONE: 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 buildout. 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. (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) - 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, Page 1 of 14 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 related letters (ATTACHMENT G) - See large map with pin-cites of existing self storage facilities (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) fronting McEwan Prairie Road,easily accessible from Highway 3 and from Shelton via McEwan Prairie Road; (b) surrounded on (x) sides by long-term commercial forestland- verify; (c) in a close proximity to dense rural development sites (including Lake Limerick, Oak Park, Alderbrook, Ann Arbor/Snowy Owl/Lexington/etc., Mason Lake, Catfish Lake area, Rainbow Lake ; very centrally located (ATTACHMENT I). 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. As required, the parcels are not located within'h 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 LAMIRD. (17.05.080) [VERIFY] HISTORY OF SITE/CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS The subject parcels Road relocation Parcels logged in Presently vacant, with minimal vegetation. The subject parcels front McEwan Prairie Road. Page 2 of 14 Served by two existing driveways. The subject parcels presently are unimproved,with no water or sewer/septic [VERIFY]. Critical areas—The record from January 13, 2009 proceedings indicates that no critical areas exist in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcels. Planning staff did not perform on on-site inspection, but relied upon wetland inventory maps supplied by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Adjacent land uses and development- (North, South, East,West). The records from the November 3, 2008 Planning Advisory Commission meeting and January 13, 2009 Board of Commissioners proceedings indicate that the surrounding properties to the north, south and west are zoned RR20, and properties to the east zoned RR5. [verify] The RR20 zoning was overlaid upon the subject parcels prior to significant road relocation that resulted in the current parcel configuration. RE: McEwan Prairie Road relocation: Insert any details regarding timing of road relocation, nature and extent of road relocation, and impact on property configuration Applicants purchased the four subject parcels many years ago with the intention of developing a self storage facility at the time that a need for such a facility became apparent. (year of purchase). 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 Compliance with all rezone criterion is detailed in this document, see Rezone Criteria section. ENVIRONMENTAL/SEPA A SEPA determination of nonsignificance was issued. Page 3 of 14 REZONE CRITERIA Code section 17.05.080 sets forth the following eight rezone criteria: 1) CRITERION 1 -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 buffering/screening, hours of operation, floor area ratio standards and setback standards. Public input received indicates general interest/concern regarding the following health, safety and welfare issues (see more detailed list included as attachment, identifying each individual by name and specific concern): Issue Current RR20 zone Proposed RC 2 zone(as Summary conditioned) Crime: stolen goods and meth labs Lighting Traffic/Congestion/ See attached Traffic See attached Traffic Visibility Analysis Analysis (ATTACHMENT J) (ATTACHMENT J) Noise Aesthetics/Eyesore Buffering Stormwater/Drainage/ Verify status with Al Septic Eaton,MC Public Works: he has advised the County will work to resolve the water drainage issue (culverts,etc) Critical Areas-wetland Animal habitat Page 4 of 14 In mid-Ma 2009 counsel for applicants mailed correspondence to individuals who had Y PP P 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 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 K) 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 determined that this criterion was satisfied, emphasizing compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. A similar determination was made by the Planning Advisory Commission. 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 S or RR10 is not a viable option. As is the case with alternative "rural residential"zone designations, no other"residential" zones are as well-suited to the subject property as the proposed RC 2 zone. For example, the RC 1 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 terms of traffic impact than applicants' proposed self storage use—the proposed RC 2 zone authorizes self storage only subject to special use 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. Page 5 of 14 Issues: Current Zone- Proposed Zone- Proposed Summary RR20 RC2 Zone- RC 2 **As conditioned Parcel size to which new residential wide variety of parcel RR20 zone is not zone is applicable subdivision on sizes,dependent upon appropriate for the parcels of 10 acres or location subject parcels more Permitted Uses Single family Convenience/general Single family As conditioned,the residential store residential proposed rezone would not result in Hobby farm(small Retail Church outright scale commercial authorization of any agriculture,including Restaurant local gn , g use other than those a uaculture and community and q Vehicle and equipment recreation uses presently wood lots) repair and maintenance center authorized under the Church (automotive,truck,farm RR20 zone implement,small engines fire station local community and recreation center Small office cel towers fire station,fish Laundry public utilities hatchery Professional services [PICK AND cel towers CHOOSE Public meeting space FROM RC 2 public utilities LIST WHAT Nursery TO ADD—if Post office/fire station any— recommend no Church others at this point] Local community and recreation centers Commercial/government operated day care Single-family residential Accessory Uses cottage industry Cottage The agreement (home occupation) industry(home proposed by the occupation) applicants single family incorporates the residence Single family RR20 accessory use residence provisions,so they Page 6 of 14 would remain applicable in the event the rezone to RC2 is approved Uses Permitted with essential public Gas Self storage As conditioned,the Special Use Permit facility proposed rezone Self storage Home would simply cemetery occupations enable the property and cottage owners to apply for home occupations industries that e a special use permit and cottage do not meet the to construct a self industries that do not standards in storage facility meet the standards in 17.03.021 17.03.021 Setbacks from Front yard=25 feet Front yard setback—30 Front yard Even without property lines feet setback at least conditions,the front Side and rear yard= 30 feet yard setback 20 feet for residential Side and rear yard distance under the dwellings and setbacks— 15 feet for lots Side and rear proposed RC2 zone accessory buildings; contiguous to lots zoned yard setbacks— is greater than the 50 feet for accessory commercial or industrial at least 50 feet existing setback structures used for use;otherwise,25 feet. (most distance under the agriculture purposes Buffer plantings required restrictive RR20 zone; or home occupations in the first 10 feet of this distance under applicants agree to setback RR20 zone) condition requiring AND will at least 50 foot side incorporate and rear yard buffer planting setbacks and buffer planting requirements Floor Area Ratio Floor Area ratio Floor Area ratio 1:5 Agree to limit It is important to 1:20,except for fire except for fire stations ratio to note that there are NOTE: "floor area stations four(4)individual ratio'is determined parcels at issue— by summing the with potential for gross horizontal buildout of each areas of all floors of parcel at the a building measured maximum presently from the exterior allowed under the walls,or the RC20 zone. centerline of walls separating two Potential FAR for buildings,and parcel 1: dividing that sum by (under current RR20 the gross area of the zone) parcel for use or Page 7 of 14 development.Space Potential FAR for devoted to off-street parcel 2: parking or loading is (under current RR20 not included in this zone) calculation. Potential FAR for parcel 3: (under current RR20 zone) Potential FAR for parcel 4: (under current RR20 zone) Actual cumulative development total as conditioned in rezone proposal: Contrast potential buildout under each scheme Size Size: 3,000 sq.ft Size: maximum of 4,500 Size:Agree to Contrast potential maximum for non- square feet for single limit size to size under each agricultural and tenant and 7,500 square scheme accessory buildings feet for multiple tenant, except for dwellings no maximum size for and agricultural dwellings buildings Height Height—35 feet Height—two floors not to Height: 35' Height limitations except for exceed 35 feet maximum, are identical under agricultural except for agricultural current RR20 and buildings,cel towers, buildings,antennas,or proposed RC2 zone or water tanks,or water tanks,or necessary necessary structural structural elements for an elements for an otherwise compliant otherwise compliant permitted land use permitted land use Parking Two spaces per Off street parking(stall Detail parking residence,see number and arrangement) conditions Parking Ordinance shall be provided agreed to for other land uses; according with the Page 8 of 14 parking setback for provisions of the Mason non-residential land County Parking Standards uses shall be 25 feet Density The standard One residence per lot. Under current RR20 residential density zone,one principal dictates one principal and one accessory residence per dwelling unit could existing lot and one be developed per accessory dwelling parcel(potentially unit per lot eight units). (17.04.243(A)) (dwelling units/acre ... floor area ratio) 17.03.032. Where existing lots do not have adequate area to comply with applicable standard residential requirements,one dwelling unit per lot is allowed. 17.03.032(B)(2). The zone is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive plan: Record created at January 13, 2009 hearing indicates there is no anticipated impact to the Shelton Urban Growth Area. The zone is consistent with Mason County Development Regulations and other county ordinances: The zone is consistent with the Growth Management Act: 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), (traffic), etc. Page 9 of 14 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. Given the unique location and size of the subject parcels ( size: ; surrounded by parcels of size zoned ; and very , it is very unlikely that other rezones would be sought in the vicinity of the subject parcels. The subject parcels constitute a unique enclave, their size and layout is distinct from other parcels in the vicinity - Specific location - Configuration - Proximity to dense residential development - Accessibility o The subject parcels are located near the intersection of McEwan Prairie Road and Mason Lake Road, and have two accesses that could facilitate commercial land uses. See Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008. - Compelling need(public interest/demand for services) supports proposal Additionally, the development proposal will be conditioned so as to achieve impacts (including: ) that are equal to or less than the development that could occur on the parcels under their existing RR20 zoning designation. Page 10 of 14 i Issues: Current Zone— Proposed Zone— Proposed Summary RR20 RC2 Zone— RC 2 **As conditioned 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. 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 buildout under present zoning designation (ATTACHMENT J) - Parking: Will be provided on-site by applicants pursuant to the Parking Ordinance— no public parking spaces required - Utilities: Will be provided on-site by applicants—water, septic and garbage demand will be equal to or less than demand if builtout 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: (fire sprinkling system,etc -verify) will be provided on-site by applicants. Resulting demand on fire protection services will be equal to or less than demand if builtout under present zoning designation - Police: (security system,security fencing,on-site monitor,etc - verify) will be provided on-site by applicants Page 11 of 14 - Schools: The proposal will generate no increased demand on schools, as contrasted with buildout under present zoning designation - Stormwater management: (stormwater management plan,etc—verify) will be developed by applicants in conjunction with special use permit application 1 roved if, either b 5 CRITERION 5 - No rezone to more intensive land use shall be a , PP Y 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. 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 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 buildout 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 Page 12 of 14 I 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. Compare: - Buildout under current RR20 zone: - Buildout under proposed RC2 zone, as conditioned: 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. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, would not create pressure to change land use designations of other lands,because the facts associated with the subject parcels are distinguishable from other parcels in the vicinity. 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 buildout 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 1/2 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. Page 13 of 14 i 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. - Size - Etc. Page 14 of 14 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 [AZorenlpublic hearing 9-15-09 stout rezone request- ahb.doc STAFF REPORT: SITE-SPECIFIC REZONE APPLICATION RE.zoNE 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 strictlyconditioned limit of potential land q 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. 3213340-90021 [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 1:1GMSHAREIAEV-REGS%cump plan amendtnentsL009 rezone revietvV19-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 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. 1. 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 Iand 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. 1I. 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 recorrunend 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 .fudge 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. 1\G&1MV -)DEV-REGSkump plan amendmentsL009 reonc rcvi..W-05 Stout SmfFRapms 2009 r=.d.d.. 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) ENVIRONNIENTAL/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 %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 '/z mile distance standard noted above. 1. 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, selfstorage, is an allowed land use that is revielved 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 I:V NSHAFMDEV-RE0S%eomp plan anendmenu0008 rezone miew108.05 Scour Srell'Repon goal remnnd.doe 3 Special Use Permit review, proposed development on the parcels would be evaluated using review standards far 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,foresay, wood lots, and other resow-ce- related industries, should be buffered or screened f-om 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. 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. 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 1:1GMSHARMEV-REGS%emnp plan amendmenLA2001 rezone revie-=-05 Stw1 SIafTReport 2009 remind doe 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 at-low-lying topography. Residential land uses lie to the east and southeast. Service demands ofproposed selfstorage 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 rtmofftypically flaws over and off of the subject parcels. These parcels were created after Mason County undertook Comprehensive Plan review in 1991f-om 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 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. 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 1:5 (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 noru- residential land use occurs for two miles f torn 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 fi-om 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 die vicinity. 1:1GMSHAJtDDFV-REGSkomp plm amendmenuL009 rezone review109.0i Stout Staff Repan 2009 remand doc 5 9 wp p-wai 60OZ-daHjMS vmS SO-gMm2!^j zuezai g00lnuawpuawz uupf dwu2,SDHTA3(A3NVHSN!) f jvoyMa ou 'asvo stgl ul -dfjaado id aqj uo juasa.id ft va.iv jpoppo uio.tf govgjas puv s iaffnq aouvtnp.rp nanosay atli puv suompt.8ay juatudolanaQ aqj fo spappums radoad ilpm dldtuoo of paau 111M sjao.ivd aqj fo juautdolanap pasodwif fo suiaof jjV -q.?v.tl pvo.illm agj gjlm pvw atjl fo SuzsSo.io aqj fo jsaea pal.mjs stioijv.rado lanv.dS v puv py at.itv.rd uym,Yallt Suojv slot pants-jjpuis.rvjttups u0 pajvaol a.ram satuog Mau 's.mad £of Z jsvj atjj ul padolanaptnz dflasml va ry ttv st auoza.i pasodo.id atjj fo ifjputotn atlL •fjtlenb jalum puu ne.Wuipnjoui �uawuoa}Aua otp loalojd of Allujauag pun'jEniqug a3llplten puE qsg aA.tasuoo oa'coeds undo jo uopuajaj 22emoou2 of luo2 joy juawa2euey j tpmwo atp tll!m w2p2jul AlluualEw of aq pinom Butuoz qons 3o sloudwi aAlaelnwno aqj'luiluajod jo lemoe impatIm juowdolanap jo/puE 2uluozal jagao 4j!M.12T"oa jo jlml Aq joq;la'jt panojdde oq hugs asn pull anlsua;ul 910M 01 allozaj ON -9 -lsamgjnos agl of sallm oMj va.iV gjmo.iD uvq.in uollagS atjj tit jtiaurdolaaap iattj rnf laaffv.to 'ltivatjddv atjl fq paivjs sv `sooptias uvq.in iof punwap ut ama.roui pay anut v asnvo of rfla;Jtl jou si jsanbw auoza.i suli tit panlonut puyj fo jtnzotuv alv.rapotu aqj -sjao.tad jaaCgtzs asaijj uo mxw of pamolly aq pjnom sjuaptsa.i Imina rfgivau atg fo Spam aqj 1.toddns of papualut st gxym juatudolanap lvtotauuuoo alvasllDws 'paaorddv st lsanbai atlj fl -jouuew jualoWa uE ui paptnojd aq uEo io Ism saig!Ipej puE saowas atlgnd ajunbapu ajagAN.seaju uuyn ui juawdoianap a5Ejnooua 01 iuog Joy luawa tmyj gjmwo atp gjjm ajapalut k1leualew of oq pinom guiuoz qons jo sjoudwl antlulnwno agl'Ielauaaod jo Iunjou.tagiailm`luawdolanap jo/pue 21UIUOZDI jatpo tp!m jati10201 jo jlas;t Xq jai pp`31 pano.zddu aq ijrgs asn puul QAiSU21w ajow of auozaj ON -S -saatn.tas fo slanal uvq.in of jou jnq 'peat dfjunoo atjj Suoly sjao.it d adow.to .rnof asagj uo pasodwil st juatudolattap anisualut uv.io pama is a.iv sjaa.ivd jnuotjtppv fr jjnsa r pjnoo pary stgj tugitm puvwap aotA.ras ui asvadoui autos -asn purl Sutpjplq a2miols flas divtut.td aqj.iof djjvtaadsa 'saatlwas trvq.m iof ptivtuap ui asva.tout pa�tvur v asnva of flaXtl joust jsanba.i attoza.r s-up tit panlontq puvl fo junotuv alv.iapout aqj -tiorlvlttios puv.tajvn-t alynbapy.iof ntatna i puv sp.topttvjs jvuotstiauttp Suijaattr uodn pasvq pappntp.iazjj.olf aq ppzoo puvl aql puv 'sazts jol tuntututtu ati a.m a.ragj 'auoz Z:)?I paJsanba.r aqj uj -azts tti a.tov tp-L fo jvjoj v a iv slaa.ivd jaalgns inof aql •sloogas ptm`aogod'uolJoajo id ajg 'saplltan 12unind's;aajas of paatwg jou inq&npnloul 'suaje loin ui saotnjas uugjn joj puewop asewoul Alleualew of aq pinom fuiuoz Bons jo sjoedwi ant;ulnwno 2y 11viaualod jo lenloa jaipatIm juawdolanap jo/puE 2uluoz2j jatPo gl!At j21419204 jo jlaSll Aq jag;la'Jl panojddu aq llugs asn puel anlsuaIul ajow 01 auozaj ON -t -sasn puvj.iaguiij jpta.mumoo puv Iviluaptsa.t dfq paputzwans astz puvl jptjuaptsa.r-tiou Stitjnw.ids'v aq pjnoM slot.tnof atli fb juawdolanap lyta.iatutuoa aininf'pano.iddv si jsanba.r aqj fl paalonur diiado.rd/b ants jjvtus atjj of anp jol gava uo pajvaol aq pjnoo jaa.md.tad aauappsa i atio dfjuo :a.mjgf aqj ui palva.ta aq jou pjnoa Nazis 101 jjvurs jvuotjtppv a.tagm sjaa.md Sumoggstau a.rav-pp£ of-p.q fo sat ivputtoq aqi utgjpat patr!fztoa a.m sjaa.ivd jaafgns atjj -srvad pr.racto.rof pajstxa a wq jygl suotsrntpgns jvtjuaptsa i (a.rav.tad s$utjlamp p of f) asuap-Ifl.itof aqj of rfq toau puv.rojaauuoa pvo.r djunoo rfsnq v Suoly slaxiod fo salsas Stiol joof-p pg'1 v sr jsanba.i auoza.i aqj fo um mol aqj -sva.m-gut rfj-Mal.to pvo.t djittzoa.iagita dfq pajv ivdas aiv jnq sasn puppagtutl palvustsap tit a.tv tjjnos puv ilmou atjl of spool atjj vfjtutota aqj ut sasn puvl saa.inosai jp.mjvu tjjpm ajgtjvdzuoa aq lsnur sasn ptivl a-rnigf pasodo.rd 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 ofparcels for isolated small-scale businesses could be submitted for review. Such fixture 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 thnber-IM&parcels where additional small lot sizes could not be created in the future, and thus not creating a pattern ofsprawling development beyond the subject parcels. 8. These criteria sliall 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 tivere 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, die 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: Criterion 1 (no damage to public health, safety and welfare) is met; based upon staff evaluation. 1:1GMSHA1LE1DEV•MGS\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone rwiew\08-05 Stout Staff Repan 2009 remand.dM 7 I 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. VIl. 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. VUL ATTACHMENTS 1. Materials submitted on August 20,2009 as the present rezone request. J:1GMSHAR&10EV-REGS1wrnp phn amendmenal00R rezone revi-103-OS Stout Staff Report 2009 rcmmd.doc DD1?dO -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. -0 7 Signature and Date FEE: fee previously submitted, review per remand r 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, I " I .P. SHORT SUBDIVISION. NORFH LINE, u W/CAP S, T.CO. (JAMES A. BRIX) CONC, MON. AS SHGWN ON SE I/4, SEC. 33 PLAT OF RAINBOW LAKE, C: S 88'04'28 E 1981.97 STCO 1981.87 BK, 12, PG. 104, RECORDS r 7oa.Do ~ OF I,1ASON COUNTY, WA, Lf \ 2g�7 w 350.00 3D0.00 >>•,••,s �6 '` LOT 4 0 `� LOT 3 w 322.38 (rxcrrAS L,d -- ,-,�L T.xD�'+� °tee 2.00,AC. Lo LOT 2 f w ANITA T. DRAKE) l opbe \ N f ,82 AC. e p �'• LOT I _m ) (BARBARA JEAN BOLD) 4 ti s bQ . y� R a 1 N 1,81 AC. W� r': 1.8! AC. N -- j ,� ! 0= IS'D2'20' '�Q-� 462 35`79 z ci N o (GAILEN P. d PATSY R. z: 1557g z SMITH ET. AL,) ON R=1115.92 @O15A" 95,87 slo ,,� L=292.971��!/1//1 A' n �9 •13 Q 179'47 1; �i ^�z .um."�-" i CRP/r'7l/OY RAIR/E �o—� — _._._ � 1010 RD. EAST L I NE, p= e'49'30' -,,-EAST 1/4, SEC, 33 NOTE: SEE SURVEY BY SIMPSON A= 1032'26' R=1115.92 TIMBER CO. , BK. 12, PG. 104, R=1115.92 L=171.89 L=205.29 RECORDS OF IJASON COUNTY, WA. **ALTERNATIV2 DRAINFIELDS WILL BE REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE LOT SIZE Lo MINIMUM IN CLASS ONE SOIL. THESE SYSTEMS MUST CONSIST OF AT LEAST LEGEND. PRESSURIZED SAND LINED TRENCHES. WAC 248-96-090 r =X5 IRON BAR 8 PLASTIC SHOR T PLA T (b) METHOD IT_ (i.i.) . YELLOW CAP SET o p =FOUND DRIFT PIN UNLESS SIMPS ON PROPERTIES, INC. OTHERWISE NOTED EQUtPNENT AND PROCEDURES i1J O =POSS!BL E WELL EQUIPMENT: L I ETZ 5 SECOND THEODOLITE WITH EDM w NW 114, SE 114, t 1 =SOIL LOG AND 200' CALIBRATED CHA 1 N 13 NE 114, SE 1/4, PROCEDURE: FIELD TRAVERSE 91-212S•P SHORT PLAT # /SY/ SEC, 33, TWN. 21N. , R. 3W, , W,M, APPROVED /-ZB-9L MAIN OFFICE, SHELTON, WA. 98584 HOLMAN & ASSOCIATES (206)426-33BI PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PTN. OF PARCEL z9a%4z ;r32I334000000 421 IJQRTN 3RD, SNELTON, WA. GENERA ICES DIRECTOR (206)426-2990 98584 J 1 o SF T21 NR3W - Y' , E MCF�y� PrigSF25 � " l�Z�~�=_�, - _.-'•'+ .u'CF:a�at ttxt�r>,:�._ '' J c. v�l.. i� fir• / 3 rf t e-—4 R`a`D _ may, I i � ,/'� "r• t�' 0 A�C i —y 7�r' -'���''.•-fir '-stc�•�::-_��1��----- ..�. _� - •:,� fit;,, . a I T20NR3WE Gs N S-i'-ouf Para.d t sP r -ert-0— W . C 1 inch = 833 feel 1 inch = 0.16 miles l l V lC� ROBERT W. JOHNSON ALLC ATTORNEY AT LAN' ANGLE BUILOING P.O.BOX IAW 511ELTON, WASWNGTON 9858J Roba1 W.Johnson T'ELEPII OSE 4360)426A728 Kiistin L.French FA-X (1601426.1902 August 19, 2009 Mason County Board of Commissioners c/o Mason County Department of Community Development Planning Division RECEIVED P.O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 AUG 2 0 2009 Re: Stout/Paradise rezone application (080-05) MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT. 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 forth 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 Fled 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 forth 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: • enincral store • Retai1 • Restau Fav • �h3Ele-and-ec�tripr�tl�t-�epai-r--aad-�►air�t�rtanee-(-atttamet�-�c-l�f�nn-implet�tent;and-srt3al� e-ngi�te-s • 5�11-aff� • I_-aundry • Wofessional-servIGe-s • Publie—t-eee4ng-spaee p.Iurs&r-y • Post office/Fire Station • Church • Local community and recreation centers • Cemmere_ia-I beve nmc-nt-eper-atod-day-ear-e • Single family residential Uses Permitted with Special Use Permit: • Ea-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 portion of the agreement will afford buffer-related protection to adjacent landowners that is not afforded under t1Ze 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. JOIINSON 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. SI-IELTON, WA 98584 SHELTON, WA 98584 ISLAND WEST ASSOCIATES KEITH & PEGGY SCHOUVILLER PO BOX 714 1310 E MASON LAKE RD SHELTON, WA 98584-0714 SIIELTON, WA 98584-7509 LEO & MARY MURPHY BARBARA JEAN BOLM 1461 E MASON LAKE RD PO BOX 1995 SHELTON, WA 985 84-75 10 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 JOIIN DIEHL P.O. BOX 2371 678 E PORTAGE RD. SHELTON WA 98584 SHELTON WA 98584 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, September 15, 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, 3213340-90022, 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 dus 18th day of August, 2009. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY, WASHING"ION VIA. AaA4- Juiannon Goudy, le of the Board cc: Journal - Publ 2t: 9/20/09 & 8/27/09 Planning (Bill: Planning—PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584) 08/16/2009 To: VECEIVED Allan Borden Mason County Planning Department AUG i 1Q�9 411N5`hSt. R I�A N N I N G Shelton,WA 98584 f (a = 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 1 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 ANN 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 McKEWAN PRAIRIE RD 2480 E McEWAN PRAIRIE RD SHELTON,WA 98584-9678 SHELTON,WA 98584-9678 I I IM f 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 70 E EVERGREEN DR. 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 DEPARTNMENT OF CON1NR INITY SERVICES J31'ILJ)1\C� Jfa�uzin�-FIRE MARSHAL--public+t n th Page 1 of 7 June 14, 2o16 DDR2o3.6-00067 SEP2o16-0005o REQUEST FOR REZONE STOUT/PARADISE - FOUR PARCELS IN RURAL MASON COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL 20 TO RURAL COMMERCIAL 2 STAFF CONTACT Barbara A.Adkins,AICP Ext#286 APPLICANT Nathan and Debra Stout Patrick Paradise Post Office Box 2371 Shelton,WA 98S84 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL Rezone of current vacant/undeveloped parcels 31233-40-90021,32133-40-90022,32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024 from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. These parcels are located within the rural areas of Mason County and would not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. PARCEL INFORMATION Parcel No.:31233-40-goo21 is 1.81 acres in size and is located on McEwan Prairie Road on the property's southern edge. This parcel is bordered to the north, east and south by Rural Residential 20 and to the west by Rural Residential S. Parcel Nos.:�2133-40-goo22, 23& 24 are respectively 1.81, 1.82 and 2.00 acres in size. All three parcels are bordered to the East, North, and West by Rural Residential 20 and to the South by McEwan Prairie Road. ZONING INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: RR-20—Rural Residential 20 The purpose of the RR-2o district is to provide for new residential development on parcels 20 acres or larger. This allows for single family residential homes, hobby farms, churches, community and recreational centers,fire stations,fish hatcheries,cell towers and public utilities. Residential development in the rural areas of Mason County are guided by the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that they preserve rural character, protect rural community identity, and are compatible with surrounding land uses with minimal infrastructure needs. 615 W.Alder .Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax www.mason.co.wo.us coo '& '` T DEPARTMENT OF CO1IME INITY SERVICES J3t"1LL)i1(. `J'laaning FIREMARSHAL—Public Htalth Page 2 of 7 June 14, 2oi6 DDR2o16-00067 SEP2o16-0005o PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: RC 2—Rural Commercial z There are five types of rural commercial districts and they provide for a variety of commercial areas reflecting the diversity of existing business areas. In Rural Commercial 2, uses include convenience and general stores, retail, restaurants,vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance(automotive, truck,farm implement, and small engines)facilities, small offices, laundries, professional services, public meeting spaces, nurseries, post offices,fire stations, churches, local community and recreation centers,commercial and government operated day cares, and single-family residences. With an approved Special Use Permit, gas stations and self storage facilities may also be permitted. BACKGROUND)n te"C� The applicants applied for a rezone of these four parcels on two prior occasions. On November 3, 2oo8 the Planning Advisory Commission held a public hearing to consider a rezone request of the four subject parcels from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. Staff's Report prepared for that hearing made findings that the request met seven of the eight criteria reviewed under Mason County Code Section 17.o5.o8o(see ANALYSIS). The Planning Advisory Commission recommended approval of the request to Board of County Commissioners. On January 13, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider this request together with the Planning rV; Advisory Commission's recommendation. However, Staffs Report prepared for this second S, �q hearing made findings to the Board that only two of the eight criteria had been met! The Board ��� denied the applicant's request at that hearing. On February 3, 2009 the Applicants filed a Land Use Petition Act in Superior Court on grounds the that planning staff had changed their original recommendation,that the decision to do so was not supported by evidence, and that the Applicant's were deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond to such reversal. On March 9, 2009 Judge Finlay entered an Agreed Order on Remand sending the case back to the Board of County Commissioners for review and hearing. On September 15, 2009 the Board held a second public hearing on the request in compliance with the Order. Staffs Report forthat hearing made findings that the request now contained findings that five of the eight criteria had been met. The Board of County Commissioners denied the rezone request for a second time. Applicants are now asking to have this request considered under the review of different staff and with additional supporting evidence that reflects more favorably on the rezone. ANALYSIS While the rezone criteria that Mason County uses are not dictated by state code,their remains a necessity that local jurisdictions adopt some type of standards by which to evaluate them. In the absence of local land use regulations that provide an evaluation process or criteria to be met, courts may reverse or uphold a decision by applying general rules as deduced from the GMA goals. Courts have ruled that that a site specific rezone was subject to review standards, regardless of whether or not any had been adopted of their own.The courts require that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original adoption and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health,safety, morals or welfare. If a rezone 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax www.mason.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COMIN UNITY SERVICES ' B 1*1LJ_)1\G^-Y[rRnnit4—FIRE MARSHAL publ.%c HVI I.tl1 Page 3 of 7 June 14, 2o16 DDR2oi6-00067 SEP2o16-0005o implements the comprehensive plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required. Mason County Code Section 17.o5.o8o(a)describes the eight rezone criteria used to review a rezone proposal. These criterions have been established and adopted specifically for Mason County to establish standards by which each rezone is to be reviewed. The Code requires that each rezone be evaluated in light of these standards; however it does not require that they all be met. Below is Staffs response to the proposed request: i. Development allowed by the proposed rezone designation shall not damage public health, safety and welfare. This criterion is met as the applicant's proposed future use of the property would be subject to a series of other reviews, including a Special Use Permit, that intensely considers the project and its impact on the human and natural environment. 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. To consider whether or not the proposed zone is better than any other zoning designation, or more importantly does the proposal implement the Comprehensive Plan, then Staff would believe this criterion has been met. General policies for rural areas in Mason County encourage the preservation of the natural landscape while concurrently recognizing the importance of development. Residences and residential subdivisions are designed to preserve the County's rural character and incorporate compatibility with surrounding land uses. This thread also runs through the County's commercial and industrial development standards. "New development in [rural areas] 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-Soil To ensure the utilization of these standards, some uses such as self-storage, are required to obtain a Special Use Permit which put in place those necessary guidelines to implement protection policies. 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 '2005 Comprehensive Plan,Chapter III Planning Policies,Section III,Rural Lands. 615 W.Alder • Shelton.WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax'V www.mason.co.wa.us coo ooDEPARTMENT OF COINIMUNITY SERVICES B V iLD \G- Yfann.ing--Fixs MxxsHAL—?v.U,c Health Page 4Of7 June 14, 2oi6 DDR2oz6-00067 SEP2oi6-0005o provided in a manner which permits low-density sprawl, and critical areas are protected. RU-5322 The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan further advocates for the symbiotic relationship between local businesses and the communities they serve. Goals of that chapter include, • (PJ mote economic vitality while protecting and maintaining a rural �li -8 yle, balancing business and industrial development with environmental protection. • Promote and foster a community where business is encouraged to advance solutions to issues impeding economic development; and government and education are[sic]encouraged to recognize, appreciate, and adopt an entrepreneurial spirit. • Support sustainable business and industrial development which: 1) strengthens and diversifies the economic base; 2) promotes predominantly living-wage jobs and economic opportunity that preserves a high quality of life for all citizens, and; 3) develops and operates in a manner compatible with the natural environment.] When it comes to promoting local businesses, such as self storage in this case, the options for new entrepreneurs are limited. Very few sections of the development regulations address self storage, either as an allowed or prohibited use. The County only has two urban zoning districts that permit self storage: General Commercial and Commercial Industrial in the Shelton Urban Growth Area. It is also specifically prohibited in the Industrial zones of the Shelton UGA. Neither the Allyn nor the Belfair Urban Growth Areas permit self storage in any of their zoning districts. In the rural areas, self storage is allowed in Rural Commercial zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 with an approved Special Use Permit; and allowed in Rural Tourist (if less than 1,000 sr) and Rural Tourist Campground as an accessory use. The parcels subject of this request are currently zoned residential and are surrounded on all four sides by large residential lots. However, there is a similarly zoned property just to the north of this site zoned Rural Commercial 1 that is also surrounded by residential districts. It is reasonable to assume that the surrounding community utilizes, or could potentially utilize, the commercial facilities at that site. 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 2 Ibid 3 2005 Comprehensive Plan,Chapter X,Economic Development 615 W. Alder • Shelton. WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax ;www.moson.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING—`J'ecuereueg--FIRE MARSHAL^ Pu.bl%c"WLth Page 5 of 7 June 14, 2oi6 DDR2o16-00067 SEP2oi6-00050 materially increase sprawling, low-density rural development, or to significantly increase uses incompatible with resource-based uses in the vicinity. The Growth Management Act requires that Comprehensive Plans contain specific chapters to address each of the State's 13 Planning Goals in a more detailed and somewhat prescriptive manner. One of those mandated chapters is the Rural Element targeting 'lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture,forest, or mineral resources.' Planning for rural areas takes into account a number of factors, not the least of which is Planning Goal(2), "reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.I Sprawl and low-density rural development is described in RCW 36.7oA.07o as it pertains to the intensification of development in rural areas, and providing for controlled rural development, assuring visual compatibility, protecting critical areas, and protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural,forest, and mineral resource lands. Mason County has adopted in its rezone criteria the prohibition of the rezoning of rural land that would allow small scale businesses within one-half mile of an existing small scale business. This prevents the area from being intensively development into incompatible commercial uses. Further, the parcels subject to this request are confined within the boundaries of large acre neighboring parcels that cannot be divided into smaller lots. They will also be subjected to further review under Mason County's Special Use Permit process and all other land use and environmental regulations that apply prior to any future development. This criterion is met as staff believes the rezone of these parcels would not increase sprawl or low density development or cause it to occur. 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. This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels totaling approximately7.4 acres in size would not increase the demand for urban services in rural areas, including, but not limited to, streets,parking, utilities,fire protection,police and schools. S. 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. 4 RCW 36.7oA.070(5) 5 RCW 36.7oA.020(2) 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax )www.mason.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 13 Ui 1LDIN G--9Cannin9.--RRE MAnHAL-pubUz Hw th Page 6 of 7 June 14, 2o16 DDR2oi6-00067 SEP2oi6-0005o This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels would not 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. 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. This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels would not 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. 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. This criterion is met as the four subject parcels are confined within the boundaries of large acre neighboring parcels that cannot be divided into smaller lots. This inhibits the creation of smaller lots and increased population. 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. The proposal is not applicable and not being requested as the result of any mapping errors. SPOT ZONING Requests such as the one subject to this Report may be mistakenly viewed under the umbrella of spot zoning. Staff would take this opportunity to broach the topic at the outset of the Planning Commission's consideration process. Spot Zoning has been described as an, ...arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan." 6 Narrowsview Preservation Association v.City of Tacoma,84 Wn.2d 416(1974) 615 W.Alder.Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax 3C)www.mason.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COlNlr' I INITY SERVICES J3 L'1LD 1_N G--J tann&g—FIRE MARSHAL^-PLLbUt,FteC(I,th Page 7 of 7 June 14, 2o3,6 DDR2oi6-00067 SEP2oi6-0005o In the case of Narrowsview v.Tacoma,the reasons such a rezone would be invalidated were if it served a single private interest, if it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or if it was arbitrary and capricious. Of course,these must be considered in the light of the individual facts of each case and are not always easy to determine. In this case,the commercial uses allowed under the Rural Commercial 2 zoning,specifically self storage,would serve the public, and as outlined earlier in this report, are not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As to whether or not this rezone would be considered an arbitrary and capricious act is to consider if it merely accommodates some private interest and bears no rational relationship to promoting legitimate public interest. If the county does not provide adequate zoning regulations to allow self storage in most all of its urban areas, and severely limits it in the rural areas, can this be a justifiable action due to a public service not being provided to the public? Is there a demand that is not being met due to egregious restrictions prohibiting this type of commercial business? Again, in this case the promotion of small scale commercial activities, such as self storage, not otherwise permitted or available in the urban areas and largely not in the rural areas, bears a substantial relationship to the public interest. Further,there is sufficient evidence in the Comprehensive Plan to support small scale businesses in the rural areas, and defend against this as an arbitrary and capricious action. STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT (SEPA) A SEPA checklist was prepared for this project. A formal SEPA Determinations of Non-Significance was made on June 10, 2o16. Comment and appeal periods for these determinations closed on June z4, 2oi6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION A list of interested parties has been maintained by staff to ensure that notifications of public meetings and comment periods are addressed specifically to those individuals. All public meeting notices will be mailed to all parties of interest and posted in accordance with MCC i5.07.030. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Planning Advisory Commission recommend approval of this rezone to the Mason County Board of Commissioners. 615 W.Alder. Shelton.WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax www.mason.co.wa.us Co&, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING—PLa.vwi"—FIRE MARSHAL—Vukfic 9/ea[M ;, Page 8 of 8 July 15, 2o16 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-0005o SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Two written comments were received as of July 11, 2o16 and are attached to this Report. Staff would recommend that the Planning Advisory Commission recommend approval of this rezone to the Mason County Board of Commissioners. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax®www.mason.co.wa.us Page 1 of 2 Barbara Adkins -Fw: Objection to application for rezoning From: Michael Gilbreath<dragonnecougz@yahoo.com> To: "BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 7/6/2016 10:30 AM Subject: Fw: Objection to application for rezoning Ms. Barbara Atkins Dept of Community Services To: Mason County Board of County Commissioners Attn:Request for Rezone DDR2016-00067&SEP2016-00050 From:Michael and Dorthea Gilbreath and Heather West 2380 E McEwan Prairie Road Shelton,WA 98584 Sir, I,and my family,write to you today to officially protest the application for rezone notice posted for parcels 31233-40- 90021 thru 32133-40-90024 where the owner wishes to build commercial rental storage units in our residential area. I just purchased my home on McEwan Prairie in June,specifically for the country feel and the feeling of security and privacy this property affords. The traffic on McEwan Prairie Road is busy but manageable,there is abundant wildlife,it is normally quiet enough to hear wind in the trees,and the nights are blissfully quiet,and dark,and filled with stars. In short,this home is pretty much everything we have ever wanted in life. I left Olympia to get away from the noise,the traffic,and also to escape having to deal with nuisance properties just like what is proposed in this application! I'm sure the landowner doesn't view the idea as a nuisance,but I assure you that is exactly what it is and what it will become in short order. We hope you will agree that rezoning for rental storage areas so close to residential homes is totally unacceptable. It took our life's savings to buy this beautiful home in Shelton,and this application now threatens to destroy what we spent our life's savings to achieve. Rental storage belongs in a dedicated commercial area. Storage properties historically are unattractive visually,they Page 2 of 2 attract heavier than normal traffic,they require lights which will break up the pleasant dark nights,they increase noise in the area at all hours day and night,they increase crime related activities in the area,and they depress local property values for everyone around them. No rental storage area is immune from these problems and we don't want those problems near our home! I urge the county to deny this land owner's rezoning application. I ask that you protect our home and land values,protect our peace and quiet,protect our security,and show that you place a high value on protecting Shelton's pristine natural areas and wildlife. In the event our interests are threatened further by this application,however,know that we will work with our neighbors to collectively fight this application through any necessary legal channels. We sincerely hope that it will not come to legal action as we do try to be very good neighbors. This is one fight,though,we will take very seriously as there is too much to lose if we don't protect our home. Please seriously support our objection to this application,and do not grant rezoning rights for commercial activities on the proposed properties. Keep our area strictly residential. Please reply briefly to this email to let us know you received it. Thank you. Page 1 of 3 Barbara Adkins -RE: FW: SEP2016-00050- Need help with introductory and concluding language. From: Erica Marbet<emarbet@squaxin.us> To: Barbara Adkins <BarbarA(a�,co.mason.wa.us> Date: 6/24/2016 4:16 PM Subject: RE: FW: SEP2016-00050-Need help with introductory and concluding language. No,you know the permit process better than me. Just looked at the code again, and I see what you are saying. Regardless, the building of a storage facility there will still be an impact and would benefit from the same BM P's. From: Barbara Adkins [BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Friday,June 24, 2016 4:03 PM To: Erica Marbet<emarbet@squaxin.us> Subject: Re: FW: SEP2016-00050- Need help with introductory and concluding language. Thank you Erica. The Best Management Practices you mention are required with an Environmental Permit. However, storage facilities are not required to have that permit. Is there something here that I am not seeing? Barbara A. Adkins, AICP Department of Community Services 615 W.Alder Street Shelton,WA 98584 360/427-9670 ext 286 360/427-7798 fax Email:BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us >>> Erica Marbet <emarbet@squaxin.us> 6/24/2016 3:48 PM >>> Dear Barbara, This is commentary on SEP2016-000050, a request for land use zoning change from RR20 to Rural Commercial 2. Proposed self-storage and RV/Boat Storage on McEwan Prairie Road. Though this SEPA is for the rezone, the eventual commercial use is most significant.The four parcels involved amount to 7.44 acres. Any storage facility on these parcels has the following potential impacts: • These parcels are on glacial outwash soils with high infiltration rates, and so they effectively transmit rainfall to groundwater recharge. • These parcels are Class II Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas(Mason County 17.01.080). • Even with up-to-date stormwater management and treatment, self-storage and RV/boat storage facilities are mostly impervious surfaces, and so would interfere with natural recharge processes on the site, depriving water from the aquifers below. • Furthermore, in the new surface runoff produced from a developed site, petroleum leakage from RV's and boats will be introduced to any surface water that still infiltrates or connects to county ditches. • A suite of Best Management Practices must be used with development of such a property(below). The Squaxin Island Tribe requests that these Best Management Practices are used,and that said annual training does occur(1.3.) Page 2 of 3 Sincerely, Erica Marbet Erica Marbet Water Resources Biologist Squaxin Island Tribe 3110 SE Old Olympic Hwy Shelton,WA 98584 36o-432-38o4 office 36o-79o-9358 cell From Mason County Code 17.01.080 1. Standards for an Environmental permit for the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area To receive an Environmental Permit to operate in the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area an applicant must; 1. Implement Best Management Practices (BU.P), implement the Washington State department of Ecology's Sturm Water,Water Quality,Hazardous Waste,Wetland,and Solid Waste Program BMP and SMP from the Departments of Health,Agriculture,Transportation,and State Conservation District Office, or 2_ Demonstrate through a Best Management Practices Report pursuant to subsection M.1.below,howthey will integrate other necessary and appropriate mitigating measures in the design, installation, and management of the proposed facility or use.,and 3. Provide a written agreement to!re County providing that all em ployees at the site will be naMed that the operation Pies above an aquifer recharge area and providing annual training regarding atl measures set forth by the SUP established in subsection 1.9 or 2 above. -----Original Message----- From: Melissa Drewry [mailto:MDrewry@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday,June 13, 2016 4:16 PM To: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov; separegister@ecy.wa.gov; riumper@skokomish.org; Erica Marbet <emarbet@squaxin.us>;Jeff Dickison<idickison@squaxin.us>; Stephanie Neil<sneil@squaxin.us>;Sarah Zaniewski<szaniewski@squaxin.us> Cc: Barbara Adkins<BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us> Subject:SEP2016-00050 Good afternoon, Please see the attached documents regarding SEP2016-00050. Proponent: Nathan Stout Parcel Number: 32133-40-90021 For questions, contact Barbara Adkins at BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us Page 3 of 3 Thank you, Melissa Drewry Department of Community Development 615 W.Alder Street Shelton,WA 98584 MDrewry@co.mason.wa.us 360-427-9670 ext. 236 Request For McKewan Property Rezone 1. Applicants purchased property in January 1993 with the sole intention to develop a commercial venture on their property.Property is not particularly suited for residential use due to its shallow depth and proximity to a major county arterial. It is however an ideal location for a commercial application due to its shallow overall depth and very long exposure to McKewan Road. 2. At time of applicant purchase—there were no zoning codes established in Mason County. A commercial venture would have been established simply by permit application had we moved forward with building prior to 1996. 3. As a direct result of the 1996 Mason County Growth Management Act—the McKewan property was designated by Mason County as rural residential 20. Applicants did not understand at the time the impact this designation would have on the future development plans and did not know to appeal the designation at the time of designation. 4. Granting the applicants Request for Rezone would restore the property to the original and intended purpose of the applicants at the time of purchase in 1993, a commercial self storage facility. 5. Applicant property location is an ideal footprint for a self storage facility. It would provide much needed services for Mason Lake, Emerald Lake, Rainbow Lake, Lake Limerick, and Oak Park residents. Many of these residents travel extended distances to utilize storage facilities in other areas of mason County. 6. Applicants did not recently purchase prior established RR-20 property and are trying to change zoning to a commercial CC-2 status. Property was purchased by applicants prior to county zoning and growth management designations for the express purpose of commercial use. Comments by Pat Paradise(06-15-16 applicant) ..SPyON CQUhTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING-- FIRE MARSHAL—VuMc�(MX Page 1 of so August 22, 2o16 DDR2oi6-00067 SEP2016-0005o REQUEST FOR REZONE - REVISED PROPOSAL STOUT/PARADISE - TWO PARCELS IN RURAL MASON COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL 20 TO RURAL COMMERCIAL 2 STAFF CONTACT Barbara A.Adkins,AICP Ext#286 APPLICANT Nathan and Debra Stout Patrick Paradise Post Office Box 2371 Shelton,WA 98S84 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL This Proposal has been revised from the one originally presented to the Planning Advisory Commission on July 15, 2o16. Applicants have reduced the number of parcels to be rezoned from four to two. With few exceptions, the majority of Staff's original report and recommendation will stand. The parcels proposed include are 32133-40-90022 and 32133-40-90023, from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. These parcels are located within the rural areas of Mason County and would not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. The maps below show the original four parcels subject of the request. Original 4-Parcel Proposal k .1 615 W.Alder Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax®www.mason.co.wa.us Aq VR5 , ����' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY` SERVICES BUILDING—Ka*u�i,�.g---MRE MARSHAL—`VU6 C 7(MN Page 2 Of 10 August 22, 2o16 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-0005o The new maps below show the subject area reduced to the two center parcels of the original request. Revised 2-Parcel Proposal 1M' �0 w� �7 PARCEL INFORMATION Parcel Nos.: 321�3-40-goo22 & 23 are respectively 1.81 and 1.82 acres in size. Both parcels are bordered to the East, North, and West by Rural Residential 20 and to the South by McEwan Prairie Road. ZONING INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: RR-20—Rural Residential 20 The purpose of the RR-2o district is to provide for new residential development on parcels 20 acres or larger. This allows for single family residential homes, hobby farms, churches, community and recreational centers, fire stations, fish hatcheries, cell towers and public utilities. Residential development in the rural areas of Mason County are guided by the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that they preserve rural character, protect rural community identity, and are compatible with surrounding land uses with minimal infrastructure needs. PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: RC 2-Rural Commercial 2 There are five types of rural commercial districts and they provide for a variety of commercial areas reflecting the diversity of existing business areas. In Rural Commercial 2, uses include convenience and general stores, retail, restaurants,vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance (automotive, truck, farm implement, and small engines) facilities, small offices, laundries, professional services, public meeting spaces, nurseries, post offices, fire stations, churches, local community and 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax®www.mason.co.wa.us PSON CO&4Iy DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING--PLa-,-i"---1 IRE M.viSI1n1,-A444C 7-(ea[(6 ,psi Page 3Of10 August 22, 2o16 DDR20i6-00067 SEP2016-0005o recreation centers, commercial and government operated day cares, and single-family residences. With an approved Special Use Permit, gas stations and self storage facilities may also be permitted. PIIBLIC HEARING The Planning Advisory Commission held a public hearing for the original proposal on July 25, 2o16. As a result, the applicants have chosen to reduce the number of parcels they are asking to rezone. The original area included four parcels along McEwan Prairie Road in a residentially zoned district. The neighboring property owners expressed concerns over their proximity to the proposed commercial use should all the necessary requirements eventually be met. By reducing the parcels from four to two, and utilizing only the center two lots, applicants are creating a natural buffer between the neighboring lots by increasing the distance from the site. BACKGROUND The following discussion of the chronology of events has not been altered. Copies of the records, if available, have been added to this report for the Commission's review. The applicants applied for the rezone of the four original parcels on two prior occasions. On November 3, 2oo8 the Planning Advisory Commission held a public hearing to consider this rezone of the four subject parcels from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2 (Meeting Minutes attached). Staff's Report prepared for that hearing made findings that the request met seven of the eight criteria reviewed under Mason County Code Section 17.o5.o8o (see ANALYSIS) and recommended approval (Staff Report attachedO). The Planning Advisory Commission considered Staffs Report together with public testimony and recommended approval of the request to the Board of County Commissioners. On January 13, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider this request together with the Planning Advisory Commission's recommendation. However, Staffs Report prepared for this second hearing made findings to the Board that only two of the eight criteria had been met and recommended denial (Staff Report attached ). The Applicants were not made aware that Staff had changed their findings and recommendation until the time of hearing. The Board in turn denied their request. On February 3, 2009 the Applicants filed a Land Use Petition Act in Superior Court on the grounds that planning staff had changed their original recommendation, that the decision to do so was not supported by evidence, and that the Applicants were deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond to such reversal. On March 9, 2009 Judge Finlay entered an Agreed Order on Remand sending the case back to the Board of County Commissioners for review and hearing (Petition and Order attached). On September 15, 2009 the Board held a second public hearing on the request in compliance with the Order. Staffs Report for that hearing made findings that the request now contained findings that five of the eight criteria had been met (Staff Report attached). The Board of County Commissioners denied the rezone request for a second time. Applicants are now asking to have this request considered under the review of different staff and with additional supporting evidence that reflects more favorably on the issues. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax ;,www.mason.co.wa.us PSON CO,&� -` DEPARTMENT OF C'ONIMUNITY SERVICES Page 4 of so August 22, 2oi6 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-0005o ANALYSIS The analysis of the request has not been modified. However at the previous hearing Mr. Stout provided a Trip Generation Letter addressing each zoning district. This is discussed in minor detail with Criterion 4 below, and a copy of the Letter is attached. Additionally, several very specific concerns were raised during the public hearing directed to the singular use as a potential self storage facility. For edification purposes, the concerns focused around primarily hypothetical secondary and tertiary activities associated with some self storage type facilities. No significant tangible data or evidence was provided to validate these concerns; and Staff would ask the Planning Commission cull through the superfluous commentary to examine the core request under consideration. Excerpts from the July 25, 2o16 Minutes are provided below, together with Staff's response. Incorporating minutes not officially adopted is not common practice in the submission of staff reports; however it is provided in this instance to allow Staff, as a representative of the County, to respond to concerns and misrepresentations not previously addressed during the public hearing. The comments have not been reviewed or adopted in the course of regular Planning Commission business, but should be considered recognized as a draft for discussion purposes. COMMENTS: Comment Response The location of Wilson Recycling was once a Wilson Recycling was originally some sort of proposed storage facility that then changed commercial warehouse that slowly added new to the recycling center. The change of use components until it eventually became a solid requirements need to be examined so that a waste and recycling facility. There were a series solid waste facility cannot be opened at this of reviews together with evaluations by the location. Department of Ecology. This case is an exception and highly unlikely to occur at the proposed property. Many units are being used to create meth No evidence or data submitted to support such labs, and over time the units are an argument or to validate prejudice against any deteriorating. legal use of the property. A building at this location would be a safety The applicant has submitted a letter, as issue due to the speed of the vehicles on the discussed, to address the traffic concerns. The road and the fact that it is only z lanes. This relevance of speed limits as a factor in allowing road is also a detour when accidents occur, this type of land use is unclear, as is the use of which will cause an issue. Also concern about the road as a detour. As to the glare, it must be the increased level of illegal activity, and glare reiterated that performance standards such as from lighting on the buildings. glare, noise, etc. are addressed during the special use permit process. 615 W. Alder •Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax ,www.mason.co.wa.us SON CO&41 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDIA'G--PL&v,,,, g---11RE MARSII.11I.—PukfiC NEAX I 854 Page 5of 10 August 22, 2o16 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-0005o Most storage facilities have chain link fences Fencing is not required outright for storage that are easily cut for access. facilities; however it can be addressed during the special use permit process. The storage units around the county are Nothing submitted supports the claim that "ugly"and would cause falling property values property values decrease as a result of the if this is approved adjacent and neighboring location of storage units;or any other already allowed use. Is there an inventory of existing facilities and The County does not currently approve or deny their status with the building department? rezones or commercial building permits based There needs to be a clear handle on the on market demands. Any business in amount currently open versus the amount of compliance with state and county codes is units open is necessary. permitted to build and/or expand without consideration of the overall need for the product or service provided by that business or use. The SEPA contained many areas marked SEPA's prepared for non-project actions, such as "N/A". Some of the questions in the SEPA a rezone, contain fewer specifics as there is no are unanswered and some state that no actual proposal being evaluated. The rezone of impact will be had. property leaves it open to a number of uses, the impacts of each would be nearly impossible to predict as this stage. While the rezone criteria that Mason County uses are not dictated by state code, their remains a necessity that local jurisdictions adopt some type of standards by which to evaluate them. In the absence of local land use regulations that provide an evaluation process or criteria to be met, courts may reverse or uphold a decision by applying general rules as deduced from the GMA goals. Courts have ruled that a site specific rezone was subject to review standards, regardless of whether or not any had been adopted of their own. The courts require that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original adoption and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. If a rezone implements the comprehensive plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required. Mason County Code Section 17.05.o8o(a) describes the eight rezone criteria used to review a rezone proposal. These criterions have been established and adopted specifically for Mason County to establish standards by which each rezone is to be reviewed. The Code requires that each rezone be evaluated in light of these standards; however it does not require that they all be met. Below is Stays response to the proposed request: 1. Development allowed by the proposed rezone designation shall not damage public health, safety and welfare. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax 31 www.mason.co.wo.us yQN CO, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING---Plug---11RE MARSILU—Vt,6IC�Lha�14 ,pt, Page 6ofio August 22, 2oi6 DDR2016-00067 SEP203.6-0005o This criterion is met as the applicant's proposed future use of the property would be subject to a series of other reviews, including a Special Use Permit, that intensely considers the project and its impact on the human and natural environment. 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. To consider whether or not the proposed zone is better than any other zoning designation, or more importantly, does the proposal implement the Comprehensive Plan, then Staff would believe this criterion has been met. General policies for rural areas in Mason County encourage the preservation of the natural landscape while concurrently recognizing the importance of development. Residences and residential subdivisions are designed to preserve the County's rural character and incorporate compatibility with surrounding land uses. This thread also runs through the County's commercial and industrial development standards. "New development in [rural areas] 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-SO11 To ensure the utilization of these standards, some uses such as self-storage, are required to obtain a Special Use Permit which put in place those necessary guidelines to implement protection policies. 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-5322 The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan further advocates for the symbiotic relationship between local businesses and the communities they serve. Goals of that chapter include, • ... [P]romote economic vitality while protecting and maintaining a rural lifestyle, balancing business and industrial development with environmental protection. zoos Comprehensive Plan,Chapter III Planning Policies,Section III,Rural Lands. 1 Ibid 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax www.mason.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ULA BUILDING-Pla.ai�---nRr:MARSHAL—PUMir 7-(ea�M Page 7 of io August 22, 2016 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-00050 • Promote and foster a community where business is encouraged to advance solutions to issues impeding economic development; and government and education are[sic] encouraged to recognize, appreciate, and adopt an entrepreneurial spirit. • Support sustainable business and industrial development which: 1 PP P ) strengthens and diversifies the economic base; 2) promotes predominantly living-wage jobs and economic opportunity that preserves a high quality of life for all citizens, and; 3) develops and operates in a manner compatible with the natural en vironmen t.3 When it comes to promoting local businesses, such as self storage in this case, the options for new entrepreneurs are limited. Very few sections of the development regulations address self storage, either as an allowed or prohibited use. The County only has two urban zoning districts that permit self storage: General Commercial and Commercial Industrial in the Shelton Urban Growth Area. It is also specifically prohibited in the Industrial zones of the Shelton UGA. Neither the Allyn nor the Belfair Urban Growth Areas permit self storage in any of their zoning districts. In the rural areas, self storage is allowed in Rural Commercial zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 with an approved Special Use Permit; and allowed in Rural Tourist (if less than 1,000 sf) and Rural Tourist Campground as an accessory use. The parcels subject of this request are currently zoned residential and are surrounded on all four sides by large residential lots. However, there is a similarly zoned property just to the north of this site zoned Rural Commercial 1 that is also surrounded by residential districts. It is reasonable to assume that the surrounding community utilizes, or could potentially utilize, the commercial facilities at that site. 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 Growth Management Act requires that Comprehensive Plans contain specific chapters to address each of the State's 13 Planning Goals in a more detailed and somewhat prescriptive manner. One of those mandated chapters is the Rural Element targeting 'lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture,forest, or mineral resources.I Planning for rural areas takes into account a number of factors, not the least of which is Planning Goal(2), "reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. 6 Sprawl 3 2005 Comprehensive Plan,Chapter X,Economic Development 4 RCW 36.7oA.070(5) 5 RCW 36.7oA.020(2) 615 W.Alder.Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax, )www.mason.co.wa.us ON CO"-V'` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDIN6—PLa.a�---FIRE MARS11kL—`PtZlie 2(MA Page 8 of to August 22, 2o16 DDR2016-00067 SEP2o16-0005o and low-density rural development is described in RCW 36.7oA.070 as it pertains to the intensification of development in rural areas, and providing for controlled rural development, assuring visual compatibility, protecting critical areas, and protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural,forest, and mineral resource lands. Mason County has adopted in its rezone criteria the prohibition of the rezoning of rural land that would allow small scale businesses within one-half mile of an existing small scale business. This prevents the area from being intensively development into incompatible commercial uses. Further, the parcels subject to this request are confined within the boundaries of large acre neighboring parcels that cannot be divided into smaller lots. They will also be subjected to further review under Mason County's Special Use Permit process and all other land use and environmental regulations that apply prior to any future development. This criterion is met as staff believes the rezone of these parcels would not increase sprawl or low density development or cause it to occur. 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. This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels totaling approximatelY7.4 acres in size would not increase the demand for urban services in rural areas, including, but not limited to, streets, parking, utilities,fire protection, police and schools. Applicant has provided a "Delta Trip Generation Letter"from Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. In sum, the letter concludes that the proposed used under the new zoning would generate less traffic than if developed under its current zoning designation. 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. This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels would not 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. 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. 615 W. Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax l www.mason.co.wo.us "yOH �OLN'` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING---PLa4A*vi %-g—nRE MARSILAL—PaMe 7-(MN p G 4 Page g of io August 22, 2oi6 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-00050 This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels would not 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. 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. This criterion is met as the four subject parcels are confined within the boundaries of large acre neighboring parcels that cannot be divided into smaller lots. This inhibits the creation of smaller lots and increased population. 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. The proposal is not applicable and not being requested as the result of any mapping errors. SPOT ZONING Requests such as the one subject to this Report may be mistakenly viewed under the umbrella of spot zoning. Staff would take this opportunity to broach the topic at the outset of the Planning Commission's consideration process. Spot Zoning has been described as an, ...arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan.6 In the case of Narrowsview v. Tacoma, the reasons such a rezone would be invalidated were if it served a single private interest, if it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or if it was arbitrary and capricious. Of course, these must be considered in the light of the individual facts of each case and are not always easy to determine. In this case, the commercial uses allowed under the Rural Commercial z zoning, specifically self storage, would serve the public, and as outlined earlier in this report, are not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As to whether or not this rezone would be considered an arbitrary and capricious act is to consider if it merely accommodates some private interest and bears no rational relationship to promoting legitimate public interest. If 6 Narrowsview Preservation Association v.City of Tacoma,84 Wn.zd 4i6(1974) 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fox(1)www.mason.co.wa.us Ott co'�v�` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING---PU"�--FIRE MARSI ML �(eaX „<, Page io of io August 22, 2oi6 DDR20i6-00067 SEP20i6-0005o the county does not provide adequate zoning regulations to allow self storage in most all of its urban areas, and severely limits it in the rural areas, can this be a justifiable action due to a public service not being provided to the public? Is there a demand that is not being met due to egregious restrictions prohibiting this type of commercial business? Again, in this case the promotion of small scale commercial activities, such as self storage, not otherwise permitted or available in the urban areas and largely not in the rural areas, bears a substantial relationship to the public interest. Further, there is sufficient evidence in the Comprehensive Plan to support small scale businesses in the rural areas, and defend against this as an arbitrary and capricious action. STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT (SEPA) A SEPA checklist was prepared for this project. A formal SEPA Determinations of Non-Significance was made on June 10, 2os.6. Comment and appeal periods for these determinations closed on June 24, 2oz.6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION A list of interested parties has been maintained by staff to ensure that notifications of public meetings and comment periods are addressed specifically to those individuals. All public meeting notices will be mailed to all parties of interest and posted in accordance with MCC 3.5.07.030. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this writing, two comments have been received and are being provided as attachments to this Report. They were received from: -. Michael Gilbreath 2. Erica Marbet, Squaxin Island Tribe SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Two written comments were received as of July 1z, 2oi6 and are attached to this Report. Additional comments discussed in previous sections. Staff would recommend that the Planning Advisory Commission recommend approval of this rezone to the Mason County Board of Commissioners. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax�1 www.mason.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COIItIN1TY SERVICES BUILDING—PLa v,v�.i,v�.g---FIRE MARSHAL—VaMc%(w[f4 (D) Page 1 of io September 1g, 2o16 DDR2016-00067 SEP203.6-0005o REQUEST FOR REZONE - REVISED PROPOSAL STOUT/PARADISE - THREE PARCELS IN RURAL MASON COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL 20 TO RURAL COMMERCIAL 2 STAFF CONTACT Barbara A.Adkins,AICP Ext#286 APPLICANT Nathan and Debra Stout Patrick Paradise Post Office Box 2371 Shelton,WA 98584 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL This Proposal has been revised from the one originally presented to the Planning Advisory Commission on July 1S, 2o16. Applicants have reduced the number of parcels to be rezoned from four to three. With few exceptions,the majority of Staffs original report and recommendation will stand. The parcels proposed include are 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023 and 32133-40-90024, from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. These parcels are located within the rural areas of Mason County and would not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. The maps below show the original four parcels subject of the request. Original 4-Parcel Proposal 3 615 W.Alder Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax©www.mason.co.wa.us I DEPART, ENT OF C04VIMUNiITY SERVICES BUILDING--PUuv A,i"—IqRE MARSHAL—A46fic7-(eaX C) Page 2 of 10 September 19, 2oi6 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-0005o The new maps below show the subject area reduced to the two center parcels of the original request. Revised 3-Parcel Proposal 3 1 PARCEL INFORMATION Parcel Nos.: ';2133-40-90022, 23 & 24 are respectively 1.81, 1.82 and 2.o acres in size. All three parcels are bordered to the East, North, and West by Rural Residential 20 and to the South by McEwan Prairie Road. ZONING INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: RR-20—Rural Residential 20 The purpose of the RR-2o district is to provide for new residential development on parcels 20 acres or larger. This allows for single family residential homes, hobby farms, churches, community and recreational centers, fire stations, fish hatcheries, cell towers and public utilities. Residential development in the rural areas of Mason County are guided by the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that they preserve rural character, protect rural community identity, and are compatible with surrounding land uses with minimal infrastructure needs. PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: RC 2—Rural Commercial 2 There are five types of rural commercial districts and they provide for a variety of commercial areas reflecting the diversity of existing business areas. In Rural Commercial 2, uses include convenience and general stores, retail, restaurants,vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance (automotive, truck, farm implement, and small engines) facilities, small offices, laundries, professional services, public meeting spaces, nurseries, post offices, fire stations, churches, local community and 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax©www.mason.co.wa.us dcyoN Co�Nr< DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING--PLa*,4- .g—FIRE MARSHAL—PUq!lC 7-(eaN Page 3 of io September 19, 2o16 DDR2016-00067 SEP2o16-0005o recreation centers, commercial and government operated day cares, and single-family residences. With an approved Special Use Permit, gas stations and self storage facilities may also be permitted. PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Advisory Commission held a public hearing for the original proposal on July 25, 2oi6. As a result, the applicants have chosen to reduce the number of parcels they are asking to rezone. The original area included four parcels along McEwan Prairie Road in a residentially zoned district. The neighboring property owners expressed concerns over their proximity to the proposed commercial use should all the necessary requirements eventually be met. By reducing the parcels from four to three, and leaving the lot between the proposed area and the closest neighboring Rainbow Lake property owners, applicants are creating a natural buffer by increasing the distance from the site. The parcel left unaffected cannot be rezoned to a commercial use in the future, and will remain residential. BACKGROUND The following discussion of the chronology of events has not been altered. Copies of the records, if available, have been added to this report for the Commission's review. The applicants applied for the rezone of the four original parcels on two prior occasions. On November 3, 2oo8 the Planning Advisory Commission held a public hearing to consider this rezone of the four subject parcels from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial z (Meeting Minutes attached). Staffs Report prepared for that hearing made findings that the request met seven of the eight criteria reviewed under Mason County Code Section 17.o5.o8o (see ANALYSIs) and recommended approval (Staff Report attached (D). The Planning Advisory Commission considered Staff's Report together with public testimony and recommended approval of the request to the Board of County Commissioners. On January 13, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider this request together with the Planning Advisory Commission's recommendation. However, Staffs Report prepared for this second hearing made findings to the Board that only two of the eight criteria had been met and recommended denial (Staff Report attached(2)). The Applicants were not made aware that Staff had changed their findings and recommendation until the time of hearing. The Board in turn denied their request. On February 3, 2009 the Applicants filed a Land Use Petition Act in Superior Court on the grounds that planning staff had changed their original recommendation, that the decision to do so was not supported by evidence, and that the Applicants were deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond to such reversal. On March 9, 2009 Judge Finlay entered an Agreed Order on Remand sending the case back to the Board of County Commissioners for review and hearing (Petition and Order attached). On September 15, 2009 the Board held a second public hearing on the request in compliance with the Order. Staffs Report for that hearing made findings that the request now contained findings that five of the eight criteria had been met (Staff Report attached). The Board of County Commissioners denied the rezone request for a second time. Applicants are now asking to have this request considered under the review of different staff and with additional supporting evidence that reflects more favorably on the issues. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 faxJ www.mason.co.wa.us "SoN C0`4'` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING-Plauw�i, —FIRE MARSHAL^-P"Mc�(ea(16 , Page 4 of so September 19, 2o16 DDR201.6-00067 SEP20i6-0005o ANALYSIS The analysis of the request has not been modified. However at the previous hearing Mr. Stout provided a Trip Generation Letter addressing each zoning district. This is discussed in minor detail with Criterion 4 below,and a copy of the Letter is attached. Additionally, several very specific concerns were raised during the public hearing directed to the singular use as a potential self storage facility. For edification purposes, the concerns focused around primarily hypothetical secondary and tertiary activities associated with some self storage type facilities. No significant tangible data or evidence was provided to validate these concerns; and Staff would ask the Planning Commission cull through the superfluous commentary to examine the core request under consideration. Excerpts from the July 25, 2o16 Minutes are provided below, together with Staffs response. Incorporating minutes not officially adopted is not common practice in the submission of staff reports; however it is provided in this instance to allow Staff, as a representative of the County, to respond to concerns and misrepresentations not previously addressed during the public hearing. The comments have not been reviewed or adopted in the course of regular Planning Commission business, but should be considered recognized as a draft for discussion purposes. COMMENTS: Comment Response The location of Wilson Recycling was once a Wilson Recycling was originally some sort of proposed storage facility that then changed commercial warehouse that slowly added new to the recycling center. The change of use components until it eventually became a solid requirements need to be examined so that a waste and recycling facility. There were a series solid waste facility cannot be opened at this of reviews together with evaluations by the location. Department of Ecology. This case is an exception and highly unlikely to occur at the proposed property. Many units are being used to create meth No evidence or data submitted to support such labs, and over time the units are an argument or to validate prejudice against any deteriorating. legal use of the property. A building at this location would be a safety The applicant has submitted a letter, as issue due to the speed of the vehicles on the discussed, to address the traffic concerns. The road and the fact that it is only z lanes. This relevance of speed limits as a factor in allowing road is also a detour when accidents occur, this type of land use is unclear, as is the use of which will cause an issue. Also concern about the road as a detour. As to the glare, it must be the increased level of illegal activity, and glare reiterated that performance standards such as from lighting on the buildings. glare, noise, etc. are addressed during the 615 W. Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax J� www.mason.co.wa.us oN co,41r` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYSERVICES Ilk 7� BUILDING---FUu�—FIRE MARSIiAI.—PUM0 NeR�fn „5, Page 5 of io September 1g, 2o16 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-000So special use permit process. Most storage facilities have chain link fences Fencing is not required outright for storage that are easily cut for access. facilities; however it can be addressed during the special use permit process. The storage units around the county are Nothing submitted supports the claim that "ugly"and would cause falling property values property values decrease as a result of the if this is approved adjacent and neighboring location of storage units;or any other already allowed use. Is there an inventory of existing facilities and The County does not currently approve or deny their status with the building department? rezones or commercial building permits based There needs to be a clear handle on the on market demands. Any business in amount currently open versus the amount of compliance with state and county codes is units open is necessary. permitted to build and/or expand without consideration of the overall need for the product or service provided by that business or use. The SEPA contained many areas marked SEPA's prepared for non-project actions,such as "N/A". Some of the questions in the SEPA a rezone, contain fewer specifics as there is no are unanswered and some state that no actual proposal being evaluated. The rezone of impact will be had. property leaves it open to a number of uses, the impacts of each would be nearly impossible to predict as this stage. While the rezone criteria that Mason County uses are not dictated by state code, their remains a necessity that local jurisdictions adopt some type of standards by which to evaluate them. In the absence of local land use regulations that provide an evaluation process or criteria to be met, courts may reverse or uphold a decision by applying general rules as deduced from the GMA goals. Courts have ruled that a site specific rezone was subject to review standards, regardless of whether or not any had been adopted of their own. The courts require that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original adoption and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. If a rezone implements the comprehensive plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required. Mason County Code Section 3.7.05.o8o(a) describes the eight rezone criteria used to review a rezone proposal. These criterions have been established and adopted specifically for Mason County to establish standards by which each rezone is to be reviewed. The Code requires that each rezone be evaluated in light of these standards; however it does not require that they all be met. Below is Staffs response to the proposed request: i. Development allowed by the proposed rezone designation shall not damage public health, safety and welfare. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax�:)www.mason.co.wa.us "S01% co&M'` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING—PLa�4�---FIRE MARSHAL.—Putilie�t(M�16 „;, Page 6 of io September ig, 2oi6 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-00050 This criterion is met as the applicant's proposed future use of the property would be subject to a series of other reviews, including a Special Use Permit, that intensely considers the project and its impact on the human and natural environment. 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. To consider whether or not the proposed zone is better than any other zoning designation, or more importantly, does the proposal implement the Comprehensive Plan, then Staff would believe this criterion has been met. General policies for rural areas in Mason County encourage the preservation of the natural landscape while concurrently recognizing the importance of development. Residences and residential subdivisions are designed to preserve the County's rural character and incorporate compatibility with surrounding land uses. This thread also runs through the County's commercial and industrial development standards. "New development in [rural areas] 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-SO12 To ensure the utilization of these standards, some uses such as self-storage, are required to obtain a Special Use Permit which put in place those necessary guidelines to implement protection policies. 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-5322 The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan further advocates for the symbiotic relationship between local businesses and the communities they serve. Goals of that chapter include, • ... [P]romote economic vitality while protecting and maintaining a rural lifestyle, balancing business and industrial development with environmental protection. '2005 Comprehensive Plan,Chapter III Planning Policies,Section III,Rural Lands. 2 Ibid 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax(�)www.mason.co.wo.us qD"��N ����j` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING---Ka*t+%i %.g--MRE MARSI[A[.—PU�IlC�(eaN R S, Page 7 of 1.0 September 19, 2016 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-00050 • Promote and foster a community where business is encouraged to advance solutions to issues impeding economic development; and government and education are[sic]encouraged to recognize, appreciate, and r an adopt entrepreneurial spirit. r • Support sustainable business and industrial development which: 1) strengthens and diversifies the economic base; 2) promotes predominantly living-wage jobs and economic opportunity that preserves a high quality of life for all citizens, and; 3) develops and operates in a manner compatible with the natural environment.3 When it comes to promoting local businesses, such as self storage in this case, the options for new entrepreneurs are limited. Very few sections of the development regulations address self storage, either as an allowed or prohibited use. The County only has two urban zoning districts that permit self storage: General Commercial and Commercial Industrial in the Shelton Urban Growth Area. It is also specifically prohibited in the Industrial zones of the Shelton UGA. Neither the Allyn nor the Belfair Urban Growth Areas permit self storage in any of their zoning districts. In the rural areas, self storage is allowed in Rural Commercial zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 with an approved Special Use Permit; and allowed in Rural Tourist (if less than 1,000 sfl and Rural Tourist Campground as an accessory use. The parcels subject of this request are currently zoned residential and are surrounded on all four sides by large residential lots. However, there is a similarly zoned property just to the north of this site zoned Rural Commercial 1 that is also surrounded by residential districts. It is reasonable to assume that the surrounding community utilizes, or could potentially utilize, the commercial facilities at that site. 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 Growth Management Act requires that Comprehensive Plans contain specific chapters to address each of the State's 13 Planning Goals in a more detailed and somewhat prescriptive manner. One of those mandated chapters is the Rural Element targeting "lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture,forest, or mineral resources. 4 Planning for rural areas takes into account a number of factors, not the least of which is Planning Goal(2), "reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.'6 Sprawl 3 zoos Comprehensive Plan,Chapter X,Economic Development 4 RCW 36.7oA.070(5) S RCW 36.7oA.020(2) 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax 1�, www.mason.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING---PLavu�---I1RE MARSHAL-PuMic 7t(eirA R S, Page 8 of io September ig, 2os6 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-00050 and low-density rural development is described in RCW 36.7oA.070 as it pertains to the intensification of development in rural areas, and providing for controlled rural development, assuring visual compatibility, protecting critical areas, and protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural,forest, and mineral resource lands. Mason County has adopted in its rezone criteria the prohibition of the rezoning of rural land that would allow small scale businesses within one-half mile of an existing small scale business. This prevents the area from being intensively development into incompatible commercial uses. Further, the parcels subject to this request are confined within the boundaries of large acre neighboring parcels that cannot be divided into smaller lots. They will also be subjected to further review under Mason County's Special Use Permit process and all other land use and environmental regulations that apply prior to any future development. This criterion is met as staff believes the rezone of these parcels would not increase sprawl or low density development or cause it to occur. 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. This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels totaling approximatelY7.4 acres in size would not increase the demand for urban services in rural areas, including, but not limited to, streets, parking, utilities,fire protection, police and schools. Applicant has provided a "Delta Trip Generation Letter"from Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. In sum, the letter concludes that the proposed used under the new zoning would generate less traffic than if developed under its current zoning designation. 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. This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels would not 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. 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. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax 1_; www.mason.co.wa.us �Pyos Coo+rL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING--PLa4A*Xi,"---FIRE MARSHAL—Puklic 7,ea(M q„ Page 9 of io September 19, 2o16 DDR2016-00067 SEP2oi6-0005o This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels would not 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. 7. No rezone to more intensive land use shall be approved if, either by itself or together with other rezoningand/or development,whether actual or potential,the cumulative impacts of such � p � P P 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. This criterion is met as the four subject parcels are confined within the boundaries of large acre neighboring parcels that cannot be divided into smaller lots. This inhibits the creation of smaller lots and increased population. 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. The proposal is not applicable and not being requested as the result of any mapping errors. SPOT ZONING Requests such as the one subject to this Report may be mistakenly viewed under the umbrella of spot zoning. Staff would take this opportunity to broach the topic at the outset of the Planning Commission's consideration process. Spot Zoning has been described as an, ...arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan.6 In the case of Narrowsview v. Tacoma, the reasons such a rezone would be invalidated were if it served a single private interest, if it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or if it was arbitrary and capricious. Of course, these must be considered in the light of the individual facts of each case and are not always easy to determine. In this case, the commercial uses allowed under the Rural Commercial 2 zoning, specifically self storage, would serve the public, and as outlined earlier in this report, are not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As to whether or not this rezone would be considered an arbitrary and capricious act is to consider if it merely accommodates some private interest and bears no rational relationship to promoting legitimate public interest. If 6 Narrowsview Preservation Association v.City of Tacoma,84 Wn.2d 416(1974) 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax :,'www.mason.co.wa.us a�PzoN_ CD�Nr` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING-PLa4,,,,i"--11Rr MnxSl U L-4 UMC 7fWX k s, Page 3.o of io September 19, 2oi6 DDR2016-00067 SEP20i6-0005o the county does not provide adequate zoning regulations to allow self storage in most all of its urban areas, and severely limits it in the rural areas, can this be a justifiable action due to a public service not being provided to the public? Is there a demand that is not being met due to egregious restrictions prohibiting this type of commercial business? Again, in this case the promotion of small scale commercial activities, such as self storage, not otherwise permitted or available in the urban areas and largely not in the rural areas, bears a substantial relationship to the public interest. Further, there is sufficient evidence in the Comprehensive Plan to support small scale businesses in the rural areas, and defend against this as an arbitrary and capricious action. STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT (SEPA) A SEPA checklist was prepared for this project. A formal SEPA Determinations of Non-Significance was made on June so, 2oi6. Comment and appeal periods for these determinations closed on June zy, zoi6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION A list of interested parties has been maintained by staff to ensure that notifications of public meetings and comment periods are addressed specifically to those individuals. All public meeting notices will be mailed to all parties of interest and posted in accordance with MCC i5.o7.030. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this writing, two comments have been received and are being provided as attachments to this Report. They were received from: i. Michael Gilbreath 2. Erica Marbet, Squaxin Island Tribe SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Two written comments were received as of July si, 2oi6 and are attached to this Report. Additional comments discussed in previous sections. Staff would recommend that the Planning Advisory Commission recommend approval of this rezone to the Mason County Board of Commissioners. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax 3�www.mason.co.wa.us MASON COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION Minutes November 3, 2008 (Note audio tape (#3) dated October 3, 2008 counter (#) for exact details of discussion) (This document is not intended to be a verbatim transcript) 1. CALL TO ORDER The meetingwas called to order at 6:00 m b Chair Bill Dewey. P Y Y 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Bill Dewey, Tim Wing, Dennis Pickard, Jim Reece, Diane Edgin and Debbie Jacobs. Don LeMaster was excused. Staff Present: Barbara Adkins, Allan Borden, Bob Fink. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 4. NEW BUSINESS (#0050)Bill Dewey noted the number of people in the audience present for the Peninsula Topsoil rezone request and moved it up to the first item on the agenda. (#0085)Allan Borden, Department of Community Development, opened up the public hearing on the Peninsula Topsoil rezone request. Allan handed out comments from Ken VanBuskirk and Jacqueline Mastow. This rezone request contains two properties that total 50 acres is size located west of Old Belfair Highway about a mile north of the intersection of Clifton Road and Old Belfair Highway. The current zone is RR20 and the proposed zone is RR5. The existing land use is a sand and gravel operation and designated timberlands. This property is completely surrounded by RR20 properties. The existing access is down Timberline Dr.,which is a private road. The properties are situated northwest and west of the Belfair UGA. There are wetland,stream,floodplain, and slope critical areas on the site and to the west,east,and southeast. Agricultural Resource Lands and Long-Term Commercial Forest Lands are located in the vicinity. In current zone, or if new zone is approved, applicant still could divide property using conventional or 1 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 performance subdivision process. Criterion 1, regarding damage to public health, safety and welfare,there is a concern about available water for development on these 50 acres. It would have to be secured through water rights,or connections through some sort of community system. The suitable areas for development need to be determined in regards to all the critical areas. Criterion 2, regarding consistency with the Comp Plan,the parcels in the general area, range from 7 to 44 acres in size. Most of the land in the vicinity is under timber taxation,and staff concludes RR20 zone is the most consistent designation. Criterion 3, regarding sprawling low-density rural development,there is an existing sand and gravel use that is resource based but an existing nonconforming use. Staff concludes this criteria is not met. Criterion 4, regarding demand for urban services in rural areas is met based on staff evaluation. The services will not be at urban level services. Criterion 5, regarding interfere with urban area growth, is met based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 6, regarding retention of open space,fish and wildlife habitat,protection of air and water, is met as staff concludes that county standards are met. Criterion 7, regarding pressure to change other land use designations, Peninsula Topsoil did not provide compelling reasons or unique characteristics of the property why these parcels should be considered for rezones. If this request is approved, a precedent is set, and as a result,similarly situated parcels elsewhere in the county could be subject to the added pressure to rezone to denser development densities. Criterion 8 is not applicable to this request. In conclusion,staff feels the current zone matches the characteristics of the area dealing with critical areas, resource lands, and parcel sizes. The current zone still allows some flexibility to divide the property and the request to go to denser residential densities would serve as a precedent to future requests. (#0650)Tim Wing stated there's 7,44-acre pieces. This map shows some smaller pieces adjacent to these parcels. (#0675)Allan Borden explained there is RR10 off to the west of the property. (#0685)Tim Wing stated it's east of the property where it says RR20.They don't appear to be even 5 acres in size. (#0695)Allan Borden stated some of them are not as they existed at the time the zoning was established. I stated the surrounding lands were RR20, and 20 to 40 RR10 parcels. (#0700)Tim Wing inquired why the smaller lots were not discussed in the size of the lots in the general area. (#0710)Allan Borden noted it was an oversight. (#0720)Tim Wing noted so there are some parcels that are zoned RR20 that are not 20 acre parcels. (#0725)Allan Borden responded that is correct. (#0735)Tim Wing stated you raised the question of water availability, and inquired if there was some reason to think homes that might be built there wouldn't be able to get water from Belfair Water. (#0740)Allan Borden responded they would have to prove availability of water from the Belfair Water District as part of the subdivision process. (#0745)Tim Wing inquired if these parcels on the west side of the Union River,to get to them you have to cross the Union River. Do they have an appropriate access to get across the Union River? Is that part of the criteria we should consider in terms of the zoning request? (#0755)Allan Borden stated that is one of the criteria for the zone. Currently they don't have an access. (#0765)Tim Wing inquired if they can make a rezone request if they don't have proper access. (#0775)Allan Borden stated they could make the request, and it can be reviewed whether it meets the criteria in the Comp Plan. The only access right now is a narrow road called Timberline Dr,which is a private road and has a one lane bridge over Union River to these parcels. Right now they don't have a county road access to the property. Even under RR20 they would have to have some access to all the properties they create. The nearest county road is Old Belfair Highway. 2 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#0800)Miscellaneous discussion. (#0900)Tim Wing raised the question if the PAC can even approve this rezone without an access. (#0925) Miscellaneous discussion. (#1100)Tim Wing inquired about Ken VanBuskirk's comment about Huson Creek being in the wrong location. (#1130)Allan Borden explained that it's in the wrong location on the GIS map. The contour layers are different information than the hydro layers, and sometimes the hydro layers wind up in the wrong location. They do tip a person off to look for a stream feature in the vicinity. (#1155) Bill Dewey opened up the public comment portion of the public hearing. (#1175)Robert Wright lives on Timberline Dr. He stated he doesn't have the same concerns that everyone else has about the neighborhood growing. I'm not strictly opposed to it, but I am very concerned about the traffic on Timberline Dr. It's already pretty busy and people don't seem to really care that the speed limit is 15 mph. It's a big wide private road, and people speed through there all the time. It's scary when you think about children and dogs running around in there. We're so afraid of that road we put a fence around our entire yard. I would just hope that any expansion in the neighborhood behind us would include some kind of mechanism for slowing that traffic down. (#1240)Patrick White also lives on Timberline Dr. He stated it is a great community, but if they're going to be building homes back, it will help with the traffic. It will decrease the number of large trucks. I don't see a problem with the road itself. I would like to see some way to keep people from speeding up and down there, as well as garbage. Cars have been dumped back there. I don't want to see more businesses there, or churches or schools. We would like to see more homes there. (#1340)Mark Huson also lives on Timberline Dr. I want to echo what Robert Wright said. There should be something installed to slow traffic down. I'm not opposed to development, but needs to be some way to control traffic there. (#1350) Ken VanBuskirk of Davis Farm Road testified next. He stated his wife and he own the parcel that's the southwestern border of the gravel pit. I'm also the co-manager of the Davis Family Farm,which borders the rest of the southern boundary. I talked to Mr. Borden last week, and FEMA gave Mason County on the temporary moratorium on the flood plain development for the Union River just last week. Those flood plain maps are old and needs to be updated.After the storms last year,we had a foot of silt on our fields there, which is the ag resource land.Those lands in the RR20 that make up the Davis Farm, it's more than that simple designation. That was a gift that Tom and Irene Davis gave to their children and the community. It will be a working farm,which our family has retained the right to farm. The forest land will continue to produce timber and other small forest products. The Union River has a permanent wildlife buffer along it, in perpetuity. This proposed rezone doesn't fit;the impact of more intense zoning will impact our properties as well as the Union River. It is very difficult to manage our farm when we have higher densities and incompatible uses adjacent or nearby. We have stray dogs harassing and maiming our livestock, brush theft, and trespass are daily occurrences. If rezones are to higher densities, it will only increase these uses. We concur with staffs findings that this proposed rezone is not consistent with the Comp Plan. Therefore, we don't think this rezone should be approved. (#1525)Celia Parrott of Belfair testified next. She inquired about the idea of a precedent when she read the zoning and it said one of the concerns was that if you change it from an RR20 to an RR5 you're setting a precedent. She inquired if each rezone request was dealt with absolutely individually,or once a precedence is set, is there a domino effect. That is a real consideration. (#1575) Bill Dewey explained one of the things we try to concern ourselves with is to be consistent in our decisions. If we rule a certain way on this request, if something else comes in similar,we would be hard pressed to not do the same thing again. 3 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1600) Lisa Wright of Belfair inquired if this is approved how many houses are they anticipating to be developed. If that's the case,would the road still be considered private just because it's an easement,or would it turn into a county road? (#1640)Tim Wing explained that if we approve this rezone,there a certain number of houses that would be allowed to be built, but it's no guarantee that the developer would build those. There's also no guarantee the road would become a county road. (#1650)Miscellaneous discussion. (#1800)Laura Wood, one of the managers of the Davis Family Farm,testified next. She inquired if nothing is changed at all, if it's left the way it is,this site could hold two homes, is that true. (#1835)Allan Borden explained with a performance subdivision they could double the number of lots. They could get 4 or 5 lots. (#1850) Laura Wood stated when the land use zoning was put together,somebody decided this area should be RR20, and I realize there are a lot of little houses along the river that don't fall into the category of RR20, but the reason it was zoned that way was to protect the environment and protect the river. So to go back and say that because 50 years ago people built houses too close to the river and emptied their sewage into it,doesn't seem like a good idea today. It looks to me like there could be houses there. The way it is right now with no changes. So changing it to make sure somewhere along the line they could build 8 houses, seems like it's not necessary. (#1900) Bill Dewey closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. (#1925)Dennis Pickard stated that the applicant hasn't really given us any reason to approve a rezone of the property. No compelling reason to change the zoning. I am opposed to granting the rezone. That is my motion. (#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 the 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 4 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 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'%.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 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%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 aesthetics 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. 5 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#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 aesthetics. (#0135)Dennis Pickard stated the point is well taken as he also has concerns about buffering issues. They will 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. 6 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#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 considered. Allan explained it is an RCW and a state law. (#0500)Barbara Adkins opened up the continuation of the public hearing on the Transportation Element. They've addressed the three items on the amendment to the Mason County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element dated October 8,2008. I'm bringing to you the edits and it is Charlie Butros's position that that is where they stand. (#0525) Bill Dewey noted the PAC has come to terms with where Public Works was at with it, but didn't feel comfortable taking action since Tim Wing and Dennis Pickard were not at the last meeting. Both of you have been so passionate on this issue,we wanted you to be here for the final discussion. That's why it's back before us tonight. We talked about this at the last meeting, and Charlie indicated that the Belfair study will meet the need of#1. Item#2 is his compromise on that, and on#3 it was not legal. (#0575)Tim Wing stated that Charlie's comment that it would be illegal to consider#3 is a clear sign that he missed the point. There's nothing illegal about the county deciding to do something about traffic in one of the two UGA's if it's overwhelming, regardless of whether it's on a state road or not. I assume he meant that he thinks it's illegal for the county to participate financially in the improvement of a state road. (#0585) Bill Dewey clarified that was what Charlie indicated. (#0595)Tim Wing stated he's heard that before, and I've also heard from other people that's it's not illegal. The point is that if the state road is jammed to the point where it's not safe and traffic is unbearable,then the county has the responsibility to do something about that regardless if it's a state road or not. What they do about can be a variety of things that don't have to include putting a dime into the state road. It could include other road structures that would remove some of the traffic from the state road,which would improve some of the traffic on the state road. I don't think he got that part of it. He's put some things in here that says 'The infrastructure needs of the unincorporated UGA's would be identified and included in the prioritization matrix in this category'. That's fine, but I'm done fighting about this at this level with this group. I think the PAC is getting about as much out of this issue as we're going to get. I think the next round of efforts to get the county to do more inside the UGA's has to do with trying to get funding from the state to help with that. It also has to do with working with the county's six year plan and try to insist that no new roads go on that six year plan that are out in the boonies with no traffic on them. Instead the money that could be allocated for that should be considered for new roads. This puts into the element some tools that people can use in the future to ask the big question. I'm not totally happy with the whole thing,but I think that having this in here the way it is is okay, and I'm prepared to move ahead on it. (#0660) Dennis Pickard also noted progress from his last meeting where we talked about this. He stated he has noticed it says the only urbanized area in the county is Shelton, and we know that's not true. It's not going to be true. It talks about the whole goal of the transportation system is to preserve the rural nature. Well, it's not all rural in the county. It says the county will consider developing a plan. No, develop the plan. Make it mandatory, because it's not getting done otherwise. However,overall, perhaps passing along these suggested revisions to the BOCC, I'd be comfortable moving forward with this and hopes the end result will start moving in the direction we all agree it needs to move in. I suggest we move these suggestions to the BOCC to consider along with the recommendation to pass this forward. I will make that my motion. (#0755)Tim Wing inquired if the motion is to accept what staff is proposing. (#0775) Dennis Pickard added also sending along the edits we discussed. (#0785)Tim Wing stated perhaps we should send these edits to Public Works and ask them to come back and talk to us about it. 7 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#0795)Dennis Pickard stated we're getting down to the timeline, and we still have the hearing before the BOCC on this. (#0810) Barbara Adkins explained she has already scheduled Transportation and Capital Facilities to the BOCC on December 9th. (#0825)Bill Dewey stated we have a motion to send this to the BOCC along with the additional recommendations. If that's the case I'd like to go through these edits. (#0850)Dennis Pickard explained his first edit would replace'The only urbanized area in the county is Shelton,where approximately 20 percent of the county's population and approximately 50 percent of commercial activities are located';that is located under Introduction and Purpose. It fails to recognize the existence of the UGA's and other more densely developed areas,and the transportation needs of those that are at odds with a fully rural emphasis. The proposed sentence would read: 'The primary urbanized area in the county is Shelton,where approximately 20 percent of the county's population and approximately 50 percent of commercial activities are located. In addition,other areas of the county,especially the UGA's of Belfair and Allyn, as well as various RAC's have been established under the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and designated as areas intended for future high density development'. The second edit is under Goals and Priorities. It emphases rural character and my edit recognizes there is more to Mason County than just rural character. The proposed paragraph would instead read: 'Mason County's goal is to provide adequate mobility for all people, goods, and services in an efficient and economical manner. Planning and developing future transportation facilities to accommodate the projected growth and population and commerce in the urban areas of the county will be a primary goal. In the rural areas,existing transportation facilities will be maintained and improved while minimizing changes to the physical and social environment so as to preserve the'rural character'of those areas.The transportation system shall support the transportation needs of Mason County within the context of the county's Comp Plan'. (#1000)Bill Dewey noted Charlie Butros was not committed to do an overall countywide plan. He's committed to the Belfair plan as he has the grant and the resources to do it. (#1040)Dennis Pickard stated that's why he is requesting the planning projects be put into the six year plan. We need to move forward in those areas where we don't have a plan now. The date for the Allyn transportation plan I would be comfortable in removing that. (#1080)Miscellaneous discussion. (#1150)Tim Wing agreed that it asks them to make more of a commitment to planning. It asks them to look at the rural UGA"s as urban areas. It asks them to pay attention to using future growth projections for transportation planning goals. Those are things he has already said he would do. (#1165)Debbie Jacobs inquired if we make a recommendation to approve this with our edits,will it actually go to the BOCC. (#1175) Barbara Adkins stated it will all go to the BOCC as part of your recommendation. (#1195)Bill Dewey stated by saying the county will develop a plan doesn't mean it has to be done next year. (#1250)Tim Wing stated he's in favor of accepting what Charlie did, and ask him that these additional changes be incorporated,sending it on to Charlie, and then onto the BOCC. That's our recommendation. If the BOCC chooses to soften that,that's up to them. (#1280)Bill Dewey noted out of respect for the conversation we had with Charlie, we know where he stands on this. 8 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1335) Dennis Pickard stated that if the PAC feels comfortable with the fact that Charlie is starting to move in the direction of seeing where we're coming from and trying to work with those goals, and if the particular language I suggested would be counterproductive then I would propose removing that language. (#1365) Bill Dewey stated this has been a productive discussion and maybe we should state'as funding permits,the county will consider...'. (#1395) Dennis Pickard deleted his part of the motion regarding the date of 2010. (#1425)Miscellaneous discussion. (#1475)Dennis Pickard will email a cleaned up copy of proposed amendments to the Transportation Element to staff. (#1540)Bill Dewey noted the amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed. (#1635) Bob Fink opened up the public hearing on the Danger Tree Ordinance. This is a public hearing to receive public comment on this proposal. There is one set of language for the Fish and Wildlife Critical Habitat Areas, and another draft for the Wetland Critical Areas. The BOCC has requested that we review this issue. It is a fairly narrew issue,which is what restrictions should there be on the removal of hazardous trees that are within the buffer critical area, or the critical area itself. A danger tree is a tree that is within a tree length of an inhabited structure or an accessory to a residence. The proposal would change the existing code to require prior approval by the county before felling the tree. It would require a professional to review the necessity to fell the tree, and make recommendations for dealing with the issues. It would require enhanced mitigation through the form of leaving the tree truck on the ground or in the critical area so it serves as habitat and helps protect the functions and values. This draft was developed with the assistance of DOE and the WDF&W. (#1735) Debbie Jacobs inquired if felling a danger tree requires county approval at this time. (#1740)Bob Fink explained the county is already involved with this process, however pre-approval is not required. People call and ask, and we try to go out to visit the site to give them some assurance that what they do is okay. The other way we are involved is we sometimes get complaints that people are cutting down trees and we go out to investigate. There have been a few times when people have cut down trees in violation of the code. (#1765)Debbie Jacobs noted she has been on the board at Lakeland Village for many years and they have CCR's that are very specific by different areas in regards to what they can or cannot do with trees. She inquired what takes precedent as far as the danger tree. (#1785) Bob Fink explained the county regulations apply and restrict what trees you can fell. That may be allowed or not allowed by the CCR's in your particular area. However, if it's prohibited by the Association and we allow it,then the Association could stop it. They are responsible for enforcing their own rules and they can go to court to do that. (#1820)Debbie Jacobs stated we've had to take a different stance on these danger tree issues at Lakeland Village. If you restrict someone from taking down a danger tree, and then it falls on their property,there becomes a whole liability issue that comes into play. (#1830) Bob Fink explained these regulations are not intended to stop the felling of legitimate danger trees. They're intended to make sure that the mitigation,when they're felled, is appropriate. (#1850)Tim Wing noted the agencies seem to be happy with this draft. (#1860) Bob Fink responded the agencies are happy with it, but we have yet to hear from the public. I did not receive any written comments from anyone prior to this meeting. We did send out notice to the builders, consultants,etc., and others who have expressed interest in this issue in the past. 9 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1885)Tim Wing stated he is in favor of sending this ordinance forward, but would like some assurance this is the proper language, and wondered about other county's ordinances and how they worked. (#1920) Bob Fink explained there is a science surrounding hazardous trees. There are a few studies that have been done, and when trees should be removed. I didn't do a survey regarding other counties, but we have been living with these codes for some time. I gave you the online permitting process they use in King County for removing trees and vegetation for fire hazard. You just have to notify them prior to removal and then they respond by telling you all the rules you have to follow. They don't necessarily do a site visit. The reason for requiring pre-notification is to avoid something being done that doesn't meet the code. It's hard to correct these things after they have been done. It gives assurance to the property owner that if they want to remove the trees, it's safe to do so. (#2000) Bill Dewey shared his concern with always having to have a consultant notified for these issues. It's also costly. If I understand this ordinance, if it's two trees or less, then you need an arborist or professional forester to say it's a danger tree,and then notify the county and then cut them and then do the mitigation. If it's more than two then you have to have a habitat management plan submitted for approval. (#2020) Bob Fink stated that is correct. (#2050) Debbie Jacobs stated there are homeowners in Lakeland Village who are coming to the board to say their insurance company won't insure them because of the trees being so close to the homes. There's been a huge change in just the last couple of years. (#2085) Bill Dewey opened up the public comment portion of the hearing. (#2095)Steve Whitehouse, attorney in Shelton,testified. Bob has kept me informed of these proposed changes,but I do wonder why we are doing this. I tend to not like a lot of formal regulation, but if it's a situation where you ought to work with a county on things,then have it work that way instead of having to hire all kinds of expensive consultants. There are liability issues. If you know there's a danger tree,you don't cut it down, and it falls down and injures someone, you are liable.What if the tree isn't within a tree length of the house or structure? Superior Court tells me I have to cut it down or I'm going to be liable if someone gets hurt. (#2140) Bob Fink explained you can apply for permits to remove trees that don't meet this definition. This is a nonpermitted process. We tried to reduce the costs by not requiring a permit to do this;the other is an option. (#2175)Steve Whitehouse stated if you look at a tree and it's dying, it's a danger tree. If it's leaning badly, it's a danger tree. I don't have any problem with having to notify the county if I want to take down a danger tree, but it seems I ought to be able to notify the county of the danger tree,and the county has 20 or 30 days to take a look at it. The county claims to have some expertise and they ought to be able to do this. I have some property on Hammersley Inlet with a huge tree on it. It's half dead, as half the branches don't have leaves. I called an arborist to see what to do to save the tree. He said it's not worth my coming out. If half the branches don't have leaves on them,you'll never save the tree. It's still alive, but at some point in time I've got to cut that tree down. The cost of me getting an arborist out there is a useless cost. If Bob comes out there with me, he's going to be able to tell me that the tree is dying. I don't have any problem with leaving it if I cut it down. If you take a dead tree down,you're doing exactly what nature would do over a period of time. Nature doesn't require a habitat management plan, it doesn't require you to plant six trees. If somebody says BAS tells you that you have to do more than nature does, I'm sorry that's wrong and common sense will tell you that. I'm actually an advocate of GMA but not an advocate of how it gets implemented sometimes. One of the things I see in my business is the more complicated you make things,the more people are going to find ways not to comply. You need to make these things simple and concise and give people an opportunity to comply and want to do the right thing. That's what has happened with GMA. It has become so confusing it's impossible for the average person to understand it. It's my opinion that we really have to pay attention to these things that cost money that are an economic waste. (#2445)Bill Dewey inquired of Steve Whitehouse what he would change or if he had any proposed changes to the amendments. 10 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#2450)Steve Whitehouse replied he would rewrite the whole thing. I would say that if you're going to take down a danger tree in a habitat area,you need to notify the county and give them an opportunity to come out and inspect it. I'd rather pay the county$50 than pay an arborist$500. Beyond that, I don't know why this needs to say anything. (#2500)Jerry Schouviller of Mason Lake testified. He stated he has danger trees and agrees with Mr. Whitehouse. He stated it's really getting sad when the county controls everything you do on your own property. It's just too much. I put in for a permit to do some selective logging over three years ago, and I'm just now getting it approved. After thousands of dollars with all these specialists coming out and walking the property, and now requiring me to notify and pay for and cut a tree down and lay there when I bum wood for heat. That doesn't make sense either. (#2560) Bill Dewey closed the public comment portion of the hearing. (#2575)Tim Wing stated he agrees with some of the public testimony and that most people will abide by rules that are well stated and are reasonable. They need to seem fair on their face. I just don't like to see us intrude that much on what people do. People need to know and learn about buffer areas, and the importance of them, as well as the fact that leaving some trees does have a purpose. If it's just a danger tree that might fall on your house, and it's not in a buffer area,you shouldn't have to leave a trunk there. (#2645) Bob Fink explained this ordinance would not even cover trees not in the buffer. Trees that are not in the buffer area are not covered at all;you can cut them down. The provision added was that the trunk be left on site to provide large,woody debris to enhance mitigation. The other important element is the prior notification. If it wasn't clear to the county if it was a danger tree,the county could request a forester or arborist do an evaluation. That was language put in there for enforcement purposes. I do agree with Mr. Whitehouse in that I would like to have the rule as simple as possible so people will comply. The provisions involving professionals is to make sure the activity is done with a scientific basis. I understand that makes it more expensive and more difficult and may make people less reluctant to go through the proper steps to get it done correctly. (#2775)Bill Dewey stated he has concerns about the added costs, or make it so complex that people just break the law,which could cause liability issues. (#2800) Dennis Pickard noted F&W commented that Lewis, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties have provisions for danger tree removal that allow the review authority to require a consultation with a professional, but don't require it as a matter of course, particularly for one or two trees in a ten year period. That seems like an excessive requirement. I'm opposed to the requirement of an arborist or forester for any removal of danger trees in the buffer. (#2900) Bob Fink stated the agencies recommended that a professional make that evaluation for a larger scale project. That kind of investment may be worthwhile for a larger scale project. With a smaller project we were trying to avoid it. Although they did recommend that an arborist make that call. (#2975)The PAC agreed they were more in favor of the county leaving it optional. (#2985)Tim Wing noted if someone fills out an application, if the county has someone review this, and they've checked that this is the sixth time they've asked for this in the last six months or ten years,the county could choose to go out and inspect the situation. Most people, if given good instructions,will do it all on their own. This county doesn't have the staff to go out and deal with this issue. This is the same,to me,as the business of wanting county staff to check everybody's septic system every year. There's got to be a way to do it without burdening the county and burdening the people. I'd like to send it back to Bob with the comments we've been making and bring it back to us. He inquired if that was possible. (#3100) Bob Fink responded there isn't a firm deadline, but the BOCC wanted it processed as soon as possible. 11 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#3125)Miscellaneous discussion on possible upcoming meeting dates. (#3200)Bill Dewey inquired how enforcement is done on this issue. (#3250)Bob Fink explained it depends on the situation. Sometimes it's simply a tree; sometimes a forest that's cut down. Usually we ask for mitigation in the form of planting and if they are cooperative,that's as far as it goes. They are just asked to do what they should have done in the first place. There are people that don't honestly know the full extent of the rules, and there are some people that don't even know enough to ask to find out where there is an issue with that pond in their back yard. (#3300)Miscellaneous discussion regarding if a homeowner even knows he might have a critical area on his property. (#3400)Tim Wing stated the following points:That we require a homeowner to notify the county that they want to cut a tree down,that they have to wait thirty days to do that,that the county can review it or they don't have to, and that no arborist would be required unless the county does review it and says don't cut it, then an arborist can be hired to mitigate it. (#3500)Bob Fink stated he would add to that to leave the stumps as woody debris. (#3550)Tim Wing noted he would add the county would communicate the mitigation requirements to the person who put in the application. (#3600)Bob Fink explained the problem with that language is that the county needs fairly specific language as a basis for requiring mitigation. I do agree with the concept of keeping it simple, but we are also trying to follow the recommendations we received from the state agencies as well. (#3700)Miscellaneous discussion regarding leaving in 'B'on page 1,with the exception of expense of hiring a professional for the removal of one or two trees. Discussion that it's an unnecessary expense. (#0080)Bill Dewey inquired of Bob Fink if there has been enough discussion for him to redraft the regulations. (#0085) Bob Fink stated he could do that. (#0090) Discussion of next hearing date to continue it to. Danger tree hearing continued to December 15, 2008. Meeting adjourned. 12 STAFF REPORT: SITE-SPECIFIC REZONE APPLICATION REZONE REQUEST No. 08-05 APPLICANT: Nathan&Debra Stout; Patrick Paradise. STAFF CONTACT: Allan Borden, (360)427-9670 ext. 365 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting that four parcel be rezoned in the Rural Area from Rural Residential 5 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 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.] 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 within this designation: gas or service stations and self storage facilities. I. WHY IS THE APPLICANT PROPOSING THIS AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME? The applicant wants this property to be rezoned to Rural Commercial 2 zone so that the owner 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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANN NGW Ian Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stow Staff Report.doc 1 II. 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 IACommunity Development\PLANNINGWIan Bordenkomp plan amendmems\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 Y2 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 Y2 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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 3 v 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. IACommunity DemlopmentTLANN1NG\Allan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout StaffF-Tott.doc 4 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 if present 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 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 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 I/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: IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNIMAllan Bordenkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\0"5 Stout Staff Report.doc 5 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. VU. 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. Mod' e t and make their noted in V. Option to s 2. Modify the proposal as p �y Request 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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINMAllan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\0"S Stout Staff Report.doc 6 l�' Y 1 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 V , 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 PP p p g 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 IACommu Develo ment\PLANNINGWIan Bordenko plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 1 �Y P mP P P 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. I:\Community Development\PLANNINGWIan Bordenkomp plan ameadments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stow 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 '/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 I/2 mile distance standard noted above. 1. 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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Bordenkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remmd.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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNIMAllan Borden\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 1991 from 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 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. 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 1:5 (20 percent lot cover) under Rural Commercial 2 zone will much be more extensive than the Rural Residential 2Q 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 occyrs 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 Ohd'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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendmems\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 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 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 a 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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Bordenkomp 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 screen setbacks and buffers. Proposed commercial projects will need to adequatelys e n .� P P J 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 I/2 mile proximity characteristic noted at the beginning of the section on the evaluation of rezone criteria. V1. FINDINGS Based upon the application materials and the evaluation of the rezone criteria, staff findings for this request are: Criterion I (no damage to public health, safety and welfare) is met;based upon staff evaluation. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNIMAllan Borden\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. VIU. ATTACHMENTS 1. Materials submitted on August 20, 2009 as the present rezone request. I:\Community DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doc 8 1 ]TE . Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. . Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE President 2614 39t^Ave. SW-Seattle, WA 98116- 2503 ® � Tel. 206.162.1978 -cell 206.799.5692 E-mail jaketraffic@comcast.net July 19, 2016 STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout PO Box 2371 Shelton,WA 98584 Re: Stout Rezone - Mason County Delta Trip Generation Letter Dear Mr.Stout, I am pleased to provide this Delta Trip Generation Letter for the proposed rezone project located on the north side of E. McEwan Prairie Rd. west of E. Mason Lake Road. Below is an aerial view of the site obtained from Mason County GIS: z x m 0 i Proiect Site 7 E� 1 r, ,'," 31 fir %,• ► ;A! {, .iixk-r.-'ro,c:r Fiks�O03.(13-$xgAaM Psndee Aemre-ParrFk PemMr,Nettnn SbU-IA®nfwr7lSx�Naxma[IabT01e0erOoc ':'COPYONLY JTE, Inc. STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout July 19, 2016 Page-2- This Traffic Letter documents the delta traffic generation of the proposed rezone. Existing Site Zoning I understand that the existing lots are zoned for single family residential use. Each SFDU could also facilitate a mother in law unit per my understanding. Proposed Zoning The proposed rezone is to allow the installation of a mini storage facility. The proposed mini- storage envisions providing 100 units of storage(50-200 sf units+ 50 - 100 sf units). In addition I understand that 30-12'x 36' covered RV/Boat spaces are to be provided. Site Traffic Generation Definitions A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the proposed development. Traffic generated by development projects consists of the following types: Pass-By Trips: Trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Diverted Link Trips: Trips attracted from the traffic volume on a roadway within the vicinity of the generator but which require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway in order to gain access to the site. Captured Trips: Site trips shared by more than one land use in a multi-use development. Primary(New)Trips: Trips made for the specific purpose of using the services of the project. Trip Generation The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 9th Edition provides trip generation data for a variety of Land Use Codes(LUC's). Review of the ITE data indicates the existing zoning is classified as Single-Family Detached Housing(ITE LUC 210)and the proposed zoning as Mini-Warehouse(ITE LUC 151). All site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter,visitor,and service and delivery vehicle trips are included in the ITE trip generation values. \\na_jMV\­]60 F1a\2M.026-6I IM PenU6e%e Pl—Po ;N N.Stan-Me Canp^9taulNamrsOatbRilelb COLOR COPY ONLY l - JTE, Inc. STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout July 19, 2016 Page-3- The existing zoning would allow 4 - SFDU's with MIL units. A typical rental residential unit generates about 60%of the traffic of a single family residence during the critical PM peak hour;and about 70%on a daily basis(comparison of ITE LUC 210 -Single Family-Detached and LUC 220 - Apartment). For analysis, I treated the 4 MIL units like 2-SFDU's that is conservative. With a rezone the site would be used for mini-storage use. The ITE data for this use Includes data based on building sf(indoor building space)and number of units. Mini-storage traffic would include some pass-by trips associated with people swinging by their storage unit on their way to or from another destination. A nominal 5% pass-by rate is projected for this site. Delta Trip Generation Using the aforementioned LUC's, Table 1 below depicts the delta site traffic generation. For the mini-storage ITE data for both building sf and number of units is depicted. TABLE 1-TRIP GENERATION STOUT REZONE-MASON COUNTY DELTA TRIP GENERATION LETTER Enter Exit Pass-by Pass-by Time Period Size TG Rate Enter'% Trips Exit% Trips Total %* Trips Net Total Proposed Zoning: Mini-Storage(ITE LUC 151:15,000 sf) Weekday 15,000 2.5 50'/ 18.8 50% 18.8 37.5 _5.0% 1.9 35.6 AM peak hour__ _ 15,000 0.14 55% 1.2 45% 0.9 2.1 _5.0_%_ 0.1 2.0 PM peak hour 15,000 0.26 5Y/, 2.0 50% 2.0 3.9 5.0% 0.2 3.7 Propozed Zoning: Mini-Storage(ITE LUC 151:100-units inside 30 outdoor covered) Weekday _ _ _130 _0.25_ _50% _ 16.3 _50% _ 16.3 _32.5 5A9_ _ _1.6 AM peak hour _ 130 _ 0.02 _ 5096 _-i.3 50% _ 1.3 _ 2.6 6.0%%_ -- 0.1 _ 2.5 PM peak hour 130 0.02 48% 1.2 52% 1.4 2.6 6 0`! 0.1 2.5 Single Family D unrtsl Weekday 6 9.52 50'. 28.6 50�- 28.6 57.1 _0.0'. 0.0 _ 57.1 AM peak 6 0.75 25,, 1.1 75•/ 3.4 4.5 0.0`,<,, 0.0 4.5 PM peak hour 61 1 1 63% 1 3.8 37% 2.21 6.01 0.0% pass-by trips are associated with people swinging by their storage unit on their way to or from another destination The proposed rezone is projected to generate fewer trips during the critical PM peak hour and on a daily basis as compared to the existing residential zoning use.. Summary This letter has documented the projected delta trip generation for the proposed rezone from residential to a commercial mini-storage use. The proposed rezone is projected is projected to generate less traffic than the existing zoning use. \�aKk\-Pmla f IMs\2009.oa SmN aM naraM1u we+ore Vatrtx Pangse;Netlnn Smut-1latnri Canp'SbuRemroOlYlflteUerLx COLOR COPY ONLY JTE, Inc. STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout July 19, 2016 Page-4- Please contact me at 206.762.1978 or email me at jaketraffic@comcast.net if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark J.Jacobs, PE, PTOE, President JAKE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC MJJ: mjj \�eKk\'PMa«FXee\2'1W.OE.SW[eM Psedelpigq-Petrke Po.eafe:NeVen SOoelMecn Caurrty$hntlbaasOelaTBlelrer.mc COLOR COPY ONLY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING—PLa.�--FIRE MARSHAL—Pukfc?t%aA Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2o16 Page i of io DDR203.6-00067 SEP2016-0005o REQUEST FOR REZONE RURAL RESIDENTIAL 20 TO RURAL COMMERCIAL 2 RURAL MASON COUNTY CHAPTER 17.05 - Administrative Procedures REZONE CRITERIA, §17.05.080 STAFF CONTACT Barbara A.Adkins,AICP Ext#286 APPLICANT Nathan and Debra Stout Patrick Paradise Post Office Box 2371 Shelton,WA 98584 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL Applicants' original submission was to request the Planning Advisory Commission to consider rezoning four vacant/undeveloped parcels (31233-40-90021, 32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 32133-40-90024)from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. These parcels are located within the rural areas of Mason County and would not require 3 an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. The figure to the left below illustrates a small map section showing the location of the parcels on McEwen Prairie Road just to the south of the intersection of Mason Lake Road. After the Planning Advisory Commission's first hearing on July 15, 2o16,the proposal was revised reducing the number of parcels to be rezoned from four to three. The Planning Commission held a second hearing on September 19, 2o16. The proposal considered at that time was for only three parcels (32133-40-90022, 32133-40-90023 and 32133-40-90024). The second figure bellow illustrates the parcels considered during the second hearing, with the omission of parcel 31233-40-90021 located closest to the neighboring residential property. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax®www.mason.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING---PLa.*Lr.-iM.g--MRE MARSHAL.—Pudic 9-(aN Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2oi6 Page 2 of 10 DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-00050 L PARCEL INFORMATION Parcel Nos.: 32133-40-90022, 23 & 24 are # respectively 1.81, 1.82 and 2.o acres in size. All L three parcels are bordered to the East, North, and _�• West by Rural Residential 20 and to the South by •M.M 4 McEwan Prairie Road. f ZONING INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: RR-20—Rural Residential 20 ` The purpose of the RR-2o district is to provide for new residential development on parcels 20 acres or larger. This allows for single family residential homes, hobby farms, churches, community and recreational centers, fire stations, fish hatcheries, cell towers and public utilities. Residential development in the rural areas of Mason County are guided by the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that they preserve rural character, protect rural community identity, and are compatible with surrounding land uses with minimal infrastructure needs. PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: RC 2—Rural Commercial 2 There are five types of rural commercial districts and they provide for a variety of commercial areas reflecting the diversity of existing business areas. In Rural Commercial 2, uses include convenience and general stores, retail, restaurants,vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance (automotive, truck, farm implement, and small engines) facilities, small offices, laundries, professional services, public meeting spaces, nurseries, post offices, fire stations, churches, local community and recreation centers, commercial and government operated day cares, and single-family residences. With an approved Special Use Permit, gas stations and self storage facilities may also be permitted. BACKGROUND The following is a discussion of the chronology of events from 2oo8 and 2009. Copies of the records, if available, have been added to this report for the Commission's review. The applicants applied for the rezone of the four original parcels on two prior occasions. On November 3, 2oo8 the Planning Advisory Commission held a public hearing to consider this rezone of the four subject parcels from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2 (Meeting Minutes attached). Staff's Report prepared for that hearing made findings that the request met seven of the eight criteria reviewed under Mason County Code Section 17.05.o8o (see ANALYSIS) and recommended approval (Staff Report attached (D). The Planning Advisory Commission considered Staffs Report together with public testimony and recommended approval of the request to the Board of County Commissioners. On 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax;j)www.mason.co.wa.us ` "'A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING--PLOA,-�---nRE MARSILkL—PUMC 7-(etr 6 Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2o16 Page 3 of 10 DDR2016-00067 SEP20i6-00050 January 13, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider this request together with the Planning Advisory Commission's recommendation. However, Staffs Report prepared for this second hearing made findings to the Board that only two of the eight criteria had been met and recommended denial (Staff Report attached( ). The Applicants were not made aware that Staff had changed their findings and recommendation until the time of hearing. The Board in turn denied their request. On February 3, zoog the Applicants filed a Land Use Petition Act in Superior Court on the grounds that planning staff had changed their original recommendation, that the decision to do so was not supported by evidence, and that the Applicants were deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond to such reversal. On March g, zoog Judge Finlay entered an Agreed Order on Remand sending the case back to the Board of County Commissioners for review and hearing (Petition and Order attached). On September 15, 2009 the Board held a second public hearing on the request in compliance with the Order. Staffs Report for that hearing made findings that the request now contained findings that five of the eight criteria had been met (Staff Report attached). The Board of County Commissioners denied the rezone request for a second time. Applicants are now asking to have this request considered under the review of different staff and with additional supporting evidence that reflects more favorably on the issues. ANALYSIS The analysis of the request has not been modified from the original four parcel proposal. However, during the first hearing a Trip Generation Letter addressing each zoning district was submitted by the Applicant. This is discussed in minor detail with Criterion 4 below, and a copy of the Letter is attached. Additionally, several very specific concerns were raised during the public hearing directed to the singular use as a potential self storage facility. For edification purposes, the concerns focused around primarily hypothetical secondary and tertiary activities associated with some self storage type facilities. No significant tangible data or evidence was provided to validate these concerns; and Staff is providing the following table of citizen comments as they were presented to the Planning Commission on September 19, 2oi6. Considering the spectrum of concerns,the Planning Commission was asked to cull through the superfluous commentary and focus on the core request under consideration. Excerpts from the July 25, 2o16 Minutes are provided below, together with Staff's response. Incorporating minutes not officially adopted is not common practice in the submission of staff reports; however it was provided in this instance to allow Staff, as a representative of the County, to respond to concerns and misrepresentations not previously addressed during the public hearing. COMMENTS: Comment Response The location of Wtsan Recycling was once`a Wilson Recyclin` was;originally 4s0me. sort Qf 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax(1)www.mason.co.wa.us o„ COONj` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING--- FIRE MARSHAL—Au64c74(w[M Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2oi6 Page 4 of so DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-00050 proposed storage facility that then changed to commercial warehouse that slowly added new the recycling center. The change of use components until it eventually became a solid requirements need to be examined so that a waste and recycling facility. There were a series solid waste facility cannot be opened at this of reviews together with evaluations by the location. Department of Ecology. This case is an exception and highly unlikely to occur at the proposed property. Many units are being used to create meth No evidence or data submitted to support such labs, and over time the units are an argument or to validate prejudice against any deteriorating. legal use of the property. A building at this location would be a safety The applicant has submitted a letter, as issue due to the speed of the vehicles on the discussed, to address the traffic concerns. The road and the fact that it is only z lanes. This relevance of speed limits as a factor in allowing road is also a detour when accidents occur, this type of land use is unclear, as is the use of which will cause an issue. Also concern about the road as a detour. As to the glare, it must be the increased level of illegal activity, and glare reiterated that performance standards such as from lighting on the buildings. glare, noise, etc. are addressed during the special use permit process. Most storage facilities have chain link fences Fencing is not required outright for storage that are easily cut for access. facilities; however it can be addressed during the special use permit process. The storage units around the county are Nothing submitted supports the claim that "ugly"and would cause falling property values property values decrease as a result of the if this is approved adjacent and neighboring location of storage units; or any other already allowed use. Is there an inventory of existing facilities and The County does not currently approve or deny their status with the building department? rezones or commercial building permits based There needs to be a clear handle on the on market demands. Any business in amount currently open versus the amount of compliance with state and county codes is units open is necessary. permitted to build and/or expand without consideration of the overall need for the product or service provided by that business or use. The SEPA contained many areas marked SEPA's prepared for non-project actions, such as "N/A". Some of the questions in the SEPA a rezone, contain fewer specifics as there is no are unanswered and some state that no actual proposal being evaluated. The rezone of impact will be had. property leaves it open to a number of uses, the impacts of each would be nearly impossible to predict as this stage. 615 W.Alder*Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax®www.mason.co.wa.us co DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING--Pla.",i"—11RE MARSHAL—Pukfic 7(ea(M Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2oi6 Page 5 of io DDR2016-00067 SEP20i6-0005o REZONE CRITERIA §17.05.080 While the rezone criteria that Mason County uses are not dictated by state code, their remains a necessity that local jurisdictions adopt some type of standards by which to evaluate them. In the absence of local land use regulations that provide an evaluation process or criteria to be met, courts may reverse or uphold a decision by applying general rules as deduced from the GMA goals. Courts have ruled that a site specific rezone was subject to review standards, regardless of whether or not any had been adopted of their own. The courts require that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original adoption and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. If a rezone implements the comprehensive plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required. Mason County Code Section 3.7.05.o8o(a) describes the eight rezone criteria used to review a rezone proposal. These criterions have been established and adopted specifically for Mason County to establish standards by which each rezone is to be reviewed. The Code requires that each rezone be evaluated in light of these standards; however it does not require that they all be met. Below is Staffs response to the proposed request: i. Development allowed by the proposed rezone designation shall not damage public health, safety and welfare. This criterion is met as the applicant's proposed future use of the property would be subject to a series of other reviews, including a Special Use Permit, that intensely considers the project and its impact on the human and natural environment. 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. To consider whether or not the proposed zone is better than any other zoning designation, or more importantly, does the proposal implement the Comprehensive Plan, then Staff would believe this criterion has been met. General policies for rural areas in Mason County encourage the preservation of the natural landscape while concurrently recognizing the importance of development. Residences and residential subdivisions are designed to preserve the County's rural character and incorporate compatibility with surrounding land uses. This thread also runs through the County's commercial and industrial development standards. "New development in [rural areas] 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-Soil To ensure the utilization of these standards, some uses such as self storage, are required 1 2005 Comprehensive Plan,Chapter III Planning Policies,Section III,Rural Lands. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax 1)www.mason.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING---PLa4,*,i,, g---MRE MARSHAL—PU C Nea(M Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2o16 Page 6 of zo DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-0005o to obtain a Special Use Permit which put in place those necessary guidelines to implement protection policies. 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-5322 The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan further advocates for the symbiotic relationship between local businesses and the communities they serve. Goals of that chapter include, • ... [P]romote economic vitality while protecting and maintaining a rural lifestyle, balancing business and industrial development with environmental protection. • Promote and foster a community where business is encouraged to advance solutions to issues impeding economic development; and government and education are[sic]encouraged to recognize, appreciate, and adopt an entrepreneurial spirit. • Support sustainable business and industrial development which: 1) strengthens and diversifies the economic base; 2) promotes predominantly living-wage jobs and economic opportunity that preserves a high quality of life for all citizens, and; 3) develops and operates in a manner compatible with the natural environment3 When it comes to promoting local businesses, such as self storage in this case, the options for new entrepreneurs are limited. Very few sections of the development regulations address self storage, either as an allowed or prohibited use. The County only has two urban zoning districts that permit self storage: General Commercial and Commercial Industrial in the Shelton Urban Growth Area. It is also specifically prohibited in the Industrial zones of the Shelton UGA. Neither the Allyn nor the Belfair Urban Growth Areas permit self storage in any of their zoning districts. In the rural areas, self storage is allowed in Rural Commercial zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 with an approved Special Use 2 Ibid 3 2005 Comprehensive Plan,Chapter X,Economic Development 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax, )www.moson.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING-PLaN.-,ZA,.g---1711E Mnxsx.u.—PaUk 71eal'Eti Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2o16 Page 7 of so DDR2016-00067 S E P2016-00050 Permit; and allowed in Rural Tourist (f less than z,000 sf) and Rural Tourist Campground as an accessory use. The parcels subject of this request are currently zoned residential and are surrounded on all four sides by large residential lots. However, there is a similarly zoned property just to the north of this site zoned Rural Commercial s that is also surrounded by residential districts. It is reasonable to assume that the surrounding community utilizes, or could potentially utilize, the commercial facilities at that site. 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 Growth Management Act requires that Comprehensive Plans contain specific chapters to address each of the State's 13 Planning Goals in a more detailed and somewhat prescriptive manner. One of those mandated chapters is the Rural Element targeting "lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture,forest, or mineral resources.' Planning for rural areas takes into account a number of factors, not the least of which is Planning Goal(2), "reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.'5 Sprawl and low-density rural development is described in RCW 36.7oA.07o as it pertains to the intensification of development in rural areas, and providing for controlled rural development, assuring visual compatibility, protecting critical areas, and protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural,forest, and mineral resource lands. Mason County has adopted in its rezone criteria the prohibition of the rezoning of rural land that would allow small scale businesses within one-half mile of an existing small scale business. This prevents the area from being intensively development into incompatible commercial uses. Further, the parcels subject to this request are f large 9 confined within the boundaries o parcels that cannot be divided into 9 acre neighboring smaller lots. They will also be subjected to further review under Mason County's Special Use Permit process and all other land use and environmental regulations that apply prior to any future development. This criterion is met as staff believes the rezone of these parcels would not increase sprawl or low density development or cause it to occur. 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. This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels totaling approximately7.4 acres in size would not increase the demand for urban services in rural areas, including, but not limited to, 4 RCW 36.7oA.070(5) 5 RCW 36.7oA.020(2) 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax('Ii www.mason.coma.us @.. C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES --I[ BUILDING---PLa ,,v�--- IIRE MARSt w,—PGfMC 7Veaffk Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2o16 Page 8 of io DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-00050 streets, parking, utilities,fire protection, police and schools. Applicant has provided a "Delta Trip Generation Letter"from Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. In sum, the letter concludes that the used under the new zoning would generate less traffic than i develo ed under its current proposed 9 9 ff f p zoning designation. 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. This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels would not 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. 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. This criterion is met as the proposed rezone of these parcels would not 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. 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. This criterion is met as the four subject parcels are confined within the boundaries of large acre neighboring parcels that cannot be divided into smaller lots. This inhibits the creation of smaller lots and increased population. 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. The proposal is not applicable and not being requested as the result of any mapping errors. 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax Ij www.mason.co.wa.us DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING—PLav%.v,,i,"--- 11REMARSILM.-PU(ilir Nea((6 Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2oi6 Page 9 of so DDR20i6-00067 SEP20i6-0005o SPOT ZONING Requests such as the one subject to this Report may be mistakenly viewed under the umbrella of spot zoning. Staff would take this opportunity to broach the topic at the outset of the Planning Commission's consideration process. Spot Zoning has been described as an, ...arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of the surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan.6 In the case of Narrowsview v. Tacoma, the reasons such a rezone would be invalidated were if it served a single private interest, if it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or if it was arbitrary and capricious. Of course, these must be considered in the light of the individual facts of each case and are not always easy to determine. In this case, the commercial uses allowed under the Rural Commercial z zoning, s specifically self storage, would serve thepublic, and as outlined P Y 9 � earlier in this report, are not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As to whether or not this rezone would be considered an arbitrary and capricious act is to consider if it merely accommodates some private interest and bears no rational relationship to promoting legitimate public interest. If the county does not provide adequate zoning regulations to allow self storage in most all of its urban areas, and severely limits it in the rural areas, can this be a justifiable action due to a public service not being provided to the public? Is there a demand that is not being met due to egregious restrictions prohibiting this type of commercial business? Again, in this case the promotion of small scale commercial activities, such as self storage, not otherwise permitted or available in the urban areas and largely not in the rural areas, bears a substantial relationship to the public interest. Further,there is sufficient evidence in the Comprehensive Plan to support small scale businesses in the rural areas, and defend against this as an arbitrary and capricious action. STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT (SEPA) A SEPA checklist was prepared for this project. A formal SEPA Determinations of Non-Significance was made on June 10, 2oi6. Comment and appeal periods for these determinations closed on June z4, zoi6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION A list of interested parties has been maintained by staff to ensure that notifications of public meetings and comment periods are addressed specifically to those individuals. All public meeting notices will be mailed to all parties of interest and posted in accordance with MCC 15.07.030. 6 Narrowsview Preservation Association v.City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.zd 416(1974) 615 W.Alder•Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax(`www.mason.co.wa.us °N °°%��� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING- pig—nRE MARSI Int.—VuhGr 7-(MN Board of County Commissioners—Request for Rezone November 22, 2o16 Page io of io DDR2016-00067 SEP2016-0005o PUBLIC COMMENTS Several public comment letters have been received and are provided with this Report. i. Michael Gilbreath—July 6, 2oi6 2. Erica Marbet, Squaxin Island Tribe—June 24, 2oi6 3. Brian Dobie—September 18, 2oi6 4. Tom Moore—September 19, 2o16 5. Bruce Brauer—September 18, 2o16 6. Herb Baze—September 18, 2o16 7. Welcome to the Small Saga of UGLY in Mason County, Paul Wildman—September 19, 2o16 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION The Planning Advisory Commission held its first public hearing for the original proposal on July 25, 2o16. As a result of that hearing and the public testimony received, the applicants chose to reduce the number of parcels they are asking to rezone. The original area included four parcels along McEwan Prairie Road in a residentially zoned district. The neighboring property owners expressed concerns over their proximity to the proposed commercial use should all the necessary requirements eventually be met. The Planning Commission held a second hearing on September 19, 2o16 and considered a revised proposal of three parcels instead of four. By reducing the parcels from four to three, and leaving the lot between the proposed area and the closest neighboring Rainbow Lake property owners, applicants are creating a natural buffer by increasing the distance from the site. The primary concern remaining unresolved was the potential development of the two parcels not being utilized for storage. Approving the rezone of three parcels for a single proposed use left the other properties vulnerable to being commercially development in ways other than self storage. As a measure of comprise, the hearing concluded with a recommendation for approval by the Board of County Commissioners providing the Applicants combine all three parcels thereby preventing any unrelated development. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request rezoning the three listed parcels from Rural Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. 615 W.Alder+Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9760/(360)427-7798 fax iJ www.mason.co.wa.us MASON COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION Minutes November 3, 2008 - (Note audio tape (#3) dated October 3, 2008 counter (#) for exact details of discussion) (This document is not intended to be a verbatim transcript) ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Chair Bill Dewey. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Bill Dewey, Tim Wing, Dennis Pickard, Jim Reece, Diane Edgin and Debbie Jacobs. Don LeMaster was excused. Staff Present: Barbara Adkins, Allan Borden, Bob Fink. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 4. NEW BUSINESS (#0050)Bill Dewey noted the number of people in the audience present for the Peninsula Topsoil rezone request and moved it up to the first item on the agenda. (#0085)Allan Borden, Department of Community Development,opened up the public hearing on the Peninsula Topsoil rezone request. Allan handed out comments from Ken VanBuskirk and Jacqueline Mastow. This rezone request contains two properties that total 50 acres is size located west of Old Belfair Highway about a mile north of the intersection of Clifton Road and Old Belfair Highway. The current zone is RR20 and the proposed zone is RR5. The existing land use is a sand and gravel operation and designated timberlands. This property is completely surrounded by RR20 properties. The existing access is down Timberline Dr.,which is a private road. The properties are situated northwest and west of the Belfair UGA. There are wetland,stream,floodplain,and slope critical areas on the site and to the west,east,and southeast. Agricultural Resource Lands and Long-Term Commercial Forest Lands are located in the vicinity. In current zone, or if new zone is approved, applicant still could divide property using conventional or 1 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 performance subdivision process. Criterion 1, regarding damage to public health,safety and welfare,there is a concern about available water for development on these 50 acres. It would have to be secured through water rights,or connections through some sort of community system. The suitable areas for development need to be determined in regards to all the critical areas. Criterion 2, regarding consistency with the Comp Plan,the parcels in the general area, range from 7 to 44 acres in size. Most of the land in the vicinity is under timber taxation,and staff concludes RR20 zone is the most consistent designation. Criterion 3, regarding sprawling low-density rural development,there is an existing sand and gravel use that is resource based but an existing nonconforming use. Staff concludes this criteria is not met. Criterion 4, regarding demand for urban services in rural areas is met based on staff evaluation. The services will not be at urban level services. Criterion 5, regarding interfere with urban area growth, is met based upon staff evaluation. Criterion 6, regarding retention of open space,fish and wildlife habitat,protection of air and water, is met as staff concludes that county standards are met. Criterion 7, regarding pressure to change other land use designations, Peninsula Topsoil did not provide compelling reasons or unique characteristics of the property why these parcels should be considered for rezones. If this request is approved, a precedent is set, and as a result,similarly situated parcels elsewhere in the county could be subject to the added pressure to rezone to denser development densities. Criterion 8 is not applicable to this request. In conclusion,staff feels the current zone matches the characteristics of the area dealing with critical areas, resource lands, and parcel sizes. The current zone still allows some flexibility to divide the property and the request to go to denser residential densities would serve as a precedent to future requests. (#0650)Tim Wing stated there's 7,44-acre pieces. This map shows some smaller pieces adjacent to these parcels. (#0675)Allan Borden explained there is RR10 off to the west of the property. (#0685)Tim Wing stated it's east of the property where it says RR20.They don't appear to be even 5 acres in size. (#0695)Allan Borden stated some of them are not as they existed at the time the zoning was established. I stated the surrounding lands were RR20,and 20 to 40 RR10 parcels. (#0700)Tim Wing inquired why the smaller lots were not discussed in the size of the lots in the general area. (#0710)Allan Borden noted it was an oversight. (#0720)Tim Wing noted so there are some parcels that are zoned RR20 that are not 20 acre parcels. (#0725)Allan Borden responded that is correct. (#0735)Tim Wing stated you raised the question of water availability, and inquired if there was some reason to think homes that might be built there wouldn't be able to get water from Belfair Water. (#0740)Allan Borden responded they would have to prove availability of water from the Belfair Water District as part of the subdivision process. (#0745)Tim Wing inquired if these parcels on the west side of the Union River,to get to them you have to cross the Union River. Do they have an appropriate access to get across the Union River? Is that part of the criteria we should consider in terms of the zoning request? (#0755)Allan Borden stated that is one of the criteria for the zone. Currently they don't have an access. (#0765)Tim Wing inquired if they can make a rezone request if they don't have proper access. (#0775)Allan Borden stated they could make the request, and it can be reviewed whether it meets the criteria in the Comp Plan. The only access right now is a narrow road called Timberline Dr,which is a private road and has a one lane bridge over Union River to these parcels. Right now they don't have a county road access to the property. Even under RR20 they would have to have some access to all the properties they create. The nearest county road is Old Belfair Highway. 2 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#0800)Miscellaneous discussion. (#0900)Tim Wing raised the question if the PAC can even approve this rezone without an access. (#0925)Miscellaneous discussion. (#1100)Tim Wing inquired about Ken VanBuskirk's comment about Huson Creek being in the wrong location. (#1130)Allan Borden explained that it's in the wrong location on the GIS map. The contour layers are different information than the hydro layers,and sometimes the hydro layers wind up in the wrong location. They do tip a person off to look for a stream feature in the vicinity. (#1155) Bill Dewey opened up the public comment portion of the public hearing. (#1175)Robert Wright lives on Timberline Dr. He stated he doesn't have the same concerns that everyone else has about the neighborhood growing. I'm not strictly opposed to it, but I am very concerned about the traffic on Timberline Dr. It's already pretty busy and people don't seem to really care that the speed limit is 15 mph. It's a big wide private road, and people speed through there all the time. It's scary when you think about children and dogs running around in there. We're so afraid of that road we put a fence around our entire yard. I would just hope that any expansion in the neighborhood behind us would include some kind of mechanism for slowing that traffic down. (#1240)Patrick White also lives on Timberline Dr. He stated it is a great community, but if they're going to be building homes back, it will help with the traffic. It will decrease the number of large trucks. I don't see a problem with the road itself. I would like to see some way to keep people from speeding up and down there, as well as garbage. Cars have been dumped back there. I don't want to see more businesses there,or churches or schools. We would like to see more homes there. (#1340)Mark Huson also lives on Timberline Dr. I want to echo what Robert Wright said. There should be something installed to slow traffic down. I'm not opposed to development,but needs to be some way to control traffic there. (#1350)Ken VanBuskirk of Davis Farm Road testified next. He stated his wife and he own the parcel that's the southwestern border of the gravel pit. I'm also the co-manager of the Davis Family Farm,which borders the rest of the southern boundary. I talked to Mr. Borden last week,and FEMA gave Mason County on the temporary moratorium on the flood plain development for the Union Riverjust last week. Those flood plain maps are old and needs to be updated.After the storms last year,we had a foot of silt on our fields there, which is the ag resource land.Those lands in the RR20 that make up the Davis Farm, it's more than that simple designation. That was a gift that Tom and Irene Davis gave to their children and the community. It will be a working farm,which our family has retained the right to farm. The forest land will continue to produce timber and other small forest products. The Union River has a permanent wildlife buffer along it, in perpetuity. This proposed rezone doesn't fit;the impact of more intense zoning will impact our properties as well as the Union River. It is very difficult to manage our farm when we have higher densities and incompatible uses adjacent or nearby. We have stray dogs harassing and maiming our livestock,brush theft,and trespass are daily occurrences. If rezones are to higher densities, it will only increase these uses. We concur with staffs findings that this proposed rezone is not consistent with the Comp Plan. Therefore, we don't think this rezone should be approved. (#1525)Celia Parrott of Belfair testified next. She inquired about the idea of a precedent when she read the zoning and it said one of the concerns was that if you change it from an RR20 to an RR5 you're setting a precedent. She inquired if each rezone request was dealt with absolutely individually, or once a precedence is set, is there a domino effect. That is a real consideration. (#1575)Bill Dewey explained one of the things we try to concern ourselves with is to be consistent in our decisions. If we rule a certain way on this request, if something else comes in similar,we would be hard pressed to not do the same thing again. 3 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1600)Lisa Wright of Belfair inquired if this is approved how many houses are they anticipating to be developed. If that's the case,would the road still be considered private just because it's an easement, or would it turn into a county road? (#1640)Tim Wing explained that if we approve this rezone,there a certain number of houses that would be allowed to be built, but it's no guarantee that the developer would build those. There's also no guarantee the road would become a county road. (#1650)Miscellaneous discussion. (#1800) Laura Wood,one of the managers of the Davis Family Farm,testified next. She inquired if nothing is changed at all, if it's left the way it is,this site could hold two homes, is that true. (#1835)Allan Borden explained with a performance subdivision they could double the number of lots. They could get 4 or 5 lots. (#1850)Laura Wood stated when the land use zoning was put together,somebody decided this area should be RR20, and I realize there are a lot of little houses along the river that don't fall into the category of RR20, but the reason it was zoned that way was to protect the environment and protect the river. So to go back and say that because 50 years ago people built houses too close to the river and emptied their sewage into it, doesn't seem like a good idea today. It looks to me like there could be houses there. The way it is right now with no changes. So changing it to make sure somewhere along the line they could build 8 houses, seems like it's not necessary. (#1900)Bill Dewey closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. (#1925)Dennis Pickard stated that the applicant hasn't really given us any reason to approve a rezone of the property. No compelling reason to change the zoning. I am opposed to granting the rezone. That is my motion. (#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 the 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 4 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 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 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%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 aesthetics 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. 5 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#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 aesthetics. (#0135)Dennis Pickard stated the point is well taken as he also has concerns about buffering issues. They will 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. 6 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#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 considered. Allan explained it is an RCW and a state law. (#0500)Barbara Adkins opened up the continuation of the public hearing on the Transportation Element. They've addressed the three items on the amendment to the Mason County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element dated October 8,2008. I'm bringing to you the edits and it is Charlie Butros's position that that is where they stand. (#0525) Bill Dewey noted the PAC has come to terms with where Public Works was at with it, but didn't feel comfortable taking action since Tim Wing and Dennis Pickard were not at the last meeting. Both of you have been so passionate on this issue,we wanted you to be here for the final discussion.That's why it's back before us tonight. We talked about this at the last meeting, and Charlie indicated that the Belfair study will meet the need of#1. Item#2 is his compromise on that,and on#3 it was not legal. (#0575)Tim Wing stated that Charlie's comment that it would be illegal to consider#3 is a clear sign that he missed the point. There's nothing illegal about the county deciding to do something about traffic in one of the two UGA's if it's overwhelming, regardless of whether it's on a state road or not. I assume he meant that he thinks it's illegal for the county to participate financially in the improvement of a state road. (#0585)Bill Deweyclarified that was what Charlie indicated. (#0595)Tim Wing stated he's heard that before, and I've also heard from other people that's it's not illegal. The point is that if the state road is jammed to the point where it's not safe and traffic is unbearable,then the county has the responsibility to do something about that regardless if it's a state road or not. What they do about can be a variety of things that don't have to include putting a dime into the state road. It could include other road structures that would remove some of the traffic from the state road,which would improve some of the traffic on the state road. I don't think he got that part of it. He's put some things in here that says 'The infrastructure needs of the unincorporated UGA's would be identified and included in the prioritization matrix in this category'. That's fine, but I'm done fighting about this at this level with this group. I think the PAC is getting about as much out of this issue as we're going to get. I think the next round of efforts to get the county to do more inside the UGA's has to do with trying to get funding from the state to help with that. It also has to do with working with the county's six year plan and try to insist that no new roads go on that six year plan that are out in the boonies with no traffic on them. Instead the money that could be allocated for that should be considered for new roads. This puts into the element some tools that people can use in the future to ask the big question. I'm not totally happy with the whole thing, but I think that having this in here the way it is is okay, and I'm prepared to move ahead on it. (#0660)Dennis Pickard also noted progress from his last meeting where we talked about this. He stated he has noticed it says the only urbanized area in the county is Shelton, and we know that's not true. It's not going to be true. It talks about the whole goal of the transportation system is to preserve the rural nature. Well, it's not all rural in the county. It says the county will consider developing a plan. No,develop the plan. Make it mandatory,because it's not getting done otherwise. However,overall, perhaps passing along these suggested revisions to the BOCC, I'd be comfortable moving forward with this and hopes the end result will start moving in the direction we all agree it needs to move in. I suggest we move these suggestions to the BOCC to consider along with the recommendation to pass this forward. I will make that my motion. (#0755)Tim Wing inquired if the motion is to accept what staff is proposing. (#0775)Dennis Pickard added also sending along the edits we discussed. (#0785)Tim Wing stated perhaps we should send these edits to Public Works and ask them to come back and talk to us about it. 7 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#0795) Dennis Pickard stated we're getting down to the timeline, and we still have the hearing before the BOCC on this. (#0810) Barbara Adkins explained she has already scheduled Transportation and Capital Facilities to the BOCC on December 9th. (#0825)Bill Dewey stated we have a motion to send this to the BOCC along with the additional recommendations. If that's the case I'd like to go through these edits. (#0850) Dennis Pickard explained his first edit would replace'The only urbanized area in the county is Shelton,where approximately 20 percent of the county's population and approximately 50 percent of commercial activities are located';that is located under Introduction and Purpose. It fails to recognize the existence of the UGA's and other more densely developed areas,and the transportation needs of those that are at odds with a fully rural emphasis. The proposed sentence would read: 'The primary urbanized area in the county is Shelton,where approximately 20 percent of the county's population and approximately 50 percent of commercial activities are located. In addition,other areas of the county,especially the UGA's of Belfair and Allyn,as well as various RAC's have been established under the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and designated as areas intended for future high density development'. The second edit is under Goals and Priorities. It emphases rural character and my edit recognizes there is more to Mason County than just rural character. The proposed paragraph would instead read: 'Mason County's goal is to provide adequate mobility for all people,goods, and services in an efficient and economical manner. Planning and developing future transportation facilities to accommodate the projected growth and population and commerce in the urban areas of the county will be a primary goal. In the rural areas,existing transportation facilities will be maintained and improved while minimizing changes to the physical and social environment so as to preserve the'rural character'of those areas.The transportation system shall support the transportation needs of Mason County within the context of the county's Comp Plan'. (#1000) Bill Dewey noted Charlie Butros was not committed to do an overall countywide plan. He's committed to the Belfair plan as he has the grant and the resources to do it. (#1040)Dennis Pickard stated that's why he is requesting the planning projects be put into the six year plan. We need to move forward in those areas where we don't have a plan now. The date for the Allyn transportation plan I would be comfortable in removing that. (#1080)Miscellaneous discussion. (#1150)Tim Wing agreed that it asks them to make more of a commitment to planning. It asks them to look at the rural UGA"s as urban areas. It asks them to pay attention to using future growth projections for transportation planning goals. Those are things he has already said he would do. (#1165)Debbie Jacobs inquired if we make a recommendation to approve this with our edits,will it actually go to the BOCC. (#1175)Barbara Adkins stated it will all go to the BOCC as part of your recommendation. (#1195)Bill Dewey stated by saying the county will develop a plan doesn't mean it has to be done next year. (#1250)Tim Wing stated he's in favor of accepting what Charlie did,and ask him that these additional changes be incorporated,sending it on to Charlie,and then onto the BOCC. That's our recommendation. If the BOCC chooses to soften that,that's up to them. (#1280)Bill Dewey noted out of respect for the conversation we had with Charlie,we know where he stands on this. 8 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1335) Dennis Pickard stated that if the PAC feels comfortable with the fact that Charlie is starting to move in the direction of seeing where we're coming from and trying to work with those goals, and if the particular language I suggested would be counterproductive then I would propose removing that language. (#1365)Bill Dewey stated this has been a productive discussion and maybe we should state'as funding permits, the county will consider...'. (#1395) Dennis Pickard deleted his part of the motion regarding the date of 2010. (#1425)Miscellaneous discussion. (#1475)Dennis Pickard will email a cleaned up copy of proposed amendments to the Transportation Element to staff. (#1540)Bill Dewey noted the amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed. (#1635)Bob Fink opened up the public hearing on the Danger Tree Ordinance. This is a public hearing to receive public comment on this proposal. There is one set of language for the Fish and Wildlife Critical Habitat Areas, and another draft for the Wetland Critical Areas. The BOCC has requested that we review this issue. It is a fairly narrow issue,which is what restrictions should there be on the removal of hazardous trees that are within the buffer critical area, or the critical area itself. A danger tree is a tree that is within a tree length of an inhabited structure or an accessory to a residence. The proposal would change the existing code to require prior approval by the county before felling the tree. It would require a professional to review the necessity to fell the tree, and make recommendations for dealing with the issues. It would require enhanced mitigation through the form of leaving the tree truck on the ground or in the critical area so it serves as habitat and helps protect the functions and values. This draft was developed with the assistance of DOE and the WDF&W. (#1735)Debbie Jacobs inquired if felling a danger tree requires county approval at this time. (#1740)Bob Fink explained the county is already involved with this process, however pre-approval is not required. People call and ask, and we try to go out to visit the site to give them some assurance that what they do is okay. The other way we are involved is we sometimes get complaints that people are cutting down trees and we go out to investigate. There have been a few times when people have cut down trees in violation of the code. (#1765)Debbie Jacobs noted she has been on the board at Lakeland Village for many years and they have CCR's that are very specific by different areas in regards to what they can or cannot do with trees. She inquired what takes precedent as far as the danger tree. (#1785)Bob Fink explained the county regulations apply and restrict what trees you can fell. That may be allowed or not allowed by the CCR's in your particular area. However, if it's prohibited by the Association and we allow it,then the Association could stop it. They are responsible for enforcing their own rules and they can go to court to do that. (#1820)Debbie Jacobs stated we've had to take a different stance on these danger tree issues at Lakeland Village. If you restrict someone from taking down a danger tree,and then it falls on their property,there becomes a whole liability issue that comes into play. (#1830) Bob Fink explained these regulations are not intended to stop the felling of legitimate danger trees. They're intended to make sure that the mitigation,when they're felled, is appropriate. (#1850)Tim Wing noted the agencies seem to be happy with this draft. (#1860)Bob Fink responded the agencies are happy with it, but we have yet to hear from the public. I did not receive any written comments from anyone prior to this meeting. We did send out notice to the builders, consultants,etc., and others who have expressed interest in this issue in the past. 9 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#1885)Tim Wing stated he is in favor of sending this ordinance forward,but would like some assurance this is the proper language, and wondered about other county's ordinances and how they worked. (#1920) Bob Fink explained there is a science surrounding hazardous trees. There are a few studies that have been done, and when trees should be removed. I didn't do a survey regarding other counties,but we have been living with these codes for some time. I gave you the online permitting process they use in King County for removing trees and vegetation for fire hazard. You just have to notify them prior to removal and then they respond by telling you all the rules you have to follow. They don't necessarily do a site visit. The reason for requiring pre-notification is to avoid something being done that doesn't meet the code. It's hard to correct these things after they have been done. It gives assurance to the property owner that if they want to remove the trees, it's safe to do so. (#2000) Bill Dewey shared his concern with always having to have a consultant notified for these issues. It's also costly. If I understand this ordinance, if it's two trees or less,then you need an arborist or professional forester to say it's a danger tree,and then notify the county and then cut them and then do the mitigation. If it's more than two then you have to have a habitat management plan submitted for approval. (#2020)Bob Fink stated that is correct. (#2050)Debbie Jacobs stated there are homeowners in Lakeland Village who are coming to the board to say their insurance company won't insure them because of the trees being so close to the homes. There's been a huge change in just the last couple of years. (#2085) Bill Dewey opened up the public comment portion of the hearing. (#2095)Steve Whitehouse,attorney in Shelton,testified. Bob has kept me informed of these proposed changes,but I do wonder why we are doing this. I tend to not like a lot of formal regulation, but if it's a situation where you ought to work with a county on things,then have it work that way instead of having to hire all kinds of expensive consultants. There are liability issues. If you know there's a danger tree,you don't cut it down, and it falls down and injures someone, you are liable.What if the tree isn't within a tree length of the house or structure? Superior Court tells me I have to cut it down or I'm going to be liable if someone gets hurt. (#2140)Bob Fink explained you can apply for permits to remove trees that don't meet this definition. This is a nonpermitted process. We tried to reduce the costs by not requiring a permit to do this;the other is an option. (#2175)Steve Whitehouse stated if you look at a tree and it's dying, it's a danger tree. If it's leaning badly, it's a danger tree. I don't have any problem with having to notify the county if I want to take down a danger tree, but it seems I ought to be able to notify the county of the danger tree,and the county has 20 or 30 days to take a look at it. The county claims to have some expertise and they ought to be able to do this. I have some property on Hammersley Inlet with a huge tree on it. It's half dead, as half the branches don't have leaves. I called an arborist to see what to do to save the tree. He said it's not worth my coming out. If half the branches don't have leaves on them,you'll never save the tree. It's still alive, but at some point in time I've got to cut that tree down. The cost of me getting an arborist out there is a useless cost. If Bob comes out there with me, he's going to be able to tell me that the tree is dying. I don't have any problem with leaving it if I cut it down. If you take a dead tree down,you're doing exactly what nature would do over a period of time. Nature doesn't require a habitat management plan, it doesn't require you to plant six trees. If somebody says BAS tells you that you have to do more than nature does, I'm sorry that's wrong and common sense will tell you that. I'm actually an advocate of GMA but not an advocate of how it gets implemented sometimes. One of the things I see in my business is the more complicated you make things,the more people are going to find ways not to comply. You need to make these things simple and concise and give people an opportunity to comply and want to do the right thing. That's what has happened with GMA. It has become so confusing it's impossible for the average person to understand it. It's my opinion that we really have to pay attention to these things that cost money that are an economic waste. (#2445)Bill Dewey inquired of Steve Whitehouse what he would change or if he had any proposed changes to the amendments. 10 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#2450)Steve Whitehouse replied he would rewrite the whole thing. I would say that if you're going to take down a danger tree in a habitat area,you need to notify the county and give them an opportunity to come out and inspect it. I'd rather pay the county$50 than pay an arborist$500. Beyond that, I don't know why this needs to say anything. #2500 Jerry Schouviller of Mason Lake testified. He stated he has danger trees and agrees with Mr. Whitehouse. He stated it's really getting sad when the county controls everything you do on your own property. It's just too much. I put in for a permit to do some selective logging over three years ago, and I'm just now getting it approved. After thousands of dollars with all these specialists coming out and walking the property,and now requiring me to notify and pay for and cut a tree down and lay there when I burn wood for heat. That doesn't make sense either. (#2560)Bill Dewey closed the public comment portion of the hearing. (#2575)Tim Wing stated he agrees with some of the public testimony and that most people will abide by rules that are well stated and are reasonable. They need to seem fair on their face. I just don't like to see us intrude that much on what people do. People need to know and learn about buffer areas,and the importance of them, as well as the fact that leaving some trees does have a purpose. If it's just a danger tree that might fall on your house, and it's not in a buffer area,you shouldn't have to leave a trunk there. (#2645)Bob Fink explained this ordinance would not even cover trees not in the buffer. Trees that are not in the buffer area are not covered at all;you can cut them down. The provision added was that the trunk be left on site to provide large,woody debris to enhance mitigation. The other important element is the prior notification. If it wasn't clear to the county if it was a danger tree,the county could request a forester or arborist do an evaluation. That was language put in there for enforcement purposes. I do agree with Mr. Whitehouse in that I would like to have the rule as simple as possible so people will comply. The provisions involving professionals is to make sure the activity is done with a scientific basis. I understand that makes it more expensive and more difficult and may make people less reluctant to go through the proper steps to get it done correctly. (#2775)Bill Dewey stated he has concerns about the added costs, or make it so complex that people just break the law,which could cause liability issues. (#2800) Dennis Pickard noted F&W commented that Lewis, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties have provisions for danger tree removal that allow the review authority to require a consultation with a professional, but don't require it as a matter of course, particularly for one or two trees in a ten year period. That seems like an excessive requirement. I'm opposed to the requirement of an arborist or forester for any removal of danger trees in the buffer. (#2900) Bob Fink stated the agencies recommended that a professional make that evaluation for a larger scale project. That kind of investment may be worthwhile for a larger scale project. With a smaller project we were trying to avoid it. Although they did recommend that an arborist make that call. (#2975)The PAC agreed they were more in favor of the county leaving it optional. (#2985)Tim Wing noted if someone fills out an application, if the county has someone review this,and they've checked that this is the sixth time they've asked for this in the last six months or ten years,the county could choose to go out and inspect the situation. Most people,if given good instructions,will do it all on their own. This county doesn't have the staff to go out and deal with this issue. This is the same,to me, as the business of wanting county staff to check everybody's septic system every year. There's got to be a way to do it without burdening the county and burdening the people. I'd like to send it back to Bob with the comments we've been making and bring it back to us. He inquired if that was possible. (#3100) Bob Fink responded there isn't a firm deadline,but the BOCC wanted it processed as soon as possible. 11 Planning Advisory Commission Minutes, November 3, 2008 (#3125)Miscellaneous discussion on possible upcoming meeting dates. (#3200)Bill Dewey inquired how enforcement is done on this issue. (#3250)Bob Fink explained it depends on the situation. Sometimes it's simply a tree;sometimes a forest that's cut down. Usually we ask for mitigation in the form of planting and if they are cooperative,that's as far as it goes. They are just asked to do what they should have done in the first place. There are people that don't honestly know the full extent of the rules, and there are some people that don't even know enough to ask to find out where there is an issue with that pond in their back yard. (#3300)Miscellaneous discussion regarding if a homeowner even knows he might have a critical area on his property. (#3400)Tim Wing stated the following points:That we require a homeowner to notify the county that they want to cut a tree down,that they have to wait thirty days to do that,that the county can review it or they don't have to,and that no arborist would be required unless the county does review it and says don't cut it, then an arborist can be hired to mitigate it. (#3500)Bob Fink stated he would add to that to leave the stumps as woody debris. (#3550)Tim Wing noted he would add the county would communicate the mitigation requirements to the person who put in the application. (#3600)Bob Fink explained the problem with that language is that the county needs fairly specific language as a basis for requiring mitigation. I do agree with the concept of keeping it simple, but we are also trying to follow the recommendations we received from the state agencies as well. (#3700)Miscellaneous discussion regarding leaving in 'B'on page 1,with the exception of expense of hiring a professional for the removal of one or two trees. Discussion that it's an unnecessary expense. (#0080)Bill Dewey inquired of Bob Fink if there has been enough discussion for him to redraft the regulations. (#0085)Bob Fink stated he could do that. (#0090)Discussion of next hearing date to continue it to. Danger tree hearing continued to December 15, 2008. Meeting adjourned. 12 STAFF REPORT: SITE-SPECIFIC REZONE APPLICATION REZONE REQUEST NO. 08-05 APPLICANT: Nathan&Debra Stout;Patrick Paradise. STAFF CONTACT: Allan Borden, (360)427-9670 ext. 365 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting that four parcel be rezoned in the Rural Area from Rural Residential 5 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 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.] 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 slots 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 applicant wants this property to be rezoned to Rural Commercial 2 zone so that the owner 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. DCommunity DevelopmenAPLANNINMAllao Bordenkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone miew\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 1 II. 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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendmems\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Repott.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 I/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 V2 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 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. Front yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 25 feet, and floor-area ratios of I:S (20 percent lot cover) will help to maintain IACommunity Development\PLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendme ts\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout StaffReport.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 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 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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINMAllan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doc 4 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 if present 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 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 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 V2 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: LACommunity DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Bordenkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report.doe 5 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. VH. 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 L\CommunityDevelopmentTLANNINGWIanBordenkomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05Stout StaffReport.doc 6 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] 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 N 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 2 r -3 P 3 11 4 5 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON 9 10 NATHAN STOUT and DEBRA STOUT, husband and wife, and PATRICK PARADISE,I l Cause No. 09 2 0 0 1 0 01.7 12 Petitioners, Mason Co. No.: Proposed Rezone No. 08-05 13 V. LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW 14 MASON COUNTY, a Washington county, 15 Respondents. r 16 17 I. PETITIONER 18 The petitioners are Nathan Stout, Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise whose current 19 mailing address is P.O. Box 2371, Shelton WA. 98584. 20 H. PETITIONERS' ATTORNEY 21 The petitioners are represented by the undersigned attorneys, Robert W. Johnson 22 P.L.L.C., P.O. Box 1400, Shelton, WA 98584 by Robert W. Johnson, Attorney at law. 23 III. LOCAL JURISDICTION 24 The land use decision at issue in this case was rendered by Mason County, 411 N. Yh 25 Street, Shelton, Washington 98584 ROBERT W. JOHNSON P.i.x.c. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400 LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 1 SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 (360)426.9728•FAX(360)426-1902 I IV. DECISION-MAKING BODY OR OFFICER 2 Mason County Board of Commissioners' decision issued January 13, 2008, denying a 3 rezone request No. 08-05, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated 4 by this reference. 5 V. IDENTITY OF PARTIES 6 Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.040(2), the statutory parties identified in the decision are 7 Nathan Stout, Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise P.O. Box 2371, Shelton WA. 98584. 8 STANDING 9 Petitioners have standing pursuant to RCW 36.70C.060 in that they own the property 10 and are the applicant. I I VI. STATEMENT OF ERRORS 12 Petitioners allege the following errors: 13 1. The Board engaged in an unlawful procedure and failed to follow the proscribed 14 process for reviewing a rezone application. 15 2. The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law. 16 3. The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when 17 viewed in light of the whole record; 18 4. The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the proper law to the 19 facts. 20 VIII. FACTS SUSTAINING STATEMENT OF ERRORS 21 1. The four lots which constitute the subject property were created in 1992 by 22 short plat prior to Mason County zoning regulations. The tracts are each 1.8 23 acres. Each of these 1.8 acre tracts was zoned as Rural Residential 20 when 24 Mason County enacted zoning. The minimum lot size for each of these lots is 25 ROBERT W. JOHNSON P ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400 LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 2 SHELTON.WASHINGTON 98584 (360)426-9728•FAX(360)426-1902 1 20 acres. The lots are narrow and located along McEwan Prairie Road. 2 McEwan Prairie Road is heavily used by truck traffic and has a posted speed 3 limit of 50 mph by county Resolution No. 127-01. The proposed rezone is 4 consistent with the character of the property which is unsuitable for residential 5 development. Planning staff originally provided petitioners a report which 6 7 found that the proposed rezone met all the criteria of 1.05.080. The proposal 8 received approval from the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission. 9 When the proposal was presented to the Mason County Board of to Commissioners, the planning staff changed its recommendation based upon I l opposition voiced by neighboring property owners. That decision was not 12 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole 13 record before the commission. Mason County did not advise petitioners that 14 IS they had reversed their position and changed their recommendation to the Board 16 and petitioners where deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond to such 17 reversal. The county staff's actions in reversing its findings with regard to the 18 rezone and failing to notify the petitioners of such reversal denied petitioners a 19 hearing consistent with due process and denied them the opportunity to make a 20 record on the factual issues raised in the new staff report. 21 VII. REQUESTED RELIEF 22 Applicants request the court to reverse the decision of the Board of Commissioners and PP 23 issue an order approving the rezone request. In the alternative, applicants request the court to 24 reverse the denial and remand the case back to the board for review consistent with due 25 process rights of the Washington Constitution and Chapter 36.70C RCW. ROBERT W. JOHNSON r<<C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400 LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 3 SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 (360)426-9728•FAX(360)426-1902 1 2 DATED this day of February, 2009. 3 ROBERT W. JOHN"N P.L.L.C. f' 4 5 by: ROBE TAW. JOHNSON WSBA No. 15486 6 Attorney for Petitioners 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ROBERT W. JOHNSON P L L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400 LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 4 SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 (360)426-9728•FAX(360)426-1902 {' CPU•i Y IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON NATHAN STOUT and DEBRA STOUT, husband and wife, and PATRICK PARADISE, Petitioners, Cause No. 09-2-00110-7 V. Mason Co.No.: Proposed Rezone No. 08-05 MASON COUNTY, a Washington county, AGREED ORDER ON REMAND Respondents. THIS MATTER having come before the above entitled court for initial hearing pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW,the petitioners are Nathan Stout,Debra Stout and Patrick Paradise appearing.represented by their attorney Robert W. Johnson, attorney at law,the respondent, Mason County, appearing by and through Gary P. Burleson,prosecuting attorney,by Monty Cobb, Chief Deputy Prosecutor,the parties having reach an agreement that the decision at issue should be reversed and remand for further proceedings to allow petitioners full due process in presenting their rezone requests;it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The decision of the Mason County Board of Commissioners' issued January 13, 2008, denying a rezone request No. 08-05,is reversed. AGREED ORDER ON LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page I 2. The decision is remand the case back to the board for review and hearing consistent with Chapter 36.70C RCW. 3. No costs or charges are requested by or awarded to either party. DATED this day of March, 2009. JUDGE/COURT COMMISSIONER Presented byll- ROBERT W.JOHN 0 WSBA No. 15486 Attorney for Petition rs Approved for entry,notice of presentati n waived: onty C • b A 35 Chie Dep t ro utor AGREED ORDER ON LAND USE PETITION FOR REVIEW Page 2 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 L\Community DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\09-05 Stout Staff Report 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 TEWE? 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. H. 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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\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 '/Z 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. 1. 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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINMAllan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doe 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. 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. RU521: Use the following criteria to establish rural densities and for assignment throughout the County for mapping decision: 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 IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWlan Borden\oomp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doo 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 RuratArea 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 1991 from 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 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. 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 1:5 (20 percent lot cover) under Rural Commercial 2 zone will much be more extensive than the,Rural Residential 2Q 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 occprs for two miles from the subject parcels. For these reasons, the reques of consistent with the above Comprehensive Plan policies as the proposed commercial7aduses 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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINMAllanBorden\comp plan amendments\2008 remne 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 of 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 if present on the property. In this case, no critical IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNING\Allan Bordenkomp plan amendmeots\2008 rezone review\0&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 subjectparcels 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 V2 mile proximity characteristic noted at the beginning of the section on the evaluation of rezone criteria. V1. 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. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINGWIan Borden\comp plan amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remaud.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. VM. ATTACHMENTS 1. Materials submitted on August 20,2009 as the present rezone request. IACommunity DevelopmentTLANNINMAllan Bordenkomp plea amendments\2008 rezone review\08-05 Stout Staff Report 2009 remand.doo g JTE . Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. . Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE President 2614 39th Ave. SW-Seattle, WA 98116- 2503 Tel. 206.162.1978 - Cell 206.799.5692 E-mail jaketraffic@comcast.net July 19,2016 STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout PO Box 2371 Shelton,WA 98584 Re: Stout Rezone - Mason County Delta Trip Generation Letter Dear Mr.Stout, I am pleased to provide this Delta Trip Generation Letter for the proposed rezone project located on the north side of E. McEwan Prairie Rd.west of E. Mason Lake Road. Below is an aerial view of the site obtained from Mason County GIS: D Z x A O Proiect Site r `P,RFRO y 07 \Jre_Inck\imla'1 iila\j009.0a$ro1R aM Paadse Rezone-Paves Paa®se;Navun$ION-Mawn Counry\StoaRezorcDelbTGtetter4oc COLOR COPY ONLY JTE, Inc. STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout July 19, 2016 Page-2- This Traffic Letter documents the delta traffic generation of the proposed rezone. Existing Site Zoning I understand that the existing lots are zoned for single family residential use. Each SFDU could also facilitate a mother in law unit per my understanding. Proposed Zoning The proposed rezone is to allow the installation of a mini storage facility. The proposed mini- storage envisions providing 100 units of storage(50-200 sf units+ 50 - 100 sf units). In addition I understand that 30- 12'x 36' covered RV/Boat spaces are to be provided. Site Traffic Generation Definitions A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination(exiting or entering) inside the proposed development. Traffic generated by development projects consists of the following types: Pass-By Trips: Trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Diverted Link Trips: Trips attracted from the traffic volume on a roadway within the vicinity of the generator but which require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway in order to gain access to the site. Captured Trips: Site trips shared by more than one land use in a multi-use development. Primary(New)Trips: Trips made for the specific purpose of using the services of the project. Trip Generation The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 9th Edition provides trip generation data for a variety of Land Use Codes(LUC's). Review of the ITE data indicates the existing zoning is classified as Single-Family Detached Housing(ITE LUC 210)and the proposed zoning as Mini-Warehouse(ITE LUC 151). All site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter,visitor,and service and delivery vehicle trips are included in the ITE trip generation values. \W_Ircf\-Pml 1Flk\p .OZ-S[ WPr %ro ftV Po dw;NethnS1 -MmnC Vn SWURWi DWMRiletb COLOR COPY ONLY JTE, Inc. STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout July 19, 2016 Page-3- The existing zoning would allow 4- SFDU's with MIL units. A typical rental residential unit generates about 60%of the traffic of a single family residence during the critical PM peak hour; and about 70%on a daily basis(comparison of ITE LUC 210 -Single Family-Detached and LUC 220 - Apartment). For analysis, I treated the 4 MIL units like 2-SFDU's that is conservative. With a rezone the site would be used for mini-storage use. The ITE data for this use includes data based on building sf(indoor building space)and number of units. Mini-storage traffic would include some pass-by trips associated with people swinging by their storage unit on their way to or from another destination. A nominal 5% pass-by rate is projected for this site. Delta Trip Generation Using the aforementioned LUC's,Table 1 below depicts the delta site traffic generation. For the mini-storage ITE data for both building sf and number of units is depicted. TABLE 1-TRIP GENERATION STOUT REZONE-MASON COUNTY DELTA TRIP GENERATION LETTER Enter Exit Pass-by Pass-by Time Period Size TG Rate Enter",� Trips Exit SS Trips Total %" Trips Net Total Proposed Zoning: mini-Storage(ITE LUC 151;15,000 sf) Weekday 15,000 _ 2.5 _ 50"; 18.8 50` 18.8 37.5 5.01 1.9 35.6 AM peak hour _ 15,0_00F _0.14__ _5555_ __ 1.2 _455 ___0.9 __2.1 _5.0_%_ 0.1_ _ 2.0 PM peak hour 15,000 0.26 50' 2.0 50% 2-0 3.9 5.0! 0.2 3.7 1 Propozed Zoning: Mini Storage(ITE LUC 151;100-units inside+30 outdoor covered) Weekday _ _ ___130 __0.25 C0 16.3 L(S _ 1_6.3 32.5 5.0% 1.6 30.9 AM peak hourJ 130 0.02 50% 1.3 50`� 1.3 2.6 PM peak hour 130 0.02 48% 1.2 52% 1.4 2.6 5.0^G 0.1 2.5 Weekday 1 6 9.52 1 50% 28.6 50% 28.61 57.1 _0.0%_ ___0.0 __57.1 AM peak 6 0.75 25i;, 1.1 75% 3.4 4.5 _0.674 __ 0.0 _ 4.5 PM peak hour 6 1 63`Y� 3.8 37% 2.2 6.0 O 0.0 6.0 "-pass-by trips are associated with people swinging by their storage unit on their way to or from another destination The proposed rezone is projected to generate fewer trips during the critical PM peak hour and on a daily basis as compared to the existing residential zoning use.. Summary This letter has documented the projected delta trip generation for the proposed rezone from residential to a commercial mini-storage use. The proposed rezone is projected is projected to generate less traffic than the existing zoning use. \�aek\-Pml«t FINS\]DG9.G15-Spout eM PveEke Rexore-PeVkk PanMe;NaVanSbM Mrgn Couny\StoNRemrcDNbTG1eRe,Loc COLOR COPY ONLY JTE, Inc. STOUT REZONE Attn: Nathan Stout July 19, 2016 Page-4- Please contact me at 206.762.1978 or email me at iaketraffic@comcast.net if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark J.Jacobs, PE, PTOE, President JAKE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC MJJ: mjj \\ Ij=\c\'Pion F-\]009.0]S-SI WP-1 ft -Pa Pare ,NaVan SNN-MamnCwnq\Sxol¢Rexoro-ONIeTGIethFAxc COLOR COPY ONLY Page 1 of 2 Barbara Adkins -Fw: Objection to application for rezoning From: Michael Gilbreath<dragonnecougz@yahoo.com> To: "BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 7/6/2016 10:30 AM Subject: Fw: Objection to application for rezoning Ms. Barbara Atkins Dept of Community Services To: Mason County Board of County Commissioners Attn:Request for Rezone DDR2016-00067&SEP2016-00050 From:Michael and Dorthea Gilbreath and Heather West 2380 E McEwan Prairie Road Shelton,WA 98584 Sir, I and m family,write to you today to officially protest the application for rezone notice posted for parcels 31233-40- Y Y� Y Y Y P PP P 90021 thru 32133-40-90024 where the owner wishes to build commercial rental storage units in our residential area. I just purchased my home on McEwan Prairie in June,specifically for the country feel and the feeling of security and privacy this property affords. The traffic on McEwan Prairie Road is busy but manageable,there is abundant wildlife,it is normally quiet enough to hear wind in the trees,and the nights are blissfully quiet,and dark,and filled with stars. In short,this home is pretty much everything we have ever wanted in life. I left Olympia to get away from the noise,the traffic,and also to escape having to deal with nuisance properties just like what is proposed in this application! I'm sure the landowner doesn't view the idea as a nuisance,but I assure you that is exactly what it is and what it will become in short order. We hope you will agree that rezoning for rental storage areas so close to residential homes is totally unacceptable. It took our life's savings to buy this beautiful home in Shelton,and this application now threatens to destroy what we spent our life's savings to achieve. Rental storage belongs in a dedicated commercial area. Storage properties historically are unattractive visually,they Page 2 of 2 attract heavier than normal traffic,they require lights which will break up the pleasant dark nights,they increase noise in the area at all hours day and night,they increase crime related activities in the area,and they depress local property values for everyone around them. No rental storage area is immune from these problems and we don't want those problems near our home! I urge the county to deny this land owner's rezoning application. I ask that you protect our home and land values,protect our peace and quiet,protect our security,and show that you place a high value on protecting Shelton's pristine natural areas and wildlife. In the event our interests are threatened further by this application,however,know that we will work with our neighbors to collectively fight this application through any necessary legal channels. We sincerely hope that it will not come to legal action as we do try to be very good neighbors. This is one fight,though,we will take very seriously as there is too much to lose if we don't protect our home. Please seriously support our objection to this application,and do not grant rezoning rights for commercial activities on the proposed properties. Keep our area strictly residential. Please reply briefly to this email to let us know you received it. Thank you. Page 1 of 3 Barbara Adkins -RE: FW: SEP2016-00050-Need help with introductory and concluding language. From: Erica Marbet<emarbet@squaxin.us> To: Barbara Adkins<BarbarA(a_),co.mason.wa.us> Date: 6/24/2016 4:16 PM Subject: RE: FW: SEP2016-00050-Need help with introductory and concluding language. No,you know the permit process better than me. lust looked at the code again, and I see what you are saying. Regardless,the building of a storage facility there will still be an impact and would benefit from the same B M P's. From: Barbara Adkins [Barba rA@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Friday,June 24, 2016 4:03 PM To: Erica Marbet<emarbet@squaxin.us> Subject: Re: FW: SEP2016-00050- Need help with introductory and concluding language. Thank you Erica. The Best Management Practices you mention are required with an Environmental Permit. However, storage facilities are not required to have that permit. Is there something here that I am not seeing? Barbara A.Adkins, AICP Department of Community Services 615 W.Alder Street Shelton,WA 98584 360/427-9670 ext 286 360/427-7798 fax Email:BarbarAPco.mason.Wa.us >>> Erica Marbet <emarbet@squaxin.us> 6/24/2016 3:48 PM >>> Dear Barbara, This is commentary on SEP2016-000050,a request for land use zoning change from RR20 to Rural Commercial 2. Proposed self-storage and RV/Boat Storage on McEwan Prairie Road. Though this SEPA is for the rezone, the eventual commercial use is most significant.The four parcels involved amount to 7.44 acres. Any storage facility on these parcels has the following potential impacts: • These parcels are on glacial outwash soils with high infiltration rates, and so they effectively transmit rainfall to groundwater recharge. • These parcels are Class II Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas(Mason County 17.01.080). • Even with up-to-date stormwater management and treatment, self-storage and RV/boat storage facilities are mostly impervious surfaces,and so would interfere with natural recharge processes on the site, depriving water from the aquifers below. • Furthermore,in the new surface runoff produced from a developed site, petroleum leakage from RV's and boats will be introduced to any surface water that still infiltrates or connects to county ditches. • A suite of Best Management Practices must be used with development of such a property(below). The Squaxin Island Tribe requests that these Best Management Practices are used, and that said annual training does occur(1.3.) Page 2 of 3 Sincerely, Erica Marbet Erica Marbet Water Resources Biologist Squaxin Island Tribe 3110 SE Old Olympic Hwy Shelton,WA 98584 360-4,'J2-,,1804 office 360-790-9:35,3 cell From Mason County Code 17.01.080 1, Standards far an Envoranmenta. 1 Permit for the Critical.Aquifer Recharge Area To receive an EaVironmental Permit to operate in the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area an applicant must; 1. Implement Best Management Practices (131V,,P), Implem.ant the Washington State Department of Ecology s Storm Water,Water Quality,Hazardous Waste,Wetfand,and SoM Waste Program DMP and SMP from the Departments of Health,Ag4culture,Transportation,and State Conservation UlstrictOffice, or 2- Demonstrate through a Bast Managament PradGes Report,pursuant to subsection K1,below,howtbey YAII integrate other necessary and appropriate mitigating measures in the design, installation, and management of the proposed facility or use,and 3. Provide a wdden agreement to the County providing that air em pinyaas af!hd site will be nofi&-d that the opemtion lies above an aquifer reGbarge area and providing annual training regarding all measures set forth by the SMP established in subsection 1.1 or 2 above. -----Original Message----- From: Melissa Drewry [mailto:MDrewry@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday,June 13, 2016 4:16 PM To: sepacenter@dnr.wa.go ; separegister@ecy.wa.go ; riumper@skokomish.org; Erica Marbet <emarbet@squaxin.us>;Jeff Dickison<jdickison@squaxin.us>;Stephanie Neil<sneil@squaxin.us>;Sarah Zaniewski<szaniewski@squaxin.us> Cc: Barbara Adkins<Barba rA@co.mason.wa.us> Subject: SEP2016-00050 Good afternoon, Please see the attached documents regarding SEP2016-00050. Proponent: Nathan Stout Parcel Number: 32133-40-90021 For questions, contact Barbara Adkins at BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us Page 3of3 Thank you, Melissa Drewry Department of Community Development 615 W. Alder Street Shelton, WA 98584 M Drewry@co.mason.wa.us 360-427-9670 ext. 236 Page 1 of 1 Barbara Adkins - Stout-Paradise McEwan Prairie re-zone From: <dobie.b@comcast.net> To: <barbara@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 9/18/2016 4:17 PM Subject: Stout-Paradise McEwan Prairie re-zone Hello Barbara, I have heard that a covered storage facility may be built on McEwan Prairie close to the Mason Lake Rd. intersection. I am a Lake Limerick resident and have been for over 10 years, I believe having a facility like this would benefit Lake Limerick, Mason Lake, and surrounding communities. This would provide a close place for residents to store RV's, boats, etc. I have had a 20 year business relationship with Mr. Stout and I believe that he would manage and maintain a facility such as this to a high standard. Most lots at Lake Limerick don't have a lot of room for larger items such as boats or an RV, I know if I was to own an RV I would rather have it stored elsewhere rather than cluttering up my property space. Thank you for your time, I hope you will consider allowing a facility such as this one for residents to utilize. Sincerely, Brian Dobie 421 E. Way to Tipperary St. Shelton Wa. 98584 September 19, 2016 Barbara Adkins Mason County Planning Department Re: Stout-Paradise rezone Dear Ms Adkins, I am writing to support the Stout-Paradise rezone that comes before the Mason County Planning Commission this evening. I feel the need for additional storage facilities in our area exists. While there may be units available many do not provide covered storage for larger RV's and boats. The proposed location for this facility is conveniently located to the numerous typically smaller waterfront properties in the area. Many of these smaller properties are recreational in nature and thus do not have room to store the toys used to take advantage of the recreational opportunities,often times these vehicles are parked in county right of ways which could impede emergency vehicles and obstruct drivers vision. This location is on a major crossroad in central Mason County with good ingress,egress and vision of oncoming traffic. I see it as a good fit for our area in that it provides a service to the community, has far less noise and traffic impacts as other operations(gravel pit) in the area,and will serve to reduce vehicle storage in county right of ways. I also believe many of the concerns by this property's opponents are based on conjecture and lack facts and substance or can be mitigated through the way the facility is constructed and managed. To summarize,this proposal provides a needed service to the area and is located where the impact is minimal.This rezone should be approved. Si y 71 E Sho a Dr. Grapeview,WA 98546 9/18/16 To Barbra Adkins Mason County Planner, Hello Barbra,My name is Bruce,and I am for the idea of a covered storage unit in my area, because of the fact that I would like to store my boats and cargo trailer at a location near my home and close to the lakes and the salt water boat launches that are in my area.At this time the storage units in this area, (close to my home)are limited to what I would prefer,Height of materials to be stored are one area of problem,distance to my home is another problem. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion; Bruce Brauer 170 E.Queens Way Shelton,WA 98584 i September 18, 2016 To:The Honorable Mason County Commissioners am writing this letter in support of the re-zoning request of Mason County parcels#32133-40- 90022, 321233-40-90022, 32133-40-90023, and 3213-40-90024.The re-zone request is from Residential 20 to Rural Commercial 2. I have had numerous business dealings with both the Stout and the Paradise families over the past thirty years.They are both long time local upstanding business people and have contributed considerably to the Mason County community.Any commercial development they have in mind for these parcels will surely be first class and a benefit to all in the local area. In light of the sale of Simpson and the closure of Olympic Panel Products it's refreshing to see local people that are ready and willing to invest in our local economy. Thank you for your consideration to this matter and hopefully your approval. Herb Baze 510 E. Mason Lake Road Shelton, WA 98584 We!eeme Tr.-). The Small Sarin of UGLY in MAS-.ON C.-O INTY 1 } f r .^f t I. The entrance to this storage facility. Notice the automatic gates, the extra strong fencing and, of course, the attractive long loops of razor wire. In a third-world location, a solid high wall with broken glass atop it would be the norm . . . . . . in Mason County only a chain-link fence is necessary, so that all of the interior items being stored there can be seen and enjoyed by all passersby. +' is a` t 14 Ot • t � �; ,�i,61'•/i°M";,sA "ta r:^.�„ F..r ie �.+. t � s, a ; + '•:I .�' �.t�� �r:may, e r j _ "•ram 1 k. t Ah, yes ------ the very attractive architecture of the self-storage buildings provided on this property. More beautiful razor wire, . . . .. perhaps even more than would be installed at a penitentiary facility. u � it 7 "Al The far end of these self-storage units ------ for the big toys folks invest in. Take notice of the exceptional landscaping provided to beautify this place. The signage tells us that this is the ALL STAR storage facility ... . .. and I'm sure we would all agree that it shows an abundance of "all star" qualities. Ask yourself if you would like to have such a property as this located just down the street from your residential neighborhood? ALI, Finally, a view to this facility from a distance down the road to Union. Everything about this self-storage business, seen close up or from far away, is unquestionably s I 1 i y rF1 One of three self-storage properties named SENTRY MINI STORAGE in the Shelton area, located on the extension of "J" Street. Again, notice the ugly architecture and the lack of any landscaping to improve its appearance. isJ'4tM:.: -y. This is the PICKERING SELF-STORAGE that is one of the property better maintained facilities in the county. Its architecture isn't pretty, but the landscaping is acceptable. At least this isn't a flat-roof situation . . . . . . and the property isn't surrounded by a residential neighborhood. r` STO&AGE fKAILEK - - 427-6 5 mom This is a property that seems to say it all about UGLY in Mason County self-storage businesses. It illustrates how utterly awful they can be. Beginning with its attractive signage. i� To its obvious efforts at upkeep .. . ... (Ever wonder why Mason County government would allow such a place to exist?) To the lovely automatic gateway to its interior grounds .. . . . . STORAGE a HOURS 22 And, once again . . . . . . Ah, yes . . . to the ever attractive fine collection of rust-bucket trucks (even a semi) and RV's we all love to view through chain-link fencing. This is an abomination regardless of its location on commercially zoned land not near any residences. It is readily apparent that it fouls the views from any vehicles traveling north on Highway 101 . UGLY hardly covers its offensiveness to the eye. L. Z 1 SPACE SAVER SPACE SAYER =gltl•Slllgql- �Ilhlillllt= Also, nearby on HWY 101 , but on the other side of the road is the SPACE SAVER SELF-STORAGE property. More see-through fencing, more bad signage, more flat-roof architecture and no effort expended to protect the public from viewing this mess. More UGLY for Mason County. I � . i% ' �R �� � I �' �:. t! '��T �.�=ATa - . _ ' t+b y';u_ �i' _ _ �! )�____. .4�:�.� � .. �----.. ,.-T i - -_ -x� ,. . �-_ _ � - _ -. �. �,I. �— --y � �� .° ` / 1 i a�� ,., --�._ lip, x 41 rv-� s - f 1 AL The HILLSIDE STORAGE building up above Franklin Street in Shelton is in a quiet location, is an all wood structure and appears to have an apartment for a resident manager (though it doesn't seem to be occupied at the time of this photo). This is probably the smallest storage facility in the county. S - 14 q t r C � x _ IR ut,5r `QSID ; - - 3Ba nzs-„e E ew! HEATED UNITS SHELTON MINI STORAGE on Johns Prairie Road appears to be decently cared for, but the signage, fencing and architecture are just "more of the same". No landscaping but plenty of overgrown weeds surrounding the perimeter of this place ------ and located in an area of much commercial zoning. -7 r ....xi.••► C �.t i The FREEDOM STORAGE, improperly using our national banner as its sign exhibits many more units of the flat-roof variety has perimeter overgrown with weeds. You've gotta love this architecture, again on Johns Prairie Road. It's UGLY I1 f r r„' 40 +y I ' 1 The landscaping doesn't hide this SENTRY MINI STORAGE property from public view. It's another eyesore and UGLY to see on W. Sentry Drive in Shelton. 7 . I This third SENTRY MINI STORAGE facility fits right in to its surroundings at the Bayshore cement manufacturing area out on State Route 3 going north from Shelton. Though there are some homes nearby, this is primarily a very UGLY commercial area, very offensive to one's eyes. i _ JI This is the self-storage business in Belfair that was J BAR D MINI STORAGE ------ now, renamed BELFAIR SELF-STORAGE. These units are built on a hillside one above another and the public eye is protected from seeing much more than the first building that houses a manager's apartment, a few "controlled environment" storage units inside the "A" area and the business's office. I 4` r= i C 3 B 2 I 7i S i loon YAM At Ny! The self-storage facilities that have been pictured in this saga are fairly representative of all of such businesses existing in Mason County. No effort was made to "cherry-pick" just the UGLY ones throughout this area. In conclusion, we are appealing to the power brokers on this Advisory Committee to please resist the influences to re-zone that Stout/Paradise property on McEwen Prairie from rural residential to rural commercial usage. We have a nice residential neighborhood out here where we invested our money in quiet rural lots and homes. Commercial activities will without doubt reduce our property values. What they plan to build on their acreage will be UGLY. We'd prefer to keep our area beautiful. Think about it. Would you want to have a self-storage facility located just down the street from your home in your neighborhood that is zoned residential?