Council Legislation

Proposed Resolution No. R2023-41s

Title: A Resolution of the Pierce County Council Initiating Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update; Requesting the Planning and Public Works Department Conduct an Environmental Review and Evaluation of the Initiated Amendments as Part of the Periodic Update Process; Requesting the Department Forward their Review, Evaluation and Recommendation of the Initiated Amendments to the Affected Land Use Advisory Commissions and the Planning Commission for their Review and Recommendation; and Requesting that the Planning Commission Incorporate Its Recommendations on Initiated Amendments in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Proposal to be Forwarded to the County Council.

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Ryan Mello, Robyn Denson

Final votes

April 11, 2023
Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
James Halmo 4/10/23 10:41 AM Mr. Chairman and Members of the Pierce County Council: I wish to address proposed Community Plan Text Amendment 14, which would establish a policy authorizing Two-Family (Duplex) housing types in all Rural Residential designations in the Graham Community Plan area. History. I was unable to locate any background information about this particular amendment on the Council website. Thus, I will address some pertinent historical background. First, Duplexes are currently permitted only in two of Graham’s urban land use classifications -- MUD and MHR. They are permitted in the Rural -5 zone. However, that determination was not part of the Graham Community Plan enacted on March 1, 2007. It was pre-dated by the “Reserve-5” designation. That designation came under sharp scrutiny as being inconsistent with the State’s Growth Management Act. The State’s Hearings Board found that it set aside lands for future incorporation into a UGA, while not protecting the rural character of those lands. Thus, the County was forced to analyze and determine what other classifications were possible for those lands. However, the County did not do any analysis but simply changed the name from the Reserve 5 to Rural 5, while retaining the underling policies and regulations. During an appeal with the State’s Growth Management Hearings Board, the Board ruled that the change was sufficient to protect the lands themselves. It did not analyze the individual land parcels. It did not review the regulations. Duplexes had been considered an urban classification and thus retained for inclusion with a future movement of the UGA boundary line. Vestiges of that Reserve 5 are found currently in the Graham Plan but not as sharply as we see in the Gig Harbor Peninsula Community Plan document. That Plan had not been under appeal before the State’s Planning Board. Second, during the four-year long planning process for the Graham Plan, the Graham Planning Board heard sufficient comments from the public about what they did not want in the new Plan. Keeps things simple was a major message. Thus, the basic urban classifications were limited to just four, unlike the then Parkland-Spanaway-Midland- Community Plan with its dozen. Duplex were already a part of the County’s MUD and MHR zoning, and were retained therein. The MSF classification, which permitted duplexes, was totally deleted from the plan document and those lands incorporated into the MHR. Single Family (SF) was to be the key focus of urban residential areas, with only 4 residents permitted per acre. Policy-wise the area serves as a step-down land use classification between from the higher density found in the South Hill area and the rural lands. The Spanaway area may be considered the major focal point for duplexes in the County! It was not considered a popular land use by the Graham residents. The various rural residential area policies call for single family dwellings, not duplexes in the Graham area. True citizen ownership of their residences, and not ones for rental purposes, stood out to the Graham Planning Board members. Residential Densities. Every community plan has varying density requirements for their land use classifications. Duplexes are two family units and, thus, should be counted as two dwelling units in evaluating permitted densities. Is that true? I do not find any particular regulatory definition for duplexes which would confirm my assumption. We note that the Attached Dwelling Units (ADU) which are created within, or detached from single family dwellings are completely independent or semi-dwelling units. They do not count in rural areas as a ‘second’ family unit for purposes of calculating densities. However, the two-family housing bears a remarkable similarity to usage to the ADUs. Can be have some clarity on this? Open Spaces. In order, for example, to have two dwelling units on Rural Sensitive Resource lands (RSR) and the R-10 lands, 50% of the property must be designated as open space. Do the policies for duplexes indicate that they must abide by that same standard? Rural 20 Lands. During the Council’s Community Development Committee meeting, the issue was raised about duplexes on Rural 20 lands. I have heard separately from at least one developer that the classification should be abolished. However, it was established for a serous reason – protecting our citizenry during a lahar. We are on the cusp of the last major lahar from Mt. Rainer, some 500 years ago, with the Electron Mud Flow. Unfortunately, during the last major Comprehensive Plan Update, a butcher’s cleaver was taken to the Graham Community Plan’s land use policies. That included the Rural 20. Pierce County deleted three critical Standards which minimized the risks involved in locating development and large congregations of persons within a volcanic hazard area -- protection as can be found, for example, significantly within the Upper Nisqually Valley Community Plan document. The protection of territorial views and aesthetics policies also took a beating. We only have to look at the tragedy at Oso in Snohomish County when “so-called excessive permitted logging” resulted in a major landslide with loss of life. The R-20 is in place to ensure that a similar one would not occur in Pierce County’s Graham area. According to title 18A.15.020.E.2 “Rural and resource density incentives shall not be allowed for properties located in a Class II Volcanic Hazard Area.” That includes those R-20 areas in the Graham area. Permitting duplexes in the R-20 areas would appears to be similar to a ‘density incentive.’ The provision of duplexes in all rural residential areas is inconsistent with the Graham Community Plan. Thus, this Amendment should be removed from the proposed Ordinance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering my comments. James Halmo