Skip to main content
Loading…
This section is included in your selections.

A. General Requirements.

1. If the application of this Title would deny all reasonable use of a site, development may be allowed which is consistent with the general purposes of this Title and the public interest. Nothing in this Title is intended to preclude all reasonable use of property.

2. The provisions outlined in this Section shall only be used when application of this Title would deny all reasonable use of a site and a proposed project cannot meet the prescriptive standards outlined in this Title.

3. Reasonable use provisions shall apply to new construction, expansions, additions, replacements, and redevelopment projects.

4. The Reasonable Use Exception process shall not be used to create lots that are deemed unbuildable through application of the provisions outlined in this Title.

5. The proposal must comply with all provisions in Chapters 18E.70 PCC, Flood Hazard Area, and 18E.110 PCC, Erosion Hazard Areas.

B. Application Requirements. An application for a reasonable use exception shall include the following information:

1. A description of the areas of the site that contains a critical area, buffers, or within setbacks required under this Title;

2. A description of the amount of the site that is within setbacks required by other standards of the Zoning Code;

3. A description of the proposed development, including a site plan;

4. An analysis of the impact that the amount of development described in PCC 18E.20.050 B.3. above would have on the critical area(s);

5. An analysis of whether any other reasonable use with less impact on the critical area(s) and associated buffer(s) is possible;

6. A design of the proposal so that the amount of development proposed as reasonable use will have the least impact practicable on the critical area(s);

7. An analysis of the modifications needed to the standards of this Title to accommodate the proposed development;

8. A description of any modifications needed to the required front, side, and rear setbacks; building height; and buffer widths to provide for a reasonable use while providing greater protection to the critical area(s);

9. Such other information as the Department determines is reasonably necessary to evaluate the issue of reasonable use as it relates to the proposed development, such as but not limited to a wetland analysis report, mitigation plan, habitat evaluation study, and/or a buffer enhancement plan;

10. An analysis of cumulative impacts based upon best available science.

C. Review.

1. Public Hearing Required. The Department shall set a date for a public hearing before the Pierce County Hearing Examiner after all requests for additional information or plan correction, as set forth in PCC 18.60.020 C., have been satisfied. The public hearing shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.80 PCC, Development Regulations – General Provisions and Chapter 1.22 PCC.

2. Decision Criteria. The Hearing Examiner may approve a reasonable use exception if the Examiner determines all of the following criteria are met:

a. The proposed development is located on a lot that was created prior to March 1, 2005, and there is no other reasonable use or feasible alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical area(s) and/or associated buffers including phasing or project implementation, change in timing of activities, buffer averaging or reduction, setback variance, relocation of driveway, or placement of structure.

b. The development cannot be located outside the critical area and/or its associated buffer due to topographic constraints of the parcel or size and/or location of the parcel in relation to the limits of the critical area and/or its associated buffer and a building setback variance or road variance has been reviewed, analyzed, and rejected as a feasible alternative.

c. The proposed development does not pose a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the site, nor shall it damage nearby public or private property.

d. Any alteration of the critical area(s) shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property.

e. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in subdividing the property or adjusting a boundary line thereby creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this Title.

f. The proposal mitigates the impacts on the critical area(s) to the maximum extent possible, while still allowing reasonable use of the site.

g. The proposed activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed by the State or Federal government as endangered, threatened, sensitive, or documented priority species or priority habitats.

h. The proposed activities will not cause significant degradation of groundwater or surface water quality.

3. Additional Decision Criteria for Wetlands and Associated Buffers. In addition to the decision criteria listed in subsection 2. above, a reasonable use exception for wetlands and associated buffers shall also demonstrate that the proposed activity will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment to the wetland's functional characteristics and existing contours, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions.

4. Additional Decision Criteria for Critical Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas and Associated Buffers. In addition to the decision criteria listed in subsection 2. above, the Hearing Examiner may approve a reasonable use exception for critical fish and wildlife habitat areas and associated buffers if the Examiner determines that the proposal complies with the mitigation measures as set forth in PCC 18E.40.050.

5. Additional Decision Criteria for Volcanic Hazard Areas – Special Occupancy Structures or Covered Assemblies. In addition to the decision criteria listed in subsection 2. above, the Hearing Examiner may approve a reasonable use exception for special occupancy structures or covered assemblies located within volcanic hazard areas if the Examiner determines that the proposal complies with the following conditions:

a. The applicant has shown through submittal of a travel time data the amount of time that is anticipated for a lahar to reach the proposed project and evacuation route.

b. The applicant has demonstrated through submittal of a volcanic hazard emergency evacuation plan that:

(1) The proposed project is located directly adjacent to a safety zone (area completely located outside the limits of a Case I lahar) that is within walking distance in an amount of time less than the anticipated time that it takes a lahar to reach a given point (refer to PCC 18E.60.020 C). (Note: The time that it takes a lahar to reach a given point is calculated from either the source of the event to the given point, or from the source of the lahar warning signal to the given point, i.e., only the Puyallup and Carbon River drainages at this time have the Acoustic Flow Monitoring System. Other drainages, such as the Nisqually and White Rivers, have no warning systems. Persons in those areas would be reliant on other emergency notification systems, such as the National Weather Radio. At this time, no other warning system is planned for the Nisqually or White River drainages.) The time of walking distance shall be calculated based upon the amount of time necessary for physically or mentally challenged individuals to get from the proposed project to the safety zone.

(2) The estimated travel time analysis for the lahar to reach the evacuation route is greater than the estimated travel time for physically or mentally challenged individuals to have cleared the evacuation route and reached the safety zone.

(3) The evacuation route must be at a slope and surface to be considered handicapped accessible (e.g., slopes may not exceed 1' in 12' rise and surface must be an all weather, hard material) as determined by the County Building Official.

(4) The evacuation route has been determined not to contain any other potential natural hazards, such as landslide or flood hazards, to cause a blockage or destruction of the evacuation route during an event (i.e., seismic event triggers a landslide that results in the evacuation route becoming impassible).

(5) The evacuation route is not located adjacent to any highways or arterial road networks that may cause a life safety threat to evacuating pedestrians.

(6) The safety zone is an area with adequate ingress/egress (i.e., a direct exit once individuals reach this location).

c. If the system is available for the affected river drainage, the proposed structure(s) shall have an automated emergency warning system that is connected into the County's Automated Lahar Warning System.

d. Proposed public structure(s) shall have an adequate contingency plan that identifies where occupants and emergency response equipment and vehicles will be relocated in the event that a lahar damages the facility to an uninhabitable condition.

6. Additional Decision Criteria for Volcanic Hazard Areas – Fire Stations. The Hearing Examiner may approve a reasonable use exception for fire stations, located within volcanic hazard areas if the Examiner determines that the proposal complies with the following conditions:

a. The applicant has shown through submittal of travel time data (available from Pierce County) the amount of time anticipated for a lahar to reach the proposed project and evacuation route.

b. The applicant has demonstrated through submittal of a volcanic hazard emergency evacuation plan that:

(1) The proposed project has an identified safety zone (area completely outside the limits of a Case 1 lahar) that is within a distance that can be traveled in an amount of time less than the anticipated time that it takes a lahar to reach a given point (refer to PCC 18E.60.020 C.). (Note: The time that it takes a lahar to reach a given point is calculated from either the source of the event to the given point, or from the source of the lahar warning signal to the given point, i.e., only the Puyallup and Carbon River drainages at this time have the Acoustic Flow Monitoring System. Other drainages, such as the Nisqually and White Rivers, have no warning systems. Persons in those areas would be reliant on other emergency notification systems, such as the National Weather Radio. At this time, no other warning system is planned for the Nisqually or White River drainages).

(2) The evacuation route must be at a slope and surface to be considered accessible by the fire equipment and personnel as determined by the County Building Official.

(3) The evacuation route has been determined not to contain any other potential natural hazards, such as landslide, to cause a blockage or destruction of the evacuation route during an event (i.e., seismic event triggers a landslide that results in the evacuation route becoming impassible).

(4) The safety zone is an area with adequate ingress/egress (i.e., a direct exit once individuals reach this location).

(5) The estimated travel time analysis for the lahar to reach the evacuation route is greater than the estimated travel time to relocate emergency response equipment, vehicles, and personnel to a safety zone.

c. If the system is available for the affected river drainage, the proposed structure(s) shall have an automated emergency warning system that is connected into the County's Automated Lahar Warning System.

d. Proposed fire stations shall have an adequate contingency plan that identifies where occupants and emergency response equipment and vehicles will be relocated in the event that a lahar damages the facility to an uninhabitable condition. Proposed fire stations shall indicate their proposed back-up station or stations.

7. Additional Decision Criteria for Active Landslide Hazard Areas and Their Associated Buffers. In addition to the decision criteria listed in subsection 2. above, a reasonable use exception for active landslide hazard areas and their associated buffers shall also demonstrate the following:

a. Mitigation measures are provided for proposed driveways, shared accesses, roads or bridges that will ensure that these facilities will not be susceptible to damage from landslide-induced ground deformation or impact/coverage by landslide debris. Mitigation measures shall be designed for static and seismic loading condition in accordance with the most recent version of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual.

b. For developments that propose access through an active landslide area or its associated buffer, a secondary access route is provided when the development will contain more than 20 dwellings (existing or proposed dwellings). The secondary access route must, as a minimum, meet emergency vehicle standards and shall not be located in an active landslide hazard area or its associated buffer.

c. The proposed development shall not create the need for larger landslide hazard area buffers or setbacks on neighboring properties unless approved through a notarized written agreement with the affected property owners.

d. Any dwellings proposed as part of the development shall not be located within the active landslide hazard area or its associated buffer.

8. Examiner's Authority. The Examiner has the authority to approve an application for a reasonable use exception, approve with additional requirements above those specified in this Title, require modification of the proposal to comply with specified requirements or local conditions, or deny the application if it fails to comply with the requirements of this Title.

9. Required Written Findings and Determinations. A reasonable use exception may be approved by the Examiner only if all of the following findings can be made regarding the proposal and are supported by the record:

a. The granting of the proposal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare.

b. The granting of the proposal will not be injurious to the property, regulated critical area(s), or improvements adjacent to and in the vicinity of the proposal.

c. The proposal minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum practicable extent and provides mitigation to offset any impacts.

d. The granting of the proposal is consistent and compatible with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; community plan, if applicable; and the provisions of this Title.

(Ord. 2009-18s3 § 4 (part), 2009; Ord. 2006-103s § 2 (part), 2006; Ord. 2004-56s § 4 (part), 2004)