HomeMy WebLinkAbout020711_ra01
Regular Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend' Washington 98368
360/379-4450 . 360/379-4451 Fax
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmentl
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
FROM:
Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)
Philip Morley, County Administrator
AI Scalf, Director of Community Development
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager
Joel Peterson, Associate Planner
TO:
DATE:
Agenda request for February 7. 2011
SUBJECT: Approval of planning agency recommendations and request to direct staff to write
an implementing ordinance-UDC Amendment Proposal MLA10-349: Expansion of
Nonconforming Public Purpose Facilities
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On October 4, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners requested a recommendation from the
Planning Commission for MLA10-349, a Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment proposal
which would change how the code regulates expansion of nonconforming Public Purpose
Facilities and also change impervious surface limits for these facilities.
The Department of Community Development and the Planning Commission (collectively, the
"Planning Agency") reviewed the proposal and concurs upon a recommendation for approval of
the proposed amendment to the UDC.
ANALYSIS:
The application came before the Planning Commission on. November 17, 2010 with a
presentation by staff of the Department of Community Development (DCD). The public comment
period was open from November 17, 2010 through December 15, 2010.
A public hearing was held on December 1, 2010, and the Planning Commission heard testimony
on the proposal. .
On January 5, 2011, a motion to recommend changes to the Jefferson County Code as
proposed in the application was approved with a vote of six (6) in favor, and one (1) opposed.
Additionally, the Planning Commission adds a recommendation that, at the appropriate time, this
issue be placed on the 7 -year periodic review docket for the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan. At that time, land use and zoning considerations for Public Purpose Facilities could be
integrated with a broader update of the ComprehensIve Plan and implementing regulations so
they conform to current regulations.
The following documents are attached to this agenda item:
. Planning Commission Recommendation Report
. StqffReport and Recommendationfor MLAlO-349: A UDC Amendment Proposal to Change Standardsfor
Expansion of Nonconforming Public Pwpose Fadlities, November 19,2010, Department of Community
Development
. Additional Information Responding to Planning Commission Questions of 12-01-10 Regular Meeting,
Final Copy, December 15,2010, Department of Community Development
. Report on Public Comments relating to Jefferson County Library's UDC text amendment application
MLA1 0-349 for consideration in a final SEP A tlveshoid determination. December 15, 20 I 0, Department
of Community Development
. Final Determination of Non -Significance and Lead Agency Status-DCD
. Ordinance No. 1-0208-99: In the matter of amending Emergency Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 to allow the
siting of Public Purpose Facilities including Police Stations upon alllantis within unincorporated
Jefferson County and exempting Public Purpose Facilities from the maximum building Cap contained in
Sections 8. 9. 10 & 11 of this Ordinance
ALTERNATIVES: The BoCC may accept the recommendation of the Planning Agency or may
choose to hold their own public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT/COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS: There Is no fiscal impact since Staff time to
process. the request is billed to the applicant
RECOMMENDATION:
1) DCD recommends a BoCC motion to accept the recommendations of the Planning Agency to
approve text changes to the Jefferson County Code as proposed in the application.
2) DCD recommends the BoCC makes a motion directing staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting
the approved code changes.
(
Page 2
.
.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4450
To:
From:
Date:
Board of County Commissioners
Planning Commission
Janumy 5, 2011
Recommendation Report for MLAI0-349, DOC Amendment Proposal: Expansion of
Nonconforming Public Purpose Facilities and Changing Impervious Surface
Requirements for these Facilities
-
Subject:
Recommendation for MLAlo-349:
On October 4, 20 I 0, the Board of County Commissioners requested a recommendation from the Planning
Commission for MLA I 0-349, a Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment proposal which would
change how the code regulates expansion of nun conforming Public Purpose Facilities and also change
impervious surface limits for these facilities.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and recommends approval of the propused amendment
to the DOC. Additionally, the Planning Commission adds a recommendation that, at the appropriate
time, this issue be placed on the 7-year periodic review docket for the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan. At that time, land use and zoning considerations for Public Purpose Facilities CQuld be integrated
with a broader update of the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations so they conform to
current regulations.
Planning Commission Proceedings for Amendment Proposal:
The application came before the Planning Commission on November 17,2010 with a presentation by
staff of the Department of Community Development (DCD). The public cumment period opened the
same day.
A public hearing was held on December 1,2010, and the Planning (;ommission heard testimony on the
proposal. The public comment period remained open until December 14, 2010.
Deliberation on the proposal was scheduled at the regular meeting December 15, 2010. The issues were
reviewed. No action was taken as a quorum was not achieved at that meeting. Deliberation proceeded in
the Janumy S, 2011 regular meeting and the application was approved with a vote of six (6) in favor, and
one (I) opposed.
Janumy 5, 2011
Page 2 of 5
FIndings and Cone1uslons:
In our deliberations, the Planning Commission used Growth Management Indicators found at JCC
18.45.080 and JCC 18.45.050, as well as consideration of the official record developed in our review
process.' Comments highlighting the Planning Commission fmdings and conclusions are included
herein.
Additionally, this recommendation report incorporates by reference our Planning Commission meeting
minutes, audio recordinr and public comments from meetings held November 17th, 2010; December
1st, 2010; December IS ,2010; and January 5, 2011; during which information was presented,
deliberations took place and our recommendations were formulated.
A. JCC 18,4S,080(1)(b) "Required FIndings-Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning
commission shall develop flruDngs and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth
management Indicators setforih inJCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vli). os well os thefollowlng":
Have dlere been cllanges In cJrc/l1tlSlances rela/2tl to dIe proposal since the adopdon of dIe Camp
Plan?
We believe the original plans should not have made public purpose facUities nonconforming
by not providing an overlay district, a zoning category, or to allow them outright in residential
areas.
Changes in population and use offacilities have created a need to expand these facilities. For
example, the use of the Jefferson County Public Libnuy has increased significantly.
Are the Camp Plan llSSllmptlons stUJ valid with respect to dIe proposal?
The assumptions of the Comprehensive Plan are still valid, and we now have a fully GMA-
compliant IrondaleIPort Hadlock Urban Growth Area. However, in our understanding, further
development of public use facilities is not adequately addressed in the way the
Comprehensive Plan aud Development Regulations are currently written.
Does dw proposal reflect Clment wldeJy-heid vallles of Jefferson County resldents?
Yes. The importance of public purpose facilities is a widely-held value of Jefferson County
residents.
B. JCC18.4S.0S0 (4)(b) "Criteria Governing Pltmnlng Commission Assessment. The planning
commission's periodic "assessment and recommendation shall be bosed upon, but shall not be limited to, an
IlUfUiry into the following growth management Indicators: ..
Whether growth and tkvelopment as envlsJoned In dIe Comprellenslve Plan Is occu"lngfoster or
slower than 1lIlIkJpa/2tl, or Is faYlng to materiolJze;
Overall, county growth is currently at a slower rate than anticipated. This is largely due to the
economic recession. However, use of certain facilities like the public library has greatly
increased.
Whed,er the capacity o/the county to provide adequate servkes has dlmlnfshed or Increased;
Because of the economic recession, the capacity of Jefferson County to provide services is
diminiShed.
: '. Janumy 5, 2011
Page 3 of5
Wllether suffkJent urban land Is desIgnated and zoned to meet projected denumd and need;
The IrondalelPort Hadlock Urban Growth Area designates and zones sufficient land to meet
the projected need, but it is currently held to rural densities and intensities of use until the
sewer utility is available.
Wlu!IIIer any ofllle ossumptJons upon wlllell tlJe plan Is bosed are no longer found to be vaJJd;
Currently, the plan and implementing regulations do not have a planned land use district for
conforming Public Purpose Facilities.
WfletJJer cflonges In county-wflk attltIldes necessfJate amendments to Ole goals of tile plon and tile
bosle values embodied wf1/lln tlJe Comprellenslve Plan VIsion Stotement;
No. Changes are not necessary at this time.
WfletJler cllanges In cfrcumstances dfctote a need for amendments;
Yes. An increase in demand for public facilities has not been accommodated in the current
development code.
WfletJJer Inconsfstencles exist between tlJe Comprehensive Plon and tile Growdl Management Act or
Ole ComprellenSlve Plan and IlIe Caunty-wlde Plonnlng Polley for Jefferson County.
Yes. An inconsistency exists between I) policy and planning statements regarding the
importance of public purpose facilities to meet public needs, and 2) the challenges of siting
and expanding those facilities. Zoning for public purpose facilities is required.
C. Additional Findings:
t. Attorney General's Advisory Memorandum ou Regulatory Taking, December 2006 (RCW
36.70A.370(2).
As instructed by RCW 36.70A.370(2), the Planning Commission considered the following
questions regarding the proposed amendment:
Does tile reguloJion or action resaft In a penmment or temporary phys1ca/ occupt1Jlon ofptlvote properly?
Does tlJe regufoJJon 0' action deprive ths owner of all economlealJy _Ie uses of tile property?
Does tile ,egulatlon or action deny 0' substantlafly dJmJnJaIl ajiuuJamental attrlbute ofpmote propenyl
Does the regufoJJon 0' action reqafre a properly owner to dedJcoIe a ponton of property 0' to grunt an
eoaement?
Does the,egu/attny octlon IumJ a serere lmpoct on the I_ner'. ecolUJmlc lnIi!rest?
All answers to the above inquiries are "No"; the Planning Commission does not see any
conflicts from this proposal with issues of regulatory takings.
2. In addition to tile guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Polleles, the
Jefferson County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else Is In the record with respect
to this proposal?
Staff reports, public comments, and historical data provide information to confirm the PC
recommendation. Our decision and recommendation is based on the record.
3. Does the declslon we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
.; "'.. January 5, 2011
Page 4 of5
Yes. The decision, as far as we know, satisfies legal criteria.
4. Is the decision we are about to make limited to tbe specific request at band?
Yes. The decision and our recommendation address nonconfonning public purpose
facilities countywide.
Concluding Statement:
After much discussion, and with the purpose of expediency, we have decided to recommend approval of
this application, as submitted. The motion to this effect was passed by a quorum of the Planning
Commission with a vote of six in favor, one opposed, and no abstentions.
We are not delighted with the way public purpose facility land use and development regulation is
currently implemented. The circumstances upon which we deliberated are not new. In our review of the
histo1Y of siting public purpose facilities in Jefferson County, including Ordinance No. 1-0208-99,2 we
believe it would be favorable to develop a more comprehensive solution that minimizes nonconfonning
situations. Specifically, public facilities that were in existence prior to passage of the Growth
Management Act and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan should not have been zoned RR 1:5.
Therefore, the Planning Commission adds a reconunendation to the Board that this issue be docketed for
the upcoming periodic assessment of the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations.
~~I
Jefferson County Planning Commission
/- <./ - t'/
-
Date
1 In the development oflhis recommendation, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the following
infonnation sources brought forward by planning staff, the public and in our own iavestigation:
· Applicationfor Suggested Comprehensive P/on/UDe AmendmenJ, Septemberl6. 2010, MLAIO-349
. StqfflWport and IWcommendatlonfor MLAIO-349: A UDC AmendmenJ Proposal to Change Standards
for Erpanslon of Nonconforming Public Purpose Facililles, November 19,2010, Department of
Community Development
. AddiJlonaI Information Responding to Plmming Commission Questions of I 2-0 1-10 IWguJar Meeting,
Final Copy, December 15, 2010, D~"",llm:ul ofCommllDity Development
· Report on Public Comments relating to Jefferson CounJy Library's UDC text amendmenJ application
MLAI0-349 for consideration in afinal SEPA threshold determination. December 15, 2010,
Department of Community Development
· Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan elements: Land Use and RmaI (Ch. 3); Essential Public Facilities
(Cb. 9); Capital Facilities (Ch. 12), iacludiag Level of Service Standards for Public Purpose Facilities.
· Pertinent sections ofTitle 18, Jefferson County Code: Land Use Districts (18.15); Perfonnance and Use-
Specific Standards (18.20); Development Standards (18.30); Pennit Application and Review
ProceduresISEPA Implementatiou (18.40)
. Ordinance No. 1-0208-99: In the matier of amending Emergency Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 to allow
the siting of Public Purpose Faci/llles Inciuding Pollee Stations upon ail/antis within unincorporated
Jefferson CounJy and exempting Public Purpose F acil/Jies from the maximum building Cop contained
in Sections 8, 9, 10 & II of this Ordinance
"' .. '$' JIUIIIlI1Y S,2011
PageS ofS
· Chapter 36.70A RCW, Gruwth Management-Planning by SeleeJed C(J7J1I//ea and Cities (Grow1h
Management Act)
· Deflnitions of Public Purpose FaclIilies in Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Code, and other
jurisdictions .
· Review ofplanJllng concepts for nonconforming uses and S1rul:tures; floating zones; perfonnam;e
standards vs. prescriptive standards
· Conslderatlon of all public "",w"""ll<
2 Ordlnance No. 1.0208-99 addresses these particular issues of siting, expanding and remodeling Public Purpose
FaclIiIies. It wnends the Emergency InIerim Controls (EICO) Ordinaru:e No. ~828-98, originally adopted as an
inJplementatlon step for the 1998 Comprehell1live Plan. This amending ordinam:e was particularly pertinent to our
discussion. and includes the text
. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, that the mco Use Table is amended to pennit the
siting, expansion and remodeling ofPubUc Purpose FaciIilies, inciuding Fire and Police Stations
upon aIliands within unincorporated Jefferson County through the Conditional Use process and he
it tbrther ordained that these titciIlties shaJl not be subject to the nmxImum building cap size
contained in Sections 8, 9, 10 & II of the EICO."
,
~
.~~~
'1~G~
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend, Washington 98368
3601379-4450 . 360/379-4451 Fax
www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopment
Staff Report and Recommendation for MLA10-349: A UDC Amendment
Proposal to Change Standards for Expansion of Nonconforming Public
Purpose Facilities
To:
From:
Date:
Jefferson County Planning Commission, and Interested Parties
Joel M. Peterson, Associate Planner
November 19, 2010
BackarQund
On September 20,2010, the Jefferson County Ubrery, Port Hadlock, made application to the Department of
Community Development for en amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC), Jefferson County Code
(JCC) TItle 18. The eppllcatlon has been recorded as MLA10-349. The Boerd of County Commissioners
directed the planning egency to process the request on October 4, 2010, placing the proposed emendment
on the Planning Commission's 2010 work plan.
The Jefferson County Ubrary District proposes two amendments: 1) to amend building cap limitations defined in
JCC 18.20.260 (3)(c) so that public purpose facilities are excluded and 2), to amend JCC 18.30.060, Table 6-1
In the Rural Residential 1 :5 zoning designations with a new footnote 'Impervious surfaca requirements do not
apply to publIc purpose facilities". The amendments are Intended to provide publIc purpose facilities with
additional flexibility In meeting community needs if those facllltles cannot meet current development regulations.
Section 18.20.280 (3)(c) NonconformIng Uses and Structures, specifies that the structural portion of a
nonconforming use cannot Increase by more than 3.999 square feet
This proposel for a UDC text amendment is not sile-speclfic and effects a countywide change and Is reviewed
by DCD In that context.
To address this scope of review, the staff analysis includes Investigation In the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code. This report and Ita attachments analyze the
definition of public purpose facilities and applicability to this proposal, application of current and proposed
development standards to nonconforming uses and structures, current capital facilities planning and Level of
Service standards for public purpose facilities, and Implications for chenges to impervious surfaca standards.
Staff findings and recommendations are included in this report and i1s attachments.
,
Staff Report and Recommendation
ML.A10-349
11/1912010
Discussion
The application review process Integrates the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the
Growth Management Act (GMA) so as to conduct environmental analysis concurrently and Integrally with planning
and decision making under GMA. This application review included the examination of public purpose facilities
throughout Jefferson County, defining which type of public facilities the amendment is applicable to, an examination
of the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprahensive Plan regarding public facilities, a review of the
applicability of the proposal to countywide development standards, a review of types of nonconformities, and Issues
related to nonconforming uses and structures.
Public purposs facilities meet Important community needs. The State Growth Management Act addresses public
facilities and services 1 and req uires counties to adequately plan for these facliities through Inventory, forecast of
future needs and establishment of minimum service levels. 2
Nonconformity results when a lawfully established use or structure no longer fully complies with regulations after
they have been updated.3 Jefferson County has generally taken a liberal approach toward the nonconformities of
legaliy established uses and structuras, as compared to some Jurisdictions. New siting and development of public
purpose facilities would be permitted under the current development regulations; hence, would be conforming.
The ability of public purpose facilities to el!PBnd and/or intensification ara framed by zoning and land use policy of
the Comprehensive Plan and its implementation through standards identified in development regulations. From a
planning perspective, nonconformities are not perpetual features, as they eventually phase out through
redevelopment under updated standards. However, some types of non conformities can be distinguished benign,
not Impactful, and can even be part of the character of a community.'
In the application of these two principles to this proposal-requiring a level of service of the public facilities
concurrent with the level of development and requiring standards for how development Is carried out-a public
purpose facility appeara to be both "the developmenf to which standards are applied, and the service that meets the
needs of developing community in general. Though we are careful to examine this proposal with its countywide
applicability, it is helpful to use the Jefferson County Library, the sponsor of the amendment proposal, as an
example and may be informative to also highlight unique c1rcumstancas of this site.
1 36.70A.020 Planning Goals. (12): Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development Is available for occupancy and
use without decreasing current service levels below locally estabfished minimum atandards.
2 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans-Mandatory elementa. (3) A capital facility plan element consisting of: (a) An Inventory of
existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of
the future needs for such capital faclUties; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital faclUties; (d) at
least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projectad funding capacities and clearly Identifies sources of
public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element If probable funding falls short of
meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital faclUties plan element, and financing plan within the
capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent Park and recreation faclUties shall be Included In the capital
facilities plan element
· Note: This report does not address substandard lots (18.35 JCC), sometimes termed nonconforming lots. The
applicability of the code under examination Is to existing uses and structures.
4 V. Gall Easley, FAlCP, and David A. Therlaque. 2009. Dletingulshlng Between Detrimental and Benign Nonconformities. Zoning
Pra.ct!~lssue 11.09, American Plannlng~ocIation.
pags 2
,
Staff Report and Recommendation
MLA1o-349
11/1912010
Analvsis
The following referencas represent existing planning poncy that was reviewed for this anaiysls. The legislative body of the
County has discretion to implement State and local laws within the framework of this and other planning policy, including
distinguishing between categories of use and the degree of expansion of nonconforming usee and structures.
Growth Management Act
GMA Planning Goal 12 addresses providing public facilities and servicas that ere adequate to serve the development at
the time of occupancy, and also addressee providing public facilities and services to serve the proposed use at the level of
servlca sat by the community.
36.70A.020: Planning Goals
(12): Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development
shall be adequate to serve the development. at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without
decreasing current servica levels below locally established minimum standards.
36.70A030: Definitions.
(12) "Public Facilities" Include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signels,
domestic water systems, storm end sanitary sewer systems, perks and recreational facilities, and schools.
(13) "Public Services" include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, pubnc heslth, education, recreation,
environmental protection, and other govemmentel services.
36.70A070 Comprehensive Plens-Mandetory Elements.
(1) A land use elemanLVVherever possible, the land use element should consider utilizing urban planning epproaches
that promote physical activity....
36. 70A 110 Comprehensive Plans-Urban Growth Areas.
(2) Based upon the growth management population projectlon...As part of this planning process, each City within the
county must Include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad renge of needs and uses that will accompany the
projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, Institutional, commercial, service, retail, and
other non-residential usee.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The Countywide Planning Policy establishes a policy framework to guide the development of the Comprehensive Plan"
and development regulations, while ensurtng locally-determined consistency with the provisions of the Growth
Manegement Act. This City/County Joint policy document addresses general planning Issues effecting orderly
development and provision of services at appropriate levels, Including public facilities. Policy #4 addresses in detail the
policy on siting essential public facilities of a county or statewide significance. These broed policies ere further distilled
through the Comprehensive Plan toward acceselble Goals end Policies, specific ones cited below. followed by the
Implemantlng regulations.
"Individual elements of the Comprehensive Plan describe goals and policies that have bean developed to provide clear
policy direction for land use decision-making In the Future. Each element also Includes strategies that implement the
goals and poncies. The Unified Development Code provides detailed regulations for Implementation of these goals and
policies." (Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan p. 1-3)6
" The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan formulatad under the State Growth Management Ad was first adopted August 28,
1998, and given a "periodic update" In 2004. It is scheduled for another "periodic updste" with publication In 2014.
6 The Unified Development Code, or UDC, Is found as TItle 18 In the Jefferson County Code (JCC). It was enaded in 2001 and
underwent an omnibus update in 2006. It is updated as needed end malnts/ns concurrency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Paga 3
Staff Report and Recommendation
MLA10-349
11/1912010
Relationshlo Connectina Comorehenslve Plan to Develooment Reaulations
"Jefferson County's strategy for land use regulation wiD be executed through Implementation and amendment of the Unified
Development Code In meeting the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: (land Use and Regulation Strategy,
Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-70)
Chapter 18.30 of the UDC-Deveiopment Standards, clearly Identifies its purpose "to establish provisions to set orIlerla
eseocIaled with the development and redevelopment of land to achleve the goals and policies of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan" and to 'fulffll the objectives of the comprehensive planning policies of Jefferson County in promoting
health, sefety and welfare of the public". The development standards In the UDC are "designed to effect the goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan, and apply to all development and land use activities subjeclto this code and within aU land use
districts except as may be specified..." (18.30.010 fJt seq.)
Comorehenslve Plan References Aoollcable to this Evaluation
Essential Public Facilitias, Chapter 9 and Capital FacIlities, Chapter 12:
PubUc Facilities are defined by the Comprehensive Plan as "Any usa of land, whether publicly or prlvetaly owned, for
transportation, utilities, or communications, or for the benefit of the general pubUc, Inciudlng streets, roads, highways, sidewalks,
storm and sanllary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, schools, libraries, fire and police stations, municipal and
county bulldlngs, powarhouses and cemeteries (see 38.7OA.030 RCW)"7 Public Facilities inciude Public Purpose lands and
Essential Public Facilities as detaDed In Table 9-1, Distinguishing PubOc Purpose Lands from Essential Public Faci1ities. This
amendment will apply to all Public Purpose Facilities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and as defined in JCC 18.10.180
as "lands end faciilti.es needed to provide the full range of servicas to the public provided by govemmant, substantially funded by
govemment. contracted for by government, or provided by prlvsta entities to meet public service obligations."
In addition, Comprehensive Plan Chapter 12-CapitaI Facillti~tegorizes a subset of public facilities other than Essential
Public Facilities as seen in Table 1.
Land Use and Rural Bern ent Goals end Policies:
LNP 1.4
LNP 1.5
LNG 8.0
LNP 8.5.2
LNG 18.0
LNP 16.1
LNP 16.3
LNP 16.5
Maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan when amending the Unified Development Code.
Encourage the use of Innovative site planning and design tachnlques.
Support the continued existence and economic viabillly of legally astabiished land uses which become
nonconforinlng as a resull of Comprehensive Plan adoption.
A structure housing a legal existing nonconforming use may be enlarged and/or expended If II meets all
eppllcabla bulk, dimensional and lot coverage requirements for the zoning district In which the use Is located.
Identify and designate lands for both public purposes and essential public facilities.
Assess for designation public purpose lands to provide a range of services to the public and serve as slles for
some pUblic faclllties.
Ensure that designated public purpose lands are appropriate to the level of service standards for the
designated land use denslly.
Encourage through development standards the siting of public facilities in a manner unobtrusive to the
Immediata environment These atendards should address buffers, screening, lighting, noise, drainage, traffic.
Impact and lot coverage.
7 Definition is taken from the Glossary, p. G-12, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, citing the statute:
36.70A030 RCW .
(12) .Publlc facilities" include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systams. traffic signals. domestic
water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.
(13) "Public services" Include fire protection and suppresslon, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation,
environmental protection, and other governmental services.
Page 4
Staff Report end Recommendation
MLA10-349
11/1912010
Table 1. Public Facilities In County Comll'rehenslve Plan Chaater 12 Joel Petetsol1 I
Caellal Facilities Chanter 12 _....olComm
CategolY A Public 11117/2010
Facilities
Countv-owned Road Facilities
Category B Public
Facllltl-
Countv 0Wnad Facilities
Animal Control Shaltar
Communftv Centers I
ColTllcllons Inmate Facilities
Cmmtv Sharlff Facilities
Countv Jusllce FacIIltIes
Counlv Genaral Admlnlslrallve FaclJ1tlas
~.nllntv Maintenance Shon FacllitIas
Re%nal Parks
Communllv Parks
NaIOhborflood Parks
Trails I
Carnnnrounds
SoUd Waste Garbaae
Solid Weste R"""cIa
Stormwalar ManAOarnant Fecllltlas
Water s.stem Facll1tlas
SewerS.stams
Categary C Public
FacUltlas
Outside of Countv OWnarshln
Roads I
Sanlt"'" Sewer
Water
A1rnort I
Flra and Em-en"" Medical SVcs.
FIra Oistrlcll Chlmacum\
FIra DIslrlcl2 Qullcene\
Fire DIstrlcl 3 !Port Ludlow'
FIra DIslrlcl4 rBrlnnon\
Fire Dlalrlcl5 Gerdlnerl
FIra DIstrlcl6 Ca~ Gee"',,'
Flra Dlalrlcl 7 Clearwate"
Port Townsend Fire """l
Hosnllal Jefferson Genaral Hosnllal
Ubrarv J.C. Rural lIbrar\I Dlslrlcl1
SohooI Dlslrlcl Facllitlas
Brlnnon School Dlalrlcl46
Chlmacum School DIstrlcl49
Port Townsend SohooI DlstrlclSO
QueetslClearwaler School Dlstrlcl20
Qullcene School Dlalrlcl46
QulUawte School Dlstrlcl402
l"""u1m School DrIalrlcl323
Jefferson Tranalt I
I I
Page 5
,
Staff Report and Recommendation
MLA10-349
11/1912010
Urban Growth Area Element, Chapter 2, Goals end Policies:
Additional guidance for the comprehensive plan scheme to site public facilities can be found In the Urban Growth Area
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. In the context of this planning district, the term 'public facilities' is defined to Inciude
"public park and open space areas, the Library and Chlmacum Creek Elementary School, the Jefferson County Sheriff's
Office and Jail, Jefferson County Public Worka department Melntenance Yard, and the PUD's Sparling Well facility along
Rhody Drive and the Klvley Well In Port Hadlock." (Comprehensive Plan, p.2-12)
UGA-G1.1 Provide for the orderly developmant of urban land uses in urban growth arees consistent with the
provision of adequate and feasible urban levels of public facilities and services.
UGA-P1.4 Encourage growth In the Irondele & Port Hadlock UGA commensurate with the appropriate level of urban
publiC facility and servlca capacities consistent with adopted plans and Interlacel agreements. (a)
Manage development and redevelopment through revisions to the Unified Development Code (UDC) and
the application of UGA land Ul19 designations and zoning ciasslficetlons that can be IlI)plemented
consistent with the adopted levels of sarvlca for urban publiC facilities and services.
UGA-P1.5 Encourage growth In UGAs that will be served by a combination of both exiatlng urban publiC faclJitles and
services and any additional needed urban public facilities and services that are provided by either public
or private sources. Development wlthln the unincorporated UGA shell be consistent with the densities
. and Intensities of use, bulk and dimension, and other development standards found within this element
and the adopted urban public facilities levels of servlca.
Jefferson County Development Regulations
Jefferson County Code Tit/e 18- Unified Development Code
JCC 18.10.160 "P" Definitions:
"Public facilities (and services)" meensfacllltles which serve the general public inciudlng atreets, roads, ferries, sldewalka,
streat and road lighting systems, trafflc signals, community water systems, community sewage treatment systems, storm
sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, libraries, fire and police stations, emergency medical services, muniCipal
and county buildings, powerhouses, cameterles and public schools (see RCW 36.70A.030).
Table 3-1, Allowable and Prohibited Uses at, 18.15.040 JCC, specifies ellowable and prohibited use specifications within
broad land use categories. The use regulations establish standard proceduree for all new development "Grandfathered"
uses and structures that wera developed under older standards are addressed In 18.20.260, Nonconforming Uses and
Structures. JCC 18.30.050 Table &,1 outlines density, dimension and open-spaca development stendards within rural
zoning designations. A cleen-copy of JCC 18.20.060 and Table &,1 showing the proposed changes Is Included In this
report In Attachment 2.
Conclusion
Staff FIndings
1) The application to amend the UDC is processed as a Type V permit (Legislative Enactment) under the rules
of 18.45.090 JCC, Amendments to GMA Implementing regulations. This application is determined to be
consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan end Land Use Map.
2) The application by Jefferson County Library for a UDC text amendment was determined to be complete.
Attachment 1ls the Applicant's subm ItlaI with suggested text amendments in line-infline-out format.
3) Review of the Applicant's analysis would Indicate there is good cause to revise JCC 18.20.060 and
18.30.050 because of the Important role public purpose facilities serve in our communities.
Page 6
,
Staff Report end Recommendation
MLA10-349
11/19/2010
4) All proposals for expansion of nonconforming use or structure will be reviewed under JCC Title 18 and will
need to meet the standards within 18.30.020 General Development Standards. This includes applying site-
specific solutions to mitigate any stormwater runoff issues that may be identified at the site.
5) A site-specific application of this proposed code requires review and permitting from Jefferson County
Departments of Community Development, Public Works and Environmental Health. The Type II and Typa III
conditional use permit application frameworks provide opportunity to address issues beyond the
development regulations and to provide opportunity for further review of project-specific issues and
application of mitigating conditions, if necessary.
6) Because the proposal Is nohite-specific, the proposed amendment has been reviewed under SEPA as a
"non-project action" rNAC 197-11-704). The Department of Community Development is the appropriate
Lead Agency. Proposed protection standards are deemed adequate to ensure non-significant
environmental impact. A SEPA determination will be Issued after the cOmment period and prior to final
action by the Board. .
7) Background documentation of past UDC amendments was reviewed regarding the sections now proposed
for amendment and no additional issues for consideration were identified.
8) The Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing and consider public comments on this issue
before making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with RCW
36.70.850 and JCC 18.45.090(3). That hearing has been scheduled for December 1, 2010
9) Notice of the public hearing is provided via a legal notice published on November 17, 2010, in the official
newspaper of record, the Jefferson County-Port Townsend Leader, in accordance with JCC 18.45.090(2)(b)
. and includes a public comment period which will close on December 14, 2010.
10) JCC 18.45.080 Growth Management Indicators, Required Findings
(i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it Is located have
substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: The proposal Is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
(II) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Is based are no longer
valid, or whether new Information Is available which was not considered during the adoption process or
any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: The proposed change to the
development regulations are in harmony with the goals and policies of the Comprehanslve Plan.
Current and future needs for pUblic purpose facilities to expand remain conslstant with Plan policies.
(III) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County: The Importance of public purpose facilities to meet public needs Is reflected In the community
input that formed the Countywide Planning Policy and Comprehensive Plan documents. There is no
Indlcatlon that these values have changed. Since the national economic recession, the County Is more
Incilned to encourage greater flexibility for developmant consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 7
.
.
Staff Report and Recommendation
MLA1O-349
11/1912010
peDartment of Community DeveloDment Recommendation
DCD staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to JCC 18.20.260 (3)(c) as presented in line-inlline-
out format of Attachment 1 and In c1ean-copy format of Attachment 2.
Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this request for December 1, 2010.
which shall initiate a fourteen (14) day comment pertod. At the end of the comment period, the Planning
Commission may reconvene to raview commants and begin deliberation on the propossl.
During deliberation, the Planning Commission will enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in"accordanca with
and In consideration ofth~ required Growth Management Indicators found atJCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i). JCC
18.45.080(1)(b), and JCC 18.45.090(3). The Planning Commission will than develop and present a
recommendation to the BoCC, which, in concert with the DCD staff recommendation, comprises the official
recommendation from the Planning Agency.
Attachmenta:
1. APplicanfs raport and suggested amended text IIne-inlline-out.
2. Cleen-copy text of JCC 18.20.060 and Table 3-1,18.30.050, with recommended
changes.
Page 8
,
Attachment 1. Applicant's report and suggested amended text Ilne-inl1ine-oul
Staff Report and Recommendation
MLA10-349
11/1912010
Page 9
,
Staff Report and Recommendation
MLA1()"349
11/1912010
Attachment 2. Clean-copy text of JCC 18.20.060 and Table 3-1, JCC 16.30.060,
WIth recommended changes completed in gray shaded areas.
18.20.260 Nonconforming uses and structures.
A legal nonconforming use or structure is one that conformed to all applicable codes in effect on the date of its
creation, but no longer complies due to subsequent changes in the code. Nonconformity is different than and is not
to be confused with illegality (see the definitions of "nonconforming," "nonconforming use," and "illegal use" in
Chapter 18.10 JCC). Legal nonconforming uses and structures are commonly referred to as "grandfathered."
(1) Nonconforming uses of land are uses which currently exist and were lawfully esteblished prior to the enactment
of this code. Legally established uses may continue as long as they remain otherwise lawful, provided:
(a) The nonconforming use of land is not discontinued or abandoned for a period more than two years. A
property owner may be allowed three years If they demonstrate a bona fide intention to sell or lease the
property. For purposes of calculating this time period, a use is discontinued or abandoned upon the
occurrence of the first of any of the following events:
(i) On the date when the land was physically vacated;
(Ii) On the date the use ceases to be actively involved In the sale of merchandise or the provision of
services; or
011) On the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the nonconforming use has
occupied the land.
(b) A legal existing nonconforming use can be expanded up to 10 percent subject to a Type I permit approval
process.
(c) A nonCOnforming use may be expended beyond 10 percent through the approval of a Type II C(d)
discretionary conditional use permit process. In addition to meeting the criteria set forth through the
conditional use permit process, the department ahall determina the expension proposel has met the
following:
(I) The proposed aree for expansion is contiguous to the nonconforming use;
01) The area for expansion of the use complies with all applicable bulk and dimensional standards,
performance provisions. and envlronmentel and shoreline CNAC 173-27-080) regulations;
(iii) The area for expansion shall not Increase the land area devoted to the nonconforming use by more
then 100 percent of that usa at the effective date of the nonconformance;
(iv) The expansion shall not be granted If it would result in a significant increase in the intensity of the
use of the nonconformity (e.g., hours of operation, traffic).
(d) A nonconforming use of land may be changed to another nonconforming use; provided, that the proposed
use is equally or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use.. Such change shall not
be more intensive or have greater impacts than the existing use. The proposed change shall be required to
undergo a Type III conditional use approval process. If the proposal encompasses structural or use
expansion, refer to subsections (2) and (3) of this section.
(2) Nonconforming structures are those that are out of compliance with the development standards set forth
through this code or other applicable federal, stete or local regulation.
(a) Any iegally established nonconforming structure is permitted to remain In the form and location in which it
exlsted on the effective date of the nonconformance.
(b) Nonconforming structures may be structurally altered or enlarged only If all applicable environm entel and
development stendards are met
(c) Repairs to existing nonconforming structures including ordinary maintenance or replacement of walls,
flXlures, or plumbing shall be permissible so long as the exterior dimensions of the structure are not
increased.
(d) Nonconforming structures under the Jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program shall be subject to the
nonconforming provisions stipulated through WAC 173-27-080.
(e) A legal existing nonconforming structure damaged or destroyed by fire, earthquake, explosion, wind, flood,
or other calamity may be completely restored or reconstructed. A structure shall be considered destroyed for
purposes of this section If the restoration coste exceed 75 percent of the assessed vaiue of record when the
Page 10
,
Staff Report and Recommendation
MLA10-349
11/1912010
damage occurred. A structure can be completely restored or reconstructed if all the following criteria are
met:
(i)
The restoration and reconstruction shall not serve to extend or increase the nonconformance of the
original structure or use wllh existing regulations; and
The reconstruction or restoration shall, to the extent reasonably possible, retein the same general
architecturel style as the original deslroy6et structure, or an architectural style that more closely
reflects the charecter of the surrounding area; and
Permits shall be applied for within one yeer of damage, an extension for permit application may be
requested from the administrator. Restoration or reconstruction must be substantially completed
within two years of permit Issuance; and
Any modificallons shall comply with all current regulations and codes (other than use restrictions)
including, but not limited to, lot coverage, yard, height, open space, density provisions, or parking
requirements unless waived by the appropriate county official through the granting of a varianca.
(f) A legal existing nonconforming structure can be expanded up to 10 percent subject to a Type I permit
approval process.
(g) A legal existing nonconforming structure may be expended beyond 10 percent through the approval of a
Type II C(d) discretionary conditional use permit. The expansion shall not Increase the structure by more
than 100 percent of total square footage calculated from the effective date of the nonconformance.
Proposals for expanding structures which house or contain a nonconforming usa are subject to subsection
(3) of this section.
(Ii)
(Iii)
(iv)
(3) Nonconforming uses of structures apply to structures, whether conforming or nonconforming, that house or
contain nonconforming uses;
(a) A structure which houses or contains a nonconforming use cannot be expanded or enlarged if the structure
(in its enlarged or expanded state) does not meet all applicable performance and use standards, or
environmentally sensitive area requirements for the land use district In which It is located.
(b) A structures housing an existing legal nonconforming uses can be expanded up to 10 percent or 200 square
fuet, whichever is greater, subject to a Type I permit approval procass.
(c) Substantial expansions which exceed either 10 percent or 200 square feet shall be subject to a Type III
conditional use permit approval process. The expansion cannot increase the structural portion of the
thnonconfom;ing use bYi!ili.~. c~~~~~.~~!.~"~,\i~~. ~.~~~,')"~~.~~~,.I,QnUlll<lai~~...".!;!l.,,,,,,.th.....,!,......,,..~,,",.r~,.iX.. e.:1.'I> ,:e of
e nonconlormance'll'L'!!!!!!l<;F1..II!!!!!;!!!I~o1~J'~'1W_~~l~J~~,~.AAS!""'i\!;1!'"
~Qffi --, ._, .... ..' .... ... .. .... ~"."~" "
(d) A legal existing structure containing a nonconforming use may be repaired or maintained subject to all
applicable building and health codes.
(e) A nonconforming use contained within a nonconforming structure which is damaged or destroyed by fire,
earthquake, explosion, wind, flood, or other calamity may be reestablished pursuant to subsection (2)(e) of
this section.
(f) Nonconforming uses contained or housed In a structure cease to retain their legal nonconforming status if
the use is discontinued or abandoned for any reason for a. period more than two yeers. A property owner
may be allowed three yeers if they demonstrate a bona fide intention to sell or lease the property. For
purposes of calculating this time period, a use is discontinued or abandoned upon the occurrence of the first
of any of the following events:
(i) On the date when the use was physically vacated;
(Ii) On the dale the use or activity ceases to be actively involved in the sale of merchandise or the
provision of services; or
(Iii) On the date of termination of any leese or contract under which the nonconforming use has
occupied the structure.
(4) A nonconforming use of a structure may be changed to another nonconforming use; provided, that the
proposed use is equally or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use. Such
change shall not be more intensive or have greater impects tihan the existing Use. The proposed change
shall be req uired to undergo a Type III conditional use perm it approval process.
Page 11
,
.
l_clO\~
_WlPO'''>!''lIl
~ V91 "....lpBH .....d pUB ....po....,
:l
i
J
~
a:
I
!J
!~
]J
.!l
!
8
r
~
~
f!
~
11.
I
E
I
I
s
i!
ii
1JJ)1PW3iIlJ
".."".....d """"d
pq.llWlpu' A'.uI3IJ
(M3fAJSll'!lllU1l """"tfDOJ
llUl.lllJlllIJIIlIlJI'llA8J4SUPlllllllln
(aw;) ""Vl
,"'......UJ Piln
<_:> u..,) 18"''''1111110:>
II'" ,"upol Pilln
'IIp!mpuI1""l'll4"'.......
_rtaQ ........"D
_-.0
AOll'lNPOOqA""""N
.....JUnJ;) _","'UOO;)
AOIUll:) all8ut\ IMllf
....~.OV(lQI
.....voval] I
"""V S{mo
.....0" lJUI1I_1
/WO,I JlUUlI
._" "'''''''''''W>;)
......... .........11 ....nu...."'I~.
B
f
i
~
!
~ ~ i
.6
i
i
i
i
l
~
i
.!l
.0'
u
!I
It
1!~
h
!i
Ii
til
~ ~
g I
t ~
;: ~
:J ~
~ ~
ii! ~
g ~
~ ~
c
g ~
~ J
12~ ~
co ~"
~~ ,-
12~ ~
I!. ~
l:: ~
~ ~
l')~
~h ~
1 f i
~ - ~
fill
($=
~o>
!'
~g~~
5l
l'l
l'l
l'l
l'l
l'l
l'l
l'l
l'l
..
N
l'l
5l 5l 5l
l'l lil \il 5l
l'l lil \il \il
l'l lil \il gj
l'l lil \il 'gj
l'l
lil \il 'gj t.i 1:
o
,
~ ~
lil \il \il! _
!
o
~ ~ ~.E 10
lil \il \il I ~
m
lil \il \il ~ ~
a
lil lil \il ~ ~
lil \il 5l I ~
lil \il 5l I ~
lil \il g i ~
~ ~ f5 ~ ~
lil \il 5l II '10
...
lil \il 5l I '10
lil \il 5l J. '"
~
1:
.
'l=
..
~
..
~ gl?;
o ..,~ <
e ~~ z
d
l'l
l'l
l'l
l'l
l'l
"
N
\il ~ ~ d
~ ~! 5l II
~~! 5l d
'8
~ 18 ~ g
. ~
~~
"8
~ <: 800
\il ill z ~~
~ g~ I
~ ~; g iU)
g
~ g ~ ~
'" "
'" <D
~
~ ...:
\il 5l
"
~ ~
8
~ ~
\il 5l
gj III ~ l~
\il III ~ Ii
.;~
\il' ~ g~
\il ~ ~ Ii
co ~ ~~
\il _ ~~
gj ~ ~ II
\il ~ ~ il!
. 1 i ! "t.
l.9 ! ~ ~ y",~}
u j j! III j~ jJ I i illl
II il f II i i ill UJ11 U i h
l'l
" l'l
l'l
" l'l
l'l
co l'l
l'l
" l'l
l'l
" l'l
l'l
co l'l
l'l
.. l'l
,
NOTES:
1. To Implement the InIBnt of LNG 19.0 of the Comprehensive Plan to proIBct the forest corridor and tree canopy In the Glen Cova area. the setbad<
from the right-of-way of SR 20 shaD be 50 feet on each alde of tha highway (comprtaad of a 30..foot buffer and a 20..Ioot setback from tha buffer). for new
davelopment, from the Intarsectlon of Old Fort Townsend Road and SR 20 to the Incorponated boundary of the city of Port Townsend.
2. Exaept W subject to the special setbacks required from adjaaent raaouroa lands as specIflBd In Chapter 18.15 JCC.
3. Special Rear and Slda Salbscks.
Whel'llllBr a realdentlal use Is proposed to abut a commercial use or zona. and viae va"",. the setback shaD be 35 feet
Wherever a residential use Is proposed to abut a nghtlnduslrfal use or zone. and viae va"",. the setback shall be 25 feet unless otherwise specified
In thls code.
.Wherever a realdential use Is proposed to abut e heavy IndusJrtal use or zona. and viae _.the setback sheD be 100 feet unlBsa othelWlse
speclfled In this coda.
4 .Wherever a commercial use Is proposed to abut an lndusJrtal usa orzona, and vioa va"",. the setback shall be 20 feet. unl... otherwise speclfled
In this code.
5. Fanoas are axempt from setback requframanls. exaeplln the Jurisdiction of the ShoreDne MeaIBr Program (SMP) or when Impelrtng sala alght Dnes
at inlsrsecllons. as delBrmlned by the county engineer.
8. Selbacka do not apply to maDboxas; walls; pump houses; bus shelters: septic syafams and dralnflelds (except In tha SMP): landscaping (including
bermel; utlIIty appsratus auch as polBs. wtras. ped_. manholBs. and vaulls. No other structures or accasaory uses shaD be located In the front
setba<:k area unless spprovad by the administrator. The admlnlstraJor may raduae the minimum road setbacks W the slrtct appllcallon of auch setback
would randar a legal 101 of record unbundabla under the provisions of thls code.
7. Chimneys. smokaslacks. lira or parapet walls. ADA-requlred elewtor shaiIs. flagpoles, utility ones and poles. skyDghls. communication sending and
raoaMng daviaes. HVAC and similar equlpmant, pubUc welBr towara or tanks. and spires associated with pleoas of worship are exempt from halght
requframanls.
8. Propene fuel sIoraga tanks and conlslnam shaD malnlaln setbacks and separations pumusnt to the cuJTentiy adoptad Intarnational FInl Code.
9. Approvad subarea plans may asJabllah different bulk and dimensional requlnsmanls for those anaas.
10. "NIA' = Not Appllcabte.
11. Road CJasslllcallons. To clarify the setbacks for development acllvillas consistent with the requframanls of thls chapter. the foDDWlng road
doslgnations shall apply:
'Princlpal arterials: US 101. SR 104. SR 20.
.MIi1or arterlala: SR 19 (Beaver Valley Road. RIuxIy llrtva. and AIrport Cutofl).
'MaJor coUectom: SR 118 (N.... Comer Road. Oak Bay Road to Ragler Road and Ragler Road). Center Road. Chlmacum Road. lrondale Road.
Qutnault-50ulh Shona Road. Upper Hoh Road.
.MlnDr collecJom: Anderson Lake Road. 8lBs MlU Road. Cape George Road. Clearwater Road. Cooks Avenue ExtensIon. Coyle Road. Dabob Road.
Dabob P.O. Road. DosewaIDpa Road. Duckabush Road. E. CuUaene Road. Four Comers Road. Eagtemounl Road. Hastings Avenue Wast, Hazel Point
Road. Lamon Lake Road. Oak Bay Road. Paradise Bay Road. Penny Cnask Road. Point Whltney Road. S. DIscovery Road, Thorndyke Road. Soulh
Point Road.
12. The special alde and rear setbacks providad In Table 6-1 shall also apply to Dutbulldlngs for raaldentlal or agriCultural uses auch as delBchad
garagea. storaga sheds or tool sheds. exoapt for existing lots of nacord less then fIva acres wherein the minimum naar end side yard setbacks for
ou!bundlngs shall be flve feet
13. Maximum area of bulldlng coverage Ia meaaurad by the peroanlsge of IolaIlol ansa ocoupJed by the foofp1inIs of aD structunss.
14. MaxImum building size Is measuned as the area occupied by the footprtnt of each IndMdueJ structure. A parcel may conlaln mora than one structuna
of the tneJdmum building size.
15. _sling lagallots of record 'essthan one acre In size In rural naaldential districts are aubJect to the stormwater requlnamenls In Chepter 18.30
JOC and musJ meet the 'Area of Impervious Surfaae Coverage' to the maximum extent practicable aa _ by lha admlnlstraJor.
18. In the Glen Cove IIghtlndusJrlsl/COfl1mBl'!'!al (WC) district. the 20.000-square-fDOt building size and the 36-loot building height for aD "Yes' uses
may be exoaeded up to a maximum bulldlng size of 40.000 aquana feet (totsl Inlertor floor spaae not to exoead SO.OOO square feat) end e tneJdmum
building height of 50 feet purauant to the Type III review process conlslned In Chapter 18.40 JCC and consistent with the condltionel usa criteria
conlslnadln Chapter 18.40 JCC.
17. In the Glen Cove IIghtlndusJrtaYcommerclal (LYC) district, the 1.5IlO-aquara-foot buDding size for ati "_ Commerclar uses may be
exoaeded up to a maximum buDding size of 3,000 squara feet pursuant to the Type III review process conlsJned In Chapter 18.40 JCC and conslstant
with the conditional use crlIerta conlslned In Chapter 18.40 JCC.
18. In the Glen Cova Dght Induslrfal (LI) district, the 10.ooo..square-foot building size and the 36-foot building height for all "Yes- uses may be
exoeaded up to a maximum buDding size of 20.000 square feel and a maximum buDding height of 50 feet pursuantlD the Type III review process
conlsJned In Chapter 18.40 JCC and consistent with the conditional usa _ conlslnad In Chapter 18.40 JCC.
!W,,~lM1~j'\jq~~1lQ;IjN,lim'Jro~
.
Final Copy Submitted to Planning Commission December 15, 2010
Additional DCD Information for MLA10-349
ResDondlna to Plannina Commission Questions of 12-01-10 Reautar Meetina
Questlon1: What are the different amendment approaches to meat the need of providing
additional f1ax1bllJty for public purpose facilities to expand?
See attachment comperlng alternatives.
Questions 2 and 6: How does the amendment proposal affect each public purpose facility
site? If the proposal Is forRR1:6 only, will the amandmentmealthe needs of all public
purpose facilities?
The answer can be given from two perspecllves:
1) "How would the proposed change at each site affect surrounding use?" Each public purpose
facility In consideretion operates In harmony with Its selling end the community It Is serving; at
least there Is no Information available to the contrary. An expansion of a current nonconforming
use would most often be driven by the public service needs of the community. The condillonal
use permit process will eddress minimizing Inconveniences to adjacent properties.
2) How would the proposal affect each public purpose parcel? The proposal for exemption from
Impervious surface limits Is narrowed to the Rural Residential 1 :5 zoning category, where we find
the greatest challenges from the perspecllve of site constraints. (This Is also addressed In the
Question 3 dlscusslon.) The RR 1:5 zone Includes parcels less than 5 acres In size. The
exceptions to Impervious surface within this UDC amendment propossl would be applied to the
parcels with the greatest potential for constraint-the RR1:5 zoning category.
The narrowly construed focus on the merits of this UDC change looks at what Is there In the
propossl. But It may be worth taking It to the loglcaJ end to consIder the difference between site
planning and available area when working with Impervious surface on RR1:1 0 and RR1 :20.
These larger percels have the same Impervious surface limitation (25%), though waiving the
impervious surface requirement for them could effect a proportionately mora Intensive outcome.
Also for consideration, the Information to characterize each site Is not readily ratrlevable for this
speclflc subsat. The Assessor dala coding Is Inclusive of many tax exempt percels, easements,
& rights of way. Detailed analysis at esch site would require additional staff time to research and
document.
Question 3: What affect does waiving the Impervious surface requirement have on
meeting stormwatar management goals?
Waiving Impervious surface area limitations in the Density, Dimension & Open Space Table
(18.30.050) does not waive compliance with stormwater management standards set forth In
18.30.070 JCC. Stormwalar management standards for e proposed project are addressed during
project review.
The primary purpose for impervious surface limitations In the development standards (18.30 JCC)
Is to address a site chareotarIstic In the overall definition of Rural Character and whet e rural
community looks like (policy d1rectlon from the Comprehensive Plan).
Pagel
December 15,2010
,
Although parcels of sny size In e Rural Commercial distrlcl can have up 10 60% Impervious
surface coverege, If the proposed development Is located In a Critical Aquifer Recharge Aree, es
many In Jefferson County are, thare Is a raqulremenllo Infiltrate the surfece runoff on-sne.
Thus, n can be seen how calculating the particular stormweter management detaUs of a project
would be a slte-speclflc endeavor. Each Rural Residential category (1: 5, 10, or 20) hes a 25%
limn on Impervious surface. Relatively small parcels In the RR 1:5 caJegory may face more
complex solutions. Additional discretion Is offered to smell parcels which may nsed spacial
alternatives or considerations to meelthe standards, per Nofe 15 of 18.30.050 which reads,
'Pre-exlsling legal lots of record less than one acre In size In rural resldantial districts are subject
to the stormwater requirements in Chapter 18.30 JCC and must meet the 'Area of Impervious
Surface Coverage' to tha maximum extent practicable as determined by the edmlnlstretor"
Question 4: What Is the rationale of less restrictive requIrements for public facilities va.
other facllltles or uess?
Also given In a two pert answer:
1) From the perspective of the unique rola of public facilities, public purpose facilities meet e
need, and provide an overall public bene1lt, that Is shared among members of the communtty.
The GMA planning standard Is to provide concurrency between the community's service needs,
and the ability of a jurisdiction to provide those services, as derived from the Capltel Facilities
Elament of the Comprehensive Plan. To apply a caJegorlcal exception to all private ownership, it
Is no longer In the realm of addressing publiC services Issues.
2) From the perspective of land area, the small eraa occupied by public purpose facilities would
IImllthe scale and intensity of expending allowances to non-conformance and Impervious surface
(see dlscusslon of question # 2). The amendment proposal applies 10 all nonconforming public
purpose facilities In Jefferson County, the Impervious surface exemption would apply only 10
nonconforming public purpose facilities In the RR1:5 zoning dlstrlct.
Question S: Where Is the distinction made between a benIgn nonconformity and
nonconformity to be phasad-out?
In Its c1earast lerms, a threshold criterion for harmful non-conformtty would be If a noncontormlng
use or struclure threatens public haaIth and safety. De mln/mus (not consequential)
nonconformltles are addressed at more than one level. Initially, with the County's comprehensive
planning, the ecceptable level of conflict between uses are defined by harmonizing sletutes with
communtty values articulated In the Comprehensive Plan Vision .Slelement and other policy
statarnents throughout the Plan, or policy sat through other community planning processes.
In the evaluation and flndlngs of this proposal, the Growth Management Indicators will ask If this
eppllcation reflects currenl widely-held values of Jefferson County residents.
Defining communtty character through developmenl standards, such as limiting the amount of
aOowable Impervious surface to malntsln rural character, ImpJaments a planning policy mentlonad
above, and defines what will be e/Iowed, even accommodeled; or phased out
FUrlher, the level of project review and approval Is waIghtad 10 balance the level of intenstty or
controversy of a proposed project. With the Increase of scope, scale or Inlansity of a proposed
action, comes an Increase in level of public noticing, review, legislative approval and Judicial
appeal (e.g. Type I, Type II, Type III... Type IV permits). In the presentetion of this UDC
amendment application, sleff briefly addressad the Type II and Type III c1assas of project review
applicable to nonconforming uses and structures (see JCC 18.40.2&0, Project Review and
Approval Processes). Both Type II and Typa III review processes provide opportunity for public
Input regarding the nonconformtty et hand.
Page2
December 15, 2010
.
So, as the distinction between benign and harmful nonconformity Is defined up.front In the
adopted development regulalions, this UDC amendment application Is a proposed update to that
definition fer benign nonconformity. Succlnctiy, the application applies an exception to limitations
on expanding nonconformity and en exception to Impervious surface requJrementa, within a
certain land use category.
Question 6 answered abova with i#2.. If the proposal Is for RR1:6 only, will the amendment
meet the needs of all pubUc PUrpoll8 faclUtles?
Queatlon 7: Is the Compreheneive Plan Oat of public purpose facllltJaa complete?
See the Inventory of public fadlltlea attached.
Page3
December 15, 2010
Library Enactment and Site History
! , i
,
Action explanation Use & Structure Nonconformity
Resolution 0-20 ! Petitioned ballot proposition :
~NOV' 7,1967, I
Interlocal Agreement between lOcal . ----~- --
;:r::: IibrerlesJan. 9,1978____ ___~~__~__~
=--C'- Nov. 7, 1978 --
Resolution 22-79 established Rural County
Library DIstrict Feb. 21, 1979 ~
(RCW27.12.040) _ .
Appointment of ,BoCC action 3-19-79, : I
Co. Library DlsL ! effective April 1, 1979 I ,
Board of i
: ,
Trustees ! I
~request ! ------"
BoCC July 20, 1981
for County I ,
I property i
I ,
Library Site Plan Site Plan presented to Bol
March 5, 1984
Transfer of Deed i LibrarY Paid County $25,000 i i
,Transfer of Deed to Library
I District March 19. 1984. 1.94
acres, formerly gravel pit
j
Library Opening 1985 ' Original square footage Effective Date of
15,758 (Includes 1,000 sf Nonconformance
I garage) (18.20.260 (c)
I
I (iii))-need old
I January 1991 code reference
Library edds 5.412 square feet of
expansion ! public space (11,170 sf
total, includes staff space),
, -I
Additional land April 17, 1998 Boundary Line I
acqUired for ,Adjustment and land transfer
I
Library (pkng. lot) between County. Library and ,
Chlmacum School District
#49. Establishes elementary
: school property and adds 1
'acre to Library (ca. 2.94 total)
I
UDC Title 18 ,Enacted 2001 I
.
UDC Amendment Alternatives Analvsis . MLA 10-349
Amendment Addnlonel Process Process Effect Meels Library Level of Risk for
Process Required Tlmefreme Need? Non-Compllance/
ComDlexnv
Comprehensive Need also UDC March-December, Countywide No Approvel not
PlllIl(CP) amendment to 2011 (Type V zoning category guaranteed. Adds
Amendment new specify parmlI, annual "Public Facility" complexity. May
IllIlduse category development cycla) with updaIed Use create revolving
"Public Facility" standards Table and amendment need
Development with PPF
Standards relocations.
CP zone change UDC amendment March-December, Conforming to No High. Does It
to Transitional to modify max. 2011 (Type V impervious meet lAMlRD
Zonlna MaD for bid. size. permit, llIlnuaI surface ares. At criteria?
Ubrary percel: Justification for cycle) or exCeeding
RR1:5 to Rural new lAMIRD. confOTmllllCS to
Commercial max. bId. Size
(Rurel VIllage
Centarl
CP zone chllIlge Sewer Avallabllity 2014 Conforming use. No As per 18.18 JCC
to Urban Zoning No buildIng size
Map for LIbrary IImlt specified. No
percel: RR1:5 to ImpervIous
m (already Is surface ares IImlt
Public) ed.
Change No Any time Change Yes Low. Most
Development (18.45.090) Nonconforming narrowly
Ragulellons for standerds- constructed
nonconforming structure & use solution.
publiC purpose expllllslon
facilities (per limitations
application)
Change Allowable No Any time .C. use In RR1:5 Yes Broadens RR1:5
& Prohlblled Use (18.45.090) makes use use countywfde.
Table 3-1. conforming.
(18.15.040) for RR1:5 has no
Ubraryes bldg. size limn.
Conditional Use In
RR1:5
Medfcal Svcs.
_ Fire- DIstrict 1 (Cf1lmacum
fire District 2 Quilcena
Flre,DlstrJd3 ortLu
FIre DIstrict 4 Bllnnon
Flre-DJStrtct5 GaRfI
FIfflOlstrlcl:B Ge:or e
Are Di5trtct 7 C!earwa
PartTO'M'I&elldFlre t
Jefferson General Hos ilaI
Jeff.....,
The Laurel-B. Johnson
.
-,
Public Facilities Worklna List
~
Cat
A
F_
RoallF_
Cat 0 B PublIC FaciIiflas
Corm Owned FacJllIte$
AnlmaI Control Shelter
Com Centers Pllbllc Works
Corrections Inmate faculties
Coon Sheriff Facmtlas
C .JustJce FaciJiaes
Coo GeneralAdtnlnJslraflv&FacIlllies
Coo MafntenaflC8 S Faclli!lea
R lOnaJParks
Commuo' Parka
Nel hiiorftoodParks
T_
eam rooMs
SOlldwaste.~.
SoUdWaste. R e
Stormwaler Mana erMm- FaClliUes
Water 5 tern Facili1JM
....", m,
-
CPublJcF8Cllitles
Outside of Cowl 0Wner6hI
.....
...",
w_
Fltearid
H
J.C.Rui"aJ DlstrJct1
Parks and Rarreatlon DlsIr1a1
School DlstrIct Fac:Ilitl.es
Jefferson TIlIl'lSit
="
mmconf
mmconf R CP .a.
....- , RR1:20
-
nonconf RRUO
5 Pm' --
SUIl
Gardlner Com~ Center
TrI.Area Com ~cenler
Brlnnon Comm Center
a Quilcene Commu' Center?)
Quilcena Musmlm
Shel'ifl' FaciIi In Port Hadlock
SiterlffAnrtrol Forlcs
Clearwater
PWRd. Mainl. Sh ,U HohRd,
Qullcena
Jefferson Coun Parks. Recreatron & 0
I
.
JeffersonC
-
Slnmtwa1et Mana menl Plan
Jefferson Corm Sewer Facil Plan 2008
PUD
PortCommlsslon PortafPortTownaend
Cenler
- _ BtlMOrr School Olstrld. 46
Chlmacwn SchOol 0Istrlet 49
Port Townsend 8dJooI DIs1r1ct 50
Queet5lClearwal:er SchoOl District 20
. ~Quilcena School Dlslrlct 4a
Qui eScitoolOislrlct402
Sctn>oIOrIsti1cI:323
--~
--
=onn~
""""'"'
,"""""
-
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend' Washington 98368
360/379-4450 ' 360/379-4451 Fax
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopmentl
FINAL
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS
DATE:
December 15,2010
PROPONENT:
Jefferson County Library
620 Cedar Avenue
Port Hadlock, W A 98339
MLAJO-00349
APPLICATION:
PROPOSAL: A Unified Development Code (DOC) teXt amendment to exempt nonconfonning public
purpose facilities from expansion limits applied to nonconfonning uses and structures under 18.20.260(c),
Nonconfonning uses and structures, Jefferson County Code (JCC); and also to exempt nonconfonning
public pnrpose facilities within the Rural Residential 1:5 zoning district from the impervious surface area
limits under 18.30.050, Density, Dimension and Open Space Standards, JCC. This is a non-project action
under WAC 197-1 I -704 (State Environmental Policy Act Rules).
LOCATION: This is a countywide request (not site-specific) that, if approved, will apply to all
nonconfonning public purpose facilities within Jefferson County.
NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has detennined it is the lead agency for the above-
described proposal.
NOTICE OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE: Jefferson County has detennined that the above-described proposal
would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact
statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), State Environmental Policy Act. This
detennination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, consideration of public
comments on the preliminary detennination of non-significance (DNS), and other infonnation on file with
the Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
APPEAL PERIOD: The Final DNS is issued pursuant to WAC 197-1 1-340(2Xf). There is no additional
comment period. Any appeal of this detennination on the basis of noncompliance with the provisions of
Chapter 43.2 I C RCW would be subject to the underlying UDC amendment action which includes a 60-
day appeal period. The appeal period will start at a future date. after action is taken by the Board of
County Commissioners.
~ooki S&~" _'"
1Z.~ 'lo\O
ate
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend, Washington 98368
360/379-4450 . 360/379-4451 Fax
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopmentl
To:
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, SEPA Responsible Official
Joel Peterson, Associate Planner ~
December 15,2010
From:
Date:
Re:
Report on Public Comments relating to Jefferson County Library's UDC text
amendment application MLA I 0-00349 for consideration in a final SEP A
threshold detennination.
Summarv
One member of the public, Ray Serebrin, the applicant, commented in favor of the proposed UOC text
amendment.
Backl!round
The public comment period for MLAIO-00349 opened on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 in
conjunction with the published GMAlSEP A Notice of Intent to Amend the Unified Development Code.
Notice of Adootion of Existinl! Environmental Documents and Pendinl! SEPA Determination of Non-
Simificance. and Notice of December I. 20 I 0 Public Hearing Before the Jefferson County Planning
Commission.
The requirements for a notice of application and public notice in RCW 36.70B.1 10 were met.
The public hearing was held at the Planning Commission's regular meeting on December I, 20]0. One
member of the public, Ray Serebrin, the applicant, commented in favor of the proposed UDC text
amendment.
The public comment period continued to December 14,2010,4:30 p.m. As of 5:30 p.m. this same day,
no further comments from the public have been received.
The Planning Commission will deliberate and draft their recommendations beginning in the December 15.
20 I 0 regular meeting.
The application, adopted documents, staff analysis and public comments are prepared for your review as
SEP A Responsible Official and final threshold determination.
-,'
.
~ ~: P.I.A...lll_t'U~;:>,;J.. -1-1 ;
p. C!. . )
.' L ....}
;,
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
.~ ,
.i
IN 1HE MAlTER OF amending Emergency }
Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 to allow the siting of }
Public Purpose Facilities Including Police Stations} Ordinance No.l...oZ08-99
upon all lands within unincorporated Jefferson }
County and exempting Public Purpose Facilities }
from the maximum building Cap contained in }
SectionsS,9, 10 & 11 of this Ordinance }
~:'
i',
:g
+
,~
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive Plan on
August 2S, 1998; and
'f
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted the Emergency Interim
Controls Ordinance (EICO) on August 28, 1998 to partially implement the Comprehensive Plan;
and
:,,'
'I,'
"
r
WHEREAS, the B1CO is silent on siting Public Purpose Facilities, Including Police Stations; and
..
<,
.r:.,
,;:
WHEREAS, the B1CO contains maximum building caps for nonresidential structures that may not
be appropriate for Public Purpose Facilities such as Fire Halls and Police Stations; and
..;~-
i'.
{)
.~
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners believe the public's health, safety and we1fare is
well served if Jefferson County ensures the siting and/or rebuilding or remodeling of Public
Purpose Facilities ifnecesSlll)'through the B1CD; and
Ji
,t
.;;!
:.r,'
8"
WHEREAS, because of the special nature, purpose and function of these facilities their size cannot
be predetermined; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, that the B1CO Use Table is amended to permit the
siting, expansion and remodeling of Public Purpose Facilities, including Fire and Police Stations
upon all lands within unincorporated Jefferson County through the Conditional Use process and be
it further ordained that these facilities shall not be subject to the maximum building cap size
contained in Sections 8, 9,10 & 11 oftheEICO.
{t
;:
';}
.
~.
'.
0',
,-;
ADOPTION
~
Approved and adopted by the Board of Commissioners this r day of February 1999.
--~~
(
"
)
~
,t
;~:
VOL 25 rw242
'-
'-
\
c
,,;: ...("-~
ORDINANCE NO, 1-020s..99
l'AGE 2
. ,
..
.~
~
~<. ...
., t Iv'. .
, ... "
SEAL .('0 .', '. "
{. \..\"~' . .. " \,
...:" . ~./,;.,... .' \
.... \~ '/' ..
_~ ~f''1: ~"\ . ,.
I .~ ft .[tj'" .~..~' . . :
I 'ii< ,..
\..~. .". ':.j....
\'., .. '''';'.'
\ . . \--~. ...
ATIEST:'-...:' " '. .'
r/~a ~DP~
Lorna Delany, Clerk of the BoanI
'.
t
JEFFERSON COUN1Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
,
: VOL '25 rACF 243
, f kumi"'!J Co/l/11>'J/!,sjj)/)
. Reju?etr 4{f;",':J 11/17/10
i1
",.' 'V
"' "
.... . ~ -<
~. ~
;js/fll,r:;~o
Jefferson (;{)unty
Department of Community Development
Topics
· Public Purpose Facilities
· Capital Facilities and Level of Service
Standards
· Nonconforming Uses & Nonconforming
Structures
.
1
Public
· State Growth Management Act
· CWPPs
· Comprehensive Plan
· Unified Development Code
,.we Pupose LIIIdt EsseatWhbk FadUies
FOCUS:l.IIldI:occdedto~puhlicfa:lIitlc!. FOCUS; FKilltlanccdedtoplOVbklpahlicacrvices_
lacIsllCCllkd toprovldathetbIlnmgooflm'f:oestod.public fbactf:oDstWtnltypkaUydlfBc:alttosito.
priJvhkdb)<goyenmerd,AlbstalItbftyllmdedbypelllllellt, 1bosepabl1cBK:ilitlcstbar._UIIll:8ll,.lIl:rIIIalItD;Iby
CllI!I!I8CraItorby~orpn:MdedbyFfY*eatitiesto ~baYellllllSlllllslte~orotberG:ata:fes
-.....- 1baLQlIlIJpI.faabltbesltingpn:lOeSl.
&lea: -
UJtiIf1yQmtdan: ,-
2.TIlIIIpOrtlllloaConidon ~TI1lIllIpOltIdfoPacllitlcs
3.8owB:JcTn::atQleDlFacilllieI 3.8t1lcEduc:admtdFadUI:lea
4.SCDhn9llller~FacmIiea 4.CoaudonaI F1dlitlcs
'~Fa::illties 5.soJidWaiOHaadIil:8Fa:ilitla&Laa.dfiJk
..-., 6.1nplidentFac:Ul!il:s~AbaoFacllitfcs,Me:ItalHeaIth.
7.0lber Pttl& Uses FadIiliesAOrollp"-)~
QlIqlllll'Q...-EsanlIaIPuIllloFacllla.Jde.-COlId'f~PIaIl211312D04
2
Capital Facilities Planning
Capital Facilities Plan ties CP elements together
· Comp Plan Policies
· Land Use, Conservation & Development
Goals
· Inventory of facilities, Iifecycle, needs
· Financial Plan
Capital Facilities Planning
· Level of Service Determinations
3
n
.-,~. .- :~
'.';"'"'..~,"
.', '''.11.
"~$illt~~
'~~
',,",,,,,
.tt....
i','
Projected County Library Use
based on Historical and Current Door Count Data
350,000
300,000 H."'...,
250,000
200,000
150,000
100.000
2010 2011 201:2. 2013 2014 2018 2018 2017 2018 2019 2020
DepIIl'Iment of Community Development
tfl1'tl:lDU1,bof~
4
.
1IOfldallt.&1\VtHadlooli;UM
'f2; --...~=-
?!l!!, ,.
W'.::::::::- .." . ~
~:.::- -:- -
T"-,=.:;,'::-:;::,'-,
--flfir
. Nonconformity
'0',
· Uses
.,-;:
.Struotures
· Howfo.regulate
, -- .
- - . .
Benign nonconforrriities
,
~; -
"
:;~ . '
~,.-
5
The concept of nonconformities arises from
adopting new codes for areas that already have
some development
When tand is used for activities that are no longer
permissible under the zoning regulations, the
local government typically allows the preexisting
use to continue if it was permissible when it was
first established.
.
,
Nonconforming uS,es aodstructures -
Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.20.260
. A legal nonconforming, use or structure is
one that conformed to all applicable codes
in effect on the date of its creation. but no
longer complies due to subsequent
chang~s in the code.
.
.....
.
6
.
. Distinguishing Between Detrimental and
Benign Nonconformities
..
_ooq""",,_Iol_
".
_,---,_".at>
7
. Increasingly, we see the need to focus on
impact, character, compatibility, and urban
form-which means that a nonconformity
may not be.unwelcome in a neighborhood.
-
"'-
..-
.tD-1ll~
1)pe1p11d~
~~~.
~ 11:101
-
COI!llgI;lI\lIaWIb
--
-
Ia......
. .....,....'flb'fWt
...........~
--
..---
m ae._If~_
....~. _t;wo,...:a-..,....
"tul~1l ~tlI.1&"""Io"""
--
-
"
..
...
<< ..
-
dt.~'Cl:4 . ........1o....~fGIiiI:tlIl
___.... ~..l~_ttreccw
. '1;1 ..
8
. Benign nonconformities are often
unnoticed because the
nonconformity is so similarto
surrounding uses. Thus, there is no
harm to the public in the
continuation of the nonconforming
situation.
Negligible devlations from a dimensional
requirement, such as encroaching a faw Inches Into
a required setbeck, wIIh no resulting negative
impact on neighborhood character.
A lot that falls to maat a dimensional or area
requirement, but the deviation Is small enough that
the shortfall does not affacl the neighborhood
character.
A change In the list of permissible or conditional
uses, or eliminating an eXisting use that is not, in
fact, objecllonable.
Nonconformities arising from a government action,
such as the loss of e required front yard for road
widening. While the district regulations may require
the yard, most properties along the roed heve the
same situation, so the encroachment does not
negatively Impact that portion of the neighborhood.
9
10
,
. Prohibit any addition of site features, unless such
features actually reduce the nonponformity.
. Prohibit any extension of the use to other parts of
buildings or the site that were not occupied by the
nonconforming use at the time the regulations changed.
. Prohibit a change of use to any use that is not
permissible in ilie zoning district.
. Establish the strictest feasible limit on reconstruction
following voluntary demolition to ensure that the
reconstruction conforms to current standards.
11
-,-"=~
· A local government may wish to avoid the.
creation of nonconformities through
greater attention to creating mixed use
. districts or the use of flexible design
standards and overlay districts.
· have an overlay district allowing types of
benign noriconformities
Conclusions
· We caf;\ identify two categories of
noncohformities-detrim~ntaland benign
· The distinction between nonconformitles that are
detrimeptal and destined for elimination and
noncoritollQities that are benign and even
desirable renders thereg\;JI~~~ns more
meaningful for property owners and easier to
administer by the local government
12
l
~
Thank You
13