HomeMy WebLinkAbout100112_ra03Regular Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
130ARD OF COUNTY COIV'1N11SSIONERS
AGEr'DA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, Counh A inistrator
FROM: Carl Smith, Director I
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager L.~+
Michelle Farfan, Associate }'lannct!
UA'I'E: October 1, 2012 vv
SUBJECT: Deliberations and Final Decision, ~1LA10-00349, Amendment to ,1CC
Title 18
S"I'A'I'E~IENT OF ISSU E
On October ~. 2UIU the 13oarti of County Conunissioners (Board) directed staff to start the UllC text
amendment process of application f+9L:1IU-UU349.
The Jefterson County Library is seeking to expand it, facility by construction of a detached book mobile
garage, additional paved driveway and sidewalks. and an internal remodel with same expansion in
footprint. -Phis +eill allow the library to provide better public services to the community by increasing its
literacy cel,ection and additional rooms. expand the teen area. consolidate mechanical systems: organize
staff fmtctions into a centralized +yorkroorn. and organize the library to allow for sight lines from staffed
+yorkstuions,just to name a fe++. This proposal is atnsistent+cith the Library's Expansion I+4aster Plan.
The Library's desire to expand its Ftcilih exceeds the alto+vable square footage and impervious surface
coverage limit as identified in the Ceunw`s i;nified Development Code (I:DC) Title 18 ofthe Jefferson
County Cede (JCC). In 20! 0. library staff consulted with county 5talf al which time these constraints were
identified and the county library started the process to amend Lhe 1. DC language for public purpose
fac i I hies.
.4s a result of loss of the previous staff planner transferring to the Counh Public Works Depvlment in
February 20 i I, this particular UDC text amendment application is no++ being brought before you for
consideration and final action by adoption of the attached ordinance.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS/PROS and COVS:
1'he County adopted urban desienations and standards for the Irondale and Had lock L7ban Growth Area
(UGA) through Ordinance U3-U323-U9 on March 23. 2UU9, codifying urban standards in Title i R of the
Jefterson County Code (JC C) as Chapter I R. ; R .ICC. The counn libran is constructed on lands currently
zoned as Transitional Toning Rural Residential RR I :~ and is considered legal non-confomtin.~.
JCC 18?0?60(3)(c). entitled "\onconlonnins: uses and slrucmros." limits expansions of such uses M not
more than 3.999 square feet and JCC 18.30.U~0 Table 6-I limits the impervious surface coverage m a
maximum of 2>% within the Rural Residential zoning districts. The .leferson County Library wishes to
expand the size of its Iacilit+ including an increase in the amount of impervious surface. The current Code
limitations technically prevent the county libran from its requested expansions.
ttegu ar ageroa
On September 0, '?010, the Jefferson County Libras. Port Hadlock, made application a? thu Department
of (: ommm~iiv' Development for an amendment to the Unilied Development Code (UDC)..Iefti;rson
County Code (JCC) Title 18. Thu applicatirn? has been recorded as ~ILA10-00349. 'fhu proposed
amendment [o the building cap limitations defined in JCC 18.20.260 (3)(c) is to exclude public purpose
facilities, and to amend JCC 18.30.050, Table G-1 with a new footnote "Impervious surface requirements
do not appl} to public purpose facilities".
'the Transitional Rural Development Standards of the Ivor?dale?Port 1 [adlock t.rban Growth :\rua, Chapter
18.19 .ICC, apph .Section h42).25Ci \4ircur+lru~nr+zk (se.c and Sirraa:rres. which specifies that expansion
cannot increase the structural portion of [hu nonconforming use by more than 3.999 square loot.
On February ?, 2011 staff presented the "Plannine Agency" (Planning Commission and the Dupartrnunt
of Community llevelopment) recommendations and reyuest for decision for ..'riling an ordinance on the
LaC "Pest ,lmendment proposal for non-conforming public purpose facilities to the f3oCC. Tile [3oCC
accepted the recommendation of the Planning Agenc} to approve the text chances and directed staff to
prepare an ordinance rutlcctin_ the Code changes.
FISG11, IMI'.AC'f/COST-BENEFIT ANALI'S1S:
There is no liscal impact since staff time to process the reyuest is billed to the applicant. The applicant has
paid to date a total of $8,8G9.2S for this rt:view process.
RECOMJIENUA'I'ION:
StafCconsulted with the Prosecutor's Oftice regarding final language to the ordinance and has made the
corrections and;or additions as suggested by David Ah~arez, Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney.
Staff respectfully requests the E3oartl take legislative action Ior final appruval of ML;110-00349 by adoption of
the enclosed draf3 Ordinance to amend the L`DC; JCC I &0.260 & 13.,10.050 Table G-I Note I9 to read as
follows:
• JCC 13.20.2G0(3)(c) as amended shall read: "Substantial expansions which exceed either ! 0 percent or 200
square feet shall be subject to a'1}pe Ill conditional use perntit approval process. The expansion cannot increase
the structural portion of the nonconforrning use by more titan .i 999 square feet. The expansion is calculated
from theet7ectivedateofthenonconformance. Public ~urpo~_facilitizsshallnotbesuljzcttothzhuildin~cap
limitations of lhia suction." _ -_
• JCC I8.3Q0~0'Cahlc G-I is amended to add the following language under NOTES: "l9. Imgervious surface
re uy irer»cnts do npt agwh'to public purpose Cacilitics.~'
RF.VIGWEU BY:
~~ - _
;'~ ~ j .
I ~ ~~ ~ / it ~~ -~--~ l ~~
_hilip Mofley' Dusty Admi ' ~ Date
JEP'FERSO\ COL \T1'
STATE OF W'ASlll\G'I~O\
In the matter of amending the [!nified Development }
Code, JCC 18.20.260 S 18.30.OS0 to Exclude Public }
Purpose Facilities from Maximum Building Caps } Ordinance Vo.
Applicable to Expansions of Legal, lion-conforming }
L..-scs S the Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage }
Rule Applicable in Rural Residential "Cones }
WHEREAS, RC'\\' Chapter J6.?O.A, et seq.. also known as the Growth Management Act
("G\4:\"), requires that counties planning under the (iMA adopt development regulations
that are consistent with and implement their comprehensive plans: and
WIiEREAS. the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County, a municipal
corporation of the State oC \\'ashington. (hereinailer "the Board") constitutes the
levislative body for Jefferson C'mutt}:and
~VHEREAS..lefferson Counly adopted aGMA-derived Comprehensive Plan (CP) on
August 28. 1998 via Resolution w. i2-98 and completed its required seven-year update
of said Comprehensive Plan via Ordinance i;o. I ;-121 ~-(14 on December 13, 2004: and
W'IIEREAS, the Unitied Development Code (L:DC) Maus originally adapted on
December 18, 2000 as a development reeulation required by the Growth Management
Act (GMA). to he effective .lanuary I C. 2001: and
W'HF,REAS, for proper citation in cotu'ts of law the UDC has been codified within the
Jelferson County Code (JCC) at Title 18: and
W'HL•'KEAS, as early as 1967 Jefferson C'vunty residents have requested through the
Board of County Commissioners. signed petitions, and election ballets that a rural library
district be established for .lefferson Counn~; and
1'('HEREAS, Jefferson County, a 1`funicipal Cznporativn, deeded through a Statutory
Warranty Deed 1.94-acres to .[efferson County I:ibrary District on April ~. 1984 under
Auditor's File 1\umber 288789: and
V1'HEREAS, A 13oundarv Line _\djustment between Chimacum School District and
Jellersvn Coun[v Library was recorded on Mao 1 I, 199 of which the School llistrict
gr;utted approximately one acre of land «> the 1.ihrary to acconunvdate Ihture expansions
of the building, system campvnents and parking areas: and
Page 1
~VHEliE115, the County adopted urban designations and standards Ibr the [rondale and
lladiock C;rban Growth Area (C'G~1) tluough Ordinance 0~-0~2-09 on March ^. ?009.
codifying urban standards in title 18 of the Jefferson Coun:_v Code (JCCI as Chapter
18.1 ~ ,1CC: and
~VHEf2EAS, the Board now contplctes this process by the adoption of this ordinance and
makes the following findings of fact:
1. "fhe State of w ashington adopted the Growth il4anagement Act (or "G~4A") in
1990.
2. .1ell~rson County began plattnutg under the GMA in the early 1990s.
3. The County adopted a Comprehensive Plan under G~1.A nn August 28, 1998. The
County completed its statutorily required seven-7ear update of its Comprehensive
Plan on December 13. 2001.
=l. 'fhe Jefferson County-Wide Planning Policy Policies I - 4 and Comprehensive
Plan ;oafs and policies LNG 9.0. 9.1, and L,NP 9.~ call Ibr an Grban Growth Area
(UGA) fitr the 1'ri-Area.
5. The Tri-Areav'Glen Cove Special Study conducted on behalf of the Board i^ 1999
deterntined that it would be appropriate to designate a UGA for Irondale%Port
Iladlock.
6. The IrondalciPort Hadlock UG_\ meets the following requirements specified in
RC\~° 36.70A.1 10 fir a non-municipal UCir~:
• Characterized by urban growth
• Adequate developable land has been desit~mated for residential conunercial
and industrial uses to accatnnodate the project growth for the 20-year
planning period
• Sufficient area Ibr the designa[ion of open space and greenbelts
• Crban services such as road, water, and storm drainage are provided or are
planned litr.
7. The .1elTerson County Library is locaicd within the [rondalc'Port Hadlock l?GA.
8. The Jefferson County T.ihrary is considered a legal non-conibrnting use located on
almost tluee (J) acres of land designated as Transitional Rural Residential one unit
per five acres (Klt L•~) and zoned as Urban Growth :1rea -Public.
9. The .ICffcrson County Librazy wishes to expand the size of its facility inchtding an
increase in the amount of impervious surface.
Page 2
10. \\'hcn sewer service is available within the h•ondalc.+Port Hadlock UGA. then
public purpose facilities such as the ,ICfferson Counh Library will he conforming
uses which become effective.
11. Unless or until sewers are available, the expansion of the Jefferson County Library
would be subject to the JCC provisions applicable to expansions of legal non-
con[orminauses.
12. JCC 18.20.Z60(3)(cl, entitled '`Nonconformin~~ uses and structures," limits
expansions of such uses to not more than ?.999 square leer.
13. JCC 18. i0.0~0. Table 6-1. entitled "Density, llimension and Open Spaee
Standards.° allotvs a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25% (for parcels
exceeding <?ne-acre in size) For projects located within the RR l:~ zoning
desienations.
l~. these aforementioned restraints limit the scope of expansion the Jefferson County
Library can undertake at its property.
15. On September 20. 2010. llepariment of Community Development (DCD) received
a UDC text atncndmcnt application submitted by the ,iefferson County Library.
DCD found the application to he complete and initial fees paid. and determined it
would be considered a counnwide amendment rather than a site specitlc
amendment.
16. On October 4. 2010 the Roard of County Conunissioners approved ,Icfferson
County Library's request to place the preposcd text amendment on the Planning
Commission's 2010 work plan as provided for under JCC 18.44.090fa)
".\mcndmcnts to G'v4:\ implementing regulations"
17. Department of Community Development prepared a staff report and
recommendations for MLr\10-00359 that anahzed the proposed i.IDC text
amendment. The staff report was forwarded to the Platming Commission on
November l 7. 2010 for review and discussion at a public ntccting.
18. Staff presented the staff report to the Plannine C'onunission at their regularly
scheduled and duh noticed puhlic meeting on Novembet• 1?, 2010.
19. The text ul' the proposed amendments to the development regulations was made
available to the public no later than the publication date of the applicable staff
report which was November 19. 2010, allowing approximately one month for
public comment.
20. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed open puhlic hearing on December 1,
2010 to receive public testimony. Only one oral public comment was received
li-om Ray Serebrin who represented the county library.
Page 3
21. ~~'ritun public comments were accepted through the close of business on
December 14. 2010 although none were received.
2Z. i he Ylannine Commission held deliberations on llccembcr 1 ~. 2010 however. no
action was taken as a quorum was not achieved at this meeting.
23. The Planting Connnission at its Januat} ~. 2011 regulaz meeting recommended
approval of the proposed text amendments with a vote of six in favor and one
opposed and to include a review of the portions of the Comprehensive Plan that
deal with non-conforming public purpose facilities in the next Comprehensive Plan
update.
24. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments and reviewed
the eowth mana,ement indicators linmd at JCC 18.4.080 and ,ICC 18.45.00 attd
reviewed the "Takinsrs Checklisi' of which they found no takinc issues at their
regularly scheduled meetutg of January 5, 2011.
25. The Planning Commission submitted a written memorandutn to the lJoazd dated
January 5, 2011 with their recommendation and ilndings on the proposed library
UDC text amendments.
26. The Planing Connnission found that ~1LA10-0049 proposal is consistent with
the Growth Management Act, the County-wide Planning Pirlicies, the County's
Comprehensive Plan and other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements and any
other local. start or federal laws.
27. The SEP.A Responsible Official for Jefferson County determined that existing
environmental documents provide adequate environmental review to satish the
requirements of VAC 19',-l 1-600. This conclusion was memorialized via issuance
ofa Determination of'Non-Sienifictmce on December 15. 2010.
28. The following environmental documents have been adopted pursuant to SEPA
administrative rules and are relevant to J~1LA 1U-00:49:
• Dral? and Final Environmental impact Statements (DE1S,'FEIS) and addenda
prepaued in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The
DF.TS and FEIS are dated Febni<~ry 24. 1997 and \9av 27, i998, respectivcl}.
and examined the potential curmdative environmental impacts of adopting
alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan.
• llrait and Final Supplcmcrtal E1S (DSEIS'FSE1S) and addenda for the
Comprehensive Plan 1999 :amendments, also known as 7 asks Ill and IV of the
Cri-rlrca i Glcn Cevc Special Study. The DSEIS and FSL1S arc dated .lone ~0.
1999 and August 18. 1999. respectively. and examined the potential
environmental impacts oY adopting one of the identified planning alternatives for
Page 4
the '1 ri-Area of Chimacum-Port Hadlock-Irondalc and the Cilen Cove mixed use
area.
• DCll integrated Statl' Repon and DSEISiFSF.IS Ibr the 2002, 2003. 2004. 2005
and 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dockets. Amidst other information,
the adopted documents provide background and analysis on the designation of a
I:GA in the Irondale & Pon IIadlock area.
• DCD htte~rated Ci~Lti''SEPA Staff Repon dated Fcbntary 21.2007.
• DCD Tnte<_=rated G'~1A'SF.P:~ Staff Report dated Fcbruarv 4. 2009.
29. The Planning Commission reconmtended approval of ~IL;110-00349 to amend the
building cap limitations li?r expansions of le_aL non-conti?rming uses defined in
JCC 1S.20~60(3)(c) so that public purpose facilities are excluded and to amend
JCC 18.30.050. Table 6-1 in the Rural Residential desienations of RR 1:5. RR
1:10, and RR 1:20 by the addition of a footnote with the following Text:
"Impervious surface requirements do not apply to puhlic purpose facilities."~'Fhese
atendments are intended to provide public }?urpose Facilities with additional
flexibilih in meeting cottuntwity needs if those facilities catmot meet current
development rcgulatiotts.
30. The Planninc Commission recommendations were transmitted to the Board
through fonval memorattda dated January S, 201 I and arc pan of the record for the
legislative decision.
31. The Board concw~s faith the Planning Commission recommendation and stales that
-1LA10-00349, as proposed. is consistent with the Groati7h ?~4anacement Act, the
Counri-wide planning policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local. state or federal laws and directed staff to prepare
an ordinance rellectin, the Code ehane_es as stated in the minutes of their meetin<_
on February 7, 201 I .
32. Pursuant to JCC Section 15.45.080[2)(c}, for atl adopted amendments the Board
shall develop findings and conclusions which consider the groaath tranagentent
indicators set forth in a) JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(i)fhrough ('vii). and h) items
(i) through (iii) in ,ICC Section 15.+5.030(1 1(b).
33. With respcct to JCC Section 15.45.050('41(h)(i ), which asks whether assumptions
regarding growth and development have chan_~ed since the initial CP adoption, the
Board concludes that census data indiaues that the population groaath rate in this
cowtty has slowed but may increase aeain during thz'_0-year platuting horizon
(until 2024) that is covered h}~ ibis CP and that the lrondale`Port IIadlock UGA is
properly sized tier the population that is estimated to be there by 2024.
34. A~'ith respcct to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(ii), which asks avhether the capacity
of the cowtty to provide adequate services has diminished or increased. the Board
concludes that [hose CP amendments wi11 positively impact the ability of the
County to provide services at urban levels of service.
Page 5
35. i\~ith respect to JCC' Section 18.4a.050(~ll(b)(iii), which asks if sufficient urban
land is or has bccn designated within the County. the Board concludes that the
I)wellinc i:nit and Population Holding Capacity ;1nalvsis, ":1ppendix T," of the
Comprehensive Plan, concludes that suflcient urban Land has been designated in
the Count}~ to hold the expected population.
36. A\~ ith respect to JCC Section 18.~5.0~0(~l)(b)(v). which asks if any oC the
assumptions on which the initial CP was based have become invalid. the Board
concludes that the assumptions upon which the CP is based have generally not
chanced.
7. 14'ith respect to JCC Section 18.-15.0~0(4)(b)(v), which asks ifany of the
county~~ide attitudes upon which the CP was based have changed, the Board
concludes that the counn•wide attitudes have not ~cncrally changed in regard to
implementing this non-municipal l'G:~.
38. With respect to.1CC Section 18.4~.0~0(d)(b)(vi), which asks if there has bccn a
change in circumstance that may dictate the need for an amendment. the Board
concludes that these enactments are part oY'the process of achieving a C;h~IA-
compliant urban groc~th area at lrondaleJPort Hadlock and have bccn mandated by
earlier decisions of the \4'estern Washington Gro~~th ivlanagemcnt Hearings Board
as laid out about.
±9. With respect to JCC Section 18.E>A~0(~)(b)(vii). which asks if inconsistencies
have arisen between the CP, the <;iL4A and the Counh wide Planning Policies. the
Board concludes that these amendments do not reflect am' such inconsistent}°,
since the County \Vide Planning Policies suppcn-t and have always supported the
creation of an urban Growth area at Irondaie-Pori 1[adlock.
40. \Vith respect to the gro~~tih management indicaun~ ibund in the County Code at
JCC ~ 18.4~.080(b)(i), which asks ~aheilter circumstances related to the proposed
amendments andior the area it impacts have substantially changed sutcc the
Comprehensive Plan was amended. the Board concludes that circumstances have
not chanced except that the need for an urban growth area in the county as an
economic growth engine for the county has become mom immediate riven the
current economic circumstances now present in this country and that a stron~x and
modern astral library can and will serve as a technolocv and career center for
residents of the Counir•.
41. With respect to the groceth management indicator found in the County Codc at
JCC 318.45.080(b)(ii), which asks if the assutptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are valid and asks if there is new inforntation
available that was not considered at the time when the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted. the Beard points to the natiomtiidc economic recession that became
evident in late 2008 and the stagnating revenues the County govermncnt must live
Page 6
within as new information supporting the decision of the BoCC to move forward
with achieving a Ci1vlA-compliant t>rban growth area al IrondalclPort Hadlock.
42. \\'ith respect W the erowth mana,ement indicator found in the County Code at
JC'C' ~ 18.~15.0R0(b)(iii ). which asks whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County the Board
concludes that the existence ofan urban growth area at lrondalc Port Hadlock is
ingrained in the text of a fundamental planning document of this County. the
County \Vide Planning Policies. note that the topic of an urban growth area in
lrottdale'Port Iladlock has been discussed for a quarter of a centur} by County
citizens and was initially made a legislative reality in 300-I, sornc ci;ht years ago.
Since that time all Counn~ Commissioners. of both politicai parties. have
proactively moved towards achieving a G\4.4-compliant urban growth area,
suggesting a political consensus exists beltvtd obtaining such a CiMi1-compliant
urban growth area.
43. This amendment to Title 18 creates a eery limited exception to the general
principle of law that legal. non-conforming uses arc not favored and retains the
ecncral doctrine of law reflected in Title 18 of the Jcffcrson County Code that
expansions of non-conforming uses will be strictly limited in scope and subject to
a public review process.
44. The health. safety and welfare of the citizens of Jcffcrson County is served and
enhanced by the enactment of this Ordinance"
45. Enactment of this Ordinance is within the general police power granted by the \\'.A
State Constitution to the County Commission in its role as the Icgisiativc body for
Jefferson County.
1O~V, TIIEIiEFORE, the Board of County Commissioners litr Jeflerson County.
\\'ashington. in regular session assembled. does hereby ordain as follows:
Section One: Pursuant to the Cowttv's authorih conferred by RC\\ 36.70. 36.70,4.
36.7UB, and ~.' 1 C, the Board of County Cbmmissioncrs hereby adopts the amendments
to development reeulations described below and made s part of Jefferson County Code
Sections 18.20.260(3)(e) and 18.±0,050. '!'able 6-1. as an official land use control and
comprehensive plan implementing regulation for Jcffcrson County" A~'ashingnon.
.1CC 1 R.20?C>0(3)(c) as amended shall read: 'Substantial expansions which exceed either
t0 percent or 300 square leer shall be subject to a '1'vpc 111 conditional use permit
approval process. The expansion catmot increase the structural portion o1' the
nonconfomtirg use b}' more than 3.99c) square feet. The expansion is calculated from the
cY?ecti~ c ~~ate of t'r n~~ncoa`~~rrn~ ac Public nun~ose facilities shall not be subject to the
?~~.iil.ctr~ czp iirr.tit.~_n~, ut tl;_, se~tiua.
Page 7
JCC 18.30.050 Table 6-1 is amended to add the follo:~.in~ I~n_~~_~a.~e t:ndcr NOTES: `19.
Impervious sttrfacc requiremen[s do nol an~ly to uubli~ u!:~~~<nc t;ccilaies."
Section Two: All other sections, tables and language of the Uniticd Development Code.
Title 18 of Jefferson Cotnuy Code are not altered or amended in any matmer by this
Ordinance.
Section Three: Severability: In the event anv one or more of the provisions of this
ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid, such imalidih shall not affect or
invalidate any other provisions ol'this ordinance. but this ordinance shall be construed
and enforced as if such im~alid provision had not been contained therein; P120V[DF.D,
that any provision which shall for any reason be held by reason of its extent to be invalid
shall be deemed to be in effect to the extent permitted by late.
Section Four: 'this ordinance shall be in bill force and el'lect at S:UU pm on the date of
its cnacuuent by the .iel7erson County Board of Counh• Commissioners.
Approved and signed this 1st da}' of October, 2012.
Seal:
AttesC
TEFFERSON COt~NI Y
BOARD OF CO\1~]ISSIONERS
Erin Lundgren
Clerk of the Board
John Austin, Chaimtan
Approved as to Form Only: Phil Johnson, Member
q /
~, ~5)~z
-~ ~~ ~
David r1h'arez David Sullivan, \4entber
Deputy Prosecuting Attome}
Page S