HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 1112 13F �4 Ir!'l1L
t iC/
i�
ATTACHMENT D
JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the matter of amending the } Ordinance No. 03- 1112 -13
Unified Development Code, JCC 18.40.090 }
to add certain additional types of applications }
that require a preapplication conference. }
WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 36.70A, et seq., also known as the Growth Management Act
( "GMA "), requires that counties planning under the GMA adopt development regulations
that are consistent with and implement their comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington, (hereinafter "the Board ") constitutes the
legislative body for Jefferson County; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County adopted a GMA- derived Comprehensive Plan (CP) on
August 28, 1998 via Resolution No. 72 -98 and completed its required seven -year update
of said Comprehensive Plan via Ordinance No. 17- 1213 -04 on December 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code (UDC) was originally adopted on
December 18, 2000 as a development regulation required by the Growth Management
Act (GMA), to be effective January 16, 2001; and
WHEREAS, for proper citation in courts of law the UDC has been codified within the
Jefferson County Code (JCC) at Title 18; and
WHEREAS, the Board now completes this process by the adoption of this ordinance and
makes the following findings of fact:
1. The State of Washington adopted the Growth Management Act (or "GMA ") in
1990.
2. Jefferson County began planning under the GMA in the early 1990s.
3. The County adopted a Comprehensive Plan under GMA on August 28, 1998. The
County completed its statutorily required seven -year update of its Comprehensive
Plan on December 13, 2004.
4. On August 30, 2013, the Department of Community Development (DCD) submitted
an application for the proposed amendment. The amendment is not site - specific and
would apply county -wide. The proposed amendment was assigned a tracking number
of MLA13- 00115.
Page 1
5. The Department of Community Development prepared a staff report and
recommendation for MLA13 -00115 that analyzed the proposed UDC text
amendment.
6. The staff report, including text of the proposed amendments to the development
regulations, was available to the public on September 4, 2013, the duly published
date starting a two -week open public comment period.
7. DCD presented the staff report to the Planning Commission at their regularly
scheduled and duly noticed public meeting and public hearing at the Planning
Commission meeting of September 18, 2013. No public comments were received.
8. Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission held
deliberations and took formal action to recommend approval of the proposed
amendments as presented, with a vote of six in favor, one abstention and none
opposed. This vote also included approval of the findings and conclusions for MLA
13- 00115.
9. As the Planning Commission recommendation concurs with the DCD staff
recommendation, the Planning Agency recommendation is one of consensus.
10. The SEPA Responsible Official for Jefferson County determined that existing
environmental documents provide adequate environmental review to satisfy the
requirements of WAC 197 -11 -600. This conclusion was memorialized via issuance
of a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) on October 1, 2013.
11. The Board concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation and states that
MLA13- 00115, as proposed, is consistent with the Growth Management Act, the
County -wide planning policies, any other inter - jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws and directed staff to present
an ordinance reflecting the Code changes as stated in the minutes of their meeting
on October 14, 2013.
12. Pursuant to the County's authority conferred by Chapters 36.70, 36.70A, 36.70B,
and 43.21C RCW, the Board hereby adopts the revised and amended Section
18.40.090 listed below as an official control under Chapter 36.70 RCW and as a
development regulation for implementing the County's Comprehensive Plan in
accordance with Chapters 36.70A and 36.70B RCW.
13. Enactment of this Ordinance is within the general police power granted by the WA
State Constitution to the County Commission in its role as the legislative body for
Jefferson County.
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County,
Washington, in regular session assembled, does hereby ordain as follows:
Section One:
JCC 18.40.090 is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
"18.40.090 Preapplication conference.
(1) Purpose. Preapplication conferences provide a prospective applicant and the county the
opportunity to determine if and how the regulations (e.g., environmentally sensitive areas and
SEPA) may apply, an opportunity to acquaint the applicant with the requirements of the Jefferson
County Unified Development Code, and to discuss, if applicable, how the applicant may modify
the scope and design of the project to reduce or avoid restrictions which may be imposed by the
county.
(2) When Required. Preapplication conferences are required for all Type II, Type III, Type IV and
Type V project applications and Type I project applications proposing impervious surfaces of
10,000 square feet or more and/or non - single - family structures of 5,000 square feet or more.
Additionally, preapplication conferences are required for Critical Area Stewardship Plan
applications. Preapplication conferences for all other types of applications are optional and
requests for conferences will be considered by the administrator on a time- availlaibl[LrbaSis.
(3) Scheduling and Conceptual Design Review. The conference shall be held within 15 calendar
days of the request and payment of the fee set forth in the Jefferson County fee ordinance. Upon
payment of the fee, the applicant shall submit to DCD a preliminary sketch or conceptual design
that illustrates the applicant's generalized ideas of the proposal. This should include-approximate
lot lines, general topography of the site, suggested vehicle access to the site, and provision of
utilities. Final drawings are discouraged at this preapplication stage. Additionally, the applicant
shall identify all land uses on adjacent properties and all platted and opened roads serving the
site.
(4) Information Provided to Applicant. At the conference, the administrator shall provide the
applicant with:
(a) A list of the requirements for a completed application,
(b) A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application;
(c) The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards that may
apply to the approval of the application; and
(d) A list of any applicable hourly review fees that may be charged by one or more
county agencies upon the filing of a project permit application with the county.
Page 3
(5) Assurances Unavailable. It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive review of all
potential issues. The discussions at the conference or the information provided by the
administrator shall not bind or prohibit the county's future application or enforcement of all
applicable laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by county representatives
shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all
relevant requirements of county, state and federal codes, laws, regulations and land use
plans.[Ord. 8 -06 § 11".
Section Two: All other sections, tables and language of the Unified Development Code,
Title 18 of Jefferson County Code are not altered or amended in any manner by this
Ordinance.
Section Three: Severability: In the event any one or more of the provisions of this
ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect or
invalidate any other provisions of this ordinance, but this ordinance shall be construed
and enforced as if such invalid provision had not been contained therein; PROVIDED,
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 law.
Section Four: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 2 "a, 2014.
lUUuI4i C
Approved and signed this th day of- AeMtier, 2013.
s-7
JEFFERSON COUNTY
'g ^ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
r
o �
(� Clerk of the Boazd
Approved as to Form Only:
0/4t3
o0,,a (,)L
David Alvarez
Deputy Prosecuting Attordy,
Page 4
Phil Johnson, Member
David Sullivan, Member
ATTACHMENT A
Jefferson County Code
Appendix
FEE SCHEDULES
Sections:
Fees for new programs events, or services.
Annual fee indexing.
Periodic fee review.
FEES FOR NEW PROGRAMS, EVENTS, OR SERVICES
Fees for new programs/services instituted after passage of Ordinance No 12 -96 in departments /divisions
covered under this appendix are authorized for establishment by resolution of the board of county
commissioners as recommended by the department Any fixed amount fees established under this
section will be subject to annual fee indexing and periodic review, as if they were established as part of
this appendix. [Ord. 12 -96 & 31
ANNUAL FEE INDEXING
Fixed amount fees established by this appendix shall be adjusted annually on the first business day of
January ( "adjustment date ") by the amount of the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPIW). The
CPIW is the Consumer Price Index — U.S. City Average for All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the United States Department of Labor.
The annual fee adjustment shall be calculated as follows: Each fee in effect immediately prior to the
adjustment date will be increased by the percentage increase in the CPIW as reported for the month of
September preceding the adjustment date. Increases will be rounded to the nearest dollar. A fee shall not
be reduced by reason of such calculation. However, fee increases in accordance with this calculation
shall not exceed five percent per year.
Copies of the adjusted fee schedule shall be available to the public at the office of the designated
department and will be mailed to any customer upon request. The adjusted fee schedule will show the
prior year fees, the CPIW, and the new fee. [Ord. 12 -96 § 41
PERIODIC FEE REVIEW
At minimum once every three years but no more frequently than once Per year, fees established under
this appendix will be evaluated for consistency with applicable laws regulations and fee Policies adopted
by the board of commissioners Periodic fee review will consider at least the following factors: service cost
recovery' public versus private service benefit departmental goals other available funding sources: and
comparison fees in adiacent counties statewide averages and other comparable areas. [Ord. 12 -96 6 51
G:IPLANNINGWCC - UDC - Other CodesWC_Pre- apps\Attachment A- AR for amend of JCC Fee appendix (9- 26- 13).docx
ATTACHMENT B
Estimated Revenues from Proposed New Fees
9126113
Fees requiring Planning Commission review and recommendation and BOCC approval
(JCC 18.44.090). Note: these fees being proposed by separate ordinance)
Application Type
Current
fee
Proposed
fee
Est. Rev.
a) Require pre -app conf for CASP and Type IV & V
$0.00
$380
$3,800
apps.
$0.00
$152
$1,06
(est. 10 /year X $380 = $3,800)
4
Fees requiring only BOCC review and approval (JCC Fee Appendix)
Application Type
Current fee
Proposed
Est.
$152 = $15,200
X $228 =912
fee
Rev.
b) Pre application site visit (if needed), (estimated 7 /year X
$0.00
$152
$1,06
$152 = $1,064
4
c) Resubmittal of consistency review (estimated 1001year X
$0.00
$152
$15,20
$152 = $15,200
X $228 =912
d) Road vacation request. (estimated 4 1year
$0.00
$0.00
$228
$912
X $228 =912
e) Customer Assistance Meeting" (est. 1,000 hours/ye ar` *'
$0.00
$76
$76,000
X $76 = $76,000
G:TLANNINGVCC - UDC - Other CodesWGC_Pre- appslAttachmenl B- AR for amend JCC fee appendix (9- 26- 13).docx
C �o JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379 -4450
Planning Commission Recommendation for MLA13- .00115
JCC Text Amendment
For
JCC 18.40.090 Preapptication Conferences:
Recommendation with Findings and Conclusions
To: Board of County Commissioners, Chair John Austin;
Department of Community Development, Director Carl Smith; and
Interested public of Jefferson County
Date: September 18, 2013
Attached: Proposed Text for JCC Chapter 18.40,090 Preapplications
In preparing our recommendation, we have considered the growth management indicators and other
general guidance on required findings, and therefore do hereby declare the following findings and
conclusions in support of our decision:
A. Required findings as per Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 18.45.080(1)(b)(i -iii):
JCC 18.45.080 Final docket — Planning commission and board of county commissioners
review.
(1) Planning Commission Review. All proposed amendments on the final docket shall be reviewed and assessed
by the planning commission, which shall make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners after
holding at least one open record public hearing.
(a) Notice. The hearing before the planning commission shall be noticed by one publication in the official
newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of the notice
of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. This notice shall include the following:
(i) The purpose(s) of amending and /or updating the Comprehensive Plan;
(ii) The deadline for submitting comments on the amendments; and
(iii) A tentative hearing schedule; oonfinued hearings may be held by the planning commission but no
addifionai notices need be published.
(b) Required Findings — Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop
findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management indicators set
forth in JCC' 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following:
(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;
(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; and
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County.
Planning Commission findings:
Circumstances have changed in the sense the economy in recent years has suffered through
the "great recession ", meaning less land development in the County and therefore less permit
revenue for DCD. This leaves DCD needing new sources of revenue in order to continue
providing timely development review and permitting services for the County. Additionally, the
types of applications proposed to require the preapplication fees are complex. The
preapplication conference will benefit the applicant by providing information to make the
permitting process more efficient and timely.
H. The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid;
however, consideration of assumptions that lead to the adoption of the Comp Plan are not
applicable to this proposal since it is for amendment of the development code and not the Comp
Plan.
JCC 18.40.090 Text Amendment Recommendation to BoCC
Page 2
i
III. The proposed amendment is consistent with widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County in the sense they will provide additional revenues and greater customer service to assist
applicants in the timely processing of development applications. Timely processing of
applications is a widely held value of DCD's customers.
C. Inquiry to the growth management indicators as per Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title
18.45.050(4)(bXi -vii);
1. Growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan Is occurring slower than
anticipated due to economic conditions.
2. The capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished due to a decrease in
tax revenue.
3. There is sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need.
Does not apply since this is not a Comp Plan amendment, but an amendment to the
development code. Anticipated need is not likely to be more than currently designated for
commercial use.
4. Are any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based no longer found to be valid?
Does not apply since this is not a Comp Plan amendment, but an amendment to the
development code.
5. Are there changes in county -wide attitudes which necessitate amendments to the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision
Statement? Does not apply since this is not a Comp Plan amendment, but an amendment to
the development code.
6. Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan? Does not apply since this is not a Comp Plan amendment, but an amendment to the
development code.
7. There are no inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County.
D. The Record
In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the Countywide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County
Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission finds:
JCC 18.40.090 Test Amendment Recommendation to BoCC
Page 3
1. This proposed amendment is based on findings as required by JCC 18.45.080.
2. The public hearing for this proposed amendment has been duty noticed per the requirements of
JCC 18.45.080.
3. This proposed amendment has been duly assessed for environmental impacts via a SEPA
Checklist, as required by Chapter 197 -11 WAC ($EPA rules).
4. This proposed amendment recommendation is based on the record, following an open record
hearing and following the close of the open record hearing, consideration by the Planning
Commission of any written or oral comments.
5, This proposed amendment satisfies legal criteria.
6. This proposed amendment is being provided for a 60 day review to the Washington State
Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, as required by RCW 36.70A.106
(GMA).
Based on these findings, on September 18, 2013, the Jefferson County Planning Commission voted 6
to approve, none to deny, and one abstained MLAII 3 -00115 and recommend that the BoCC approve
the Planning Agency's request to amend the JCC as proposed under MLA13- 00115.
Kevin Coker, Planning Commission Chair Bate
G9PLANNINGWC - UDC - Other CodesWCC_Pre-appsVemplates\PC Recommendation findings XG 18.40.090 Preapplication fees (8 -27
13).doc x
JCC 18.40.090 Text Amendment Recommendation to HoCC
Page 4
Regular Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST Approved by the Board of
Jefferson County Commissioners
TO: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: Stacie Hoskins, Department of Community Development Planni g Mana er 11 L
Carl Smith, Department of Community Development Director
DATE: November 12, 2013
SUBJECT: MLA 13 -00115 UDC Text Amendment —JCC 18.40.090 Preapplication Conference.
ATTACHED- Attachment A: Proposed amendments to JCC 18.40.090
Attachment B: Table 8.1 from the JCC showing complete list of application types
Attachment C: Planning Commission Recommendation
Attachment D: Ordinance to amend JCC 18.40.090
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
As specified in JCC 18.40.090, certain types of land use applications require a "preapplication
conference" to assist the applicant in understanding submittal requirements. Staff proposes to add certain
additional types of applications to those requiring pre - application conferences, due to their complexity
and to help compensate DCD for staff time spent in assisting applicants in their application process.
Staff finds that the proposed additional types of applications are also complex and by requiring the
preapplication conference, the applicant will be benefitted by having the information needed to submit
more complete applications and proceed through the permitting process in the most efficient way
possible.
ANALYSIS:
Currently, preapplication conferences are required for "Type II ", "Type III" and some "Type I"
applications. Examples of these types are as follows:
Type 1: Applications with more than 10,000 s.f of impervious surface or more than 5,000 s.f. of non-
single family development.
Type II: Binding site plans, short subdivisions, shoreline substantial development permits.
Type III: Long subdivisions, conditional use permits, major variances, plat alterations.
Proposed Amendment
Staff proposes to add several more types of applications that require a preapplication conference, as
follows:
Regular Agenda
Type IV: Final plats and final Planned Rural Residential Developments.
Type V: Special use permits, amendments to the comp plan, development regulations, or master plans
Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASP's).
The proposed amended language of JCC 18.40.090 is shown on Attachment A. The complete list of
JCC application types and decision making authority is shown on Attachment B.
The estimated number and annual fees that could result from these new preapplications is:
Preapplication conference for CASP's, Type IV & V apps. (est. 10 /year X $380 = $3,800).
SEPA and Growth Management review processes
The proposed amendments were assessed under SEPA, including a public notice and comment period. No
public comments were received, and the Jefferson County SEPA responsible official issued a final
determination of non - significance on October 1, 2013. Pursuant to the GMA, the proposed amendments
were provided to the Washington Department of Commerce for a 60 -day review. This review period ends
on October 29, 2013.
Planning Commission review process
A public notice was properly published on September 4, 2013, and at the Planning Commission meeting
of August 18, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
No public comments were received. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed
the proposed amendment and voted to approve the amendment and "recommendation with findings and
conclusions" (Attachment Q.
ALTERNATIVES:
The BOCC may accept the public hearing process conducted by the Planning Commission or could choose to
conduct its own public hearing, prior to taking formal action on the proposed amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT /COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
Having these additional types of applications that require a preapplication conference will benefit
applicants by informing them of application requirements and will also provide a modest increase in
revenue for DCD, which helps DCD provide customer service.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the BOCC accept the Planning Commission's public hearing process, its
"recommendation with findings and conclusions ", and take formal action to approve the proposed
amendments by adopting the ordinance provided as Attachment D.
REVIEWED BY:
Philip Morley ) County Ad inistrator