HomeMy WebLinkAbout121415_cabs02County Administrator Briefing
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: David Goldsmith, Interim Director
Joel Peterson, Associate Pla.
DATE: December 8, 2015
RE: County Administrator's Briefing Session: Discussion of DCD and
Planning Commission Recommendations for Proposed Sign Code
Amendment, JCC 18.30.150; and Direction from the Board on
Amendment Text and Public Hearing
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Regarding a Jefferson County Code amendment, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on November 4, 2015, on proposed text for a Board -sponsored amendment to the
Unified Development Code at JCC 18.30.150 to broaden the applicability of
readerboard/changing message signs for public purpose entities.
After the public record was closed, the Planning Commission and Department of Community
Development made changes to the proposed text to increase workability and to be responsive
to comments received. Any new text requires subsequent public review and hearing. Attached
are Planning Commission findings and recommendations and a summary. The Board may
accept Planning Commission recommendations or bring forward their own refinements to this
amendment proposal.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed revisions to the sign code, recommended by DCD and the Planning
Commission, address two issues: 1) currently, the regulations limit these sign types to
commercial and industrial zoned areas. The proposed text allows a provision for government
entities to use these messaging sign types if they are in close proximity to more intensively
developed areas (specifically, designated LAMIRDs, which consist of commercial and
industrial zoned rural areas); and 2) the original regulations prohibited these sign types from
areas within 200 feet of residential or open space zones. The proposed text allows these sign
types within permitted zones to be considered on a site -by -site basis within 200 feet of
County Administrator Briefing
residential or open space zones if approved by using a Type III Conditional Use Permit review
process.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact from conducting the briefing and discussion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss recommendations for sign code amendment during County Administrator's Briefing
Session and direct DCD on amendment text and public hearing schedule.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT:
Joel Peterson, Associate Planner, 379-4457
REVIEWED BY:
dPhiliperl4,CountyAdmixiistrator
Date
ON C'
\SING`
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street
907, a 11667 M =20
ZOMENW=8
To: Board of County Commissioners, Chair David Sullivan;
Department of Community Development, Interim -Director David Goldsmith;
Interested Parties of Jefferson County
Date: December 4, 2015
Subject: Planning Commission Recommendations for Proposed Text Amendment to JCC
18.30.150 Signs, MLA15-00063
On October 7, 2015, Department of Community Development Staff brought forward a Board -
sponsored UDC amendment proposal by Jefferson Transit Authority to amend the sign code.
The amendment would provide for readerboard/changing message types of signs in any zoning
districts for public purpose entities.
Pursuant to JCC 18.45.090(3) Planning Commission Review, the planning commission shall
hold a public hearing on any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a
recommendation to the board of county commissioners using the site-specific criteria set forth in
JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable.
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at Tri -Area Community Center on
November 4, 2015, and received public comments on the proposal.
- Planning Commission deliberated on
Decemberi
• now present
th- following
findings of fact andrecommendationsfor
• • . •
by
i • . • of CountyCommissioners
in their final legislative action. Incorporated by reference in this recommendation report are the
meeting minutes and audio recordings from Planning Commission meetings held on October 7,
2015, November 4, 2015, and December 2, 2015, during which comments were heard,
deliberations took place and the recommendations were formulated.
During the Planning Commission's review of the proposal MI -Al 5-00063 we made findings
considering the Growth Management Indicators; Time, Place and Manner, and Takings findings,
as shown below.
Required Findings, JCC 18.45.080(1)(b):
(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;
Planning Commission Finding: Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, a residential parcel was
Jill Jill ir III I
111111111111111111111 MIM -M
(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
Planning Commission Finding: There is no indication that assumptions upon which the Comp Plan is based
- mo
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County.
Planning Commission Finding: Residents of Jefferson County want to have input regarding what happens in
�1�11 11 Jill 1111111111�1
Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment
JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), Growth Management Indicators
(i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or
slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize;
Planning Commission Finding: Our current GMA planning estimate for 20 years is actually less than the
2004 estimate for this year.
(ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased;
Planning Commission Finding: Because the planned population in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan has not
materialized, the levels of service in the 2004 plan can generally be maintained at the same level to
accommodate the next 20 -year population projection.
(iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need;
Planning Commission Finding: This indicator is not applicable to our review.
(iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to be valid;
Planning Commission Finding: Other than information being dated to 2004, the goals and policies still remain
valid. Our Land Use and Rural Element, and the current economic development strategies of
farming/agriculture, tourism, still reflects Jefferson County as being characterized as a rural county.
(v) Whether changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the
basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement;
Planning Commission Finding: Amendments are not necessitated, so the item does not apply to this review.
(vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments;
Planning Commission Finding: This code change does not necessitate a change to the Comprehensive
Plan, and this item is not relevant to the review.
(vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
K
Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County.
Planning Commission Finding: The proposal is consistent with an adjacent LAMIR® and the conditional use
ii i i i i i • i ii ii "WTR 'i"' W XOT M OT.TM
Time, Place and Manner Findings:
I Jill 1 1111111 �111 NI Jill 11 1111111 Jill III J!iii ii
Planning Commission Finding.: Yes, the regulation serves an important governmental interest.
II III will 111111111 111111 '111 111111 111 11 1 1
- ii ii • iiilli���iii
i
Planning Commission Finding: Correct, the government interest served by the regulation is not
3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest?
Planning Commission Finding.: Yes, the regulation is narrowly tailored.
UNXM�. i i i .ii
Planning Commission Finding: Yes, ample alternative means for communicating messages are
Takings Findings:
III
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not result in any physical occupation of
r i i i i 11 111 i i111111
no
easement?
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not require any dedication or easement of
iiiiqllill
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not deprive the owner of all economically
ii i
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not have a severe impact on a
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not deny a fundamental attribute of
Findings on the Record:
Planning Commission Finding: The 2014 Sign Code public process and deliberations are part of
i'10177061i1 IliA Ii i iii "' it it
assertions2. Can i i be confirmed by i i from other sources?
Planning Commission Finding.: All assertions are documented in the record.
Planning Commission Finding.: Yes, the recommendations are based on the record.
'' Does the decision ii to make, as far as we know,ii.
Planning Commission Finding: Yes, the recommendations, as far as we know, satisfy legal
criteria.
61
Planning Commission Finding: No, the recommendation is mindful of all instances and
Cs
Recommendation:
The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a recommendation to the
board of county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s) be denied, approved, or
approved with conditions or modifications.
Motion: To accept the Alternate Proposed Text #2 after Planning Commission Public Hearing,
Preparation for December 2nd Planning Commission Meeting, Update Report for MLA15-00063,
Proposed UDC Amendment JCC 18.30.150 Sign Code. November 30, 2015, Revised
December 1, 2015.
Vote: The motion was passed with 5 in favor, 2 opposed, and one abstention.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends the proposal be approved with
modifications.
Alternate Proposed Text #2 after Planning Commission Public Hearing:
(c) Changing message signs are allowed only • and rural industrial• •
must be directed away fromadjacentproperty z• "• residential or open space,• i
properties • public right-of-way;provided i i message signs which are also
governmental i defined elsewhere in this code,are allowed other• i designations
not listed here, through a Conditional Use Permit (C) process, if the parcel where the proposed
changingmessagei • • be built,• or placed owned bya municipal
or other public andthe signplaced or "•within 100feetof ii outer
boundary of ' No changing message sign may be located closer than 200 feet from
adjacent property • -• residentialor open space,measuredfromi • • to the
nearest property line of the residential or open space zoned property unless said sign is
permitted as a conditionaluse subject to a public heai
i i • i i � ' r � � . � � i ' i ' � • •
i •1 ii i • i • i i'. •.ii .•
ST WW=o' = 111W# ' .'' • BY • i ' • •
i i i
conditional use permit
Permits changing message signs more broadly countywide for governmental signs within 100
feet of a LAMIRD (areas of more intensive rural development)
Allows i Ludlow proposal to be considered, which is in a mixed commercial zone• 1
within 200 feet of residential & open space
Note:
During our discussion of this issue it was noted that representation of the several types of public
facilities is inadequate or inconsistent in the UDC use table. It is recommended that Jefferson
Transit Authority consider rezoning their property in the future to Essential Public Facility.
Respectively and respectfully submitted,
Jefferson County Planning Commission
- ta(q/15
Revised December 1, 2015
Preparation for December 2" d Planning Commission Meeting
Update Report for MLA15-00063
Proposed UDC Amendment JCC 18.30.150 Sign Code
November 30, 2015
SCHEDULE:
We are still on schedule (see schedule attachment), though we are following the contingency plan of
December 2nd Planning Commission Deliberation, Vote and Recommendations.
PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT:
Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 4, 2015 to receive public comment on the
proposed Code Amendment. Two public comments were received via the Planning Commission email,
and nine people provided comments during the hearing. See public comment summary attached.
DECEMBER 2ND DELIBERATION, FINDINGS, and RECOMMENDATION:
The December 2nd task of the Planning Commission is to deliberate on the testimony, bring a motion
forward on proposed amendment text, and make findings of fact regarding the recommendation. These
required findings are in Section 8, page 43, of the Staff Report. Responses in the Staff Findings are for
DCD's evaluation and are not necessary to copy, as the Planning Commission may make different
findings. The Planning Commission Chairperson sends a recommendation letter to the Board of County
Commissioners.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT TEXT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed amendment text has been changed through the process this far in response to legal
review, staff analysis and the public's input. The original proposed amendment text is replaced with two
new amendment proposal options which are intended to be responsive to the needs of the applicant
and the public input. A brief explanation follows the amendment text.
Proposed Text Evaluated in Staff Report:
Application:
(c) Changing message signs are allowed only in rural commercial and rural industrial zones and must be
directed away from adjacent property zoned residential or open space, including properties across a public
right-of-way provided that changing message signs may be allowed in other zoning designations upon a
finding by the Administrator that a specific use is for a public or quasi -public entity that will serve a broad public
Revised December 1, 2015
interest, and provided also that any specific application for a changing message sign located in other zoning
districts is approved through a conditional use process. No changing message sign may be located closer than
200 feet from adjacent property zoned residential or open space, as measured from the sign location to the
nearest property line of the residential or open space zoned property.
DCD Proposed Text (Alvarez Text):
(c) Changing message signs are allowed only in rural commercial and rural industrial zones and must be
directed away from adjacent property zoned residential or open space, including properties across a public
right-of-way; provided that changing message signs which are also governmental signs, as defined elsewhere
in this code, are allowed in other zoning designations not listed here, through a Conditional Discretionary Use
process, if the parcel where the proposed changing message sign would be built, installed or placed is owned
by a municipal corporation or other public entity. No changing message sign may be located closer than 200
feet from adjacent property zoned residential or open space, as measured from the sign location to the nearest
property line of the residential or open space zoned property.
• Public and quasi -public definitions are difficult to apply. The definition of governmental sign was found
to adequately cover Jefferson Transit Authority (JTA) and so was used to provide more specificity in its
application.
• The number of government entities that would be included in the definition was broad enough, and the
locations of existing government entities in residential zones was great enough, to effect the
cumulative impact analysis in SEPA and to bring the proposal into question when evaluated against
Comprehensive Plan goals of the Rural Element.
• Definition of "adjacent" residential didn't adequately cover the specific situation for JTA because of
residential parcels also across the street that are included as adjacent.
• Upon evaluation, residential parcels within 200 -feet of a sign proposal was found to be a common
occurrence. The County is characterized by residential parcels around commercial and industrial
areas. One commenter on the proposal characterized this as "being trapped by the ordinance".
Proposal after Planning Commission Public Hearing
Alternate Proposed Text #1 after Planning Commission Public Hearing:
(c) Changing message signs are allowed only in rural commercial and rural industrial zones or at a location
designated as an Essential Public Facility provided that said sign located at an Essential Public Facility is
limited to public purpose messaging and is permitted as a conditional use subject to a public hearing. axed
Changing messaging signs must be directed away from adjacent property zoned residential or open space,
including properties across a public right-of-way. // No changing message sign may be located closer than 200
feet from adjacent property zoned residential or open space, as measured from the sign location to the nearest
property line of the residential or open space zoned property unless said sign is permitted as a conditional use
subject to a public hearing.//
• Requires a rezone of JTA property to Essential Public Facility (EPF)
• Most narrowly applied—limits changing message signs outside of commercial/industrial zones to EPF
only
• Allows changing message signs within 200 feet of Residential/Open Space only with Conditional Use
Permit review & approval
• Allows Port Ludlow sign proposal to be considered, which is in a mixed commercial zone but within
200 feet of residential & open space
Revised December 1, 2015
Alternate Proposed Text #2 after Planning Commission Public Hearing:
(c) Changing message signs are allowed only in rural commercial and rural industrial zones and must be
directed away from adjacent property zoned residential or open space, including properties across a public
right-of-way provided that changing message signs which are also governmental signs, as defined elsewhere
in this code, are allowed in other zoning designations not listed here, throuah a Conditional Use Permit (C)
process, if the parcel where the proposed changing message sign would be built, installed or placed is owned
by a municipal corporation or other public entity, and the sign is placed or installed within 100 feet of the logical
outer boundary of a LAMIRD. // No changing message sign may be located closer than 200 feet from adjacent
property zoned residential or open space, as measured from the sign location to the nearest property line of the
residential or open space zoned property unless said sign is permitted as a conditional use subject to a public
hearing.//
• Focuses on proximity to a LAMIRD-100 feet is approximate State Route ROW width and
inclusive of 60 -foot county ROW width. Would not include diagonal adjacency.
• Allows consideration of changing message sign for JTA under current zoning and with a sign
conditional use permit
• Permits changing message signs more broadly countywide for governmental signs within 100
feet of a LAMIRD (areas of more intensive rural development)
• Allows changing message signs within 200 feet of Residential/Open Space with Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) review & approval by applying CUP process
• Allows Port Ludlow sign proposal to be considered, which is in a mixed commercial zone but
within 200 feet of residential & open space
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE PROPOSED TEXT:
Basically, we are taking specific siting restrictions out of the code text and applying the criteria of a
conditional use permit review process for placement of a readerboard/changing message sign and
thereby evaluating each site individually. (See Staff Report Section 3.4.1, page 24 for CUP criteria.) The
permit decision is made by the Hearing Examiner with the Type III conditional use process.
Revised December 1, 2015
CONSIDERATIONS:
• The County can site (locate) facilities with a CUP that addresses the type and intensity of
development that we see with JTA. These uses are allowed in areas outside of a LAM IRD. See in
use table.
• LAMIRDS are isolated pockets of more intense rural development and include commercial
zones, industrial zones and other mixed uses that are of a more intensive nature than the
surrounding rural area.
• A higher intensity of use is allowed in a LAMIRD (rural commercial) and urban areas, including
electronic signs. See the provisions of the sign codes.
• Some uses are sited adjacent to rural commercial or urban commercial and may fit -in with the
development pattern, but would not be considered a sprawl -inducing development.
• These are the facilities that may need to interact with the community with commercial type
signs.
• Signs are found to be consistent with rural character in the rural commercial centers.
• Rural commercial centers have been tightly proscribed around existing (pre GMA) infrastructure.
• Rural development includes providing for a variety of densities, uses, public facilities and
governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and uses (RCW
36.70A.070(5)(b)).
• Pursuant to Chapter 365-196 WAC, Rural Character is defined by the County in the Rural
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Jefferson Comprehensive Plan is required to have a rural element with measures
established by the County that apply to the type of rural development that protects against
sprawl, protects the rural character of the area, and assures visual compatibility of rural
development with the surrounding area (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(C). The rural element may allow
for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and
public services to serve the limited area, subject to GMA requirements. The rural element
harmonizes the GMA Planning Goals in RCW 36.70A.020.
DISCUSSION:
JTA Siting and Essential Public Facilities:
In the September 1984 Facility Location Analysis for Jefferson Transit Authority, it was found that the
geographic center point of existing transit supply distribution was approximately one and one-half miles
south of the Four Corners intersection with State Route 20. Port Townsend was the center of transit
demand (Facility Location Analysis, Transportation Research and Service Center, September 1984).
JTA is a Public Transit Benefit Area Authority organized under Chapter 36.57A RCW. Siting of the facility
on a RR 1:10 parcel was accommodated by a Condition Use Permit process. Although siting of an
Essential Public Facility (EPF) goes through somewhat of a different process—a Type V process—
resulting in a Special Use Permit, rezoning the parcel to EPF and applying the proposed text #1 would
minimize the potential application of readerboard/changing message signs to only a few instances.
:l
Revised December 1, 2015
LAM I RDs:
Jefferson County designated LAM IRDS by recognizing existing (pre-GMA) development at July 1, 1990
when the County became subject to the Act. In developing a LAMIRD outer boundary, the county shall
address the need to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods. The Unified Development Code
does not prohibit development outside of a LAMIRD, but provides conditional use permit processes to
address impacts and nuisances. Areas contained within the LAMIRD are allowed to have increased
intensity of development over some of the rural development measures of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c), and
are not subject to the requirements of assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the
surrounding rural area (36.70A.070(5)(c)(ii), or reducing conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling
low density (36.70A.070(5)(c)(iii), by nature of the LAMIRD being an identified area of more intensive
development.
Once a logical outer boundary has been adopted, counties may consider changes to the boundary in
subsequent amendments. When doing so, the County must use the same criteria used when originally
designating the boundary (WAC 365-196-425(6)(c)(i)(E)). Areas such as Four Corners do not provide
much opportunity for infill because of limited available space for a facility like JTA. The LAMIRD
boundaries were proscribed tightly, even to the extent of split -zoning many parcels to trim undeveloped
areas.
Revised December 1, 2015
Concise Public Comment Summary
October 21, 2015 to November 4, 2015
1. Email: Sign code at 18.30.150 (8)(d) regulates political signs by specifying time that they can be
displayed, contrary to current information at MRSC.org
2. Email: Proponent of Port Ludlow sign. Sign ordinance rigid -- challenging to find area not within
200 feet of residential or open space in Jefferson County. Trapped by ordinance.
3. Public Comment: Requesting changing message sign for Port Ludlow homeowners association.
200 foot rule is a stumbling block, need ways to communicate with community
4. Public Comment: Port Ludlow North Bay Homeowners Association—supports JTA proposal for
sign. Not a pedestrian county—sign is effective way to communicate with drivers
5. Public Comment: Sign code too rigid, since open space & residential is impossible to avoid. Old
people can see readerboard/changing message signs better. Need to communicate with
community.
6. Public Comment: Need to communicate information with sign. Also NIXL is effective. Sign
would not harm aesthetics at Four Corners.
7. Public Comment: Changing message signs distract drivers, glowing signs do not look good.
Allow signs within 200 feet if on residential parcels that don't yet have a house. New residential
would be 'coming to the nuisance'.
8. Public Comment: would like to have readerboard/lighted signs in Port Ludlow—it is a resort
and sign is appropriate for intensity of use.
9. Public Comment: Changing message signs are not distracting to drivers.
L