HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 0201 16JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the matter of Amending the Unified }
Development Code, JCC 18.30.150 } Ordinance No. 01-0201-16
Signs, to Update Design Standards for }
Changing Message Signs }
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 amends Title 18 by the adoption of this ordinance and
makes the following findings of fact:
1. On September 1, 2015, Jefferson Transit Authority submitted a revised site plan and
rendering of a proposed sign for sign building permit BLD14-00015, whose project
description is "8'x 32 " (22 sq. ft.) sign by the main entrance of proposed Jefferson
Transit Facility off Four Corners Road" to the Department of Community
Development (DCD).
2. The revised proposal included placement of an electronic readerboard/changing
message sign at the transit facility—a split -zoned parcel of Rural Residential 1:10 &
Rural Residential 1:5—at 63 Four Corners Road, which also is neighbored by rural
residential parcels.
3. The proposal was found to be inconsistent with Jefferson County Code
18.30.150(6)(c): "Changing message signs are allowed only in rural commercial and
Page 1
rural industrial zones and must be directed away from adjacent property zoned
residential or open space, including properties across a public right-of-way."
4. The Board of County Commissioners discussed the sign code in open session on
October 12, 2015.
5. The Board of County Commissioners initiated a proposed amendment to the
implementing regulations pursuant to JCC 18.45.090.
6. As part of the motion to approve their Consent Agenda for October 12, 2015, the
Board directed DCD to evaluate alternate approaches to regulating electronic signs
and to proceed with an amendment to Title 18 JCC allowing a readerboard/changing
message sign for public purpose facilities in zones other than rural commercial and
rural industrial.
7. DCD introduced the Board -sponsored amendment proposal to the Planning
Commission on October 7, 2015, as Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendment
application MLA 15-00063.
8. Pursuant to JCC 18.45.090(3), 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.
9. On October 21, 2015, DCD issued a Notice of Intent to Amend the Unified
Development Code (Title 18) relating to the Sign Code, and made available to the
public all records to date associated with MLA15-00063.
10. DCD also provided a 14 -Day Notice of a Public Hearing to be held before the
Jefferson County Planning Commission on November 4, 2015.
11. The proposed amendment to Title 18 was subject to analysis under the rules of
Chapter 197-11 WAC State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Through the SEPA
Responsible Official, DCD adopted existing environmental documents for review of
the proposal, reviewed the proposal countywide and cumulatively for probable
significant adverse environmental impacts, and on October 21, 2015, issued a
preliminary Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) threshold
determination. The SEPA analysis is documented in the October 29, 2015 Staff
Report.
12. On October 29, 2015, Department of Community Development (DCD) transmitted
the Staff Report & SEPA Environmental Review: Proposal to Amend Unified
Page 2
Development Code JCC 18.30.150 Sign Code; Integrated Growth Management
Act/State Environmental Policy Act Analysis, Environmental Review of a Non -
Project Action to the Planning Commission with evaluation of the proposal and
additional recommendations for revising the sign code.
13. Conclusions in the staff report did not find consistency between the proposal, as
presented, and the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; although areas of
uncertainty were examined, mitigating measures were discussed, and suggested
changes to the original proposal were offered.
14. The staff recommendations included a narrower definition of government entities
and to include a conditional use permit processes to review electronic sign permit
applications.
15. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on November 4, 2015
and received written and verbal public comments on the proposal. Approximately
half of the testimony was regarding a sign proposal for Port Ludlow, which also
would not comply with the current sign code found in Title 18 because of the
proposed sign's proximity to residential and open space. After the Hearing Record
was closed, the Planning Commission began deliberation on the sign code proposal.
16. On December 2nd, 2015, DCD distributed a summary document Preparation for
December 2nd Planning Commission Meeting, Update Report for MLA15-00063,
Proposed Amendment to Title 18 JCC JCC 18.30.150 Sign Code. November 30,
2015, Revised December 1, 2015 to assist the Planning Commission with evaluating
different code amendment language options and the resulting effect in its
application, in order to facilitate deliberations on the proposals.
17. The document described immediately above compared original application language,
original DCD proposed text, alternate proposed text #1 after the Planning
Commission hearing, and alternate proposed text #2 after the Planning Commission
hearing.
18. Modifications to the proposed code amendment language were made during
deliberations to be responsive to public comment and to address ways of reducing
overall impacts from electronic signs.
19. On December 2, 2015, the Planning Commission deliberated and completed findings
of fact and recommendations for consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners in their final legislative action. The Planning Commission voted
favorably 5-2 with one abstention on the motion "To accept the Alternate Proposed
Text #2 after Planning Commission Public Hearing, in document Preparation for
December 2nd Planning Commission Meeting, Update Report for MLA15-00063,
Proposed Amendment to Title 18 JCC JCC 18.30.150 Sign Code. November 30,
2015, Revised December 1, 2015."
Page 3
20. In the December 2, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
presented findings of fact based on Required Findings of JCC 18.45.080(1)(b)(i)
through (iii); Growth Management Indicators JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (vii);
Time, Place and Manner Findings; Takings Findings; and Findings on the Record, as
follows:
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 intensively (sic) developed under a Conditional Use Permit for
a transit center. The LAMIRD changed very little, but has [seen] some
redevelopment of the gas station with an illuminated sign and a proposal by UPS for
a small expansion to their package transfer facility.
(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 are no longer valid.
(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 their neighborhood, and the public's values changed in
regard to using Conditional Use Permit review on a site by site basis to allow
changing message signs in appropriate areas.
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;
Page 4
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 Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson
County.
Planning Commission Finding: The proposal is consistent with an adjacent LAMIRD
and the conditional use permit review process can allow the public to appropriately
evaluate specific impacts.
21. The Planning Commission also made the following Time, Place and Manner
Findings with respect to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its
parallel provision in the State Constitution:
A. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest?
Planning Commission Finding: Yes, the regulation serves an important
governmental interest.
Page 5
B. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of
a particular message?
Planning Commission Finding: Correct, the government interest served by the
regulation is not related to suppression of any message.
C. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest?
Planning Commission Finding: Yes, the regulation is narrowly tailored.
D. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating
messages?
Planning Commission Finding: Yes, ample alternative means for
communicating messages are left open by the regulation.
22. The Planning Commission also made the following findings regarding the
substance of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and parallel state
constitutional provision) that no "taking" of private property occur without "just
compensation:"
A. Does the regulation or action result in a permanent physical occupation of
private property?
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not result in any
physical occupation of private property.
B. Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a portion of
property or to grant an easement?
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not require any
dedication or easement of private property.
C. Does the regulation or action deprive the owner of all economically viable
uses of the property?
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not deprive the owner of
all economically viable uses of a property.
D. Does the regulatory action have a severe impact on the landowner's economic
interest?
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not have a severe impact
on a landowner's economic interest.
E. Does the regulation or action deny a fundamental attribute of ownership?
Page 6
Planning Commission Finding: No, the regulation does not deny a fundamental
attribute of ownership.
23. The Planning Commission also made these findings based on the record created
before it:
A. In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County -Wide Planning
Policies, the Jefferson County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in
the record with respect to this proposal?
Planning Commission Finding: The 2014 Sign Code public process and
deliberations are part of the record, along with the hearing process of this
proposed amendment.
B. Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
Planning Commission Finding: All assertions are documented in the record.
C. Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
Planning Commission Finding: Yes, the recommendations are based on the
record.
D. Does the decision we are about to make, as far as we know, satisfy legalcriteria?
Planning Commission Finding: Yes, the recommendations, as far as we know,
satisfy legal criteria.
E. Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
Planning Commission Finding: No, the recommendation is mindful of all
instances and applications in the County.
24. On December 4, 2015, the Planning Commission Chair transmitted the formal letter
of findings in Planning Commission Recommendations for Proposed Text
Amendment to JCC 18.30.150 Signs, MLA15-00063 to the Board of County
Commissioners.
25. The Planning Commission recommendation provides the following:
a. It focuses on government entities that are in close proximity (100 feet) to a
Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) as a way
to consider higher intensities of use by government entities near the
LAMIRD and to reduce the countywide application of electronic message
signs in rural areas outside of more intensively developed areas. The
recommendation applies a conditional discretionary use permit process for
review of these proposals.
Page 7
b. It allows consideration of changing message signs, for instances when an
electronic sign is within 200 feet of residential or open space zones, by
evaluating site-specific conditions under a conditional use permit for
protecting neighboring properties from nuisance issues, rather than a
blanket prohibition of the signs.
26. On December 8, 2015, DCD Staff met with the Board of County Commissioners
during the County Administrator's Briefing Session. During the discussion in the
briefing, additional text changes were proposed by staff and the Board regarding the
following:
a. Increase the distance from a government entity sign placement from 100
feet to 150 feet to a LAMIRD, in the event that the state recommends the
maximum 50 -foot road setback for a sign that is adjacent to a LAMIRD
but across a 100 -foot wide state right-of-way.
b. Add master planned resort and urban commercial to the list of
commercial areas allowed for changing message signs.
c. Specify a Type III CUP process (Hearing Examiner decision) for
governmental entities to remove any perception of appearance of fairness
issues; and retain the Type II Conditional Discretionary Use Permit
process (C(d)) for non-governmental entities.
27. On January 4, 2015, DCD Staff met with the Board during the County
Administrator's Briefing Session to discuss the applicability of JCC 18.30.150 Sign
Code to Title 17, the development regulations which govern land use and land
development within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. It was found that JCC
18.30.150 Sign Code does apply to Title 17.
28. The Board concurs with certain revisions proposed by staff in the December 8, 2015
briefing session, and finds that MLA15-00063 (sign code amendment) is consistent
with the Growth Management Act, the County Comprehensive Plan, County -wide
planning policies.
29. Since proposed revisions to the sign code have been made by staff and the Board
since the Planning Commission public hearing without the opportunity of public
input as the GMA requires, the Board finds that an additional public hearing is
warranted.
30. Such a public hearing before the County Commissioners has been conducted prior
to adoption of this Ordinance.
Page 8
31. On January 11, 2015, through adoption of the Consent Agenda by the Board, the
publication of a public hearing was thereby approved, and scheduled to be held
during their regular session on February 1, 2016.
32. On January 20, 2016, a Notice of Intent to Amend the Unified Development Code
and a Notice of Public Hearing at the Board of County Commissioners on February
1, 2016, at 10:15 a.m. was published in the paper of record, and established a 10 -day
comment period pursuant to JCC 18.40.230.
33. The Board of County Commissioners concurs with the Planning Commission's
written findings of fact as detailed in the their December 4, 2015 letter Planning
Commission Recommendations for Proposed Text Amendment to JCC 18.3 0.150
Signs, MLA15-00063, and incorporates and adopts the Planning Commission's
Required Findings of JCC 18.45.080(1)(b)(i) through (iii); Growth Management
Indicators JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (vii); Time, Place and Manner Findings;
Takings Findings; and its Findings on the Record.
34. The Board of County Commissioners incorporates the findings augmented by audio
recordings of Planning Commission meetings October 7, 2015; November 4, 2015;
and December 2, 2015; and Board briefing sessions on December 8, 2015 and
January 4, 2016.
35. The proposed sign code is consistent with the following sections of the County's
Comprehensive Plan:
Land Use and Rural Element:
Goal: LNG 4.0: Establish and maintain the size and configuration of the County's
Rural Village Centers and provide for the development of appropriately scaled
commercial uses.
Policy LNG 4.2: Encourage a variety of commercial, retail, professional, tourist -
related, community service, cottage industry, and residential uses, including
duplexes, triplexes and assisted living facilities, within the designated boundaries of
Rural Village Centers (RVC) at a scale appropriate to protect the rural character of
the natural neighborhood.
Policy LNG 4.6: Ensure visual compatibility of Rural Village Center commercial
infill development with the surrounding rural area, through the creation and
implementation of community based "rural character" design and development
standards. Uses within Rural Village Centers shall be scaled and sized to preserve
the natural character of the neighborhood.
Page 9
Comprehensive Plan Appendix C — community involvement (excerpt)
Rural Aesthetics: Preserving views of natural beauty is key to maintaining rural
character. Development activities should at the least be buffered from view to
provide visual relief.
Rural Character: The size and scope of commercial developments should be
consistent with the small town, rural and agricultural character.
36. Numerous federal and state cases have discussed the parameters of how local
governments may regulate the time, place and manner of the expression of
protected free speech. These cases (and the summaries of their holdings) assisted
the County in formulating this sign code:
a. Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 507-08, and 511-12. U.S. Supreme Court.
Regulating the size, height and location of commercial signs is
constitutional for promoting traffic safety and community aesthetics. For
the same reasons, Billboards may be banned.
b. Collier vs. the City of Tacoma, 854 P2nd. 1046 (Washington 1993).
Time limits on political signs are permissible to advance aesthetic
interests.
C. National Advertising CO. v. City of Denver, 912 F.2nd 405 (10th Circuit
Court
Off premise signs may be banned.
d. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719-21 (2000) U.S. Supreme Court.
A sign code is not content -based simply because an official must review
the content of the sign to determine which provisions of the code apply.
e. Taxpayers v. Vincent, U.S. Supreme Court.
Signs are content based if speech is regulated to favor some speech or
viewpoints at the expense of others.
Page 10
f. G.K. Travel v. City of Lake Oswego, 436 F. 3d 1064 (9h Circuit Court)
2006.
Exemptions from code requirements for certain categories of signs (for
instance public signs, legal notices, hospitals, etc) are not content -based,
and instead are based on certain types of speakers, and not the speech.
g. Linmark Associates Inc., v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)
U.S. Supreme Court
Local government may not prohibit temporary real estate signs in
residential areas as it unduly restricts the flow of information.
h. South Suburban Housing Center v. Greater South Suburban Bd. of
Realtors, 935 F.2nd 868 (7th Circuit Court) 1991.
Restrictions on the size, placement and number of realty signs were upheld
to protect aesthetics of community.
i. Reed v. Town of Gilbert (Arizona), 135 S. Ct. 2218 (issued 6/18/2015).
Sign regulations must be content -neutral or the sign regulations will not
survive "strict scrutiny", thereby making the regulation unconstitutional.
37. On February 1, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on
the proposed sign code amendments. Testimony was heard from four citizens who
spoke in favor of the proposed amendment.
38. Following the public hearing, the Board deliberated on the proposal and voted on a
motion to adopt the amendment as written. The motion was carried by the Board
with a vote of two in favor, with the third member on an excused absence.
39. Adoption of this sign code by the Jefferson County Board furthers and promotes the
health, welfare and general safety of the citizens of this county and is hereby
enacted pursuant to the general police power granted by the State Constitution to all
local governments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners for
Jefferson County, Washington, in regular session assembled, as follows:
Page 11
Section One: Jefferson County Code ("JCC") Section 18.30.150(6)(c) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(c) Changing message signs are allowed only in rural commercial, rural industrial, urban
commercial, and master planned resort commercial zones and must be directed away
from adjacent property zoned residential or open space, including properties across a
public right-of-way; except 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 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 150
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; provided that a changing message sign may be closer than 200 feet
to a residential or open space zone with review and approval through a conditional
discretionary use permit process (C(d)) if proposed by a non-governmental entity, or with
review and approval through a Conditional Use Permit (C) process if proposed by a
governmental entity as described above.
Section Two. Severability: If any portion of the new text of JCC 18.30.150 is held to be
unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remainder of JCC 18.30.150, as adopted here or as hereafter amended, shall remain valid
and in full force and effect.
Section Three. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
APix+b�id� 'signed this 111 day of February, 2016.
' JEFFERSON COUNTY
' ` r BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
: S 41-1 ._
Carolyn every
Deputy Clerk of the Board
proved as to Form Only•
David Alvarez
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Page 12
Kathleen Kler, Chair
Phil Johnson, Member
(Excused Absence)
David Sullivan, Member